I don’t know why an answer to the question of profs in the classroom requires “bravery.” I was going to answer, but didn’t get around to it. Anyway, I don’t have a clear-cut answer. It’s a dilemma, but below are some considerations. I know Charley won’t read this, so I’ll address this to you, Carol, as well as to other readers.

I think that Rabbi Joe is right when he says that one respects or admires insubordination in a cause in which they believe, and that’s not just true in Israel. But I think that there is a real dilemma here:

If you say that professors should not broach such a topic, then you’re on a slippery slope toward censorship. That’s because there are ways in which the issue can be fudged. Some professors could couch their language in less forceful terms, saying the same thing indirectly or only by implication. Then what they mean—or how much they expect students to act on their suggestions—will be open to interpretation. What do you do in cases like these?

Also, if a professor in a classroom says that students should IDEALLY be insubordinate, is that the same thing as telling students outright to disobey their officers? Or is it an exercise of free speech? The answer isn’t obvious. Where would you draw the line?

If professors start expressing their views on other matters that are similar to—but not the same as—preaching insubordination, where would you draw the line again? For instance, if a professor doesn’t give any advice to students, but frequently offers scathing criticism of the IDF and ridicules the values of those who serve in it…how would that rate? Free speech? Or a flirtation with treason?

However, there are also practical realities that have to be taken into account. College students are notoriously impressionable, with views often as passionate as they are ill-informed. Students usually don’t have the life experience or foundation of knowledge to critique rigorously what a professor is saying. Though that may be less true of those who’ve tasted army life, I think it holds (to varying degrees) for most people in that age group.

Thus, a charismatic professor can exert an influence over his students that’s independent of the actual quality of his arguments.

And there is another point: Don’t forget the fact there is an unequal balance of power between a professor and his students. The professor is an authority figure, perhaps be among the first “experts” the student has had occasion to meet, and so his views will carry weight regardless of whether he wants the student to change his behavior or not. And don’t forget the effect of peer pressure from other students.

Given that a student may be in awe of a professor, the professor’s view of the student could bolster or undermine that student’s conficence in himself. Also, there is the practical matter of grades. A student will be forced to at least temper or de-emphasize his own views if doing otherwise would risk a needed recommendation or good grade.

As for the question of serving soldiers, that’s a help…but I don’t know. So a prof has more freedom of speech when faced with a classroom of students only serving as reservists, but not hesder students? That seems like another slippery slope, especially as reservists are the backbone of Israel’s defense in time of war.

So, while freedom of speech is important, the power realities inside the classroom have to be honestly acknowledged. I don’t frankly know how to square the two.

Regarding “Jenin, Jenin,” it’s a documentary film made by the “Israeli Arab” actor/director Mohammad Bakri that supports the idea of Jenin as being a massacre. Bakri starred with Moshe Igvy in the classic flim “Cup Final.” I don’t get why he made the film, since it came out after the massacre accusations had been debunked.

posted by: Joanne on 2010-01-01 17:30:00

Thanks for another good podcast. Happy 2010(twenty-ten or two thousand ten, take your pick) to both of you and your family.

posted by: Mike Gruber on 2010-01-01 23:43:00