There is a certain irony if not outright disconnect with the President of Harvard University being unable to answer what on the surface appeared to be a clear question with an obvious answer:

Would calls for the genocide of Jews constitute a violation of Harvard’s code of conduct regarding bullying and harassment?

I say there is irony here, because in the age of micro-aggressions – a term coined in the 1970s by Harvard University professor Chester Pierce – there appears to be a massive macro-apathy toward calls for genocide of the Jewish people in the shadow of the Israel-Hamas war.

While the term micro-aggression first originated to describe the subtle, everyday ways that Black people experienced discrimination from their white counterparts, the term has since become more widespread to address the impact they have on the experiences of marginalized people. 

Recently Ruchika Tulshyan wrote in the Harvard Business Review, that “as more leaders focus on creating inclusive work cultures and strive to make meaningful change in their organizations, more need to be aware and understand the effects of these exclusionary, biased actions — and they must stop using the term ‘micro-aggressions’ to describe them.” She prefers to use the term “exclusionary behaviours.” I think the call for genocide would easily fit into this category, don’t you?

In Case You Missed the Irony:

A term coined by a Harvard Professor, suggested now to drop the term by the Harvard Business Review, while the Harvard President displayed total apathy to whether calls for the genocide of Jews would constitute a violation of Harvard’s code of conduct regarding bullying and harassment.

Was it that the eminent Dr. Claudine Gay, the first female black president of prestigious Harvard University in its 368 year history, could not see the macro forest for the micro trees; could she not see that a call for the genocide of any people would burst the boundaries of micro-aggression about which universities appear to be shockingly sensitive, and yet be so appallingly obtuse to the call for genocide?

In a subsequent interview with Crimson, Harvard’s campus newspaper Dr. Gay said:

I am sorry. When words amplify distress and pain, I don’t know how you could feel anything but regret.

Even in this statement Dr. Gay appears to merely regret her own “micro-aggression” in using words that amplify distress and pain, rather than to be sorry to so profoundly miss the point of her own apathy toward the call for genocide is a violation of Harvard’s code of conduct regarding bullying and harassment!

While college campuses across the US and Canada have been the scene of frequent pro-Palestinian protests, the increasing growth of Anti-semitism didn’t start just because of the Israel-Hamas war (note that Canadian Universities are being asked the same question regarding their code of conduct). This has been merely an excuse to unleash latent (and inexplicable) hatred for Jews.

One cannot downplay the real racism that excludes people of colour from jobs, promotions, or university entrance. Those who are not people of colour simply do not experience the daily grind of perceived exclusions or micro insults, but while there has been a movement to examine the passive-aggressive language that can be genuine micro-aggressions, we live in an age when people must check the ever-changing lexicon of trigger-warnings. How, then, can there be such a blindness to actual triggers being pulled to harm Jewish people? The unquestionable Crimson (to be ironic once more) that comes from a call for genocide would be real blood – not the theoretical hurt feelings of people who call out micro-aggressions at the most unrelated of triggers.

A Novel Approach

When I was in Israel a few years ago, I took in a Sabbath supper hosted by an Orthodox Jewish family. We were all guests of David Abitbol, a Canadian Lawyer who had moved “back” to Israel in what is known as Aliyah – the Hebrew word for “ascent” (for more see the Psalms of Ascent: Psalms 120 to Psalms 134).

Now living in Jerusalem, David and his wife Ayo are part of Shabbat of a Lifetime where they invite travellers, Jews and non-Jews alike, to share a Shabbat (sabbath) meal together (to read more see “A Muslim, A Jew, a Christian, and Atheist walk into a coffee shop“).

Aside from the hospitality, David engaged his guests in a “question of the evening” in order to have a friendly and lively discussion. His question for us was on “Free Speech.”  It set up the very real point of the discussion when later we found out that one of the last people to speak up was a person with whom he personally had rough and tumble twitter battles. Megan Phelps-Roper was in town to talk about how her free speech banter led her to eventually become free from the vitriolic Westboro Baptist Church – and the subsequent freedom to become friends with David. Together they were set to give a set of public lectures later in that week.

What I suspect David hoped we’d get from the discussion was that in spite of opposing positions and deep seated hatreds, there is a need for to get past any of the more juvenile perceptions of micro-aggression in order to prevent the real macro-apathy of hatred.

This is More Enigma than Dogma

May we be stirred to practice radical hospitality, and to check our own prejudices and apathy in order to be an antidote to the venom of hatred.  May we be awakened to the One who invites us into radical hospitality with Himself.