Hampshire College first U.S. university to divest from Israeli occupation

Guest Columnist

Hampshire College first U.S. university to divest from Israeli occupation

by Joyce Choi Won Li

A professor told me once that power never likes to admit that it’s been forced to change. The grassroots efforts of organizing and activist groups have always had to take a proactive, defensive role in writing history, before it is written for us. The same seems true for my campus.

Thirty-two years ago, Hampshire College became the first college or university in the United States to divest from its South African holdings for the nation’s apartheid policies. Yesterday, it also became the first to divest from Israel for its continued occupation of Palestine. Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), the campus group that pushed for this move by the school’s Board of Trustees, released a statement:

“This landmark move is a direct result of a two-year intensive campaign by the campus group, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). The group pressured Hampshire College’s Board of Trustees to divest from six specific companies due to human rights concerns in occupied Palestine. Over 800 students, professors, and alumni have signed SJP’s “institutional statement” calling for the divestment”

According to the release, these efforts have drawn endorsements from Noam Chomsky, Cynthia McKinney, Howard Zinn, and many others. Late last night, the college also received support from Nobel Laureate Archibishop Desmond Tutu. However, hours after news broke, representatives of the school's administration released an ambiguous statement, stressing that the trustees' actions had nothing to do with any country in particular.

This move by administrators suggests an effort to de-politicize radical organizing by students, faculty, and community allies, as well as rupture the bond of solidarity that SJP is obviously trying to forge. The group is responding to a direct call to action by the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. This struggle over divestment and financial complicity also highlights the role of higher learning institutions as shareholders and participants in corporate-governmental alliances.

We all know why power tries to distance itself from actual opinions; this is the game of diplomacy AND defense. But the voices of the people will continue to ring louder, and we should all listen when they do.

Posted at 9:58 AM, Feb 13, 2009 in Global Issues | Permalink | View Comments

Comments

I soundly agree with your last two paragraphs.

When the school first divested from the Apartheid in '77 it made similar claims to distance itself and de-politicize the decision. Now, thirty two years later if you flip through an admissions catalogue you'll see that the school proudly acknowledges it's divestment. The administration is trying to have its' cake and eat it too. Eventually, when they realize that it's beneficial to the school's image and admissions numbers they'll properly own it.

It's interesting to notice that no matter how many times it's pointed out that the administration of Hampshire College has vigorously denied that this decision has anything to do with Israel, that divestment supporters continue to simply ignore this clearly verifiable truth and blithely congratulate the university for doing something it has stated in no uncertain terms that it did NOT do.

This strange behavior is understandable if you realize that divestment supporters are interested only in tricking an institution - any institution - into taking an action that they can portray as being in lock step with their agenda: to tie the legacy of Hampshire College (in this case) to their narrow, partisan message. This mission alone is what is important to them, with truth and the reputation of places like Hampshire simply irrelevant to their single-minded agenda.

Per Jon's comment, institutions, particularly universities, often deny that protest had anything to do with a particular decision. When I was in college, at Brown University many years ago for example, the university revoked the charters of the worst fraternities on campus. That happened just days after a group of women included that as a demand in a remarkable five hour speakout by campus women, but the university held firm that the protest and the revoked charters had nothing to do with each other. So, when institutions try to dismiss protest as effective, who is doing the "tricking?"

Interesting comments, Jon. If we were to anthropomorphise this "institution" into a thinking, singly-autonomous entity with its own notion of "truth," then we begin to further erase the multiple principles and values that made it what it was. However, colleges and universities are soundly SPACES: places where ideas have often been exchanged, dialogue has been supported, and lastly, where IMAGE has been built, on representing a mission that coincides with its community.

Hampshire has most definitely been built on its image and value in social responsibility; those purported traits have been called upon by activists and organizers who not only possess one "partisan" agenda, but a wealth of ideas and values that strive to make it a more responsible, accountable, and PRODUCTIVE institution.

A blithe congratulation is actually a need to acknowledge the action and energy of students and others who have sweated to change a place for the better, and for the hope that it will echo throughout the rest of the world. To expect our institutions of higher learning to be anything LESS, vacuous spaces where the myth meritocracy reigns, would be a failure on our part for "truth."
But if universities were "people," then maybe Hampshire would be afraid of the crowd.

So if I were to, for example, congratulate Hampshire College for its bold stand against the government of Sudan (since Darfur was specifically mentioned with regard to the schools change-of-investment decision, while Israel was specifically not singled out), that you and the students making up the SJP would happily join me in communicating to the world that Hampshire has taken a bold stand against Sudan?

Or, to take it one step further, since the school has not singled out Israel, but SJP is claiming that is has, am I free to publicize that Hampshire now standard four-square against nations that have implemented Shaira Law because of those law's brutality directed towards women and homosexuals? After all, there is as much evidence for this claim as there is evidence that the school has made its decisions based on the Arab-Israeli conflict (more actually since the school has already said time and time again that their decisions have nothing to do with Israel, but they have yet to deny that their decisions were based on issues related to Shaira).

I wonder if SJP and its supporters would be so happy to allow SPACE for this interpretation of events into the IMAGE of the college they are trying to construct?