I defend Mahmoud Khalil’s right to have rights, due process, and all the other protections to which his Green Card entitles him. The way he is being treated is egregious and wrong. But I think we should be clear about what he has done.
His actions do not constitute protected speech, because even free speech is constrained by rules — time, place, manner, and other legitimate restrictions — that are not respected or followed by the group he is involved with. He hasn’t been punished for violating such rules by any disciplinary body, nor has his own behavior (as opposed to the group’s) been subjected to legal scrutiny, so I personally don’t think the government should be able to take it into account as it tries to deport him. But considering his group’s disregard for the rights of others on campus, there’s an irony in holding him up as a martyr for free speech.
Take the one case I think we all followed closely (there are many more we didn’t — he’s been a protest leader from the beginning). That’s the occupation of the Barnard library. First, he was part of a group that barged onto campus without permission; the campus is not open to non-students without a pass. Then that group sat inside the library for several hours.
Is protest generally allowed indoors? It is not, for good reasons. This is from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s campus protest FAQ page:
Q: Is my right to protest the same indoors as outdoors?
A: Colleges typically have significantly more authority to regulate indoor spaces [than outdoor spaces]. Because of concerns about disruption, noise, and even fire safety, colleges may generally impose more restrictive rules on what students can do inside buildings.
Khalil’s group spent hours shouting through a bullhorn in the library. That is expressly forbidden, also for good reason. It’s an extreme disruption of the educational process. Call it the hecklers’ veto of studying.
Then the group handed out leaflets stamped by Hamas, among other things, and put up a poster of Sinwar. (See this X tweet for what they look like.) Leaflets and posters should not be prosecuted by the government; that kind of speech does have First Amendment protection.
But private universities don’t have to abide by the First Amendment; what they do have to abide by is Title VI. The material the protesters distributed celebrated the massacre of Israelis. That is a violation of rules against threatening or harassing a group on the basis of national origin, and possibly on the basis of religion.
And let’s think for a minute about what they were protesting: the expulsion of students who burst into a class taught by an Israeli — the only professor they’ve ever treated this way — and shut it down and refused to leave, all while filming themselves like tourists. Meanwhile, they handed out flyers (well, since the students refused to take them, they flung them on the ground) that featured, among other things, a giant jackboot stomping on the Star of David. None of that is protected speech either. Among other things, it’s effectively heckling — preventing the teacher from speaking.
So Khalil is no hero. It’s just that the way the government is mistreating him is unacceptable, unforgivable, and terrifying.
Editor’s Footnotes
Click to read the New Jewish Narrative statement on this matter, “Trump’s Columbia University Arrest Exploits Antisemitism.”
For an analysis of the legal complexities of this case recommended by Ms. Shulevitz, read this piece by Prof. Steve Vladeck of Georgetown University School of Law, writing in his newsletter, “One First.”
The photo (at top) of the protest encampment at Columbia University is courtesy of Ms. Shulevitz.