Civil Society, Racism, and Anti-Semitism: The Phi Delta Theta Example
I fancy myself a purist when it comes to free speech, believe it or not. When it comes to racist or anti-Semitic speech, I pretty much believe that people can say whatever the phuck they want to say. Call me naïve but I still think there is logic and truth in the world and that those two things inevitably prevail. Never soon enough, I’ll admit. But three other points are true and logical to my mind. First, speakers are not entitled to support via tax exemption for whatever they want to say. Second, Government can discriminate amongst the ideas it supports with tax exemption. Third, Government may not subsidize speech that Government could not itself utter. Government may not legitimately subsidize Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan by tax exemption. Those are the easy examples. The hard cases occur when a group engages in a mix of racist or anti-Semitic speech, and non-racist and non-anti-Semitic speech. What then? Government can never prohibit speech, but how does it parse the speech so that it allows or encourages the latter without subsidizing the former? Or must Government incidentally subsidize one to avoid regulating the other?
Speech is the indispensable currency of civil society. And civil society makes the whole crazy world tolerable. Without civil society the world would not be livable. Civil society is indispensable and so in the American tradition speech is given broad protection. We protect speech against government sanction even when everybody agrees the speech is absolutely despicable. Everything from Swastikas to burning crosses is protected, time, place and manner notwithstanding. But verbal condemnation of despicable speech is protected, too. In civil society, verbal condemnation is mandatory if civil society wants to hold and maintain society’s moral high ground.
It’s all part of the competition in the marketplace of ideas. A marketplace in which Government neutrality is required. At least that’s the American ideal to which most of us have been indoctrinated.
These thoughts appeared to have played out at Ole Miss last week. A group of Ole Miss students were peacefully protesting the United States’ support of Israel in its war against Hamas. No encampments or anything like that. Some protestors were asserting that Israel is executing a genocide in Gaza. An accusation some Jewish people consider anti-Semitic blood libel. A group of counter-protestors – mostly fraternity brothers from Phi Delta Theta, local – engaged the protesting students. One fraternity brother mocked one of the original protestors – a heavy set black woman – calling her “Lizzo” in apparent disparagement of her and Lizzo’s weight. And one counter-protestor jumped up and down like a primate while making monkey sounds. Stupid, ignorant, and racist. But also protected. That logic and truth prevail is demonstrated by the fraternity’s reaction. When the video went viral, the fraternity – a 501(c)(7) — kicked the offending speaker out. That action came from the national office.
“Phi Delta Theta General Headquarters is aware of the video regarding the student protest at the University of Mississippi. The racist actions in the video were those of an individual and are antithetical to the values of Phi Delta Theta and the Mississippi Alpha chapter. The responsible individual was removed from membership on Friday, May 3.”
Ole Miss, a public institution, condemned bro’s speech too but it could do nothing more. As a public institution, it cannot and should not be required to act against students because of their speech. But the Chancellor’s statement confirms responsibility in civil society:
“Behaviors and comments that demean people because of their race or ethnicity marginalize them and undermine the values that are fundamental to a civil and safe society,” Boyce said in a written statement. “… To be clear, people who say horrible things to people because of who they are will not find shelter or comfort on this campus.”
I am not addressing speech that is tantamount to action right now, by the way. For now, I simply acknowledge the theory that speech and action converge at some point. Nor should private universities be required, by threats to their tax-exempt status, to shut up and shut down student groups protesting Israel because members or infiltrators are yelling anti-Semitic tropes – “from the river to the sea” or “death to Zionists,” for example. They may and should condemn the hate. Loudly and often.
The fiscally sponsored National Students for Justice in Palestine is alternatively depicted as practitioners of the best traditions in civil society and as purveyors of anti-Semitism. They protest war and starvation, but some amongst the protestors are engaging in hate speech of the sort just mentioned. As citizens of civil society, the organization is entitled to tax exemption. As purveyors of hate, it is not. I am biased against starvation of men, women, boys, girls, dogs, and cats. So I am supportive of the protests. But strategically, and more importantly morally, NSJP must speak as often and as loudly against hate as it does against starvation. This is true even if NSJP can legitimately assert that it is only infiltrators peddling hate. Besides, there are probably some members doing it too. It happens in all movements.
If civil society insists that government regulation of its speech is illegitimate and counter-productive, it must itself take up and meet the responsibility of policing its speech and those of associates, even faux associates, so that government does not inadvertently subsidize the hate speech it may not regulate. Phi Delta Theta effectively demonstrated that point, I think. It could have done nothing in response to its member’s hate speech. But it effectively policed itself thereby maintaining its moral position. To maintain its legitimate place in civil society, the National Students for Justice in Palestine must do the same thing. Its gotta get the anti-Semites out of its midst. Because Civil Society has a responsibility to police itself. The failure to do so threatens its independence and the moral high ground it occupies.
darryll k. jones