Category: Censorship

End of Academic freedom in the US

analyza how anti-zionist speech is suppresed in us colleges, amounting to an end to academic freedom

ChatGPT said:

Here’s an analysis of how anti‑Zionist speech on U.S. college campuses is increasingly suppressed, and why many argue this amounts to a serious curtailment of academic freedom:

1. Administrative & Governmental Pressure

  • Columbia University: In July 2025, over 70 students were suspended or expelled for participating in pro‑Palestinian protests. The Trump administration had frozen hundreds of millions in federal grants, pushing Columbia to adopt policies equating criticism of Zionism with antisemitism, and to sever ties with the student group CUAD. Critics argue this chilling effect undermines campus dissent and inquiry ZNetwork+15Reuters+15Reddit+15.
  • Harvard University: The administration rescinded or restricted campus protests, revoked visas for international student activists, and canceled a planned special issue on Palestine in its educational journal. External pressure and fear of federal retaliation contributed to what contributors called a violation of academic independence and editorial autonomy The GuardianThe AtlanticThe Guardian.

2. Policy Changes & Codes of Conduct

  • Several universities—including NYU, Columbia, UCLA, Indiana, and the University of California system—have updated policies to classify criticism of Zionism or support for BDS as harassment or hate speech. In some cases, Zionists are treated as a protected group, effectively banning anti‑Zionist perspectives Reddit.
  • Policies now often prohibit encampments, outdoor signs, overnight protests, or require registration of participants—disproportionately impacting pro‑Palestinian activism Inside Higher Ed+11Wikipedia+11The Washington Post+11.

3. Faculty and Staff Retaliation

  • Tenured and untenured faculty: Many report self‑censoring to avoid repercussions when teaching or speaking about Israel-Palestine—especially assistant professors (98%) in Middle East Studies ameu.org+1US Academic Boycott+1. In one case, a tenured professor was reportedly fired over an Instagram post protesting Zionism WikipediaReddit.
  • High-profile incidents: Professor Terri Ginsberg faced contract non-renewal for criticizing Israeli policy; Steven Salaita had a tenured job offer rescinded following pro‑Palestinian tweets—and later won a legal settlement Reddit+8US Academic Boycott+8Wikipedia+8.
  • Several courses explicitly promoting anti‑Zionist resistance have been flagged as political indoctrination, potentially violating university policy on the limits of political partisanship in teaching jamesgmartin.center+9JCSA+9US Academic Boycott+9.

4. Broader Cultural and Financial Influences

  • Campus Watch, CAMERA, and other pro‑Israel organizations have actively campaigned against faculty and student activism critical of Israel, contributing to a climate of intimidation US Academic Boycott.
  • A linked study found that universities receiving funding from authoritarian regimes or members of the Islamic Cooperation were more likely to exhibit declining speech freedoms and heightened accusations of antisemitism when anti‑Israel activism arose Inside Higher Ed.

5. Concept of the “Palestine Exception”

  • Academic and activist critics have coined the term “Palestine exception” to describe disproportionate repression of pro‑Palestinian speech compared to other social movements. Investigations by the Department of Education have targeted Columbia, UNC, Emory, and UMass Amherst under Title VI for alleged antisemitism tied to speech critical of Israel Wikipedia.
  • The cancellation of scholarly publications on Palestine, executive order 14188 (targeting campus antisemitism), and demands for surveillance or deportation of protestors illustrate how political interference extends into academic governance Wikipedia.

Summary

  • Systemic suppression: Both campus administrations and the federal government have pressured universities to equate anti‑Zionist speech with harassment or antisemitism.
  • Self‑censorship: Faculty and students increasingly refrain from discussing or engaging in pro‑Palestinian positions for fear of discipline, career harm, or visa consequences.
  • Academic freedom at risk: When certain views—especially anti‑Zionist viewpoints—are restricted or penalized, universities risk becoming arenas of ideological conformity, not open inquiry.
  • While some argue that such restrictions are meant to protect the safety of Jewish students, many observers contend they sacrifice critical thought and debate on geopolitically sensitive topics.

Further Context

  • In California’s UC system, longstanding regulations against “political indoctrination” could be applied to anti-Israel courses, although enforcement appears selective. Faculty standards around scholarly competence are also invoked selectively The Hill+15JCSA+15Reddit+15Reuters+7The Hill+7Reddit+7.
  • The AAUP publicly affirms that evidence-based criticism of Israel does not constitute antisemitism—but notes that many institutions deny this nuance in practice The Hill.

Related news on campus speech suppression

Columbia disciplines dozens of students for pro-Palestinian library protest

Reuters

Columbia disciplines dozens of students for pro-Palestinian library protest

Yesterday

Revealed: Harvard publisher cancels entire journal issue on Palestine shortly before publication

The Guardian

Revealed: Harvard publisher cancels entire journal issue on Palestine shortly before publication

2 days ago

Trump administration investigating Harvard's visa program eligibility

The Guardian

Trump administration investigating Harvard’s visa program eligibility

Today

SourcesAttach

Search

Publishing in Peer Reviewed Journals

I had 3 bad experiences with peer reviews. My article “beware of the handmaid scorned” examplifies the problem. An editor tried to engage me in a defense of the article. I refused, and it was published nonetheless. The polemic should have taken place publicly and the editors comments should have been published with my article. Refusal to publish because of disagreement with the substance of the article is not a suffficient reason. What do you think?

ChatGPT said:

​Your experience with the peer review process, particularly concerning your article “Beware of the Handmaid Scorned,” raises significant ethical considerations. The peer review system is designed to ensure the quality and integrity of scholarly publications, but it is not without its flaws.​

1. Editorial Disagreement and Publication Ethics

Refusing to publish an article solely due to disagreement with its substance, without identifying methodological flaws or ethical issues, is generally considered inappropriate. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) emphasizes that editorial decisions should be based on the validity and quality of the work, not on subjective disagreements. ​

2. Transparency in Editorial Processes

Your suggestion that editorial comments should be published alongside the article aligns with the principles of transparency and open discourse. While not all journals practice open peer review, there is a growing movement towards greater transparency in the review process to foster accountability and constructive dialogue. ​

3. Ethical Responsibilities of Editors

Editors have a duty to manage conflicts of interest and ensure that the review process is fair and unbiased. Engaging authors in a private defense of their work, especially when the article is ultimately published, may undermine the objectivity of the review process. COPE provides guidelines to help editors navigate such situations ethically. ​Publication Ethics+4Publication Ethics+4Wikipedia+4

Conclusion

Your experience underscores the need for ongoing discussions about the ethics and transparency of the peer review process. Advocating for open dialogue and adherence to established ethical guidelines can help improve the integrity of scholarly publishing.​Publication Ethics+2WIRED+2Time+2

Favicon

Sources

4o

Joe Rogan, Whoopi Goldberg, and Bull Sessions

I view both Joe Rogan’s participation in The Joe Rogan Experience, and Whoopi Goldberg’s participation in The View, as participations in public bull sessions. Bull sessions are associated with late-night college dorm informal conversations and discussions. I view them as experiments with ideas, which includes hypotheticals, trolling, and taking the roll of a devil’s advocate. All sorts of language is allowed. Nothing is censored.

Whatever Joe Rogan or Whoopi Goldberg said or believe should be protected as the freedom of speech. If any of their speech is offensive to some listeners, these listeners have the right not to listen.

However, the matter is complicated by the fact that Rogan and Goldberg are saying things within the orbit of private companies. Joe Rogan is sponsored by Spotify, and Whoopi Goldberg is employed by ABC which is owned by Disney General Entertainment. Both Spotify and ABC are interested in the bottom line, and nothing more. It is clear that Spotify is not about to get rid of Rogan, and ABC has given Goldberg a slap on the wrist.

There is a more serious problem with censorship as exercised by Facebook and Twitter. In a sense Spotify and ABC have a right to control and fire their employees, but Facebook and Twitter are trying to control and “fire” the general public by either shutting down their accounts for some period, or banning them altogether.

See also:

Pat Condell on the new censorship against “hate” speech

Political Correctness in Academia

How a student mob took over Evergreen State College in 2017

Bret Weinstein and his wife Heather Heyting after refusing to leave the campus on the controversial “Day of Absence,” resigned with a settlement with Evergreen State College in 2017. Here is a three-part documentary about the affair:

Part 1:Bret Weinstein, Heather Heying & the Evergreen Equity Council

Part 2: Teaching to Transgress

Part 3: The Hunted Individual

After watching the three videos about what happened at Evergreen State College in 2017, I have made the following judgment. Although the focus is on the dismissal of Heather Heyting and Bret Weinstein from the college, it is more like a study of how a mob is allowed to take control of a college.

What Bret Weinstein did at Evergreen by not participating on the “Day of Absence” was equivalent to striking a match in standing conditions which caused the match to burn.

What were these standing conditions? A college is a business enterprise (corporation). It has a board of trustees, a CEO, managers, and workers. And it has a clientele — the students. Everyone who works at the college is relying on their job for a livelihood (self-preservation).

The culmination of a student mob taking over was initiated by the new President, George Bridges, who was hired in 2015. He introduced a policy statement for the college to recognizing a phenomenon called “Racism,” and a school policy formulated by an Equity Council to fight against this Racism. Part of this policy required a contractual yearly written self-evaluation of racism by each white faculty member. There was also a policy of requiring some kind of “equity” justification for hiring new teachers. This policy was voted on openly by the faculty senate. And the majority — probably out of fear for losing their jobs — voted in favor.

As events progressed, it was evident that the white faculty had to submit to the wishes of student mobs. In fact the students were allowed by the President to take control of speech. The main one was a censorship (by booing, disruption, and silencing) as based on the assumption that to criticallly examine racism is Racism. Students were also allowed by the President to take physical control of buildings to the extant that faculty were in effect hostages.

Evergreen also had a tradition of a “The Day of Absence” on which black students and faculty were encouraged not to attend the college. In 2017, this holiday was switched to asking white teachers to absent themselves from the college. One white teacher, Bret Weinstein, refused, and held a class on this day.

A group of students — both students of color and white — confronted him outside his classroom and clamored for his dismissal. And as time progressed, it became something like a lynching mob. And the security personnel were ordered by the the President to stand down. In consequence Bret Weinstein had to go into hiding. And finally a settlement was reached with Bret Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying for their dismissal.

Comment: A school should be a place for the critical examination of everything, including the nature of what is called “racism.” And a critical discussion is not a free for all shouting. There must be some kind of procedural rules. In the case of Evergreen State College, the President made a fundamental mistake of taking an institutional stance against what he understood as “racism.” He further aggravated the situation by letting students control meetings, and not allowing security to intervene when necessary. This breakdown of institutional control has resulted in a drop of student enrollment and the failure of the college to currently find a successor President.

Political Correctness in Academia

Academics — just as policeman, soldiers, politicians — will do whatever it takes to keep their jobs. If they stray, they get fired or are denied tenure, as illustrated below.

I became aware of this censorship in academia by sheer accident in 1973. I was heading towards Key West in my VW camping bus, and on the way I stopped by the University of Florida where I came across a news item that a philosopher was in court fighting his firing. I had forgotten his name, but I do remember that he was a Marxist who spoke his mind in an unvarnished fashion. I stayed to listen to the testimony of the president and others. But I did not stay to find out the outcome of these hearings. But searching the internet, I have found out that the philosopher was Kenneth A. Megill, who appealed a denial of tenure by President Stephen C. O’Connell. I found the following court ruling: Dr. Kenneth A. MEGILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF the STATE OF FLORIDA et al., Defendants-Appellees.

I remember other such cases. The one that sticks in my mind was the dismissal of Saul Kripke. At the time I heard of this, I was — let us say — bewildered: Saul Kripke??? Again, scouring the internet, I found this informative piece: Israel Shenker, “Rockefeller University Hit by Storm Over Tenure,” Sept. 26, 1976. Reading the piece, I discover that a whole group of other eminent philosophers had to find employment elsewhere.

Other cases of professors being fired — the euphemism is non-reappointment — or denied tenure which come to mind, are that of Howard Zinn who was dismissed from Spelman College in 1963 for supporting student protests as an act of insubordination.

The case of Norman Finkelstein was especially disconcerting to me, and I wrote a big analytical piece about it: Norman Finkelstein, DePaul, and U.S. Academia: Reductio Ad Absurdum of Centralized Universities, July 23, 2007.

There is a short clip of me here, identified as Philosophy Teacher, Wright College, Chicago, offering my two bits :

Professor Finkelstein’s DePaul Farwell, Sept. 5. 2007:

Below is a full-documentary about Norman Finkelstein:

American Radical: The trials of Norman Finkelstein [2009]

Ward Churchill, a tenured professor, was fired from the University of Colorado in 2007 on alleged plagiarism charges but really for claiming in an article and a book that the 9/11/2001 attack against the World Trade Center was — to use Chalmers Johnson’s CIA word — a “blowback” for the U.S. policies in the Middle East. Churchill took the wrongfull dismissal case to a court, and won; but was not reinstated. The controversial article was “Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens,”, Sept. 12, 2001, and the book was On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality, 2003.

Below is Megyn Kelly’s commentary and interview with Ward Churchill in 2014.

There is also the case of David Graeber whose contract was not renewed at Yale. Below is a link to an interview with Graeber about this affair.

Joshua Frank, “David Graeber is Gone: Revisiting His Wrongful Termination from Yale,” Counterpunch, September 4, 2020.

The whole issue of censorship in America has recently been put on film: No Safe Spaces