College Hillel, Censorship. and the Jewish Community

I've been following the recent Hillel controversy kicked off by the local Hillel at Swarthmore College, at which the student group is locked in a struggle with the international organization over who can be sponsored to speak on campus by the Hillel.

My first response to this was that Hillel is a Jewish organization, funded by Jews nationally, and has a right to stop its organizations from sponsoring anti-Semitic and anti-Israel speakers on campus.  And in fact I continue to believe that Swarthmore's Hillel is wrong to declare that they are open to any voices in its space, including "anti-Zionists".  Don't get me wrong- I think anti-Zionists should be free to speak on campus, and in fact I would encourage Jews and other Israel supporters to attend such talks and engage the arguments.  But with plenty of organizations on campus, there's no need for Hillel to be the one sponsoring such a talk.  Let the committee for Palestinian Solidarity sponsor it.

As I've thought more about it, though, it gets more complicated.  Hillel has a national policy of support for Zionism.  I'm a Zionist, so that fits me well, but at the same time Hillel is a Jewish religious organization, not a political one.  I wonder if Zionism should be part of Hillel's mission.  More to the point, Hillel isn't just associated with Zionism, but with AIPAC and the mainstream Jewish community's perception of Zionism.  The liberal Zionist organization, J Street, is considered by some conservatives to be insufficiently supportive of Israel because it stands in opposition to Israel's settlement pollicy on the West Bank.  After some struggles, J Street was essentially "let in" and is permitted to be sponsored by Hillel.

But it occurs to me that the real problem is that I don't trust Hillel International to set the parameters of debate on Israel.  It seems that their tolerance for J Street, for example, is only grudging.  I don't see any reason why they couldn't ban groups in the future that I support and that are still Zionist, because they're not sufficiently right wing in their outlook.

So I don't want Hillel supporting speakers who are explicitly in favor of the Jews in Israel being killed or deported, or in favor of a one-state solution to the Middle East.  But I do want Hillel to allow liberals to speak at their events, and to be highly critical of Israel policies in the West Bank.  But who am I to set the parameters of debate that are acceptable?  I doubt anyone would trust me to do it.  And I don't trust the mainstream AIPAC types to do it.  I'm not entirely comfortable with Open Hillel's plans either- why should a Jewish organization be sponsoring people who support full boycotts of Israel?

So drawing the lines are tough but I think Hillel International, while it has the right to direct its money any way it wishes, needs to keep its guidelines as inclusive as possible, and count on the exchange of free ideas to convince open-minded people of the rightness of our positions.  A position that speakers who "set a double standard" with respect to Israel is too vague.