There’s an old story about the time that Chaim Weizmann in 1948, serving as Israel’s first President, was offered a diplomatic gift from the King of Thailand: a live elephant. The elder statesman apparently refused the friendly offer, saying: “Never accept a gift that eats.”
I was reminded of this story recently when I read alarming reactions to the announcement of UCSD Jewish Studies program’s recent panel discussion, “Antisemitism on Campuses and the Federal Response: Challenges, Frameworks, and Emerging Questions.” The event, which I attended at the Faculty Club on May 13, featured three distinguished scholars from UC campuses, including Prof. Ronit Stahl from UC Berkeley, Prof. Dov Waxman from UCLA, and Prof. Amelia Glaser from UCSD, the moderator and organizer of the event (and, full disclosure, my partner).
Some members of the community criticized the event in advance and warned of the speakers’ biases. One of the speakers had signed a 2023 petition about the “Elephant in the Room,” referring to the lack of open discussion about the corrosive impact of Israel’s regime of occupation on its civil society.
Engaging in difficult conversations about politics, identity, safety, and free speech is uncomfortable. It can exact a high cost on those who choose to get involved in respectful but honest discussions with those with whom they may disagree. Far easier to take the safer path of speaking about challenging issues only through tweets (“X”s?) or through bullhorns, preaching to a choir of the like-minded and vilifying the rest. The anticipatory criticism of UCSD’s event, calling it an “elephant stampede,” implied that this attempt at scholarly dialogue about antisemitism would bring disruption rather than understanding.
The extra security at the event made it clear why many academics and administrators might refuse such an elephantine gift: the dangers of conflict and protest on our campuses could far outweigh the benefit of an academic panel discussion.
Yet, the elephant in the seminar room at the UCSD faculty club was, in fact, nothing like a destructive forest beast. The panel discussion was an incredible demonstration of the irreplaceable role of universities, particularly our flagship public research universities, as a foundation of a functional democracy. At a time when academia is under dire threat, with real concerns about antisemitism twisted into cynical pretexts for undermining institutions of research and education, events like the UCSD panel discussion show how reason and scholarship can provide the intellectual resources and the public space to move beyond the tired polarization of cable news and social media.
The speakers opened the discussion by emphasizing the complex and various manifestations of antisemitism, which they defined as a form of racism directed against Jews. Like other racisms, antisemitism in the US cannot be flattened into a simple formula, such as Jew-hatred. Instead, antisemitism appears in different guises, including tropes and stereotypes, and ranges from crude jokes to overt violence. The speakers’ historical perspective on Jewish Americans’ evolving place in society and on college campuses helped frame the discussion of contemporary antisemitism.
The panelists, drawing on their personal experiences with campus protest and encampments spurred by Hamas’ October 7th attacks and the war in Gaza, made a compelling case for a pragmatic approach to supporting and protecting students, including Jewish students. Parents and other community members who watch universities from afar, often via media that emphasize particular divisive narratives, may perceive protest and conflict on campuses as extreme and dangerous. Yet, the students and faculty who live and work on campus and who engage with each other as human beings often recognize that much of the passionate discussion and political expression on campus is not antisemitic. Ultimately, students must learn to navigate a polarized and conflict-filled world with confidence in their own character and convictions, a task that is too often pre-empted when parents or others project their fears onto a complex campus situation.
This discussion is certainly sensitive, and the panelists made it clear that we should not deny or fail to forcefully confront instances of genuine antisemitic discrimination on campus. But, getting the right balance is important. Jewish students and families, who in recent generations in the US have come to feel comfortable and secure as members of college communities, are sometimes shocked to feel their sense of belonging challenged. In this respect, Jewish students may find common ground with other groups whose sense of belonging on university campuses has also felt precarious.
As a UCSD Professor in Cognitive Science, I was proud to see my colleagues from across the UC system making the brave choice to accept an actively eating gift: The gift of challenging, informed, rigorous and open-minded public conversation about one of the most vexing issues of our time. The question-and-answer portion of the event gave the audience a chance to voice their own perspectives and engage with the panel’s expertise. While the evening did not conclude with a simple message or consensus on how to respond to campus antisemitism, the event made it clear that universities are far from obsolete.
This type of informed, nuanced, and rigorous scholarly conversation is all too rare in our culture, and universities must reclaim and renew their role as places where this kind of conversation can occur.
*
Eran A. Mukamel is a UCSD faculty member.