Sydney: Student demonstrations at some universities, sparked by the Israel- Hamas issue, revive an ancient legacy. However, these are distinct periods.
After negotiations between student organizers and scientific leaders to put an end to the show stalled, Columbia University began suspending individuals who refused to destroy a opposition camp this year.
The scenario has since gotten worse, with riot police storming a university’s pro-Palestinian camp on Tuesday night, US day.
It is simple to see how the pro-Palestinian protests continue the tradition of violent student demonstrations that started in the 1960s with protests against the Vietnam War as they spread across college colleges in the US and different parts of the world, including Australia.
The most recent protests, which are primarily made up of student alliances, are centered mostly on the Gaza conflict between Israel and Hamas, which, according to Gaza’s authorities, has resulted in more than 34 000 Palestinians being killed and 77 000 being hurt by Israeli attacks.
Pro-Palestinian activists demand that institutions cut relations with Israel, support a ceasefire in Gaza, and share investments in the fight. Reviewers of the rallies decry them as racist.
More than just developing administrative information or launching profession, a university training is meant to be.
A well-rounded college education should show our place in the world, our obligations to those who surround us, both close and dear, and our shared responsibility to identify and protest injustice.
Even if the demands for a better world are idealistic ( and possibly naive ), we want our universities to produce graduates who demand more from us as fellow citizens of society.
This idea of universities as beacons of political opposition and free talk is once more being put to the test, as the recent protests demonstrate.
Universities have long been sites that can serve as a gauge of emotions and an outlet for rage toward hardships, from the anti- Vietnam War movements of the 1960s and ’70s to the anti- racism activity in the 1980s, the anti-Iraq War protests in the early 2000s and Black Lives Matter rallies just a few years ago.
Even Northeastern University’s recent request for Massachusetts State Police to enter the campus and use riot gear to clear an encampment on the campus led to the arrest of 102 protesters, which had a precedent in the 1960s.
In many ways, these encampments ‘ non-violent direct action is what our universities and the students who study at them should expect.
But while familiar in many ways, these protests are also different.
They are unique because they have occasionally been accompanied by threats of violence against a country or even a group of people, in this case Jews.
Student leaders have been claiming that because of his support for Israel,” Zionists do n’t deserve to live” and that US President Joe Biden should be killed in the name of peace.
They differ from previous anti-war demonstrations because they were fueled by social media, whose algorithms favor extremism and controversy.
Since the beginning of the conflict in Gaza in October 2023, Hamas and Israel have been spreading propaganda online, offering content that features graphic violence, deceptive and blatantly false claims, as well as hate speech, particularly “upticks in specific and general Islamophobic and antisemitic narratives.”
Despite the more than 1, 200 people who were assassinated by Hamas, academic presses like Verso have published works that describe the October 7 attacks as “exhilarating” and “moments of freedom, that defeated Zionist expectations of submission to occupation and siege.”
In contrast, public demonstrations supporting Israel have shifted from protesting antisemitism and demanding the release of Israeli hostages, reiterating calls to continue bombing Gaza and honoring potential war crimes.
Although protests have been a part of university life for a long time, it is crucial to understand why these differences have developed.
Maybe the clues can be found in the inability of the leadership of the elite universities to show, well, leadership.
When the presidents of three Ivy League universities addressed a congressional hearing and were unable to respond to a straightforward question:” Would calling for the genocide of Jews constitute a violation of the code of conduct at your school, yes or no?”
The manner in which debates take place on university campuses and beyond has been influenced by three trends, which place the contemporary university in a polarized position.
The first is the social media algorithm structure, which makes it easier for users to see the world from a different angle and promotes extremism. We typically read articles that confirm our own perception of the world and read the most contentious articles. In this situation, everything is black and white: no room for nuanced opinions, no right or wrong.
Second, is that the preference for” safe spaces” over “brave spaces” has led to a tendency to omit the educational value of discomfort. Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt argue that too much effort is put forth to shield contemporary students from challenging and complex issues in the authors ‘ book Coddling of the American Mind.
The contemporary student is not only protected from contentious subjects, but they also have no room for discussion, discussion, resolution, or battle with their disagreements with other classmates.
Third is the politicization of universities, which has placed them in the middle of cultural wars since at least the 1990s.
Monitored by social media warriors as well as media and political ideologues, every lecture becomes a potential battleground.
Many academics will avoid rather than discuss contentious subjects in this contentious environment. If, for example, a criticism of the atrocities of the Israel Defense Forces is antisemitic, defending Israel’s right to exist is seen as supporting imperialism and genocide.
While there are no new protests on campuses, what is different is that neither side is willing to cede ground to others.
It is not on the table that their opinions may not be as accurate as they believe they to be. In this environment, these appear to be less recognisable as student protests, and more as the mobilisation of ideologues.
Political, educational, and community leaders are required to respond with a sense of urgency.
Instead of relying on riot police to arrest protesters, university leaders could instead engage in direct negotiations with them. Antisemitic and anti-Islamic rhetoric needs to be addressed through the use of hate speech rather than repression.
Returning complex and contentious subjects to the classroom and encouraging academic and student voices to discuss them could provide a better direction in the long run.
