Introduction
Rutgers University, a prestigious institution of higher learning, has recently found itself entangled in a heated debate surrounding allegations of fostering an environment of antisemitism and Hinduphobia. These accusations, fueled by specific incidents and statements, have ignited profound discussions about the boundaries of free speech, academic integrity, and the role of universities in combating prejudice.
Allegations of Anti Semitism at Rutgers
Noura Erakat, an attorney and associate professor of international studies, recently delivered a virtual lecture titled "Justice for Some: Law and the Question of Palestine," organized by the embattled Center for Security, Race and Rights at Rutgers Law School. This event has drawn attention due to criticisms of the center's associations and programming.
In 2020, Erakat participated in an online workshop alongside senior HAMAS leader Ghazi Hamad, hosted by the Masarat Center, a Palestinian nonprofit. Additionally, concerns have been raised about an upcoming talk by Omar Shakir, a director at Human Rights Watch, known for its critical stance toward Israel. Critics, including the group End Jew Hatred, have accused Rutgers of allowing antisemitic expression by both professors and students. They argue that the university's commitment to free speech and diversity should not overshadow the need to address hateful rhetoric.
Erakat's involvement in anti-Israel rallies and controversial talks has further fueled these concerns. Congressman Josh Gottheimer emphasized the danger of providing platforms for individuals promoting division and hate. Rutgers, known for having one of the largest Jewish populations among US colleges, is facing scrutiny from the US Department of Education for allegations of antisemitism. Recent incidents, including the near impeachment of an Orthodox Jewish student by the Student Bar Association and the suspension of the Students for Justice in Palestine chapter, have intensified this scrutiny.
Despite criticism, Erakat defended her advocacy, stating that it is unfortunate if it is perceived as threatening to others. She argued that discussions like hers face repression across campuses. While some, like the advocacy group Alums for Campus Fairness, praised Rutgers for suspending the SJP, they now express concerns about the university's handling of the situation. They argue that the university has not adequately addressed issues of antisemitism and harassment faced by Jewish students.
Rutgers has yet to respond to requests for comment on these matters. More so, the faculty in question haven't faced any action till now for their actions that have endangered numerous Jewish students.
Response and Defenses
In response to allegations of antisemitism, Rutgers has adamantly defended its commitment to academic freedom and diversity, citing the importance of fostering an environment where differing viewpoints can be explored. Erakat, in her defense, expressed disappointment, stating that her advocacy should not be perceived as threatening to others. However, critics argue that the university's tolerance towards antisemitic rhetoric undermines the safety and well-being of Jewish students on campus.
Increasing Hinduphobia in the World
On July 13, researchers from the Network Contagion Lab at Rutgers University-New Brunswick (NC Lab) released a study titled "Anti-Hindu Disinformation: A Case Study of Hinduphobia on Social Media." The study shed light on the escalating presence of Hinduphobia across various social media and messaging platforms, revealing a notable surge in instances of hate speech targeting Hindus, accompanied by evolving trends. The researchers highlighted the widespread dissemination of genocidal Pepe memes aimed at Hindus by various entities, including white supremacists, 4Chan users, and other extremist groups. These memes are being circulated extensively within Islamist online networks, facilitated by platforms like Telegram.
Leveraging artificial intelligence, the Rutgers team examined over 1 million tweets, uncovering instances where Iranian trolls engaged in spreading anti-Hindu propaganda, often accusing Hindus of perpetrating genocide against minority groups in India. Furthermore, the study revealed a concerning trend of similar anti-Hindu propaganda gaining traction in Western nations, with activists and individuals purporting to be journalists, such as Rana Ayyub, actively amplifying this narrative within their circles, contributing to its proliferation.
Prasiddha Sudhakar, a student analyst who worked on the paper, said,
"I appreciate the opportunity to bring awareness to this underrepresented subject matter."
She has worked with high school students from the New Jersey Governors' STEM Scholars program to collect and analyze data. Joel Finkelstein, the chief data scientist at the NCRI and a senior research fellow at the Miller Center, said,
"Educating young people on how to detect open-source hate messaging is a vital first step in helping vulnerable communities prepare for and respond to emerging threats."
John J. Farmer Jr., director of both the Miller Center and the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University-New Brunswick, noted that the bigotry and violence faced by the Hindu population was nothing new. "What is new is the social media context in which hate messages are being shared. Our prior work has shown a correlation between the intensity of hate messaging over social media and the eruption of real-world acts of violence," he added.
To provide context, John Farmer discussed an instance of anti-Hindu sentiment known as the 'dot-busters' movement in the 1980s. He referenced a letter published in the Jersey Journal in 1987, where the author advocated for targeting predominantly Hindu Indians and driving them out of Jersey. Subsequently, there were several attacks on Indians in the Jersey area, but the attackers were acquitted due to the inability of the victims to identify them during the trial. Farmer emphasized that the propagation of anti-Hindu sentiments is not a recent phenomenon, and the Hindu community has confronted it both within India and abroad.
The letter stated,
"I'm writing about your article during July about the abuse of Indian People. Well, I'm here to state the other side. I hate them. We are an organization called dot busters. We will go to any extreme to get Indians to move out of Jersey City. If I'm walking down the street and I see a Hindu and the setting is right, I will hit him or her. We plan some of our most extreme attacks, such as breaking windows, breaking car windows, and crashing family parties. They will never do anything. They are a weak race physically and mentally. We are going to continue our way. We will never be stopped."
According to the Rutgers researchers, there is a concerning rise in anti-Hindu rhetoric, slurs, and derogatory memes across various extremist online networks, including Islamist, white nationalist, and other extremist groups. The researchers noted that while some content may appear anti-Indian, the specific messages and memes target Hindu symbols, practices, and livelihoods.
The study highlighted the presence of established and emerging actors spreading anti-Hindu propaganda on social media and messaging platforms for political purposes, including non-state actors like ISIS-K. The researchers linked ISIS-K's recent attack on a Gurudwara in Kabul to alleged derogatory remarks against Prophet Mohammed by a former BJP spokesperson. The data analyzed spanned from 2019 to 2022, revealing the use of ethnic pejoratives, slurs, and coded language such as "pajeet" to mask anti-Hindu disinformation. This slur, originating from 4Chan, has found its way into extremists' manifestos and hate speech targeting Hindus. The paper also discussed the prevalence of anti-Hindu memes and propaganda, often depicting Hindus as dirty or subhuman, across multiple platforms, including calls for violence against Hindus.
The researchers found that state actors employ anti-Hindu narratives as part of information operations aimed at geopolitical influence. By analyzing a dataset released by Twitter, they discovered over 1.7 million tweets from Iranian state-sponsored trolls between 2010 and 2021.
Their analysis suggested these trolls used social media to portray Hindus as extremists who perpetrate violence against minorities and attempted to foment political unrest in India. Location analysis indicated a highly clustered presence of trolls in Pakistan, while some anti-Hindu accounts also operated from within India. These accounts often targeted India and Hindus during times of geopolitical conflict.
For instance, when ISIS carried out a bomb attack on the Bhopal-Ujjain train, Iranian trolls spread disinformation claiming the attack was perpetrated by "Hindu extremists." In August 2017, they pushed the hashtag #KashmirDeniesIndia following unrest after the killing of Hizbul Mujahideen terrorist Burhan Wani. Similarly, after the 2020 Delhi riots, they ran a propaganda campaign alleging Hindus brutally murdered Muslims on Delhi's streets. These trolls even disguised themselves as human rights activists, journalists, and humanists, tagging publications like CNN and MSN to condemn India for anti-Muslim violence.
Audrey Truschke and her Palace of Lies
Audrey, who is known to defend the Mughal ruler Aurangzeb, ignited a firestorm of controversy by stating that during the Agnipariksha (trial by fire) in the Ramayana, Sita referred to Lord Ram as a "misogynistic pig."
Truschke asserted that she had "loosely translated" Valmiki's Ramayana narrative, citing verses from a purported "Sanskrit critical edition" translated by Goldman and Pollock as her sources. However, objections arose when her references were questioned, with critics pointing out discrepancies and contradictions among the scholars she referenced. Twitter historian True Indology countered Truschke's claims, providing a full translation that lacked any mention of "misogynistic pig." Instead, True Indology argued that Sita accused Ram of simply distrusting her, without using such harsh language.
Columnist Abhinav Agarwal's translation echoed this sentiment, with Sita questioning Ram's use of harsh and violent words that were unfitting for her. When pressed on her assertions, Truschke defended her statements as colloquial rather than literal, further fueling the debate. Critics, including scholars like Hindol Sengupta and Amish Tripathi, viewed Truschke's claims as racist attacks on Indian culture and demanded either evidence or an apology. Sanjiv Sanyal invoked Edward Said's critique of Western scholars controlling cultural interpretations, hinting at Truschke's actions.
Despite being refuted by evidence, Truschke did not issue an apology but instead compiled alleged instances of abuse she received, sidestepping proper scholarly debate. Rutgers' response includes a reaffirmation of its dedication to academic freedom and scholarly inquiry. The university contends that Truschke's work contributes to a nuanced understanding of history and encourages critical engagement with complex issues. Nonetheless, Truschke's portrayal of Hinduism and historical figures perpetuates stereotypes and fosters a hostile environment for Hindu students.
Response and Defenses
In their petition, a group of Hindu students at Rutgers-Newark vehemently condemned Audrey Truschke's blatant attempts to trivialize and diminish the horrifying Hindu genocide perpetrated by the Mughal ruler Aurangzeb.
Truschke's callous disregard for well-documented estimates of Aurangzeb's atrocities, which resulted in the slaughter and enslavement of millions of Hindus, sparked outrage among the petitioners. They pointed out Truschke's disturbing pattern of whitewashing historical facts and her disturbing defense of Aurangzeb's heinous actions, which included feeble attempts to emphasize his supposed benevolence towards Hindu temples and elite Hindu participation within the Mughal state. This wasn't the first instance where Truschke's anti-Hindu biases had come under scrutiny. However, Rutgers University shamefully chose to rally behind her, shamelessly invoking the shield of academic freedom to justify their support for her deeply flawed scholarship.
In a disgraceful statement, Rutgers unabashedly stood by Truschke and condemned the rightful backlash she faced, conveniently brushing aside the legitimate concerns raised by the Hindu community. The university's defense of Truschke's narrative, under the guise of academic freedom, only serves to perpetuate the erasure of Hindu voices and the normalization of anti-Hindu sentiments within academic circles.
Instead of upholding the principles of academic integrity and accountability, Rutgers shamefully chose to prioritize Truschke's academic freedom over the pain and anguish felt by the Hindu community. Their refusal to acknowledge the harm caused by Truschke's revisionist narratives and their failure to hold her accountable for her biased scholarship is a betrayal of the values of inclusivity and respect for diverse perspectives. The university's hollow promises to engage in dialogue with the Hindu community ring hollow in the face of their unwavering support for Truschke's divisive rhetoric. Rutgers' complicity in perpetuating Hinduphobia through their endorsement of Truschke's dangerous narrative only serves to further alienate and marginalize Hindu students and scholars within academic spaces.
In light of Rutgers' disgraceful endorsement of Truschke's anti-Hindu agenda, it is imperative for the university to reevaluate its commitment to fostering an inclusive and respectful environment for all members of its community, regardless of their religious or cultural backgrounds. Anything less than a sincere apology and a commitment to rectify the harm caused by their actions would be a gross betrayal of the trust placed in them by the Hindu community.
Implications and Conclusion
The controversies surrounding Rutgers University underscore the intricate challenges confronting educational institutions in navigating issues of free speech, diversity, and social responsibility. As the university grapples with these challenges, it must uphold its commitment to fostering an inclusive and respectful learning environment for all students, regardless of their religious or cultural backgrounds.
Rutgers and similar institutions must prioritize the protection of marginalized communities from discrimination and hate speech while upholding principles of academic freedom and scholarly inquiry. By implementing proactive measures and facilitating meaningful dialogue, universities can effectively address the complexities of antisemitism, Hinduphobia, and other forms of discrimination within their academic communities, thereby fostering a culture of inclusivity and tolerance.
ความคิดเห็น