I will only speak for myself and about how I am feeling right now. I will not speak for anyone else. If your feelings align with mine, then I am sure you will be able to relate to this article. If they do not, I would still appreciate if you read this article with an open mind.
I am devastated by what occurred on November 15, 2017 at 2:57 am. That is when my view of the University of Michigan campus changed. In just eight seconds, the Speaker of the Central Student Government, Alexandra Contis managed to increase my heart rate, cause my body to shake, and bring tears to my eyes. In just eight seconds, she announced: “With 23 votes in favor, 17 against, and 5 abstentions, A.R. 7-019 passes.” Before she could even complete her sentence, the people sitting on the opposite side of the room as me, the people urging CSG to pass A.R. 7-019, shot out of their seats screaming wildly.
Throughout the seven and a half hours that I sat in Auditorium 3, in the Modern Languages Building, I watched SAFE (Students Allied for Freedom and Equality) and other advocates of A.R. 7-019 manipulate the audience with their speeches in order to prove that they were not targeting Jewish students on campus. I am disappointed in the 23 CSG representatives that could not see through this. I am disappointed in them for listening to this egregious argument and subsequently, in their decision, compromising my safety and place on this campus. I felt immense discomfort when the representatives chose to make this a black and white issue, instead of hearing and helping the voices of this campus work together. By choosing to vote as they did, CSG needlessly and incorrectly targeted my Jewish community.
When the announcement was made that the resolution passed, I observed the people sitting to the left of me, the ones supporting divestment. They jumped out of their seats. I watched them insensitively smirk and scream joyfully while glaring at the devastated members sitting to the right of them. It was after several seconds of this, that they finally turned to embrace each other. This was soon followed by the supporters of divestment cheering and chanting outside the hall. You tell me, if this resolution had nothing to do with the belittling of my Jewish community, then why did I look into my peers’ eyes and feel attacked? Why were they looking at me and laughing?
To the five abstentions, who will claim that they did not vote because they did not want to pick one side over another, is this just not important enough for you to make a decision? This is why you were elected. You must stand up and be counted. Speakers and advocates against this resolution explicitly stated that they understand SAFE’s underlying goal, and that they are willing and ready to work side by side with them, but not in the way the resolution proposes. The concept of divestment in Israel marginalizes and targets Jewish students. To the five abstentions, please do not gloat in your “neutrality”; your inaction was a statement in itself.
Several speakers and advocates against this resolution vocalized their ideas and stated that Jewish students would be impacted by the outcome of the resolution. The Jewish community on campus would feel targeted and vulnerable. As a member of the global community, I feel neglected, mocked, and marginalized. As a citizen of the United States, I feel embarrassed and humiliated. As a member of the University of Michigan community, I feel devastated and disrespected. And, as a member of the Jewish community, I feel afraid, shattered, and violated.
I will not regurgitate all the details of the seven and a half hour meeting. You are able to watch the meeting on The Michigan Daily’s Facebook page; the entire event was live-streamed. Many narratives were shared, many arguments were made, and many voices were heard. It was evident that students from both sides were in pain. I paid attention to the comments made by the members of SAFE and other supporters of the resolution. I understood, and I empathized. But, this was not supposed to be a battle between who deserves a bigger pity party. CSG allowed this to be the case. The University of Michigan Central Student government voted, and chose to further polarize the two sides of the argument.
There is a great difference in offending a person or community, and attacking a person or a community. It is hard to come up with a unanimous and pleasing decision when there exists such a divisive issue. As the poet, John Lydgate wrote, “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.” Jewish students on campus stated that they felt targeted and attacked by this resolution. One of its great faults is mentioning Israel approximately 18 times, and neglecting to mention even one other country that violates Palestinian human rights. It is a resolution which directly attacks on Israel, and by definition, the Jewish community. Thousands of students voiced this opinion, and voiced their concerns, via petitions. But, CSG opted to ignore these concerns, and instead attempt a quick fix to a very complicated problem.
What about the Palestinians living in Lebanon, Jordan, and other Middle-Eastern countries? Palestinian people are restricted from home ownership, and the jobs they are allowed to work at are limited. This discrimination, among other things, also violates their human rights.Why is Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, the only country being attacked and put under a spotlight. Why is Israel the only country that the resolution insists be investigated? Do the Palestinians who lack residential rights, travel rights, and overall citizenship in countries like Lebanon and Iraq not matter? The resolution does not address this violation of Palestinian human rights. The resolution is, in fact, modern day anti-Semitism, plain and simple. It is a direct attack on Jews and their livelihood, that is written in a politically correct fashion.The University of Michigan strives to achieve diversity, equity, and inclusion, or “DEI”. The University of Michigan defines these three goals:
Diversity: “We commit to increasing diversity, which is expressed in myriad forms, including race and ethnicity, gender and gender identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, language, culture, national origin, religious commitments, age, (dis)ability status and political perspective.” Diversity is wildly apparent at the University of Michigan. There are students from many different races, ethnicities, genders, gender identities, sexual orientations, socioeconomic statuses, cultures, national origins and religions. There are students of different ages, disabilities, abilities, and political perspectives. All are supposedly welcome at the University of Michigan. The implications of this resolution make one group of students feel excluded and unwelcome.
Equity: “We commit to working actively to challenge and respond to bias, harassment, and discrimination. We are committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all persons and do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability, religion, height, weight, or veteran status.” The implications of the resolution severely compromise equal opportunity for not only Jewish students. In fact, the resolution spreads its wings to potentially exclude students who are also not Jewish. For example, take the company Boeing, which is the list of companies the resolution seeks to investigate. Boeing recently began recruiting in the University of Michigan’s School of Information. Boeing also provide opportunity to students studying aerospace engineering in the School of Engineering. Therefore, with the passing of the resolution, Boeing would be investigated and could potentially withdraw all of its support for a myriad of students at the University of Michigan.
Inclusion: “We commit to pursuing deliberate efforts to ensure that our campus is a place where differences are welcomed, different perspectives are respectfully heard and where every individual feels a sense of belonging and inclusion. We know that by building a critical mass of diverse groups on campus and creating a vibrant climate of inclusiveness, we can more effectively leverage the resources of diversity to advance our collective capabilities.”I felt silenced by the 23 votes. I felt a sense of loss for my community on the University of Michigan campus. I felt our feelings did not matter to the governing board. I felt we were overlooked and discarded.
It appears that the passing of this resolution violates the University of Michigan’s views on diversity, equity, and inclusion. CSG shut down one community of students in order to support another. CSG shut down a community of Jewish students that was invested in peace and attempting to build bridges. In other words, CSG voted against coexistence. Although many advocates who supported the resolution claimed that the resolution has no ties to BDS, I was ashamed that members of CSG fell for this absurd claim. The official BDS website explains: “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) is a Palestinian-led movement for freedom, justice and equality”. One of the co-founders of BDS, Omar Barghouti, has implied that supporting BDS and achieving its goals would, “end Israel’s existence as a Jewish state”. Since this resolution clearly stems from the BDS movement, how can the Jewish student not feel marginalized? Are the CSG representatives so naïve as to not clearly see this connection? In fact, not even 24 hours after the resolution was passed, a swastika was found on the MLB building. This resolution, and the BDS movement, has been acknowledged as modern day anti-Semitism by the longstanding Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. CSG has laid down the groundwork for institutionalized anti-Semitism, and I shudder to think what comes next.
I have been a student at the University of Michigan for almost a year and a half. Today, November 15, 2017, I was approached for the first time by a stranger while I was printing my math assignment. A man turned towards me, and asked: “Are you okay?” I could not understand why he would ask me this. I was performing a simple task. I was printing out my homework. I was not crying, and I was silent. I responded that I was okay and just a little tired. He then said the week will be over soon and everything will be okay. How strange that he randomly asked me this question. Was this pure coincidence, or was I emoting a sense of sadness. CSG, do you not care if I am okay? And to be frank, in response to his question, I am not okay. To my Jewish brothers and sisters, we are united, we are strong, and we will always be a powerful community of people. I am here for you. To my Palestinian classmates and neighbors, we may share different views, we may not always agree, but I am here for you too, though it may not be in the way that you want me to be. I will not be here for you if it means targeting and belittling my community. Let us pursue a path where we build each other up, we discuss our differences, and we implement constructive, not destructive, resolutions.
Images courtesy of: University of Michigan, The Forward, Truth Revolt, The Electronic Intifada, Benji Bear Photography