RSS
I Was Shunned at Princeton for Being a Zionist; We Must Actively Ensure Academic Diversity Now
A pro-Hamas group splattered red paint, symbolizing spilled blood, on an administrative building at Princeton University. Photo: Screenshot
Universities were once celebrated as arenas of free thought, where diverse ideas could challenge one another, and truth could emerge from debate. However, a new form of intolerance has gripped campuses worldwide, stifling intellectual diversity and turning academic institutions into echo chambers.
My experience at Princeton University illustrates the extent of this culture of suppression and the dangerous consequences it poses for education.
On March 27, 2023, I was invited to speak about Israel’s legal system dispute at the Center for Jewish Life at Princeton. Although I have never hidden my Jewish identity, this was the first time I was invited to speak publicly about Israel. Until then, I was focused on my work as associate research scholar and lecturer, as part of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions in the Department of Politics at Princeton University.
As the event date approached, several professors from other departments pressured the organizers to cancel my lecture, arguing that my Zionist viewpoints had no place on campus. The irony was glaring: a university that prides itself on diversity was actively working to silence a viewpoint that didn’t fit the accepted narrative.
On the day of the lecture, I was escorted through a back entrance by campus security. A group of student protesters, encouraged by faculty members, had blocked the main entrance. Their signs read “Racist,” “Democracy for Israelis and Palestinians,” “No Democracy under Apartheid,” and “No Blank Check for Apartheid.”
These were not calls for dialogue, but declarations that dissenting voices were unwelcome. The protest wasn’t about what I might say; it was about sending a message: those who defy the prevailing ideology will face resistance.
Some rioters and demonstrators forcefully entered the building, creating a tense atmosphere charged with disapproval from a faculty that once championed open inquiry. Unfortunately, the lecture was repeatedly disrupted — shouts through megaphones, the beating of drums outside the hall, and verbal outbursts interrupting nearly every sentence from people inside. I could not finish a single sentence. After enduring these disruptions for an extended period, I saw no point in continuing the lecture. Ultimately, the police escorted me back to my car.
Today, many academics see their role as enforcing ideological conformity, leaving no room for genuine debate. My lecture was just one skirmish in a broader battle to reshape the university into a space devoid of diverse perspectives. The hostility extended beyond the lecture hall, revealing a deeper and more systemic issue within the academic environment.
Despite the staunch defense of the Madison program and the colleagues who worked with me on a daily basis, the attacks against me did not stop. Professors defamed me, wrote letters against me, tried to cancel my course, and organized a media persecution campaign. The backlash against my presence escalated in campus publications, where I was labeled an extremist — not for my work, but for my conservative and Zionist beliefs. This wasn’t about academic discourse; it was an ideological purge.
What saddened me the most was that my request for a personal meeting with the president or dean of the university was refused.
This episode is emblematic of a larger trend: the suffocation of intellectual diversity and the rise of a new orthodoxy that threatens the foundational values of academic freedom.
At universities everywhere, professors have been pushing for changes to the hiring process that would prioritize ideological alignment over academic excellence. Their goal is clear: to exclude scholars who don’t fit the desired mold, ensuring a uniform intellectual environment.
The future of education depends on our ability to resist this tide of conformity and reclaim the university as a place where all ideas, even those that challenge the status quo, can be heard.
Universities are acting more like the institutions of the Middle Ages that enforced a single, dominant ideology. Back then, academic freedom was severely constrained by religious dogma. Today, the ideological gatekeeping is no less restrictive, though now it is secular in nature.
The shift toward a singular ideological stance threatens the foundational mission of higher education. Just as medieval institutions imposed theological constraints on academic pursuits, today’s universities enforce ideological boundaries that stifle critical thinking and the pursuit of truth. In this climate, truth is no longer the product of open inquiry but is dictated by those who hold power, leaving little room for constructive debate. The once-vibrant marketplace of ideas has been reduced to a space where only approved viewpoints are allowed to thrive.
This environment fundamentally undermines the pursuit of truth. In spaces where debate is suppressed, critical thinking cannot flourish. Truth has become a function of power, and without the ability to challenge and question, we lose our capacity to scrutinize our own assumptions. Individuals are reduced to caricatures — superficial, unrefined, and lacking depth. Instead of striving to uncover truth, as in propaganda films from authoritarian regimes, the academy employs aggressive tactics to mask its own distance from it.
The impact on students is profound. Many now self-censor, fearing the consequences of expressing views that might place them outside the accepted narrative. They’ve learned that challenging dominant viewpoints can lead to social exclusion or academic penalties. Rather than being trained in critical thinking, students are being conditioned to conform intellectually.
Universities now stand at a crossroads. They can continue down this path, fostering a culture of ideological uniformity and suppressing free exchange. Or, they can return to their foundational principles as places where ideas are tested, debated, and refined. True pluralism goes beyond superficial diversity; it requires an environment where conflicting viewpoints can coexist and engage. The most crucial pluralism to champion is not one of appearances, but one of ideas.
Once, scholars would say, “Here are my arguments. What are yours?” Today, the spirit of intellectual inquiry is under siege. The new mantra is, “Here are my arguments, and if you dare to disagree, we will remove you — and still call ourselves pluralists.”
We are in a state of emergency. Universities must go beyond mere statements of commitment to free speech, such as the Chicago Principles, and take active measures to restore ideological balance. The situation is so dire that it now demands affirmative action, not just to protect academic freedom, but to actively recruit conservative voices that have been systematically excluded.
We typically think of affirmative action in terms of race or gender, with the aim of fostering a diversity of perspectives, particularly those that have been marginalized or excluded. If admission to academic institutions were solely based on academic excellence, conservatives would have no trouble being admitted and advancing. However, in recent years, not only has excellence ceased to be the sole criterion, but conservatives have also become singled out. Paradoxically, despite their academic achievements, they are often excluded because of their views. Thus, to truly ensure a diversity of perspectives within academia, we must cultivate ideological diversity, not just gender or racial diversity. Affirmative action should extend to protecting and representing conservative views, adapting the existing mechanisms to include voices that are currently marginalized and silenced.
Mitchell Langbert and Sean Stevens highlight the severe ideological imbalance among faculty at major universities, particularly within the social sciences. Their study found that the overall ratio of registered Democrats to Republicans among faculty members is 8.5:1. In specific fields, this disparity becomes even more extreme. In sociology, the ratio is 27:1 in favor of Democrats, and in anthropology, it skyrockets to 42.2:1.
This troubling trend is not limited to specific fields; it also extends across some of the most prestigious universities. Brown University has a ratio of 21.3:1, indicating a significant imbalance, while Columbia’s ratio of 24.5:1 shows a slightly higher dominance of liberal perspectives. Yale’s ratio reaches 31.3:1, reflecting an even greater skew toward one political ideology. Princeton University presents a more serious case with a ratio of 40:1, demonstrating a pronounced lack of conservative viewpoints. At the top of the scale is Harvard, where the ratio reaches a staggering 88:1, highlighting an overwhelming and nearly complete absence of ideological balance.
These figures underscore the urgency of adopting corrective measures to foster a more balanced and intellectually diverse academic environment. The marketplace of ideas must remain vibrant and contested. Otherwise, the very essence of learning is lost.
My experience of persecution is not a personal problem. It is a symptom of a much more severe issue. I was persecuted because I am part of a conservative viewpoint, which is one that is systematically excluded from the academic discourse.
The time has come to reclaim the true mission of the university. We must ensure our academic spaces remain open to all voices, not just those that comfortably fit the prevailing narrative. Intellectual freedom is not just an academic ideal — it’s the bedrock of a vibrant society. It must be defended, even when inconvenient, because only then can we keep the pursuit of knowledge alive.
Ronen Shoval taught and conducted research at Princeton University during the 2022-23 academic year. His latest book, “Holiness and Society: A Socio-Political Exploration of the Mosaic Tradition,” was published by Routledge, 2024.
The post I Was Shunned at Princeton for Being a Zionist; We Must Actively Ensure Academic Diversity Now first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Jude Law Hunts Neo-Nazis in ‘The Order’
Jude Law in “The Order.” Photo: screenshot.
Jude Law is usually the romantic lead. In The Order, he is a tough FBI agent hunting neo-Nazis. Based on the book, The Silent Brotherhood by Kevin Flynn and Gary Gerhardt, it chronicles the actions of a white supremacist group that robbed and assassinated Jewish radio host Alan Berg in June 1984.
Law does a fine job as Terry Husk, a man who knows he is up against very bad people. Nicholas Hoult is convincing as the villain, Bob Matthews. He doesn’t look imposing physically, but Hoult is able to use a lack of expression to convey evil.
Jewish comedian Marc Maron plays Berg, and while he does a good job, I would have liked to see him get more screen time. We only hear a bit of what he said on the radio, as he’s arguing with antisemitic callers.
It’s not very glamorous in Idaho, and this is a gritty film that is better than you’d expect it to be, while the source material is also more harrowing than you could imagine. The film makes reference to The Turner Diaries, a science fiction book that was actually a primer and guide for racists and antisemites. Written by William Luther Pierce under the pseudonym of Andrew Macdonald, it depicts a revolution in America where Jews and non-whites are murdered. Timothy McVeigh, a domestic terrorist who carried out the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City, was found with pages of The Turner Diaries.
Jurnee Smollett does a decent job as a woman helping to try to take down part of the Aryan nation. Many viewers would expect more explosives, more blood, more violence, and a big love story between Law and an actress, but the makers of the film resist all of the common expectations to present a film that stands out for being a bit more realistic than you’d expect.
While the film doesn’t go deep into why these men are racist, antisemitic, and bent on killing, it’s true that they follow a leader. In our current climate of rising antisemitism, one can only hope that the Federal authorities are on top of things and the threats from these leaders and these groups are monitored — as well as the possibility of agents from other countries that could have been sent as sleeper cells.
Should the FBI have been more proactive to prevent the assassination of Berg? It’s hard to say, as the white supremacist group showcased in the film was not that well-known at the time. Law sports an unflattering mustache in the film, which contrasts to the clean-shaven Hoult. Directed by Justin Kurzel, the film is well-paced and Maron, speaking as Berg, says on the airwaves that America is a great country, but some of us are trapped in our own minds.
The downsides of the film are that the plot is predictable and there is not particularly any dialogue you will find inspiring, moving or provocative. But it is still an entertaining and engaging film, based on the true story of hate-filled people who believed in things that many Americans still believe in.
The Order makes one think about what law enforcement can do against white supremacy today, and to what extent their numbers are growing or not.
The film doesn’t try to do too much, but executes what it sets out to do very well. The Order is a story that is timely and upsetting, and features Law and Hoult doing fine work.
The author is a writer based in New York.
The post Jude Law Hunts Neo-Nazis in ‘The Order’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Monday Marks Day 445 for Hostages in Gaza — Longer Than the Iranian Hostages
People gather in Hostages Square in Tel Aviv to mark the one-year anniversary of Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre. Photo: Paulina Patimer
On November 4, 1979, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s henchmen stormed the US embassy in Tehran and held Americans hostage for 444 days, releasing them on January 20, 1981. On October 7, 2023, Hamas storm troopers and Gazan civilians paraglided and marched into Israel and took hundreds of American and Israeli hostages after killing over 1,200.
Comparing the two situations shows how much has changed in the last four decades — none of it for the better.
Hostages, Then and Now
The Americans taken hostage by Khomeini’s followers were all adults working at the US embassy. The captives in Gaza today, both male and female, range from infants to the aged. One hostage, Kfir Bibas, born on January 18, 2023, was only 262 days old when he was stolen from his bed. He celebrated his first birthday as a hostage and has spent the majority of his life as a Hamas prisoner.
Some of the American diplomats were beaten during and after the November 4 siege of the U.S. embassy. They were undoubtedly held in inhumane conditions and sometimes threatened with execution. But unlike those seized on October 7, not one was executed. Not a single one was raped.
After the first few days of their captivity, unless they were being moved from one location to another or paraded in the street, the American diplomats were not blindfolded. Aside from when they were kept periodically in a damp, windowless warehouse on the embassy grounds, which the hostages named “The Mushroom Inn,” they could see outside.
Hamas’ hostages, on the other hand, have likely been kept underground in the maze of tunnels that constitute subterranean Gaza for most of their 445 days of captivity. Many have likely not seen the sun in all that time. They have been severely beaten.
On November 17, 1979, Khomeini ordered the female and African-American hostages released because “Islam has a special respect toward women” and because blacks had been forced to suffer “under American pressure and tyranny.” Some of the women released by Hamas in the November 2023 ceasefire were sexually assaulted and constantly intimidated.
Those Americans held by Iran who were injured or ill received medical care, albeit inferior to what they deserved. One hostage, Richard Queen, the State Department’s Vice Consul, suffering the early stages of undiagnosed multiple sclerosis, was released after 250 days. His symptoms baffled the Iranian physicians who treated him, and his captors feared the consequences of his dying in captivity. Hamas has no such fears.
UN Responses, Then and Now
In 1979, the United Nations was not quite as corrupted as it is today. The Security Council responded if not quickly (on December 4) at least decisively with Resolution 457 calling for the immediate release of the hostages. On December 31, it issued Resolution 461, condemning Iran and citing an International Court of Justice order for the release of all hostages.
In 2023, after weeks of failing to reach a consensus, the Security Council finally issued Resolution 2712 on November 15, calling for the release of all hostages, but it did not condemn or even mention the October 7 attack.
Today’s UN is focused on condemning Israel. It has whitewashed the complicity of the Palestinian people in October 7 and exaggerated their suffering. The Secretary-General’s statement was one half condemnation of Hamas and one-half warning that Israel exercise “maximum restraint” and pursue a “two-state solution.” The International Court of Justice took South Africa’s charges of genocide seriously and opened an investigation into Israeli conduct, and the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
Media Coverage
In 1979, the media at first repeated the false narrative that the hostage takers were merely religious students, not Khomeini’s agents carrying out his will. But as one hostage, Barry Rosen, put it, “Khomeini was supporting our captivity; it was not just these students acting in his name.” Rosen adds that, “the students couldn’t have continued to hold us without the Imam’s approval.”
Throughout the 444-day ordeal, the media focused on the hostages, their families, and efforts being made to free them. On ABC, Ted Koppel’s career was made by a show called The Iran Crisis: America Held Hostage, which eventually became Nightline.
By contrast, today’s media have not made the hostages the focal point of the story. Rather than seeing the hostages as victims of Islamist aggression, much of today’s media are more sympathetic with Palestinians and Hamas than with their hostages. They focus on “Israel’s War in Gaza,” celebrate anti-Israel protests, and mindlessly repeat Hamas’s inflated casualty and death statistics.
When Israel killed Ismail Haniyeh, the media harped on how much more difficult a “hostage deal” would be and accused Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu of belligerence.
When Israel decimated (or more) the leadership of Hezbollah — another terrorist organization responsible for holding Americans hostage — in a brilliant pager/walkie-talkie sabotage like something out of a James Bond movie, much of the media vilified it as terrorism.
Like the UN, the media have whitewashed the complicity of the Palestinian people on October 7. One of the greatest differences between the coverage of the hostages held in Iran 45 years ago and of the hostages in Gaza today is that no one was on Iran’s side then, while many are on Hamas’s side today.
Academia Reacts
For Americans, and indeed for much of the Western world, the seizure of our diplomats in 1979 was an affront too outrageous to endure. People were angry at the Iranians, Khomeini, and Jimmy Carter. In the days before memes, Americans adopted a line from a popular song by Tony Orlando and Dawn (“Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Ole Oak Tree”). Yellow ribbons appeared around trees throughout the nation as symbols of their suffering and the American people longing for their return.
Most American academics were as outraged as everyone else in 1979, and all but the most virulently anti-American among them who weren’t outraged likely kept it to themselves.
By contrast, today’s academics are more likely to celebrate October 7, especially Middle East studies “experts.”
College students were firmly on the side of the US in 1979. If there were any protests, they were anti-Iran protests. As a freshman at the University of Miami in November of 1979, I saw many cars sporting the famous bumper sticker, and people wearing the t-shirt, featuring Mickey Mouse holding an American flag in his right hand while giving the middle-finger salute with his left hand with the caption “Hey Iran.”
By contrast, today’s college students are more likely to wear keffiyehs and chant “From the River to the Sea” or “Globalize the Intifada” and other slogans they don’t understand.
End of the Crises
The 52 Americans held in Iran were released only after one-term president Jimmy Carter left the White House and Ronald Reagan was inaugurated. Reagan called Khomeini and his henchmen “criminals and thugs” and promised a very different approach than the weak coddling that the Carter administration had pursued.
When the hostages were finally released, there was a ticker-tape parade in their honor as they were celebrated in New York City’s “Canyon of Heroes.”
Will the hostages in Gaza have to wait until one-term president Joe Biden leaves the White House and Donald Trump is inaugurated? That will make it 472 days in captivity. Will there be a ticker-tape parade?
President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to get the hostages back and threatened that “there will be hell to pay” if they are not returned by his January 20 inauguration. It will be well-deserved if Hamas doesn’t release the hostages.
Chief Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) Political Correspondent A.J. Caschetta is a principal lecturer at the Rochester Institute of Technology and a fellow at Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum where he is also a Milstein fellow. A version of this article was published by IPT.
The post Monday Marks Day 445 for Hostages in Gaza — Longer Than the Iranian Hostages first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Syria in the Post-Assad Era: Towards Ethnic Division or a Unified State?
Rebel fighters holds weapons at the Citadel of Aleppo, after Syrian rebels announced that they have ousted Bashar al-Assad, in Aleppo, Syria, Dec. 9, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Karam al-Masri
The past decade has seen Syria engulfed in a brutal civil war, marked by foreign intervention, relentless repression, and the unraveling of its fragile social fabric. This turmoil has fueled a mass exodus of refugees, reshaping Europe’s demographics and political landscape.
Now, as the Assad regime has collapsed, Syria faces a pivotal question: Can it emerge as a unified sovereign state, or will ethnic divisions dictate its future?
Historical Roots of the Crisis: Artificial Borders and Failed Ethnic Harmony
Syria’s current plight is not solely the result of recent events. It stems from deep-seated issues rooted in the colonial legacy of the Middle East.
The 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement carved up the region with scant regard for its ethnic, religious, and sectarian complexities. The resulting state was a volatile mosaic of Sunni Arabs, Alawites, Druze, Christians, Turkmen, and others.
During the French Mandate, attempts were made to partition Syria into autonomous regions based on ethnic and sectarian lines. These included a Druze state in Jebel Druze, an Alawite state in Latakia, a Turkmen-dominated region of Alexandretta, and separate Arab Sunni states for Damascus and Aleppo. However, this experiment failed, and in 1946, Syria gained independence as a unified state.
A Unified Kingdom or Ethnic Partition?
After Assad’s abdication, the question of Syria’s future looms large. Could it return to being a unified state, or is ethnic partition a more viable path to stability?
Among the potential scenarios:
- Druze Autonomy in Jebel Druze: A concept supported in the past by figures like Israeli leader Yigal Alon, this option could appeal to local Druze communities. However, their willingness to align with a pro-Israel arrangement remains doubtful given their precarious geopolitical position.
- An Alawite State in Latakia: Syria’s coastal region, an Alawite stronghold, could serve as a natural refuge for the community. It’s even conceivable, in the region’s unpredictable dynamics, that Bashar al-Assad himself could return there.
- A Federal Syrian Model: Similar to Iraq, this approach would grant significant autonomy to various groups while maintaining the semblance of a unified state.
Key Challenges
- Foreign Interference: Major players like Russia, Turkey, and Iran have heavily invested in Syria, each pursuing its strategic interests. Any ethnic partition would likely face their strong opposition, especially if it diminishes their influence.
- Leadership and Israeli Policy: Should a figure like Abu Mohammad al-Julani, with roots in al-Qaeda, retain power, the prospects for stability dim further. Julani’s ties to the Golan Heights –his family fled the region after the 1967 war — underscore his likely antagonism toward Israel and territorial concessions.
- The Golan Heights Question: Once a contentious issue in peace negotiations, the strategic importance of the Golan was underscored during the Syrian civil war. The chaos reaffirmed Israel’s security imperative to retain the area, a sentiment bolstered by US recognition of Israeli sovereignty there.
Syria’s Future: A Litmus Test for Israeli Policy
Post-Assad Syria is a test of Israel’s strategic approach to regional instability. Israel must maintain its deterrence posture, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphasized during his significant visit to the Golan Heights. Strengthening Israel’s hold on this strategic region is crucial to countering hostile actors.
While some in the international community hope for a unified Syria, the reality suggests otherwise. Ethnic partition appears to be one of the few pragmatic solutions to stabilize the country. Yet, aggressive opposition from global powers and internal factions renders this outcome unlikely in the near term.
Turkey, for instance, vehemently opposes a Kurdish autonomy that might embolden its own Kurdish minority. Iran seeks to consolidate its influence through Shiite alliances, including with the Alawites. Meanwhile, figures like Julani will resist any division that curtails their power or excludes major factions from influence.
Toward a Federal Solution?
The enduring conflict makes meaningful reconstruction a distant prospect. Ethnic partition offers a glimmer of hope for stability, but remains a long shot. Interim solutions, such as a federal system granting limited autonomy within a unified framework, may provide the only viable path forward.
Ultimately, the success of such models depends on creative and painstaking negotiations, both locally and internationally. Syria’s post-Assad reality is a complex battlefield of clashing interests, and achieving the elusive goal of stability will require unprecedented diplomatic ingenuity.
Itamar Tzur is an Israeli scholar and Middle East expert who holds a Bachelor’s degree with honors in Jewish History and a Master’s degree with honors in Middle Eastern Studies. As a senior member of the “Forum Kedem for Middle Eastern Studies and Public Diplomacy,” Tzur leverages his academic expertise to enhance understanding of regional dynamics and historical contexts within the Middle East.
The post Syria in the Post-Assad Era: Towards Ethnic Division or a Unified State? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.