OPINION: On the Attacks on Pro-Palestinian Student Activists

Editor’s Note: This piece was published following unanimous approval by our Editorial Board and careful consideration of our opinions policy, which states that The Clerk will evaluate submissions from Haverford administrators on an individual basis.

If the last few weeks have shown us anything, it’s that college administrators do have options when it comes to dealing with “the problem” of pro-Palestinian campus activism. At Brown, at Rutgers, here at Haverford and other institutions, students have exercised their academic freedom to protest without having to face wide-scale political repression. In place of police brutality there has been dialogue with administrators which has led to a variety of non-violent outcomes.

It’s unclear if the willingness to talk to students will translate into the realization of student demands – particularly for divestment – and certainly individual students on these campuses have faced chilling pushback and disciplinary measures, but at least they haven’t been beaten and arrested en masse. And, in this current climate, given what has transpired at places like Columbia and UCLA and many other institutions, that is definitely something.

The decision to bring in police is rooted in a particular way of thinking about student activism, and students, that is directly opposed to the general values of higher education. The path of brutality is paved by the view – voiced proudly by business, media, and political figures on the left and right – that students are not simply wrong for standing up in support of Palestine, they are idiots and morons who know nothing about the situation at hand.  Now, obviously, students are young people whose education is in progress, and who have different levels of knowledge about the history of Israel and Palestine. Participating in political activism is a powerful way of becoming more informed, and that is amply demonstrated by the educational activity – debate and discussion, teach-ins, and individual study – that has been a major component of student activism now and in the past. But none of that really matters in the face of the argument that students are totally ignorant, a position whose tendentious power relies on the vagueness of the standard it suggests. Because how much would one have to know to be in a position to speak out, and who would decide if the standard has been met? It’s evident that we’re dealing not with a genuine, good-faith argument, but a smear to discredit and diminish student activists.

But the students, as the Zionist position goes (or at least this current, hardline version of Zionism), are not just ignorant, they are also dangerous, and so it is not enough to dismiss and malign them. In the wake of the NYPD violently clearing student encampments at Columbia, NYU, and CUNY – at the invitation of college presidents – the supposed danger and ignorance of the activists have been fused together to forward the really insidious notion that there is someone nefarious who is coordinating student activity. When it became clear that 99% of protesters arrested at Columbia were students, the “outside agitator” image was further refined by the notion that, as voiced by the NYPD Chief of Patrol, “there is an unknown entity who is radicalizing our vulnerable students.” As this idea has gained some steam, it is both shocking and very predictable that George Soros has emerged as a primary culprit.

If you are a Jew, you are well aware that such blatant examples of antisemitism, suggesting a malign conspiratorial influence on world events, have been used to foment and justify the material expropriation – of opportunities, jobs, homes and lives – that Jewish people have faced throughout our history. Antisemitism is a real force in the world and its manifestations must be fiercely combatted. Over the last seven months there have been isolated incidents of antisemitic speech acts among pro-Palestinian protestors but it has to be emphasized that within any large-scale social protest movement it’s possible to find evidence for all kinds of speech that does not represent the thrust of protest or the students engaging in it. But ultimately such incidents – which hardly amount to a “surge/wave/explosion” – are not the basis for the claim that college campuses are enshrouded in an atmosphere of antisemitism. Rather, the Zionist position is rooted in the chilling logic that it is antisemitic to protest in support of peace and Palestine. Pro-Palestinian teach-ins, rallies, slogans, and general political activity are thus seen as meaningful only as manifestations of hate. The very means of protest, in other words, are declared to be intolerable. As support for this view, Zionism defines “safety on campus” in a notably capacious way so that it encompasses freedom from being exposed to the public expression of support for Palestine. Even the basic call for a ceasefire is considered as beyond the pale and capable of inflicting harm.

It is not surprising, then, that in this atmosphere prominent figures at all levels of society (including within colleges and universities) feel no compunction in maligning students by calling them terrorists for supporting a political view that they don’t agree with. When it comes to such overheated rhetoric, the point is not to express disagreement but rather to identify a problem population that society needs to do away with. In a recent article in Jewish Currents, Adam Haber and Matylda Figlerowicz insightfully frame this rhetorical strategy (and the repressive actions it has warranted) in terms of the structure of a moral panic. Students are a threat, in this thinking, not just for the “violence” they are committing now but also because of “the greater violence to come,” and so the offenders must be shut down.

But what exactly is being shut down? The capacity for students to use their academic freedom to voice support for Palestine and Palestinians and to convince their institutions to at least consider the connections (financial and otherwise) they have with the state of Israel. Student activists are not the only ones who argue that Israel is conducting genocide in Gaza as many prominent, good-faith actors and institutions across the world have described Israel’s actions in this way. Perhaps they are wrong, the question can certainly be debated, but to argue that the position is antisemitic as such and that anyone who expresses it should be disciplined is ultimately an ideological ploy for shutting down speech.

The rhetoric that has been deployed against student activists is meant to frame them as an active threat that must be monitored, disciplined, and policed. This is wrong for many reasons but in closing I want to focus especially on the way it denies a student the opportunity to be a student. Colleges, we hear frequently, are places of learning and growth, where students come in contact with different ideas, and think about how the world is structured and how it can become more just. For students, these are not just words in some flashy marketing campaign; rather, they constitute a promise, a promise that institutions of higher learning are on the side of the student. This can, regrettably, take the form of easy pandering, but when it is serious it means a real commitment to student education both within and beyond the classroom. This commitment has been broken by institutions that have prohibited student political activism by inviting the police to campus. Not only is this action shameful, it is also profoundly unnecessary (the protests have been peaceful) and counterproductive (every escalation on the part of administrators has just added fuel to the fire). It transforms a young engaged person on a college campus into a terrorist who must be repressed. I hope it’s not too controversial to say that that has nothing to do with education.