‘I t’s more scared of you than you are of it.” That’s the advice we give children when they’re frightened by a creepy-crawly. Yet it seems this ordinary wisdom — remembering one’s relative size and strength — is easily forgotten by those in positions of authority.
Across the country, college campuses have seen appalling outbreaks of antisemitic rhetoric and disruption in the name of anti-Israel protests. Many of these protesters are violating their universities’ own codes of conduct. Even side-stepping the political controversy, most universities do not permit encampments on their lawns. So why are those in positions of leadership struggling to enforce their own policies?
It ought to be the case that the students are more afraid of those in charge than the other way around. And on closer inspection — most are.
Take the student leader of Columbia University’s anti-Israel Gaza Solidarity Encampment, Khymani James, who said on an Instagram Livestream that “Zionists don’t deserve to live.” When asked about the incident, a Columbia University spokesman said that while they don’t comment on individual cases, “when there are violations of student conduct policies, they are reviewed and disciplinary measures are applied.” Later, James said he “misspoke in the heat of the movement, for which I apologize.”
Thuggish tendencies aside, most students respond to normal human incentives. The way to deal with these students is to use disciplinary measures to remind them who is in charge. So far, Columbia University’s president, Minouche Shafik, has failed to deal with the issue. As Dan wrote on the Corner, “If Shafik doesn’t show the encamped demonstrators who’s in charge, then she’s not — they are. And from that point on, she is not the pres-i-dent of anything.”
Perhaps a more disturbing example of abdicating authorities came in the U.K. last week when Metropolitan Police officers in London threatened to arrest Gideon Falter, the chief executive of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, if he didn’t move away from anti-Israel protesters.
A police officer informed Falter, who was wearing a kippah and had just left a synagogue and wished to cross the street on which anti-Israel protesters were marching, that his presence was “provocative” and “antagonizing” toward the protesters. He said: “You are quite openly Jewish. This is a pro-Palestinian march. I am not accusing you of anything, but I am worried about the reaction to your presence” (emphasis added).
Later, another officer explained that if Falter didn’t move to another location, he would be arrested for “breach of the peace.”
If British police think that they cannot contain the threat to public safety posed by a particular demonstration, they should call in backup or else prohibit dangerous mobs from congregating. It is outrageous to attempt to contain the threat by banning the presence of Jews whose mere existence near a demonstration may be met with aggression.
Sadly, this incident isn’t isolated. In a previous column I asked, What has happened to the British police? Noting other instances in which “threats have gone virtually unchallenged at anti-Israel protests throughout the country, while the innocent have been penalized.”
The rotten thinking goes all the way to the top of the Metropolitan Police leadership. Matt Twist, a very senior Met officer, defended the officers’ treatment of Falter, saying that his presence near a march could be “provocative.” Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said he was “appalled” by the incident. Later, the Met apologized. Again, who is in charge here?
The same crisis of leadership occurs in response to transgender extremists, who have been very successful in lobbying for their interests over women.
In Scotland, fear of upsetting the transgender lobby was an explicit reason that women who are critical of transgender ideology were excluded from the legal protection given to others by recent hate-speech legislation. And the same fear helps explain why men who say they are women were included in the definition of “women” for an “anti-misogyny” bill — meaning that women may be prosecuted for not recognizing men as women.
When authorities give in to fear, decent and law-abiding behavior is punished while those threatening abuse and disruption are rewarded.
Politically, this fear is also self-sabotaging. Opposing deranged activists generally means standing up for truth and for commonsense values, whether that means protecting children or ensuring safety and respect for Jews. These are popular with the public.
If the threat that these activists present is overestimated, it can become self-fulfilling. Doing the right thing is not as difficult as many imagine. In fact, in the long run it is decisively less costly than giving in to thugs.