It was not too long ago that CUNY Law School was the outlier when it came to anti-Israel and antisemitic rhetoric by its students. Unfortunately, it is becoming mainstream.
Georgetown Law School announced that Dr. Morton Schapiro, Professor and President Emeritus of Northwestern University, would be the commencement speaker. A petition was circulated among the law school students to rescind the invitation since Schapiro is not a lawyer, has no connection to Georgetown, and holds “controversial Zionist and harmful opinions.” Their approach shows that they are not ready to practice law as litigators, whether at the trial level or in the appellate courts. There are two essential elements that a good lawyer needs: one is credibility, and the second is starting with what you believe is your strongest argument.
The students want us to believe that they are objecting primarily because Schapiro is not a lawyer and has no connection to the university. His Zionist and undefined “harmful” opinions are listed only as the third and fourth reasons. On its face, it is not credible that Schapiro’s lack of a law degree or connection to the university was the main reason. What makes their argument even worse is that the commencement speaker for last year was Henry Louis Gates Jr., who is neither a lawyer nor has any connection to the university. Thus, those students have no credibility that this was the basis of their request. Furthermore, they did not indicate what Schapiro’s “harmful” opinions actually were.
The real reason is that Schapiro is a Jew and a supporter of Israel. The students who explicitly addressed the issue in their comments cited support for Israel as the reason. In their minds, that is their strongest argument, yet they listed it third.
Schapiro decided to solve the problem for the school and chose not to speak at the graduation. He was replaced by David Cole, a professor at the law school. Cole is the former national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union and has spoken in defense of First Amendment speech that many find offensive. Cole had an opportunity for a teachable moment; he could have told the students that they should not object to Schapiro speaking even if they disagree with some of his positions. Cole could have declined the honor to show his displeasure with Schapiro being forced out, which supposedly goes against what he stands for. Instead, he accepted the honor. It proves that Cole only cares about the First Amendment when it comes to those who espouse antisemitic views but has no problem cutting down those who are pro-Israel. He has plenty of company on the left and on the right.
It should not come as a total shock, since Elizabeth Magill, the former president of the University of Pennsylvania, will be the new dean of the law school. Magill was one of the university presidents who testified at a Congressional hearing on December 5, 2023, titled “Holding Campus Leaders Accountable and Confronting Antisemitism.” She was asked by Elise Stefanik, “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s rules or code of conduct? Yes or no?” Magill replied, “If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment.” Stefanik then asked whether calling for genocide constituted bullying or harassment. Magill responded, “If it is directed and severe, pervasive, it is harassment.” Stefanik then asked if the answer was simply yes. Magill said, “It is a context-dependent decision.” Congresswoman Stefanik responded incredulously, “That’s your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of Jews is depending upon the context?” The outrage was so great that Magill was gone after three days.
We should not sit idly by. I call on Jewish alumni of Georgetown Law School to boycott giving any funds to the law school and let them know why. Prospective employers should not hire those who signed the petition. Jews who are looking to go to law school should look elsewhere. If there is a possible lawsuit that can be brought relating to the situation at the law school concerning Jewish students, it should be brought.
One of the phrases I hear when commentators compare Democratic and Republican chances in the midterms is the “enthusiasm gap.” The more enthusiastic you are, the more likely you are to vote. What worries me is that there is an enthusiasm gap—or what I would call a “passion gap”—between those who want to destroy Israel and are antisemitic and those who stand by it and oppose antisemitism. In London, thousands marched on Sunday to the Prime Minister’s office denouncing antisemitism which is an indication that in England, the Jewish Community is passionate about the problem. In contrast, on the same Sunday, a rally in Forest Hills to stand up against antisemitism had only fifty people.
People were told not to go to a counter-protest when there was a protest by Hamas supporters across from the Young Israel of Kew Gardens Hills. What is the excuse now for the small crowd? Just like the counter-protest, most of the self-proclaimed leaders were nowhere to be found at the rally in Forest Hills. If we let our enemies show greater passion, we are doomed.
