Yale

Episcopal Chaplain Bruce Shipman Steps Down After Expressing Unpopular

Opinion

by Terry Roethlein
for The National Coalition Against Censorship


On August 26th the New York Times published Yale Episcopal chaplain Bruce
Shipmans letter to the editor in response to Deborah Lipstadts op-ed about rising
anti-Semitism. The letter suggested that there may be a connection between Israels
actions in Gaza and the West Bank to a rash of anti-Semitic protests and violent acts
in Europe. Two weeks later, after campus-wide controversy, Shipman was
pressured to step down from his position as chaplain.

The case parallels that of Steven Salaita, the newly hired professor at the University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who in August lost his job offer after tweeting
expletive-laden messages criticizing the Gaza bombings. As with Salaita, the
Shipman case is disturbing for two reasons. First, the case sends a clear message
that university employees cannot be permitted to voice unpopular political opinions
in public. Second, Yale, one of the oldest and most esteemed American universities,
sets a precedent that declares certain political opinions to be so radioactive that
they should be banned from public discourse.

Yales Jewish student group, Chabad, viewed Shipmans statement as a justification
of anti-semitism(sic) and a Yale lecturer in religion cast it as a case of blaming the
victim. Shipman contends that at least one board member demanded that Israel/
Palestine never be discussed during inter-denominational chaplaincy meetings and
that she eventually pushed for his resignation.

It seems disingenuous, at best, to label as anti-Semitic the opinion that one nations
military intervention could result in strong political feelings and even social unrest
elsewhere. Shipman never said that he agreed with the anti-Semitic thugs in Europe;
he simply suggested something hardly radical: that this behavior may be the
unfortunate result of bad policy.

In the ongoing media wars around Israel/Palestine, it can be helpful to remember
the U.S. invasion of Iraq, when many academics and commentators blamed the
military incursion for terrorist fallout all over the world. People who vilified such
critics, branding them as unpatriotic, were frequently dismissed as highly partisan
neoconservative cheerleaders and the debate when on. Critics of U.S. policy in Iraq
were not forced out of their jobs for being unpatriotic. Why are critics of Israel
treated differently?

University professors, lecturers, chaplains, and other public figures have just as
much right to free speech as any other person living under the U.S. Constitution.
These individuals sign no agreement upon their hire banning them from publically

sharing their opinions on controversial political issues like Israel/Palestine.

Alarmingly, however, a creeping cultural and political straitjacket on discussions of
important issues is affecting American universities. Shipman is just its latest victim.