The “University of Maryland’s president said a pro-Palestine group in favor of ‘armed struggle’ could reserve the campus quad on October 7 because of freedom of speech. Then when a Jew complained about it through email, he threatened to call the police on her,” notes Luke Rosiak.
The Daily Wire reports:
University of Maryland President Darryll J. Pines threatened to call the police on a Jewish woman for emailing criticism of the school’s response to anti-Semitism, the same week he said freedom of speech meant he couldn’t stop an anti-Israel group from reserving a campus quad on the anniversary of Hamas’s October 7 attack, according to emails obtained by The Daily Wire.
The emails show that on August 24, Pines emailed the woman — the mother of a student, who had never emailed the president — asking her to halt all communications with members of the school’s anti-Semitism task force, lest he “pursu[e] further action, including, without limitation, seeking the assistance of our University of Maryland Police Department.”
On August 28, Pines replied to another Maryland resident who expressed concern about the university granting Students For Justice in Palestine (SJP) a reservation to take over nine acres in the center of campus for an October 7 event, similar to one held on the second day of school honoring Palestinian “martyrs.” In the email, Pines defended the group, saying it “simply wanted to exercise their first amendment and free speech right to honor those Palestinian lives that have been lost as a result of this conflict.”
Pines in the email echoed SJP’s false claim that “approximately 150,000 lives [have been] lost during this conflict.” Even Hamas estimates the total number killed to be 40,000…..
When a Jewish parent complained to a campus task force on antisemitism and Islamaphobia (which contained an antisemite), “pressing it for information about its actions and raising concerns about its composition,” University of Maryland President Pines
did not address the parent’s questions. Rather, he went on the attack, the emails show. “It has come to my attention that you have recently sent several emails to certain members of our leadership team and faculty, as well as to the co-chairs of the UMD Joint Presidential-University Senate Task Force on Antisemitism and Islamophobia,” Pines wrote. “It is our view that those communications contain INAPPROPRIATE remarks and UNFOUNDED accusations, and otherwise reflect unacceptable behavior by any member of our community.”
“Immediately cease and refrain from sending any further communications to any members of the Task Force in connection with their work,” Pines added. “Please know that should you fail to comply with this request, we will consider pursuing further action, including, without limitation, seeking the assistance of our University of Maryland Police Department (UMPD).”
Many colleges have double standards about antisemitism, tolerating mistreatment of Jews when they would not tolerate mistreatment of any other minority group. At least a dozen colleges and universities have been sued over antisemitism on campus, ranging from allegations that schools allowed Jews to be physically excluded from certain portions of campus, to claims that Jews were subjected to a hostile educational environment, and claims that there were double standards in enforcement of campus rules, with anti-Israel protesters being given a free pass for rules violations that would have been punished if they had been committed by someone else.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty obtained a court ruling against UCLA, after it knowingly allowed pro-Hamas protesters to block certain Jewish students from areas of campus, which violated the First Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
Colleges have often let left-wing protesters get away with disruptive behavior and occupations of campus property they would never tolerate if conservatives did it. When Pro-Hamas protesters “shut down a Democratic” Congressman’s speech at the University of Maryland, the school’s president praised their action as an example of “democracy and free speech and academic freedom,” in comments he made to Capitol News Service.
Colleges have routinely allowed pro-Hamas protesters to block roads, disrupt classes with bullhorns, and prevent students from hearing what their instructors are teaching. As law professor David Bernstein observes, “the biggest problem with how many campuses are handling pro-Hamas protests” is “a failure to enforce existing, content-neutral rules” against misbehavior like going into classrooms to disrupt class with noisy protests that make it impossible to hear what the professor is saying. As history professor KC Johnson notes, “recent disruptive anti-Israel protests –students with bullhorns interrupting classes, etc)–were organized by unrecognized student groups. They’re ‘technically not permitted to stage on-campus demonstrations’” at schools like Harvard, because of their unrecognized status. So “Why hasn’t Harvard enforced its rules?”
By contrast, colleges have called in the police to try to catch and punish students who quietly express views that some minority students find offensive — such as posting flyers saying “It’s OK to Be White,” or flyers bearing the confederate flag.
The president of Western Connecticut State University threatened the unknown persons who posted flyers saying “It’s OK to Be White”, saying that they would face the “severest disciplinary actions, including dismissal as well as possible civil and criminal actions.” The university said its officials immediately reported the flyers to local and state police and the FBI office in New Haven, all of whom were investigating who made the flyers.
Never mind that far more offensive speech on campus has been deemed protected by the First Amendment in federal court rulings. For example, a federal appeals court overturned a fraternity’s discipline for a racist, sexist blackface skit. See Iota Xi Chapter v. George Mason University (1993). Another federal appeals court overturned sanctions against a professor for writings depicting blacks as racially inferior to whites. See Levin v. Harleston (1992).
Colleges’ stark ideological favoritism violates the First Amendment. According to the Supreme Court, government officials — and that includes state college administrators — are constitutionally forbidden to have ideological double standards in who they allow to demonstrate. (See Police Department v. Mosley (1972)).
Law-enforcement officials who investigate people for posting things like “It’s OK to Be White” flyers should be sued under the First Amendment, in light of court rulings such as White v. Lee (2001), which let citizens sue civil-rights officials who investigated them for speech perceived as prejudiced (speech opposing a housing project for a category of disabled people). A federal appeals court found that a protracted eight-month investigation of the speech violated the First Amendment by chilling constitutionally protected speech, notwithstanding the defendants’ claims that they were just enforcing the Fair Housing Act.
