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
4 comments
BMC ‘97. I left a comment here a few days ago. I expressed respectful disagreement with the author. My comment was removed, without notice or explanation. This is highly disrespectful and I have separately contacted the alumni office to discuss. In brief, the author’s comments, expressing support for violent revolution (the Arab Spring, etc.) do not, in my view, comport with the values of Quaker nonviolence. BMC and Haverford are Quaker colleges. These values are expressed in our Honor Code, which the author, a visiting professor, dismisses and derides. This raises the issue of whether, in its hiring decisions, including for visiting faculty, do the colleges ask candidates if they agree with the Quaker principles that the colleges are founded are? How do they ascertain this? Do the colleges still adhere to these values themselves? Or have these Quaker principles, and the Honor Code, become mere “paper tigers?”
Hi Sara,
I hope you are doing well. In order to have comments be published on our website, they need to be reviewed to ensure that we are not publishing phishing or spam comments (as this has become a problem in the past). Your comment had just yet to be reviewed, which was why it was not present on the website. They usually take anywhere from an hour to three days to make it through our system. Once our program ran through it, however, the comment was published and is now present if you go back to that article. If you have any further comments or concerns, please feel free to reach out to us at news.bico@gmail.com. Thank you so much for your time.
Best,
Hannah Epstein, Co-Editor in Chief of The Bi-College News
Faller might be surprised to learn that Bryn Mawr and Haverford were founded by Quakers, who are pacifists. Quakers cared deeply about social justice. Quakers are most widely known for their nonviolent opposition to slavery. Quakers ran the Underground Railroad, drafted legislation, raised money and lobbied for the end of slavery. They opposed the Civil War, which they maintain was not necessary to end slavery. Quakers have stayed true to these beliefs, into the current day, where they passionately advocated for the US to provide refuge to the Jewish people from Europe, starting in the 1930’s, as Haverford graduate, pacifist and author Nicholson Baker demonstrates in his book “Smoke.” Of course, Faller can believe otherwise and clearly extols the virtues of armed, revolutionary (terrorist) resistance. The questions this view raises are – 1) is the appropriate for a professor at a Quaker school?; 2) are incoming professors (visiting or otherwise) apprised of the BiCo Quaker tradition?; 3) do the current administrators at BiCo even value Quaker principles or have they become, like the Honor Code apparently, “paper tigers” and a rubberstamp? As a BMC alumni, I hope not. Do better.
In Arabic the chant is “From the river to sea, Palestine will be Arab. I guess that is a call for a “state of all its citizens” if those citizens are only Arab