Israel-Hamas War | News
Chancellor publishes statement on “free speech and responsibility”
Chancellor Andrew Martin published an online statement about free speech and responsibility amid community activism related to violence in Israel and in Palestine. Nov 29.
In his statement, Martin condemned the phrase “from the river to the sea,” which elicited responses of support from those who say it is antisemitic and opposition from those who say it is a Palestinian liberation chant.
Martin began his statement by writing how recent “turmoil and loss of innocent lives” has affected the world, including the WashU community.
“There have been statements made by members of our community — on social media, in the media, and elsewhere — that seem at best misplaced, and at worst, hurtful and disrespectful,” he wrote. “Individuals are certainly entitled to their opinions and to express them freely, however offensive or wrong-minded they may at times be.”
While Martin emphasized the right to free speech, he wrote that in some instances, speech can go too far.
“We also have a responsibility to look into instances where members of our community feel that speech crosses the line into harassment or intimidation, which we will not tolerate,” Martin wrote.
He also wrote about the importance of protecting free speech, even when it might spark debate.
“While we may personally find some of the opinions expressed in public forums ill-informed and tainted with implicit prejudice, we vigorously protect the right to express these views,” Martin wrote. “At the same time, we condemn the use of antisemitic phrases, Islamophobic rhetoric, the endorsement of criminal activity, or other language that is seemingly deployed in order to incite.”
Professor of Law Gregory Magarian, who has written a book about the First Amendment, said that Martin’s statement was constructive, especially given the diverse identity groups at WashU. He wrote in an email to Student Life that the statement did a good job at reconciling some crucial ideas that can conflict with one another.
“First, an institution like WashU should not restrict the rights of members of our community to express their viewpoints,” Magagiran wrote. “Second, when expression clearly crosses a line into harassment or threats, the institution properly may restrict that expression. Third, regardless of our freedom to express ourselves, we all have a responsibility to listen to one another and to respect one another’s identities and sensibilities.”
After discussing the importance of free speech, Martin wrote about the phrase “from the river to the sea,” a contentious phrase used by pro-Palestine political activists to call for liberation.
The origins of the phrase are disputed, with some sources saying that it became popular in the 1960s during the rise of the Palestinian nationalist movement and others calling it antisemitic.
“To use that phrase, particularly in circumstances where we know it will have a harmful impact, is well beneath the dignity of every member of our community,” Martin wrote. “This type of language does not build understanding; its contribution to the community is ill will, anger, distress, and sadness.”
Magarian wrote that he believed Martin’s statement went “awry” when it began to talk about the phrase “from the river to the sea,” which he writes is a shortened version of the slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”
“One strong reason for respecting the freedom of speech is that meanings of words and expressions often are complicated and contested,” Magarian wrote.
Magarian wrote that various groups see the phrase differently.
“Divergent Palestinian and pro-Palestinian speakers, from terrorist groups to peace activists, have used the slogan to call for different political outcomes,” Magarian wrote. “Interestingly, the political party that leads Israel’s government has used a parallel phrase: ‘[B]etween the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.’”
He continued that Martin’s statement undercut its commitment to carefully balancing opposing viewpoints.
“Selecting only that single pro-Palestinian slogan for condemnation also belies the statement’s rhetorical neutrality, particularly its admirably conjoined stand against anti-Semitism and Islamophobia,” Magarian wrote.
Second-year Ph.D. student Han Koehle, a member of RESIST WashU who also participated in a pro-Palestine walkout on campus on Oct 29, said that they do not believe the phrase is antisemitic.
“I think that if somebody said to me personally the phrase ‘from the river to the sea’ should not be used, my response would be white phosphorus should not be used,” Koehle said, referring to Israel’s use of the chemical weapon in Gaza.
Koehle, who is Jewish, said that the idea that Palestinian freedom could only mean mass violence against Jews is inaccurate.
“I’m not afraid of Palestinians having access to food, clean water, hospitals, or their own family homes,” Koehle said. “Everyone deserves those things, always.”
Koehle expressed frustration that Martin characterized discourse from previous pro-Palestine rallies as antisemitic, without addressing calls from these students for the University to cut ties with Boeing.
“I think that his claim to support responsible engagement does not fit with how he intentionally characterized [the] walkout as antisemitic, when this walkout personally called him out for [supporting] an ongoing genocide,” Koehle said.
Conversely, Jordan Gerson, Hillel Campus Rabbi, said that the phrase is antisemitic as it denies Israel the right to exist.
“[When people use the phrase], they’re calling for the destruction of the state of Israel and for a Palestinian state to exist from the river to the sea, which denies Israel’s right to exist,” Gerson said. “If we look at the tactics of the Hamas terrorists that infiltrated Israel on Oct. 7, we see the methodology that they would use to take over that territory.”
Additionally, Martin wrote that faculty members should express their opinions freely about the conflict, but remember the impacts of their actions on students after social media posts by two Washington University professors drew allegations of Islamophobia and antisemitism.
“[A]s educators, we hope you will consider the lessons you are teaching through your actions,” Martin wrote. “You have an opportunity to express your views and a linked responsibility to do so in a manner that does not inflame members of our community – particularly students, who you are here to teach. We all should model concern for our students and our colleagues.”
This is Martin’s first statement published to his official blog since May 2022, titled “Critical thinking, free speech, and civil discourse,” another piece connected to the right to speech.
Some of Martin’s past statements, including one titled “Condemnation of antisemitism and Islamophobia,” have been sent out to the University community via email.
Vice Chancellor for Marketing and Communications, Julie Flory told Student Life that Martin chose to write the post on his official online blog, and that his blog posts are usually not sent out in an email.
Martin sent out four statements to students via email during this semester.
Magarian said that he is extremely concerned about the state of free speech on college campuses, primarily about institutional suppression of speech.
“No institution of higher education should discourage or punish political expression, especially expression that criticizes the positions and actions of the U.S. government.”