Across the nation, colleges and universities are seeing students and faculty debating intellectual freedom and open dialogue about the war in Gaza, amid pressure from donors to condemn antisemitism. Proponents are seeking venues for open discussions about religions, and parsing the motives for violence against them.
At Harvard University, more than 100 professors recently challenged efforts to “address antisemitism on campus,” and challenged language used by supporters of Palestinians in the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. The Harvard Jewish Alumni Association has threatened to withhold donations unless the school addresses antisemitism on campus. In their letter, Harvard professors urged the university to “affirm its commitment to the freedom of thought, inquiry, and expression.”
The conflict at Harvard comes during a tense time when free speech debates about religious strife unfold on campuses around the U.S., including here in Vermont. Certain events and rallies have been canceled under the auspices of providing “safety.”
Dania Anabtawi, a sophomore at Pomona College in California, and Ayelet Kaminski, a sophomore at the University of Vermont, recently published a commentary raising concerns that “pro-Palestinian voices are facing backlash and censorship across college campuses.”
They wrote: “Recent examples from Harvard and Columbia (University) of students being doxxed for their support of Palestine make us worried that a lack of administrative support at our colleges will lead students to the same fate.”
They go on: “As college students, we have seen that when Palestinian students attempt to speak out, their personal experiences are politicized and deemed controversial. We went to high school together and went on to attend colleges on opposite coasts … No matter our location, we have noticed Palestinian students’ voices silenced in the name of ‘safety.’ But now, more than ever, it is important to listen to what they have to say.”
They point out that “Neither Jewish students nor Muslim and/or Arab students are strangers to fearing for their safety due to their identity on campus.”
We are fortunate in this country to have Freedom of Religion, and that protection — under the First Amendment — to be able to talk about it openly. We can have our religion and show our affiliations publicly.
Conversely, in France, there is a freedom from religion in place that makes these present-day discussions challenging in ways that are hard for Americans to understand.
France’s laïcité involves the removal of religious values from the public sphere and their replacement with secular values such as liberty, equality and fraternity — tenets of French culture and nationalism. The underlying goal of laïcité is “to implant tolerance and assimilate people.”
There has been a crackdown by the French government following a series of terrorist attacks in France that President Emmanuel Macron described as “Islamist separatism,” including the high-profile killing of a history professor in the Paris suburbs. The killings — with about 100 deaths over a span of just a few years — sparked demonstrations, and led to a renewed debate over laïcité. Some would argue it has led to mass discrimination.
The French government and the demonstrators both see themselves as defending the principle — of which there is no easy equivalent in the United States. Laïcité is usually translated as “secularism,” though experts on laïcité say that is too narrow, and tends to imply skepticism or hostility rather than neutrality toward religion.
As one scholar noted, “Every country has to find a balance between the authority of the state and the influence of religion arising from its particular history. The French Republic in its modern form was established in the late 19th century after long struggles by republicans against royalist and authoritarian movements that were supported by the Catholic church. The religious differences were settled in 1905 when the church and the state were legally separated. The state was declared neutral with respect to religion, and people were free to believe and practice any religion or none.” Laïcité has been included in the constitution since 1946. It is — literally — part of France’s nationalism.
But these “religious attacks” over the last decade intensified a feeling among many people in France that they are embattled. French Muslims have been put under pressure to disavow the extremists or to accept guilt by association with them. In either case, Muslims’ place in the nation has been put in question.
“What is at stake in these debates is not just the secular state, but also the wider framework of rights and responsibilities, and ultimately the very identity of the French Republic. So, from being the basis of a religious settlement, laïcité has increasingly become an expression of French identity. It now acts as a touchstone for … how French people can live together,” one scholar wrote. Tolerance and assimilation.
Discouraging religious involvement in government affairs, especially religious influence in the determination of state policies, has appeal. Our Constitution allows for the “free exercise” of religion, and provides for a “separation of church and state.” We can still openly “wear” our religions in public. The “separation” is not extended to bar religious conduct in public places or by public servants.
As students and faculty around the U.S. are seeing, talking about religion (and the causes declared on its behalf) are worthy of public discussion if we are to resolve our differences. A freedom from religion — while important to France’s nationalism — feels somewhat like avoidance and homogeny, and it deprives religions of their rights and encourages discrimination.
Quebec has, in recent years, considered a bill “affirming the values of State secularism and religious neutrality … and providing a framework for accommodation requests.” The people who would be most impacted by such a law would be Muslim women wearing a hijab; Jewish men wearing a kippah; and Sikh men or women wearing a turban. Employees who would not comply with the law would be terminated from their employment.
That does not feel tolerant nor does it provide intellectual freedom. We don’t need more reasons to hide from the discussions we should be having globally.
