If we’re going to talk at all about Open Hillel, we first have to ask, “Why would someone want to stop someone else from speaking in the first place?” Presumably, because they fear the speaking invitation will lend legitimacy or act as a seal of approval to the offending view, or else it will lead some people who hear it to get ideas that are not only incorrect, but dangerous. If I invite Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the head of IS to speak, even if make clear that I only want to hear what one of the most influential people in the world has to say, or to make his ignorance and hatred clear to everyone, I would still receive hate mail, not necessarily because people wouldn’t believe my motives, but because they fear that I would be creating an opportunity for him to radicalize people less sophisticated than they. All bans are based on the assumption that many people are some combination of too ignorant, too unsophisticated, too unreasonable, or too stupid to see through dangerous arguments; even if the protester is motivated mostly by her own insecurity, she wishes to ban or shout down the speaker because, deep-down, she worries she’s also too ignorant/unsophisticated/unreasonable/stupid to withstand the arguments she’s so afraid of.
On the whole, I think this is a good assumption. If it weren’t, history would look very, very different. About a year ago, Brown professor and alum Ken Miller wrote a brilliant op-ed in the Brown Daily Herald that everyone needs to click this link and read right now. Miller recalls when, as an undergrad in the 1960’s, an invitation to Brown alum and leader of the American Nazi Party George Lincoln Rockwell to participate in a fall lecture series was extended then rescinded under protest; Rockwell was subsequently invited by the campus group “Open Mind.” Miller attended and the speech had a powerful effect on him,
For the first time in my life, I understood the allure of fascism, the reason that “good people” could have supported the likes of Franco, Mussolini and Hitler. I also understood why the notion that “it couldn’t happen here” is hopelessly naive. It could happen here, and it most certainly would happen if we forgot the lessons of history, lessons that Rockwell brought to life with a sinister smile that evening in Alumnae Hall. I’m glad I was there. I’m glad the talk was allowed to go on. And I’m glad Brown was an open campus where those lessons could be learned in the most personal way possible.
Miller then unfavorably compares this incident to one that fall when Ray Kelly, the N.Y.P.D. police chief who instituted “stop and frisk” was silenced by student protesters, writing:
The crowd who managed to silence a speaker yesterday accomplished something, to be sure. But it wasn’t a blow against racism, fascism or police oppression. It was a step towards a closed campus where mob rule determines who can speak and who will be shouted down. It was a shameful day. And it deprived every member of our community of the chance to hear Kelly and decide for themselves whether his policing methods are indeed the first steps of a Rockwell-like campaign against minorities and the poor in America’s greatest city.
I think he’s right about what should happen at an elite college campus like Brown. For the rest of the world, though, I’m not so sure, but who decides who gets censored?
During the Q&A session after the Open Hillel Conference’s Monday plenary with the Freedom Summer alumni, someone asked a question about the use of violence in reference to the book That Nonviolence Stuff’ll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible by Charles E. Cobb, Jr. that more than tacitly implied support for terrorism. The question itself, though, wasn’t as disturbing as the snaps of approval it elicited from some in the audience.
This moment made me consider for the first time all the violence nonviolence is complicit in, what nonviolent movements do with those whose principles have broken under the weight of their cause.
It has come to my attention that, as the glow of its moment on stage wears off, Open Hillel finds itself grappling with this question, too. As a source inside Open Hillel told me, “The conference has drawn people from either extreme who want to turn the group more towards advocacy for their causes, and the campaign is trying to decide how to find balance while being welcoming towards all views.”
When I asked steering committee member, Ohio State University law student Aryeh Younger about this, he said, “Though we support open, respectful dialogue with everyone, Open Hillel does not believe that this extends to speakers or students who openly promote violence or use overtly racist rhetoric,” adding that the entire steering committee agrees that if the audience is “physically threatened by a speaker, we will not host that speaker because doing so violates common sense.”
So even Open Hillel has its standards of partnership. I don’t think this is necessarily hypocritical since the organization’s mission was only ever expanding dialogue within Hillel on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and nothing more, certainly not violence or terrorism.
Still, it begs the question of what other lines must be drawn. Should someone be allowed to worship an idol in a Hillel? Would it matter if that person’s parents were Jewish or if they only consider themselves Jewish because they want to be more like Drake? As I reported in April, the group has no opinion on the inclusion of Messianic Jews (nor does Hillel International). Their own statements have been unclear about just how far they take inclusion, from radically inclusive speeches at the Conference to this distancing from violent speech. It should be noted that this lack of clarity, I believe, actually happens because they live up to their beliefs–an organization with a steering committee as diverse as theirs is going to have a hard time making resolutions on anything beyond support for that seemingly specific but actually maddeningly vague premise to which the organization is dedicated. Still, as they enter the next phase of their existence, from a loosely organized bunch of radicals to a national organization with a budget and committees, they will need to clarify just how open Open Hillel can be. Much of that answer will depend on just how level-headed and educated they think average college students are. Much of their success will depend on just how level-headed and educated they actually prove to be.
Derek M. Kwait graduated from the University of Pittsburgh and is editor in chief of New Voices.
