Letters from our community in response to the Israel-Hamas war, on-campus protests
Get the latest Syracuse news delivered right to your inbox.
Subscribe to our newsletter here.
The Daily Orange has received an influx of Letters to the Editor in response to the Israel-Hamas war. Some of these submissions are featured here.
As members of our community continue to send Letters to the Editor, we will continue to update this page.
SU AAUP says Provost Ritter’s Nov. 9 campus-wide email jeopardizes academic freedom
Syracuse University AAUP Statement on Patterns of Administrative Attacks on Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech
We write again to express our concern with the Syracuse University Administration’s failure to protect academic freedom and freedom of speech demonstrated in the campus-wide email on Nov. 9. In the statement, Provost Gretchen Ritter and Chief Student Experience Officer Allen Groves rebuked a student speaker at a peaceful rally who argued that the actions of specific student groups and members of the administration had, according to The Daily Orange, “promoted the ethnic cleansing of Gaza.”
The email labeled those comments as “reprehensible,” and characterized the speech of the student as “putting a group of our students, based on their identity, at risk of harassment, retaliation and potential violence.”
The administration’s equation of criticism of the actions of student groups to attacks on their identity provided a skewed perception of this student’s claims. The email further intimated that there would be an institutional investigation and potential sanctions for that student speaker, and said that the administration was in touch with “law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, to monitor for any specific threats.”
In its promise of sanctions and invocation of the FBI, the Nov. 9 email clearly goes beyond the pale. To invoke the coordination of the administration with the FBI in response to a peaceful protest communicates a chilling message about the right to peaceful protest and the expression of controversial views.
This recent communique is part of a larger pattern of administrative attacks on academic freedom and freedom of speech at this university. We believe that the various communications from the administration -– signed by Ritter but coordinated with others in leadership — have done great harm to academic freedom at the university while also purporting to defend it in those same communications.
The Syracuse University Chapter of the American Association of University Professors wishes to affirm that the right to criticize entrenched power structures is at the heart of academic freedom and freedom of speech, and faculty see our role as defenders of academic freedom as protecting the speech of students themselves as a pedagogical imperative.
Speakers will vary in their characterization of perceived injustices and will choose for themselves how to give voice to their views. Deeming critical speech as threatening or hostile and thus subject to investigation and sanction by the university is censorship and constitutes the denial of freedom of speech rights central to university life.
In the current geopolitical crisis in which we find ourselves, members of our university community with diverse perspectives will continue to highlight and magnify critical issues, and it is essential that all members of the community are able to speak to the events that they observe in their own voices and with their own perspectives. It is not the role of the administration to adjudicate such speech or, most importantly, to threaten sanction for speech that they disagree with.
The AAUP’s 1994 statement “On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes” defends the need for the greatest possible tolerance of controversial speech acts on campus, asserting:
“…while we can acknowledge both the weight of… concerns [regarding provocative speech] and the thoughtfulness of those persuaded of the need for regulation, rules that ban or punish speech based upon its content cannot be justified. … Indeed, by proscribing any ideas, a university sets an example that profoundly disserves its academic mission.”
When it comes to speech some find objectionable, the AAUP maintains university leaders rely on, “suasion rather than sanctions.” With this guiding principle in mind, the AAUP maintains that contrary to recent statements from the administration at the University Senate, we cannot condone sacrificing academic freedom to “student safety” in the absence of a clearly articulated, and mutually agreed upon, definition of “safety,” as well as a tangible threat in terms also agreed upon by the community as a whole.
The atmosphere of fear and silencing is what is actually making students and faculty alike feel unsafe in expressing their views. The SU Chapter of the AAUP will continue to fight to ensure these vital principles are protected on our campus even in times of political crisis and polarization.
Syracuse University Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (SU AAUP)
SU’s American Association of University Professors believes in peaceful discussion
The Syracuse University chapter of the American Association of University Professors endorses the position of the AAUP National’s Committee A Statement on “Academic Freedom and Outside Speakers” , which indicates that universities must make every effort to honor the opportunity for campus groups to invite speakers and not cancel these events due to claims about the inability to provide security, lack of balance or concerns about 501(c)(3) status.
In keeping with that statement, the SU Chapter of the AAUP affirms the right of students and faculty to invite speakers to campus who take strong stands on issues of local, national and global importance. Academic freedom and shared governance requires that faculty and students are free to organize such events without administrative vetting or undue interference. We expect that with enough notice and planning that the university should guarantee the safety and security of these speakers and that their events not be canceled or “postponed.”
We find this statement urgent, especially in the wake of the cancellation of a recent speaker’s teach-in “The Occupation in Palestine” featuring Dr. Rabab Abdulhadi of San Francisco State University on campus. Dr. Abdulhadi was invited to Syracuse University for a teach-in on Oct. 31 by the Africa Initiative, Black Graduate Students Association (BGSA) and the African Graduate Student Network (AGSN).
Dr. Abdulhadi’s visit was canceled on the SU campus by the administration the day of the event. This was announced at the last minute under the email communication headline issued by Chancellor Kent Syverud and Vice Provost Gretchen Ritter : “Prioritizing the Safety of Our Community.”
While we understand that security risks were assessed and thought to be serious enough to warrant cancellation by the administration and Department of Public Safety, questions remain: how can the administration of SU guarantee academic freedom for outside speakers and those who invite them in times of contestation? How are threats against speakers and those who invite them being addressed? How can this kind of last-minute cancellation be avoided? How can we ensure that security is not used as a mechanism to cancel or postpone events? How can universities ensure greater transparency on the full reasoning of decisions to cancel academic events?
We bring forward points from Committee A’s report to affirm the importance of academic freedom in relation to academic freedom and outside speakers:
- “All members of the academic community will respect the right of others to listen to those who have been invited to speak on campus and will indicate disagreement not by disruptive action designed to silence the speaker but by reasoned debate and discussion as befits academic freedom in a community of higher learning.”
- Colleges and universities bear the obligation to ensure conditions of peaceful discussion, which at times can be quite onerous.
- “Only in the most extraordinary circumstances can strong evidence of imminent danger justify rescinding an invitation to an outside speaker.”
- So long as the range of a university’s extracurricular programming is educationally justifiable, the specific invitations of particular groups should not be vetoed by university administrators because these invitations are said to lack balance. Campus groups should not be prevented from pursuing the very interests that they have been created to explore.
In the current context of repression and interdiction of particular positions on campus by the administration, this cancellation of the on-campus location was particularly unfortunate. We expect that the strongest possible efforts will be exerted to avoid speaker cancellations or postponements in future.
SU AAUP Executive Committee
Syracuse College of Law students call for university support against antisemitism
As Jewish law students and Syracuse University alum, we must speak up in the face of great injustice and darkness in the world.
On the 85th anniversary of Kristallnacht, students around the country, including here at SU, organized a protest to walk out from their classes to condemn Israel. In doing so, they specifically named Jewish organizations on campus, calling them complicit in the events unfolding in Israel and Gaza. Jewish students are afraid to come to campus because of this. These attacks are unacceptable.
Beyond that, the protestors used slogans and chants, such as “from the river to the sea,” recognized by Congress and the president as antisemitic. Some governments have gone so far as to criminalize the use of the slogan. It is recognized by Jews as an explicit call for the destruction and annihilation of Jews in Israel — a call for genocide.
The phrase has historical roots in “pushing the Jews into the sea,” as invading armies stated, and to eradicate Jews as Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (“PIJ”) have explicitly called for. It’s the same call for genocide that Hamas and PIJ acted on on Oct. 7 when they murdered over 1,200 people in brutal fashion, massacring hundreds at a musical festival, raping women, burning people alive, beheading them and gunning people down in the streets and in their homes. Hamas kidnapped over 240 people and launched incessant rocket barrages, with more than 9,500 rockets fired, at civilian centers within Israel — each one of those being individual war crimes and crimes against humanity.
While we, too, grieve the innocent lives lost in Gaza, it cannot become an excuse to attack Jews around the world or here at Syracuse. Nor can it be understood through a lens of bigotry, bias and untruths. Compassion for all those who are suffering, Israeli and Palestinian, does not have to be mutually exclusive.
Expressing our fears as Jews of the historic rise in antisemitism should not be met with the qualifier of questioning if we mourn for the innocent Palestinians in Gaza.
Oct. 7 was the deadliest day for Jews since the gas chambers closed in Europe. Today, we are seeing a nearly unprecedented amount of antisemitism around the world. Our Orange community is not immune from that.
The threats from the walkout on Nov. 9 were not isolated events attacking Jewish students at SU. There have been professors singling out Jewish students to make them feel unwelcome and a campus speaker who praised Leila Khaled — an active leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. However, the original event in which she was meant to speak was later canceled. It must stop. Syracuse’s administration must act immediately to ensure the safety and security of our community – the entire community.
Our own students do not feel safe enough to identify themselves as Jews on this campus. From undergraduate classrooms to the College of Law, Jewish students fear for their safety and the safety of their friends and family. We had to sign students as “anonymous” due to their fear of reprisal for this letter.
These threats against Jewish students are not unique to SU, from The Cooper Union, where Jewish students were locked into the library after telling security they felt unsafe, to Cornell University, where another student made explicit actionable threats against Jewish students or even at New York University, where a Jewish student was assaulted. These are just a few examples from New York but the same hatred is happening all over the country and world.
The safety of antisemites on our college campuses has led the U.S. Department of Education to send warning letters to all institutions of higher education regarding antisemitism on their campuses, requiring them to address it. The Biden administration backed that up with their own statement about the alarming rise of antisemitism across campuses. SU must also step up and protect its students.
That does not mean that Israel is free from criticism. Still, there is a definition for antisemitism adopted by nearly the entire Jewish world, and we see time and time again that anti-Israel activism brazenly runs past the line of what is acceptable and into what is antisemitism. You can and should speak up with honesty and conviction without crossing that line.
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Martin Niemöller
Never Again Is Now.
Elliot Malin, MPA; JD Candidate ‘24
Eduardo Kreimerman Meyohas; JD Candidate ‘24
Matan Dragon; JD Candidate ‘25
Anonymous; JD Candidate
Anonymous; JD Candidate
Anonymous; JD Candidate
Anonymous; JD Candidate
Anonymous; L ‘23
Members of Syracuse Jews for Peace call for discussion without harmful response
As members of Syracuse Jews for Peace affiliated with Syracuse University and SUNY-ESF, we respond with alarm to the incendiary email sent to the university community by Provost Gretchen Ritter and Senior Vice President Allen Groves following the peaceful Palestinian freedom demonstration on Nov. 9.
We extend compassion to everyone feeling fear and grief at this time. As Islamophobia, anti-Arab racism, and antisemitism are on the rise, we must remember that we create safety in educational institutions through solidarity, keeping conversations open, and fostering an intellectual environment that uplifts instead of repressing and criminalizing marginalized voices.
We address three specific concerns:
The email sensationalizes feeling over fact. Threatening students with law enforcement and the FBI, when the students present no threat, is intimidation of the mostly Arab, Muslim, Jewish, Black, and Indigenous students and faculty who participated in the march. This attempt to silence community members speaking against an unfolding genocide — as affirmed by international law and the United Nations — is, to borrow Ritter’s words, “reprehensible behavior.”
The email identifies one speaker’s naming of Jewish student organizations who sponsored an on-campus event as endangering students, even though the sponsors identified themselves on campus promotional fliers. The speaker named these organizations to demonstrate that while pro-Israel events are allowed on campus, pro-Palestinian events and solidarity statements have been cancelled. We strongly support this student’s right to share their analysis in a public forum without reprisal. The University’s response represses valid opposition to genocide rather than fostering understanding. Furthermore, University leadership’s public accusation and leveraging of law enforcement and yet-to-be-investigated complaints subjects the speaker and others present to fear and danger.
The email endangers Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, Black folks, Jews, and all other voices speaking out against two of the world’s most powerful military states, which collude to enact genocide despite calls from the UN, humanitarian organizations, and 68 percent of the American public for a CEASEFIRE. The administration’s collaboration with the FBI is a continuation of COINTELPRO-style surveillance not lost on students of history and social change. Ritter’s letter has already inspired the press to misrepresent the peaceful demonstration, fomenting unnecessary fear and further dividing our campus.
We also address the larger context that informs the impact of Provost Ritter’s letter: conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Zionism (endorsing the concept of a Jewish ethno-nation-state in Palestine), anti-Zionism, and criticism of Israeli policy are political ideas shared by some Jews and non-Jews alike. While antisemitic tropes have long been invoked to justify persecution of Jews, conflation of antisemitism with criticism of Israel is recent and intentional. Jewish peoples have existed thousands of years in diverse global cultures before the settler-colonial state of Israel was founded 75 years ago. Hinging Jewish safety and existence to the state of Israel is likewise a recent project.
Conflating critique of Israel with antisemitism, or aligning Jews as a monolith with the political project of Zionism, is dangerous and antisemitic. Jews who criticize and oppose Zionism and the Israeli nation-state project have existed as long as Zionism. The majority of Zionists in the world are, in fact, Christians. Moreover, just as Zionist Jews are among those leading support for Israel’s military campaign against Palestinians, anti-Zionist and anti-occupation Jews are among those leading urgent CEASEFIRE demonstrations calling to end the siege, bombardment and occupation of Palestine.
After Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack, the Anti-Defamation League – a pro-Israel and pro-Zionist nonprofit – lobbied college and university presidents to investigate pro-Palestinian and Jewish anti-Zionist campus groups and rewrite University policies. This is one of the ADL’s many ongoing attempts to define any critique of Israel as antisemitism; villainize, silence and discredit Jews and non-Jews who disagree with Israel’s policies; and scare university administrators into compliance and complicity with genocide.
According to the Jerusalem Declaration, signed by approximately 350 global scholars, criticism of Israel and its practices is not antisemitic. We urge the university administration and community to read this document.
As an institution of higher education, SU should hold space for difficult conversation, uncomfortable discourse around ideology and political disagreement on campus. University community members must stay present for respectful, evidence-based discourse–including across intellectual and political differences. We insist that pro-Palestinian perspectives and criticism of Israel be welcomed within this discourse. Critiquing a nation-state and its policies, especially policies with high human, environmental and political costs must be supported on college campuses. We must protect political and academic speech, even and especially when it involves critique of our own government and its allies.
Just last week, the Israeli Knesset banned antiwar protest and criminalized the “consumption of terrorist material”—including engaging peaceful pro-Palestinian social media posts. Let us be clear: these are the actions of a fascist regime. We refuse to stay silent.
We must be permitted to discuss ideologies that motivate an ongoing genocide, to name atrocities committed in our names and with our tax dollars and hold our institutions accountable for silencing speech. We will not be complicit in irrevocable harm to all humanity.
As Jews we say: NOT IN OUR NAMES. NEVER AGAIN MEANS NEVER AGAIN FOR ANYONE. CEASEFIRE NOW. FREE ALL HOSTAGES AND POLITICAL PRISONERS. FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA, PALESTINE WILL BE FREE.
Signed,
Jess Posner, Part-Time Faculty, School of Art, CVPA; B.S. ‘08, Newhouse
LJ Jaffee, PhD ‘20, Cultural Foundations of Education
Gemma Cooper-Novack, PhD ‘22, Literacy Education
Sarah Howard, MS ‘22, SUNY ESF; Current SUNY ESF staff
Olivia Kurz, PhD Student, SUNY ESF
Hannah (Beryl) Rappaport, Biology Lab Technician, College of Arts & Sciences
Sarah Acker-Krzywicki, Student, SUNY ESF
Carole Resnick, PhD ‘79, Psychology
Avital Datskovsky, PhD Student, Anthropology
Molly Jo Gorevan, MFA Student, Creative Writing
Franz Krueger, neighbor of SU and lifelong resident
Dana Carmeli, BA SUNY Geneseo
Eli Flores, Westcott neighborhood resident and Syracuse community member
Kali Steinberg, Colgate University Staff
University administration is complicit in the very actions they condemn
To Gretchen Ritter and Allen Groves:
It is appalling to read your Nov. 9 communique to the Syracuse University community.
It is reckless and incendiary for you to single out and target one student speaker from the Nov. 9 protest calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, and to do so in the name of student “safety.” Student speakers, protest organizers and participants, including Jewish, secular, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist and Christian students, do not feel safer.
It is McCarthy-esque to announce you have called in FBI surveillance, also in the name of campus safety. Student-activists at SU who publicly support an end to the Israeli bombardment of Gaza, who have already been contacted by the FBI, do not feel safer.
It is outrageous to publicly censure and threaten disciplinary action against a speaker at the Nov. 9 event when, Provost Ritter, you were one of the SU community members charged at the protest with complicity in an unfolding genocide, as reported Nov. 9 by The Daily Orange. You are not a disinterested bystander to the event.
It is false and an incitement to tell the SU community that during the protest specific student organizations were named as complicit in genocide because of their “identity” when in fact, as reported in The D.O., complicity was linked to specific actions taken by those organizations; when in fact, many participants in the protest share an “identity” with students in those organizations; and, when in fact, speakers also addressed the broader university as complicit.
Speakers made crystal clear that it is not antisemitism to oppose Israel’s genocidal war and those who support it; your communications have not done so. It is manipulative and incendiary, as leaders of this educational institution in a time of ferocious state violence against Palestinians funded and protected by the U.S. government, to provide zero context in your communique for the protest and the speeches — part of a planned national walk-out on Day 34 of Israeli slaughter in Gaza.
It is a lie to close your Nov. 9 letter stating your support for academic freedom and free speech when the letter is the latest in a pattern of speech and actions by the Provost’s office and SU administrators to encourage self-censorship, fear, anxiety, silencing and political conformity and repression among SU community members.
Jackie Orr, Associate Professor Emeritus, Sociology Department
Jtorr@syr.edu
Protestors ignore the scope and depth of Jewish history
In response to “After hundreds march to support Palestine, Ritter, Groves address ‘reprehensible behavior’ from protestor.”
Last Thursday, activists on campus protested the staggering loss of human life in Gaza following in the wake of the unprecedented assault and abuse of civilians in Israel on Oct.7 by Hamas, including murder, rape and abduction. Ignoring the crimes against humanity committed by Hamas terrorists, speakers at Syracuse University claimed that anti-Zionism does not constitute antisemitism. They did so without understanding what constitutes antisemitism or how anti-Zionist activism manifests anti-Jewish animus.
Binary settler-colonial rubrics and the hostile cacophony of calls to “free Palestine from river to sea” under the banner of “resistance” mean nothing other than the elimination of the State of Israel. Israel is itself a politically and morally fraught, but a central fulcrum of contemporary Jewish life.
The State of Israel was established as a place of refuge for a long-suffering people. It became a national home for the renewal of Jewish life after the Holocaust, an in-gathering of the Jewish people from across the world, including refugees from Morocco, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere from across the Middle East and North Africa.
As reported by The Daily Orange, SU protestors chanted “Zionism has to go,” accused the SU Administration of aligning with so-called “Zionist donors” and targeted by name all the Jewish organizations at SU at a time of rising antisemitism and antisemitic violence in North America and Europe.
Calling for the destruction of a national entity is included in the very definition of genocide, as defined by the United Nations in 1948. Associating Jews with money and power is an antisemitic staple. The public calling out of Jewish organizations by name is a threatening act. It is safe to assume that most protestors know little about Jewish history or the history of Zionism. Student activists and their supporters seem unable to grasp that it is possible to be pro-Palestine and pro-Israel, anti-Hamas and anti-Netanyahu.
Students and faculty with direct contact with people in the region are reeling from the violence of the Israel-Hamas war, the loss of life in Israel and acute Palestinian suffering. In response, anti-Zionism isolates the larger Jewish student and faculty body while losing sight of principles of mutual human recognition upon which a just and peaceful resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict depends.
Zachary Braiterman, Professor, Department of Religion/Jewish Studies Program
Zbraiter@syr.edu
SU’s decision to stifle, condemn peaceful demonstrations fails its students
An open letter to administration, faculty and students.
I hope this letter finds you in a moment of reflection on the values we hold dear at Syracuse University. As a Jewish alumnus writing from California, I feel compelled to express my profound anger and deep disappointment at the university’s woefully inadequate response to the suffering imposed on Gaza. While there is much to discuss regarding the nuanced dynamics between Israel and Palestine, this letter aims to scrutinize specifically the actions, or in some cases the inaction, taken by SU, which has left me seriously questioning our institution’s commitment to inclusivity and academic freedom.
As the global spotlight focuses on the profound human tragedy unfolding in Gaza, reputable academic institutions should seize every opportunity to cultivate a safe space for all Israeli, Jewish, Muslim and Palestinian students. Furthermore, it should eagerly embrace its obligation to educate its students on unfolding real-time issues. Unfortunately, this proactive approach does not appear to align with the current stance of my alma mater.
I am profoundly dismayed by the university’s recent decisions. The Orwellian choice to involve the FBI in response to student activism, the university’s muted response to students’ requests and instances of targeted racist acts towards faculty such as the case with Dr. Himika Bhattacharya, have not only been inadequately communicated to alumni — crucial stakeholders in the institution’s legacy — but have also raised serious questions about the motivations guiding these decisions.
From my understanding — derived from ongoing conversations with undergraduate friends due to what appears to be a lack of transparent communication from SU — there have been attempts to intimidate and censor expressions of support and solidarity with Palestine.
On Oct. 18, the Women’s and Gender Studies department bravely issued a statement in solidarity with Palestinians, condemning the excessive use of militaristic power by Israel. Moreover, on Oct. 31, Chancellor Kent Syverud and Provost Gretchen Ritter informed the student body that they canceled a peaceful teach-in initiated by students to educate the SU community on the violence happening in Gaza. The reason given was citing “safety concerns,” further stressing the need for meticulous planning to ensure free speech in a time and place deemed suitable for the safety of the community.
History, however, teaches us that during pivotal moments, such as the civil rights movement or the Vietnam War, true free speech did not wait until a convenient setting. It is especially disheartening to hear that this is happening at a time when members of your student body, who have family in Gaza, are enduring unimaginable hardships and loss and are seeking community.
A distressing reality unfolds as students and families harass professors speaking out on the Gaza crisis. Dr. Bhattacharya faced hostility for supporting the WGS department, with a petition actively seeking her removal for “Jew hatred.” Failing to promptly denounce such behavior isn’t an oversight; it endorses a toxic culture unsuitable for our institution.
As a Jewish individual, I’m profoundly disturbed by the disconnect evident in those advocating faculty dismissal. Those propelling the petition have failed to engage in substantive research or peruse the WGS department’s statement in question. Drawing from the statement itself, the WGS department asserts, “These dominant narratives also purposely and repeatedly conflate criticism of the state of Israel with antisemitism. We reject these conflations and oppose antisemitism unequivocally.”
The university’s deliberate distortion of this statement raises serious questions about the motivations behind the petition. Syverud and Ritter’s silence in the face of such harassment and baseless accusations is a complicity and blatant failure to protect academic freedom and uphold the principles of a safe and inclusive academic environment.
Jewish identity is becoming intertwined with Zionist beliefs, a development that deeply concerns me. Jewish individuals are currently navigating a complex double-bind, wherein publicly rebuking the actions of Israel may invoke a sense of straying from what is perceived as “good Jewishness.”
We must reject the temptation of this false dichotomy. Opposing the ruthless and indiscriminate killings of the most marginalized does not make you antisemitic. As a Jewish individual who grew up in a synagogue that waves the Israeli flag, I understand the deep connection many have to Israel. But it is entirely possible to be Jewish and denounce the actions unfolding in Israel. The oversimplified framework surrounding discussions on Israel leaves little room for nuanced perspectives, fostering a polarized environment that stifles meaningful dialogue.
It is possible, and essential, to speak out against the actions of the nation of Israel without implicating the entire Jewish religion. Pretending otherwise creates a dangerous dogma that stifles legitimate dissent and diverse perspectives, hindering meaningful discourse on a complex issue.
On Oct. 28, United Nations Human Rights official Craig Mokhiber urgently declared, “We are seeing a genocide unfolding before our eyes, and the Organization that we serve appears powerless to stop it.” However, on Nov. 9, when, a student echoed these sentiments, allegedly accusing organizations that support Israel — distinct from them being Jewish — of being “complicit” with genocide, SU’s response was glaringly selective.
The campus-wide email conveniently omitted this crucial context. The speaker’s comment was the singular aspect of the entire protest that the university chose to address, conspicuously neglecting to issue any statements regarding the safety of Palestinian and Muslim students.
The decision to escalate the situation, despite the acknowledgement that the university was “not aware of any current threats,” reflects a pattern marked by disproportionality. The university’s reliance on manipulative and intimidating language not only compromises the foundational principles of free expression but also contributes to an environment where specific demographics face marginalization and neglect.
Having graduated from the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs in May, I reflect on the esteemed reputation it holds. The core of Maxwell’s acclaim lies in its dedication to nurturing a community of scholars committed to responsible citizenship and the proactive pursuit of a more inclusive and healthier society. Emphasized by Maxwell is the institution’s aspiration to “prepare new generations of leaders with an expansive foundation of knowledge and a socially responsible mindset.” How can we anticipate current students evolving into informed leaders with these morals when the university appears to actively stifle the voices of peaceful protestors?
These incidents, coupled with the university’s silence, call into question the institution’s commitment to fostering an inclusive and intellectually vibrant community. The path Syverud is currently treading stifles the very principles the university claims to uphold. It’s time for Syracuse University to bridge the gap between rhetoric and action.
Bailee Roberts, baileejaye@gmail.com
