How is this for a social experiment? Last week, some students at University of Chicago proposed a resolution to the College Council to divest from Chinese weapons manufacturers, in protest of China’s severe human rights abuses and its long-standing occupation of Tibet.
Members of the council were quick to condemn the resolution, and for good reason. The members noted it was political, and disrespectful to Chinese students. Other members noted that Chinese students should be given time to respond to the presenters with a counter-presentation. One representative even suggested that the College Council issue an apology to Chinese students for even considering the resolution. The resolution was tabled indefinitely.
Curiously, when a few weeks earlier the same College Council passed a nearly identical resolution condemning Israel, no one suggested an apology. These same representatives argued why it was their moral imperative to condemn Israel. They were determined to push this through at all costs, and despite requests, they didn’t even offer the other side an opportunity to present.
As one Jewish Chicago student explained, “Over the past few weeks I have been told that Jews “don’t count” as a minority. I have been accused of using anti-Semitism to justify oppression. All I want to know is why my campus doesn’t treat anti-Semitism with the same rigor with which it treats any other forms of bias.”
When Jewish students stood before the council as part of the debate and asked that it recognize the Jewish right to self-determination, a basic right for all people, people in the room laughed. One representative noted that “If we were to affirm the right to Jewish self-determination … it takes away from the intent of the resolution”.
Another Jewish student was chided “You are racist and you are against me and my family’s existence”. It was uncivil, and unproductive, but the council-members did not once that day condemn the personal nature of these attacks, or defend the rights of the opposition to make their case.
At one point, a student questioned the presenters, members of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), about their organization allegedly holding a moment of silence for Palestinians who were killed while trying to murder Jewish civilians. One of the presenters confirmed the moment, then responded without missing a beat “Palestinians have a right to honour their martyrs”.
If the killing of any other ethnic group had been celebrated, the University would make grief counsellors available. It would send out mass emails of condemnation. They would suspend the organisation responsible, and possibly the students involved in it. The organisation would certainly not have any credibility to present to the student government. Since the victims were Jews though, their celebration of murder went unchallenged. The representatives never even brought the issue up.
On the third slide of the presentation in favour of the resolution, presenters claimed that voting against the resolution would mean “maintaining a system of domination by Jews”.
Moments like these make it clear that the BDS movement and its acolytes like Israel Apartheid Week together with their supporters are not about human rights. It is about using universities as a forum for tribal hatreds, in this case legitimising the expression of anti-Semitism.
This article has been adapted from one written by Chicago student Daniel Greenfield.