Stanford college student Hamzeh Daoud, overwrought that the Israeli Knesset enacted the "Nation-State" Basic Law, made a Facebook posting:

I'm gonna physically fight Zionists on campus next year if someone comes at me with their 'Israel is a democracy' b‑‑‑‑‑‑‑.  And after I abolish your a‑‑ I'll go ahead and work every day for the rest of my life to abolish your petty a‑‑ ethno-supremacist, settler-colonial state.

The Stanford College Republicans dared to condemn Daoud's posting and egregiously preserved it on its own Facebook page, sparking controversy amongst the Stanford campus community.

Feeling the heat, Daoud did emend his posting to read "intellectually fight" instead of "physically fight," reportedly proffering the Stanford Daily the explanation or excuse that the initial posting was a "spur-of-the-moment emotional reaction" to the Knesset's legislation.

The controversy at Stanford went global.  There are now calls to pressure the Stanford administration to remove Daoud from his slated position as a residential assistant, a position that allows him much discretion, which, if improvidently (or maliciously) exercised, can adversely impact the safety, well-being, and lives of the students for whom he will be responsible.  It is a position of trust that demands objectivity in the conduct of his duties.

Never mind the double standard now being applied to Israel's "Nation-State" law as compared to those of other countries that have similar laws (including but not limited to Spain, Lithuania, and Greece).  And never mind that Israel's "Nation-State" law has provisions that accommodate minorities to a greater extent than even imaginable in most other nations (and greater than some accommodations that have already been demonstrated in the United States).

I have not affixed my signature to the petitions imploring Stanford to take action against Daoud because I do not know him personally, have not corresponded with him, and have no basis by which to evaluate the sincerity of his explanation for his ill advised postings.  The Stanford administration is positioned far better to invoke its due process and ascertain the relevant facts and circumstances. 

It is Stanford that must weigh all relevant factors, including but not limited to Daoud's behavioral history, confidence on the part of students (and their parents) that they will not be abused by any of Daoud's impulsive or high-handed tactics, and Stanford's need to keep order on its campus.  Also relevant would be an evaluation by Stanford's Office of Risk Management of the probability and expected values associated with prospects of becoming mired in litigation for negligent hiring if his episode of demonstrated intemperance proves to be more than a fluke.

Exit question: Which of the people who accept Daoud's "spur-of-the-moment emotional reaction" excuse also support Pennsylvania state senator Larry Farnese's initiative to ban the so-called "gay panic" defense in homicide prosecutions?

Kenneth H. Ryesky, a freelance writer currently based in Israel, has taught business law and taxation at Queens College CUNY.