RSS
John Hopkins University Adopts ‘Institutional Neutrality’ Policy After Anti-Israel Protests
John Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. Photo: Paul Sableman/Wikimedia Commons
John Hopkins University (JHU) announced that it has adopted a policy of “institutional neutrality” and will not weigh in on topics outside its direct “interest or function,” which ostensibly means it will not issue public statements on contentious political issues.
The decision came after JHU was one of many US universities to experience raucous anti-Israel protests on campus last spring semester.
“The dedication to restraint applies to university statements from the president, provost, and deans,” the university said on Thursday. “It does not apply to individual faculty members in their scholarly or personal capacity. In fact, one intent of the commitment is to extend the broadest possible scope to the views and expressions of faculty, bolstering faculty in the exercise of their freedom to share insights and perspectives without being concerned about running counter to an ‘institutional’ stance.”
It continued, “Moving forward, in considering whether and when to issue a statement, university leaders will determine whether the issue clearly pertains to the ‘direct, concrete, and demonstrable interest or function of the university.’ Determinations will ultimately fall to an internal working group including senior members of the president’s and provost’s staff.”
Coming just a week before the start of its new academic year, the policy addresses a bitter debate in academia over what stance, if any, universities should take on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Israel’s war with Hamas. Anti-Zionist scholar-activists and students have implored administrators to adopt the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, while Zionist and pro-Israel forces have insisted on their denouncing anti-Zionist speech that is antisemitic. In the spring, anti-Zionist students escalated their demands for an anti-Israel boycott by illegally occupying a section of the campus for 13 days.
At the time, JHU pledged that a “petition for divestment will be considered, pursuant to existing policies,” and a committee convened to study it in June. Thursday’s institutional neutrality statement arrived before the committee announced its recommendations. With it, JHU follows Harvard University, Vanderbilt University, and other institutions that have opted against becoming enmeshed in interminable debates. However, some maintain that doing so abdicates the university’s responsibility to stand for principles which hold together the fabric of Western civilization.
“These institutional neutrality policies sound wholesome in the abstract, but I fear they are often just attempts to by college administrators to avoid taking a stand against antisemites, communists, and other radicals who attempt to hijack the university’s credibility to advance their own agendas,” Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars (NAS), told The Algemeiner on Monday.
Wood, the author of several books and hundreds of articles on higher education, has weighed in on the matter before, most recently in a report titled “The Illusion on Institutional Neutrality” which was published in April. The concept, he says, dates back to 1915, but it reached widespread popularity during the Vietnam War, when the University of Chicago issued the “Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action” in 1967. The previous year, over 400 university students held a “sit in” to protest president George Beadle’s decision to provide, with permission, the US Army information — class rank and grade point averages, for example — about students who had registered for the draft. From that controversy emerged what is today known as the “Kalven Report,” the work of a committee chaired by University of Chicago law professor Harry Kalven Jr.
It famously said, “There is no mechanism by which [the university] can reach a collective position without inhibiting that full freedom of dissent on which it thrives … The neutrality of the university as an institution arises then not from a lack of courage nor out of indifference and insensitivity.”
While Wood’s NAS and other organizations once supported its conclusion, Wood argues that it is today insufficient for addressing the threat academic antisemitism poses to the university, which, he says, cannot afford to remain neutral on the issue of anti-Jewish hatred.
“Institutional neutrality empowers the mob by giving the activists of popular causes the assurance that the university’s officials will not get in their way,” Wood argued. “Activists of less favored causes are seldom treated with such leniency. University officials can easily ignore institutional neutrality to run critics of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ off campus, but they seldom if ever stand up to a large group of excited proponents of, say, Hamas apologists.”
He continued, “The ideal has proved delusional, and as a weapon it is easily used against reform as for it. We must call for universities to espouse substantive ideals of truth, liberty, and citizenship, even though they cut directly against the ideological commitments of many of higher education’s administrators and faculty members. This is a challenging task. But Hamas’ massacre of Israelis [on Oct. 7] has stripped us of many illusions … We must say forthrightly what virtues we wish our universities to champion. And if we wish our universities to fight once more on the side of the angels, the swiftest way to that goal is to teach them how to speak with courage by speaking so ourselves.”
As The Algemeiner previously reported, Harvard University followed its adoption of institutional neutrality with several policy decisions which, according to critics, protected those who uttered antisemitic speech. In July, it “downgraded” disciplinary sanctions it levied against several pro-Hamas protesters it punished for illegally occupying Harvard Yard, where they called for a genocide of Jews in Israel for five weeks and created a sign which depicted President Alan Garber as an antisemitic caricature. Also, the university has chosen to contest a lawsuit which accuses it of doing little to stop a wave of antisemitic incidents on campus, one of which saw a Jewish student surrounded by a mob students screaming “Shame!” into his ears.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post John Hopkins University Adopts ‘Institutional Neutrality’ Policy After Anti-Israel Protests first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US, Regional Diplomats Urge Respect for Minorities in Syria after Assad, Blinken Says
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken speaks during a media conference after a meeting of NATO foreign ministers at the Czernin Palace, in Prague, Czech Republic, May 31, 2024. Photo: Peter David Josek/Pool via REUTERS
Top diplomats from the United States, Turkey, the European Union and Arab nations have agreed that a new government in Syria should respect minority rights, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Saturday following talks in Jordan and direct contacts with the rebels who ousted President Bashar al-Assad.
The meetings occurred as regional and global powers scramble for influence over whatever government replaces Assad, forced to flee a week ago.
Blinken said at a news conference that the group had agreed on a joint communique that also calls for an inclusive and representative government that respects the rights of minorities and does not offer “a base for terrorist groups.”
The joint statement also “affirmed the full support for Syria’s unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty,” a comment that appeared aimed at Israel, which has moved into Syria beyond a previously agreed buffer zone since Assad fell.
“Today’s agreement sends a unified message to the new interim authority and parties in Syria on the principles crucial to securing much needed support and recognition,” Blinken said.
Blinken also said US officials had now had “direct contact” with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and had urged them and other rebel groups to assist with locating US journalist Austin Tice, who was detained in Syria in 2012. The US has also shared with actors in Syria what it wants to see from the country’s transition, he added.
Syria’s neighbor Jordan was hosting Saturday’s gathering in Aqaba. Russia and Iran, who were Assad’s key supporters, were not invited.
Blinken, U.N. Special Envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen and EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, Turkish foreign minister Hakan Fidan and foreign ministers from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Qatar met around a circular table at a Jordanian government guesthouse. There was no Syrian representative at the table.
The Arab diplomats earlier met separately and issued a statement calling for a peaceful and inclusive political transition that leads towards elections and a new constitution.
Arab diplomats attending the talks told Reuters they were seeking assurances from Turkey that it supported this, as well as preventing the partition of Syria on sectarian lines.
Turkey and the United States, both NATO members, have conflicting interests when it comes to some of the rebels. Turkish-backed rebels in northern Syria have clashed with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
The SDF, which controls some of Syria’s largest oil fields, is the main ally in a US coalition against Islamic State militants. It is spearheaded by YPG militia, a group that Ankara sees as an extension of Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) militants who have fought the Turkish state for 40 years and who it outlaws.
Blinken told Turkish officials during a visit to Ankara on Thursday and Friday that Islamic State must not be able to regroup, and the SDF must not be distracted from its role of securing camps holding IS fighters, according to a U.S. official. Turkish leaders agreed, the official with the U.S. delegation said.
Fidan told Turkish TV later on Friday that the elimination of the YPG was Turkey’s “strategic target” and urged the group’s commanders to leave Syria.
The post US, Regional Diplomats Urge Respect for Minorities in Syria after Assad, Blinken Says first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hezbollah Chief Says Group Lost its Supply Route Through Syria
Lebanon’s Hezbollah leader Sheikh Naim Qassem leads prayers during funeral of Hezbollah senior leader Ibrahim Aqil and Hezbollah member Mahmoud Hamad, who were killed in Israeli strike on Beirut’s southern suburbs, in Beirut, Lebanon, Sept. 22, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh
Hezbollah head Naim Qassem said on Saturday that the Lebanese armed group had lost its supply route through Syria, in his first comments since the toppling of President Bashar al-Assad nearly a week ago by a sweeping rebel offensive.
Under Assad, Iran-backed Hezbollah used Syria to bring in weapons and other military equipment from Iran, through Iraq and Syria and into Lebanon. But on Dec. 6, anti-Assad fighters seized the border with Iraq and cut off that route, and two days later, Islamist rebels captured the capital Damascus.
“Yes, Hezbollah has lost the military supply route through Syria at this stage, but this loss is a detail in the resistance’s work,” Qassem said in a televised speech on Saturday, without mentioning Assad by name.
“A new regime could come and this route could return to normal, and we could look for other ways,” he added.
Hezbollah started intervening in Syria in 2013 to help Assad fight rebels seeking to topple him at that time. Last week, as rebels approached Damascus, the group sent supervising officers to oversee a withdrawal of its fighters there.
More than 50 years of Assad family rule has now been replaced with a transitional caretaker government put in place by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, a former al Qaeda affiliate that spearheaded the rebel offensive.
Qassem said Hezbollah “cannot judge these new forces until they stabilize” and “take clear positions,” but said he hoped that the Lebanese and Syrian peoples and governments could continue to cooperate.
“We also hope that this new ruling party will consider Israel an enemy and not normalize relations with it. These are the headlines that will affect the nature of the relationship between us and Syria,” Qassem said.
Hezbollah and Israel exchanged fire across Lebanon’s southern border for nearly a year in hostilities triggered by the Gaza war, before Israel went on the offensive in September, killing most of Hezbollah’s top leadership.
The post Hezbollah Chief Says Group Lost its Supply Route Through Syria first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Before His Ouster, Syria’s Assad Told Iran that Turkey Was Aiding Rebels to Unseat Him
Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad attends the Arab League summit, in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, May 19, 2023. Photo: Saudi Press Agency/Handout via REUTERS
In the final days leading to his ouster, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad complained to Iran’s foreign minister that Turkey was actively supporting Sunni rebels in their offensive to topple him, two Iranian officials told Reuters this week.
Five decades of rule by Assad’s family ended on Sunday when he fled to Moscow, where the government granted him asylum. Iran had backed Assad in Syria’s long civil war and his overthrow was widely seen as a major blow to the Iran-led “Axis of Resistance,” a political and military alliance that opposes Israeli and US influence in the Middle East.
As rebel forces from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), formerly aligned to al Qaeda, seized major cities and advanced towards the capital, Assad met Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi in Damascus on Dec. 2.
At the meeting, Assad voiced anger over what he said was Turkey’s intensified efforts to unseat him, according to a senior Iranian official. Araqchi assured Assad of Iran’s continued support and promised to raise the issue with Ankara, the official said.
The next day, Araqchi met with Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan to express Tehran’s deep concerns over Ankara’s support for rebel advances.
“The meeting was tense. Iran expressed its unhappiness with Turkey’s alignment with US and Israeli agendas and conveyed Assad’s concerns,” a second Iranian official said, referring to Ankara’s support for rebels and cooperation with Western and Israeli interests in targeting Iran’s allies in the region.
Fidan, the official said, blamed Assad for the crisis, asserting that his failure to engage in genuine peace talks and his years of oppressive rule were the root causes of the conflict.
A Turkish foreign ministry source familiar with Fidan’s talks said that those were not the exact remarks by Fidan, and added that Araqchi did not bring and convey any messages from Assad to Turkey, without elaborating.
Fidan told reporters in Doha on Sunday that the Assad regime “had precious time” to address Syria’s existing problems, but did not, instead allowing “a slow decay and collapse of the regime.”
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday that Assad’s toppling was the result of a plan by the United States and Israel.
He said that one of Syria’s neighbors also had a role and continues to do so. He did not name the country, but appeared to be referring to Turkey.
NATO member Turkey, which controls swathes of land in northern Syria after several cross-border incursions against the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia, was a main backer of opposition groups aiming to topple Assad since the outbreak of the civil war in 2011.
Assad’s downfall stripped Iran and its ally the Lebanese group Hezbollah of a vital ally. Tehran’s ties to Damascus had allowed Iran to spread its influence through a land corridor from its western border via Iraq all the way to Lebanon to bring arms supplies to Hezbollah.
Iran spent billions of dollars propping up Assad during the war and deployed its Revolutionary Guards to Syria to keep its ally in power.
Hezbollah also played a major part, sending fighters to support him, but had to bring them back to Lebanon over the last year to fight in a bruising war with Israel – a redeployment that weakened Syrian government lines.
The post Before His Ouster, Syria’s Assad Told Iran that Turkey Was Aiding Rebels to Unseat Him first appeared on Algemeiner.com.