Why Social Media Reactions to the University Protests in the US Are Premature?

Clampdowns on the raging University protests pertaining to the Israel-Gaza War in the United States of America have led to a flurry of smug reactions on Indian social media. A chorus of “Now don’t lecture us” or "Double standards on democracy” etc, have erupted.

Implicit suggestion is that while the US lectures the others (especially us) on democracy, they are equally ham-handed and intolerant of dissent. Metaphorically, what is good for the goose is not good for the gander! But is it really so?

With the conflation of social media, the activist spirit of the students, and moral consciousness combined – a disorganised, passionate, and highly emotional outpouring in the form of angsty protests, is obvious. While the security agencies are attuned to handling criminals and organised violence, they ironically struggle to handle such sorts of civilian and mass protests. Whenever these law enforcement agencies are invoked to curb such protests, their mismatched force and intensity can trigger even more reactions.

The lack of any formal structure governing these organic protests across University campuses, adds to the woes of the security agencies. It is a relatively new security challenge, and the policing agencies are struggling and overreacting in the task. Additionally, the fact that these protests could be infiltrated by fringe elements (internal or external to the Universities), who could be behind the purportedly antisemitic and threatening sloganeering, is a collateral and unavoidable reality that compounds issues.

These protests are clearly on account of the University President/Authorities panicking on seeing the growing protests, crowds, and disruptions and therefore, seeking law enforcement agencies to intervene. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, it is a known fact that many of these universities are funded or patronised by forces (many of whom are affluent and sensitive elements of the so-called ‘Jewish lobby’) who would certainly want to contain the ongoing anti-Israel movement. The awkward demands by protesting students to seek transparency on the financial sources of the University endowments or funds and to boycott pro-Israel organisations and individuals will surely put pressure on University authorities to seek police help.

The real power or guarantee of free speech in the American context is vested in the 'First Amendment’ of the US Constitution which protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The freedom afforded constitutionally is irrespective of how offensive the content is. Any restrictions to the same are considered government censorship in violation of the constitution.

Only if the content crosses the fine line of targeted harassment or personal threats (e.g., slogans like "Kill the Jews”, as claimed recently) against any vulnerable co-citizens, does the cover of the 'First Amendment’ become inapplicable. But for generally offensive or even bigoted speeches – the belief and spirit are that more, rather than less tabling of content is the answer. The underlying assumption is that free speech would automatically delegitimise malintent in an informed society.

Defending that difficult decision, one of the Judges noted, “The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the Constitution, as we see them, compel the result.”

The compulsion to hold free speech gets tested daily in the US media with the thriving retinue of both pro-and-antigovernment voices, co-existing simultaneously. For every Fox News or Rupert Murdoch, there is a counterbalancing CNN or MSNBC to allow divergences of ideological views, without the sort of fear or favour that exists in some other countries.

The daily reportage and the usage of memes, accusations, aspersions, and mocking towards both the Presidential candidates in the US election fray is still admirable for the complete freedom that it allows to both sides. Imagined offense, ideology, or nationalism with any accompanying drama of 'manufactured outrage’ cannot be used towards suppressing or denying of any contrarian opinion in the US.

That said, democracy and free speech in the US have certainly come under pressure in recent years and it has fallen from its global ‘beacon of free speech’ status. RSF (Reporters without borders) ranks the US at 45th out of 180 countries on the Press Freedom Index and has noted, “After four years of President Trump constantly denigrating the press, President Biden signaled his administration's desire to see the US reclaim its global status as a model from freedom of expression, thus reinstating regular White House and federal agency press briefings. Despite these efforts, many of the underlying, chronic issues impacting journalists remain unaddressed by the authorities.”

For a parallel context, India is at an all-time low of 161 out of 180 nations and the report notes, “Indian law is protective in theory but charges of defamation, sedition, contempt of court and endangering national security are increasingly used against journalists critical of the government, who are branded as "anti-national”.

A starting point would be to even imagine the hypothetical situation and reaction (of masses, press, and politicians) assuming that it was Indian  students protesting in favour of the Palestinians in the ongoing conflict (despite the fact that it is the USA, and not India, that is Israel’s most steadfast and formidable ally).

Would we even have the appetite to entertain such protests without calling out religion or partisan politics?

(The author is a Former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)

(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)