At the University of Michigan (U of M) May 2, 2026, commencement ceremony in Ann Arbor, Michigan, history professor Derek Peterson delivered a five-minute speech in which he celebrated many of those who have fought for social justice at the university.

At the end of his speech, Peterson also praised the “pro-Palestinian student activists, who have over these past two years opened our hearts to the injustice and inhumanity of Israel’s war in Gaza.”

The backlash to Peterson’s speech was predictably swift. University president Domenico Grasso apologized for Peterson’s remarks, and the speech was condemned by pro-Israel Jewish organizations and outlets.

However, leaders of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and American Federation of Teachers (AFT), as well as other academics and Jewish groups, quickly spoke out in defense of Peterson. We publish below in chronological order four of these responses, which add to the May 8 article in Forward that appeared on World-Outlook on May 11.

The first is a statement that AAUP and AFT leaders released on May 5.

The second is an article published on May 6 by Shamai Leibowitz, an Israeli American adjunct professor of Hebrew at the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center headquartered in Monterey, California.

The third is a letter to the editor published in the May 14 edition of The Washington Daily. Alan Wald, the H. Chandler Davis Collegiate Professor Emeritus at U of M in Ann Arbor authored the letter.

This statement, at the end of Wald’s letter, merits highlighting: “The suggestion that Jews throughout the world are complicit with what is happening in Gaza feeds into antisemitic conspiracy theories. It’s an untruth made even worse when combined with the idea that suppressing and criminalizing dissident political views is being carried out on behalf of the interests of ‘the Jewish community.’”

The last piece is a May 15 statement by the Academic Council of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP).

We publish these materials for the information of our readers. The headlines and text below are from the originals. Photos are by World-Outlook.

— World-Outlook editors

*

The following is the May 5 statement by leaders of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). The text below is from the original.

The AAUP and AFT strongly defend the academic freedom of Professor Derek Peterson and condemn the escalating campaign of political pressure and public intimidation directed at him following his remarks at the University of Michigan’s commencement ceremony.

Professor Peterson’s comments — measured, principled, and clearly situated within a broader call to recognize those who work to advance justice — fall squarely within the protected sphere of faculty speech. Faculty members do not surrender their rights to speak as scholars and citizens when they participate in university forums — whether in classrooms, public venues, or ceremonial settings. On the contrary, such occasions are among the most visible expressions of the university’s core commitments to thoughtful inquiry, ethical reflection, and engagement with the most pressing issues of our time.

Calls from political actors and government officials to investigate, discipline, or terminate Professor Peterson are deeply alarming. Such demands represent a direct threat to academic freedom and an unacceptable intrusion of partisan politics into the life of the university. Just as concerning, they create a profound chilling effect: When faculty members see a colleague singled out for public vilification and threats of punishment for protected speech, the predictable result is self-censorship. Scholars may avoid addressing controversial or politically sensitive topics, narrowing the scope of inquiry and debate that universities exist to sustain.

The AAUP and AFT are also concerned by the University of Michigan administration’s public response, including its characterization of Professor Peterson’s remarks and its suggestion that he acted improperly. Institutional leaders have an obligation not only to tolerate faculty speech, but to defend it — especially in the face of external political pressure. An institution may disagree with the content of a faculty member’s protected expression but refusing to affirm his right to academic freedom risks legitimizing calls for sanction, amplifying the chilling effect on faculty speech, and inviting further political interference.

The AAUP and AFT call on the University of Michigan to affirm unequivocally that Professor Peterson will face no discipline for his protected speech, to reject external efforts to dictate the terms of academic expression, and to recommit itself to the principles of academic freedom and shared governance that are foundational to its mission.

At a moment when faculty speech is increasingly subject to political attack, universities must stand firm. The AAUP and AFT stand with Professor Peterson and with all faculty members who exercise their rights and responsibilities to speak, teach, and engage the pressing issues of our time without fear of retaliation.

Randi Weingarten, AFT President
Todd Wolfson, AAUP President
Terrence Martin, AFT-Michigan President, AFT Vice President
Julie Boland, University of Michigan–Ann Arbor AAUP Chapter President
Daniel Birchok, University of Michigan–Flint AFT-AAUP Local 5671 President
Emily Luxon, University of Michigan–Dearborn AAUP Chapter President

Publication date: May 5, 2026

*

The following article is taken from the original.

Michigan Prof’s Only Offense: Humanizing Palestinians

By Shamai Leibowitz 05/06/2026

SILVER SPRINGS, Maryland. (Special to Informed Comment; Feature) — I am a Jewish American-Israeli, and a veteran of the IDF [Israel Defense Forces]. But according to the University of Michigan administration, I am someone who needs to be protected from the truth. 

On May 2, the University did not merely censor this year’s commencement speech. It treated the mention of Palestinian humanity as a radioactive heresy that had to be scrubbed from the record as if a crime had been committed.  

The “outrageous” remarks were delivered by Professor Derek Peterson, a distinguished historian. During his address, Peterson suggested that the greatness of the University lies not so much in its scoreboard but rather in its pursuit of justice. He honored a list of pioneers: Sarah Burger, who paved the way for women to be admitted; Moritz Levi, the first Jewish professor, who opened doors for generations of Jewish students; and the Black Action Movement, which fought for the inclusion of Black people.

Then, he dared to praise a coalition of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim students who protested the worst man-made humanitarian catastrophe of this century. Specifically, he commended the pro-Palestinian student activists for opening our hearts to the “injustice and inhumanity of Israel’s war in Gaza.”

For this act of empathy, President Domenico Grasso issued a groveling apology on behalf of the administration for “hurtful and insensitive” remarks. It was a masterclass in institutional spinelessness. To honor Jewish professors is commendable. To honor Black students is noble. But to suggest that Palestinians, too, possess human rights worth defending—that, in this administration’s view, is heresy. 

It takes a profound level of moral bankruptcy to turn a blind eye to Israel’s campaign of mass killing and destruction that a global consensus of human rights organizations—including the Israeli groups B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights Israel, as well as the International Association of Genocide Scholars — has called the commission of genocide. The real scandal, apparently, is not the slaughter itself, but the possibility that a few donors might have had their commencement brunch disturbed by hearing those crimes named aloud.

The irony is staggering. University leaders oversee an institution supposedly devoted to truth. Yet they react to a call for empathy with the same reflexive suppression one might expect from a white Southern university in the Segregation era, terrified of the “subversive” idea that Black Americans should be granted equal rights. 

The administration’s official statement claimed that commencement was “neither the time nor the place” for such remarks. 

This rationale raises the obvious question: When, exactly, is the “correct” time to acknowledge the systematic destruction of every hospital in Gaza and the killing of nearly 1,000 doctors, nurses and medics? Is there a pre-approved window during which the University of Michigan permits its faculty to decry the murder of more than 21,000 children? Or is there a donor-vetted litmus test to determine which atrocities we are allowed to name?

As a Jewish lawyer and activist who knows this conflict intimately, I find the University’s “outrage” to be particularly ignorant and insulting. We are not protected by the silencing of truth. The administration does not honor our history or the Jewish idea of speaking truth to power by censoring those who acknowledge these horrors and appeal to conscience. Instead, it brings shame and embarrassment upon this world-renowned academic institution.

This censorship serves as a grim reminder that under the current leadership, academic freedom and the pursuit of truth end exactly where the protection of donor money begins. It must be a heavy burden for these administrators to carry all that “hurt” while tens of thousands of human beings are being extinguished.

About the Author: Shamai Leibowitz is an Israeli-American adjunct professor of Hebrew at the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center. He holds a law degree from Bar Ilan University, and a Master’s in International Legal Studies from The Washington College of Law. On Saturdays, he reads the Torah at his synagogue in Silver Spring, Maryland. DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in his articles are solely his, and do not represent the official views of any institution with which he is affiliated.

*

The following is a letter to the editor published in the May 14 edition of The Michigan Daily. It is taken from the original.

By Alan Wald,  H. Chandler Davis Collegiate Professor Emeritus

I speak as a Jewish research scholar who for 50 years has been exploring and writing on Jewish American political activists. Pro-Palestinian activists know this playbook by now. President Domenico Grasso spelled it out in his denunciation of Prof. Derek Peterson’s five-minute commencement speech: “Everyone in our community is entitled to their own views; but this was neither the time nor the place.” 

The warning to the rest of us is clear: One can privately hold views critical of the Israeli state but articulating them in any campus venue runs the risk of possible punishment by fungible and arbitrary policies and definitions. The U-M administration has taken the same approach with the Student Rights and Code of Conduct when it comes to protests that do what they are supposed to do — disrupt normal business.

Peterson did everything right. He met with administration officials prior to the commencement, reaching agreement on a general approach to his remarks. Peterson made it crystal clear that he would include brief praise for student activists and a condemnation of the war on Gaza. He also promised to remove the term “genocide” and omit the names of any protest organizations. In the following week he inserted a stronger denunciation of antisemitism, described the protestors as “pro-Palestinian,” and named the state whose policies he opposed as “Israel.” 

Grasso alleges, in his statement, that this handful of words signifies that Peterson “deviated” from his approved text to the degree of requiring a public besmirching of his integrity; but it’s a claim that does not conform to any customary understanding of “deviation.” Yes, Peterson amplified and concretized, but he did not deviate from the approach he had proposed. Nor is it believable that these minor adjustments so transformed Peterson’s remarks to suddenly become “hurtful and insensitive.”

What Peterson’s slight adjustments did do, however, was provide Grasso with a convenient excuse to unleash people on the internet. Predictably, Peterson was deluged with hundreds of defamatory insults and threats claiming that he had committed an unprofessional breach of trust. True to form, U-M Hillel, a proudly Zionist organization deeply connected to the Israeli state, jumped in with the self-aggrandizing claim that his remarks did indeed “alienate the Jewish community.”

There are a wide range of perspectives about Jewish identity, Israel and Zionism among Jews. Any organization or individual claiming to speak on behalf of “the Jewish community,” especially as defenders of Israeli policy and in favor of curtailing political dissent, is playing a dangerous game.  

The suggestion that Jews throughout the world are complicit with what is happening in Gaza feeds into antisemitic conspiracy theories. It’s an untruth made even worse when combined with the idea that suppressing and criminalizing dissident political views is being carried out on behalf of the interests of “the Jewish community.” Sundry Jews at the University felt thrilled that — in contrast to the many “hurtful and insensitive” statements regularly made about the protests by former President Santa Ono, several regents and former SACUA Chair Tom Braun — someone had finally expressed our views to enthusiastic cheers during graduation at the Big House.

*

The following is the May 15 statement by the Academic Council of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), reproduced from the original.

On Professor Derek Peterson’s Comments at the University of Michigan Commencement and President Domenico Grasso’s Harmful Response

15 May 2026

The Academic Council of Jewish Voice for Peace extends its gratitude and admiration to Professor Derek Peterson, the outgoing chair of the faculty senate of the University of Michigan, for his comments, at the university’s spring commencement ceremony, urging recognition and appreciation for Michigan’s “pro-Palestinian student activists who have…opened our hearts to the injustice and inhumanity of Israel’s war in Gaza.”  

These were words of basic decency — and love.  And yet, as the response later the same day from the university’s president quickly demonstrated, speaking these words at the commencement was also an act of public courage, given the pervasive hostility of higher education administrators to faculty and students who bear witness to the humanity of Palestinians and the injustice of the Israeli state. In his response, Michigan president Domenico Grasso shamefully “apologized” for Professor Peterson’s humane words of decency and love, smearing them as “hurtful and insensitive.” 

The Academic Council condemns President Grasso’s response. This includes the inaccurate and misleading claim that Professor Peterson “deviated from the remarks he had shared before the ceremony.” We take Professor Peterson at his word that he shared with the administration his intention to condemn the war on Gaza and support the student protestors. The few words he added for clarification do not constitute “deviation” in any reasonable or honest sense of the term. This means that President Grasso knowingly and intentionally tarnished the reputation of a member of his faculty in ways that have placed Professor Peterson in harm’s way. We find this unconscionable.

President Grasso’s response is, moreover, an attack on academic freedom.  Here it is crucial to note that the president’s statement at no point offers anything akin to legitimate counter-speech to Peterson’s comments — that is, it offers no reasoned basis for disagreeing with Peterson’s propositions about the university’s pro-Palestinian student activists or the Israeli state’s war on Gaza. Very differently, Grasso’s statement deploys institutional authority to admonish Peterson for having expressed his views.

Put otherwise, the president’s statement effectively sanctioned Peterson’s speech, thus chilling future expression of support for Palestinian rights and lives — especially from the many faculty possessed of less security and stature than Professor Peterson. President Grasso certainly has the right to express his own views, but as president, he abuses his office and harms the university when he sanctions and chills speech, he opposes (rather than engaging with that speech on a democratic and reasoned basis). Let us be clear: an attack on academic freedom by a university president is itself a failure to meet a core responsibility of that office.   

Grasso’s response is, in addition, wrong and harmful because of the sly way in which it mis-characterizes Professor Peterson’s comments about the pro-Palestinian students as “hurtful and insensitive.” The key move here is that Grasso’s statement identifies these feelings as the feelings of “many members of our community.” But given that many others must have had the opposite reaction to Peterson’s words, what Grasso’s text elides is any serious assessment of why some persons would find Peterson’s words of decency and love to be “hurtful and insensitive.”

White supremacists, for instance, typically find “hurtful” the opposition of racial justice advocates to the display of the Confederate Flag.  This does not, however, mean we should credit or accede to these feelings — or fail to tell the important truth that these are the feelings, the resentments — of persons invested in white supremacism.

Grasso, in turn, should recognize, rather than obscure, the basis of anyone finding “hurtful and insensitive” Peterson’s recognition of Palestinian humanity and suffering. The claim in Grasso’s statement that these are the feelings of “many,” without evidentiary support and specificity, is a rhetorical move that evades seeing these feelings for what they are: the feelings and resentments of anti-Palestinian hate, the feelings and resentments of a specific ethno-national supremacism (i.e., Zionism).  

President Grasso’s statement is especially shoddy and shameless in its final sentence: “To be sure, the world has injustices; the only way we can address them is to work together and not create more divisiveness.” The initial acknowledgment of “injustices” in general is, in an important sense, a refusal to acknowledge the specific injustice Peterson’s comments named: the Israeli state’s war on Gaza.

In effect, Grasso’s comment buries this specific injustice in the vast pool of all of the world’s injustices, thus denying it the attention Peterson, following the lead of the student activists, called for. The second part of this final sentence is even worse. It makes the Orwellian claim that fighting injustice depends on total social unity, as if injustice is something other than oppression and exploitation by persons of power. To speak such an inversion of truth is to travesty the intellectual integrity for which a university must stand and defend. 

Here we should return to the great clarity and beauty of Professor Peterson’s brief commencement comments. Without any note of apology, Peterson named the specific injustice of Israel’s war on Gaza, but he also took care not to privilege or isolate this injustice. 

He did not lose this specific injustice in a vast pool of all the world’s injustices. Rather, he placed it in the context of other injustices, asking his audience to recall and recognize the importance of struggles to open the university to women and Jews. That President Grasso then singled out for sanctioning Peterson’s recognition of Palestinian suffering makes clear just which injustice he (President Grasso) felt compelled to support, with all the authority of his presidential office. 

Again, the Academic Council of Jewish Voice for Peace is grateful for and inspired by Professor Peterson’s careful and compassionate words, and concomitantly, condemns President Grasso’s stubborn defense of the injustice and inhumanity of Israel’s war — Israel’s ongoing genocide — against Palestinians.

The Jewish Voice for Peace Academic Council is a network of scholars dedicated to furthering JVP’s vision and values. Drawing upon our shared commitment to both progressive Jewish values and Palestinian liberation, we organize in solidarity with the Palestinian freedom struggle in educational and academic settings. We draw upon our skills as scholars, educators, and writers to develop critical analysis of contemporary censorship on Palestine. We oppose the deployment of the charge of antisemitism to censor or criminalize speech critical of the State of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.  We defend employment rights, academic freedom, and rights of association within higher education and confirm the core values of Jewish Voice for Peace. 

If you appreciate this article, share it with friends and subscribe to World-Outlook (for free) by clicking on the link below.

Type your email in the box below and click on “SUBSCRIBE.” You will receive a notification in your in-box on which you will have to click to confirm your subscription.