Stanford student’s apology for anti-Semitism misses the mark

Last week, I wrote a news piece about a Stanford student who argued that the old anti-Semitic canard that Jews control the media isn’t necessarily anti-Semitism.

Gabriel Knight, a student senator in Stanford’s Undergraduate Senate, was discussing the language of a resolution to support the Stanford Jewish community against anti-Semitism. Knight was referring to a clause that linked anti-Semitism to denial of Israel’s right to exist, which referenced the stereotype that Jews control “the media, economy, government and other societal institutions.”

“I think that that’s kind of irresponsible foraying into another politically contentious conversation,” Knight said, according to the Stanford Daily. “Questioning these potential power dynamics, I think, is not anti-Semitism. I think it’s a very valid discussion.”

He was called out on anti-Semitism at the meeting by Jewish student leaders. His apology: “It wasn’t right for me to say that Jewish people can’t be offended by that,” he said. “What I meant to say is that it’s still making a political statement, which is my problem with the clause — it’s an important conversation we should be having.”

Knight reiterated this in a letter published in the Daily two days later. He also argued that his words were “taken out of context” and angry responses “did not seek to explore or understand my intentions.”

“I like to think that my work on Senate this year — particularly my ongoing efforts to ensure relevant and competent mental health care for students — speaks to my convictions and to my good intentions,” he added.

In a letter published April 8 announcing his decision to leave the race, he reiterated his apology — as well as encouraging students to “continue to critically examine all things we deem to be realities, both at the Stanford level as well as on the national and international stage, and not restrict the speech of those who do.”

I don’t know if he’s doing it deliberately or not, but Gabriel Knight is missing the point. Not just of apologies, but of what debate about power and privilege should really look like.

Insistence that the people who really know him know that he has “good intentions” is a ridiculous thing to say in what’s ostensibly an apology, especially when the entire letter — both of them! — reads more as “I’m sorry you were offended” and not “I’m sorry I was offensive.” Mental health activism is great, having a good heart is great, but that previous work has nothing to do with one’s ability to think things through before speaking. I also don’t see what exactly there is to examine about the “potential power dynamics” of saying that Jews control [insert powerful institution here].

Is it true that there are a lot of Jewish people in positions of power in the media, or the economy, or the government? I mean, sure, though it depends on where exactly you’re looking. But what are the power dynamics here? Anti-Semitism still exists. Jews are still portrayed as flat stereotypes in creative media. Anti-Jewish motivation continues to top the list of the FBI’s religious bias hate crime statistics. What power dynamics are there to question?

Even if the resolution was still explicitly addressing the relationships of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism — and at this point, the phrase “anti-Zionism” had been removed from the bill — there are still no power dynamics to question when it comes to this particular, literally medieval stereotype of the Jewish place in society. There are none to question that leave Jews at the top of the hierarchy. How much does it matter that Jews are in positions of political power when Bernie Sanders, who is running for president, encountered the stereotype Knight sees as debatable at a rally in Harlem:

“As you know, the Zionist Jews,” the man said, to rising cries of protest from the crowd, “they run the Federal Reserve, they run Wall Street.” Asked by a moderator to pose a question, the man said: “What is your affiliation to the Jewish community?”

“That’s not what you’re asking,” Sanders retorted. “I am proud to be Jewish.”

Yes, many Jewish Americans enjoy privileges in American society based on various factors, including race and the social whiteness of Ashkenazi Jews. But being Jewish is not the source of that privilege. It’s not the source of any cultural power. Jews in positions of power in the media and finance and the government are not there because being Jewish afforded them a leg up in power dynamics. They’re there, historically, in spite of those power dynamics. Historically, when it came to the media, presence behind the scenes of cinema didn’t translate to presence on the screen. It still doesn’t.

Hearing “saying that Jews control the media, the banks, and the government is anti-Semitism” and responding “well, that’s up for debate because Jews are in positions of power in the media, the banks, and the government” is a snake that eats its own tail. The words may be factual, but the meaning is sinister. You can’t respond that it’s not true that there’s a Jewish presence in these places, because it is true, but someone who sincerely believes that malicious Jews occupy these positions of power will hear that and just be encouraged in their beliefs.

Suggesting that there’s anything to debate about “Jews control society” — suggesting that there’s anything remotely valid to the idea — is distasteful and, in itself, an anti-Semitic idea. I hope that Knight does his own critical examination of what he said, how it plays into stereotypes much older than any of us that have historically kept Jews from accessing power, and why what he said is hurtful to so many people. Free speech and academic freedom are incredibly valuable, but academic debate does not, and has never, existed in a vacuum.

 

Chloe Sobel graduated from Queen’s University and is editor in chief of New Voices.