Academics plan campus free expression conference in Israel, but security concerns compel postponement

Rishon LeZion, south of Tel Aviv
Davidi Vardi Pikiwiki Israel via Wikimedia Commons CC BY 2.5

An academic conference in Israel will consider campus freedom of expression, but has been postponed from January 2026 because of security concerns.

The conference, "Navigating Campus Freedom of Expression in Polarized and Turbulent Times," planned to meet at the Haim Striks Law School, Rishon LeZion, Israel, on January 6, 2026. Conference organizers hope to set a new date in early 2026.

As still posted at the time of this writing, the call for papers (CFP) lists an abstract deadline, 400-word maximum, of November 7, 2025, with accepted full papers due December 15, 2025. Here is the CFP:

The war in Gaza, the rise of the Trump administration in the US and other events in recent years highlighted the complex challenges academic institutions face in balancing fundamental freedoms with community welfare and institutional integrity. Campuses worldwide have become crucibles where principles of free expression collide with concerns for student safety, institutional stability, and the preservation of learning environments which foster open inquiry and debate. 

This international conference aims to examine the multifaceted challenges of protecting and regulating speech in academic settings. We welcome contributions that analyze the theoretical foundations, practical implications, and potential solutions, from legal scholars, social scientists, education researchers, practitioners, administrators and others. 

Potential topics include, but are not limited to: 

• Legal frameworks governing campus speech in different jurisdictions
• Balancing protest rights with institutional operations
• Managing controversial classroom discussions and academic discourse
• Faculty and student off-campus expression: institutional oversight and social repercussions
• Protection of minority students' expression rights and safety
• Comparative analysis of campus speech policies across different countries
• Intersection of academic freedom with DEI policies
• Legal and ethical dimensions of disciplinary measures for speech-related violations
• Institutional independence and protection from external political and legal pressures
• Bottom-up pressures on Freedom of Expression: self-censorship due to student actions
• The role of institutional neutrality in upholding Freedom of Expression

The conference seeks to foster constructive dialogue about these pressing challenges while advancing our understanding of how academic institutions can uphold both free expression and inclusive community values in increasingly complex times.

Haim Striks Law School Professor Roy Peled is chairing the conference. Prof. Peled is a friend and academic colleague from the Global Conference on Transparency Research (GCTR) (2026 CFP due January 20 for conference in June), having served as board member, director, and chair of the Movement for Freedom of Information in Israel (English translation).

Israeli law profs raise alarm over judicial reforms

Proposed judicial reforms in Israel have set off a firestorm with critical characterizations comparing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with the likes of Jair Bolsonaro and Viktor Orbán.

Israel has seen a possible division—now familiar to the United States, cf., most recently, the House Speaker election (NPR)—between a traditionally conservative right and a more extreme right since Netanyahu retained office by allying with parties NPR characterized as "ultra-Orthodox religious" and "ultra-nationalist."

The reforms, which are not yet law, comprise two plans The New York Times described:

Under the first plan, a simple majority of lawmakers could override almost any revocation of parliamentary legislation by the Supreme Court, which can currently block laws on constitutional grounds. The court would only be able to prevent itself from being overruled by Parliament if all of its 15 judges unanimously agreed about the need to block a law.

Under the second plan, the government would be able to appoint a majority of the members of the panel that selects new judges, upending the current system in which government appointees form only a minority of panel members.

Israeli Supreme Court with Knesset behind.
Israeltourism via Wikimedia Commons CC BY 2.0

On the one hand, the proposals would weaken the Israeli judiciary. But some commenters, such as American conservative Josh Hammer, have observed that the proposals are not radical. My colleague Professor Dwight Duncan has argued that a U.S. Supreme Court majority, or at least super-majority, should be required to strike down legislation as unconstitutional. Arguably, the approach better balances the legislative and judicial branches than does extra-textual judicial supremacy. The second proposal would effect a selection process hardly more partisan than federal judicial appointments in the United States.

On the other hand, Israel is not America, and it might be a more urgently pluralist democratic experiment. As well, the ways of our dated Constitution are hardly exclusive pronouncements of best practices. In the context of populist executive aggrandizement in places such as Brazil and Hungary, and subordination of judicial power, as in Poland, the Israeli reform proposals are at least cause for concern.

Objections have come not only from Israeli liberals, but also from economic conservatives, who don't want the economic apple cart upset. The Jewish Telegraph Agency explained, "Foreign investors and international credit agencies have both signaled that if the reforms go through, they will downgrade their estimation of the country," disrupting perception of Israel as "a democratic oasis in the Middle East" possessed of "business savvy."

For the reform side, a proponent think tank posted a perhaps-too-playful, Schoolhouse Rock-style video on Twitter. For opponents, I received Friday from my friend and colleague Professor Roy Peled a statement signed by 198 Israeli professors, including, Professor Peled wrote, the majority of faculty from 13 law schools in Israel. The brief statement reads:

We, senior academic members of staff at law faculties in Israel, strongly oppose the regime change that the Israeli government is promoting under the guise of “legal reforms”. These far-reaching constitutional changes include providing the government with absolute control over the appointment of the judiciary; near complete elimination of judicial review; dissolution of civil-servant ministerial legal counsels as gatekeepers; and undermining the freedom of the press. In aggregation, these proposals suffocate the independence of the judiciary, dissolve the separation of powers between the branches of governments, and eliminate the rule of law. No recognized democratic country in the world operates under such conditions. The combination of the proposed changes is alarming and dangerous. It will bring far-reaching infringements of human rights, and strip Israel’s system of government of fundamental features of its structure as a democracy.

We call on those involved in the legislative process to avoid hasty constitutional legislation that would transform the character of the State of Israel, and we urge them to initiate a process of open, respectful, and tolerant deliberation with the aim of reaching broad agreements on these deeply consequential matters.

I'll park a copy of the letter with its signatories here for the next few months.

UPDATE, Jan. 31, 2023: Professor Peled today sent news of a companion statement by U.S. law professors.