In a surprising turn of events, an essay penned by Rabea Eghbariah, a human rights lawyer and Harvard Law alumnus, has sparked controversy and raised questions about academic censorship and free speech on college campuses. The essay, which frames the Nakba as not just a historical event but a legal framework for understanding the contemporary Palestinian lived experience, seemed like a perfect fit for Harvard Law, which consistently ranks as one of the best law schools in America. However, Harvard decided to pull the essay at the last minute, leaving Eghbariah to seek an alternative platform for his work.
Eghbariah's essay found a new home at Columbia's Law Review, where it was briefly published before the Board of Directors took swift action to remove it from public view. This rare departure from the usually straightforward process of article submission has drawn attention from academics and legal professionals alike, who are questioning the motivations behind the censorship.
In a statement to The Intercept, the Columbia Law Review Board of Directors cited concerns about "deviation from the Review's usual processes" as the reason for their decision to take down the website. They claimed that the move was intended to give all CLR members the opportunity to read the article and that it was not a final decision on publication. The board stated, "We spoke to certain members of the student leadership to ask that they delay publication for a few days so that, at a minimum, the manuscript could be shared with all student editors, to provide them with a chance to read it and respond."
However, not everyone is convinced by the board's explanation. Some Columbia Law staff members have expressed doubts about the true motives behind the censorship. Katherine Franke, a professor at Columbia Law, told The Intercept, "I don't suspect that they would have asserted this kind of control had the piece been about Tibet, Kashmir, Puerto Rico, or other contested political sites."
This incident is part of a larger trend of curtailing free speech on college campuses, but it differs from the more publicized cases involving right-leaning speakers. When conservative figures like Amy Wax or Judge Kyle Duncan face pushback for their views, they often receive support from their allies, who flex their institutional influence and play the victim card. In contrast, Eghbariah's essay has been met with swift censorship and little public outcry from those who claim to champion free speech.
Despite the attempts to censor Eghbariah's work, the internet has ensured that his essay remains accessible to those who wish to read it. The incident has sparked a debate about the role of academic institutions in fostering open dialogue and the double standards that exist when it comes to free speech on campus.
As the controversy surrounding Eghbariah's essay continues to unfold, it serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges faced by academics and writers who seek to shed light on complex and politically charged issues. The censorship of his work raises important questions about the state of academic freedom and the need for a more consistent approach to protecting free speech, regardless of the political leanings of the speaker or the subject matter being discussed.
