A shameful attack on free speech in Lower Merion

I have two brilliant daughters — if I may say so myself — and they are both products of the Lower Merion School District. They received a superb education that prepared them well for all of the next steps. I have always felt grateful to the district for that.

But I’m ashamed of it now.

That’s because of its removal of two articles from the website of the Merionite, the award-winning student newspaper at Lower Merion High School. Like all censors, in all times and places, the district said it was rightfully protecting students from harm. In fact, it taught them all the wrong lessons about speech, citizenship, and democracy itself.

On Dec. 20, the Merionite published dueling student opinion pieces about the Mideast conflict. One of the articles, “There’s More to the Story,” linked the Oct. 7 attack on Israel by Hamas to hatred and discrimination suffered by Jewish people across history. The other essay, “Humanity’s True Colors,” condemned Israel as an apartheid state and charged it with committing war crimes in Gaza.

Anticipating controversy over the op-eds, the district reviewed them carefully before approving them for publication. It also released an eloquent statement that fully endorsed free speech and dialogue across differences.

“The district supports and values students’ First Amendment rights,” the statement declared. Lower Merion schools “will continue to strive to empower student voice and agency” and “to promote civil discourse necessary to understanding of diverse viewpoints,” it added.

And two days later, the district threw student voice — and civil discourse — right under the proverbial school bus.

Amid a torrent of angry complaints, the district ordered the paper to take down both articles. Of the roughly 250 emails received from parents and other community members, Superintendent Steve Yanni estimated that about 90% were about “Humanity’s True Colors.” The piece was antisemitic or even “pro-Hamas,” some critics said; others condemned its author, who quickly became a target for online vitriol.

“I really thought it was important to take the articles down for the well-being of everyone, largely because there was so much hurt and fear,” Yanni told the Merionite.

“I am concerned that our Jewish and Israeli staff and students (and others) will continue to feel marginalized, discriminated against, and, potentially, unsafe,” Yanni added, in an email message to the paper.

» READ MORE: Is antisemitism ‘rampant’ at our universities? | Jonathan Zimmerman

I understand his concerns. And I also understand why many Jews are offended by accusations that Israel practices apartheid or commits war crimes. I’m Jewish, and I’m offended by those views, as well.

But it’s not for Yanni — or for you, or for me — to determine which views are so offensive that nobody should say or hear them. Under the standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Tinker v. Des Moines, a school can’t censor speech unless it would “materially and substantially interfere” with the educational functions of the school. That’s why a student can’t stand up in the middle of algebra class and start shouting slurs at the teacher, for example.

Did these two op-eds pose a similar threat to education at Lower Merion?

Of course not. As Yanni acknowledged, the district’s own legal counsel advised that the op-eds were constitutionally protected speech.

The real threat to education lay in removing the op-eds, not in publishing them.

The real threat to education lay in removing the op-eds, not in publishing them. The Merionite was doing what good journalism has done forever: It presented sharply contrasting views of a controversy, so readers could make up their own minds about it. But nobody can do that now, at least not about the two op-eds. They’re gone.

That taught students that anything — and anyone — can be censored if enough people raise a ruckus. It doesn’t matter what the law says. The loudest mouths will always win, muzzling the speech they find distasteful or hateful.

And the schools — supposedly, our crucibles of democratic citizenship — will cave to them. A few weeks after it censored the op-eds, the Lower Merion School District adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. According to the IHRA, people who call Israel a “racist endeavor” or use “double standards” to condemn it are antisemitic.

That would almost surely make “Humanity’s True Colors” antisemitic, too, and give the district grounds to censor any similar sentiments. But as Lower Merion senior Gideon Wolf wrote in the Merionite last week, in a careful report on the controversy, some students worry that the IHRA definition would chill legitimate criticism of Israel.

Tough luck for them. Never mind that the American Civil Liberties Union has denounced the IHRA definition of antisemitism as a danger to free speech. The school district has laid down the rule, and now everyone else has to follow along — or else. Does that sound democratic to you?

In Tinker v. Des Moines, Justice Abe Fortas warned that schools can’t censor “one particular opinion” simply because they don’t like it. Shame on the Lower Merion School District for doing exactly that.