Article frames new campus policies as ‘targeting Gaza protesters,’ playing down the fact they were instituted to protect Jewish students from antisemitic violence.
By Ira Stoll, The Algemeiner
The New York Times is previewing the fall semester’s anti-Israel campus protests with the same anti-Israel spin it has brought to coverage of the war in Gaza.
The front page of the Sunday New York Times featured a story with the print headline “Colleges Target Gaza Protesters With New Rules.” Even the headline, framing it from the perspective of the protesters rather than the Jewish students, subtly expresses the tilt.
The online subheadline carries a similar slant: “University officials are spelling out strict codes around protests. They say they are trying to be clear. Others say they are trying to suppress speech.” Actually some of them say, at least privately, that they are trying to protect Jewish and Israeli students and the rest of the campus from antisemitic violence that has interfered with teaching and learning.
When the Times gets to that, it puts it in scare quotes: “disrupting the learning environment.” The framing of the whole article emphasizes the “approach to free speech” (no scare quotes from the Times there) aspect of the story rather than the antisemitism and disruptive violence aspect.
The Times article wasn’t even updated to reflect the situation accurately at the time of print publication.
My print, Sunday, Aug. 25 New York Times says, “A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction this month that said the University of California, Los Angeles, could not allow protesters to block Jewish students from campus facilities. (UCLA objected to the court telling it how to manage demonstrations. The court’s order, the university said, could ‘hamstring our ability to respond to events on the ground.’)”
Online, the article was stealth-edited, without appending a print correction, so that it now reads: “(Although UCLA initially warned that the ruling threatened to ‘hamstring our ability to respond to events on the ground,’ it decided not to appeal and said it would ‘abide by the injunction as this case makes its way through the courts.’)”
Even characterizing the ruling as telling UCLA “how to manage demonstrations” is tendentious. It’d be fair to say UCLA initially objected to the court telling it that Jewish and Israeli students needed to have full access to the campus, unimpeded by anti-Israel activists.
The “decided not to appeal” language is not even technically precise; as far as I can tell, what happened was that UCLA on Aug. 15 filed a notice of appeal, then subsequently, on Aug. 23, it filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal. My Aug. 25 print Times did not reflect that Aug. 23 motion to dismiss, yet the Times handled it with an online stealth edit rather than a print correction that would reach print readers.
This all may seem arcane, but it reflects a sloppiness, one-sidedness, and lack of thoroughness that pervades the whole article.
The article says the Vanderbilt “Students for Justice in Palestine” branch “did not respond to an interview request,” but there is nothing in the article suggesting that the Times sought to interview the Jewish or Israeli students at Vanderbilt, or other community members whose education or work was disrupted by anti-Israel protests.
The Times article refers to “Palestine Legal, a civil rights group,” which is ridiculous, because Palestine Legal doesn’t seem interested in the civil rights of the Jewish or pro-Israel students. Why not describe it more accurately, as an anti-Israel group? Palestine Legal gets funding from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, which has also been funding a group providing paid fellowships to anti-Israel protesters.
The story mocks the chancellor of Vanderbilt, Daniel Diermeier, depicting students snoozing through his orientation talk. To many American Jews and others who care about campuses free of discriminatory disruptions, Diermeier is a hero, leading what appears to be the only known US institution of higher education to have had the courage to expel anti-Israel agitators. The Times news article doesn’t mention that.
I sent the Times reporter on the story, Alan Blinder, an email asking about some of these issues and got an out-of-the-office-on-vacation auto-reply message. It sure looks like whatever Times editor handled this piece was on a vacation, too, announced or not.