When Brown students speak, the University should listen: A faculty letter in support of student activism

We, the undersigned Brown faculty, wish to express our concern about the content and tenor of President Christina Paxson P’19’s letter to the Brown community March 22 in response to the overwhelming support for a student referendum that called on the University to “divest all stocks, funds, endowment and other monetary instruments from companies complicit in human rights abuses in Palestine and establish a means of implementing financial transparency and student oversight of the University’s investments.” Following weeks of campus debate which produced a higher-than-average turnout in a much-watched election, 69 percent —1,939 out of 2,810 voting students — voted in favor of the referendum.

Paxson’s response, issued to the entire Brown community the day after the referendum results were announced, diminishes the divestment vote as “polarizing” and something that would “detract from the inclusive, intellectually-vibrant community we aspire to be.” Belying her own claim that the University does not take sides on contested issues, Paxson also took this opportunity to reiterate her opposition to the global Boycott, Divest, Sanctions movement, even though the movement itself was not explicitly on the ballot. These strong statements can have the political effect of stifling student activism. They can also be read as an admonishment of students who organized the referendum and, implicitly, of all those who voted in favor of divestment.

We write in defense of student activism and against making Palestine an exception to the right of free speech on campus. Regardless of one’s position on divestment, the roughly two thousand undergraduate students at Brown who, exercising their democratic right, voted in favor of the referendum deserve better than the unfounded accusation that they are politically polarizing an otherwise neutral campus. All students deserve respect, protection and a fair hearing when they exercise their legitimate right to pose questions and vote. That must include those who voted against the President’s views.

We are deeply concerned by Paxson’s statement that “instead” of calls for divestment, the Brown community should “engage in productive discourse on this issue through our teaching, research and contributions to diplomacy.” This statement unacceptably narrows the range of legitimate activism by students and other members of the Brown community. By using the phrase “on this issue” it also sets up a double standard, in that it seems to apply only to activism that is critical of Israeli government policies. The 1968 Black Student Walkout, the 1975 student vote to strike in favor of budget transparency, the 1987 Students Against Apartheid demands for divestment from South Africa and more recently, the 2015 student organizing against university inaction on racial and class representation on campus were also entirely peaceful and democratic forms of activism that sought to challenge indifference or political gridlock that existed at the time. Ultimately, they made Brown a better place.

It is precisely such examples of student activism for social justice that have inspired supporters of Brown Divest. The numerous public events they organized during the six months prior to the March 21 referendum contributed positively to informed and lively debate on campus and reaffirmed that all groups, without exception, are entitled to basic human rights. Through the referendum vote, many students have made clear their view that the Israeli government’s policies towards Palestinians are diametrically opposed to Brown University’s self-proclaimed values, enshrined in its strategic plan, Building on Distinction, which calls for “Creating Peaceful, Just, and Prosperous Societies.” And they are not alone. Similar divestment referendums have passed in student government bodies at other campuses such as Stanford University, New York University, Barnard College, the University of Minnesota and George Washington University, among others.

It is not surprising that many Brown undergraduates resorted to a referendum in order to make their voices heard. As she acknowledges in her March 22 letter to the community, Paxson in 2012 rejected the recommendation of Brown’s Advisory Committee on Corporate Responsibility in Investment Policies to initiate dialogue about possible divestment from companies that profit from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territories. Indeed, Brown Divest students have worked diligently through University processes and have sought dialogue rather than confrontation. In this, they have shown extraordinary courage in the face of not only Paxson’s record of rejection on this issue, but also aggressive national campaigns of intimidation and censorship aimed at college students and professors who dare to speak out against Israeli government policies, as well as attempts by President Donald Trump’s administration to conflate legitimate criticisms of Israeli policies with anti-Semitism.

It is vital to recognize that students active in Brown Divest have consistently called for upholding the human rights of all people. They have repeatedly condemned anti-Semitism along with any other form of racism and bigotry. Many attended vigils in honor of Jewish and Muslim victims of recent terrorist attacks by white supremacists in Pittsburgh and New Zealand. Several, also, responded constructively to the arguments of students who opposed the referendum — whose voices should and are being heard — in a succession of spirited op-eds in this newspaper. These exchanges highlighted the diversity of opinions among Jewish students on divestment, many of whom supported the referendum. While these students have engaged in productive discourse, Brown’s senior administration has yet to condemn egregious blacklisting websites, such as Canary Mission, that have threateningly listed Brown students and professors who criticize the Israeli government’s actions and speak up for Palestinian human rights.

At a time when there is as dire a need as ever for moral clarity, transparency and democratic participation in our country, we call on our University administration to take seriously our students’ concern about injustices in which our institution may be complicit. Is Brown University a beneficiary of investments in companies that profit from the Israeli occupation of Palestine? That is the still unanswered question at the heart of last week’s campus vote. It is not a question we or anyone else should admonish our students for asking. Rather, let us support and honor all our students — and with it Brown’s renowned tradition of rigorous, conscientious and engaged scholarship — by organizing campus-wide discussions and debates on that question and others like it. If principled inquiry is our method and the pursuit of knowledge for a better world is our goal, what do we have to fear?

Respectfully,