IU profs: Jim Banks' letter alleging antisemitism on campus aims at 'heart of democracy'

Indiana University faculty members have sharply criticized U.S. Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., for a letter he sent to IU President Pamela Whitten, which, the professors said, stifles academic freedom and free speech.

In the letter, Banks asked Whitten to “aggressively respond to reports of antisemitism” and to answer six questions related to antisemitism on IU’s campus.

“If IU administrators condone or tolerate campus antisemitism, the university could lose access to federal funding,” Banks wrote.

Banks represents the third Indiana congressional district, in the northeastern corner of the state, but is an IU alumnus.

Indiana University faculty 'alarmed' by Banks letter's tone

In their response, faculty members wrote they “care deeply about academic freedoms on campus” and they worried especially about Banks indicating that “failure to satisfy his concerns could lead to Congressional investigation and possible funding cuts.”

“We are alarmed by the threatening tone of the letter, the way in which it injects ideology into the proper governance of the university, and the way it conflates academic leadership with the policing of controversial ideas,” the letter reads.

"We do not believe that any administration should be pressured to treat controversial political speech as a security threat, or to use legitimate safety concerns as a pretext to stifle academic freedom," the faculty members wrote.

Two professors who signed the response said Banks’ demands, while referencing federal funding, amount to an attempt to undermine basic constitutionally protected First Amendment and academic freedoms.

Benjamin Robinson, associate professor of Germanic Studies, said Banks’ letter aims “at the very heart of democracy.”

“A university does have a compelling interest in the safety of its members (and) should investigate discrimination and bias,” Robinson said, but Banks’ “patently spurious” allegations, presented without evidence or due diligence processes having taken place, can leave only one interpretation: Banks “is seeking to chill free speech and risking far more harm to IU students than anything that’s (happened).”

Why did U.S. Rep. Jim Banks email IU President Pamela Whitten?

Banks' letter references the Oct. 7 attacks by the terrorist organization Hamas on Israel, and Oct. 9 demonstrations on the IU campus that, according to the student newspaper Indiana Daily Student, culminated in supporters of Israel and Palestine waving flags and yelling at each other while “separated by a line of police officers.”

Further, Banks wrote that on Oct. 28, at an event calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, a protester held a sign reading “colonialism, apartheid, genecide (sic.)” Banks also mentioned that two members of the IU Student Government recently resigned and alleged the group’s leadership was using antisemitic rhetoric and, according to the IDS, said, “antisemitism is not an issue on campus.”

“As an IU graduate, allegations of antisemitism at my alma mater are personal and extremely concerning to me,” Banks wrote. “As a lawmaker, I would note that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits anti-Jewish and antisemitic discrimination. If IU administrators condone or tolerate campus antisemitism, the university could lose access to federal funding.”

Banks requested that Whitten brief his office on findings regarding recent allegations of antisemitism within student government and provide answers to six questions including, “When was the last meeting of the IU Antisemitism Advisory Board?” and “Did IU receive any reports of harassment or illegal activity after the October 9th and October 28th Palestinian Solidarity Committee protests?”

The PSC is a student group that, according to its website, advocates, among other things, “for the end of the occupation of the West Bank and Blockade of Gaza.”

How did Indiana University respond to U.S. Rep. Jim Banks’ letter?

IU spokesman Jonathan Coffington said via email the university appreciates Banks' outreach and will respond formally to his letter.

“IU’s commitment to stand against antisemitism is deep and sincere,” Coffington wrote.

“In addition to increasing police patrols across each of our campuses and introducing additional security measures, we are working closely with law enforcement and a variety of Jewish campus organizations to ensure we are following best practices for supporting Jewish students on campus,” he wrote.

“Hate has no home at IU,” Coffington wrote, “and acts of antisemitism and Islamophobia will not be tolerated."

Why are IU professors weighing in on the controversy?

Faculty members wrote Banks' letter was undermining academic freedoms on campus and chilling the exchange of ideas, no less at "a place where young people come to learn, to expand their horizons, and to test out ideas and political convictions within the bounds of the law."

“If Rep. Banks had written his letter with due concern about both Anti-semitism and Islamophobia; if he had expressed that concern without a threat of federal defunding of the university; if he had not unilaterally mandated a burden of reporting by a strict deadline; and if he had not made it clear that he regarded statements promoting a Palestinian-rights perspective to be intolerable, we would find his letter less inappropriate than we do," the professors wrote.

“But in the present environment, his letter can only serve to further divide our students, by inhibiting the free expression of ideas — including controversial political ideas — at a time when the exchange of words rather than bullets is sorely needed,” they wrote.

Robinson and Jeffrey Isaac, James H. Rudy Professor of political science, also said Banks appears to be fundamentally confused about what antisemitism is.

Antisemitism, they said, is prejudice against Jewish people — but it is not criticism of the policies of the Israeli government — even when that criticism uses language that makes people uncomfortable or even cringe, such as accusing the state of Israel of engaging in apartheid or genocide.

“I don’t like some of it," Isaac said, "but that doesn’t make it antisemitism.”

Both Robinson and Isaac are Jewish, and Isaac said he has written and published on these issues for many years, including a recent article on “Understanding the difference between anti-Semitism and pro-Palestinian activism.”

And, Isaac said, whatever happened on campus will be handled by the university’s grievance procedures and does not demand the intervention of an opportunistic politician.

Robinson said the Oct. 28 gathering on campus was a “beautiful” event that brought together people from many faiths and cultures who oppose the Israeli military assault on a stateless people and the “grotesquely disproportionate” response to the Hamas attacks.

“To call these gatherings antisemitic, I would just call it ignorant, but it’s obvious willful malice on the part of Jim Banks,” Robinson said.

Banks’ press secretary, when asked for a response to the faculty letter, pointed to social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, where Banks posted, “Woke liberal professors respond justifying their anti-semitic and anti-american activity brainwashing our kids to hate America and Israel.”

The Indiana Republican Party in August endorsed Banks for the U.S. Senate seat that will be vacated by U.S. Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., who is running for governor.

Boris Ladwig can be reached at bladwig@heraldt.com.

This article originally appeared on The Herald-Times: Indiana University professors: Rep. Banks letter further divides students