The New McCarthyism
A new wave of censorship echoes McCarthyism as fear and external pressure silence campus debates on the Middle East, stifling free speech and suppressing academic inquiry.
By Jeremi Suri
If you casually read about universities in the press, you might think they are overrun with debates and demonstrations about the war between Israel and Hamas. That was true for a small number of universities last spring, but it is not the case this fall. As a result of violent crackdowns on protests and stiff penalties for those who broke university rules, students are hesitant to speak out. Elected officials, parents, and alumni have been emboldened to pressure campus leaders to limit uncomfortable and disfavored opinions. The result is that different points of view on the Middle East are not getting shared with the academic rigor we expect, and they are not being subjected to critical analysis in public forums. There is an emerging fear of controversy, and that fear has a chilling effect on campus discussions.
The historical echoes of McCarthyism are instructive for understanding this moment and what we should do. During the 1950s fears of communist espionage and aggression motivated many honest citizens to support damaging infringements on civil rights for suspected communist sympathizers. Diplomats, authors, Hollywood celebrities, and, yes, college administrators and professors were attacked viciously. Politicians, particularly Senator Joe McCarthy from Wisconsin, encouraged hysteria around these issues for personal gain. Cutting down elites was popular; it made elected officials look tough.
McCarthyism, as it came to be called, encouraged militant expressions of American patriotism, including a long and costly war in Vietnam. No American, particularly Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, wanted to look weak on fighting communism.
A difficult balancing act
Today the challenge for leaders of American institutions is to avoid appearing insufficiently supportive of Israel or its adversaries in the Middle East. Politicians, parents, and alumni are on the watch for any invited speaker associated with groups that criticize Israel. They write letters, they make phone calls, they demand cancellation of these speakers, and they threaten damaging repercussions for institutions that don’t obey. They oppose free speech for those who accuse Israel of genocide. Many of these letter-writers championed free speech and condemned cancel culture months earlier when their allies were targeted, but now they have abandoned their principles.
Intolerance comes from the other direction too. Pro-Palestinian groups are demanding divestments from Israel, and they are calling for boycotts of Israeli scholars and businesses. They shout down public officials who affirm Israel’s right to defend itself, they insist on condemning Israel without acknowledging the crimes of Hamas, and they use “Zionist” as an epithet to ostracize anyone sympathetic to Israelis. These actions target Jews, even those who disdain the policies of the current Israeli government. Pro-Palestinian groups are singling out Jews from all places and backgrounds for punishment, and that often feels anti-Semitic, whether intended or not. It discourages conversation and creates polarization.
Fear and silencing speech
Fear was the effect of McCarthyism in the 1950s: no American institution wanted to be associated with communism in any way. And fear is the effect today: many American institutions do not want to be associated with pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli arguments. So we cancel speakers, we shut down public discussions, and we try to look away. McCarthyism is the deafening silence from political repression of controversial speech.
So what should we do? It is hard to push back, as critics of McCarthyism learned in the 1950s. Guilt by association is powerful. Most institutions are risk-averse. Many people are happy to hear only one side of an issue they care deeply about. Defending free speech is crucial, but it will not discourage those determined to prevent certain viewpoints from circulating. Often, the repressors will advocate for free speech as they deny it to those they dislike.
A laboratory for serious, controversial thought
The most effective response to McCarthyism has been to defend the independence of institutions. Universities must serve the public, but they must not pander to politicians, rich donors, or the most organized identity groups. Universities must fight to preserve their role as incubators for difficult and necessary conversations about controversial topics. The showcasing of different viewpoints allows for learning, and it opens possibilities for compromise and innovation. Healthy debate inspires deeper investigation and sharper thinking. That is what college is for.
This is not a hard case to make. As laboratories for serious thought, universities are the opposite of indoctrination machines. They need a wide berth for fearless arguments and unpopular investigations. Conservatives used to make this case most eloquently. If it applies to advocates of abortion bans and vaccine-avoidance, it should also apply to defenders of Israeli and Palestinian self-determination.
No one likes free speech when they have to hear people they abhor, but everyone benefits from the protections it offers for their point of view. We should push back against intolerant impulses by widening the range of discussion in all parts of our democracy, especially our universities. If we care about change, we need more debate about the Middle East, not less.
Also see in:
German, Turkish, Chinese, Spanish
Jeremi Suri holds the Mack Brown Distinguished Chair for Leadership in Global Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. He is a professor in the University's Department of History and the LBJ School of Public Affairs. Professor Suri is the author and editor of eleven books on politics and foreign policy, most recently: Civil War By Other Means: America’s Long and Unfinished Fight for Democracy. His other books include: The Impossible Presidency: The Rise and Fall of America’s Highest Office; Liberty’s Surest Guardian: American Nation-Building from the Founders to Obama; Henry Kissinger and the American Century; and Power and Protest: Global Revolution and the Rise of Détente. His writings appear in the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, CNN.com, Atlantic, Newsweek, Time, Wired, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, and other media. Professor Suri is a popular public lecturer and comments frequently on radio and television news. His writing and teaching have received numerous prizes, including the President’s Associates Teaching Excellence Award from the University of Texas and the Pro Bene Meritis Award for Contributions to the Liberal Arts. Professor Suri hosts a weekly podcast, “This is Democracy.”