OPINION: Indiana University has nothing to fear from Banks' letter to Whitten

A group of Indiana University faculty have published an open letter, drafted by political science professor Jeffrey C. Isaac and others, expressing concern about a request from Congressman Jim Banks to IU President Pamela Whitten, asking for information about what the university has been doing to address antisemitism on campus. Since Banks comes from the “MAGA” wing of the Republican Party, they fear that his request — which includes what they take to be a “threat of federal defunding of the university” — will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression at IU.

But they are wrong.

IU has long had a variety of policies for students and faculty that guarantee academic freedom, but also specify the responsibilities of exercising it. For example, the Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct proscribes “harassment,” defined as “unwelcome or unwanted conduct that is persistent, severe, or pervasive, and impacts a student’s ability to access their education, or an individual’s personal safety, academic efforts, employment, or participation in university-sponsored programs or activities.” It adds that “this behavior includes but is not limited to: direct or indirect written, verbal, physical, or electronic action or inaction.” The question is whether calls to “free Palestine from the river to the sea” and the like, which have become more common and public on campus since Oct. 7, are the kinds of expression prohibited by the university’s rules.

Jeffrey Isaac op-ed: Banks letter to Whitten isn't about anti-Semitism. It's about political posturing

Although the faculty letter-writers do not acknowledge this, IU provided an answer in 2018 when it endorsed the widely adopted working definition of antisemitism developed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, an organization of 35 countries and many non-governmental organizations, including the American Jewish Committee.

In addition to traditional forms of antisemitism, such as harassing people wearing Jewish religious symbols or defacing synagogues, it also included newer ones, such as Holocaust denial, comparing Israeli policies to those of the Nazis, and denying Jewish people “their right to self-determination” in their own state. Criticizing specific policies of Israel’s government is not antisemitic, the IHRA definition says, but holding Israel to a different standard from other countries or claiming that Palestine should be free of Jews is.

In a letter to Jewish students in 2022, President Whitten reaffirmed IU’s commitment to the AJC definition.

“This year,” she wrote, “we have witnessed a number of abhorrent and unacceptable antisemitic incidents that have made many feel unwelcome and even unsafe on our campuses.” After noting IU’s adoption of the IHRA definition, she added that IU “continues to stand against antisemitism. If you see an incident of bias, please report it ….”

The first question asked by Congressman Banks in his letter is “How many antisemitic incidents on IU campuses have been reported since October 7, 2023?” Considering IU’s antisemitism policy, this should not be difficult to answer. Judging from the many demonstrations, chalkings, and other expressions of views about the Hamas pogrom and subsequent Israeli response, one would expect numerous reports have been made. Making this information public should be welcomed by everyone who values transparency at IU.

To be sure, determining whether specific incidents should be considered antisemitic may require interpretation and judgment. But that is no different than what is usually necessary for other provisions of IU’s faculty and student conduct codes. The IHRA definition and several years of comments on it offer abundant examples for guidance.

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

To assist IU administrators, the university established an Antisemitism Advisory Board of faculty members with expertise on antisemitism. Congressman Banks asked about its meetings. Although it did convene Monday, the group has come together irregularly. As long as tensions remain high on campus, the provost, under whose aegis the board operates, should assemble it frequently and rely on the considerable knowledge of its members.

The faculty letter-writers fault Congressman Banks for not showing concern about “Islamophobia.” However, IU’s student and faculty conduct codes also cover harassment and other irresponsible behavior directed against Muslim students. Indeed, at the time of the Hamas attacks on Israel, the university was investigating a complaint against a Jewish student for “hate speech” toward a Palestinian one. IU should ensure that its policies are applied evenhandedly.

As for cutting federal funding for IU, the Banks letter contains no such threat. It does refer to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which bars “anti-Jewish and antisemitic discrimination” and acknowledges that schools which violate this provision could be penalized. The responsibility for enforcing this law belongs to the executive branch, not Congress. In fact, it is the Biden administration, not any members of the “MAGA” wing of the Republican Party, which has launched probes of Penn, Cornell and other institutions for tolerating antisemitism.

No one should want to see IU added to that list. To prevent that, IU merely needs to live up to its own policies against antisemitism.

Leslie Lenkowsky is an emeritus professor of public policy and philanthropic studies.

This article originally appeared on The Herald-Times: Columnist argues IU can answer Banks letter by living up to policies