Education First, Politics Second

Like many of you, I’m approaching the fall semester with dread. Not the usual first-day-of-classes jitters, but a deeper concern about whether we’ll see the same kinds of conflicts that disrupted our campuses this past year.

A “war” is unfolding on many of the nation’s most prominent campuses, with the Israel-Palestine conflict serving as a catalyst. That conflict spotlighted long-standing issues related to academic freedom, faculty autonomy, the boundaries between scholarship and activism, and the role of universities in political and social discourse. The intensity of the clash over Gaza has forced universities to confront these issues head-on, exposing the complex and contentious challenge of balancing diverse viewpoints in an academic setting.

The Israel-Palestine conflict, deeply rooted in history and charged with political, ideological, religious, emotional and cultural significance, has exposed deep divisions among faculty, students and administrators over political engagement and social justice advocacy. These divisions are not new, but the conflict has brought them into sharper focus, underscoring the challenges universities face in maintaining their role as neutral grounds for intellectual inquiry while responding to the passionate calls for social justice from various stakeholders.

The concept of the scholar-activist has proven particularly controversial. Proponents of scholar-activism argue that academics have a moral responsibility to engage with timely social, moral and political issues, using their expertise to advocate for change. They believe that universities should not be isolated from the real-world issues and that scholars should contribute to the public good by actively participating in political discourse.

Critics respond by arguing that activism inevitably compromises academic objectivity. They fear that when faculty members engage in activism, particularly on contentious issues like the Israel-Palestine conflict, they may unintentionally—or intentionally—discriminate against students who do not share their views. This creates a chilling effect in the classroom, where students feel pressured to conform to the dominant ideology or risk academic or social penalties.

They believe, as I do, that academics have a professional duty to foster open debate, engage in dialogue with colleagues from regimes they may consider adversarial and write letters of recommendation for students applying to jobs, internships or graduate programs at companies or institutions they may personally disapprove of.

These critics call for a clear wall of separation between scholarship and political engagement, asserting that universities should be spaces where ideas are examined dispassionately and where academic freedom is protected from the influence of political agendas.

The debate over academic activism raises key questions about the limits of academic freedom and whether it should include politically charged actions. Should faculty be free to express controversial or polarizing views in the classroom, or should academic freedom be restricted to prevent activism from overshadowing the academic mission? These questions are central to the ongoing discussion about the role of universities in society.

When departments and professional organizations issue statements or take positions on the conflict, they spark significant controversy regarding their autonomy to express collective opinions. While these statements can be viewed as exercises of academic freedom and solidarity with those affected, they also raise concerns about whether they truly represent the views of all members of a department or professional society and whether they might lead to internal conflicts or external pressures.

The controversy has extended to Title VI issues, which have become increasingly contentious. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin in programs receiving federal funding. This provision has been invoked in disputes over campus events and statements related to the Israel-Palestine conflict, leading to accusations of antisemitism and Islamophobia from both sides. Each side accuses the other of promoting or tolerating discriminatory behavior, prompting some legislators to call for investigations into potential Title VI violations. The involvement of federal authorities adds complexity to an already tense situation, as universities must navigate legal and regulatory challenges while striving to maintain an open and inclusive environment.

As student protests and demonstrations increased, so did debates over campus policing. The response to these protests, especially when they involve encampments or other forms of direct action, has become a focal point for discussions on free speech, safety and the appropriate level of intervention by campus and public authorities. Universities must balance the right to protest with the need to ensure the safety of the entire campus community. This balancing act is made more difficult by differing opinions on what constitutes acceptable protest versus what crosses the line into disruption or intimidation.

The Gaza-Israel conflict has spurred a wide range of divisive issues that have simmered on campuses for years. These issues include free speech, political correctness, endowment investments, donor influence and the politicization of the classroom. For example, debates over whether universities should divest from companies involved in certain geopolitical conflicts reflect broader concerns about the ethical responsibilities of higher education institutions. Similarly, the influence of donors who may push for specific political or ideological positions raises questions about the integrity and independence of academic institutions.

Political correctness, long a flashpoint in campus culture wars, has been amplified by the Gaza-Israel conflict. Debates over the limits of acceptable speech have intensified, with some advocating for curtailing viewpoints perceived as antisemitic or Islamophobic, while others argue that restricting speech undermines academic freedom. This tension between inclusivity and free expression is not new, but it has taken on new urgency as universities grapple with how to create environments that are both welcoming to all students and conducive to open debate.

The conflict has also underscored deeper cultural and identity issues within universities. As campuses become more diverse, clashes over cultural values have become more pronounced, forcing universities to confront difficult questions about inclusivity, respect for differing perspectives and the role of education in shaping cultural and political values. These cultural clashes are not just about the Israel-Palestine conflict; they reflect broader societal shifts and the challenges of navigating a pluralistic and often polarized society.

University administrators are struggling to balance ensuring a respectful learning environment with maintaining free expression. This conflict challenges universities to reflect on their mission: Are they merely places of learning or do they have a responsibility to take stances on political issues and influence broader societal values? The way universities handle these issues will affect public perception and trust in higher education. If universities are seen as failing to uphold their educational mission or as capitulating to external pressures, they risk losing their credibility as neutral spaces for learning and inquiry.

To navigate these challenges, universities should reaffirm their commitment to academic freedom, ensuring that faculty and students can engage in open inquiry and debate without fear of censorship, harassment or intimidation. They must develop clear policies that protect free speech while addressing hate speech and discrimination. These policies should be designed to foster robust debate while maintaining a respectful and inclusive campus environment. Encouraging dialogue and fostering understanding across different perspectives are essential to reducing polarization and creating a campus culture that values diversity of thought.

In the face of external pressures, universities should prioritize their educational mission above any political agenda. By focusing on critical inquiry, inclusivity and the pursuit of knowledge, they can preserve their integrity and remain spaces for learning and growth. This demands a steadfast commitment to the core values of higher education, even when it is difficult or unpopular.

Campuses should be hubs for inquiry and discovery, where partisanship and politics are welcomed but subordinated to the institutions’ core mission. Keep the classroom a sanctuary for debate and dialogue, placing scholarship over slogans, integrity over outside influence and critical thinking over political posturing.

Education first, politics second.