New York Times columnist offers badly distorted framework for viewing the current campus protests
But many college administrators are viewing them the same way
David Leonhardt writes a daily newsletter for the New York Times. Often, it consists of presenting both sides of a contentious issue.
This is a valuable service to readers of the Times because it may be the only exposure they get to a conservative point of view. And often, there are, indeed, two reasonably strong sides to contentious issues.
However, in the case of the current campus protests against Israel, Leonhardt’s “on-the-one-hand/on-the-other-hand approach doesn’t just fall flat. It borders on the obscene.
Arnold Kling, an economist, published a book a decade ago that offered a way to think about the core difference between progressives and conservatives. Progressives, Kling wrote, see the world as a struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed, and they try to help the oppressed. Conservatives see the world as a struggle between civilization and barbarism — between order and chaos — and they try to protect civilization. . . .
The debate over pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia and other universities has become an example. If you want to understand why university leaders are finding the situation so hard to resolve, Kling’s dichotomy is useful: The central question for colleges is whether to prioritize the preservation of order or the desire of students to denounce oppression.
But students can denounce what they claim is oppression without creating chaos and disorder. So where’s the dilemma?
Leonhardt tries to describe it:
For the student protesters, the injustice in Gaza is so horrific that it takes precedence over almost anything else.
The death toll in Gaza since Oct. 7 is more than 30,000, the Gaza Ministry of Health reports [he means “claims’]. Entire neighborhoods are rubble. Israel has slowed the entry of basic supplies into Gaza, and many families are hungry. . . .
The protesters view this suffering as an atrocity that demands action, much as Jim Crow laws, the Vietnam War and South African apartheid did for earlier students. . . .
If classes must be canceled and graduation ceremonies can’t happen, all the better, the students say. The disruptions will force the world to confront what the protesters describe as a genocide.
Against this, in Leonhardt’s telling, critics of the protesters fall back on the need for order:
For the protesters’ critics, the breakdown of order is the central problem — because a community that descends into chaos can’t function.
Protesters have frequently violated colleges’ rules. They have erected tents in public places and overwhelmed those areas. Columbia has switched to hybrid classes because of the turmoil.
Even worse, some protests have involved harassment and violence. The University of Michigan had to cut short an honors ceremony for students. At Vanderbilt, more than 20 protesters stormed the president’s office, injuring a security guard and shattering a window. At Columbia, videos have shown protesters threatening Jewish students with antisemitic vitriol, including a sign talking about Hamas’s “next targets.”
Thus, says Leonhardt, college administrators “will have to make difficult decisions about what values to prioritize.”
This attempt to reduce the situation on campus to a clash of values — justice vs. order — is sickening for several reasons. First, because any group of violent (or “mostly peaceful”) malcontents can cast their protest as supported by “horrific injustice,” any protest movement can justify the strife and chaos it causes through this way, with absurd results.
Stealing a presidential election would qualify as a horrific injustice. “Our democracy” — and not just ours — depends on a fair election for the nation’s highest office. If we don’t have that, we don’t have democracy. Thus, the January 6 rioters could justify their assault on the Capitol on the theory that “stopping the steal” should “take precedence over almost everything else.”
Pro-Nazi demonstrators in early 1930s Germany could also be cast as warriors for justice. Their disruptive protests, the argument would go, were justified by injustice — the overly harsh treatment of Germany by the victors of World War I and the horrific hardships of the times.
Disruptive protests by communists could be justified by citing the “horrific injustices” inflicted by capitalism. Indeed, some of those who rally to the anti-Israel cause could just as easily be basing their activism on calls for the overthrow of capitalism. “Occupy Wall Street,” and all that.
In sum, because Leonhardt’s construct can justify almost anything, it justifies nothing.
Second, the anti-Israel protesters aren’t just demanding things that, in the abstract, relate to a commonly accepted understanding of “justice.” The leaders of these protests aren’t just calling for a ceasefire, the delivery of more food to Gaza, or university divestment from arms manufacturers who deal with Israel.
First and foremost, they seek the destruction of Israel and, consequently, the extermination of Israeli Jews. Their slogans tell us this. Their viciousness towards Jews on campus tells us this.
Germans who attended Nazi rallies in the early days of that party might only have wanted a better deal for Germany, but their leaders had something much more — something truly evil — in mind. Some of the students demonstrating against the war in Gaza might want nothing more than peace in that territory and university divestment. But their leaders have evil in mind — more October 7s until what is now the land of Israel is Judenrein. (Ending arms sales to Israel is really just a means to that end, by the way.)
Third, Leonhardt’s reductionism erroneously removes the desire for “justice” from the side of the argument that criticizes the protests. As he acknowledges, some protests have involved harassment of Jews, as well as violence. Since he wrote his piece, the situation has become even worse.
Justice demands that Jewish students not be harassed on campus. To insist on this is not to elevate order above justice.
Imagine that black students were being targeted by protesters. Would Leonhardt even think about saying that the protesters represented the forces of justice and their critics the forces of order? Of course not. But because it’s Jews, not blacks, who are the targets here, Leonhardt resorts to Kling’s framework and misapplies it.
And let’s not forget — as Leonhardt seems to — the massacre of Jews unmatched since the Holocaust (talk about horrific injustice) that triggered the war that triggered the protests. Leonhardt should explain how a protest movement whose vanguard supports the perpetrators of that massacre are on the side of justice, while those who criticize the protesters are simply for law and order.
Leonhard’s analysis is disgraceful. But it’s useful as a window into the left-liberal mindset and as an explanation of why so many colleges are tolerating the protests.
I’ve been asked, why haven’t college administrators done more to curb the protests that are causing so much disruption. The easy answer is, lack of nerve.
There is that. But the more fundamental explanation is that college administrators view the situation the way Leonhardt does.
Like Leonhardt, they view the protesters as warriors for justice. They believe the protesters’ cause is just. They either overlook or are down with the protestors’ real objective — undermining the state of Israel.
Israelis are “white” (though not really) and Western. Palestinians are “brown,” “the other,” and “oppressed.” Thus, the pro-Palestinian claims are at least on par with the need to have a functioning university and to protect Jewish students from real aggressions, not “micro” ones.
Obscene though this mindset is, it prevails among many left-liberals, including many college administrators.
I agree with everything except your use of the word liberal. These are not liberals. Liberals do not believe in "social justice" a Marxist concept. They support the fair application of the rule of law. They accept the right of the aggrieved to peacefully demonstrate or protest but they don't regard the theater of "protest" as a serious way to effect change. They don't see the world through an oppressed oppressor frame. There are very few liberals left in the Democratic Party which is filled with RADICALS and some (Like President Biden) who are cowed or frightened by Marxist radicals. Radical perspective has completely engulfed the education system of the United States. Not that every teacher is a communist. But virtually all the educational establishment has ingrained the belief thar radical tactics are proper and appropriate. This is true of the academy and the lower education establishment which teaches children this. The mainstream media believes it. I have seen mega wealthy television news personalities writing on Twitter that taking over campuses is a common and long established method for students to share their concerns and how dare the police intervene. This is needless to say crazy. So those you think of as liberal are not liberal. They are radical. Even if they don't realize they are radical, it's become so normalized that they are. It's become a "right wing " position that "children should be taught to love their own society and civilization." If Republicans promote a bill to push this into curriculum the Democrats who are radical not liberal will oppose it. All of this has become so normalized among the elites. I don't know how we get back from it because I don't think Trump is the man to lead us back to real liberalism and away from radicalism
Mr Mirengoff, an excellent article. I only beg to differ on your opening paragraphs about David Leonhardt. I rarely find him to make fair comparisons on anything. He always distorts one side of an argument and does this while pretending to be even handed. I find his column infuriating most days. He misleads his readers and helps them maintain their prejudices. Here is from his column today:
“At times, Israel has been a reluctant negotiator. It has been hesitant to withdraw its troops, free more Palestinian prisoners or allow Gazans to return to their homes — or what remains of them — in the north.”
During WWII, Eisenhower was reluctant to remove his troops. Israel hs been reluctant to release 100 convicted terrorist murderers for each civilian hostage. Israel won’t let Palestinians return to the north because it is still a war zone.
I am making these points. David Leonhardt never makes such points.
To parody him: we have two choices for president this election but each hs his drawbacks. One is an old man but wonderful and competent with a clear and principled vision for America. But yes, he is old. The other candidate has an excellent dental record but he is a psychopath and narcissist who will destroy the world, but yes he has great teeth. That’s why the political parties have each selected their candidate. Conservatives worry about age but like good teeth. Democrats are concerned with saving democracy. — that is a David Leonhardt “balanced” article.