Max Bonsteel, Special to The Denisonian—
I am writing to express my concerns with a recently published Denisonian opinion piece titled “Response to statement on justice in Palestine: A letter to our communities.” The letter was written by student organizers in different organizations at Kenyon, Wooster, Oberlin, and here at Denison. This response was written and co-signed by many senior faculty members, including department chairs. Being that this article comes from such esteemed members of our academic community, the manner of rhetoric used and the volatile allegations aimed at students are disconcerting, to say the least.
I want to first express that I do not have an issue with these faculty members participating in discourse on this issue with students, or having a different view than students. Quite the contrary, faculty are such a large part of our lives here at Denison that having a dialogue on a given event without getting our professor’s perspective would make the dialogue feel incomplete. The shared responsibility that everyone in the Denison community has in facilitating discussions on important topics is realized by the authors. At the beginning of the response, they make a call to action, “We call upon our community to come together in the tradition of civic discourse to listen, discuss, and learn about the complexities of the situation, not to chant slogans that fan the flames of discord.” While I do not doubt the sincerity of the authors in this call for greater discourse on campus, I think the rest of the response fails to further this spirit of civil discourse, and actually fans “the flames of discord” more intensely than any discourse on I’ve seen in my time on Denison’s campus.
One notable flaw in the response is that it ignores previous dialogues that the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) have initiated or participated in since Oct. 7. The authors seem to assume that the discourse surrounding the issue on campus commenced solely with the publication of the letter. This oversight is perplexing to anyone on campus who has been following the matter, especially considering the authors emphasize the importance of considering the full context of any given situation. It is important to realize that the letter itself is a continuation of several events and protests that took place before the letter was published, as well as discourse that has been taking place all around campus, from classrooms to the president’s office. The first event that came to mind was the Oct. 11 town hall meeting held by SJP and the Denison Democratic Socialists of America in which the SJP gave more broad context on the history of the conflict, political situation in the region, and the Oct. 7 attack. They presented a presentation with statistics, testimonials, and videos, and fielded questions from and had discussions with the large audience that was made up of virtually all students. The SJP also held a teach-in on Oct. 25, which was another open discussion on the subject, this time with more faculty and students. None of the faculty signatories of the response attended either of these events or sought out the SJP to organize a dialogue. The Students for Justice in Palestine have done more to create open spaces where people from any position, holding any viewpoint can come and participate and discourse, but the response ignores this and insinuates that SJP only harms discourse, it urges students to “learn about the complexities of the situation” rather than “chant slogans that fan the flames of discord” and cause community members to feel unsafe. I urge the faculty authors to reach out to student activists, attend their dialogues, or work with them to organize more open discussions, rather than invalidating their work and not participating in those discussions.
The response continues by claiming that SJP is not protesting the actions of the Israeli military forces, but are instead, along with Hamas, calling for “the elimination of the state of Israel and the Jewish people.” This claim that SJP is outright genocidal is a serious and incendiary allegation. The authors of the response use the fact that the SJP denounced “the occupation and subjugation of Palestinians and their land” as evidence that the authors are siding with Hamas and want to eliminate the Jewish people. The debate about whether the situation in Israel/Palestine constitutes apartheid is a valid dialogue that we should encourage on campus, but it should be obvious that a person claiming a country is built on and perpetuating oppression, and calling for that oppression to end does not constitute a call for genocide or elimination of the oppressing country. The response makes that claim after reaching the conclusion that the SJP is “siding with the terrorists of Hamas,” which is another incendiary and divisive claim itself, but SJP believing the Palestinian people are oppressed and have a right to resistance does not mean that they agree with every action or belief of the perceived resisting force. If the authors of the response want to know what SJP thinks about Hamas and the Oct. 7 attack, they should ask them and have a dialogue. They shouldn’t assume SJP’s position on unmentioned elements of the issue and then condemn them for that perceived but not necessarily true position.
For many people, and for many the wounds of tragedy are still raw, but the faculty response to SJP’s letter is irresponsible given the station of the signatories, and incongruent with the stated goal of coming together “in the tradition of civic discourse.” Members of faculty are the pillars of our community, and it was supremely disappointing to see senior faculty members among the signatories resort to such inflammatory claims as a first measure rather than participating in the ongoing dialogue around campus, or reaching out to the students in SJP. I hope that members of faculty create or come to open spaces, such as the ones hosted by SJP, to discuss their disagreements, and have the difficult but constructive dialogues that are essential for liberal arts campuses, rather than making volatile allegations about students that serve only to stifle discourse and increase toxicity between differing perspectives on campus.
Michael Goldweber
Mr. Bonsteel, while a more detailed response requires more time than I have available during this busy time of the semester, I wish to address a factual error. I, one of the signers of the letter in question, have attended two SJP events this semester. One was at the start of the semester and the other was a post-rally event in Slater in early November. As for attendance at other events; I was not invited, nor do I recall seeing any handbills or online announcements in Campus Events.
Max Bonsteel
Thank you for your reply, I’d like to clarify that the events with the lack of attendance by signers I was referring to were specifically the first SJP town hall and the teach in. Those events discussed the broader context of events leading up to and including October 7th, and provided a space for faculty lead discussion and participation respectively, points that I felt were especially important given the criticism of not including context and implications of harming discourse leveled at SJP in the response.
I was not asserting that signers of the response have not attended any SJP events this semester. The lack of participation in those discussions organized by or affiliated with SJP, and the response’s omission of the events and SJP’s work to create open spaces are the problems I saw regarding the engagement of the signers.