UVA Leadership Squelches Debate About University’s Antisemitism Problem

During the University of Virginia Board of Visitors meeting Thursday, Provost Ian Baucom briefed board members on what the administration was doing to defuse tensions in the UVA community between Jews and the vocal pro-Palestinian faction over the Israel-Gaza war.

He mentioned “sustained academic programming” to illuminate sources of the decades-long conflict. He took note of the mental health services provided those experiencing mental anguish. He assured the Board that the University was working to bring opposing parties together in dialogue and to understand “the reality of Jewish, Muslim and other religious minorities.” UVA, he said, was committed to “deep engagement” and “freedom of expression.”

The Provost reiterated the administration’s support for free speech. UVA, he said, was a place where “people are free to disagree” but where “everyone belongs.” “We need to listen to people we disagree with,” he added, and concluded by thanking the Board for its “help and wisdom.”

But when board members began addressing the hostile environment for Jewish students at UVA, there was no sign that the Provost, President Jim Ryan, or Rector Robert Hardie were interested in “listening” to anyone who disagreed with them, much less in “engaging” with them on the most contentious issue to afflict the University in recent years.

Critics of the Ryan administration struggled to find an opportunity to raise their concerns in open session. They may have been given a voice in closed session — we don’t know because no one is permitted to discuss what transpired — but the public was denied the right to hear those views expressed, and debated, in an open forum.

The conclusion of Baucom’s remarks did open up a brief opportunity, however, for board members to broaden the dialogue beyond what Ryan and Hardie had scripted for the Board meeting.

Doug Wetmore was the first to try. Referring to a referendum that students had approved the previous day demanding that UVA’s endowment divest corporations doing business in Israel, he declared the vote to be “one of the most shameful things to happen in the history of the university.” Jewish students, he went on to say, don’t feel safe. He noted that a federal civil rights investigation is probing complaints by Jewish students who say they’ve been harassed, threatened, intimidated and even physically assaulted.

(UVA confirmed to The Daily Progress that the University had received a total of 19 reports “related to potential antisemitism” from students, faculty and staff, but said that not one had been lodged as a formal complaint.)

Wetmore said he had received “500 emails” since 9:00 that morning from concerned parents. “We need to distance ourselves categorically from horrible things like this referendum.”

Stephen Long chimed in, citing reports that an openly pro-Palestinian professor had canceled a class and urged students to vote in the referendum. Long declared the action “reprehensible.”

Then Bert Ellis spoke up. “I totally agree that we should have discourse, and we should have civil discourse, and we should have open discourse,” he said. He had spent a lot of time speaking to Jewish students and parents, he said, adding that he’d gotten many of the same emails as Wetmore. Jewish students and parents are not afraid of a debate.

But you cannot have a debate on our grounds right now the way we are allowing the rules to be abused.  The SJP (Students for Justice in Palestine) group will verbally abuse a Jewish student or parent for doing nothing but standing by. They will not allow a civil discourse, and we will not condemn them.

The student Board of Elections has rules for conducting referenda, he added, but “they were definitely broken.”

Thomas DePasquale kept the discussion going. Although he disagreed with the referendum outcome, he said, the issues are complex and he wouldn’t describe SJP behavior as “misconduct.” 

Then, just as an exchange of views was threatening to break out, Elizabeth Cranwell, chair of the Academic and Student Life Committee quashed it. “I think issues of student behavior are best addressed with the administration, and I do hope you all take advantage of having that conversation in a different setting.”

“I thank you for all these comments, and we will have the ability to address these issues,” Baucom added. “They are important. They are serious. And I thank you all for that.”

The next day, Ryan did return to the issue of the Israel-divestment issue. It was his practice to stay neutral on student referenda, so he did not comment upon the Israel-divestment measure before the vote, he explained. The controversy “stirred a lot of passion,” and he feels sympathy for both Israelis and Gazans about lives lost, but if he had been a student, he can now say after the fact, he would have voted no. “I do not believe the university should use its endowment to weigh in” on such matters, he said. However, out of respect for students’ freedom of speech and tradition of self-governance, he chose not to bias the outcome.

Board members were given no opportunity to respond or ask questions.

The board meeting moved on to the topic of Artificial Intelligence. At the end of the presentation, Ellis shoe-horned in the issue of UVA’s hostile environment toward Jews.

“I want to go back, Jim, to your opening remarks on the referendum. We have a huge antisemitic problem at this university,” Ellis said. “Those remarks…. Is that it? Is that how we’re going to deal with it?”

Rector Hardie cut him off. “We’re going to deal with that in closed session. That’s a closed session item…. There’s a number of people who may not agree with you on that, so we’ll talk about that in closed session…. Under student safety.”

“I disagree with the premise,” Ellis said. “It’s more than just safety. This referendum may have been at the end of the day student run, but there’s a whole national organization of BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) that’s promoting these things…. You and Ian have met with parents who have given you a litany of incidents … that are happening at this university.”

Hardie: “That’s a safety issue and will be discussed in close session.”

Ellis: “It’s more than safety. They’re intimidated, they’ve been spit upon….”

Hardie: “The student safety issue will be covered in closed session, Bert.”

Ellis: “It is more than that.”

Hardie: “What you’re discussing right now is a student safety issue, and it will be discussed in closed session. Hard stop.”

Ellis: “I’ll bring it back up in public session.”

Hardie: “And then you’ll be reprimanded.”

The Board then closed the meeting to the public. The closed session lasted significantly longer than scheduled, which is unusual. When the Board re-entered open session, it addressed some minor formalities and then ended the three-day meeting. Board members are forbidden from disclosing the substance of conversations in closed sessions, so the public is left in the dark about what was said.

James A. Bacon is executive director of the Jefferson Council. This column was published originally on the Jefferson Council blog and is replicated here with permission.