READ: Universities must confront professors who support terrorism

National Post runs AVI op-ed calling on universities to enforce a zero tolerance policy on professors glorifying terrorism

Many of you have seen a viral tweet this week from William Clare Roberts, a political science professor at McGill University: “I used to think BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) was a good idea. I’ve come around, though: nothing short of ‘full economic and military support for Hamas and Hezbollah’ is appropriate.”

This is unfortunately far from the first time a professor has praised or justified terrorism on campus or online. Allied Voices for Israel (AVI) has long maintained that universities must enforce a strict zero tolerance policy when it comes to professors or faculty members voicing support for terrorist groups, including online.

With a new school year ahead of us, I have penned a timely op-ed in today's National Post urging McGill administrators – and university administrators across the country – to enforce clear disciplinary consequences when lines are crossed, and commit to ensuring that classrooms remain places of learning, not recruitment centres for extremist ideology.

AVI has also shared our recommendations with the office of McGill President and Vice-Chancellor Deep Saini.

Universities must “make it explicit, in writing, that any professor or faculty member who praises or justifies terrorist organizations such as Hamas or Hezbollah, including on social media, will face immediate disciplinary measures, up to and including suspension or dismissal,” I write in the op-ed. 

Please read it in its entirety below.

DONATE NOW

Universities must confront professors and faculty members who glorify terrorism

As students head back to school this fall, most are expecting what universities promise: a marketplace of ideas, a chance to test their assumptions, and to engage with peers who see the world differently.

Increasingly, however, what they find is something else. Instead of open dialogue, campuses are being reshaped by professors who cross the line from scholarship into activism, and from activism into public support of terrorist groups.

Take the case of William Clare Roberts, a political science professor at McGill University, who wrote on social media this week: “I used to think BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) was a good idea. I’ve come around, though: nothing short of ‘full economic and military support for Hamas and Hezbollah’ is appropriate.”

It is one thing for a professor to challenge students with difficult ideas. It is quite another for someone entrusted with shaping young minds to publicly cheerlead terrorist organizations responsible for mass murder.

This is not an isolated incident. Across the country, reports of antisemitism at universities like University of British Columbia, Concordia University, and Toronto Metropolitan University show how deeply this problem runs. 

Faculty and professors are not only tolerating such rhetoric but, in too many cases, emboldening their students to promote it. Remember when dozens of U of T professors “aided and abetted” last year’s illegal encampment on campus? Or the Wilfrid Laurier professor who offered students an extra two per cent credit for attending and writing a reflection on an anti-Israel rally held less than three weeks after the attacks on October 7? Or how about the Queen’s University Kinesiology professor who allegedly taught a class on “How Jews became White”?

What begins as political posturing quickly slips into open hostility toward Jewish students and their allies, turning classrooms and campus quads into arenas of intimidation rather than inquiry. For example, last week The Canadian Jewish News ran a piece listing a fresh series of antisemitic incidents on university campuses involving lawsuits, including a Toronto Metropolitan student suing over a “toxic antisemitic environment” and a University of Windsor medical fellow alleging antisemitic discrimination.

This isn’t about left versus right. Professors are entitled to their political views. But a problem occurs when they use their position to weaponize their influence.

I’ve spoken with many students who have told me professors encourage their students to follow them online, especially on X, where the rhetoric only grows more radical, and too often the message is clear: dissent will not be tolerated.

That chilling effect reaches far beyond Jewish students, though they are frequently the first targets. In my experiences as Executive Director of Allied Voices for Israel, which unites students of all backgrounds to rise up against bigotry, I’ve known both Jewish and non-Jewish students who have experienced hatred simply for disagreeing with a professor’s or activist’s position.

This is Canada. The dream of Canada is coexistence — people of different backgrounds, faiths and viewpoints living side by side in mutual respect. Yet, on too many campuses, anti-Israel activists don’t want coexistence; they want exclusion. Their rallying cry — “Zionists off campus” — says it all.

What’s at stake here is bigger than one issue or one community. Universities that once prided themselves on fostering rigorous debate are now creating echo chambers.

Conservative students, or even moderate ones, learn quickly to stay quiet. Dare defend Donald Trump (or even Pierre Poilievre) for anything? You’ll be shouted down. Suggest capitalism has lifted people out of poverty? You’re greedy. Voice support for Christian values, or for Hindus facing persecution abroad? You’re regressive. Defend Israel’s legitimacy as a state? You’re evil.

This environment is the antithesis of higher learning. It replaces intellectual curiosity with ideological conformity. And it breeds resentment, not just among Jewish students, but among anyone who dares to colour outside the approved lines.

University administrations cannot shrug this off as just another expression of academic freedom. Freedom of expression does not mean freedom from standards, and it certainly does not mean freedom to endorse economic and military support for terrorist groups.

Every university in Canada already maintains codes of conduct banning hate speech, harassment and discrimination. They must now go further and make it explicit, in writing, that any professor or faculty member who praises or justifies terrorist organizations such as Hamas or Hezbollah, including on social media, will face immediate disciplinary measures, up to and including suspension or dismissal.

There must be clear disciplinary consequences when lines are crossed, and a commitment must be made to ensuring that classrooms remain places of learning, not recruitment centers for extremist ideology.

Some will argue these measures risk stifling debate. The truth is the opposite: they are necessary to protect debate. There is no debate when one side insists the other has no right to exist.

The encouraging news is that students themselves are beginning to push back. I see an appetite for something better: open dialogue, the ability to agree to disagree, and a rejection of “woke” orthodoxy. Many are tired of being told there is only one narrative they are allowed to accept.

That hunger for honest conversation is a sign of hope. But hope alone is not enough. As another academic year begins, it is up to Canada’s universities to decide what kind of institutions they want to be.

Will they be safe havens for pro-terrorist group activists masquerading as scholars? Will Professor Roberts be excused for his behaviour and serve as yet another example of academic “activism” run amok? Or will universities like McGill recommit themselves to their true purpose — fostering critical thought, mutual respect and the pursuit of truth?

For the sake of their students, and for the sake of the country, the choice should be obvious.