The situation with harassment of Jewish students and the Trump administration’s actions is a mess where serious wrongs turn up on all sides. It’s vital, and difficult, to evaluate actions on principles rather than on tribal criteria. On the one hand, there is harassment and intimidation that hides under the innocent name of “protest.” On the other, there’s the improper invocation of laws and denial of due process against people accused of doing that.
Governmental overreach is the bigger concern, especially when the current executive branch is aggressively expanding its power. At the same time, intimidation on campus is a serious concern, and downplaying it as mere “protest” only gives the administration’s actions a facade of credibility. An example is a Washington Post article with the headline “New Trump demand to colleges: Name protesters — and their nationalities.”
Most of the actions discussed in the article aren’t “protests” in the legitimate sense. For example:
The request asked for a list of all students that the university notified of potential violations of the code of conduct or who were referred for suspension, suspended, expelled and/or referred to law enforcement for harassment of, or violence toward, students and faculty “on the basis of their Jewish ancestry.”
This bit shows both problems. On the one hand, it’s talking about harassment and violence, which are not legitimate forms of protest. On the other, the federal government is calling for information about matters where it has no legitimate business, such as claims of potential violations. It’s notoriously easy on many campuses for students to face allegations of harassment without getting a proper opportunity to defend themselves. Bringing the federal government in, not to make sure the schools follow due process but to add to the problems of the accused, is entirely inappropriate. It also isn’t new with this administration.
The Mahmoud Khalil case brings the issues into sharp focus. He doesn’t seem like a likable person. He’s associated with “Columbia University Apartheid Divest,” a group that dishonestly refers to the existence of Israel as “apartheid.” However, he hasn’t been charged with anything illegal beyond failing to list his connection to a United Nations agency on his visa application. He holds or held a green card. ICE arrested him and took him to a detention facility. His legal battle continues. People should never be arrested for holding unpopular opinions. U.S. law allows the government a lot of discretion in deporting people, sometimes even for things they have said, but the government has failed to show adequate grounds for such aggressive treatment.
It’s a common authoritarian trick to start by denying legal protections to the least popular people, in order to establish a precedent. “First they came for the Communists…”
There’s a similar situation with the people who vandalize Tesla dealerships and charging stations and harass owners of the vehicles. Some people call this mere “protest.” The Trump administration calls it “domestic terrorism.” Vandalism and other intentional property damage are crimes and should be prosecuted, but most cases are relatively low-level. Several have been more serious, including Molotov cocktails and gunfire. Even with these serious crimes, there are normal legal processes. The term “domestic terrorism” lets the federal government get involved and use extraordinary measures like sweeping search warrants.
The federal government has this power under the Patriot Act, which Democrats and Republicans alike have voted for years to keep extending. Trump didn’t pass the Patriot Act. Congress after Congress and president after president has kept holding on to this power. Are they supposed to be surprised when someone uses it?
It’s too easy to latch on to one side of a false dichotomy. Acts of harassment and petty vandalism aren’t legitimate forms of protest, but they aren’t domestic terrorism either. People accused of engaging in them should be treated according to institutional rules and laws and should get a chance to defend themselves, then punished appropriately if they’re found guilty. Likewise for more serious crimes. Following narratives rather than principles leads to injustice and abuse of power.