I’m Michael A. Cohen, and this is Truth and Consequences: A no-holds-barred look at the absurdities, hypocrisies, and surreality. If you were sent this email or are a free subscriber and would like to become a paid subscriber, you can sign up here.
If money is tight or you’re already up to eyeballs in subscriptions, here’s another idea — share this article. Email it to a friend (or even an enemy). Post it on Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn. Text or email it to your wife, husband, mother, father, brother, sister, or even your creepy second cousin who lives in Washington Heights. Word of mouth is often the best way to build support for a creative endeavor, so if everyone here sends it to just one person … it would be much appreciated!
Actions Have Consequences
Last night, after weeks of turmoil on campus, Columbia University asked for the NYPD to clear protesters from the school’s Hamilton Hall, which pro-Palestinian demonstrators had seized a day earlier, barricading themselves inside.
This action culminated in weeks of upheaval on Columbia’s campus … but much of the criticism of the decision to send in the police seems to ignore the antecedents to Tuesday night’s escalation.
For example, this tweet by Chris Hayes
There is an obvious problem with this argument. "Occupying buildings on campus” didn’t just magically happen—it came at the endpoint of weeks, even months, of rancor on Columbia’s campus. It also happened after weeks of fruitless negotiation between Columbia’s president and the protesters to resolve the issue. Above all, the seizure of Hamilton Hall was a violent escalation by protesters already suspended for their refusal to leave an illegal tent encampment on Columbia’s campus.
To fully understand and appreciate why Columbia's president called on the NYPD to eject students barricaded at Hamilton Hall, one has to look at what came before.
Were these protests disruptive to Columbia? Yes. Protests have roiled the campus for months, but Columbia has been in turmoil for the past two weeks. Moreover, finals are currently happening, and graduation is scheduled for May 15 (on the same lawn where students were camping out).
Were the students breaking campus rules? Yes.
Were the students told they were breaking campus rules and given a chance to end their protests with no consequences? Yes, repeatedly.
Were these protests threatening to Jewish students -- both directly and indirectly? That seems pretty clear. According to the Columbia Spectator, Jewish students on campus have reported threatening and violent behavior from protesters and fellow students. But this is just one account. There has been a ton of anecdotal reporting from Jewish students about the hostile, anti-Semitic atmosphere on campus.
Did students have other options for protesting the war in Gaza other than building a tent encampment in the middle of campus, outside the library, and within hundreds of feet of the school’s student center and a dormitory? Yes. There have been anti-war, pro-Palestinian protests on Columbia’s campus for months. The administration only called in the police after protesters set up a tent encampment in the middle of campus.
Did Columbia seek to negotiate with the protesters? Yes.
Were their demands reasonable? I guess it depends on one’s definition of reasonable, but the administration clearly did not consider demands that Columbia fully financially divest from Israel a reasonable request (for what it’s worth, I agree).
Was there any indication that the protesters were inclined to compromise? Considering that dozens refused to leave the tent encampment, even in the face of possible suspension, the answer appears to be no.
Was there a committee of protesters with whom to negotiate? From what I've been told, no.
Were the protesters' actions escalating and becoming more violent? Seizing a campus building and barricading themselves inside would suggest yes. According to Columbia’s president, “public safety personnel had been forced out of the building during the occupation and … a member of the university’s facilities staff had been threatened.”
Did non-students infiltrate the protests? It remains to be seen, though Columbia administrators raised the issue.
So, what other options existed for administrators? They suspended dozens of students, and the protesters still seized Hamilton Hall. They even threatened the students with expulsion.
At some point, the protesters themselves are responsible for their actions, and administrators have a greater responsibility to ensure there is order on campus — and that the approximately 99 percent of students not participating in demonstrations feel safe.
One can certainly argue that Columbia's initial decision to call in the cops worsened the situation, but what reason is there to believe that involving the police wasn't inevitable? Again, these students (at least some) seized a building after being suspended. They were told expulsion was possible if they maintained their presence there, and they still didn't leave.
I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to conclude that these protesters were never going to back down, no matter what Columbia did, short of sending in the cops.
Let Them March … Ish
To be clear, I’m a firm believer in the rights of Americans to demonstrate and protest. As a kid, I remember my grandfather, whose family was wiped out in the Holocaust, telling me that he supported the Supreme Court when it ruled that Nazis had a right to march in Skokie, Illinois — a town with a fair number of Holocaust survivors — because the First Amendment and the right to free speech in America was sacrosanct. It’s a belief that has stuck with me for decades, and my inclination is almost always to put myself on the side of more, not less, speech.
Peaceful protest and the ability to freely express one’s political beliefs are fundamental to our democracy, even if I think that in this situation, the people protesting are vile anti-Semites and ultimately (albeit indirectly) putting Jewish lives at risk (and I believe that characterization applies to most of the protesters on Columbia’s campus). I draw the line on behavior and conduct that goes beyond free speech and is violent or threatening to public safety.
I honestly don’t see how anyone can look at what’s happened at Columbia over the past two months and not conclude that the behavior of pro-Palestinian protesters crossed multiple lines.
The notion implicit in Hayes's tweet is that “we let kids seize buildings in the past, so we shouldn’t make a big deal out of it now.” I can’t speak to the context of other protests, but this argument is a dodge. It obfuscates the actions of these protesters. As a general rule, I don’t want to see cops sent onto college campuses to break up political protests (and not knowing the details, I suspect that some of the situations where cops have broken up campus protests are not as easily defensible). But general rules are general for a reason. Every situation is different — and that certainly seems to be the case at Columbia, where the students have acted in a far more extreme and radical manner than on other campuses. Indeed, at Yale, protesting students who had set up a tent encampment were also threatened with arrest and suspension — and all left. There were no arrests and no suspensions.
I suspect many of those defending the protesters are doing so because they sympathize with them and their demands. But that moral and legal relativism won’t fly. It’s an argument for criminal behavior going unpunished. It’s calling for the rights of a bunch of rabble-rousers to supersede the rights of the rest of the Columbia community campus. That's a recipe for mob rule.
It might sound trite to some, but rules are rules, laws are laws, and actions must have consequences.
What’s Going On
I disagree with Jill Filipovic on this issue, but she has a different take, and it’s always good to get alternative points of view.
Florida recently enacted a 6-week abortion ban with horrific and predictable consequences for women.
I highly recommend reading every word of Time’s interview with Donald Trump.
It’s pretty clear that Ukraine is losing the war with Russia, and there’s declining hope that Kyiv’s fortunes will be reversed.
Musical Interlude
Any thoughts about the pro-Israeli protestor attacks on the pro-Palestinian camp at UCLA that actually involved physical violence?
Any thoughts about Smotrich who said yesterday - “no half-assed job: Rafah, Dir El Balah, Nusseirat - total annihilation. erase the memory of Amalek from under the sky. There is no place for this pure evil, has no cure, cannot exist.”
How about Ben Gvir last week - “Why are there so many arrests?” Ben-Gvir allegedly asked. “Can’t you kill some? Do you want to tell me they all surrender? What are we to do with so many arrested?”
What are we to make of Israel announcing the largest seizure of West Bank land since the ‘90’s last month during a visit by Blinken?
The “fucked around and found out” graphic is needlessly callous and easily turned around and used to justify any manner of real violence towards any group.
I disagree on the hopelessness of the Ukrainian war situation. Are times tough? Yes, very. But, unseating an entrenched defense is extremely difficult. Just look at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. And I would not put the Russian
military prowess on the same scale as American military power from WW2. The Ukrainians did misuse their western weapons and training during their offensive. A blown opportunity and against an entrenched foe. Now they’ll have to be on the defensive again but with better weapons. Personally, I believe the F-16’s will arrive much sooner than later this year. They will prove to be a winning wild card.