There needs to be dialogue and understanding on the Israel-Gaza war

In such an immediate crisis, demonstrations on both sides should be seen as a call for dialogue and understanding of the other’s point of view. Universities can meet this moment without fear of violating free-speech standards if they pivot and provide ample opportunities for students to better understand the weight of their words. “From the river to the sea” has a clear genocidal intent for many Jews; a cry of “terrorists” aimed indiscriminately at Muslim or Arab students is Islamophobic and full of hate.

Let’s provide opportunities for our students to be better thinkers by teaching them the cultural contexts of their words. Let’s keep each student safe while modeling empathy as the first step of peacemaking.

Educational administrators have many jobs; let’s remember that teaching is job No. 1.

Bonnie Wohl Bricker, Elkridge

The resignation of Liz Magill as president of the University of Pennsylvania, prompted by an uproar over her testimony before a hostile House committee and unwithering pressure from alumni, pains this alumnus. After approval of the Palestine Writes Literature Festival, which included antisemitic speakers, and a weak and slow response to the horrific Hamas attack on Israel on Oct. 7, Ms. Magill faced an onslaught of criticism.

Hallowed defense of free speech and academic freedom, while legally correct and necessary, precluded a full-throated condemnation of calls by students for Jewish genocide. When common sense called for unequivocal disapproval, Ms. Magill defaulted to legalese, as did Harvard President Claudine Gay and MIT President Sally Kornbluth. Their responses inflamed an already antagonistic committee determined to weaponize antisemitism to attack “woke” cultures at Ivy League institutions.

Lost in the events that have roiled the Pennsylvania campus is recognition of Ms. Magill as a quality person and respected academic leader. That should not be forgotten. No one should take pride in her resignation. The upheaval is injurious to a great university. I bemoan the turmoil.

Howard Freedlander, Annapolis

Why it is that a critical comment by almost anyone on the war in Gaza is cast as antisemitic? Are all those protesting the war regarded as racist or antisemitic? If yes, then critiques of Israel or its actions have an automatic shield that serves to rouse quick condemnation of them from many quarters and obscures the comment’s or protest’s message. That’s not right.

I believe civilians in Gaza are needlessly being killed, and I know in my heart that my comment is not meant to be racist or antisemitic. I just mean people are being killed who shouldn’t be.

Whether the overwhelming assault on Gaza is needed to kill Hamas fighters is not the point. Whether needed or not, it winds up being slaughter. It reminds me of what the United States did in Vietnam, when we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians to try to stop Viet Cong and North Vietnamese fighters. Some declared that was a racist war, but declaring it such didn’t slow the slaughter.

I just wish that people could comment on the Israel-Gaza war without being mischaracterized as antisemitic.

Allen Mears, McLean

Then-University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill’s answer before a congressional committee spoke to the school’s code of conduct. It says:

“Responsible behavior includes but is not limited to the following obligations: … To refrain from conduct towards other students that infringes upon the Rights of Student Citizenship. The University condemns hate speech, epithets, and racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs. However, the content of student speech or expression is not by itself a basis for disciplinary action. Student speech may be subject to discipline when it violates applicable laws or University regulations or policies.”

To refrain from conduct towards other students that infringes upon the Rights of Student Citizenship. The University condemns hate speech, epithets, and racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs. However, the content of student speech or expression is not by itself a basis for disciplinary action. Student speech may be subject to discipline when it violates applicable laws or University regulations or policies.”

Penn lacks a workplace bullying policy. A half-decent policy would prohibit psychological intimidation and harassment (without regard to race, religion, etc.). The Labor Department’s policy states: “Psychological intimidation or harassment includes making statements which are false, malicious, disparaging, derogatory, rude, disrespectful, abusive, obnoxious, insubordinate, or which have the intent to hurt others’ reputations.”

If Penn had a workplace bullying policy, people would have seen that the code of conduct was unworkably vague. Urging or supporting the death of any group of people is psychological violence, if not incitement to it.

Edward Stern, Bethesda

The writer is a workplace bullying policy researcher, writer and adviser.