RUSA sets precedent for U. speaker invitations amid backlash to 'son of Hamas'

On Thursday, the Rutgers University Student Assembly approved a resolution denouncing any speaker invited to campus with a history of anti-Palestinian, Islamophobic or otherwise bigoted rhetoric — especially when the organization inviting the speaker is funded by the Assembly.

The bill, sponsored by the Al-Ghazali Club, Arab Cultural Club, Hindi-Urdu Language and Cultural Association, Muslim Public Relations Council and the Muslim Student Association, comes on the heels of a scheduled event last month in which Students Supporting Israel at Rutgers—New Brunswick (SSI), in conjunction with Rutgers Chabad, invited Mosab Hassan Yousef to speak on campus.

Yousef, author of "Son of Hamas" and child of Hamas co-founder Sheikh Hassan Yousef, is known for his anti-Palestinian and Islamophobic viewpoints, as reported previously by The Daily Targum.

The resolution itself lists four examples establishing how he has publicly likened Palestinians to "parasites" and "mental illness," called those who practice Islam "delusional" and "insane" and explained how he would prioritize the well-being of a single cow over approximately 1.6 billion Muslim individuals.

"This invitation comes on the tail end of some of the greatest Islamophobia and anti-Arab sentiment that the community has faced, not just at Rutgers … the Jersey Muslim community … and the Muslim American community as a whole," one of the co-authors said. "Just a few months ago, the Center of Islamic Life at Rutgers University was vandalized in a hate crime … I hope you all can keep in mind the context in which this event is being intended to happen."

The speakers also cited a statement from University President Jonathan Holloway condemning the Islamophobic incident, as well as bills previously passed by the Assembly defining Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism.

The speaker event was ultimately postponed to an undetermined date, with SSI and Chabad attributing the delay to a larger-than-expected audience that the selected venue could not support. The postponement also came after pro-Palestinian student groups announced a protest in response to the event on the lawn in front of the College Avenue Gym, which is located across the street from Chabad, as previously reported by the Targum.

The bill combines the Assembly's request that the invitation be rescinded with a sweeping precedent to disavow speakers with a history of discriminatory or hate speech.

But the bill did not pass without several attempted amendments. The first of these was regarding whether the bill could be applied not only to Yousef and future campus speakers but also those from the past who were subject to further debate.

Another proposed amendment suggested that the bill be applied to hate speech against all marginalized groups instead of just Arab, Muslim and Palestinian communities. This passed without debate.

An additional amendment proposed taking out the phrase "in the future," found in the third part of the resolution. Proponents of the amendment argued that the removal of the phrase would allow for the Assembly to also condemn speakers of the past. 

"I'm not trying … to have it be a Pandora's Box to call a specific person out from the past specifically — that's not the point," a proponent of the amendment said. "But I think that the whole point of this bill is accountability, and if we're going to speak about accountability, you also have to hold yourself accountable for previous actions, and the University as a whole should also be held accountable for its actions."

Counterarguments about how this approach would weaken the effectiveness of the bill in addressing hate speech more broadly beyond the SSI speaker event resulted in a motion to amend the bill to more specifically apply to invitations of the "past, present and in the future."

The updated amendment garnered further discourse, with some proponents arguing that the language allows for the community to acknowledge missteps of the past while paving a way forward and others arguing that the bill allows the Assembly to provide a blanket acknowledgment of problematic speakers of the past without needing to pass an individual resolution for each one.

Its opponents argued that the amendment would overly simplify the various human and civil rights issues that shape Rutgers' history into a single paragraph.

The amendment was put up to vote and ultimately failed to pass, resulting in an alternate proposal to remove the word "minority" from the phrase "any minority group."

Opponents argued that the updated language would enable groups that have historically oppressed others. In contrast, proponents argued that no group should be subject to bias and that, as written, the bill simplifies fluctuating power dynamics. While doing so, they drew from historical discrimination against individuals from Israel.

"Israel has been a historically oppressed group, so if we say only 'historically oppressed groups and marginalized groups,' that doesn't apply to this scenario," the proponent said. "I'm not saying that Israelis are not oppressed right now as well, but there's not one 'oppressor' and one 'oppressed' … I think we do need to have 'any,' especially for this one scenario, because in this one scenario, Muslims and Arabs are the ones being oppressed by someone who's also been historically oppressed."

The amendment also failed to gain majority support, resulting in the entire bill being put up for a final debate, which largely centered around the protection of free speech versus protections against hate speech.

Opponents of the bill cautioned against it on the grounds of censorship and argued that it closes off the University community to discourse, discomfort and diverse viewpoints, which, by proxy, would limit scholastic growth, constructive debates and inclusivity.

"The solution is not to silence individuals but to encourage them to engage with them, to challenge their ideas and to make our voices heard through peacefully constructive means," an opponent said. "If we take that route, we maintain the integrity of free expression while also ensuring the harmful rhetoric is confronted head-on."

On a broader scale, opponents indicated concerns about how the bill could further splinter the University community. They also posit that the bill grants the Assembly too much authority to determine whose ideas are heard on campus without providing a consistent or comprehensive way for the group to assess what speakers should or should not have a platform on campus.

Proponents argued that hate speech presents no benefits and serves to make students feel hated and unsafe, regardless of the group being targeted. They also argued that the bill is in line with other precedents set when defining various types of hate.

Ultimately, the bill was passed by an unspecified majority. Assembly leaders thanked members for being in attendance and engaging in democratic procedures throughout the endeavor. Assembly President Jack Ramirez, a School of Arts and Sciences senior, weighed in on the bill, expressing opposition to "any form of vitriol (and) hatred on our campus."

The meeting formally closed out following officer updates, some of which once again addressed the bill.

"I think that the (free speech) argument is completely absurd," a proponent of the bill said. "On a national level, yes, free speech is defended within the Constitution. Within Rutgers, hate really doesn't have any bone here, and we can discuss certain issues as much as you'd like, but hate speech really does not bring anything, and I think that condemning it should not be a debatable thing."