I feel the need to respond to the administration’s response to the ongoing student protests at Bryn Mawr. Students were recently threatened with Honor Code Violations for chanting “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free” and “Globalize the Intifada.” I believe these threats constitute a serious violation of the students’ right to free expression. Further, the college is not a neutral actor in the current crisis; we must do what we can to prevent further death and destruction in Gaza.
The chant “From the River to Sea” expresses the political view that there should be a single state “from the river to the sea” with no preference for Jewish citizens, but a “state of all its citizens.” Far from being radical, this position is a straightforward consequence of basic democratic principles; it was even endorsed by some early Zionists who advocated for a single “bi-national” state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea (see, e.g., Ian Black’s Enemies and Neighbors, p. 54). The term “intifada” (“انتفاضة“) is Arabic for “uprising”; in Arabic, one would describe the Warsaw ghetto uprising as an “intifada.” Calling for an uprising in response to well-documented state repression hardly seems grounds for censure.
But do these expressions call for violence? Not necessarily. But even if the call for revolution is in support of armed resistance, we should still ask: is that grounds for limiting student speech? Consider the precedent this sets. Will we also censure students for calling for workers of the world to unite? For endorsing the American, French, or Haitian revolutions? For supporting the Arab Spring or the Kurdish YPG fighters? Speech endorsing possibly violent resistance is not per se objectionable. What is objectionable is calling for violence against an individual based on their identity, for example against Jewish people as such. But the protesters clearly do not intend their chants this way; many are themselves Jewish, and they clearly disallow harassment in their community guidelines.
Of course, the intended meaning of an expression does not completely constrain its interpretation. Some community members no doubt feel unsafe when hearing calls for Palestinian liberation. But is this discomfort ground for censuring the speech of student protesters? No. Interpreting a statement as a threat does not make it a threat. As the philosopher Joseph Levine has argued, no reasonable outsider would interpret Palestinian calls for rights in the way pro-Israel factions interpret them.
In fact, I am worried that there is a problematic double standard in which pro-Israeli community members are allowed to call for violence, even identity-based violence, against Palestinians. Consider that, in a recent email, Bryn Mawr President Kim Cassidy wrote, “We have shared that the College is committed to providing an environment where many viewpoints are open to debate and where all community members have a sense of belonging. Therefore, we will not demand a cease-fire.” The two viewpoints here are: (i) no cease-fire and (ii) cease-fire. The first is clearly pro-violence; it is literally a call for continuing the destruction of Gaza. Further, it is in support of a regime that has repeatedly called for identity-based targeting of Palestinians (see S. Africa’s ICJ case, page 59). So why does the college condone that as a reasonable position? How are Palestinian students supposed to “have a sense of belonging” in a community that tolerates calls for violence against them and their family members?
The context of these protests is important. Amos Goldberg, a Holocaust and genocide researcher at the Hebrew University, recently published a piece arguing that there is a genocide occurring in the Gaza strip. In doing so, he joins many other scholars of genocide. And, as we are all aware, the ICJ ruled that Israel’s attack on Gaza was plausibly a case of genocide. Suppose it is merely a “plausible” case of genocide. What actions should we expect of community members when they plausibly believe a genocide is occurring? Disruptive protests and demands for action seem completely reasonable in this context; to prioritize the May Day celebration, as President Cassidy suggests we ought to, makes little sense.
The college should immediately begin a democratic process for addressing the current crisis. Why not seriously consider divesting, as Brown has, if this might make some difference? Like it or not, we are complicit in the horrors currently unfolding; there is no “apolitical” stance available. Will we do something, or will we resign ourselves to another round of belated apologies, posted somewhere for campus tour guides to highlight the college’s “progressive” credentials?
Augie Faller, PhD
Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy
Bryn Mawr College