Free speech and consequence-free speech are two different things

OPINION:

Editor’s note: This is one in a series examining the Constitution and Federalist Papers in today’s America.

In Evelyn Beatrice Hall’s 1906 “Friends of Voltaire,” the French philosopher reacts to news of the burning of a book with which he disagrees by formulating the paradigm of free expression in a democratic society. He makes clear his disapproval of the book while deeply deploring the act of book burning by saying: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Fast forward 117 years and we find ourselves struggling to reconcile this famous defense of free speech with the news that more than 30 Harvard University student organizations co-signed a letter blaming Israel for the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas on the country. The outrage of students at one of America’s premier universities using their academic platform to blame murder, rape and kidnapping victims for the crimes that they suffered strains the bounds of our philosophical support for one of our most cherished freedoms outlined in the First Amendment.

Former Harvard University President Larry Summers wrote on X that he was “sickened” by the letter. Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican and a Harvard graduate, rhetorically asked, “What the hell is wrong with Harvard?”

Harvard finally and reluctantly issued its own letter stating that the leadership of the college was “heartbroken” by the events in Israel. This seems insufficient given the scale of Hamas’ atrocities and the consequences these actions were designed to create.

How do we reconcile this abuse of liberty and privilege with support for freedom of expression?

There is no question that what we see here is purposeful abuse. The groups’ attempts to hide behind their condemnation of the policies of the Israeli government are a thin reed. The statement doesn’t justify the Palestinians’ right to resist. Rather, it justifies murder, including the filming of the desecration of victims’ bodies, and hostage-taking, including abduction and beheading of children.

A statement that condemns barbaric and criminal methods while supporting Hamas’ long-term goals of destroying Israel would have looked different and been received differently. Some would have been able to follow Hall’s formulation and defend these groups’ right to argue their beliefs.

The truth is that free speech isn’t consequence-free speech. These student groups, their members and faculty supporters have the right to argue for and to justify mass murder and abductions. They don’t have the right to do so without incurring a cost.

No doubt, many of the student members of these organizations attend Harvard on federally supported grants or loans. It is legitimate for taxpayers to ask whether they should fund the education of apologists for mass murder, rape and kidnapping. This is distinguishable from supporting education and research that criticizes the governance, culture, institutions and values of the United States.

The student members of these groups and the faculty who advise them, all cloaked behind organizational names, have demonstrated monstrously poor judgment — a characteristic that is inconsistent with government service. As such, their records and the records of anyone associated with these organizations should be flagged in such a way as to prevent them from ever holding a security clearance. This is a prudent step to ensure that public servants are worthy of the public trust placed in them.

A Harvard degree opens many doors in business, academia and other industries. Recently, responsible employers have scrutinized prospective employees’ online behavior. Given the damage an institution’s reputation could suffer as the result of an employee’s private actions, this scrutiny seems like a reasonable step.

An employee who explicitly supports murder, rape, beheading of children and kidnapping is one whose past and future actions could lead to precisely this sort of damage.

As Harvard emeritus professor Alan Dershowitz recently wrote, Harvard should publish the names of the students who parade behind the high-sounding names of the groups they represent. Future employers should be able to consider their views prior to hiring them.

Finally, Harvard, as an institution, deserves some scrutiny. The federal government has an obligation to ensure that organizations that benefit from taxpayer largesse hew to some minimum standards. Institutional rejection of excuses for mass murder, rape and kidnappings represents such a minimum.

Absent a clear rejection of the contents of the letter from Harvard’s leaders, the federal government should suspend all funding of the institution.

Disagreement is acceptable. Supporting a letter that lamented the circumstances of the people of Gaza would have been entirely appropriate. It’s the lack of clear condemnation for the murder of innocents and the horrific crimes committed by Hamas that is beyond the pale. 

• David S. Jonas is a partner at Fluet in Tysons, Virginia, and an adjunct professor at Georgetown and George Washington University law schools. Michael Samarov is a retired Marine Corps officer. The views expressed in this column represent the personal views of the authors.