Why is Cornel West Getting a Pass for Anti-Semitism?
Once again, a prominent figure on the left uses anti-Semitic language, and once again the left is silent.
Last month, Professor Cornel West, a non-tenured professor at Harvard, requested that the university consider granting him tenure. West had returned to Harvard five years ago after a much-publicized departure from the university in 2002. The school's administration instead offered the 67-year old professor a ten-year contract renewal and a pay increase, but not a tenured position. This was not good enough for West, who quickly glommed on to a likely culprit for the decision - the Jews.
In a series of tweets sent out after the tenure determination, he asked, "Is Harvard a place for a free Black man like myself whose Christian faith & witness put equal value on Palestinian & Jewish babies - like all babies - & reject all occupations as immoral?" According to West, Harvard's actions were a "political decision."
Harvard's actions could have nothing to do with West's public advocacy on behalf of Sen. Bernie Sanders or Black Lives Matter because these positions are, according to the professor, "mainstream enough to not be viewed as alienating." Certainly, in West's view, it could have nothing to do with the quality of his scholarship or his advanced age. As he elaborated on in a podcast interview, the only explanation had to have been his views on Israel. And while earlier he had only vaguely referred to supporters of Israel being responsible for Harvard's decision (which could theoretically include evangelical Christians, among others), he narrowed his focus to Jews "not in high places."
"This is my hypothesis, because given the possibilities of why they would not be even interested in initiating a tenure process, what else it could be? … The problem is that [talking about the Israeli occupation of Palestine] is a taboo issue among certain circles in high places. It is hard to have a robust, respectful conversation about the Israeli occupation because you are immediately viewed as an anti-Jewish hater or [having] anti-Jewish prejudices. We've got a whole wave of Jewish comrades, Jewish brothers and sisters, who are critical of the Israeli-occupation, but not in high places."
These statements are - whether intentional or not - blatant examples of anti-Semitism. Without a shred of evidence, West suggests that powerful, shadowy, unnamed Jews who, unlike West, fail to "reject occupations as immoral," engineered his tenure denial exclusively because of his views on Israel. It is worth noting, at this point, that the president of Harvard, Lawrence Bacow, is Jewish.
It is a long-standing, anti-Semitic trope that powerful Jews, operating behind the scenes, wield outsized power on behalf of Jewish interests - and against those of "Christian faith" like West. It's very difficult to view West's words, which openly suggest that Jewish/Zionist interests ensured that his tenure was denied, as anything other than being firmly grounded in this specific trope.
And this is not the first time that West has had a run-in with the Harvard administration. In 2002, he was pushed out of the university by then-president Larry Summers for a perceived lack of serious scholarship. West responded to the fight by calling Summers, who is Jewish, the "Ariel Sharon of American higher education." Surely it is another coincidence that in both of his fights with Jewish presidents of Harvard, West has chosen to invoke Israel.
As for West's claim that it's impossible to have a "robust, respectful conversation" about the Israeli occupation, this is a broad overstatement. Many political commentators are critical of the Israeli occupation and its behavior toward Palestinians (and it's also true that some defenders of Israel have sought to silence criticism of the Jewish state). But then again, not many commentators have, like West, accused then-President Barack Obama of being a "war criminal" because his administration supported Israel. Not many have, during "robust" and "respectful" conversations, accused Israel of "state terrorism" and branded the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, a "war criminal" who seeks not just to promote the occupation of the Palestinian people but their "annihilation."
Yet, West's latest bizarre, non-sequitur reference to Israel has raised zero fuss. In the Boston Globe's and New York Times's write-ups of the tenure imbroglio, it went barely mentioned.
Indeed, the response to many in the Harvard community was to rally to West's side. In a letter signed by Ph.D. candidates at the school, the scholars wrote, "It is almost difficult to believe Harvard's dismissal of West's prolific intellectual output because we are keenly aware of how predominantly white institutions disregard the contributions of Black scholars."
I can't speak to the internal politics of Harvard's tenure decision - and certainly, I have no idea if racism played a role. But there is something rather disconcerting about invoking racism to defend a professor who ostentatiously used racist, anti-Semitic language.
Other groups at Harvard have also rallied to West's defense. A petition signed by more than 1800 students and 90 university organizations alleged that:
"Harvard's denial of tenure process to Professor West is a testament to Harvard's continued expulsion of faculty who offer incisive analysis of white supremacy, racial capitalism, Zionism, and the military-industrial complex, all of which Professor West fervently critiques."
The petition also cited West's opposition to the "settler-colonial violence of Israel's occupation of Palestine," a claim which is not simply a criticism of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank but suggests that the very existence of Israel itself is illegitimate. And, as Rabbi Jonah C. Steinberg, the executive director of Harvard Hillel, pointed out in response, "eliding 'white supremacy, racial capitalism, Zionism, and the military-industrial complex,' as the petition does, is a dangerous ethnic slander."
Yet, when pushed for comment, West washed his hands of the petition's incendiary claims, noting instead, "People are responding in their own ways. I don't have to agree with every formulation they have, but I appreciate their support." For a man who claims to devote so much energy to fighting intolerance, this is an oddly obtuse statement.
What makes this situation particularly tricky is that West has long been an advocate against anti-Semitism. He wrote a book several years ago with Rabbi Michael Lerner on bringing the Black and Jewish communities in America together. He has made videos decrying anti-Semitism, and he has cited his "intense and joyful support of my dear brother Bernie Sanders for president," who is of course Jewish.
But past criticism of anti-Semitism is no defense. It's like stating that one can't be racist because their best friend is black. To be clear, I'm in no position to argue that West, himself, is an anti-Semite. Perhaps he does not fully appreciate that accusing unnamed Jews of operating in "high places" to deny him tenure is such a fraught argument. Though at a time when "intention" is no longer considered a defense for using racist speech, it's not clear why West should get a pass on this.
Then again, we know the reason. This is how it always seems to go when it comes to charges of anti-Semitism on the left. They are waved away - a poor formulation, perhaps, but not something worthy of greater condemnation or introspection. Rep. Ilhan Omar, you see, simply did not know that referring to the financial power of pro-Israel lobby groups in explaining US support for the Jewish state played on anti-Semitic tropes. Other forms of racism are simply more important than concerns over anti-Jewish prejudice or the use of centuries-old anti-Semitic tropes. We've seen this over and over and over again on the left: whether it was Women's March organizer Tamika Mallory's praise for Louis Farrakhan or Jeremy Corbyn's repeated anti-Semitic statements. When it comes to left-wing anti-Semitism, there's always a rationalization.
One can also be almost certain that once I post this piece on Twitter, I will be inundated with claims that a) what West said isn't anti-Semitic or b) criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic. This has become the fallback position of those who adamantly deny that left-wing anti-Semitism is a phenomenon worthy of note or that attacks against Israel can ever be considered anti-Semitic. It's the kind of excuse-making that would never be made for any other type of racism or prejudice, but when it comes to Jews is almost always made.
None of this means that Cornel West should, in the current lingo, be canceled. But he should be called out for what he said, and those who regularly claim to care about the insidious role of racism in American society should demand he makes amends. After all, there really isn't much ambiguity about the anti-Semitic content of his recent statements. But that won't happen. As we've learned repeatedly, on the left, Jews and anti-Semitism, don't rate.
Why is Cornel West Getting a Pass for Anti-Semitism?
Just finished reading “Strange Justice” about Clarence Thomas’ confirmation hearings. I believe it was you who mentioned it. Anyway, I think many liberals are intimidated by potential charges of racism with Cornel West, as they were in Thomas’ case. And, in my own experience, people who aren’t well informed about a subject will have the typical knee jerk reaction. It’s unfortunate some folks can’t look beyond their own nose. Rosemary Sullivan