Disagreements aren’t just permissible within our community; they're valuable. They reflect the genuine complexity of the issues at stake and the intellectual diversity that makes FAIR strong.
I've been around FAIR since the early days, and have seen little to complain about. There have been shifts in focus from time to time, but that's about it. There will always be those who disagree, and that's fine. As far as centering on identity-based issues...it always amazes me how many people are not aware of the strong support the NSDAP received from many students and professors within the Weimar university system (in some ways a legacy of pan-German nationalism), and that support came from lawyers and doctors as well as the often-maligned humanities.
I think you'd love my recent play, The Rimsky-Fogelman, a comedy bout a Black and Jewish family. It's like a capsule of FAIR. (This is not a marketing ploy; I would not normally recommend that someone read my plays! But I feel like it would appeal to you and perhaps bring some smiles.)
I had been a supporter of The FIRE for a number of years. We had events in our apartment, and I was a member of their "inner circle" EMBER club.
After October 7th, I found myself supporting both sides of legal proceedings! On one side was the Brandeis Center with a campus Title VI case and the other side was the FIRE.
Speech is not conduct. Jewish students shouldn't be harassed, threatened, intimidated and prevented from participated in every aspect of campus life.
I appreciated FIRE's work and all the good people there. But on this we disagreed.
Beautifully put, Monica, and I wholeheartedly agree.
FAIR's role in our culture and our discourse isn't just to blow the whistle when people are maligned or mistreated based on immutable characteristics, or when institutions and organizations enact policies that violate the spirit and letter of the Civil Rights Act and 14th Amendment. It is also to present and to model a better way forward for our culture.
Perhaps the most critical aspect of that is encouraging civil discourse based on FAIR's principles of peaceful change, grounded in our values of Fairness, Understanding, and Humanity, and utilizing courage, curiosity, and compassion as tools with which we build bridges with our fellow human beings.
This will almost always be difficult, because the issues we are grappling with and the challenges we face are nearly never simple or clear-cut. But if we abide by these principles, and if we work as hard as we can to be the best version of ourselves, we can move our culture forward together.
Great job, Monica! I have been with FAIR from its early, humble beginnings and I thank you for articulating so well the nuanced approach that FAIR takes to civil discourse and advocacy.
I wholeheartedly support viewpoint diversity including when I disagree with the point of view. In fact I very much enjoy engaging with people who have differing perspectives. What I take issue with is a defense of free speech that is based on false information. When your own in-house legal expert writes an essay basing his defense of free speech by misrepresenting known facts - it betrays his, and thus FAIR's, bias. The fact that no one at FAIR has been willing to respond to my statement that his facts are wrong is very concerning to me and calls into question FAIR's commitment to truth. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and viewpoint, they are not entitled to their own facts.
Please accept my apologies for not responding to your comments and permit me to do so now. I honestly intended to respond much earlier but became distracted by other issues that hit my radar.
First, as a reminder, the disclaimer accompanying Substack posts makes it clear that the views expressed, even by members of our staff, do not necessarily reflect those of FAIR as an organization or its staff. When FAIR takes a position on any issue you will know it because it will either come from me, our Board of Directors, or be issued as a statement in our newsletter.
Gabriel is free to express his personal perspective, which he did in his essay.
Second, one of FAIR's guiding principles is that we believe that objective truth can and does exist, and this appears to be the core of the disconnect here. We believe the truth — and the facts — have not yet been determined in these cases.
The objective truth is that there has been no conclusive evidence that Khalil was involved in or responsible for any unlawful activity. While it’s true that allegations have been made that Khalil engaged in unlawful activity, allegations do not equate to proof.
I conducted a Grok query on this topic and received the following result:
“No definitive evidence exists that Mahmoud Khalil engaged in unlawful activity. The U.S. government's case, driven by a memo from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, does not accuse him of criminal conduct but cites his pro-Palestinian activism as a threat to U.S. foreign policy under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Allegations of Hamas ties or distributing related materials are unsupported and denied by Khalil and his legal team.”
The same applies to Ozturk. To date, we have seen no evidence — other than the sentiments expressed in the op-ed she penned — that would justify apprehending her and subjecting her to detention.
In both cases, the accused appear to be guilty of engaging in speech that many people don't like. However, the facts in both case are complex and contested. Given this, we feel it presumptuous to assume that the facts are “known,” and Gabriel’s essay reflected this perspective.
Lastly, rather than address this issue in a comment, and in the spirit of constructive dialogue, I invite you to submit a response to Gabriel's piece in your own essay and present your own perspective, along with any evidence to support it.
The goal of FAIR and our Substack is to promote and model a better way forward: civil disagreement, good faith dialogue, an emphasis on common humanity, free expression, building bridges, and choosing love over hate. Please help us support our mission by keeping an open mind not only about other perspectives, but the facts, as well.
@Juliet Barenti Hi Juliet, as an update to my response to you above I wanted to share the recent development with you in Ozturk’s case. She has been freed from detention:
“U.S. District Judge William Sessions III in Burlington, Vermont, ruled that Ozturk was unlawfully detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) saying Ozturk's role in writing an op-ed criticizing the Israeli government in the Tufts student newspaper was not enough to justify her detention.
“That literally is the case. There is no evidence here ... absent consideration of the op-ed," said Sessions. He also cited serious concerns over due process violations, concluding, "Her continued detention cannot stand."
Now more than ever, it is truly critical that we remain reasoned and open-minded in evaluating facts and determining the position (if any) we take on issues and events.
I was going to reply to you via e-mail instead of continuing a public back and forth in the comments section. It may turnout that the government’s case to detain Ozturk is based only on her op-ed, but this recent development was not know when the essay was written and does not constitute a resolution of the government’s case against her. If that turns out to be the case I will adjust my thinking. The other issues I raised include Gabriel’s statement that “some people” said that the protests at Columbia became antisemitic, as opposed to the objective “fact” of the antisemitism. We can know this fact because the Jewish students who were targeted said so and because there is video evidence of the antisemitism. The second is Gabriel’s statement as though it’s fact that Khalil “participated in” the protests as opposed to being on of its organizers and leaders - which is knowable from his own social media posts and video of him at the protests. The overall issue I have is that if these students had been wearing KKK hoods instead of keffiyas and had been shouting “no blacks on campus” while blocking the free movement of black students on campus instead of shouting “no Zionists” and blocking the free movement of jews on campus, no-one would be advocating for their right to continue doing that and the colleges would have expelled them immediately.
The lack of evidence against Ozturk is not a recent development. This was the case when Gabriel’s article appeared, and it was also the case when I first responded to you. The only thing that’s changed now is that a judge has issued a ruling. This is precisely why we felt it appropriate to publish Gabriel’s piece: absent evidence of illegal behavior, the detainees’ speech was legally protected.
Whether or not the speech at issue was antisemitic is irrelevant. Hate speech is legally protected. FAIR does not condone the destruction of protected speech, even if it is speech we disagree with. This applies equally to antisemites and KKK members.
I agree that if these students had been wearing KKK hoods instead of keffiyas they would likely not have many supporters advocating on their behalf — but again, this is irrelevant. One need not have advocates in order to enjoy the right to freely express themself. We in FAIR need not agree with a perspective in order to support the legal right of the person expressing it. That’s the spirit in which we published Gabriel’s piece, and we stand by our decision.
Lastly, since you commented on this post and invited a response, I assumed you were comfortable discussing publicly. However, I’m happy to continue this exchange via email if you prefer.
The ruling on Ozturk was just a bond hearing. If the government presents no evidence beyond the op-ed at the actual trial - that would convince me that there is no other evidence and would be the time to say that in that one instance the government violated someone's free speech rights. You have still not responded to the issues in the essay I raised regarding the ample proof of Khalil's involvement in the protests and the antisemitism that Gabriel dismissed under the "some people say" euphemism. Further, I could not disagree more with your statement that it is irrelevant that the "pro-Palestinian" protestors have supporters that KKK protestors would not. If students were on campus in KKK hoods saying "no black on campus" and blocking the movement of black students they would have been expelled by the university administrations at which point they would have lost their student visas and had to leave the country. It is precisely because of the support for the "pro-Palestinian" students actions by the institutions themselves, professors and administrators, who have refused to follow their own policies that the government has had to step in at all.
The fact that the Ozturk decision was rendered in a bond hearing rather than an actual trial does not negate the fundamental point at issue: the judge determined that the facts did not support evidence of illegal behavior.
Regarding Khalil: Participation in antisemitic protests -- while deplorable -- is protected speech under the First Amendment, just as the Chicago-area Nazis in Skokie, IL were legally justified in expressing their views during a 1977 public demonstration. Hate speech *is* protected speech. Therefore, absent clear evidence of illegal activity, it simply isn't reasonable to assert that a defense of Khalil's free speech is based on "false information." Please keep in mind that there is a considerable amount of nuance in most free speech cases, and Khalil's is no exception.
I will reiterate that there is no publicly available evidence that Mahmoud Khalil has participated in any illegal activity. Multiple official sources and court documents confirm that he has not been charged with a crime, and the government’s case for his deportation is based on civil and administrative allegations, not criminal conduct. If you can provide links to evidence of illegal activity, I would love to see them.
Please keep in mind that viewpoint diversity not only requires a willingness to be open-minded about the evidence presented, but also a willingness to acknowledge ambiguities or uncertainties in the evidence. What is "ample" in your opinion may not be "ample" in the eyes of others. If the facts were as patently clear as you believe, we would not be having this discussion. The First Amendment would offer hollow protection, indeed, if freedom of expression could be denied based on facts in dispute.
The reason I argue that the pro-Palestinian v KKK distinction is irrelevant is because in both cases the speech is protected and therefore not illegal. I think the heart of the disconnect we're having is that you are making arguments based on moral authority, while FAIR (like FIRE) relies on legal authority. Let's not conflate the two.
Lastly, like you, I very much enjoy engaging with people who have differing perspectives. I hope you continue to maintain that spirit as our country moves through these challenging times. I also hope that you respect the spirit and purpose of the First Amendment and the legal basis for its protections.
I've been around FAIR since the early days, and have seen little to complain about. There have been shifts in focus from time to time, but that's about it. There will always be those who disagree, and that's fine. As far as centering on identity-based issues...it always amazes me how many people are not aware of the strong support the NSDAP received from many students and professors within the Weimar university system (in some ways a legacy of pan-German nationalism), and that support came from lawyers and doctors as well as the often-maligned humanities.
Nicely done, Monica.
I think you'd love my recent play, The Rimsky-Fogelman, a comedy bout a Black and Jewish family. It's like a capsule of FAIR. (This is not a marketing ploy; I would not normally recommend that someone read my plays! But I feel like it would appeal to you and perhaps bring some smiles.)
https://www.amazon.com/Rimsky-Fogelman-Plays-Andrew-Heinze/dp/B0CVLCCXJC/ref=sr_1_1?crid=201X4YIIUXXB5&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.WJgXAw1vH_Moya1rLhRyvQ.hOKyT9rVkb_fPZjKJdouq2qGRWsW4zK_xg5yo8bnF84&dib_tag=se&keywords=the+rimsky-fogelman&qid=1746719678&sprefix=the+rimsky-fogelman%2Caps%2C118&sr=8-1
Thank you very much for sharing. Will certainly check it out!
Thank you!!
I had been a supporter of The FIRE for a number of years. We had events in our apartment, and I was a member of their "inner circle" EMBER club.
After October 7th, I found myself supporting both sides of legal proceedings! On one side was the Brandeis Center with a campus Title VI case and the other side was the FIRE.
Speech is not conduct. Jewish students shouldn't be harassed, threatened, intimidated and prevented from participated in every aspect of campus life.
I appreciated FIRE's work and all the good people there. But on this we disagreed.
Beautifully put, Monica, and I wholeheartedly agree.
FAIR's role in our culture and our discourse isn't just to blow the whistle when people are maligned or mistreated based on immutable characteristics, or when institutions and organizations enact policies that violate the spirit and letter of the Civil Rights Act and 14th Amendment. It is also to present and to model a better way forward for our culture.
Perhaps the most critical aspect of that is encouraging civil discourse based on FAIR's principles of peaceful change, grounded in our values of Fairness, Understanding, and Humanity, and utilizing courage, curiosity, and compassion as tools with which we build bridges with our fellow human beings.
This will almost always be difficult, because the issues we are grappling with and the challenges we face are nearly never simple or clear-cut. But if we abide by these principles, and if we work as hard as we can to be the best version of ourselves, we can move our culture forward together.
Great job, Monica! I have been with FAIR from its early, humble beginnings and I thank you for articulating so well the nuanced approach that FAIR takes to civil discourse and advocacy.
Thank you very much, Donald. Really appreciate your support on this!
I wholeheartedly support viewpoint diversity including when I disagree with the point of view. In fact I very much enjoy engaging with people who have differing perspectives. What I take issue with is a defense of free speech that is based on false information. When your own in-house legal expert writes an essay basing his defense of free speech by misrepresenting known facts - it betrays his, and thus FAIR's, bias. The fact that no one at FAIR has been willing to respond to my statement that his facts are wrong is very concerning to me and calls into question FAIR's commitment to truth. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and viewpoint, they are not entitled to their own facts.
Hi Juliet,
Please accept my apologies for not responding to your comments and permit me to do so now. I honestly intended to respond much earlier but became distracted by other issues that hit my radar.
First, as a reminder, the disclaimer accompanying Substack posts makes it clear that the views expressed, even by members of our staff, do not necessarily reflect those of FAIR as an organization or its staff. When FAIR takes a position on any issue you will know it because it will either come from me, our Board of Directors, or be issued as a statement in our newsletter.
Gabriel is free to express his personal perspective, which he did in his essay.
Second, one of FAIR's guiding principles is that we believe that objective truth can and does exist, and this appears to be the core of the disconnect here. We believe the truth — and the facts — have not yet been determined in these cases.
The objective truth is that there has been no conclusive evidence that Khalil was involved in or responsible for any unlawful activity. While it’s true that allegations have been made that Khalil engaged in unlawful activity, allegations do not equate to proof.
I conducted a Grok query on this topic and received the following result:
“No definitive evidence exists that Mahmoud Khalil engaged in unlawful activity. The U.S. government's case, driven by a memo from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, does not accuse him of criminal conduct but cites his pro-Palestinian activism as a threat to U.S. foreign policy under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Allegations of Hamas ties or distributing related materials are unsupported and denied by Khalil and his legal team.”
The same applies to Ozturk. To date, we have seen no evidence — other than the sentiments expressed in the op-ed she penned — that would justify apprehending her and subjecting her to detention.
In both cases, the accused appear to be guilty of engaging in speech that many people don't like. However, the facts in both case are complex and contested. Given this, we feel it presumptuous to assume that the facts are “known,” and Gabriel’s essay reflected this perspective.
Lastly, rather than address this issue in a comment, and in the spirit of constructive dialogue, I invite you to submit a response to Gabriel's piece in your own essay and present your own perspective, along with any evidence to support it.
The goal of FAIR and our Substack is to promote and model a better way forward: civil disagreement, good faith dialogue, an emphasis on common humanity, free expression, building bridges, and choosing love over hate. Please help us support our mission by keeping an open mind not only about other perspectives, but the facts, as well.
@Juliet Barenti Hi Juliet, as an update to my response to you above I wanted to share the recent development with you in Ozturk’s case. She has been freed from detention:
“U.S. District Judge William Sessions III in Burlington, Vermont, ruled that Ozturk was unlawfully detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) saying Ozturk's role in writing an op-ed criticizing the Israeli government in the Tufts student newspaper was not enough to justify her detention.
“That literally is the case. There is no evidence here ... absent consideration of the op-ed," said Sessions. He also cited serious concerns over due process violations, concluding, "Her continued detention cannot stand."
https://www.newsweek.com/rumeysa-ozturk-update-vermont-judge-orders-tufts-student-release-2070368
Now more than ever, it is truly critical that we remain reasoned and open-minded in evaluating facts and determining the position (if any) we take on issues and events.
I was going to reply to you via e-mail instead of continuing a public back and forth in the comments section. It may turnout that the government’s case to detain Ozturk is based only on her op-ed, but this recent development was not know when the essay was written and does not constitute a resolution of the government’s case against her. If that turns out to be the case I will adjust my thinking. The other issues I raised include Gabriel’s statement that “some people” said that the protests at Columbia became antisemitic, as opposed to the objective “fact” of the antisemitism. We can know this fact because the Jewish students who were targeted said so and because there is video evidence of the antisemitism. The second is Gabriel’s statement as though it’s fact that Khalil “participated in” the protests as opposed to being on of its organizers and leaders - which is knowable from his own social media posts and video of him at the protests. The overall issue I have is that if these students had been wearing KKK hoods instead of keffiyas and had been shouting “no blacks on campus” while blocking the free movement of black students on campus instead of shouting “no Zionists” and blocking the free movement of jews on campus, no-one would be advocating for their right to continue doing that and the colleges would have expelled them immediately.
The lack of evidence against Ozturk is not a recent development. This was the case when Gabriel’s article appeared, and it was also the case when I first responded to you. The only thing that’s changed now is that a judge has issued a ruling. This is precisely why we felt it appropriate to publish Gabriel’s piece: absent evidence of illegal behavior, the detainees’ speech was legally protected.
Whether or not the speech at issue was antisemitic is irrelevant. Hate speech is legally protected. FAIR does not condone the destruction of protected speech, even if it is speech we disagree with. This applies equally to antisemites and KKK members.
I agree that if these students had been wearing KKK hoods instead of keffiyas they would likely not have many supporters advocating on their behalf — but again, this is irrelevant. One need not have advocates in order to enjoy the right to freely express themself. We in FAIR need not agree with a perspective in order to support the legal right of the person expressing it. That’s the spirit in which we published Gabriel’s piece, and we stand by our decision.
Lastly, since you commented on this post and invited a response, I assumed you were comfortable discussing publicly. However, I’m happy to continue this exchange via email if you prefer.
The ruling on Ozturk was just a bond hearing. If the government presents no evidence beyond the op-ed at the actual trial - that would convince me that there is no other evidence and would be the time to say that in that one instance the government violated someone's free speech rights. You have still not responded to the issues in the essay I raised regarding the ample proof of Khalil's involvement in the protests and the antisemitism that Gabriel dismissed under the "some people say" euphemism. Further, I could not disagree more with your statement that it is irrelevant that the "pro-Palestinian" protestors have supporters that KKK protestors would not. If students were on campus in KKK hoods saying "no black on campus" and blocking the movement of black students they would have been expelled by the university administrations at which point they would have lost their student visas and had to leave the country. It is precisely because of the support for the "pro-Palestinian" students actions by the institutions themselves, professors and administrators, who have refused to follow their own policies that the government has had to step in at all.
Hi Juliet,
The fact that the Ozturk decision was rendered in a bond hearing rather than an actual trial does not negate the fundamental point at issue: the judge determined that the facts did not support evidence of illegal behavior.
Regarding Khalil: Participation in antisemitic protests -- while deplorable -- is protected speech under the First Amendment, just as the Chicago-area Nazis in Skokie, IL were legally justified in expressing their views during a 1977 public demonstration. Hate speech *is* protected speech. Therefore, absent clear evidence of illegal activity, it simply isn't reasonable to assert that a defense of Khalil's free speech is based on "false information." Please keep in mind that there is a considerable amount of nuance in most free speech cases, and Khalil's is no exception.
I will reiterate that there is no publicly available evidence that Mahmoud Khalil has participated in any illegal activity. Multiple official sources and court documents confirm that he has not been charged with a crime, and the government’s case for his deportation is based on civil and administrative allegations, not criminal conduct. If you can provide links to evidence of illegal activity, I would love to see them.
Please keep in mind that viewpoint diversity not only requires a willingness to be open-minded about the evidence presented, but also a willingness to acknowledge ambiguities or uncertainties in the evidence. What is "ample" in your opinion may not be "ample" in the eyes of others. If the facts were as patently clear as you believe, we would not be having this discussion. The First Amendment would offer hollow protection, indeed, if freedom of expression could be denied based on facts in dispute.
The reason I argue that the pro-Palestinian v KKK distinction is irrelevant is because in both cases the speech is protected and therefore not illegal. I think the heart of the disconnect we're having is that you are making arguments based on moral authority, while FAIR (like FIRE) relies on legal authority. Let's not conflate the two.
Lastly, like you, I very much enjoy engaging with people who have differing perspectives. I hope you continue to maintain that spirit as our country moves through these challenging times. I also hope that you respect the spirit and purpose of the First Amendment and the legal basis for its protections.