Bruce Shipman, the Yale Episcopal chaplain, stepped down from his position after expressing the opinion in a letter that Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank could be connected to a rise in anti-Semitic protests and violence in Europe. His statement was seen as justifying anti-Semitism by some Jewish student groups. Others argued he was simply suggesting that military intervention could result in strong political feelings and unrest elsewhere, which is hardly a radical idea. However, the case shows that university employees cannot voice unpopular political opinions publicly and that Yale sets a precedent banning certain opinions from public discourse.
Original Description:
Yale Episcopal Chaplain Bruce Shipman Steps Down After Expressing Unpopular Opinion
Bruce Shipman, the Yale Episcopal chaplain, stepped down from his position after expressing the opinion in a letter that Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank could be connected to a rise in anti-Semitic protests and violence in Europe. His statement was seen as justifying anti-Semitism by some Jewish student groups. Others argued he was simply suggesting that military intervention could result in strong political feelings and unrest elsewhere, which is hardly a radical idea. However, the case shows that university employees cannot voice unpopular political opinions publicly and that Yale sets a precedent banning certain opinions from public discourse.
Bruce Shipman, the Yale Episcopal chaplain, stepped down from his position after expressing the opinion in a letter that Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank could be connected to a rise in anti-Semitic protests and violence in Europe. His statement was seen as justifying anti-Semitism by some Jewish student groups. Others argued he was simply suggesting that military intervention could result in strong political feelings and unrest elsewhere, which is hardly a radical idea. However, the case shows that university employees cannot voice unpopular political opinions publicly and that Yale sets a precedent banning certain opinions from public discourse.
Episcopal Chaplain Bruce Shipman Steps Down After Expressing Unpopular
Opinion
by Terry Roethlein for The National Coalition Against Censorship
On August 26th the New York Times published Yale Episcopal chaplain Bruce Shipmans letter to the editor in response to Deborah Lipstadts op-ed about rising anti-Semitism. The letter suggested that there may be a connection between Israels actions in Gaza and the West Bank to a rash of anti-Semitic protests and violent acts in Europe. Two weeks later, after campus-wide controversy, Shipman was pressured to step down from his position as chaplain.
The case parallels that of Steven Salaita, the newly hired professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who in August lost his job offer after tweeting expletive-laden messages criticizing the Gaza bombings. As with Salaita, the Shipman case is disturbing for two reasons. First, the case sends a clear message that university employees cannot be permitted to voice unpopular political opinions in public. Second, Yale, one of the oldest and most esteemed American universities, sets a precedent that declares certain political opinions to be so radioactive that they should be banned from public discourse.
Yales Jewish student group, Chabad, viewed Shipmans statement as a justification of anti-semitism(sic) and a Yale lecturer in religion cast it as a case of blaming the victim. Shipman contends that at least one board member demanded that Israel/ Palestine never be discussed during inter-denominational chaplaincy meetings and that she eventually pushed for his resignation.
It seems disingenuous, at best, to label as anti-Semitic the opinion that one nations military intervention could result in strong political feelings and even social unrest elsewhere. Shipman never said that he agreed with the anti-Semitic thugs in Europe; he simply suggested something hardly radical: that this behavior may be the unfortunate result of bad policy.
In the ongoing media wars around Israel/Palestine, it can be helpful to remember the U.S. invasion of Iraq, when many academics and commentators blamed the military incursion for terrorist fallout all over the world. People who vilified such critics, branding them as unpatriotic, were frequently dismissed as highly partisan neoconservative cheerleaders and the debate when on. Critics of U.S. policy in Iraq were not forced out of their jobs for being unpatriotic. Why are critics of Israel treated differently?
University professors, lecturers, chaplains, and other public figures have just as much right to free speech as any other person living under the U.S. Constitution. These individuals sign no agreement upon their hire banning them from publically
sharing their opinions on controversial political issues like Israel/Palestine.
Alarmingly, however, a creeping cultural and political straitjacket on discussions of important issues is affecting American universities. Shipman is just its latest victim.