<p>Austin Franco told a prospective employer he wouldn’t work for them because they were Jewish. When the remark became public, he defended it instead of apologizing.</p>
<p>Cornell University condemned the 19-year-old student’s remark, but Franco states he has faced no disciplinary action. He appeared on Piers Morgan’s show, where he defended himself and referred to Israel as “a genocidal country.” Supporters rallied around him, and online fundraisers raised tens of thousands of dollars.</p>
<p>Historically, publicly stating one wouldn’t work for someone due to their Jewish identity would have been socially unacceptable. Franco did not express embarrassment and appeared convinced of his stance.</p>
<p>This shift is significant because societal shame serves a purpose in signaling unacceptable behavior. A society needs mechanisms to indicate that certain actions are not aligned with decent conduct. This is effective only when the individual crossing the line acknowledges wrongdoing.</p>
<p>Most individuals prefer to view themselves as fair and good. When their actions contradict this self-image, they rationalize their behavior. A person may not admit to being prejudiced against Jews but might frame their actions as fighting oppression or supporting victims, thus reframing prejudice as principle.</p>
<p>While antisemitism is not new, openly expressing it once carried social repercussions. Now, in certain circles, it can garner approval, attention, and financial support if framed as a political or moral stance.</p>
<p>Franco faced denunciation but also support. If expressing views once deemed disgraceful receives applause from certain groups, it becomes easier for individuals to believe they have not crossed a moral boundary.</p>
<p>The Israeli-Palestinian conflict provides a context for these discussions. Criticizing Israel is not inherently antisemitic, nor is caring about Palestinian suffering or opposing Israeli government actions. However, refusing to work for someone solely based on their Jewish identity does not align with these critiques. Franco’s responses on Piers Morgan’s show highlighted this issue, as he repeatedly referenced Israel when discussing his refusal to work for a Jewish individual.</p>
<p>There would be widespread concern if someone refused to work for a Muslim American based on actions by Iran, or treated a Chinese American differently due to the Chinese government’s actions. Jews should not be held accountable for the actions of the Israeli government to receive equal treatment.</p>
<p>Campus politics contribute to this dynamic. Students are often encouraged to categorize individuals as powerful or powerless, privileged or marginalized, oppressor or oppressed. While these categories can illuminate injustices, they can also oversimplify individual circumstances.</p>
<p>Jews complicate this framework. They have faced centuries of persecution, yet American Jews may also be perceived as white and privileged. Israel is viewed as the stronger party in its conflict with the Palestinians. Reducing the conflict to a powerful versus powerless narrative can lead to viewing Jews as representatives of that power.</p>
<p>Social media exacerbates this issue. Provocative statements can attract condemnation from some while receiving support from others. This applause can alter perceptions of normalcy, making extreme positions seem reasonable when reinforced by online communities.</p>
<p>However, attributing prejudice to social media algorithms should not excuse personal responsibility. Social media can reward prejudiced views but does not absolve individuals of accountability for adopting them.</p>
<p>Institutional responses are also significant. Cornell condemned Franco’s remarks, yet he claims to remain enrolled without facing disciplinary action. There may be valid reasons for this, including university policies and free expression considerations. However, students observe the outcomes of such situations.</p>
<p>Historically, America has worked to make open antisemitism socially unacceptable. Although it has not disappeared, expressing it openly once carried consequences. The significance of this cost is evident; when prejudice is framed as a political or moral cause, shame can transform into pride.</p>
<p>The most concerning individual is not the one who acknowledges their bigotry, but rather the one who believes their prejudiced views signify moral superiority.</p>