CJL: Freedom of speech or association?

Over half a century ago, an authoritative body tried to silence an organization’s right to associate.

When the issue came before the Supreme Court, Justice John Marshall Harlan II, in a unanimous opinion, wrote, ”It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

The case: NAACP v. Alabama, which pitted the pro-segregationist Alabama Attorney General John Patterson against the pro-African-American civil rights group.

While it’s obviously true the University would not try the same, the classic brawl between freedom of speech and association has appeared once again. This Monday, Professor Max Weiss wrote an op-ed, titled “Is the Center for Jewish Life stifling free speech on campus?”, that has stirred controversy over the CJL’s recent refusal to allow his participation in an event on the recent Gaza conflict.

While I could extol the long, historical debates on the merits of both, I won’t waste your time. As the Center for Jewish Life argued in its response, “participation in a panel that we sponsor is a privilege and not a right.” And they’re right. Several Supreme Court decisions from Kusper v. Pontikes (1973) to Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), have established a legal right for organizations, like the CJL, to associate with whomever they want.

However, there is a fundamental difference between what is legally required of an organization and what an organization should aspire to accomplish. Sadly, this distinction is being missed.

The goal of “address[ing] the context and consequences of the Israeli assault on Gaza in July that left over 2,100 Palestinians and nearly 70 Israelis dead” is clearly a noble one. This summer exploded into a hotbed of political, military and cultural tensions displayed on the television screens of millions. For many, whose first real in-depth analysis of this issue may be through such a panel, it is essential that they get the opportunity to hear from multiple sides.

Removing Weiss — or failing to offer someone representative of that side of the debate — robs the panel’s audience of that chance to properly decide for themselves what they think. Granted, there is nothing wrong with promoting a panel that offers to explain the conflict from the “Israeli” perspective, but it appears that was not the panel’s intention.

Framing the debate as objective, while completely excluding one side of the argument, is a disservice both to Weiss and the University community as a whole. While no association should be forced to invite a speaker, exclusion undoubtedly runs counter to the idea of academic openness that has made the University so great before. From Fidel Castro in the 1960s to Richard Falk last spring, the inclusion of even the most disagreed-upon views can widen our perspectives.

In response, several members of the CJL responded that, while open to debate, they refuse to “sponsor groups or speakers that intend to harm Israel or promote racism or hatred of any kind.” The particular petition they referenced is a boycott against Israeli academic institutions, signed by Weiss over the summer.

Equating the opposition to a governmental policy with “racism” only seeks to demonize the opposition and hurt, rather than foster, debate. Such calls attempt to equate Weiss with the same bigots who attempted to silence the NAACP half a century before. Ironically, this panel would have been the perfect opportunity for people to allow these ideas to compete against each other, allowing the audience to decide whether his ideas are merited or uncalled for.

It is the same First Amendment that allows the CJL to associate that has also allowed Weiss to sign on to the boycott. In a democracy, like ours, it is the promotion of such a variety of views that grants us the ability to judge each argument on its own merit.

The CJL representatives concluded that “panel discussions, travel experiences, [and] ongoing dialogues […] are more likely to bring about positive change than boycotts or newspaper articles that attack those working to find common ground.” While they are undoubtedly helpful, they are not always enough. Just ask Martin Luther King Jr. If we see wrong in the world, it is up to us to speak out to it. Better to let a potential wrong be examined and dismissed than crushed before it is even heard out.

Ben Dinovelli is a Wilson School major from Mystic, Conn. He can bereached at bjd5@princeton.edu.