I know speech is protected at Davidson College. I see it all the time.
I've spent the past few years at Davidson looking into, reporting on and teaching about the importance of free expression. Every issue of importance is being discussed on campus. But every false claim of censorship, as YAF alleged here, further roots in the public consciousness a distorted perception of colleges, who are stuck having to play Whack-a-Mole to correct the record.
A conservative student group, a chapter of Young Americans for Freedom (YAF), handed out an anti-Muslim pamphlet made available to them by national YAF to counter what they believed was an anti-Israel campus atmosphere. The group also retweeted what some considered transphobic. They then faced the usual student disciplinarian process and could choose between a hearing, where they could be found guilty or not guilty for harassment, or accept an accountability plan. They chose neither, convinced they were targeted for their beliefs.
But they weren't. The college was responding to complaints from other students, some of whom said they felt unsafe because of the pamphlet's contents, which was handed out near the student union's entrance. Davidson is required to take seriously every student concern for legal, practical and ethical reasons.
That's what triggered the potential hearing – not the group's stance on the Gaza war.
I know this because I know pro-Palestinian students and others have faced the same process disciplinarian, which is necessarily opaque because of privacy laws.
I know pro-Israel views are welcome because professors, students and staff shared them before the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attack on that country, and since.
I know because those voices can be so loud and persistent that they can pressure the college to cancel a Jewish speaker critical of Israel, as happened just weeks ago. (The college didn't cave.)
I know because I have colleagues holding pro-Palestinian views who've rethought public presentations for fear of being falsely labeled antisemitic.
I know because colleagues expert on the long-complex history of the Israel-Palestine conflict led well-attended teach-ins on the subject. They explained every side of the issue from an educational rather than ideological perspective.
I know because students have shared those views in my classes during deliberative discussions and debates infused with passion.
Here's what's also true:
Students, faculty and staff often disagree about this subject, and many others.
Many often feel reluctant to speak openly about this Israel-Gaza, and many other subjects. They fear the judgment of peers – a human instinct not unique to college campuses.
Many of us even disagree about the nature of the student disciplinary process. Should speech of any sort short of flagrant-obvious harassment – like the hurling of epithets or stalking – be subject to that process? Or maybe it would be better to allow students to resolve uncomfortable disputes among themselves.
Many Davidson students, faculty and staff disagree about when free expression advances or hampers the college's mission. When a student spreads misinformation on an important topic, should the college remain neutral to honor that student's right to speak freely? Or point out the falsehoods and correct them? If so, how can that be done in a way that doesn't feel punitive?
What if a professor's expression of personal beliefs makes it less likely students will engage in class, even if inadvertently. Should the college step in?
Colleges aren't gloried debate clubs who don't care about facts or the context in which they need to be grounded, the kinds of exchanges regularly on display in prime time on cable news.
Free expression is a right. But it comes with responsibilities, particularly for institutions of higher education whose objective is greater than simply gathering together people to exchange words no matter if truth is cultivated or undermined.
It's hard to determine where to draw the line between protected speech on a college campus, and that which should be shunned. But trying to get it right becomes more difficult each time an underinformed argument misleads the public about what we do and who we are.
Issac Bailey is a McClatchy opinion writer in North Carolina and South Carolina.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
15 minutes ago
- Fox News
Hamas has 'weaponized hunger,' says Rebeccah Heinrichs
Hudson Institute senior fellow Rebeccah Heinrichs discusses ceasefire talks between the United States and Hamas collapsing and growing pressure on Israel to allow aid into Gaza on 'Fox Report.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
'I saw something different': IDF reservist refutes intl. claims of intentional starvation
People arrive on foot, in cars, on motorcycles, or on horses. They carry sacks. There are no lines. No supervision. It's a stampede. They push, they stab, they throw sand at each other." In the quiet outskirts of Tel Aviv, an active-duty soldier in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), who, for security reasons, will be referred to only as 'Y,' is between rounds of duty after completing more than 300 days of service since October 7. In an exclusive interview with The Media Line, he recounts what he saw during one of the most contested incidents of the war, challenging headlines that claimed Israeli soldiers opened fire on starving civilians. Another IDF reservist who was present at the scene also spoke with The Media Line and confirmed 'Y's' account of the incident, including the sequence of events and the nature of the crowd that approached the distribution site. Access to Gaza has been limited, and the foreign press has been unable to enter the area to tell the story accurately. Since the soldier gave this account, Israel's Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) has challenged Hamas' claim of widespread starvation in Gaza with a statement on Thursday that 'there is no famine in the Gaza Strip,' while acknowledging 'there are issues of access to food' in certain 'pockets' in Gaza. Photos were circulated on social media showing 1,000 humanitarian aid trucks stalled outside the Gaza Strip. While the UN claims that Israel's bureaucracy prevents distribution, Col. Abdullah Halabi of COGAT told Yahoo News, 'The State of Israel allows the entry of humanitarian aid beyond the standards of international law, without restriction. As long as the international community makes an effort to bring in the aid, we will allow them to bring it in.' The IDF announced Thursday that, in response to the humanitarian situation in Gaza, it will renew the airdrop of aid into the Gaza Strip. The effort will be coordinated by COGAT and the Israeli air force and will include seven aid pallets containing flour, sugar, and canned food provided by international organizations. In addition, the IDF said it will facilitate the movement of aid trucks within Gaza. While the IDF has acknowledged that mistakes occur amid the fog of war and that serious incidents are subject to internal review, 'Y' emphasizes that his account is based solely on what he witnessed during his deployment. 'I'm not saying everything always goes right—we're people, and people make mistakes,' he notes. 'But where I was, I didn't see what the news is claiming. I saw something very different.' The soldier's latest deployment placed him not in combat with enemy terrorists, but guarding one of the war's most controversial flashpoints: a humanitarian corridor intended to deliver aid to civilians in Gaza. 'Trained to fight terrorists, not to manage riots' 'This was the worst thing I've ever done,' says 'Y.' 'It was disgusting. You see people fight each other over food. Trampling, throwing sand, stealing. It's chaos. We're not trained for that. We're infantry. We're supposed to fight terrorists, not manage riots.' Assigned to a corridor, one of the three Safe Distribution Sites in southern Gaza, 'Y' was part of the Israeli effort to allow aid trucks into the Strip without empowering Hamas. The system was coordinated with US aid officials and monitored by drones to weaken Hamas's control over food distribution and, in turn, pressure the group to agree to a ceasefire and release hostages. 'It made sense strategically,' he explains. 'Take away their grip on aid, make life easier for civilians, and isolate Hamas. But on the ground, it turned into chaos.' According to 'Y,' thousands of civilians pour into the compound daily. 'It's the size of a football field, surrounded by sand berms and barbed wire. People arrive on foot, in cars, on motorcycles, or on horses. They carry sacks. There are no lines. No supervision. It's a stampede. They push, they stab, they throw sand at each other. Sometimes they trample the weak. We tried to bring some order, but the system collapsed from the start.' What shocked 'Y' most was how fast the humanitarian operation turned into disorder. 'The site was supposed to have minimal friction. Instead, it became a magnet for chaos. People beat each other, shoved kids aside, filled bags with sugar and rice, then sprinted out while gangs waited to rob them.' He says that on several occasions, those trying to loot aid would hide among the crowd, then attempt to breach the sand barriers in groups. 'They timed it. Always just before or just after the drones passed over. It wasn't spontaneous.' The danger didn't end inside the compound. Outside, 'Y' says, Hamas terrorists and criminal gangs waited to rob those who managed to secure food. 'They take it from civilians and resell it. We've arrested people doing it. Some are Hamas. Some are just opportunists. But it's organized. It's how Hamas keeps people dependent.' He directly rejects reports of starvation in Gaza. 'There is no one collapsing from hunger. That's a blood libel. If there's malnutrition in Gaza, it's because Hamas wants it. They have the food, and they block it. They want the photos of skinny children. That's their weapon.' He draws comparisons rarely heard in the international press. 'Saudi Arabia bombed the Houthis for 10 years and sent 5,000 trucks of aid, but there was no global outrage. Israel has been bombing Hamas, a terrorist organization, for 21 months and has sent more than 23,000 aid trucks into Gaza, but is somehow accused of starving Gaza.' Israel's security establishment, meanwhile, maintains that it has not restricted the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza. Since May 19, the government reports that nearly 4,500 aid trucks have entered the Strip via two channels: through US-operated distribution centers that supply weekly food packages, and through UN-coordinated deliveries of flour, baby food, and ingredients for bakeries and communal kitchens. Officials report that 50% of the aid goes through each channel, and that more than 1.5 million food packages and 2,500 tons of baby food have reached civilians. As of this week, however, the contents of some 950 trucks remain uncollected on the Gazan side of crossings, with Israel blaming UN agencies for delays in distribution. That frustration peaked on July 20, when international headlines reported that Israeli troops had opened fire on civilians waiting for food. 'Y' says he was there and that nothing about that morning resembled the story broadcast to the world. According to his account, the incident began the night before. On July 19, around 10 p.m., eight to ten aid trucks arrived at the site. The delivery was standard procedure, meant to prepare for morning distribution. But soon after, a crowd began to approach. 'They weren't supposed to be there. It was closed. They saw the trucks and came to loot,' he says. 'We fired warning shots. No one was hurt. They left, for the time being.' The army had posted the opening times on Palestinian Facebook groups. Drones circled overhead, broadcasting in Arabic: 'The site will open at 9 a.m. Do not approach.' 'Y' says the instructions were clear, constant, and public. Around 2 a.m., a small team was sent to a forward position one kilometer from the corridor, at a junction of several dirt paths. Their role was to intercept any suspicious movement before it reached the aid zone. At approximately 4:30 a.m., four Gazan men came into view. Voices echoed in the dark. Then came chants of 'Allahu Akbar.' 'That's when it became obvious; this wasn't just a spontaneous crowd,' he says. 'It was coordinated.' The four Gazan men emerged from behind a building. A warning shot was fired ten meters in front of them. They kept running. 'Then four became a hundred. Then a thousand. All adult men. No women. No children. Just men running straight at us.' The soldiers were surrounded on three sides, with the food trucks behind them. 'We heard Kalashnikov fire from behind the crowd. We didn't see who fired it, but we heard it clearly,' he says. With the mass approaching within 100 meters, a standing order was given: defend the position. 'Nothing stopped them, not the drones, not the megaphones, not flash grenades or warning shots. In the end, we fired. There was no other choice.' 'Hamas had two goals,' he says. 'Steal the food and provoke a tragedy they could film.' According to 'Y,' the same group had tried to storm the site at 10 p.m. and again at 2 a.m. 'They came back stronger. More people. More vehicles. Gunfire behind them. They knew what they were doing.' 'Y' describes intense restrictions placed on Israeli soldiers guarding the corridor. 'We weren't allowed to engage unless it was life-threatening. That's how Hamas exploited it. They knew we had limits. They sent the crowd ahead like a shield. And when things exploded, the cameras were already rolling.' The moral complexity, he says, is unbearable. 'We had to choose between protecting the mission and being slaughtered on a rooftop. And then we get called war criminals.' What angers him most is how quickly the story was rewritten. 'By midday, headlines were saying we shot starving civilians. That's not what happened. It wasn't a line for food. It was a violent attempt to overrun the corridor.' Telegram channels later published the names of the dead. 'All adult males. No women. No children.' The soldiers held their positions for over thirty minutes. At one point, a small force was actively defending the rooftop. 'If they had broken through, we would've been overrun. There was no alternative.' Asked how he felt watching the international coverage, 'Y' didn't hesitate. 'People want to believe lies. It helps justify their hate. But it only hurts the Palestinians. Because every time this propaganda is believed, Hamas gets stronger.' 'Y' is convinced the entire event was staged. 'They wanted a bloodbath. Something to sell to the media. And they got it.' On the proposal to restore distribution control to United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), his response is just as blunt: 'UNRWA is Hamas. There's no difference between them. Giving them back control is handing it straight to the terrorists.' In his view, there is only one path to end the current cycle. 'Ceasefire and hostage return,' he says. But that, he insists, 'can't mean full withdrawal. There has to be a buffer zone. We can't allow another October 7.' 'Y' doesn't expect the headlines to change. 'The lies will continue. The world will keep blaming us. But we'll keep doing the job, because someone has to.' Then, without raising his voice, he adds: 'They weren't hungry. They were coming for the trucks.' Meanwhile, the Foreign Press Association released a statement expressing concern over the humanitarian crisis, including reports of starvation in the Gaza and calling on Israel to allow the flow of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip. Solve the daily Crossword
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
North Korea's Kim Jong Un vows to win anti-US battle as country marks Korean War anniversary
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said the country would achieve victory in "anti-imperalist, anti-U.S." battles, as the country marked the anniversary of the Korean War armistice, state media reported on Sunday. Kim "affirmed that our state and its people would surely achieve the great cause of building a rich country with a strong army and become honorable victors in the anti-imperialist, anti-U.S. showdown," KCNA state news agency said, referring to his visit to a war museum on a previous day. North Korea signed an armistice agreement with the United States and China on July 27, 1953, ending the fighting in the three-year war. U.S. generals signed the agreement representing the United Nations forces that had backed South Korea. North Korea calls July 27 "Victory Day" even though the armistice drew a border dividing the Korean peninsula roughly equally in area after the two sides had made major advances back and forth during the war. South Korea does not mark the day with any major events. But in a speech read out on July 27 at a commemoration ceremony honoring Korean War veterans in Washington, South Korea's President Lee Jae Myung pledged to further cement the country's alliance with the United States and protect freedom and peace. "Through efforts in various fields including politics, economy, security, and culture, we will further strengthen the noble South Korea-U.S. alliance forged in blood and make even more efforts to firmly protect freedom and peace on the Korean Peninsula," Lee said. North Korea is now fighting alongside Russia in the war in Ukraine. Thousands of North Korean troops were deployed to Russia's Kursk region, while Pyongyang has also supplied Russia with munitions. It may deploy more troops in July or August, South Korea has said. Kim also visited memorials honouring the veterans of the 1950-53 war including the Tower of Friendship remembering the Chinese People's Liberation Army soldiers who fought with the North Koreans, and met soldiers in an artillery regiment to celebrate the day, state media KCNA said. (Reporting by Ju-min Park in Seoul; Editing by Matthew Lewis and Kate Mayberry)
