RSS
Should We Impose a Fairness Doctrine on Academia?
Signs cover the fence at a pro-Palestinian encampment at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill. on April 28, 2024. Photo: Max Herman via Reuters Connect.
JNS.org – One of the most pressing questions facing the United States, and especially the American Jewish community, is what should be done about academia.
The issue has become a lightning rod because of the eruption of genocidal antisemitism and anti-Americanism on campus in the wake of Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre. This renewed neo-Nazism, spearheaded by the Red-Green Alliance between progressive leftists and Islamic supremacists, revealed something decidedly ugly: American academia has become little more than a totalitarian state, a dictatorship of the professoriate determined to impose its radical leftist ideology not only on students but the entire nation. And this regime has now collapsed into the inevitable nadir of all totalitarian regimes—antisemitism. It is, in other words, an existential threat to the most basic values of the republic.
It is particularly disturbing because these institutions are the manufacturing center of the American ruling class. For this reason alone, something clearly has to be done.
The question is: what? There are numerous possibilities, but the best solution has yet to be mentioned: the imposition of a “fairness doctrine” on academia.
The fairness doctrine was a policy applied to media outlets by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for much of the 20th century. Put simply, it required media outlets to present diverse views on any issue of public interest or controversy.
In 1949, the FCC formalized the doctrine via a report on “editorializing by broadcast licensees.” In it, the agency based its decision on the “relationship” between the private interests of those who own media outlets and the public interest in open debate and a fully informed citizenry.
The report stated: “One important aspect of this relationship, we believe, results from the fact that the needs and interests of the general public with respect to programs devoted to new commentary and opinion can only be satisfied by making available to them for their consideration and acceptance or rejection, of varying and conflicting views held by responsible elements of the community. And it is in the light of these basic concepts that the problems of insuring fairness in the presentation of news and opinion and the place in such a picture of any expression of the views of the station licensee as such must be considered.”
“If, as we believe to be the case, the public interest is best served in a democracy through the ability of the people to hear expositions of the various positions taken by responsible groups and individuals on particular topics and to choose between them, it is evident that broadcast licensees have an affirmative duty generally to encourage and implement the broadcast of all sides of controversial public issues over their facilities, over and beyond their obligation to make available on demand opportunities for the expression of opposing views,” the FCC held.
The fairness doctrine lasted until the late 1980s when it was finally done away with by the Reagan administration. Nonetheless, left-wing activists and politicians have consistently demanded its reinstatement, seeing it as a weapon against right-wing media outlets, particularly talk radio. Thus far, they have failed in their efforts.
The basis for imposing such a doctrine on academia should be obvious. First, the FCC’s justification for it clearly applies to the universities.
Whenever it is criticized, the professoriate regime always resorts to the “academic freedom” argument, holding that any curbs on its power amount to suppression of the right to free expression. But this claim is based on a fundamental distortion of the role of academia.
These institutions do not exist in a vacuum; as noted, they are the manufacturing center of the American ruling class. And so, they have a massive impact on the lives of every American. All Americans thus have a stake and a say in how academia conducts itself. The universities are institutions with social responsibilities that are obligated to act in the public interest. If they do not fulfill these responsibilities—and they won’t—then the public has the right to take measures to change those institutions.
Moreover, the implementation of a fairness doctrine would be a simple matter: For example, when a leftist professor or administrator is hired, a conservative professor or administrator must be hired next. When a left-wing teach-in is held, a right-wing speaker must be invited to speak at it. When a protest or demonstration takes place, opponents of it must be given the resources necessary to hold their own event. If campus media outlets opine on an important issue, solicitation of a response must be mandatory. When academic publications advocate a specific ideology, they must give equal space to a rebuttal.
A fairness doctrine would have a distinctly positive effect on campus. First, it would neutralize the professoriate regime’s strongest weapon: the imposition of an intellectual blockade on students, denying them the opportunity to hear any opposing point of view. It would foster genuine diversity of thought and tamp down campus tensions by forcing students to entertain, rather than demonize, opposing ideas. It would restore some measure of integrity to faculty and administration because each side of the ideological divide would automatically become a check on the power of their opponents.
The professoriate regime will oppose a fairness doctrine with everything it has. Nonetheless, it will almost certainly fail because it has already conceded the argument. As a cabal of progressive leftists, it has consistently advocated for the reimposition of the fairness doctrine on the media. It can hardly complain when the same is demanded of itself.
This will be a supreme irony, but a welcome one. It might even save the republic from the cancer it has allowed to fester in its own ruling class for far too long.
The post Should We Impose a Fairness Doctrine on Academia? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Obituary: Elexis Schloss, 78, an Edmonton entrepreneur and philanthropist who also performed quiet acts of kindness
Elexis (Conn) Schloss, a vibrant entrepreneur and philanthropist who supported a wide array of causes, both in and beyond Edmonton, died in Victoria on Oct. 31. She was 78. Her […]
The post Obituary: Elexis Schloss, 78, an Edmonton entrepreneur and philanthropist who also performed quiet acts of kindness appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.
RSS
Saudi Arabia Ups Anti-Israel Rhetoric Amid Iran Rapprochement, Raising Questions About Abraham Accords Expansion
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman attends a virtual cabinet meeting from his office in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, May 28, 2024. Photo: Saudi Press Agency/Handout via REUTERS
Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler accused the Israeli military of committing “collective genocide” in Gaza while also pressing Israel to respect Iranian sovereignty, amid reports that Tehran has postponed its planned attack on the Jewish state.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s remarks, made in Riyadh on Monday during a summit of leaders of Islamic nations, underscored the evolving rapprochement between the erstwhile archenemies Iran and Saudi Arabia.
The crown prince, also known by his initials MBS, urged the international community to demand that Israel “respect the sovereignty of the sisterly Islamic Republic of Iran and not to violate its lands.”
The two regional heavyweights restored relations last year after decades of animosity.
MBS’s anti-Israel rhetoric came days after Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election. For Israel, the statement from Riyadh may signal a setback to the normalization process with Saudi Arabia, a long-sought goal within the framework of the Abraham Accords, brokered by Trump during his first term in the White House, that has seen Israel establish formal ties with several Arab states in recent years.
According to a Sky News Arabia report published two days later and citing Iranian officials, Tehran has shelved a planned third direct strike on Israel, with the delay attributed to possible forthcoming diplomatic talks with Trump. Israel Hayom published a similar report the following day, citing officials in Jerusalem familiar with the matter.
Iranian First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref expressed his hope that the incoming Trump administration would put a stop to Israel’s campaigns against its terrorist proxies, Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
“The American government is the main supporter of the actions of the Zionist regime [Israel], and the world is waiting for the promise of the new government of this country to immediately stop the war against the innocent people of Gaza and Lebanon,” Aref said at Monday’s gathering.
Observers noted that Saudi Arabia’s shift could stem from both domestic and regional considerations. For the kingdom, improving relations with Iran is a strategic move to de-escalate conflicts in Yemen, where both countries have backed opposing sides. By opening diplomatic channels with Iran, Saudi Arabia also aims to reduce its dependence on Western security guarantees amid growing regional autonomy. According to Dr. Eyal Pinko, a Middle East expert who served in Israeli intelligence for more than three decades, Saudi Arabia is also under pressure from France, a major arms supplier, to maintain a moderate stance and promote regional peace.
“Saudi Arabia understands [it] cannot rely on the Americans” for arms, Pinko told The Algemeiner.
For its part, Iran may be seeking closer ties with the Gulf kingdom as a result of recent Israeli operations that have decimated the senior leadership of Hezbollah, Iran’s most influential proxy in the Arab world that has long served as a strategic partner.
“Iran is spreading its bets all around, not to be on one side or another,” Pinko said.
Hezbollah, along with Hamas in Gaza, had in the past been blacklisted as terrorist groups by Riyadh.
The New York Times last month cited a Saudi tycoon with ties to the monarchy as saying that the war in Gaza has “set back any Israeli integration into the region.”
“Saudi Arabia sees that any association with Israel has become more toxic since Gaza,” Ali Shihabi told the newspaper.
In another blow for Saudi-Israel relations, Riyadh announced it would revoke the license of the Saudi news broadcaster, MBC, after it labeled the late Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar a terrorist.
But according to Pinko, the chance of Saudi-Israel normalization is not entirely lost, pending a ceasefire.
“If nothing extreme happens with Iran until Jan. 20 [when Trump takes office], I believe that the Abraham Accords will come back to the table,” he said.
The post Saudi Arabia Ups Anti-Israel Rhetoric Amid Iran Rapprochement, Raising Questions About Abraham Accords Expansion first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Germany Opposes EU Foreign Policy Chief’s Proposal to Suspend Dialogue With Israel
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock speaks during a session of the lower house of parliament Bundestag, in Berlin, Germany, Oct. 10, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Lisi Niesner
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock on Thursday publicly rejected a proposal by the European Union’s foreign policy chief to suspend regular political dialogue with Israel in response to the Jewish state’s ongoing military campaign against the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas in Gaza.
“We are always in favor of keeping channels of dialogue open. Of course, this also applies to Israel,” the German Foreign Office said of top EU official Josep Borrell’s plans, according to the German news agency dpa.
The Foreign Office added that, while the political conversations under the EU-Israel Association Council provide a regular opportunity to strengthen relations and, in recent months, discuss the provision of humanitarian aid to Gaza, severing that mechanism would be counterproductive.
“Breaking off dialogue, however, will not help anyone, neither the suffering people in Gaza, nor the hostages who are still being held by Hamas, nor all those in Israel who are committed to dialogue,” the statement continued.
Borrell on Wednesday proposed the suspension of dialogue in a letter to EU foreign ministers ahead of their meeting this coming Monday in Brussels, citing “serious concerns about possible breaches of international humanitarian law in Gaza.” He also wrote, “Thus far, these concerns have not been sufficiently addressed by Israel.”
The regular dialogues that Borrell is seeking to break off were enshrined in a broader agreement on relations between the EU and Israel, including extensive trade ties, that was implemented in 2000.
“In light of the above considerations, I will be tabling a proposal that the EU should invoke the human rights clause to suspend the political dialogue with Israel,” Borrell wrote.
A suspension would need the approval of all 27 EU countries, an unlikely outcome. According to Reuters, multiple countries objected when a senior EU official briefed ambassadors in Brussels on the proposal on Wednesday.
While some EU countries, such as Spain and Ireland, have been fiercely critical of Israel since the outbreak of the war in Gaza, others such as the Czech Republic and Hungary have been more supportive.
Hamas, which rules Gaza, launched the ongoing conflict with its invasion of southern Israel last Oct. 7. During the onslaught, Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists murdered 1,200 people, wounded thousands more, and kidnapped over 250 hostages while perpetrating mass sexual violence and other atrocities.
Israel responded with a military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities in neighboring Gaza.
Israel says it has gone to unprecedented lengths to try and avoid civilian casualties, noting its efforts to evacuate areas before it targets them and to warn residents of impending military operations with leaflets, text messages, and other forms of communication. However, Hamas has in many cases prevented people from leaving, according to the Israeli military.
Another challenge for Israel is Hamas’s widely recognized military strategy of embedding its terrorists within Gaza’s civilian population and commandeering civilian facilities like hospitals, schools, and mosques to run operations, direct attacks, and store weapons.
Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon said last month that Israel has delivered over 1 million tons of aid, including 700,000 tons of food, to Gaza since it launched its military operation a year ago. He also noted that Hamas terrorists often hijack and steal aid shipments while fellow Palestinians suffer.
The Israeli government has ramped up the supply of humanitarian aid into Gaza in recent weeks under pressure from the United States, which has expressed concern about the plight of civilians in the war-torn enclave.
Meanwhile, Borrell has been one of the EU’s most outspoken critics of Israel over the past year. Just six weeks after Hamas’s Oct. 7 attacks, he drew a moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas while speaking to the European Parliament, accusing both of having carried out “massacres” while insisting that it is possible to criticize Israeli actions “without being accused of not liking the Jews.”
Borrell’s speech followed a visit to the Middle East the prior week. While in Israel, he delivered what the Spanish daily El Pais described as the “most critical message heard so far from a representative of the European Union regarding Israel’s response to the Hamas attack of Oct. 7.”
“Not far from here is Gaza. One horror does not justify another,” Borrell said at a joint press conference alongside then-Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen. “I understand your rage. But let me ask you not to let yourself be consumed by rage. I think that is what the best friends of Israel can tell you, because what makes the difference between a civilized society and a terrorist group is the respect for human life. All human lives have the same value.”
Months later, in March of this year, Borrell claimed that Israel was imposing a famine on Palestinian civilians in Gaza and using starvation as a weapon of war. His comments came a few months before the United Nations Famine Review Committee (FRC), a panel of experts in international food security and nutrition, rejected the assertion that northern Gaza was experiencing famine, citing a lack of evidence. Borrell’s comments prompted outrage from Israel.
In August, Borrell pushed EU member states to impose sanctions on some Israeli ministers.
Monday’s meeting in Brussels will be the last that Borrell will chair before ending his five-year term as the EU’s foreign policy chief.
The post Germany Opposes EU Foreign Policy Chief’s Proposal to Suspend Dialogue With Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.