UCF’s Answer to the Genocide Question: No Comment
University officials realize that failing to answer the question at all makes more sense than answering the question incorrectly.
A Jewish ally and UCF student recently asked a university official if calling for the genocide of Jews violated the school’s code of conduct. That official’s response: avoid the question entirely.
The question posed to Dr. Andrea Guzman, who oversees DEI initiatives at UCF, was if it “violate[s] code of conduct at UCF to advocate for Hamas or to post that entire national identities are not innocent.” Both parts of this question describe behavior which UCF’s Palestinian Student Organization has engaged in, although it does not describe all of - or even the worst of - the behavior which has been seen on UCF’s campus since October 7th.
The answer to this question is yes. UCF’s Code of Conduct - called the Golden Rule - devotes an entire subsection to exactly this kind of behavior. Section 5.008(4) reads, in part, that the following conduct is prohibited at UCF:
(a) Physical harm or threat of physical harm to any person…
(b) Verbal, digital, or written abuse, threats, intimidation, coercion and/or other conduct that endangers the health, safety, or wellbeing of others, or which would place a reasonable person in fear of bodily injury or death…
(c) Unlawful Harassment: Unlawful harassment consists of conduct based upon an individual’s race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, non-religion, age, genetic information, … or membership in other protected classes set forth in state or federal law, and the conduct meets the description of either Hostile Environment Harassment or Quid Pro Quo Harassment, as defined in the University’s Nondiscrimination Policy (No. 2-004).
(d) Bullying: Defined as behavior of any sort (including communicative behavior) directed at another, that is severe, pervasive or persistent, and is of a nature that would cause a reasonable person or group in the target’s position substantial emotional distress and undermine their ability to work, study, or participate in University life or regular activities, or which would place a reasonable person in fear of injury or death.
The University’s Nondiscrimination Policy, which is mentioned in the Golden Rule, additionally defines the term “Hostile Environment Harassment” as:
Unwelcome behavior based on Protected Class(es) identified in this policy, where the frequency and severity of the alleged harassing conduct effectively denies the individual’s ability to participate in or benefit from the education, employment, or university program or activity, when viewed from both a subjective and an objective perspective. For a hostile environment harassment claim, the record must establish that the Complainant(s) subjectively perceived the environment to be hostile, and that the environment was one that a reasonable person would find objectively hostile.
Of the 4 categories described in section 5.008(4) of the Golden Rule, advocacy for a racist terror organization minimally violates (d) and (c), while claiming an entire nationality is not “innocent” violates all of them except (a). In other words, the answer to the question - if it violates the Code of Conduct to advocate for Hamas, or to call an entire nationality “not innocent” - is not simply yes, but yes in multiple different ways.
Dr. Guzman, however, wrote in her response that “we would encourage you to report any conduct of concern so the university can conduct the reviews described [in a previous email].” She also mentions that “part of this assessment includes ensuring compliance with First Amendment jurisprudence.” Discerning readers may notice that the yes-or-no question did not receive an answer.
While it is true that UCF cannot violate the 1st Amendment rights of its students, Dr. Guzman fails to mention that UCF is required under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to prevent the creation of an environment hostile to protected classes such as Jews. Universities fulfill their obligations under Title VI by establishing Codes of Conduct to prohibit harassment and other forms of discrimination, as well as by using their own speech rights to condemn incidents of discrimination perpetuated by students and other groups adjacent to the university. In other words, the conduct process which Dr. Guzman implies is constrained by the 1st Amendment only exists because the 1st Amendment prevents UCF from criminalizing speech, leading to alternative approaches.
While Dr. Guzman’s response may reflect the cowardice and moral bankruptcy that Jewish students have come to expect from American colleges, it also reflects a perception among university officials that answering the “genocide question” incorrectly can incur far greater consequences than failing to answer the question at all. Imagine if the Presidents of UPenn, Harvard, and MIT - who answered the question incorrectly, since it was later revealed that the described conduct was indeed a violation of at least one Code of Conduct - had simply answered “no comment.” For how long would people have cared? How many of the Presidents would have been forced to resign?
The last time anything similar happened to UCF, it was because of a different racism controversy: a professor made vile, racist comments on his personal Twitter account. Once national press became involved, UCF quickly moved to investigate and fire this professor, doing it so quickly that an arbitrator found that proper procedure had not been followed, forcing UCF to rehire him.
In this situation, UCF is not dealing with one bad actor: it must contend with an entire system which deprives Jews of equal rights on their campus. Rather than invest in creating a campus climate where Jews can exist equally to other students, Dr. Guzman would prefer to maintain the status quo and hope national press doesn’t notice. That is the purpose of responding “no comment” when asked if advocating for Jewish genocide violates the Code of Conduct.
UCF’s administration has one goal now that antisemitism has become systemic on their campus: avoid being exposed by the national press.