Speech Or Silence: The Price Of Freedom
All Choices Have Consequences
Free Speech is under assault by the Trump Administration.
At least, that is what we are told by numerous academics, each of whom is outraged that the Trump Administration is choosing not to spend taxpayer dollars with colleges and universities whose behavior they find obnoxious and intolerable. Those same academics go on to tell us that withholding government funds from colleges and universities is “coercive” and they “reject” it.
As leaders of America’s colleges, universities, and scholarly societies, we speak with one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education. We are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight. However, we must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses. We will always seek effective and fair financial practices, but we must reject the coercive use of public research funding.
As of 10AM Eastern Time today (April 28, 2025), this open letter from the American Association of Colleges and Universities had garnered 523 signatures, and counting.
As I have stated many times for many years, Free Speech is a moral imperative. Not merely is it woven into the fabric of the United States Constitution, but even before there was a Constitution there was a moral obligation to hear even dissident voices.
Yet nothing in this world comes without consequence, and even freedom comes with a price that must be paid. Whether we wish to pay the price or not is irrelevant—the price of freedom is exactly what it is.
This is true throughout the United States. It is true in the groves of academe. It is true everywhere.
America’s academics can “reject” President Trump’s actions to their heart’s content. They will not escape the consequences both of their speech and their rejection.
Violence And Hate Are Not Speech
We must be clear on one key point: violence is not speech. Hatred is not speech.
Where people indulge, endorse, or allow violence and hatred, they are not engaging in speech.
We must bear this in mind as we apprehend this open letter from America’s academics, because violence and hatred are very much the context for the issues it raises regarding access to taxpayer dollars.
Specifically, America’s academics are challenging decisions such as that by Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to pull billions of dollars in grants and contracts from Harvard University owing to its failure to take a strong stance against antisemitism by both students and faculty.
The departments of Education; Health and Human Services; and the US General Services Administration announced Monday they are reviewing $8.7 billion in grants and more than $255 million worth of contracts between Harvard, its affiliates and the federal government, according to a news release.
“Harvard has served as a symbol of the American Dream for generations – the pinnacle aspiration for students all over the world to work hard and earn admission to the storied institution,” Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement.
“Harvard’s failure to protect students on campus from anti-Semitic discrimination - all while promoting divisive ideologies over free inquiry - has put its reputation in serious jeopardy. Harvard can right these wrongs and restore itself to a campus dedicated to academic excellence and truth-seeking, where all students feel safe on its campus.”
This is what the signatories to the open letter above consider to be the “coercive use of public research funding."
Those signatories also consider the Trump Administration’s decision to cancel some $400 Million in grants to Columbia University over similar concerns regarding antisemitic violence. Secretary McMahon was just as explicit over that funding pull:
“Since October 7, Jewish students have faced relentless violence, intimidation, and anti-Semitic harassment on their campuses — only to be ignored by those who are supposed to protect them,” she said in a statement. “Universities must comply with all federal antidiscrimination laws if they are going to receive federal funding. For too long, Columbia has abandoned that obligation to Jewish students studying on its campus. Today, we demonstrate to Columbia and other universities that we will not tolerate their appalling inaction any longer.”
This is what the the American Association of Colleges and Universities finds objectionable.
Federal Dollars Bring Federal Laws
We should also note that Secretary McMahon followed this statement regarding charges of antisemitism on college campuses with written notice to 60 different institutions of higher education warning them of potential enforcement actions under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act for failures to take proper measures to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic discrimination.
“The Department is deeply disappointed that Jewish students studying on elite U.S. campuses continue to fear for their safety amid the relentless antisemitic eruptions that have severely disrupted campus life for more than a year. University leaders must do better,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “U.S. colleges and universities benefit from enormous public investments funded by U.S. taxpayers. That support is a privilege and it is contingent on scrupulous adherence to federal antidiscrimination laws.”
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act1 is explicit and simple: no entity receiving federal funding is allowed to discriminate, period:
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
Title VI further directs the Federal government to terminate grants and other funding to institutions2 which do engage in any form of discrimination.
Compliance with any requirement adopted pursuant to this section may be effected (1) by the termination of or refusal to grant or to continue assistance under such program or activity to any recipient as to whom there has been an express finding on the record, after opportunity for hearing, of a failure to comply with such requirement, but such termination or refusal shall be limited to the particular political entity, or part thereof, or other recipient as to whom such a finding has been made and, shall be limited in its effect to the particular program, or part thereof, in which such noncompliance has been so found.
If a college is permitting anti-Semitic behavior on its campuses, it is placing any and all federal funding it receives at risk.
Not only is that the explicit text of Title VI, that is the explicit warning Secretary McMahon sent out on March 10. Further, revocation of grants and termination of contracts for failure to address antisemitism on college campuses is not merely a permissible consequence, it is a legally mandated one.
Title VI fundamentally writes into federal law a long-standing common sense law known as Murphy’s Golden Rule: “He who has the Gold, makes the Rule.”
As the Federal government has the “gold” (grants and contracts), it makes the “rule”, and the rule is there is to be no discrimination including antisemitism on college campuses.
Nor can the colleges claim to be caught off guard by this requirement. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act has been on the books since its passage in 19643. Moreover, it has been longstanding policy within the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights that a number of anti-Semitic behaviors rise to the level of impermissible discrimination under Title VI4, and the courts have been sympathetic to that policy5.
Additionally, President Trump’s policies have long been in opposition to antisemitism. In December of 2019, during his first term of office, President Trump issued Executive Order 13899, “Combating Anti-Semitism”6, making it clear that anti-Semitic discrimination would be pursued by his administration as a Title VI violation:
It shall be the policy of the executive branch to enforce Title VI against prohibited forms of discrimination rooted in anti-Semitism as vigorously as against all other forms of discrimination prohibited by Title VI.
President Trump reaffirmed Executive Order 13899 with Executive Order 14188, “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism“7.
It should come as no surprise to any institution of higher education that the Trump Administration is cracking down on anti-Semitic discrimination in colleges and universities. Under Trump Administration policy, the rule which attaches to federal “gold” is there is to be no discrimination including antisemitism on college campuses.
Period.
End of Sentence.
End of Discussion.
Yes, There HAS Been Anti-Semitic Discrimination
Another point about which we must be explicit: has been anti-Semitic discrimination on college campuses across the country.
As I have discussed previously, most if not all of the “pro-Palestinian protests” which have occurred on college campuses since the genocidal terrorist attack by Hamas on October 7, 2023, is distinctly anti-Semitic in tone and in consequent behavior.
When the media reporting quotes the “protestors” making statements about “Burn Tel Aviv to the ground”, we are well past the point of debating contentiousness.
“[Izz ad-Din] Al-Qassam [Brigades], make us proud, take another soldier out,” anti-Israel demonstrators chanted on Friday night in a video published on social media by pro-Palestinian activist ThizzL. “We say justice, you say how? Burn Tel Aviv to the ground. Go Hamas, we love you. We support your rockets too.”
When a protest against the actions of the nation of Israel cause Jewish individuals at Columbia University to fear for their safety, it is harassment, not speech. That was the case last spring.
Rabbi Elie Buechler, director of the Orthodox Union-Jewish Learning Initiative on Campus at Columbia/Barnard, wrote on Sunday morning in a group chat with over 290 students that “The events of the past few days, especially last night, have made it clear that Columbia University’s Public Safety and the NYPD cannot guarantee Jewish students’ safety in the face of extreme antisemitism and anarchy.”
When Columbia University can assemble a 91-page report detailing how Jewish students were physically harassed and assaulted, that is intimidation and violence, not peaceable assembly and not speech.
Jewish students at Columbia University were chased out of their dorms, received death threats, spat upon, stalked and pinned against walls, as the Ivy League school devolved into a cesspool of antisemitic hate in the wake of Hamas’ Oct. 7 murderous raid on Israel.
When classes have to be canceled for fear of student safety, we are dealing with violence, not speech.
When Jewish students are advised to leave Columbia University for their own safety, we are dealing with violence, not speech.
Harvard University has over the past year been named in multiple lawsuits alleging “rampant” antisemitism, and former Harvard President Claudine Gay’s ineffectual response to such charges—including her failure to condemn calls for Jewish genocide during an appearance before Congress—led to her resigning under a cloud of controversy in January 2024.
Moreover, the antisemitism is hardly new. An October 2016 study8 by the Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies found that a substantial number of Jewish students at American colleges and universities had experienced various levels of antisemitism.
Perversely, the extent of anti-Semitic conduct within American higher education as well as its lengthy history gives rise to yet another form of antisemitism—gaslighting by the likes of Mathias Risse, Faculty Director, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, who in response to the Education Department’s notifications of civil rights enforcement actions attempted a lengthy dismissal of the allegations.
But the large-scale characterization of American campuses as Antisemitic strikes me as an exercise of gaslighting by the Trump camp.
One almost has to admire the mental gymnastics Risse uses to arrive at this conclusion, beginning with a convoluted definition of “gaslighting”:
X gaslights Y in the presence of Z if X tries to persuade Y and Z that Y violates certain values or commitments that X, Y, and Z all are taken to endorse, whereas in fact it is X that violates them.
Merriam-Webster offers a far more straightforward definition:
the act or practice of grossly misleading someone especially for one's own advantage
At the core of the idea behind the term is psychological manipulation. People who gaslight are applying a variety of manipulative tricks to control and ultimately abuse others. While this most frequently occurs in the context of intimate relationships9, the techniques involved have application in the context of broader communications as well. Specifically, those who attempt to gaslight even in the public sphere do so by challenging the legitimacy of others.
The most paradigmatic gaslighting behaviors were direct accusations of epistemic incompetence, such as being “crazy,” “overly emotional,” or having deficient cognitive abilities. These accusations could take the form of concern for survivors but were more often framed as insults. It is possible for perpetrators to induce self-doubt by verbally implying or creating situations that imply that survivors are epistemically incompetent or behaving unreasonably. When confronted about their behavior, perpetrators may cause survivors to doubt themselves by turning-the-tables, defined as changing the topic of conversation toward some perceived bad behavior of the survivor. This led to situations in which survivors hoping to resolve points of relationship tension were left apologizing for unrelated or non-problematic behavior.
Risse does exactly this with his convolutions about how “anti-Zionism” is not “antisemitism”. As the behaviors at Columbia University as well as Harvard—behaviors which are extremely well documented—demonstrate, time and again this is a distinction without much difference.
To understand this, we need only look at the statements by “pro-Palestinian” protest groups such as Columbia University Apartheid Divest, which quite explicitly valorizes and celebrates Hamas:
However, even without considering that aspect, there is no doubt that CUAD unabashedly supports Hamas. Their own published statements make that crystal clear. We need look no further than their Substack essay valorizing October 7, 2023 on its one-year anniversary to see that.
Under a remarkably clear October sky, Columbia students flooded the steps of Low Library to commemorate the anniversary of the historic Al-Aqsa Flood.
However, we absolutely can look farther, for CUAD has not been shy about publishing such statements.
CUAD took great pains to derogate and demean Veterans Day in 2024, casting aspersions on all veterans of America’s armed forces.
On November 11, CUAD honored Martyrs Day. In the US, this holiday, known as Veterans Day, was created to honor the patriotism, love of country, and sacrifice of American veterans. We refuse to honor the US war machine and its imperial project, and we recognize atrocities unleashed on others through its existence. Instead, we have decided to take this day and claim it for those martyred by the Israel-US war machine as Martyrs Day. Today, we will honor the patriotism, love of country, and sacrifice of our martyrs in Palestine.
If Matthias Risse is ignorant of these and other statements by “pro-Palestinians”, then we should question the basis upon which he concludes that there is no “large scale” anti-Semitic behavior on college campuses.
If Matthias Risse is not ignorant of these statements, then we need to question his motivations in denying their explicit anti-Semitic content.
Free Speech Is Freedom Of Choice, Not Freedom From Consequence
What the American Association of Colleges and Universities either fails to grasp or does not wish to acknowledge is that Free Speech hinges upon having a freedom of choice. It does not hinge upon a freedom from consequence (which is a “freedom” that does not now nor has ever existed anywhere).
Free Speech means people may choose to speak their minds. They may say whatever truths they have within them to say.
But Free Speech also means accepting that certain consequences come from all choices.
Dr. Martin Luther King did not complain about his incarceration in “Letter From A Birmingham Jail.” He accepted that was the consequence for the choices he made in protesting segregation in Birmingham Alabama.
The authors of the Declaration of Independence did not imagine their stance on American independence would be free from consequence, but rather declared their willingness to back that declaration with “our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
When college administrators choose to elevate the noxious behaviors of the supporters of terrorism over the rights of Jewish students to pursue their educational ambitions without harassment or intimidation, when they choose to give greater voice to the supporters of Hamas than to others, they choose to put themselves at odds with the federal government. They choose to put their federal funding at risk.
No college was coerced by the federal government into tolerating antisemitism on its campuses. No university was coerced into relegating their Jewish students to second-class status. No institution of higher learning is coerced into accepting federal funds—taxpayer dollars—for their research and educational activities.
Free Speech means freedom of choice, and freedom of choice is inherently dangerous. Free Speech means I can call out those who apologize for and defend antisemitism, and all forms of bigotry and hatred. Free Speech means I am at risk of being attacked—online, and perhaps even in person—for doing so. Free Speech means I will offend at least some people by writing this. Free Speech means I will alienate at least some people by having a position they do not like.
I am not being coerced into this, just as colleges and universities are not being coerced by the Education Department’s aggressive enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
The teachable moment in this should be this lesson about consequence. We all must make choices. We all must choose when to speak, and how. We all must choose what consequences we are prepared to accept, and we must decide what consequences we wish to avoid.
If colleges and universities wish to retain their federal grants and contracts, if they wish to retain their access to taxpayer dollars, the choices for them are simple and certain: do not engage in antisemitism, do not engage in any form of discrimination against any student or faculty, and do not make any excuses for any form of discrimination.
That college administrators find this a difficult choice to make says quite a bit about what sort of people they are, and in what regard they hold their students and faculty. None of what it says is particularly nice and definitely not complimentary.
The American Association of Colleges and Universities chooses to reject the Trump Administration’s “coercion”. I choose to reject the American Association of Colleges and Universities’ lunacy.
What do you choose?
Public Law 88-352, July 2, 1964
Congressional Research Service. Religious Discrimination at School: Application of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 17 Sept. 2024, https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11129/LSB11129.2.pdf.
Donald J. Trump (1st Term), Executive Order 13899—Combating Anti-Semitism Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-13899-combating-anti-semitism
Donald J. Trump. Executive Order. No. 14188, “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism.” The White House, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/additional-measures-to-combat-anti-semitism/.
Saxe, L., et al. Hotspots of Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Hostility on US Campuses. Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies. Oct. 2016, https://www.brandeis.edu/cmjs/noteworthy/ssri/hotspots-antisemitism.html.
Klein, W., Li, S., & Wood, S. (2023). A qualitative analysis of gaslighting in romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 30(4), 1316–1340. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12510
Peter, you really are Magnificent Man. You should change your profile picture to one where there’s a cape fluttering behind your mighty chest.
Another exceptionally excellent essay!
Outstanding,
Thank you for citing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act ✔️⚖️📜🇺🇲🗽