In recent weeks, students at colleges across the country have been holding protests and demonstrations against U.S. involvement in the ongoing war. These protests have sparked debates about the extent and limits of the constitutional right to free speech on college campuses.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. This right extends to public colleges and universities, which are considered government entities. Students at public colleges generally have the right to express their views and hold peaceful protests on campus.
Recently, some of these campus protests have become a flashpoint. Last night, a peaceful sit-in against the war at the State University of New York (SUNY) Purchase College ended in what some are calling an excessive use of force by police against students.
“The police violence last night at SUNY Purchase College against peaceful students sitting in a circle is absolutely outrageous,” said Nada Khader of the Westchester Peace Action Coalition (Westpac). “Our constitutional protections are being shredded to prop up a U.S. funded and supported apartheid regime.”
Details of exactly what transpired are still emerging. But if peaceful, law-abiding protesters were improperly disrupted or subjected to undue force by police, as alleged, it would represent a serious infringement on their First Amendment rights. Colleges must not wield an iron fist against students lawfully exercising core political speech.
These anti-war protests are part of a long tradition of student activism against U.S. military actions, most notably during the Vietnam War in the 1960s and 70s. Like today’s demonstrators, many Vietnam era protesters faced harsh crackdowns and disciplinary threats from college administrators and police, leading to seminal free speech legal battles. The current generation of student activists are now grappling with similar tensions around the scope of their First Amendment rights.
Some politicians who receive funding from pro-Israel groups like AIPAC, amplified by certain media narratives, have labeled the campus protests as antisemitic due to their criticism of Israel’s military assault on Palestinians. Over 34,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli attacks in recent decades, with women and children comprising 70% of the casualties, according to Palestinian sources. Protesters argue it is not antisemitic to oppose Israel’s treatment of Palestinians,a war tha tis funded with the tax dollars of Americans and that attempting to construe their opposition to the war as such is a silencing tactic.
Here is the revised paragraph incorporating Congressman Bowman’s contrasting stance:
In recent weeks, many politicians, especially in Westchester County, have taken hardline pro-Israel stances and denounced the anti-war protesters. County Executive George Latimer, who is running to unseat current Congressman Jamal Bowman and is heavily funded by AIPAC, has been relatively silent on the protests.
On the other hand, Congressman Bowman, who has been a target of pro-Israel groups like AIPAC, has vocally supported the college students and their protests against the war in Gaza. He has defended their right to speak out and asserted that criticizing Israeli government actions is not inherently antisemitic.
Critics argue that when most politicians take one-sided approaches, it provides cover for crackdowns on demonstrations and dismisses the protesters’ message as antisemitism. They question whether elected officials’ uncompromising pro-Israel positions, influenced by campaign contributions from lobbying groups, create a chilling effect on free speech by legitimizing efforts to silence opposing views.
After all, these politicians’ constituents have a right to ask: Are their representatives’ stances shaped by an even-handed examination of the complex facts on the ground, or are they swayed by lobbying dollars and a desire to avoid bad-faith accusations of antisemitism? There is a difference between respectfully disagreeing with the protesters’ arguments and trying to muzzle their voices. The politicians’ relative silence speaks volumes.
Congressman Bowman’s willingness to break from the pack and stand up for the students, even in the face of political attacks, throws this contrast into stark relief. It suggests political calculations and lobbying pressure are indeed distorting many officials’ responses. His constituents may well appreciate that he is staying true to his principles rather than being cowed by moneyed interests. The protesters deserve representatives who will hear them out in good faith, not just toe the line of powerful lobbies.
As the anti-war protests continue, both demonstrators and administrators must work to uphold free speech on campus. Colleges should allow ample opportunity for peaceful protests and use police force only as a last resort. Protesters should strive to express their views against the war and Israel’s actions passionately but lawfully, without fear of being called antisemetics. Politicians should resist treating the debate as a zero-sum game, instead acknowledging the protesters’ right to dissent even if they disagree. Through good-faith efforts on all sides, the constitutional right to speak out against government policy can be exercised vigorously while respecting others. These are complex and sensitive issues, but open and factual dialogue is essential.
