Opinion – On the Palestinian Exception and Professor Noura Erakat’s Visit to UT Austin
By Karma R. Chávez, Lauren Gutterman, and Pavithra Vasudevan
Last week a legal scholar of war and international law was set to speak in UT Law’s Atheneaum, which promotes “civil discourse, reasoned dialogue, and the value of dissent in a dignified environment.” The scholar scheduled was Noura Erakat, a Palestinian and a leading voice against genocide and for Palestinian self-determination.
Erakat was excited to visit UT and felt she was invited in good faith, although on the heels of Atheneaum’s hosting of the controversial Zionist speaker, Bari Weiss in November. Weiss, who has been accused of putting Palestinians in direct danger with her rhetoric, was shouted down by attendees. Erakat planned to speak against genocide and racism of all forms—including anti-Semitism, so it is hard to imagine why she should’ve been a controversial speaker in Atheneaum. But, at the last minute, Atheneaum leaders told Erakat that due to security concerns, they would host her on Zoom, not in-person. The online audience was not permitted to ask questions.
The following night, UT’s far-right Salem Center, hosted Yaron Brook, an Israeli American public intellectual who argued that Israel’s enemy is not only Hamas but the Palestinian people collectively. He stated that Israel is morally right to attack civilians and has tried “too hard” to avoid civilian casualties. Following the murder of a six-year-old Palestinian boy in Illinois, and the shooting of three Palestinian college students in Vermont, there is reason to fear that rhetoric like Brook’s could incite further violence against Palestinians, including at UT. Nevertheless Brook was allowed to speak and engage his audience in-person.
Why is it that a Palestinian speaker opposing the use of violence against civilians and an Israeli speaker advocating for it, were given such disparate treatment at the University of Texas? Why is the university making it more difficult for human rights advocates to be heard while simultaneously platforming those fostering hatred against a group of people? In part, these questions have practical answers that have to do with the commitments of Atheneaum and Salem, but UT’s repeated and emphatic statements in defense of free speech, academic freedom, and “viewpoint diversity,” indicate that the answer may also be that there is a “Palestinian exception” wherein these values apply to everyone except for Palestinians and their allies.
We’ve seen ample evidence to support our view as universities have become ground zero in battles over speech in recent years and especially since October 7, 2023. Whether this is in the removal of two UT social work TAs for sharing mental health resources for Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim students in their class on mental health, or the gassing of Palestinian solidarity protestors at Columbia University. This hysteria has also led to the removal of two Ivy League university presidents for their comments in defense of campus speech and to the deactivation of Students for Justice in Palestine chapters in the State University System of Florida. We see no such treatment of Zionist groups or speakers, despite Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim students’ reports of threats and harassment, and the overwhelming administrative silence about their pain and suffering.
Reinforcing the Palestinian exception is hypocritical for schools like UT. It is also a threat to the very principles of democratic exchange that UT espouses, and it is down right dangerous for Palestinians and their allies. For us, it demands asking whether speech is truly free if it comes at the cost of Palestinian safety and freedom. While some may be unconcerned with the Palestinian exception, the mechanisms of censorship and repression brought to bear now are unlikely to end here. As the legendary Black writer James Baldwin wrote in solidarity to the activist Angela Davis while she was imprisoned in the early 1970s: “if they take you in the morning, they will be coming for us that night.”