Rutgers University is a lot of things, but it is not a hotbed of antisemitism. You might not know that from the recent news reports in outlets like The Jewish Standard and, now, The New York Post, which are cherry-picking arguments from ardent pro-Israeli politicians and think tanks, while going out of their way to attack Israel’s critics and misrepresent their arguments.
I dealt with the Standard in a recent post after it unquestioningly reported comments from the leader of the campus Hillel that in no way resembled the campus on which I teach. Rutgers — and higher education as an institution — continues to be under attack, with academics and students being portrayed in some press outlets as antisemites and the atmosphere being described as resembling Germany at the beginning of the Nazi era. This argument is based on several lies and distortions, chief among them the canard that criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian rights and freedoms is antisemitic. The conflation of legitimate criticism with what has rightly been called the original hatred undermines our ability to deal with actual antisemitic attitudes and actions, and disingenuously weaponizes antisemitism — a weaponization that does nothing more than empower the Trumpian right, which is itself a bastion of antisemitic theories and actions.
News stories like the one that ran in The Post on Feb. 24 are part of this effort, using the outward appearances of journalistic practice while distorting these practices in ways designed to push the Post’s rightist agenda.
The headline to the Post piece signals where it is going: “Rutgers slammed for allowing ‘antisemitic’ talks to continue — including one from a prof who appeared on a panel with Hamas official.” Note the square quotes and guilt by association — “on a panel with” — which continues into the lede.
Bias can occur in a story in numerous ways: word choice, syntax, story organization, choice of photos and details. The Post story demonstrates how each of these works. Note the photo of Noura Ekrat above. The decision to show her speaking is key: Is she just emphasizing a point with a pointed finger, or is she shouting? A close look is required, but will the reader look that closely?
We move from photo of Erakat to a flier for a lecture and, then, two paragraphs in which the Post’s use of word choice and story structure misrepresent the organizations of which it is critical. Human Rights Watch is, in this story, a “group publicly hostile to Israel” and not a group that defends human rights around the globe.
Structurally, we have repeated language of critique, but when it comes time to insert the human voice, to quote someone, it is not Erakat but a group called End Jew Hatred, which describes a “pattern by Rutgers of allowing unabashed antisemitic expression.” — a comment that conflates Israel with Jews and echoes the philosemitism (antisemitism’s cousin) of Trump who has repeatedly told Jewish audiences that Israel is their nation.
Good news writing — at least the way I teach it — pays attention to all voices in a story and tries to ensure that we are not privileging those with whom we agree, or creating a reading experience that does so. We read sequentially and our impressions are formed through the accretion of details as they present themselves in the story. If all we are given is negative information (or opinion and quotations) then the impression will be negative and what follows will feel defensive.
The story structure here allows critics to make their claims and invites readers to make up their minds, putting Erakat and other Palestine supporters in a defensive posture.
Again, note where the responses are. Ekarat does not get to speak until late, with a direct rebuttals from Alums for Campus Fairness and SAFE Campus. Note, as well, who does not get a chance to speak: Rutgers students, student organizations, Students for Justice in Palestine, Faculty for Justice in Palestine, the faculty unions, (I serve as campus vice president for the lecturers unit and chairman of its academic freedom committee, though I am not writing this in that capacity), or pretty much anyone from Rutgers. Yes, “Rutgers did not immediately respond to a request for comment,” but that is tucked at the end of the story, unlikely to be read and does not give any indication of what that request looked like or how often the Post attempted to get comment.
My point is not that antisemitism is some kind of canard, or that it does not exist at American universities, or more specifically at Rutgers, where I teach journalism. My argument here — and in response to The Times of Israel piece last week — is that my experience as a Jew on campus looks nothing like what is being descried by these publications. And, as someone who has worked as a journalism for 34 years and now teaches it, I am offended by the shoddy approach to this story taken by both new organizations,
I don’t believe we can infer intention when we read a story, but we can judge the impact. These stories do a disservice to journalism, to Rutgers, and to Jewish students by inflaming the situation and undermining the ability to discuss these issues rationally.