NOTE: I do not have any familial relation to Gabriel Knight, as might be implied by our shared surname. I mention this only to discourage anyone from assuming that my argument is based in any part on such a relation.
It goes almost without saying that the collective opinion regarding Gabriel Knight’s comments at the ASSU meeting last Tuesday is one of condemnation. According to the plethora of articles (and their comment sections) that have come out denouncing Mr. Knight, the consensus seems to be that his remarks were anti-Semitic. At this point, it would definitely be difficult, perhaps impossible, to convince anyone otherwise, simply because of the homogeneity of opinion concerning him. But it seems to me that there are certain aspects of this story that have largely been ignored which may serve to lessen the severity with which Mr. Knight is condemned. I wish to bring attention to these points as I notice them, at the risk of my own credibility being destroyed. That being said, I additionally want to stress that I am not trying to defend anti-Semitism in any form, as will probably be claimed. Rather, I only want to suggest that the idea Mr. Knight was trying to communicate was not anti-Semitic in nature.
“‘Jews controlling the media, economy, government and other societal institutions’ [is] a fixture of anti-Semitism that we [inaudible] theoretically shouldn’t challenge. I think that that’s kind of irresponsibly foraying into another politically contentious conversation. Questioning these potential power dynamics, I think, is not anti-Semitism. I think it’s a very valid discussion.”
– ASSU Senator Gabriel Knight ’17
I’d like to begin by unpacking the quote given above. In the first sentence, Mr. Knight ostensibly disputes the idea that Jews “controlling” societal institutions is anti-Semitic. Ouch. This statement seems indefensible by itself, but let us keep going. He goes on to say that challenging such an idea is precisely equivalent to questioning “potential power dynamics” as part of a “politically contentious conversation.” In my mind, this sounds like Mr. Knight is referring to a political discussion about disparity in power among differing groups of people (e.g. ethnic, religious, etc.). This gives the impression that his first sentence on its own was not communicative of the intended point, which is different from the notion of a Jewish conspiracy commonly espoused by anti-Semites.
Noting the different impression received from the rest of the above quote compared to that of the first sentence, it is unlikely that the focus of Mr. Knight’s statement was to give credence to the myth of a Jewish conspiracy, as he communicated in his letter to the Stanford Daily: “I do not intend to support or employ any language or tools that have historically been used to elicit hate and violence against a people.” Rather, it appears that he attempted to use the language of the clause (“Jews […] institutions”) as a springboard by which to introduce the notion that such language could potentially be used to stifle valid discussion of differences in political power. Since I think we all agree it is especially important to advocate discussion of privilege and power in the modern world, I disagree that raising a point like that is inherently inappropriate.
However, this is not to say that Mr. Knight’s suggestion was totally appropriate to the situation. The language of the clause is intended to condemn a very real form of hate speech (i.e. validating the Jewish conspiracy) that has historically been used with grave consequence. As such, to attack the language of the clause was surely unwise, for it seems like an assault on the spirit of the clause. This, I’m sure, no one doubts. Therefore, Mr. Knight’s intention should not have been realized in his challenging the clause itself (a move which has unsurprisingly ended his political career). Rather, he should have suggested adding language that would prohibit the use of the clause to suppress legitimate discussion of power dynamics. Doing so would certainly not have been contested and would have succinctly communicated Mr. Knight’s reasonable reservations about the clause in a way that would not have been interpreted as anti-Semitic.
Keeping in mind what Mr. Knight should have done instead, we are left to consider whether he deserves the intense censure that has been directed at him for his statements. Can it be argued that such statements indicate a lack of the tact desired or perhaps expected of an ASSU representative, regardless of their intentions? I think so, and such an observation is certainly worthy of consideration in deciding whether to vote for Mr. Knight in an ASSU election. However, do the same statements confirm to the world that Mr. Knight is an anti-Semite? Not at all. Do they mean he should be looked down upon as a cretin who validates the rhetoric of Nazis? Again, no. In reality, I think Mr. Knight simply wanted to communicate a fairly valid point about a piece of proposed legislation and unfortunately misworded his statement in a way that sounded anti-Semitic. I base this on my analysis in the second and third paragraphs.
This story has been tantamount to a witch-hunt executed under the guise of a brave assault on bigotry. Anyone who believes that Gabriel Knight is an anti-Semite based on his comments is ignoring the details that detract from such a view. Furthermore, anyone who delights in the possibility that this story will harm his career prospects (a practice that I have witnessed frequently in the last few days) is simply indulging in masturbatory schadenfreude. In closing, I hope that I have at least demonstrated that some doubt is worthy in the case of Gabriel Knight’s perceived anti-Semitism.
Contact Ian Knight at isknight ‘at’ stanford.edu.