All Quiet on the University Presidents' Front

For those in the academic circle, the silence from university presidents on certain contentious topics is deafening. But why this silence, especially when it comes to touchy subjects like anti-Israel sentiments or pro-Hamas protests? While many might point fingers at the First Amendment, there is an underlying reason many of us may be missing: the fear of provoking an irrational person into having an explosive response.

If there's one thing that I have learned through my work, it's the innate human tendency to steer clear of irrationality. Simply put, rational individuals are often fearful of provoking those who do not subscribe to reason. 

Why? Because irrationality is unpredictable. It doesn't follow the natural order of things, and when it manifests, it can spiral into wanton destruction and violence.

We've all seen it or experienced it, whether on a global scale or within the microcosm of our families. Think about it – how many times have you seen your family members tip-toeing around that one relative who's known for their erratic, over the top behavior? The reason isn’t always because of a genuine concern for their well-being, but more so due to the fear of what their unchecked irrationality might unleash.

So, translating this to the university setting, it's not difficult to see why presidents might hesitate to address or condemn certain behaviors or expressions. Their silence, in many ways, is a survival mechanism, a way to prevent campuses from detonating into chaos.

But here's the pressing question: What can we do about it?

The answer might lie in the very nature of irrationality itself. Words often fall on deaf ears when addressing irrational behaviors. What might make a difference, however, are consequences. If there's one thing that even the most irrational individuals might understand, it's the repercussions of their actions. 

That said, introducing consequences isn’t as straightforward as it sounds. There's a balance to strike. If the consequences are too severe, there's a risk of escalating the situation. Excessive punitive measures might not only fail to address the root of the issue but could make things worse, forcing institutions to backtrack. On the other hand, if the consequences are too mild, they could be ineffective, merely serving as a slap on the wrist and not stopping the undesirable behavior.

In the context of universities, this balance could be achieved through a combination of education, open dialogue, and well-defined disciplinary measures. University administrations can foster an environment where diverse opinions are respected, but hate speech and incitement to violence are unequivocally condemned. This can be backed by clear policies that outline the consequences for crossing these boundaries.

Moreover, universities can also engage in proactive measures. Hosting open forums, workshops, and dialogues where students, faculty, and administration can discuss these contentious issues can go a long way. It's essential to create a space where individuals feel heard and understood, even if there's disagreement. 

In conclusion, while the silence of university presidents might be rooted in a primal fear of irrationality, the solution isn't to remain silent. Instead, it’s about understanding the nature of irrational behavior and devising effective strategies to address it. By finding the right balance between dialogue and consequence, we can hope to foster university environments that are both safe and intellectually stimulating.