Now the rightists are taking revenge on the universities. Hunger is tormenting the people in the Gaza Strip and there is hardly any humanitarian aid left

When the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton revolved around the question of whether he had had sexual relations with his then-assistant Monica Lewinsky, the ex-president made the legendary statement: “It depends on what you mean by ‘is’.”

Elizabeth Magill, Claudine Gay, and Sally Kornbluth engaged in similar absurd hair-splitting during a hearing before a House committee. The presidents of three elite colleges – University of Pennsylvania, Harvard University and MIT – had to comment on anti-Israel demonstrations on campus.

The hearing went extremely poorly. Here is a short excerpt from a dialogue between MP Elise Stefanik and Elizabeth Magill:

To ask: “Calling for the genocide of the Jews is bullying and intimidation?”

Magill: “If it is targeted and persuasive, then it is intimidation.”

To ask: “So the answer is: yes.”

Magill: “It depends on the context, Congressman.”

To ask: “Is that what you said today?” So you describe the genocide of the Jews as context-dependent.”

Gay and Kornbluth responded similarly to Magill, also citing context and freedom of expression. This led to a storm of outrage. The video of Magill’s interrogation went viral. The president resigned from her position this weekend. The fate of her two colleagues has not yet been decided.

Stefanik is already cheering: “One less. “There are two more to go (one is done, the other two to follow),” she explained this weekend. “That’s just the beginning. We will tackle the rot of anti-Semitism that has infiltrated America’s most prestigious universities. The forced resignation of the Penn president is the bare minimum.”

You can see all this as a personal vendetta of Elise Stefanik. She has a degree from Harvard University and was originally sent to Washington as a moderate Republican representative. In the first impeachment trial against Donald Trump, she distinguished herself as an experienced defender of the ex-president. The young backbencher went on to become a fast-rising star of the Grand Old Party. Stefanik has now become number three among Republicans, a position previously held by Liz Cheney, who was stigmatized as a pariah.

However, Stefanik’s uncritical attitude towards Trump also cost her a position on the board of the Institute of Politics at Harvard University. However, it would be too short-sighted to conclude that the dismantling of the three university presidents was merely a personal arrangement. The trio’s performance was poorly received across the board and by all parties.

For example, Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania – he is a Democrat and a Jew – sharply criticized the three university presidents. “I’ve seen people in Pennsylvania take big and small actions against anti-Semitism,” Shapiro said during a visit to a synagogue last weekend. “I see here in Philadelphia how students want to raise their voices and ensure they are heard in university boardrooms and leaders are held accountable.”

For Republicans, the trio’s embarrassing actions are a gift from God. Finally they have something in their hands with which they can take action against the hated and ‘woke’ universities. It’s not just Stefanik who’s attacking. For example, Virginia Foxx, a Republican representative from North Carolina, explains: “I am concerned about the grave danger posed by the race-based ideology of the far left. Institutionalized anti-Semitism and hatred are the fruits of the culture of these institutions.”

Presidential candidate Nikki Haley has also jumped on the anti-college bandwagon. “Anyone who denies Israel’s right to exist is behaving anti-Semitic,” she explains. “We will change the definition so that every government and every school must recognize what this definition stands for.”

Haley puts her finger on the sore spot. The First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech – and Americans interpret this much more broadly than we do. An anti-racism law is unthinkable in the US, and even calls for genocide are not punishable. That is why slogans like “Globalize the Intifada” or “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” are unenforceable.

From a purely legal point of view, the three presidents acted correctly. Politically, however, it was a fatal mistake. It can also be argued that the three elite universities are not public, but private institutions. Therefore, they would not have to adhere to the First Amendment and could set their own rules on their campus.

Moreover, it is not entirely unjustified to accuse the elite universities of hypocrisy. When it comes to anti-racism and gender issues, Harvard & Co. very strict action against conservative dissenters. That’s why they’re at the bottom of the university’s free speech chart, run by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

Seen in this way, the scandal surrounding the three presidents is also a wake-up call. Or as Daniell Allen puts it in the Washington Post: “We have focused so much on academic freedom and freedom of expression that we have neglected the norms for a culture of mutual respect. We have to do both. (…) There must be a way to establish rules that guarantee mutual respect without violating the spirit of free speech.”