The social response within the United States to the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas offers multiple illustrations of fundamental principles, social voting, and economic voting. First, a brief description of the event. From Gaza, Hamas attacked civilians in the adjacent southern part of Israel. The attack drew worldwide attention because its purpose was to cruelly kill, torture, and rape Israeli civilians. Hamas owned and applauded the attack, admitting that it was designed to provoke Israel to war rather than an attempt to improve life within the Gaza Strip.
This article is not an analysis of the Israeli-Hamas conflict nor of the diplomatic, financial, or military response from the US government. My motivation for this article is the strong responses within American society.
To the surprise of no one, the vast majority of Americans condemned the attacks. Not all of those who condemned the attack are staunch supporters of Israel. Rather, what was clear to most Americans is the necessity of condemning, (1) calls for genocide, and (2) the use of cruelty, torture, and rape as a strategy. If that were the only response from American society, I would not be writing this article, but it was not. A small minority of Americans voiced support for the attack. That small minority included some students and staff at visible and influential big-name universities.
I am not going to make a list of the relevant big-name universities. I am using that phrase to stand for a number of universities which are well known and sometimes considered prestigious. Two of them, Harvard and University of Pennsylvania, ended up in the public eye and will be used as examples.
We will draw our illustrations from the minority response itself and the fallout from that response.
Shortly after the attack happened students at some big-name universities held demonstrations to support Hamas and blame Israel. They blamed Israel for the attack and called for more attacks on Israel. This anti-Israel sentiment turned into anti-Semitism and was exhibited by speech and action against Jewish students. None of these protests explicitly condemned the atrocious acts. To the extent they were acknowledged, the view seems to be that Hamas had no other options.
As our first illustration, consider the worldview of students attending our supposedly leading universities. How could they ignore—and in some cases endorse—the atrocities committed by Hamas? We know, of course, that youth are often idealistic and express it as opposition to the established order. Thus, had the protests supported the plight of Gaza civilians while at the same time condemning both the attack and the atrocities, most people would have attributed it to “typical college students.” But how are we to understand these young people, some who imagine themselves as future leaders in society, ignoring or endorsing unspeakable acts committed by one person against another?
Every society must pass along to future generations what is required of a citizen. How did privileged students at privileged universities develop such a worldview? An important part of the answer became clear at once. The administrators and teachers at these universities made no effort to correct and refute what the students were saying and doing. If there was any direction from the adults on campus, it was to support what the students were saying and doing. Not surprisingly, some students fully absorbed aspects of the worldviews of administrators and teachers.
Because what was happening at these universities captured public attention, Congress decided to hold a hearing. The presidents of three universities were invited to testify. These proceedings are public, therefore it is sufficient to note only that when the presidents of Harvard and University of Pennsylvania were asked questions that gave them an opportunity to condemn what happened on their campuses and, in particular, to address calls for Jewish genocide, they equivocated. They answered that it depended “on context.”
The public response to the responses of these university presidents was immediate and strong. People responded strongly not just because of the specifics of the Congressional testimony but because what was said served as a tipping point. Many big-name universities had been drifting away from their heritage for several decades. They were steadily losing credibility and prestige. Many observers noted that you were more likely to get in trouble at these universities for improper gender-pronoun usage than for calling for genocide and endorsing violence.
At this point, we can see illustrated the casting of many social votes by the students, faculty, and administrators—punctuated by university presidents in national testimony. They made clear what they believe, what they see as important, and what they find acceptable. Their social voting generated many votes in the opposite direction, voting that was both social and economic.
Immediately following the Congressional hearing, influential people who cared about these universities began applying pressure to the boards and administrators. Some of those people were major donors to the universities. Because of the social and economic voting from multiple groups, the presidents of University of Pennsylvania and Harvard were forced out of office.
In all of this, we see a particularly instructive illustration of the power of social and economic voting. It took place on the public stage. It happened quickly. It produced dramatic results.
Something else is illustrated by this whole scenario, something not as obvious. Many of those who cast their votes which brought about change admitted they had not paid enough attention to what was going on at the schools. They may have known some things were not right but had not taken the time to investigate and engage earlier. Now, these engaged people are investing time to figure out how to turn these universities around—or indeed if a turnaround is even possible.
Another important principle is illustrated in the story. In a free society, there is always a form of accountability that comes from competition. While many people will invest time, energy, and money working to turn around some of the big-name universities, others will invest equally to help other universities take their place alongside, or even replace, the traditional big-name schools.
This illustration emphasizes the importance of citizen-rulers always being vigilant. Leaders in all areas of society must constantly be held accountable. First, this requires attention and effort on the part of citizen-rulers. Second, it requires casting social and economic votes continuously, not waiting for a tipping point. Part of this voting will come from parents as they decide where to send their children to college. This illustration is also proof that our social and economic votes are as important and powerful as our political votes. They may even be more powerful.