In the fog of a time which feels deeply discombobulating for so many groups of people, it’s vital to see and hear what’s going on up close.
It’s a fearful time for many. Positions are entrenched, views are polarised and emotions are very high.
And in that environment, issues can be conflated, judgements can be rash and deeply complex issues can be condensed to their simplest, most digestible form.
There are a multitude of prisms through which people see things. Nuance is too often lost.
Columbia University on New York City’s upper west side is one of America’s most prestigious institutions.
It’s one of a number of Ivy League schools where protests against Israel’s war in Gaza have become a national issue confounding the police and splintering the politicians.
Those who look for nuance end up tied in knots as they seek balance.
“I condemn the antisemitic protests…” President Biden said in his latest comments on the growing movement, adding: “I also condemn those who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians, and their, how they’re being…”
He failed to finish his sentence. There is an election coming. Being unequivocal, either way, isn’t an option.
Advertisement
From a surface level, some have concluded that all the student protesters are antisemitic terrorist sympathisers and/or all the vocal counter-protesters are genocide-condoning colonialist monsters. Of course neither is true.
What I saw from my albeit limited, allotted time on the Columbia campus was a spectrum.
Image: Pro-Palestinian protesters have created an encampment in the quadrangle of Columbia University
Hollywood star blasts ‘lowlife scumbags’
There was the young Lebanese-American woman who wouldn’t bring herself to condemn Hamas. There was the young American man who just wanted “the genocide to end”.
There was the British professor of Middle Eastern history who sought to provide the context of a conflict stretching back so many years. And there were Jewish students whose message for Israel was “not in my name”.
The thrust of their demands was for the university to cut all links with Israel and to divest financially.
At a time when definitions are condensed, their views would, by some but not all, be interpreted as antisemitic or, in the case of the Jewish students, self-hating.
One Jewish-American politician, Bruce Blakeman, speaking on the street outside the campus, declared angrily: “They are traitors.”
Alongside him was actor and comedian Michael Rapaport who described the campus encampment protesters as: “bullies, cowards, and pathetic lowlife scumbags”.
Image: Hollywood actor Michael Rapaport joined pro-Israel demonstrations outside the university
University president warns of ‘clear and present’ danger
It is a deeply depressing statement of fact that some Jewish students and professors do not feel safe on their own campuses.
Shai Davidai, an assistant professor at Columbia Business School, wrote on X: “Earlier today, Columbia University refused to let me onto campus. Why? Because they cannot protect my safety as a Jewish professor. This is 1938.”
We are at another moment of febrile divisiveness and division where extremes are amplified and fear is visceral.
Slogans are interpreted as genocidal and they are compounded by the violent threats of a minority.
What was my campus takeaway, as an observer with no alliances but also no visual identifier – a kippah or a keffiyeh – to attract the potential ire of one side or the other?
Well, the prevailing vibe within my snapshot of the campus spectrum, which by definition has its extremes, was one of tolerance, with a call for an end to all killing and to occupation.
It did not chime with the way the university president had framed the situation just days ago: “A clear and present danger to the substantial functioning of the university.”
Image: Pro-Israel demonstrators in New York
President Minouche Shafik, who is British-American-Egyptian and a member of the UK House of Lords, chose to call in the police last week to tackle the growing protest movement.
She had, the Associated Press reported, “focused her message on fighting antisemitism rather than protecting free speech”.
The thorny line between free speech and hate speech is a judgment so often left to the police.
It’s important to note that the police chief overseeing the Columbia arrests last week later said: “The students that were arrested were peaceful, offered no resistance whatsoever, and were saying what they wanted to say in a peaceful manner.”
Image: Pro-Palestinian demonstrators outside Columbia University
Yet, in this febrile and condensed moment, they can be all of those things and, to the beholder, be antisemitic too.
At the heart of all this is the challenge of how to moderate the conversation; how to keep it moderate, when that now seems to be so open to interpretation.
As I write, news is emerging of more arrests, this time at another of the city’s universities, NYU. It is prompting angry reactions.
“NYU’s administration tonight joined the shameful list of US universities that called the police to arrest their own students and faculty for protesting against an ongoing genocide”, NYU professor Mohamad Bazzi posted on X.
Clara Weiss, the National Secretary of IYSSE, a student social equality movement wrote: “The Biden admin and the Democratic admin of NY and NYC have all backed a state crackdown but protests against the #Gazagenocide continue to grow and expand.”
Image: NYPD Deputy Commissioner Michael Gerber has spoken of the challenges in policing such demonstrations
I asked NYPD Deputy Commissioner Michael Gerber to characterise the challenge.
“It’s a great and important question,” he said.
“Determining when something goes from protected speech to unprotected speech can be very context specific; can require a lot of nuance. And you’re right, you have to make calls on a daily basis, making judgment calls. We’re doing it to the very best of our ability. [The] stakes are high, there’s no question about that.”
It is, then, a balance between respecting free speech and restricting it.
It’s about finding the right tools to allow for a sober, objective deciphering of the red line which lies between free speech and hate speech.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
The entire East Wing of the White House will be demolished “within days” – much more bulldozing than initially expected for Donald Trump’s new ballroom construction project.
Two Trump administration officials told Sky News’ US partner NBC that the demolition is a significant expansion of the initial plans announced this summer.
“It won’t interfere with the current building,” Mr Trump had said on 31 July. “It’ll be near it, but not touching it, and pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of.”
Image: Rubble is piled higher and higher as demolition continues on the East Wing. Pic: AP
But a White House official told NBC News the “entirety” of the East Wing would eventually be “modernised and rebuilt”.
“The scope and the size of the ballroom project have always been subject to vary as the process develops,” the official added.
The East Wing was built at the beginning of the last century and was last modified in 1942.
Image: Trump shows off an artist’s impressions of his new ballroom. Pic:AP
Construction on the ballroom – which is expected to hold up to 900 people when finished – began this week.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a non-profit agency created by Congress to help preserve historic buildings, warned administration officials in a letter on Tuesday that the planned ballroom “will overwhelm the White House itself”.
“We respectfully urge the administration and the National Park Service (stewards of the White House) to pause demolition until plans for the proposed ballroom go through the legally required public review processes,” Carol Quillen, the trust’s chief executive, said in a statement.
Image: Windows of the complex could be seen being torn down. Pic: Reuters
‘Fake news’
The White House called the uproar “manufactured outrage” by “unhinged leftists and their fake news allies” in a statement.
Last week, Mr Trump said the total price would be about $250m (£187m), which would be paid for by himself and private donors will pay for. However, on Wednesday, he said the ballroom’s price is “about $300m (£225m)”.
The 90,000 sq ft ballroom will dwarf the White House itself – and would be able to accommodate almost five times more guests than the East Room, the largest current space in the mansion.
Mr Trump says the ballroom won’t cost US taxpayers at all. Instead, “donors” would pay for it.
Comcast, the parent company of Sky News, was included on a list of top donors released last week – but it is unclear how much it or others have contributed.
A former world chess champion is being investigated over his public attacks on US grandmaster Daniel Naroditsky, who died suddenly this week aged 29.
Russian player Vladimir Kramnik is facing disciplinary proceedings over repeated accusations against Mr Naroditsky.
He was found dead at his home earlier in North Carolina, and the cause has not been made public.
Image: Vladimir Kramnik. Pic: AP
Mr Naroditsky’s supporters claim he had been “bullied relentlessly online” by Mr Kramnik, with some calling for him to be banned from the game.
Mr Kramnik has accused a number of players of cheating in online games – and first voiced “concerns” about Mr Naroditsky’s play last year, leading to an ongoing feud between the pair.
The 50-year-old routinely posted online about his younger rival, calling for an investigation into his play and at times appearing to threaten legal action.
In an October 2024 interview, Mr Naroditsky characterised Mr Kramnik’s efforts as “a sustained, evil and absolutely unhinged attempt to destroy my life”.
More from World
Now, following the announcement of Mr Naroditsky’s death on Monday, the international chess federation (FIDE) has referred Mr Kramnik’s behaviour to its ethics and disciplinary commission.
Image: Naroditsky was a popular chess streamer on YouTube and Twitch. Pic: AP
FIDE president Arkady Dvorkovich said in a statement: “I, along with the FIDE management board, will formally refer all relevant public statements made by GM (grandmaster) Vladimir Kramnik – both before and after the tragic death of GM Daniel Naroditsky – to the FIDE Ethics and Disciplinary Commission for independent consideration.”
Mr Kramnik has denied wrongdoing, and claims he has also been bullied by members of the chess community – as well as receiving death threats.
He told Reuters: “What public statement after the death of Daniel was incorrect? … I have not bullied Daniel Naroditsky, nor ever made personal insults towards him.”
But prominent chess players have condemned Mr Kramnik’s conduct – with former world champion Magnus Carlsen describing his treatment of Mr Naroditsky as “horrible”.
Meanwhile, Indian grandmaster Nihal Sarin said the retired player “needs to pay for what he’s doing”.
Mr Naroditsky was one of America’s most recognisable chess figures and a former world youth champion.
At just 14 years old, he had written and published a book on the game – and in later years, educated followers through livestreams on Twitch and YouTube.
Mr Naroditsky denied cheating and appeared visibly distressed in his final Twitch broadcast last weekend, where he referred to the toll the controversy had taken on him, according to the now-deleted video.