Academic Freedom Archives

The Free Speech Exception to Palestine

Now that (even moderate) pro-Palestine sentiment has been effectively outlawed in both the public and private sectors, I hope we can say goodbye to the Western myth of “free speech” from which so many reactionaries built their careers.

The following is a reproduction, with slight modifications, of an article recently published in a special issue of Middle East Critique, “The Academic Question of Palestine,” edited by Walaa Alqaisiya and Nicola Perugini.

The title of this essay inverts a common phrase, “the Palestine exception to free speech,” first used by civil rights attorney Michael Ratner (2013) and later popularized by Maria LaHood of the Center for Constitutional Rights. While it is true that free speech protections often fail to accommodate criticism of Israel in various Western countries, the phrase assumes that the failure is out of character. An alternate view would suggest that exclusion of Palestine results from the limitations of free speech itself. As is often the case, the issue of Palestine exposes hypocrisy, myth, or deceit in the USA’s exceptional self-image.

The Inhumanity of Academic Freedom

A transcript of the 2019 TB Davie Memorial Lecture at the University of Cape Town, delivered August 7, 2019.

I begin with a straightforward proposition: academic freedom is inhumane. Its inhumanity isn’t of the physical, legal, or intellectual variety. Even at its best, academic freedom is capable of transforming human beings into instruments of bureaucracy. It is inhumane as an ontological category. It cannot provide the very artifact it promises: freedom. To become practicable, academic freedom requires textual boundaries. Under this sort of regime, freedom is merely academic.

College Administrators Care About Your Speech Rights–If You’re a Nazi

They disapprove of speech favorable to Palestinians, however.

Discussing free speech in the United States is a losing proposition. Every political demographic screams about hypocrisy, but doing so misses the larger point: it’s impossible to lionize speech as understood in this country without also being hypocritical. That’s because civil liberties are indivisible from the needs of power. In many cases, speech isn’t performed as a freedom; it’s an asset exploited by the shrewdest consumers.

Absence and Dissent

No amount of charm or persuasiveness will compel reactionaries to forfeit the advantages they derive from racism.

Not a week passes without a new petition appearing in my inbox or Facebook feed urging solidarity with a scholar facing employer recrimination or harassment from rightwing culture warriors. (“Harassment” doesn’t get at the racist, sexist, and homophobic vitriol that victims of these campaigns endure.) The uptick in rightwing bullying many suspected would accompany a Trump presidency has come to fruition.

Certain patterns define these harassment campaigns. Republican operatives prowl social media for provocative comments, with the help of professional snitches and everyday informants (even if your posts are private, they are vulnerable to public consumption—watch your friends list closely). Those operatives then repurpose the quotes with the aim of inflaming white anxieties. The controversies almost always originate in social media, though op-ed pieces and conference programs also come in for scrutiny.