A Look at the Proliferating Smearing Attempts to Hunt and Take Down Progressive Academics to Stifle Freedom of Speech
By: Nima Soroush Nia
In light of escalating attacks on pro-Palestinian and Iranian scholars, this article provides a critical overview of the mechanisms used to stifle academic freedom, often associated with “hasbara” advocacy. A central concern is the targeting of Iranian academics, who are facing immense pressure as surveillance, smear campaigns, and legal battles increasingly threaten their scholarly careers and personal livelihoods. There is significant debate that these efforts create a chilling effect, leading to self-censorship and the suppression of critical scholarship on university campuses.
A significant and growing concern is that “hasbara” initiatives (a form of public diplomacy frequently criticized as propaganda) are constraining academic freedom, particularly in discourses on Israel and Palestine. Critics contend that these campaigns, which frequently involve pressure from external lobbying groups, donors, and governmental bodies, generate a pervasive “chilling effect”. This climate, they argue, results in widespread self-censorship, disciplinary measures against scholars, and the systematic marginalization of pro-Palestinian perspectives and advocacy within academia.
Iranian academics are particularly being targeted by these external groups posing as “grassroots activist organizations”. Certain initiatives proudly display their portfolio of succeeding in firing academics. This has especially increased as a result of Trump cutting their funding after coming into office. Their efforts to secure funding has now led to new initiatives that are directly targeting Iranians in a more systematic way than before. (Evidence of a targeting Earring in academics by pro Israel lobbies goes back to Hossein Derakhshan https://medium.com/matter/the-web-we-have-to-save-2eb1fe15a426).
Key facts of this issue include:
- External Pressure and Campaigns: Organizations and government task forces have reportedly engaged in “naming and shaming” campaigns and sought to impose “economic and employment consequences” on academics and students who express critical views of Israel. Websites like Canary Mission have listed professors, leading to harassment and institutional investigations.
- Adoption of Antisemitism Definitions: The use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism has been a focal point of controversy. Critics argue that some of its “illustrative examples” conflate legitimate criticism of Israeli policies with antisemitism, providing a tool for administrators to treat political dissent as discrimination and suppress debate.
- Institutional Response and Self-Censorship: University administrations have been criticized for weak or inconsistent responses to external threats against faculty, sometimes advising professors to limit their campus time or launching investigations against them. This perceived lack of institutional protection encourages other academics to self-censor to avoid similar treatment.
- Disciplinary Actions and Firings: Numerous cases have been reported of faculty members being placed on leave, suspended, or fired for comments or advocacy related to the Israel-Palestine conflict, raising serious concerns about violations of academic freedom.
- The “Palestine Exception”: Some observers describe a “Palestine exception” to free speech and academic freedom, where speech critical of Israel faces greater scrutiny and repression compared to other forms of political expression.
These dynamics have fueled ongoing debates about the purpose and limits of academic freedom, particularly in times of heightened political conflict. Organizations like the AAUP (American Association of University Professors) call on administrations to robustly defend academic freedom against external and internal pressures.
There are numerous documented cases of pro-Israel advocacy groups and individuals monitoring professors and students for their political views on the Israel-Palestine conflict, which often results in pressure, doxxing, and institutional sanctions.
Key points regarding this monitoring and pressure include:
- Campus Watch and Professor Watch: Organizations such as Campus Watch (part of the Middle East Forum) and others have long monitored Middle East studies courses and academics, publicizing what they consider “anti-Israeli biases”.
- Canary Mission: This anonymously run website creates profiles (a “blacklist”) of students and professors it describes as “anti-Israel” or “antisemitic,” using their social media and other public information. These profiles have been used by Israeli intelligence organizations (Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Shin Bet) for interrogations at the border and have influenced U.S. immigration enforcement actions.
- CAAUT is a pro-Israel advocacy and watchdog group focused specifically on the University of Toronto campus. Its primary stated mission is to combat antisemitism, which it defines largely through the lens of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition.
- Student Collaborators: Reports indicate that off-campus organizations find student collaborators to complain about or film professors they deem to be anti-Israel. These student efforts are often part of a broader, well-funded campaign coordinated by outside groups.
- “Hasbara” and Advocacy: Concerns have been raised about the role of “Israel affairs officers” appointed by national Hillel houses to ensure a specific, pro-Israel message is disseminated on campus. Also, some courses at Israeli universities focus on “hasbara” rather than objective academic inquiry.
- Impact on Academic Freedom: These monitoring efforts create a “chilling effect,” where professors and students may self-censor to avoid being blacklisted, harassed, or facing professional repercussions.
Extensive monitoring and reporting of pro-Palestinian academics by activist groups, sometimes in collaboration with students and with links to Israeli state interests, is a well-documented phenomenon.
In an academic context, hasbara (Israeli public diplomacy/propaganda) commonly uses several themes and tactics to stifle critical speech, primarily focusing on discrediting the speaker or the criticism itself
Common themes and tactics include:
- Accusations of Antisemitism: The primary tactic is to label criticism of Israeli policies or the Zionist project as antisemitism. This often involves leveraging broad definitions, such as the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition, to blur the line between anti-Jewish bigotry and political speech critical of Israel. This forces the accused to defend themselves against a serious charge, a process that can be personally and professionally damaging.
- Delegitimizing the Palestinian Narrative: Hasbara seeks to frame the Palestinian perspective as inherently biased, unreliable, or linked to terrorism. This involves discrediting testimonies and reports that implicate Israel in human rights violations, thereby controlling the narrative and preventing the recognition of Palestinian knowledge production.
- Portraying Israel as a Victim/Democracy: A core hasbara theme is presenting Israel as a beleaguered victim, constantly under existential threat, and as the “only democracy” in the Middle East. This narrative aims to garner sympathy and support from Western audiences and position criticism as an attack on a just and democratic state.
- Accusations of “Double Standards”: Critics are often accused of applying a “double standard” by “singling out” Israel for criticism while ignoring human rights issues in other countries (the “why the silence on Syria?” argument). This theme is used to deflect scrutiny and suggest an underlying bias against Israel.
- Character Attacks and Harassment: Pro-Israel advocacy groups often engage in aggressive social media battles and public vilification campaigns. These tactics, which can include personal attacks, blacklisting, and threats of legal action, create a “chilly climate” and induce self-censorship among academics and students who fear professional repercussions.
- Political Interference and Institutional Pressure: Hasbara efforts often involve lobbying university administrations for political intervention into hiring processes, restrictions on academic freedom, and the adoption of policies that limit pro-Palestinian speech. This can lead to investigations or disciplinary action against faculty and students who speak out.
- Controlling Terminology and Framing: Hasbara promotes specific language to describe the conflict, such as using “administration” instead of “occupation,” to shape public perception. By establishing the parameters of “politically correct” discourse, it aims to delegitimize alternative viewpoints and narratives.
These themes work in tandem to create an environment where open discussion and critical inquiry regarding Israel and Palestine in academic settings can be met with significant personal and institutional pushback.
Universities have also taken informed decisions with respect to Iranians, especially when legal teams conclude that interfering in the internal feuds of the Iranian opposition is not within the purview of academic institutions.
References: