Hampshire College, Israel, and Palestine: 1975 or 1938? And 2012? Still Seeking Civility on Campus

Just under a year ago, on the eve of an event about Israel and Palestine that promised to be controversial, I wrote a piece expressing the desire for a less polarized, more civil atmosphere on campus, one in which we could debate opposing political positions without intellectual charlatanry and demonization, addressing nuances rather than resorting to gross oversimplification.

What followed has been both deeply disturbing and, in other ways, gratifying.
>
It was deeply disturbing because what happened was far worse than even the most pessimistic among us might have expected. The talk, by an Israeli soldier, tore the campus apart. Activists from Hampshire Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) did not merely protest outside the lecture hall (as was their right). They also disrupted and ultimately prevented completion of the talk, in clear violation of community norms. The speaker noted that this was only the second time that something of this sort had occurred. For the unashamed disruptors, their actions were a badge of honor. Responding to the administration’s condemnation of the disruption as well as the earlier verbal and physical harassment of an Israeli student, they and their supporters basically said:  "Zionists” are fair game. (1, 2)

For the rest of us—the majority of the campus population as well as outside observers—it was a mark of shame and a wake-up call. What was gratifying was seeing the tide begin to turn. Most students, regardless of their political views, were revolted. The administration, from the office of the President down through Student Affairs, finally grasped the seriousness of the situation. It saw that we needed to take energetic and positive steps to restore a sense of both civility and safety.

* * *

A shrewd visitor to campus, interested in these issues, recently looked around and said:

“The situation is even worse than I thought. I can tell you what your problem is: One part of the campus thinks it’s 1975, and the other thinks it’s 1938.”

He got it exactly right.

Allow me to translate (in case that is necessary) the historical references:

• 1975 refers to the year when the United Nations General Assembly notoriously defined Zionism, the founding philosophy of one of its member states, as racism (ironically, on the anniversary of the Kristallnacht pogrom in Nazi Germany). The UN finally repealed that infamous measure in 1991, in order not just to redress a wrong, but also to encourage movement toward peace. Two years later, Israelis and Palestinians signed the Oslo Accords (1, 2), affirming mutual recognition and the principle of a negotiated solution.

• 1938 refers to the tensions on the eve of World War II, when Jews felt cornered and abandoned: an expansionist Germany absorbed Austria, Britain and France browbeat Czechoslovakia into surrendering its fortified borderlands to Germany, and Kristallnacht signaled an escalation in Nazi antisemtism as well as the end of emigration.  By then, there were few places for Jews fleeing Europe to go anyway: neither the western powers nor Mandatory Palestine, where civil war was raging, offered a refuge.

In other words, one side is operating with ideological caricatures older than the students themselves, and the other feels isolated and threatened with social if not physical death.

Clearly, that is anything but healthy.

Last summer, the Boston Jewish Advocate caused a stir with an article entitled, “What's up with Hampshire College? A small Bay State campus becomes a hotbed of anti-Israel fervor." It quoted the Anti-Defamation League as saying that Hampshire generates more complaints about students being targeted for pro-Israel beliefs than any other campus in the New England region. As the article goes on to note, several students have alleged that the hostile climate involves elements of antisemitism.

This is a dire situation. A college, of course, is not obligated to be either pro- or anti-Israel, as such. However, expressing opposition to the destruction of a United Nations member state really should not be a very controversial opinion. Above all, an academic institution is duty-bound to uphold principles of open and rigorous intellectual dialogue.

The situation is not unique to Hampshire.  The Palestinian-Israeli journalist Khaled Abu Toameh has said that he felt safer in Gaza or the West Bank than at US universities, where he needed police protection and was called a Nazi for daring to question the activist orthodoxy: “Listening to some students and professors on these campuses, for a moment I thought I was sitting opposite a Hamas spokesman or a would-be-suicide bomber.”

Still, we are naturally most sensitive to the flaws in our own surroundings. And, as serious as the problem here is, it of course cannot completely describe a vibrant and productive institution in which faculty and students of widely varying views nonetheless flourish and engage one another.

And 2012?

My deepest hope is that Hampshire College will establish a reputation, not as the epicenter of conflict, and instead, as a model of conciliation. Two of the groups with which I have been in contact offer strong examples of how this can be accomplished.

The broad-based Israel on Campus Coalition sends a pair of representatives—David Makovsky, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who has written about the peace process as both a journalist and a scholar, and Ghaith al-Omari, Executive Director of the American Task Force on Palestine, who has served as part of the Palestinian negotiating team at Camp David and as an advisor to Mahmoud Abbas—to colleges and universities. Rather than just parachuting in to present pieties and platitudes in a one-off performance, they insist on doing at least three events so that they can start a sustained process of communication. Typically, they might begin with a luncheon roundtable hosted by leaders of various student groups, followed by a facilitated dialogue session. Later in the day, they speak to classes. Early in the evening, they join faculty for dinner or dessert. Finally, they take part in a larger event for the campus as a whole—a lecture or panel discussion, including question-and-answer from the audience.

The team has scored great successes, even in some of the most “difficult” venues, such as the University of California, Irvine (1, 2, 3). "Civility, we felt, was missing on campuses," says al-Omari. Sometimes, the partners explain, the mere sight of the two appearing together is enough of a surprise or a shock to prompt students to move beyond stereotypes and start thinking differently.

A report in the Georgetown Hoya could have been written about Hampshire:

“The campus discourse, we thought, was too much about recriminations, Makovsky said." "Usually the campuses are ahead of the curve on issues, but on this one issue across the country, we felt the campuses are behind the curve. While people are talking to each other in the Middle East, why can't they talk to each other in the Northeast?" [. . . . ]

Rather than forming factions, students should recognize that the interests of Israel and Palestine are not diametrically opposed, al-Omari said.  

"You can be a pro-Palestine advocate without being anti-Israel," he said.  

He illustrated the way in which campus dialogue seems focused on the "zero-sum approach," which states that what is good for one nation is bad for the other and the "tribal approach," which delves into the history of both nations to justify conflict. Neither of these viewpoints, he argued, leaves room for objectivity or potential consensus. [ . . . . ]

"If we are serious people for a two-state solution, then we have to build up both sides of the two-state solution," Makovsky said. "We found that the faculty was not attuned to these developments on the ground, that their thinking was stuck in a very confrontational age. What we want to do is bring the message to the students that you've got to be forces for coexistence."

In al-Omari's words, "You have to move beyond the tribal lines in a policy debate. Once you look at this as a policy issue, you always can find policy solutions." And as Makovsky puts it, "For the most part, what's needed is to basically treat the students as adults, not just PR targets."

The program of the “Center for Ethnic, Racial and Religious Understanding” at Queens College does just that. It is difficult but necessary. Founded by Professor Mark Rosenblum, it employs a methodology of “walking in the other side’s shoes.” As a once largely Jewish campus that now boasts a considerable Muslim population, Queens College might seem an unlikely place for dialogue but it has become an ideal one. Motivated by the tragedies of the Second Intifada and the 9-11 attacks, Rosenblum explained to the New York Times, he sought a way to bridge the widening gaps that were destroying education as well as human lives. In words that, again, could as easily be applied to Hampshire, he says, "It was hard to teach in a classroom where students had such preconceived ideas and had essentially become propagandists for their own side," he said. "It was quite nasty and ruthless.” 

His classes now require students to study and then “make the best possible case for the other side.” It works. "I did not expect anybody to change their position," he said. "My job is just to get you to feel a little bit of confusion by revealing that what you thought was a black and white struggle has a little more gray." Or, as one of the Muslim students put it, the class did not diminish his dedication to the Palestinian cause, but it did enable him to see the conflict in a new way: "People stop spreading legends and start talking the truth," he said. "It is so easy to hate people on the other side when you don't talk to them and you don't have to know them. But when you engage in discourse with them, you see they feel the way you do about your people. It's not so easy to hate them anymore." Classes ran overtime, and students who met in classes continued their dialogue after the semester was over.

In both cases, part of the message is: it’s easy to demonize when you’re dealing with abstractions and straw men. In dialogue, one has to deal with real people and real complexity.

Hampshire College is a leader in so many areas with accomplishments we could draw upon. Why not this one? The projects practically suggest themselves.

We have a distinguished Peace and World Security Studies Program. We have a large population of “international” students. Why could we not create a program in which Arab and Israeli students and scholars live and learn together and teach others? We are pioneers in sustainability and environmental science. Why could we not involve our students in efforts to address these issues in the Middle East, from energy to agriculture and water resources? As the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies, based on cooperation between Arabs and Israelis, puts it, nature has no borders. After all, our new President was the leader of a major environmental organization. Could there be a better opportunity?

Now, contrast all this with “hotbed of anti-Israel fervor.” Is that all we have to show for all the years of “activism” around the Middle East conflict here? Should we allow ourselves to be defined by negation?

Is that really how we wish to be known?

Surely, we can do better.

Why not pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, pro-peace?

Why not? Really, why not?

Putting the Hampshire College Divestment Myth in its Grave

The anti-Israel “BDS” (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement seems to be at a tipping point. It confidently promises an unprecedented campaign in 2012, yet its efforts in the past year met with pushback and setbacks around the globe. Its choice of targets moreover grew increasingly petty, not to say, bizarre: hummus (made in New York)? chocolate shops in Australia? a symphony orchestra on tour? (1 vs. 2)  WTF?! The world finally seems to be catching on.

Plans for a national conference of the BDS movement, to be held at the University of Pennsylvania in February (1, 2), are already bringing bad news. The administration not only declared in advance that hosting the gathering did not constitute endorsement (standard operating procedure for all sorts of student events). It also took the notable step of explicitly condemning the BDS movement and affirming the importance of ties with Israeli academics.

Bummer.

The Penn activists claim to be “Picking up where the 2009 Hampshire conference left off.” They may wish to reconsider their chosen model. The rather lackluster original conference at Hampshire (1, 2, 3)  followed on the heels of the claim that the College had divested from “the Israeli Occupation of Palestine” earlier that year. Unfortunately, as everyone else in the world seems to know, that divestment claim is false. Call it what you will—misinterpretation, wishful thinking, hoax, fraud, lie—it didn’t happen, and that’s that. Hampshire College disposed of any remaining doubts when it presented its new socially responsible investing policy last month.

Jon Haber, who has followed anti-Israel divestment efforts closely, likens the so-called BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement to a vampire: (1) every time you think it’s dead, it comes back, a phenomenon that conveys (in accordance with its hopes and wishes) an air of invincibility. In fact, (2) its powers are more limited than it would like you to believe, because it can become a threat only when you allow it to cross your threshold. In Jon’s view, the BDS movement—which has scored no major or lasting victories in the course of a decade—has survived beyond its normal life only by virtue of the fact that its dedicated activists prey upon those who, whether deliberately or unwittingly, allow it to gain entrance to their organizations.

high time for institutions to wake up to the threat of BDS

This explains why the academically robust but financially anemic Hampshire College would prove such an enticing victim for the vampires: the endorsement of the first American institution of higher education to divest from South Africa would lend weight to the false assertion that Israel, too, practices “apartheid.”

That the College, following a divestment request by anti-Israel activists, made changes to its investment portfolio in 2009 is not in dispute. The dispute turns instead on the meaning of that action. The task of the historian, as Thomas Babington Macaulay says in the motto on the masthead of this blog, is not merely to establish the facts, but above all, to interpret them.

As is well known: the College, upon reviewing the fund in question, found that multiple companies were in violation of its socially responsible investment policy, and reallocated its assets accordingly. That standard (e.g. declining to invest in military products) was the sole rationale behind the action. The decision had nothing to do with Israel, affected a far greater number of firms having no association with Israel, and above all, rendered no verdict on Israel or its policies, whether within the “Green Line” or in the “occupied territories.”

No credible observer believes that divestment took place, for three very simple reasons: Divestment is a political action that therefore has meaning only if it is (1) deliberate and (2) accompanied by a public statement (3) on the part of an officially responsible body. When the College divested from holdings in South Africa, the administration and trustees publicly announced their action and stated the reasons. That contrast says it all.

A mere change in resource allocation makes no such statement. I once tried to illustrate this distinction by analogy:

If I sell my shares in Chrysler because I think it's a badly-run company that does not serve its stockholders, it's technically "true" that I have "relinquished" (to use the language of another recent student flier) my investment in a particular firm that profits from our irresponsible reliance on fossil fuels, but I have hardly "divested" myself—as a conscious and political statement (which is the only practical meaning that "divestment" can have in this context)—of participation in the carbon-based economy: especially if I continue to hold stock in Ford, Toyota, and Mobil.

The disinclination of Hampshire College to invest in certain areas does not necessarily render a verdict on their legality or morality:

• The College (although this is nowhere formally stated) does not invest in companies dealing in alcoholic beverages. Unlike tobacco, the latter do not necessarily cause harm when used responsibly. However, alcohol is neither a necessity of life nor an unmitigated good, and the College simply prefers to direct its resources to firms that, e.g. “Provide beneficial goods and services such as food, clothing, housing, health, education, transportation and energy.” (Policy, p. 2: Point 1) No rational person would conclude that, by declining to support the alcohol industry, we are endorsing prohibition—or even temperance. Hampshire College serves beer, wine, and liquor at some of its events—for example, dinners of the Board of Trustees, who approve the investment policy.

• The policy does not allow investment in companies that “Make nuclear, biological, or conventional weapons.” (Policy, p. 2: Point A) Nations have the right to self-defense. The US Constitution requires the government “to provide for the common defence,” and authorizes Congress “to raise and support armies” and “provide and maintain a navy.” No rational person would therefore conclude that our policy entails a rejection of the Constitution or the armed forces of the United States.

The decision taken in response to the divestment request had to do with military products, not their recipient: not Israel, not anyone else. If and when there is a Palestinian state, the College will likewise refuse to invest in firms that provide it with weapons.

Clear, one would think.

And yet the divestment myth refused to die. BDS advocates clung to it with a religious fervor, as if repeating it often enough could make it true.

They will find it more difficult than ever to maintain that position following the report on the new socially responsible investment policy last month.

Former President Marlene Fried:

there is clarity and unanimity on the Board that it did not make a decision to divest from the State of Israel, that it did not decide that Israel was in the same camp as South Africa.

Although the student questioner, fearing some semantic or conceptual confusion, correctly pointed out that the divestment claim involved the “Israeli occupation of Palestine” rather than investment in Israel, as such, it is a distinction without a difference in light of the above (as well as the stance of the BDS movement, for that matter)—and indeed, Fried responded by reaffirming the College’s rejection of the claim: “the Board does not believe that.”

There was no dissent from any member of the committee, and that includes Professor Emeritus Stan Warner, a well-known economist and political progressive, who was the faculty representative on the subcommittee on investment responsibility (CHOIR) at the time of the original divestment request, and who advised and educated student members about investment policy. Surely, if divestment had succeeded, he would know and be duty-bound to say so. But no, in the course of the nearly twelve-minute discussion of the issue, he was in fact the only member of the committee who did not speak to the controversy, as such, jumping in only briefly to answer a procedural question.

The College has made it clear, time and again: no divestment took place in 2009.

It has now affirmed that even more clearly at the end of 2011.

As they used to say in the olden days:

Q.E.D.
(1, 2)

Or, as we say nowadays:

Myth busted!

It’s high time that we put the divestment myth in the graveyard of history, where it belongs.

Question-and-Answer on Israel and Divestment at Hampshire College (the "elephant in the room")

the "elephant in the room"

The false assertion that Hampshire College in 2009 divested itself of holdings in what student activists called "the Israeli Occupation of Palestine" came up when an ad hoc committee recently presented the new "socially responsible"—or "Environmental, Social and Governance" (ESG)—investing policy (full story here).

There, the committee forcefully reaffirmed the administration's consistent past assertions that no such thing ever occurred.

Here is the video of the conversation. Because the audio quality of remarks delivered without benefit of a microphone is poor, I have also transcribed the key portions of the dialogue to the best of my ability, with approximate time-markers.








The members of the committee present are (from left to right):

• Jonathan Scott: an alumnus, from the College’s first entering class, now member of the Board of Trustees and head of the Investment Committee
• Marlene Fried: a professor of philosophy and Director of the Civil Liberties and Public Policy Program, who served as Interim President last year, while we conducted the search for a full-time president
• Beth Ward: Secretary of the College
• Stan Warner: Professor Emeritus of Economics, and long the faculty representative on the responsible investing committee
• Ken Rosenthal: first Treasurer of the College, now Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees



It was following the campaign by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) associated with the anti-Israel BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement that the Board of Trustees decided the entire socially responsible investing policy had to be overhauled. The report to the community by the ad hoc committee charged with that review did not explicitly address Israel and the old divestment controversy.

An activist from Students for Justice in Palestine therefore clearly and politely raised the issue of what he called the “elephant in the room.” He had several related questions, beginning with process and procedures.  

Student questioner: (00:30) “My main three questions are, first is there transparency of the investment, is any of that changing? Is CHOIR [Committee at Hampshire On Investment Responsibility: oversees the definition and application of the guidelines; JW] the still the only way, does CHOIR have access to look at specific companies, where does that happen for students? [ . . . .] Where do you get access to looking at the portfolio?[ . . . . ]"

Jonathan Scott: "CHOIR will have full access to the portfolio: it is actually a subcommittee of the Investment Committee." [this is in fact covered quite simply and explicitly in the two-page portion of the document pertaining to CHOIR; JW].  (01:14) Stan Warner further explains that there will be access through the office of the Vice President for Financial Affairs, who then affirms that statement. He continues, “We’re invested in socially responsible funds, and you can then see: what specific companies.”

 Student: (01:28) “The other kind of, just, comment, question is, to me, feels like an elephant in the room, um, the reason, to me, that I felt that quite, well, not the reason, but the timing, was in February 2009, right after CHOIR had been restarted by students and CHOIR had put together this whole group of six companies—GE, DynCorp, Motorola, Terex, United Technologies, and [another] that I can’t get off the top of my head right now, as not fitting into the policy of our previous socially responsible investment [inaudible word]: making weapons and selling them to the Israeli army and being used in the occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza. And that proposal went to the Investment Committee, the Investment Committee passed it, and it went to the Board, and on February 9, the Board voted on, to divest from [inaudible] that had those five companies in it.”

He goes on to note that this prompted a closer look at other investments: CHOIR sent the fund "to the entire Investment Committee to look at it and added another hundred or so companies to that list as also being, not part of the, not fitting into our socially responsible endowment (02:37) and they voted on divestment, so, one question is: did that happen? Did, are we out of that mutual fund? and are there companies—according to what we just saw, they’re [or: that are?] making weapons, operating from countries that are engaged in heavy violations, I would imagine those companies would still be, I know there’s not a blacklist of companies [ . . . . ]"

(03:00) “and lastly, just the fact that it wasn’t talked about, says something about the whole situation still” [and CHOIR’s {?} involvement] “because, that being said, sometimes even among college students with power at Hampshire our power is to make good statements [?], initially when those students joined CHOIR, that wasn’t the ritual, legal [?], to get the school to make a statement that investing in companies that are selling weapons to the Israeli army to use on the West Bank for illegal occupation or for illegal siege is socially irresponsible, and other schools should follow suit, end up doing what we did, and so powerful, what we did back in South Africa, which was: morally, you know, lift it up, [look?] at this great thing [at?] Hampshire, this moral standard that we, our power, and, you know, other schools have to move forward since Hampshire (03:57) and whether or not the administration of Hampshire, or everyone at Hampshire feels that that was what happened, the greater, um, I know I’m sure it’s been talked about in socially responsible investing statements, conversations, emails [ . . . . ]"

(04:18) “so I’m just curious if there was any of the time when you actually talked about that in relationship because [ . . . ] in February was the reason that, right after that vote, a lot of people from the school got a lot of backlash from the ADL and Alan Dershowitz and other people all of a sudden [ . . . . ] I know that’s a lot.”

Response by Jonathan Scott (04:44) “Alex, I hear your passion, and I appreciate it, having been a Hampshire student myself. And I think the best way to answer [. . . ] with respect to the decision to divest, I think that, as the Investment Committee, what CHOIR did elevated, the, made it clear, to me (I’m making that [statement] as an individual), that our policy was totally inadequate. And, so I think that it made us go back and say, ‘wow, we have an inadequate policy': Not only was it not up to date, it wasn’t clear, and it was the Policy and CHOIR and the Guidelines all together. So I for one have been really wanting this to be passed for some time. We’ve had other things going on on campus, having nothing to do with CHOIR, and I think, going forward, this policy is going to help inform the greater good of the College for what we’re doing. And it was a teachable moment for me, to get clarity on an issue—and I’m not speaking about the Israeli issue, I’m speaking about the clarity of the actual document itself. And that’s what we did, that’s what we’re speaking about today."

He goes on to explain how the College maintained its basic ethical investment strategy over the past three years by applying a particular licensed screen to an index fund.

"As far as—I guess the other thing that’s important, and we said it already–we have tried to maintain to the extent possible our belief in our core values all through the last three years."  He goes on to give details on the index funds and screens.

(07:39) “As far as the securities you named [i.e. the ones involved in the alleged divestment], sitting here [. . .] it’s hard to know what’s in or out of a fund on a given day, but as I said, [ . . . ] you’ll be able to see more" [when the new system is fully in place]

(07:55) Secretary of the College Beth Ward:
“I think there’s really an [inaudible] on the part of the College to have exactly those conversations, I mean not necessarily [inaudible] reference all of these per se, but really think about all of these political issues. I mean, it’s really hard to struggle with them, and you know, I think about South Africa and some of those [inaudible], and in some ways it seems like the world is kind of murky.”

(08:29) “focusing on companies is a very clarifying way to approach these policies, which does not in any way mitigate the need for us, you know, to [take on?] other issues.” We need to have conversations about politics.

(08:56) Ken Rosenthal (noting that he joined the Board just around the time of the controversy in 2009):  “What we discovered was: There had not been conversations on this campus as there should have been over a period of time, and so I think things, I think things exploded when, had we been talking about these issues regularly, we might have approached them in a more consistent and in a different way. And what we’re trying to do here is trying to reestablish a forum on this campus, a regular forum, where people can come, not feel frustrated, and can meet regularly [ . . . ] so that we can get the ideas out, we can consider them, and we can move, if necessary, quickly, to make changes. I don’t know that there will be changes that will always be necessary, but I do think conversation is necessary, especially because, especially because the tenure[s] of some of us go back many years, but for students, they may only be aware of these issues for one or two years and not be a- not appreciate that something may have been talked about three or four years ago or six or seven. We need to have those conversations regularly so people feel they’re a part ….”

(10:15) Marlene Fried: “I want to speak to the elephant. [ . . . ] I sort of came into this late, I was not the best informed or paying attention in 2008, but last year, I was paying a lot of attention [i.e. when, as interim President, she had to address the deteriorating climate on campus following the harassment of an Israeli student ( 1, 2) and the disruption of a talk by an Israeli soldier; JW], so it is very clear that there is a real divide between what the ‘buzz’ out there is about what Hampshire did or didn’t do, and about what the Board of Trustees of Hampshire College believes that it did, and there is clarity and unanimity on the Board that it did not make a decision to divest from the State of Israel, that it did not decide that Israel was in the same camp as South Africa.”

Student: “But it did say: Israel [sic] occupation, and the students on the Board did [use?] Israeli occupation, which is very different than Israel [ . . . ].”
They had been hoping that the Board would state that it broke the College's alleged ties to the occupation (or words to that effect).

(11:19) Fried: “The Board does not believe that it broke. And so, I guess the next thing is where will such conversations happen in the future, and I’m thinking it’s envisioned that CHOIR would a place where that will happen, and that’s why CHOIR is [inaudible; others break in]"

(11:36) Rosenthal: "And we hope it’s energized. We don’t want it just to be there waiting for somebody to call it to order, we want it to regularly say: we’re meeting, come talk to us."

Pre-Occupied: Hampshire Anti-Israel BDS Activists Continue to Distort the Past, Look to the Future

It was bound to happen. I had been wondering how long it would be before the anti-Israel divestment (BDS) movement would attempt to claim its role in the Occupy Hampshire movement.

Although the issue appeared in the fliers and literature of the College’s Occupy activists, it had not been prominent in the larger scheme of things. When it came up at the rally here last month, it was almost as an afterthought: one individual brought it up during the open microphone time.

"Occupy Wall Street—Not Palestine!"

Snapshot:

In this version of what has become the standard "heroic" narrative, valiant activists, carrying forward the noble tradition of divestment from South Africa that their forebears had initiated, took on the College's equally sordid ties to Israel and won. The College, however, due to either lack of principle or lack of nerve, never acknowledged this, and rather, denied that the whole incident had taken place. Here, these actions are said to be in keeping with a general opposition to socially responsible investing.


Highlights/excerpts:

• introducing the notion of socially responsible investing, and Hampshire's tradition of activism. The term, he says, needs to be "unpacked": (0:35) "thinking about, like, where are we putting our money, and why are we putting our money there?"

• (c. 0:45) "um, it's something that, apparently, as, like, the administrations and the board have said, just, like, fundamentally disrupts the whole idea of a board, because our job is to make money . . . so why would I be thinking of socially responsible things?"

• (c. 0:57) regarding the socially responsible investment committee (CHOIR): "the administration never wanted it to be there in the first place"

• (c. 1:25) "in 2007 or so, students on campus brought it [=CHOIR: the socially responsible investment committee] back, specifically around S... [revealingly, starts to say: SJP, i.e. Students for Justice in Palestine] Palestine, because, a lot of you know, there is [?] Israeli occupation, a bunch of companies are making weapons for the Israeli Army and communications [scattered boos]."

• (c. 1:45) "eventually in 2009, this school was the first school in the US to divest from the Israeli occupation. [loud cheers and whistles] The school, immediately after that decided to deny that, the school denied that it was a political, it was not a political thing, it had nothing to do with Israel. They hired a socially responsible investment company just in order to depoliticize it. The school that doesn't believe in socially responsible investing, it hired a company to do screening, they didn't trust the students to do it. They used that screening to depoliticize it and say it had nothing to do with Israel."

The speaker goes on to claim that Islamophobia prevails on campus. [A glance at our courses and events suggests otherwise. In fact, Ralph Hexter, the President at the time of the divestment controversy, employed a personal research assistant whose field was Islamic history and culture, and who therefore taught those subjects at Hampshire: 1, 2.] The speaker goes on to characterize the policy review process as dishonest, disguised, and deliberately dragged out.

• (03:25) “I noticed, very subtly, on the Intranet [ . . . ] before the Snowpocalypse, that there was going to be a meeting about this new, supposedly we now have a new socially responsible investing, uh, comm…—not committee—but, like, written, written-out plan. The Snowpocalypse came, so it didn’t happen. I sent an email to Beth Ward, who is, um, the secretary of . . . I'm not sure [laughter; . . . ] she's, like, the spokesperson for the Board of Trustees."

[Ironically, Beth Ward, who has a long record of activism on behalf of peace and progressive causes, was in the audience, having joined the "Occupy" gathering a short time earlier. She can be seen in the green coat almost directly in front of the concrete pilaster bordering the windows of the building in the background.] Speaker continues:

(03:57): "Anyways, I just want you all to be aware that there is a new socially responsible investing, um, piece out there. We don't know what it is, it's been completely untransparent." Speaker again questions the character of the process.

(04:14) "So it's all just, like, a real mix. I've asked for when they're going to have a meeting about what this is. Hopefully, we'll be finding out soon, but you should, it's something, like, that's our ability to pressure the school to divest from things. We can also do it in popular campaigns, we need to be doing popular campaigns like this. But be aware that the school, again, is consistently trying to not let us know what it's invested in because it is invested in, not just in Palestine, it is invested in prisons, it is invested in, um, like, other wars all around us. So it's not just about Palestine, but that was one location again, when students get activated, they, that's what they start. So, um, I don't want to keep talking, but I think it's worth it still [?]."

(04:56) Chant: "Occupy Wall Street—Not Palestine!"

Summary:

The talk of course presents a highly tendentious narrative of what was by all accounts a rather tortuous process—complicated by the inveterate tendency of the institution to speak in bureaucratese and circumlocutions, and to respond with soft tones and blandishments rather than a loud voice and a fist on the table.

This is arguably the most famous academic “divestment” case in the United States, a situation remarkable mainly because this loud and persistent claim is based on a willful misreading of the facts. We live in a postmodern age of "truthiness," after all.

As should by now be well known: In February of 2009, after a long campaign, anti-Israel activists on campus formally asked the College to divest from a handful of companies that, they claimed, supported “the Israeli occupation of Palestine” and violated the College’s socially responsible investment policy.

The College, acting in accordance with its procedures, duly looked into the matter not on these political grounds, but in order to determine whether the firms violated that existing policy. The upshot: some of the holdings in question were found to be in violation of the policy, others were not. The College further discovered that several large funds contained numerous problematic items and agreed to relinquish such holdings accordingly. Finally, the College also found its existing socially responsible investment policy to be problematic and unclear and ordered a review that would lead to the drafting of a better policy. This is well documented. (further: 1, 2, 3, 4)

That was all. The College acted on the basis of its own regulations, targeted no country or particular type of investment, and made no political statement.

Unfortunately, the well-organized activists immediately announced to the world that Hampshire College, which had been the first to divest from holdings in South Africa, had now divested from "the Israeli occupation of Palestine." What better way to propagate the view that Israel practiced “apartheid”? It was that historical record that made the College such a prize and gave activists the hope that they might be able to punch above their weight. After all, the amount of money in our endowment—barely $ 31 million—is trivial in comparison with those of even our neighbors, such as Amherst and Smith, whose portfolios top a billion dollars.

The incident is not intrinsically remarkable: because nothing happened. Indeed, if it set a precedent at all, it was for the subsequent pattern of false claims of other divestment incidents, from banks to businesses. (Jon Haber has been documenting this meticulously for several years.)

* * *

To say that the College is not committed to ethical investing is as insulting as it is untruthful. It is true that there was initial resistance to the idea when it began, but that was in the 1970s (well before most of us were here, of course). Things have changed. I was the faculty member of the Board of Trustees a decade ago, so I can attest that we took the concept very seriously. The College was and has been committed to the principle that it is possible to satisfy the demands of both fiscal sustainability and social responsibility.

As for that review of the investment policy, there is nothing conspiratorial about it. Regarding the argument that the College didn't allow the students to "do" the screening. If the word "do" implies giving sole or ultimate authority to students: correct, that's not how things work. (I've just finished co-chairing the Governance Task Force, which undertook a comprehensive review of College policies and procedures.) But that is also a vastly oversimplified notion of the process. To be clear: the College would not leave that task entirely to staff or faculty, either. All three constituencies are represented on CHOIR (as on most Hampshire governance bodies), but professional expertise is sometimes required. When the initial review—prompted by the students—turned up numerous possible problems with the massive fund as a whole, the College, quite logically, brought in experts. And KLD, the firm that the College turned to, (a) is the leading firm in socially responsible investing practices and (b) found over 200 violations in the fund in question. Any member of the community—including a student or student group—is always free to bring forward a request for action or information regarding specific investments. This is exactly what happened in this case.

One reason that the subsequent review of investment policies and procedures took so long was that the campus was embroiled in various unrelated internal controversies involving everything from construction projects to admission policy, and, in the past year, was focused on the search for a new president. Even under the best of circumstances, the nitty-gritty work of internal research and policy development is carried out in committee and not in the public square. In any case, there has been public input on our overall values and policies, and the people leading the process are trusted members of the community. The meeting about to take place is in fact a public forum: It presents the new policy to the community so that anyone can offer comment in the course of the coming week. If it was announced only via the Intranet, that is simply because the daily email bulletins and corresponding web posts are always the place where official announcements are first disseminated.

No one who has not been involved in the review process or related administrative decisions can say what is in the document. According to my sources, at any rate, it will most likely present a very robust and rigorous policy, but not one that explicitly targets any particular country or political cause. This is of course as it should be: one does not design the overarching investment policy of an institution around a single case.

Anyway, we will soon find out: the results will be announced this afternoon at 3:30.

Almost as interesting as learning about the policy itself will be watching the spin that people try to put on it. Assuming that things unfold as described above, the BDS advocates will have two choices: express outrage, or claim victory and go home. That is, they will be disappointed if there is no explicit political statement or if certain holdings are retained. On the other hand, they may attempt to claim credit for having at least indirectly triggered the whole process. Hell, they may try to do both: take credit and yet demand more.

For nearly three years, the BDS activists have boasted relentlessly of their success. Their standard line has been that they succeeded, but that the administration—as as result of a mixture of its own cowardice and sinister pressure from outside pro-Israel groups—has refused to acknowledge defeat. This is the basis for the divestment myth that BDS faithful cling to and repeat like a Gospel narrative. More recently, though, they have given signs of perhaps trying to walk that story back a bit. At the 2010 graduation ceremony, an SJP activist (so oppressed by the system that he was chosen to be student commencement speaker) expressed frustration that the effort had not really succeeded. The above video simultaneously claims that "this school was the first school in the US to divest from the Israeli occupation" and that, still, "it is invested . . in Palestine."  Merely a slip of the tongue arising from extemporaneous speaking? Perhaps. But then why, if we already divested, does the flier—presumably prepared with ample care—challenge readers to "launch new divestment campaigns against Hampshire's ties to the Israeli occupation"?

So, which is it? Are we celebrating victory or still seeking it?

The BDS activists don’t know what they are talking about. Literally.

That should tell you something.


As for the results of that meeting on socially responsible investment policy? Stay tuned.

* * *

Updates

Additional updates since original posting:  video transcription, flier image; minor edits.

Preliminary coverage of the investment committee report  here. Detailed report to follow. (now posted: here)

I Hate This (BDS) Shit. But I Still Love Hampshire College (and so should you). What You Can Do.

Not telling you any secrets: I hate this BDS shit.

• I hate this shit because it is unproductive.

The anti-Israel "BDS" (=Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement, having failed to achieve one major success or to improve the life of one human being (Palestinian or other) on the face of the planet, seems to have become a parody of itself. Unable to effect actual change in the real world, it has dedicated itself instead to acts of political theater such as the protests here two weeks ago, which it somehow takes for reality. It's like a caricature of postmodernism. Or, as Jon Haber puts it in common-language terms, the activists' only goal seems to be "getting themselves noticed, even [if] they can only do so by acting like assholes."

Some may view that situation with Schadenfreude. I find it sad, actually. The disruptors claim that they are bringing attention to a good cause, but by making themselves the main story, they are actually distracting attention from that cause. More and more students are finally speaking up and reporting that, even if they were once sympathetic, they are now turned off and disgusted. Are anyone's interests—first and foremost Palestinian interests—served by these stupid stunts?

• I hate this shit because it is destructive.

Because the BDS movement has no practical results to show for a decade of effort, its only certifiable accomplishment has been to destroy trust and poison the atmosphere on both the international and local scene. Attempting to demonize and delegitimize one of the parties to the conflict will hardly make that nation more open to compromise and taking risks for peace. On the college campuses, its great accomplishment has been to divide the community, to make people afraid to speak honestly about their differences or even to express their honest uncertainty. At a time when, more than ever, students should want to learn about the Middle East conflict, most avoid it like the plague, for fear of saying the wrong thing. Not exactly a sustainable environment for the endangered "groves of academe."

Nice work, activist dudes.

• I hate this shit because it wastes my time.

I'd much rather be talking about books, buildings, and history.

I am pleased, to be sure, that my recent posts on the controversies at Hampshire have found many readers. However, that is hardly my main interest here, and it’s a bitter sort of success.

Until last week, my most popular posts were on topics to which I had a positive attachment, first among them, a report on the new monument to the Czechoslovak assassins of the Nazi leader Reinhard Heydrich in Prague. It was a story about genuine political action and truly difficult moral and practical choices, about history, memory, and courage.

Likewise, I would rather be talking about the history of the newspaper or the challenge of preserving modern architecture—even the fine points of demolition delay laws, for that matter.

I am, then, in a sense both pleased and saddened that the pieces on these current controversies have suddenly earned the site so many new readers.


• I hate this shit because it forces me to speak painful truths about the environment in which I work, though they represent only a part of a larger, more complex and positive truth.


So, what do I do when this happens? I try to do at least two things: to remind people of the wonderful and far more representative good things that take place at Hampshire College; and (my old teachers drummed this into my head), rather than simply criticizing political action that I do not like, to suggest positive counter-examples.


For a small, experimental, and far-from-rich college, Hampshire seems to figure in more than its share of news stories, and to rack up a rather impressive number of achievements. We're a Sierra Club "top ten cool school,"  one of the listed green schools, and one of the top-20 gay-friendly schools.

Already since the start of the year, President Marlene Fried has received two honors: just days after the IDF lecture, the annual Western Massachusetts NARAL "Protecting Reproductive Rights Award," which followed on the heels of the Judith Fleming Henshaw Award as "a champion of reproductive rights" in January.

Exactly a week after the notorious lecture—or rather, now-notorious disruptions—and in that same auditorium, my colleagues Aaron Berman, Omar Dahi, Salman Hameed, and Sayres Rudy held a panel discussion and conversation with students about the revolutionary popular upheavals in Egypt and the rest of the Middle East.

Salman had recently founded the pioneering Center for the Study of Science in Muslim Societies here. Jewish studies flourish, as well. My co-teacher Rachel Rubinstein who, with her husband, Justin Cammy, of Smith College, co-edited a highly praised Festschrift in honor of literary scholar Ruth Wisse, recently published a fascinating monograph of her own on Jews and Native Americans. Professor of Jazz and Contemporary Music Marty Ehrlich has won plaudits for his latest album, Fables, in the "Radical Jewish Culture" series on the Tzadik label.  Poetry prospers no less. My co-teacher in our Prague program, Polina Barskova, who has has been described as "the youngest and only female poet to be nominated for the prestigious Andrei Bely Prize in Poetry," is now on the road, doing readings from her new book. Filmmaker Abraham Ravett has issued a CD of poet Charles Reznikoff reading from Holocaust, which draws upon the testimony of the Nuremberg Tribunals and Eichmann trial (and I'm pleased to add that one of my former students, Nasser Mufti, designed the insert of texts and photographs.)  Sandra Matthews just founded a new online journal dedicated to the history of Asian photography. Professor of  Peace and World Security Studies Michael Klare, an acknowledged international expert on military affairs and the role of resources in world politics, published "The Year of Living Dangerously: Rising Commodity Prices and Extreme Weather Events Threaten Global Stability" at the Huffington Post.

Teams of faculty and students involved with the innovative "DART" program in Design, Art, and Technology, which created a striking interactive installation in the Library entrance last January term, this year installed a new work "that explores the intersections of natural and artificial light" in the Bioshelter of the science building. This June will see the launch of our first summer program, in Food, Farm, Sustainability.

And this very week, students have been tweeting the subjects of their "Division III" (senior thesis) projects (1, 2). I am always proud to say that our students, on average, quickly become intellectually more sophisticated than the typical undergraduate (okay, so the antics of the hecklers pulled that average down a few points). Our curriculum shapes learners able to carry out independent research and think conceptually and critically rather than just absorb information, which is why it is often considered ideal preparation for graduate school. Half of our students go on to earn advanced degrees, and in fact, ranked by the percentage who go on to become professional historians, we are the number one school in the nation (ahead of such competitors as Yale, Harvard, Princeton, and Columbia). We rank eighth in the humanities as a whole.

Speaking of self-directed, innovative student work, one of the best examples is Hampedia (full disclosure: I am on the board of the organization that guides it).  Wiki-based web sites have become quite popular, and several colleges have used the platform to their advantage. But just compare and contrast: Three years ago, Smith College announced, to great fanfare, that it had created Smithipedia.  Many of the articles are still "stubs."  Hampedia, a totally student-initiated and student-driven project, is far more developed, with over 16,000 pages.

And even as you are reading the account of the recent disturbances in The Climax, pause for a moment to consider that the typeface family in which it is produced is a unique creation by a Hampshire student—and my advisee—David Ross. He produced it as part of his senior thesis project, which I chaired.  David also designed posters for all sorts of campus events and programs, from Salman Hameed's lecture series on Science and Religion to a staging of a Yiddish play, a senior thesis that Rachel Rubinstein and I supervised.  (so, we come full circle.)  That student went on to graduate school at Harvard, and David took a high-level design position. 

Our website and Twitter feed tell more of our story.


But what do do?

Hampshire College is big enough (in all senses of the word) to confront the challenge that faces us—if only we will honestly face up to them.  The good thing to realize is that, here as elsewhere, a small but vocal minority has been spoiling the atmosphere for the rest of us.  Faculty, as President Fried has said, must be leaders and mentors.  Student life staff are playing their role to demonstrate and foster civility.  But ultimately, it is up to the students: it is their behavior that is at issue here.

Especially at a place that, as just noted, emphasizes student initiative and participation in all aspects of campus life: It's time for those who are tired of anger and hatred to take back the conversation and the campus.

And in the wider world?

The great scandal of the BDS movement is that it portrays itself as marching steadily forward toward eternal victory, whereas it has in fact nothing to show for its efforts.  Has it changed one Israeli policy, eliminated one checkpoint, affected the bottom line of one Israeli company?

There is of course a huge array of organizations seeking honestly to ameliorate if not solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.  I've always tried to suggest those that bring Israelis and Arabs together in peacework, not least because they provide a visible model whose contours and even possibility seem to elude so many of our ideologically monomaniacal activists.

I have, for example, mentioned the Arava Institute for environmental studies, one of my favorites not only because we have an institutional relationship with it, but also because it brings together material and scientific as well as political issues.  It makes the point that environmental problems know no national boundaries, and that their solution, accordingly, depends on regional cooperation.

I've also mentioned IPCRI, the Israel-Palestine Center for Research and Information.  It has been voted one of the wordd's best NGOs.  More recently, it was designated one of the "Top think tanks in the Middle East and the "Think Tanks with the Most Innovative Policy Ideas/Proposals."

Another example, which I haven't mentioned before, is the Alliance for Middle East Peace (ALLMEP), a coalition of 70 NGOs (including Arava and IPCRI), which argues:

We must do everything we can to promote, support, and expand their work, especially now. We need not let vocal extremists rule the day. Large majorities on both sides support a peaceful end to this conflict, but they have not yet been mobilized. The people-to-people efforts ALLMEP promotes are the way to engage and empower these majorities on the ground.

Politicians need to see this public support if they are to make the historic decisions necessary for peace. And the day after any peace agreement may be signed, what infrastructure will be in place to make sure peace can survive and thrive if we don't build it now? Turning enemies into good neighbors is long-term, hard work.

I am fully aware that some will find these groups too conservative, and others, too radical; that some will find them dangerous, and others, utopian. There is nothing wrong with that. I may not agree with every policy of any given organization, either, and these are just examples.  We each make our own decisions. My point is simply that groups such as these represent a model: two peoples, committed to mutual recognition, practical cooperation, and peaceful resolution of the conflict. You may disagree with any or all of these groups or their specific policies, but at least there's something to debate. BDS, by contrast, precludes the very possibility of real debate.

In all these cases, then, sending off a check for even just $ 10 or $ 25 will do a lot more for peace than spending a semester devising "clever" plans to disrupt the presentation of this or that speaker with whom you disagree.

As the Arab Muslim Israeli diplomat Ismail Khaldi put it when decrying the BDS movements as “part of the problem, not part of the solution”: We should "stand with" those on both sides who "walk the path of peace" in the quest for an "agreement that recognizes the legitimate rights of both Israel and the Palestinian people."

Why should that be so controversial—at institutions of higher learning, of all places?

The Hampshire College "Climax" Covers the IDF/BDS Controversy

The Climax 4 Volume XV Issue 1
February 17, 2011

[p. 4]
Guest speaker, harassment of Pro-Israel students resparks debate

By Nara Williams, Contributing Writer

Towards the end of last semester, a Hampshire student reported being attacked multiple times for expressing support for Israel both at UMass and on Hampshire’s campus. The student, who wishes to remain anonymous. was called a “racist bitch,” “apartheid lover,” and was at one point physically pushed. After receiving an e-mail that was perceived as a death threat, she approached the dean of student life, Amnat Chittaphong.

The incidents were reported to Public Safety through the dean’s office. The student could not identify the persons involved in the multiple incidents as Hampshire students, as they were wearing hoods in all instances. Public Safety was thus unable to implicate specific persons in the incident, but had an outreach officer follow up with the student several times.

Interim President Marlene Fried responded to the incident by writing an open letter to the community in which she condemned the acts and reminded students that "'While conversations around Israel and Palestine are often loaded with emotions, it is our responsibility to ensure that they take place in an environment of respect and care for members of our community." Additionally, eight faculty members signed a letter of support.

In what became an ongoing dialogue, student group Students for justice in Palestine (SJP) responded to Fried with another open letter to the community. Representatives of SJP explained that the letter was a measure taken to make their feelings as a group clear and express that they in no way condone any of the harassment that occurred.

Students Promoting Israeli Culture and Information (SPICI) recently responded with a further letter in which they criticized SJP for making their letter "into a heated proclamation that unnecessarily attacks insignificant nuances in the President's letter and inappropriately defines personal identity as the authors see fit."

These tensions again rose to the surface last Thursday, February 3rd during a speech in FPH by a former frontline lDF soldier, Sergeant Benjamin Anthony.

Before the event, SJP launched a plan to interrupt the soldier through yelling various phrases. They were then to cast a banner and stage a walk out, as well as hold a vigil outside for this [sic] who didn't wish to come in.

Directly preceding the speech, there was some disorder. "Public safety wasn't letting anyone into the event, and everyone in the lobby started yelling and chanting at each other. The pro-Palestine side was chanting their chants and the pro-Israel side was chanting back in the same way. Someone dropped an Israeli flag over the banner and someone then dropped a Palestinian flag,” said a representative of SJP.

"When students were finally let into the lecture hall, the administrators stressed that they wanted everything to be civil and instructed anyone planning to interrupt the event to leave immediately. During the speech, however, members of SJP blew whistles and shouted attacks at the speaker.

At one point one member of the audience members, a non-Hampshire student, called other members "faggots." One member stood up and started yelling "I'm a faggot; I'm a faggot, you're homophobic this must stop." Eventually, public safety removed both members.

Public Safety otherwise reported finding everyone to be generally cooperative. Blocking the doors after a certain point in the evening was intended as a measure taken to enforce fire-hazard regulations, as the room bad reached capacity. "Of course physical violence cannot be tolerated." said Associate Director of Public Safety Ray LaBarre, “but we recognize the importance of dialogue and debate on campus. Our priority is to ensure safety without taking sides.”

Eventually the speaker had to stop his speech earlier, resorting to hold a short question and answer session and the event ended Following the event, members of SJP and others sang peaceful protest songs and ended the vigil.

Representatives of SjP reported that they felt it important to disrupt the event for a number of reasons. In their community letter, which was sent out before the event, they wrote "We find it reprehensible that at a time in which Hampshire is calling for increased ‘civility’ in our political discourse. a representative of the Israeli 'Defense' Forces would come to our campus in an attempt to gamer sympathy the 'hardship' he endured while serving his time."

The students involved bringing the IDF soldier to campus were upset with the interruptions. "Everyone deserves to be listened to", said Amir Fogel, a signer for SPICI. SPICI, who originally backed the event, pulled out several days before due to anticipation of a protest. The event was not intended to be an instigation."

Fried issued a statement the following morning informing the community of the disruptions and
reminding students of the need to be able to conduct "open dialogue and discussion."

Those who openly support Israel continue to perceive a culture of hostility on Hampshire's campus. The student attacked, who considered not returning for the spring semester, had to switch mods [student group apartments] and continues feeling afraid to go out at night alone, even on campus. The student also admitted knowing of "at least ten" other students who had experienced harassment, some of whom had even left Hampshire as a result.

FogeL who had an Israeli flag taken from his dorm room door last year, also attested to the climate of fear. “When someone takes my personal thing, my Israeli flag, a symbol of me, the message gets through that I’m not allowed to have that. I'm shut down for having an opinion, which is the worst feeling ever".

Students from all sides continue to express frustration with the polarization of the issue and the misconceptions that have arisen. Representatives of SJP express hope that despite disagreements, they wish to have a dialogue and ultimately establish similar views and hopes for the world. SPICI, Fried, and the members of the administration have also expressed the need for civilized dialogue and general education regarding Israel and Palestine.

* * *

[p. 5]


Open Letter from the Students Promoting Israel Culture and Information

(already reproduced here) 

* * *

[p. 6]

Open letter from the Students for Justice in Palestine

Dear Community Members,

We are issuing this statement as concerned members of Hampshire’s Students for Justice in Palestine to inform the community about the event that took place on Thursday, February 3, 2011. We feel that the letter that President Fried sent out the following day omitted crucial information about what took place that night and that it is necessary to clarify the nature of this specific event.

Sergeant Benjamin Anthony of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) came to give a presentation on behalf of his organization, Our Soldiers Speak. The sold purpose of this organization is to present the lives of Israeli soldiers and the wars they are a part of a sympathetic light with no mention of the Palestinian civilians who suffer as a result of these wars. As such, they implicitly and explicitly defend the internationally recognized war crimes soldiers like Sgt. Benjamin Anthony have participated in.

Appalled that a soldier from an occupying army was coming to speak openly on our campus, a multi-generational group of students and community members participated in a collective protest during the event. Our protest had multiple goals: to call attention to the fact that there was no space for the voices of Palestinians to speak to the injustices committed against them by such soldiers like Sgt. Anthony, to challenge his purported “a-political” participation in the occupation of Palestine, and to offer a safe space for support and remembrance of those thousands silenced, killed, and displaced by the Israeli regime. In the interest of transparency, we would like to outline the steps we took to carry out each of these goals.

SJP produced and distributed a pamphlet for the event that described the history of the organizations that sponsored their event, including their participation in Islamophobic, racist, and anti-Arab propaganda. From the beginning of the event, a banner was held up that read “Where is the Palestinian voice in this dialogue?”, while protesters held up signs with phrases including “Never Again for Anyone” and “The Wall Must Fall,” as well as the names of the 352 children killed during Operation Cast Lead. Over the course of the night, members and allies of our group stood up and raised their voices as a form of resistance to Sgt. Anthony’s narrative, and all of them complied with Public Safety when they were asked to leave the room. Those expelled from the lecture hall joined a vigil in the lobby, which offered an open space for song, silence, and honor for those who have died as a result of the occupation. The vigil allowed us to remember those who continue to resist, within the occupied Palestinian territories and internationally.

Our intentions in disrupting Anthony’s speech were to re-center the talk in a human rights discourse, and to condemn the human rights violations of the longest standing military occupation in the world. From the outset, the structure of the event itself showed a power disparity.

Only those in support of the speaker were allowed to sit in the front three rows, with the exception of a protester who uses a wheel~chair and two of her friends. Certain members of the audience were not only barred from sitting in first three rows but were immediately warned that if we attempted to go towards the stage we would be handcuffed immediately. The audience was also informed that nobody would be allowed to use recording equipment in the room. However, this was only enforced against protesters; a handful of Sgt. Anthony's supporters recorded the event without consequence or impediment.

Throughout the event the administrative representatives present fully cooperated with Sgt.Anthony’s agenda, which we feel discredited subsequent claims they made for fair and just “dialogue." In an move that is unprecedented at Hampshire, public safety officers guarded the doors for the entirety of the event and did not allow anyone to enter late or re-enter if they had left. Everyone attending was prevented from entering until the speaker gave his order. Each person was then lined up in a single file by a public safety officer. When one Hampshire student was assaulted and called a “faggot” by a supporter of the speaker, public safety officers initially moved to remove the Hampshire student who received the homophobic slur, rather than the person who used this threatening language. When two Palestinians in the room were referred to as “terrorists”, no action was taken. No attention was given to the safety of protesters when audience members suffered hate speech.
We understand this event as part of an effort to whitewash the IDF and to distract from growing international criticism of Israel’s human rights violations. As students in the US, it is our responsibility to critique our government and challenge our educational institutions for their unquestioning support of Israel’s atrocities. Whenever the Israeli government and its supporters attempt to gloss over 46 years of war crimes, glorify the construction of illegal settlements, claim democracy despite the blockade and bombardment of Gaza to overthrow its democratically elected government, legitimize the confiscation of water access, or justify the destruction of thousands of Palestinian homes, they will be challenged with truth and justice.
We will not be silent.

Sincerely,
Students for Justice in Palestine

* * *

[p. 7]

Another open letter to the Hampshire College community
By Robert Liota
Contributing Writer

Dear Everybody,

Three months ago, one of our fellow community members wrote an editorial piece in The Omen meant as a joke. It was in fact insulting to many on campus, and induced unease and even fear for some individuals' social safety on this campus. A dialogue session was held.

I think lesson a key lesson to be taken away from that incident is that, while we all have a right to free speech, that fact does not morally validate or condone saying something that is hurtful or endangering, nor does it release any individual from a responsibility to uphold a certain form of social contract as part of this community.

The reason I revisit that event is because the recent letter to the community from Students for Justice in Palestine has rather disingenuously turned a very serious caution about the social rights of individuals on campus into a spring-board for propaganda, one which also subsequently proposes that certain individuals should not be allowed on campus to speak. One that hinges on drawing a contrast between Judaism and Zionism that suggests that to be anti-semitic is not to be anti-zionist. True. But when it is framed as part of a response to hearing about both violent and threatening acts targeting an individual on campus, it seems to affirm these actions in making them distinctly different from each other, depending on whom they are targeting. That is wrong. Perhaps SJP did not intend to sound like they were condoning acts of violence- they certainly seem to be oblivious to much of the contents of the President's initial letter (it was sent in December, not January).

For instance, at issue in the President’s letter were not necessarily acts of anti-semitism. At issue was violence directed toward individuals in our community. What SJP is essentially demonstrating in their first paragraph (and subsequently in their entire letter) is that they take issue with acts or threats of violence, vandalism, and harassment of individuals when concerning anti-semitism. Definitely laudable. But then it proceeds to backtrack on itself and say, "But wait, what is really at issue in the letter is anti-zionism!" Or rather:

“However, what is very clear to us is that the letter issued to every member of the Hampshire community was not primarily concerned with acts of anti-Semitism, but with vocal opposition towards expressions of Zionism." (SJP, "An Open "letter to the Hampshire College Community")

First of all, the letter was not in fact concerned with vocal opposition toward expressions of Zionism. It was fact concerned with this:

"…students on this campus have been subjected to physical, verbal, and written harassment, and intimidation because of their political views in support of the state of Israel" [emphasis added.]

Nowhere in President Fried's letter does it condemn anyone for "vocal opposition" toward” expressions of Zionism. I would also like to bring up another criticism here, however—being in support of the state of Israel bears a rather vague association to Zionism. You can be a Conservative Republican and be against a woman's choice in bearing a child but still be in support of the States of America [sic], just as you can be a liberal Democrat and believe exactly the opposite but still pledge allegiance to the United States. So it is still a stretch to glean "expressions of Zionism" from "political views in support of the ·state of Israel," What if one's support hinged: on an Israeli state free of religious/racial directives?"

I could criticize SJP about the way they approach some of their activism for a very long time, but that would be getting away from the point of this letter, which is that this community has some serious problems with hostility. Rather than allowing President Fried's letter to resonate with a warning about it, SJP has decided to deaden it piggybacking on it with a letter that boils down to anti-speech propaganda. I think that's disrespectful of this community, and I think it hints dangerously close at excusing the actions that were described in Marlene Fried's December l7th letter.

While we all have a to free speech, that fact does not morally validate or condone saying something that is hurtful or endangering, nor does it release any individual from a responsibility to uphold a certain form of social contract as part of this community.

I ask both sides of the Israel-Palestine issue, as well as the community at large to heed this caution in general. And stop hitting each other. It makes Hampshire College sound more like a day-care for wealtjy brats than it aready is.

Sincerest love, appreciation, disgust, and/or respect,
Robert Liota