The letter stated: "We will maintain academic standards in the classroom and we will sustain an intimidation-free campus. These two concepts are at the core of our profession." The statement later specifically cited "death threats and threats of violence" against Jewish students and supporters of the state of Israel.
"While college campuses are by and large critical of Israel, this country is unabashedly pro-Israeli. I applaud any effort to promote free expression of ideas," said Buck Sexton '04. "But this statement will do nothing except promote accusations of bias and further polarize the issue."
Jonathan Sharter '03, however, said that he supports Gerety's decision to sign the statement. "I commend Gerety for not bowing to the liberal criticism he knew he would receive in signing this letter," said Sharter. "Everyone is aware of the potential for aggression directed towards Muslim students, and I feel that it has been kept to a minimum through immediate and broad based condemnation of such acts."
"The letter only addresses Jewish students on campus because that is the problem that is being ignored," added Sharter. "The sad reality is that acts of violence or intimidation against Jewish students are tolerated far more readily than similar actions or statements directed against Muslim students."
Professor of Political Science Pavel Machala said that he believes that of all minority groups Muslim and Middle Eastern students have felt most intimidated since Sept. 11. "My sense is that so far such a harassment [of Jewish students] has been either peripheral, spontaneous and isolated," said Machala. "If so, it does not deserve an organized position on the part of college presidents. At this critical moment, I believe every college ought to be either concerned with its own 'intimidation-free campus' or with more inclusive intimidation against all non-conformist bodies."
Professor of Political Science Thomas Dumm acknowledged the importance of understanding the historical significance of anti-Semitism yet he questioned the ideology behind the statement. Dumm said the American Jewish Committee is a sponsor of Campus Watch, a right-wing organization that has monitored American academics who protest the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. "An article on the website argues that calls for boycotts of Israeli goods or other protests against its policies are inevitably anti-Semitic," said Dumm. "Within that context, the statement [Gerety] signed is deeply partisan."
Dumm said that he objected to the statement's absence of discussion concerning the government-sponsored illegal detention of Arab and Muslim students in the United States. "Last year, in the wake of Sept. 11, during the first wave of violence and threats against dissent on campus, a group of faculty here at Amherst asked Tom Gerety to speak up for the right to dissent on campus. He declined to do so at the time," said Dumm. "I wish he would behave more evenhandedly now and issue a more robust statement that doesn't, with its amazing omissions, leave our Arab and Muslim students wondering where he stands in regard to his concern about their rights."
Sabrina Saleem '03, chair of NOOR, questioned Gerety's purpose in signing this statement. "This could have a detrimental effect on campus," said Saleem. "It could very well be interpreted that President Gerety is catering to one group and purposely alienating others. I personally am beginning to question Gerety's motives for signing this ... Simply, he's sending the wrong message."
Yet Leora Maccabee '05, president of the Amherst College Student Alliance for Israel, said that this statement is important because of the threats Jews face on college campuses because of their support for Israel's survival. "I am thrilled that President Gerety signed the statement against anti-Semitism. I'm really disappointed that some college presidents declined to sign," said Maccabee.
"I am not much interested in defending or criticizing President Gerety for signing this letter," said Professor of Political Science Ronald Tiersky. "The arguments on one side and the other in this particular action are clear. President Gerety is his own man and he is of course responsible to the College community in his capacity as president. I would just make one observation: Can anyone looking at the list of signatures on the letter believe that this group of academic leaders is on the wrong side of the issue of intimidation-free campuses for all students?"