College and university presidents' reticence on the Israel-Hamas conflict results from the False Dilemma Fallacy
As public figures, you not only speak for yourself. You represent your constituents, and within that group are folks with competing interests. But, morality must trump cowardice.
Condemning terrorist attacks should not be seen as political. It is not. Those who choose to see it as political are cowards.
On at least two of the Facebook pages of which I’m a member several parents wondered why the presidents of their respective colleges have yet to speak out on the attacks by Hamas in Israel.
The normal refrains ensued:
“I see their silence as complicity,” wrote one parent.
Another singled out what he saw as selective outrage:
“I like how [these presidents] can speak out on certain matters but not others. We’re all watching.”
I left the following comment on one of the pages:
“A conversation I find myself having WAY too often begins this way: Our personal and professional lives bear little to no resemblance to one's political lives. A similar calculus is being employed at colleges and businesses across the country right now: How do I convey my personal feelings in this professional setting, and in a way that does not harm me or my institution politically?
“Any advisor who worries irrationally about her/his job is going to say, You can’t. … Sadly, as soon as a leader opens his/her mouth on a controversial—potential divisive—topic, they become a target, in large part because it’s seen as representing the ENTIRE group/org/institution. And because of that, a small but mighty minority will rise up and make their lives hell. The opprobrium is vicious. Sadly. (This change in culture—’safety from ideas’—began in 2014. See: University of Missouri, fall 2014.)”
These parents, however well-meaning, have no idea of the tremendous pressure these leaders are under during times of tumult. Their choices are often seen as coming with potentially perilous consequences. Whatever they say runs the risk of offending someone and creating a conflict that’s difficult to defuse, so they choose silence, thinking, “At least saying nothing means nothing can be held against me.”
They are falling for the False Dilemma Fallacy, believing that, in the case of the attacks by Hamas, presents them with only two choices: sympathy to Palestine or sympathy to Israel. Wrong! The real options are pro-terrorism or anti-terrorism. It shouldn’t take courage to condemn the former.
A personal example
One of the biggest dashes of cold water I received upon being elected to local office was the realization that my public opinions no longer represented me and me alone. Instead, the words that came out of my mouth would be viewed through the prism of how well they fit with one of following:
The folks who voted for me, or
The folks I represent as an elected official folks, or
Both groups
So, if, say, I made a statement on my personal Facebook Page about something potentially controversial, it had the potential to anger one or both groups, which meant that, at the very least I should tread lightly. But, me being me, I didn’t do that: I said what I wanted to say or what I thought was (a) right and (b) my right to say, and thought, “I don’t give a damn who gets mad. This is my page. I’m an elected official; I’m not an indentured servant.”
As I often say: “I care more about doing right than being right.”
But while it was easy for me—someone who does not not plan to have a future in politics and who has never, Ever, EVER cowered in the face of public opinion or opprobrium—this stance is very unwise for anyone who has looks to have a long-term future in politics. Or remain the president of most colleges and universities in this country.
A harsh but true reality
One of the (many) bromides I repeat often goes like this:
“We’ll never have these perfect political candidates we all supposedly want. The best people will never run. They won’t put themselves and their families under the immense scrutiny from the public and the media, in addition to rival politicians, who’ll use any obscure fact for their advantage, even if the so-called fact is more of a rumor that has lasting, harmful consequences.”
It’s the same for high profile college presidents. They have to worry about pleasing the students, their staff, parents, coaches, boosters, etc. At top schools, it’s even more of a pressure cooker, as more and more success means more and more scrutiny from constituents (read: parents, students, boosters, etc.) who think rankings, endowments, and constituent satisfaction must always be increasing. It’s why a former University of Michigan president I interviewed nearly 20 years ago said that his desire was for UM to win every game but the last one.
Chew on that: He was implying that the pressure was already so high that winning the national championship turned up the spigot to unbearable levels.
In the last decade, however, with the rise of activist students on campuses nationwide, the temperature is always one incident from the boiling point. Since the 2014 protests on the University of Missouri campus resulted in the president losing his job for the way he handled racial justice complaints, we’ve seen numerous instances of college students wielding their power to bring not just college leaders, but entire departments, to their knees if the protestors’ demands aren’t met.
In this climate, it’s easy to see why many presidents are church-prayer-quiet on the conflict.
Thoughts on the ‘dilemma’
Several folks I’ve spoken to over the last week have trotted out the “They want it both ways” argument regarding the reticence:
“There is only one side in the conflict, Ronell. Hamas is wrong, evil, and should be condemned. They can and should denounce [that terrorist groups] behavior.”
I totally agree. Any rational person would get this. There is a “however” here, though:
As soon as they speak against Hamas, many pro-Palestine students will highlight what they see as Israel's role in the greater ongoing conflict. Then, all of a sudden, it’s not about saying it’s wrong to kill babies or to attack innocent young adults at a festival; it’s about them having chosen a side. And that side is likely to have hundreds of students on campus ready to pounce at this misstep.
And, remember, university presidents didn’t become university presidents by taking risks. What we see as moments to show their mettle, they see as moments to run away from lest they abruptly shorten their tenure.
Why the cowardice is misplaced
Condemning terrorists is not hard.
The same way that we can say that the person who kills three people in a senseless drive-by shooting is a vicious, cowardly murderer without indicting the carmaker is the same way that college presidents can condemn blood-thirsty Hamas terrorists for the atrocities committed about the people of Israel during the October 2023 attacks.
Acts of terror are universally condemnable.
This is, after all, Hamas were talking about, a terrorist organism dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel and with it the Jewish identity, said former Secretary of State Condi Rice on Bari Weiss’ Honestly podcast.
“It is an organization that doesn’t even recognize the right of Israel to exist, and it is an organization that is dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel and to the extinguishing, in a sense, of Jewish identity in that state.
“So anybody who wants to say to me ‘This was about the plight of the Palestinian people,’ I say, ‘Yeah, it is about the plight of the Palestinian people, and how Hamas has never cared about the plight of the Palestinian people. It has done everything that it can to keep the Palestinian people in bondage.’”
How I’m keeping track of what’s happening in Israel -
I read a lot of blogs on prominent news sites daily, including the WSJ, WaPo, NYT, National Review, The Dispatch, etc., among them. But lately I’ve taken a strong liking to the The Free Press, by Bari Weiss. The site is knocking it out the part on the coverage of the Hamas-Israel conflict.
This post is a great place to start: Hamas’s War on Israel: Everything You Need to Know