For me, the first indication I had that something was wrong on October 7 was scrolling through my Facebook feed. A childhood friend posted “My heart is in the East.” I knew something terrible had happened. Was happening.
And then, it turned out that we were not so safe over here. Within days—within hours, actually—the antisemitic impulses that had been hiding in American culture started to come out in the open. That wave hit the Modern Language Association, where it was framed as progressive.
First, the boundaries of the debate about Israel moved. Before October, there was pressure to scorn Israel through boycotts, and to portray Israel as a colonial or apartheid state.
What was a debate turned into a denunciation. October 7, for some, rapidly became background noise to what they see as a need for an immediate ceasefire. Israel’s actions could easily be understood as self-defense, but there are some who contend that those actions can only be understood as an act of vengeance.
I witnessed this shift at the Modern Language Association’s annual convention, an annual meeting of academics who teach languages and literatures. The convention has, historically, been a focus for everything from literary theory to Japanese literature and linguistics. In its heyday, it was full of activity and buzz; hundreds of job interviews were held each day of the convention. Those days are gone. Interviews are virtual now, and the convention has shrunk. I was there, in Philadelphia, to present a paper on Shakespeare, but I was called upon to address a moral crisis in the organization.
This year at the convention, the Delegate Assembly took a position on the Middle East, and also a position on the controversies at universities: it voted to support Hamas, and to withhold any protection for those who disagree when the topic comes up on the quad. Cary Nelson, former president of the American Association of University Professors, said the actions of the Delegate Assembly crossed “the line into antisemitism.” [TPPI recently held a webinar and published a podcast with Nelson.—Ed.] During discussion, supporters of the Radical Caucus hissed into silence anyone who spoke about the sexual assaults that Hamas perpetrated on October 7; that silencing was witnessed and condoned by the president of the MLA.
Those who seek to demonize Israel have been targeting conventions like this for some time. That would seem surprising to most people. Why would an association that is dedicated to things like translation and poetry take a position on foreign policy? On top of that, why would such a group support Hamas and advocate campus antisemitism?
To understand how we got here, we need to look at two kinds of activism going on way back in the 1990s. There was a serious movement to tie scholarship to activism. People never stopped studying Shakespeare, but there were fewer papers on John Milton and more on Margaret Cavendish. Fewer papers on Molière and more on Toni Morrison. Fewer papers on the idea of influence and more on the idea of gender. This shift reflected a change in the wider culture, and it was overdue.
Another thing going on in the 1990s was less genuine. Academics would give abstract papers on specialized topics, and end by tipping their hat toward Marx. Some saw such gestures toward revolution as aspirational, while others saw it as a weak effort to put a fashionable spin on topics that really did not have much sex appeal.
Fast forward to 2024. The Radical Caucus began their presentation by putting forward a resolution advocating that contingent faculty be allowed to have library access between semesters. Who could oppose that, right? Anyone who would vote against that motion would surely be a cold-hearted enemy of progress, an advocate of privilege in a time when the labors of adjunct faculty are underpaid and overlooked.
From there, the Radical Caucus went on to present a motion that advocated only one perspective on the conflict underway right now in Gaza, which is to see everything as a story of Israeli aggression. The RC not only advocated this absurdly one-sided view of the Middle East, but also stated that when the topic is discussed at universities, only those who agree with them should be protected from harassment and threats, whereas those who advocate for the Jewish state would not be protected from harassment. The Delegate Assembly passed this motion and voted down a separate resolution that would have protected all students engaged in this controversy. Tellingly, it specifically voted down even a proposed amendment that would have urged universities to “aid in preserving their campuses as civil environments.”
A lot of this is easier to understand in the context of the activism we saw thirty years ago. The more authentic kind of progressive activism has already won its victories. English departments that teach only dead white men are hard to find these days, and that’s a good thing. But the second kind of activism, which was always much less sincere, has grown increasingly aggressive. It was hard to tell, at the convention, whether the target of the rage from these activists was Jews in Israel or Jews on their own campuses. When asked to clarify, they refused to do so, and when asked to protect civility, they likewise refused.
Why? Because debate would call their zeal into question, and the performance of zeal has become the currency of virtue on the left. The reason apparently neutral and unrelated academic organizations are being targeted is in order to create the impression that the denunciation of Israel is so obvious that even grammarians approve of it. And while it is tempting to dismiss this kind of bullying as the self-destruction of a declining organization, we have reason to fear where this kind of intolerance can lead.
A few of us showed up to defy this wave of intolerance. We were voted down, but we will continue to stand in the way, because our job is to protect students and to advocate for civil environments. And because our heart is in the East.
Michael Saenger, Professor of English at Southwestern University, teaches and writes on Shakespeare from a wide variety of perspectives. He is the author of two books, The Commodification of Textual Engagements in the English Renaissance (Ashgate, 2006), and Shakespeare and the French Borders of English (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), editor of Interlinguicity, Internationality and Shakespeare (McGill-Queen’s UP, 2014), and co-editor of Shakespeare in Succession: Translation and Time (McGill-Queen’s UP, 2023). He has been a Finalist for the Southwestern Teaching Award, and he teaches on Shakespeare, translation, and early literature.
