Following Controversy, Difficult Discussions in the Classroom Become Imperative

“Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules or code of conduct? Yes or no?” asked Elise Stefanik, a US representative for New York’s 21st congressional district.

During a hearing on December 5, 2023, the presidents of Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology seemed to have trouble answering this question.

Claudine Gay, the president of Harvard, responded, “Antisemitic rhetoric, when it crosses into conduct, that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation. That is actionable conduct, and we do take action.”

None of the presidents answered this question explicitly, emphasizing that it depends on the context.

“It does not does not depend on the context. The answer is yes, and this is why you should resign,” Stefanik countered.

It was worrisome to see the presidents of Penn, Harvard, and MIT give such cautiously worded responses that made it hard to understand their positions. It was not merely the condemnatory wording of the questions, but the fact that the presidents of these schools did not seem to understand their own policies.

Perhaps they were being evasive–too worried to answer “yes” or “no” to a question to avoid painting themselves in a bad light.

Or maybe it was that those asking the questions were being aggressive–they were asking yes or no questions to create a specific image. When people cannot elaborate on their response to a complicated question, it is the question that tells the story, not the answer.

What is acceptable in an academic setting is often puzzling, even more so in the wake of controversy. But it is a central question in our society, and it cannot be ignored.

A large portion of the recent controversy began after Hamas invaded Israel on October 7th. Numerous colleges were criticized for their reluctant responses (or lack thereof), or for ignoring the rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia on their campuses.

Protests by pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian groups on college campuses have increased tensions between students, faculty, and administrations, especially in the weeks following October 7th. Universities have struggled to contain the reaction, with concerns arising about security and free speech.

Over Thanksgiving in 2023, three Palestinian college students were shot unprovoked in Vermont. Thankfully, they all survived, but one of them may face permanent paralysis in his legs.

In November, three Jewish students sued New York University for allowing antisemitism to go unchecked. They claimed that it was a hostile environment where they felt unprotected by their teachers and peers. While NYU denied these claims, it is clear that students, Jewish and Muslim alike, feel unsafe in the wake of this event.

Nevertheless, this is not a new discussion. The recent events that have taken place raise an related question: what is higher education really for?

Following such a horrific and polarizing series of events, students, especially those who feel particularly close to the conflict, will react like most. People will usually only see what they are looking for. It is in the classroom that students should be taught to look further.

The line between hate speech, free speech, and that which is acceptable on a school campus is a difficult distinction to make. While everyone is entitled to their own opinions, it is simply foolish to allow those views to be expressed unlimitedly. Teachers have a responsibility to make the classroom a place where students can learn comfortably.

But often, when too many restrictions are placed on speech and expression, students may not feel comfortable either. They won’t know where to draw the line, or what they will be punished for doing.

Rules and even investigations to protect students are justified, sometimes necessary. But even if schools have a duty to provide a safe environment for their students, I don’t believe that absolute security should be emphasized at all times.

The Learning Zone Model, most recently developed by Tom Senninger, illustrates three areas: the comfort zone, the learning zone, and the panic zone. The comfort zone consists of things with which one is familiar; safe, but not learning anything new. The learning zone is where one is met with new experiences. In this zone, a student may feel uncomfortable, but they are ultimately learning. The panic zone is where a person is met with something threatening or unfamiliar. They usually cannot learn because of how scared they are in that situation.

This model emphasizes that it is important for students to feel comfortable, but also to learn. In order to do that, there must be moments when they are pushed beyond what is familiar.

This does not mean that hate speech and discrimination should be allowed to run rampant in schools. The line between a civil argument and discrimination must be established. Controlled debate and differing perspectives have to be encouraged. High schools and colleges should not try to solve the problem by silencing their students, but by encouraging different views in a classroom situation.

The world today teems with social change and increasing polarization. In the midst of this, schools should never silence ideas that are controversial, or stray away from arguments in fear of backlash.

As more divisive situations continue to shape our society, it is essential to foster healthy debate and differing opinions. More importantly, we must ensure that respect, open-mindedness, and acceptance remain hallmarks of our institutions.