It is dusk. Dozens of students guard Hamilton Hall (renamed Hind’s Hall) at Columbia University, their voices reverberating the same chant of peace. NYPD officers approach like hawks on unprotected nests, armed as if they are being deployed to proxy another Jihad, only this time, it is in the heart of New York City. Instances of police brutality and student targetting such as these have become so regular in the past few months that they have lost their novelty. They no longer adorn the headlines of newspapers; rather, they are held as minor civic misjudgments, a false narrative that can be subdued with a spritz of pepper spray.
October 2023 was a critical month for many reasons. Not only did it bring to light the systematic oppression of Palestinian citizens that was upheld by (otherwise liberal) Western societies, but it also brought to attention the extent to which many institutions – the most surprising of which were places of education – were equally compliant in this genocide. Student reactions across college campuses in the US sent a clear message: The education and moral righteousness these institutions prided themselves in instilling were not to be restricted to petty issues like meal plans and graduation venues. When the uproar is strong for movements like BLM and Abortion rights, how is it that they conveniently miss the most documented killing of human lives in history?
It is thanks to the critical thinking abilities and the opportunity to consider multifaceted narratives that provide an intersectional lens to these global issues, that students across college campuses in the US refused to settle down and instead took the noblest path by recording peaceful protests and challenging the legitimacy of third-party authority in college administrations, from investments in Israeli arms to the subtle indoctrination of Zionist values.
Then came the next trial: these protestors, constituting countless identities from native Americans to immigrants to Jews and Christians, came to be labeled as “antisemitic”, a term so loosely thrown around it has essentially lost its true meaning now. How is it that Zionism and Judaism get corroborated so forcefully that a rejection of the former is defined as an affront to the latter? How does seeking justice for the lives lost in the genocide equate to a direct threat to Jewish presence on these campuses? The answer to that lies in a deep infiltration of capitalist patriarchal racism and Islamophobia, coupled with the economically relevant position of Israeli funds in various forms, including AIPAC.
The way these protestors were treated, however, is reminiscent of a few brutalities. From Columbia President Minouche Shafik delegating authority to NYPD to manhandle students who “trespassed” on their own campus, to Harvard and UPenn Presidents being forced to resign by Congress, there were a few victories too, particularly in Brown’s concession of student demands, which set a positive precedent that could have been followed were these colleges invested in the human rights seminars they so proudly deliver each year. It is hypocritical to advocate for gender spectrums and feign inclusivity when you prosecute your students for implementing the same values you set out to teach them.
Take Columbia, the country’s principal institution for studies in political science. The Palestine encampment set on its campus could have been one of its greatest achievements and displays of solidarity – a physical manifestation of the same values it cherishes – had the Board of Trustees not been continuously trying to mala fide in its treatment of these protestors. The recent news of President Shafik’s resignation, therefore, comes less as a shock than a disappointment. There was so much opportunity for a female president of Arab descent to progress these efforts, and yet she leaves a hollow legacy of institutional suppression, student doxxing, xenophobic attitudes, and a question mark on how relevant Columbia’s values truly are in the midst of the current political atmosphere.
The attempts at deradicalizing these institutions point to the often-used trigger that masks a deeper hypocrisy. By silencing certain voices while promoting others under the guise of neutrality, we are not fostering open dialogue but rather enforcing a new form of ideological conformity – one that stems miles away from a humanitarian issue. If we truly value freedom of thought and expression, the focus should not be on policing ideas but on creating spaces where diverse perspectives can clash, challenge, and ultimately coexist. The real radicalism lies not in the ideas themselves, but in our unwillingness to engage with them fully.
Photo Credit: Mukta Joshi | Hyperallergic
Comments