Meet USC Valedictorian Asna Tabassum: School Cancels Commencement Speech by Pro-Palestinian Studentby Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
April 18, 2024
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/4/18/ ... transcriptAmid widespread repression of pro-Palestinian voices on campuses across the United States, we speak to University of Southern California valedictorian Asna Tabassum, whose commencement speech has been canceled for what the university claimed were “safety” reasons after Tabassum became the subject of an online anti-Palestinian hate campaign led by pro-Israel groups. “When I had asked for details regarding the security concerns,” says Tabassum of learning about the cancellation, “I was offered no information and was told it was not appropriate for me to know.” Tabassum, a first-generation South Asian American Muslim graduating with a major in biomedical engineering and a minor in resistance to genocide, says the unprecedented cancellation of her speech has been “heartbreaking.”
TranscriptThis is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Today we’ll look at the repression of pro-Palestinian voices on campuses across the United States. In a moment we’ll look at Wednesday’s congressional hearings where the president of Columbia University was grilled for hours about accusations of antisemitism on campus. But we begin with the University of Southern California, which continues to be rocked by controversy after canceling the commencement speech of its valedictorian for what it claimed were “safety” reasons after she became the subject of an online anti-Palestinian hate campaign.
AMY GOODMAN: Democracy Now! co-host Juan González and I interviewed Asna Tabassum, who is a first-generation South Asian American Muslim on Wednesday. I began by welcoming her to Democracy Now!
ASNA TABASSUM: Thank you for having me. I appreciate it.
AMY GOODMAN: So, why don’t you give us the chronology of what happened? I mean, to be the valedictorian of this elite university, the University of Southern California, is such an enormous achievement. Can you talk about when you learned you’d become the valedictorian and when you learned you would be giving the speech at graduation? And what happened next?
ASNA TABASSUM: Absolutely. So, part of the selection process of becoming valedictorian is the willingness to give a speech during commencement. And so, when I got the call, I believe in the second week of March or so, it was during Ramadan, and I was incredibly happy to receive the honor and incredibly grateful. And that was the moment I also knew that I would have the chance and the opportunity to address my peers during commencement.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And when did you hear that the university had changed its mind? And who contacted you?
ASNA TABASSUM: Of course. So, I was contacted by the administration on Monday, actually, this past Monday, shortly before the statement was released, that I would unfortunately no longer be allowed to give the commencement address for the class of 2024.
AMY GOODMAN: How typical is that, Asna? Does the valedictorian always give the speech?
ASNA TABASSUM: Yes, as far as I know, in history of USC. And in fact, I asked the provost this himself, you know: Has this ever happened to a USC valedictorian? And in fact, I think we both agreed that, to the best of our knowledge, it has never happened before.
AMY GOODMAN: And what exactly did he say when he explained to you it was for safety reasons? Did he talk about — talk to you about what the threats are?
ASNA TABASSUM: So, that’s exactly the question here, is that I received no details as to what the security threats or what the security concerns were. You know, I heard that there were hundreds and thousands of emails sent to the university, but I was given no clue as to what the contents of these emails were, as well as, for example, the university had said that there were other security concerns in relation to having a big event such as commencement. But, you know, even details there were unclear. And so, when I had asked for details regarding the security concerns — for example, were they security concerns about me or my classmates? — I was offered no information and was told it was not appropriate for me to know.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Now, were you aware that pro-Israel student groups were targeting you on on social media, that a group called We Are Tov posted a photo of you on its Instagram account and claimed that you were, quote, “openly” — that you “openly promote antisemitic writings”?
ASNA TABASSUM: It’s honestly heartbreaking, yes. Once I was shortly — once I was announced on social media, through USC student media, it only took a few hours before such posts began circulating. And it launched a very generalized and, honestly, very hateful and disappointing campaign to remove me as valedictorian, yes.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to the issue that wasn’t raised by the provost, but in your Instagram bio, you link to a pro-Palestine landing page that reads, in part, “learn about what’s happening in palestine, and how to help.” Some students took to social media to express their opposition to it due to the language on the landing page. The website states, quote, “zionism is a racist settler-colonial ideology that advocates for a jewish ethnostate built on palestinian land.” The website also states, quote, “one palestinian state would mean palestinian liberation, and the complete abolishment of the state of israel,” end-quote. Can you talk about that and talk about when you linked to that page, and your feelings about this?
ASNA TABASSUM: Sure. So, there are a few points that I’d like to clarify. The first is that a university and students have the responsibility to engage in productive and meaningful discussion. And we’re allowed to learn from one another’s ideas and express those ideas so that we can all grow. And I think that that’s the beauty of an academic institution.
But another factor that I’d like to bring up is that there are other form — there are other pieces of information in that link. You know, there are paragraphs and information relating to the two-state solution, as well, as well as the one-state. The sentence right after the one you just quoted talks about coexistence between Arabs and Jews. You know, there’s a lot of factors here. And my goal in putting the link in my bio is simply to inform my fellow peers in the small ways that I can. But, ultimately, what I want people to take away is for people to inform themselves, come to their own conclusions, and then advocate for what they believe in.
And so, in no way am I advocating for hate. I am only advocating for human equality and for the sanctity of human life when I say that Palestinians, as well as Jews, as well as Muslims and Armenians and anyone else who is invested in this conflict, has the equal right to life and the equal privilege of the fullest extent to life.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Could you tell us more about yourself? You’re majoring in biomedical engineering and minoring in resistance to genocide. What inspired you to follow these courses of study?
ASNA TABASSUM: This is my favorite question, especially because, you know, as you might know, I’ve been doing a lot of interviews recently, and I wish people more talked about my biomedical engineering major, as well, because I think it’s an important part of who I am and my worldview.
That being said, the way that I see my major and my minor working together, for the very same goal, is that, you know, my minor in resistance to genocide allows me to study the human condition at possibly one of its worst conditions, and then biomedical engineering is my way of learning technically how we can improve the human condition through increasing health accessibility.
And so, the ways that I specifically see this are, for example, when I learn about the Rwandan genocide or the Holocaust or various other forms of genocides and conflicts through my minor, I look at the ways in which healthcare and health are impeded and the ways in which the quality of life are impeded, so that I can build devices and health technologies, using my major and using the education and the information I learn in my major of biomedical engineering, to see how we can develop low-cost and accessible point-of-care devices, so that we can improve the ways in which people experience healthcare when they are at their most in need of healthcare.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about, if you were giving the speech — I mean, this speech would be given in May — right? — at graduation. So isn’t there still a possibility that USC could change their mind? What would your speech be? What would you say to the USC community?
ASNA TABASSUM: So, you know, I actually have not considered and actually started writing my speech. But, of course, this experience is informing me how I want to go about it. But, ultimately, my message is one of hope. I think something that I truly believe in, given my familial background and, you know, the way I was raised, is that education is such a privilege. And using the ways that we have learned how to learn, it’s incumbent upon us to look at the world and see what we see, and then take information and make conclusions so that we can change the world in the ways that we want to. And so, in accordance with my message of hope, I also want to do a message of inspiration, so that our graduates and my peers can feel empowered to take on issues of world concern and see themselves in positions of making change.
AMY GOODMAN: You’ve talked about an online hate campaign against you. Can you describe more what you have received?
ASNA TABASSUM: Sure. You know, I’ve received incredibly disappointing comments. And I think it’s an unfortunate part of, you know, expressing who you are and expressing what you believe in. But I do want to call attention to the overwhelming support. And I think that anybody who is watching this unfold is seeing that various communities, from Muslim communities to Jewish communities to South Asian and first-generation American communities, all coming together to see this as something bigger and as something representative of a collective voice. And so, you know, while there is hatred out there, I do want to give my kudos to the people who have been seeing the inspiration and seeing the hope as this unfolds.
AMY GOODMAN: University of Southern California valedictorian Asna Tabassum. She joined us Wednesday on Democracy Now! after USC cancelled her commencement speech for what it claims are “safety” reasons after Asna became the subject of an online hate campaign.
***
The New McCarthyism: Congress Grills Columbia Univ. President Amid Crackdown on Pro-Palestine Speechby Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
April 18, 2024
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/4/18/ ... transcriptIn nearly four hours of grueling congressional testimony before the Republican-led Committee on Education and the Workforce, the president of Columbia University, Nemat “Minouche” Shafik, said she had taken serious action against accusations of antisemitism on campus in recent months amid Israel’s assault on Gaza, including dismissing or removing five faculty members from the classroom, suspending 15 students and suspending two student groups — Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace. Shafik’s visit to Capitol Hill is the latest in a series of hearings on alleged antisemitism at elite U.S. private schools. In December, similar hearings led to the resignations of the presidents of Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania. Our guests Nara Milanich and Rebecca Jordan-Young, both professors at Barnard College and Columbia University, respond to the televised hearings. “What happened at those hearings yesterday should be of grave concern to everybody,” warns Jordan-Young. “What we got was a live performance [of President Shafik] throwing the entire university system under the bus.” Adds Milanich, “Antisemitism here is being used as a wedge. It’s being used as a Trojan horse for a very different political agenda.”
TranscriptThis is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: The president of Columbia University was grilled at a congressional hearing Wednesday about allegations of antisemitism on campus. In nearly four hours of grueling testimony before the Republican-led Committee on Education and the Workforce, Minouche Shafik said she had taken serious action against the accusations, including dismissing or removing five faculty members from the classroom in recent months for comments related to Israel’s assault on Gaza, as well as suspending 15 students and two student groups — Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace. Shafik’s visit to Capitol Hill came after a December hearing that led to the resignations of the presidents of Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania.
AMY GOODMAN: In the run-up to the congressional hearing, a group of Jewish faculty at Columbia and Barnard penned an open letter addressed to President Shafik expressing their concerns about, quote, “the false narratives that frame these proceedings to entrap witnesses” and labeling the hearings a, quote, “new McCarthyism.”
During yesterday’s testimony, Lisa McClain, the Republican congressmember from Michigan, questioned Shafik over a number of pro-Palestinian slogans, including “from the river to the sea.”
REP. LISA McCLAIN: My question to you: Are mobs shouting, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” or “Long live the [intifada]” — are those antisemitic comments?
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: When I hear those terms, I find them very upsetting. And I have heard —
REP. LISA McCLAIN: That’s a great answer to a question I didn’t ask. So let me repeat the question. When mobs or people are shouting, “From the river to the sea, Palestine must be free,” or “Long live the [intifada],” are those antisemitic statements? Yes or no? It’s not how you feel. It’s —
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: I hear them as such. Some people don’t. We have sent a clear message —
REP. LISA McCLAIN: So, is that yes? So, is that yes?
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: We have sent a clear message to our community.
REP. LISA McCLAIN: I’m not asking about the message.
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: Yeah.
REP. LISA McCLAIN: Is that fall under definition of antisemitic behavior? Yes or no? Why is it so tough?
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: Because it’s a — it’s a difficult issue because —
REP. LISA McCLAIN: I realize it’s a difficult issue.
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: — some people hear it as antisemitic, other people do not.
REP. LISA McCLAIN: But here’s the problem, is when people can’t answer a simple question, and they have a definition, but then they can’t — “Well, I’m not really sure if that qualifies.”
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: So, we’ve done —
REP. LISA McCLAIN: I’m asking a simple question. Maybe I should ask your task force. Does that qualify as antisemitic behavior, those statements? Yes or no?
DAVID SCHIZER: Yes.
REP. LISA McCLAIN: Yes. OK.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Later in the hearing, Republican Georgia Congressmember Rick Allen brought up the Bible in his questioning of Shafik. He cited the Old and New Testament and asked Shafik if [she] wanted Columbia University to be cursed by God.
REP. RICK ALLEN: Are you familiar with Genesis 12:3?
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: Probably not as well as you are, Congressman.
REP. RICK ALLEN: Well, it’s pretty clear. It was the covenant that God made with Abraham. And that covenant was real clear: “If you bless Israel, I will bless you. If you curse Israel, I will curse you.” And then, in the New Testament, it was confirmed that all nations would be blessed through you. So, you do not know about that?
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: I have heard that, now that you’ve explained it.
REP. RICK ALLEN: OK.
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: Yes, I have heard that before.
REP. RICK ALLEN: So, it’s now familiar. Do you consider that a serious issue? I mean, do you want Columbia University to be cursed by God, of the Bible?
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: Definitely not.
REP. RICK ALLEN: OK. Well, that’s good.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Much of the questioning on Wednesday focused on Columbia’s handling of faculty. New York Republican Congressmember Elise Stefanik led the charge. She grilled the president about her testimony on both the protests at Columbia and about professor Joseph Massad, a professor of modern Arab politics who chairs an academic review committee.
REP. ELISE STEFANIK: Dr. Shafik, you realize that at some of these events, the slurs and the chants have been “F— the Jews,” “Death to Jews” —
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: Yeah.
REP. ELISE STEFANIK: — “F— Israel,” “No safe place, death to the Zionist state,” “Jews out.” You don’t think those are anti-Jewish?
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: Completely anti-Jewish, completely unacceptable.
REP. ELISE STEFANIK: So you change your testimony —
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: Horrible.
REP. ELISE STEFANIK: — on that issue, as well? So, there have been anti-Jewish protests.
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: I didn’t get to finish my sentence. So, what I was going to say there were protests that were called that were — that had a —
REP. ELISE STEFANIK: That’s not what you were asked. You were asked: Were there any anti-Jewish protests? And you said no.
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: So, the protest was not labeled as an anti-Jewish protest. It was —
REP. ELISE STEFANIK: I’m not asking what it was labeled.
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: — labeled as an anti-Israeli government policy. But anti —
REP. ELISE STEFANIK: The question wasn’t what it was labeled.
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: But antisemitic incidents happened, or antisemitic things were said. So, I just wanted to finish —
REP. ELISE STEFANIK: It is an anti-Jewish protest. You agree with that? You change your testimony?
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: Congresswoman, anti-Jewish things were said at protests, yes.
REP. ELISE STEFANIK: Thank you for changing your testimony. Another instance when you changed your testimony is you stated that professor Massad was no longer chair, then you stated he’s under investigation. He is still chair on the website. So, has he been terminated as chair?
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: Congresswoman, I want to confirm the facts before getting back to you. I can confirm that he’s —
REP. ELISE STEFANIK: I know you confirmed that he was under investigation.
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: Yes, I can confirm that. But I —
REP. ELISE STEFANIK: Did you confirm he was still the chair?
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: I need — I need to confirm that with you. I want — I need to check.
REP. ELISE STEFANIK: Well, let me ask you this: Will you make the commitment to remove him as chair?
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: I think that would be — I think I would, yes.
AMY GOODMAN: In a statement emailed to Democracy Now!, professor Joseph Massad said Republicans had, quote, “fabricated statements” about him and that it was, quote, “news to him” that he was under investigation. He said no one had spoken to him about his chairmanship of the committee in question.
For more, we’re joined by two guests. Nara Milanich is a professor of history at Barnard College, part of Columbia University, who co-wrote an open letter to President Shafik titled “Jewish faculty reject the weaponization of antisemitism.” Professor Milanich is a member of the American Association of University Professors, or AAUP. And professor Rebecca Jordan-Young is also with us, professor in the Department of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Barnard College, at Columbia. She’s a member of the Columbia chapter of the American Association of University Professors. She’s also a member of the Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Professor Rebecca Jordan-Young, let’s begin with you. Your response to these hearings yesterday?
REBECCA JORDAN-YOUNG: My response is — well, first, let me just thank you for the opportunity to talk with you. It’s so important.
My first response is that what happened at those hearings yesterday should be of grave concern to everybody, regardless of their feelings on Palestine, regardless of their politics. What happened yesterday was a demonstration of the growing and intensifying attack on liberal education writ large.
So, there was an opportunity yesterday for President Shafik to come forward to mount a robust defense of the university as a unique site for debate of difficult ideas, for the fact that slogans can’t be reduced to soundbites, that in fact that what happens at the university is deep discussion, deep thought, and that, in fact, instead, what we got was a live performance of her not just throwing protesters and specific professors under the bus — which we somewhat anticipated, as awful as that was — but, in fact, throwing the entire university system under the bus, throwing out established policies and procedures of the university, throwing out rules that have been established by the American Association of University Professors for decades as best practices, actually announcing unilateral decisions on faculty members on live television, which she doesn’t actually have the authority, and the university, to do. And I could say more, but really I was astonished. It went worse even than any of us had expected.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, Professor Nara Milanich, if you could also respond, what most struck you about the hearing, and what Professor Young just said, that the debate, rather than it being a debate about difficult questions, it became extremely narrow, and professor — President, Columbia president, Shafik seemed to capitulate almost entirely, as Professor Young said, threw the entire university apparatus under the bus? If you could respond to that? What was your sense?
NARA MILANICH: So, my sense, one of the things that I learned is that congressional hearings are kind of like social media, which is to say they are wonderful places for political performance, for political theater, for soundbites, for “gotcha” moments, for interrupting one another. They are really terrible spaces to have deep debates about serious and contentious issues. And academic freedom is one of those issues. What goes on on campus and what is happening on campus right now is one of those issues. Where my freedom to speak ends and your right to be free of harassment begins, those are really difficult questions. And a congressional hearing, Twitter are not the places to be litigating these issues.
The place to be talking about these issues is on college campuses, in classrooms, in university quads, in dorm room hallways, right? Universities are precisely the place where we should be having these deep and difficult conversations. And instead, we have seen, time and again, that university administrators are ceding this conversation to people who have very different motives — right? — and who are engaging on these issues for very, very different reasons.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And if you could talk, Professor Young, about the establishment of this congressional committee, to begin with, and what we saw happening in December, which led to the resignation of two of the presidents of the top universities in the U.S.?
REBECCA JORDAN-YOUNG: Well, I think it’s been clear from the very beginning that this task force, that this committee, was actually never about antisemitism. This was about a broad attack on liberal education. And, you know, we have many people on this committee who have never before expressed any concern about antisemitism.
And what we saw was that antisemitism, or a particular interpretation of that, a very precise, very politically aligned interpretation of that, has been procedurally split off from discussion about all other forms of harassment, discrimination, violence, etc. — and this is really contrary to what we do in the university; certainly it’s contrary to what we do in my field — where, broadly, this has been created and used as an opportunity to attack all forms of liberatory, critical scholarship. It’s been a place where critical race studies have gotten attacked. It’s attacking DEI. And throughout, unfortunately, the university presidents who have been questioned, and yesterday President Shafik among them, and the rest of the members of the Columbia leadership, played along with this willingness to split these groups apart. But it’s absolutely against what we do both in scholarship and justice activism. We try to help students understand the intertwined nature of systems and power and oppression and discrimination.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, if you could say, in the past, how has Columbia University — in other instances of harassment for other reasons, how has Columbia University dealt with those complaints of harassment, persecution, etc., by students or by faculty?
REBECCA JORDAN-YOUNG: Well, there are disciplinary procedures in place, and have been for a very long time. And they involve members from all sectors of the university that both develop the policies and who are involved in adjudication of particular complaints.
What we’ve seen happening in the run-up to this particular hearing is it looked like the university was doubling down, or tripling down, on just how much surveillance and policing they could demonstrate ahead of time to say, “Look, we are a surveillance campus. We’re a law-and-order campus. There won’t be protests on the university campus.” Columbia has historically been a center of protest and free speech, which is essential for our role as preparing students to be active members of a democracy. And instead, what’s happening now is an arrogation of the right to decide all of those procedures just at the level of the administration, to actually treat protest itself as dangerous and as violent, which is really, really bone-chilling to me.
The other thing that they’ve done is actually outsource a lot of the investigations and the hearings, especially that our students have been subjected to, to law firms and private investigation firms that are not in any way aligned with understanding the mission and the history of the university as a site for deep and principled disagreements.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to Democratic Congressmember Ilhan Omar, one of only two Muslim congressmembers, questioning Columbia President Shafik.
REP. ILHAN OMAR: Have you seen anti-Muslim protests on campus?
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: I have seen — we have had pro-Israeli demonstrations on campus.
REP. ILHAN OMAR: No, no, no.
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: But not —
REP. ILHAN OMAR: Just a protest that was against Muslims?
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: Not — no, I have not seen —
REP. ILHAN OMAR: Have you seen one against Arabs?
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: No, I have not.
REP. ILHAN OMAR: Have you seen one against Palestinians?
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: No, I have not.
REP. ILHAN OMAR: Have you seen against — one against Jewish people? Have you seen a protest —
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: No.
REP. ILHAN OMAR: — saying, “We are against Jewish people”?
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: No, I have — I have seen — no.
REP. ILHAN OMAR: OK. Thank you for that clarification. There has been a rise in targeting and harassment against antiwar protesters, because it’s been pro-war and antiwar protesters, is what seems like, correct?
MINOUCHE SHAFIK: Correct. There has been —
REP. ILHAN OMAR: OK. Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Congressmember Ilhan Omar, one of two congresswomen — Muslim congresswomen in the House. In January — Congressmember Omar also in this hearing brought up the attack on pro-Palestinian students in January, who say they were sprayed with a foul-smelling chemical. Eight students were reportedly hospitalized, complaining of burning eyes, headaches and nausea and other symptoms. Organizers allege the attack was carried out by two Columbia students who were former members of the Israeli military, using a chemical weapon known as “skunk” that the Israeli military and security forces regularly deploy against Palestinians. Professor Young, if you can comment on that incident, of what happened and what happened to these students?
REBECCA JORDAN-YOUNG: Yes, absolutely. First, I’ll just say that in the 1980s, when I was an undergraduate, I was an organizer against — I was an anti-apartheid organizer. And I was involved in a lot of demonstrations on my campus. My colleagues, students all around the country were faced with a lot of condescending policies and a lot of pressures from administrations and crackdowns. Never, ever have I seen something like what happened on the Columbia campus.
Never, first of all, have I seen a situation where the administration sets up students to say that protests themselves are problematic — you can’t be against a war, you can’t be against indiscriminate bombing of civilians. I mean, what’s getting lost in this is the situation in Gaza.
And at the same time, what we saw is that the university did not respond to that attack on our students. Students were never contacted. The students who were actually attacked with that chemical weapon were not supported until after the fact. After intense pressure from faculty, the administration said that they would offer them some resources. But they also said that students who were subject to this skunk attack would not be exempt from the sanctions imposed on them for protesting.
And I also think it’s important to say that these policies against protest are not long-standing policies. They’re new policies, that have been created on the fly, sometimes after the fact of particular demonstrations. And the inquiry hearings that are being held are getting more and more draconian, so that there’s a dragnet, basically, of sweeping up all kinds of students that they target, often because of wearing hijab, often because of being near other students, being friends with students who are protesting. So, it’s sweep everybody up, ask questions later. And again, it’s so chilling to me.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Professor Milanich, in your open letter, in the open letter that you wrote prior to this hearing to Columbia President Shafik, you said it’s absurd to claim that antisemitism is rampant on Columbia’s campus. So, why do you think that so many people are convinced that this is the case? And as Professor Young said, nothing like what’s happened at Columbia has happened in the past with protests. How do you understand why this has happened?
NARA MILANICH: Yeah. So, I think this is a really important question. And I had the opportunity to author this letter, open letter to President Shafik, in advance of her testimony with almost two dozen of my colleagues who identify as Jewish. And it’s important to know here that Columbia has a large Jewish population, of Jewish faculty and Jewish students, but there is no such thing as a Jewish opinion — right? — on campus. This is a really heterogeneous group, a diverse group, people with very different experiences, different identities and different politics, different ideas, different relationships, or even nonrelationships, with Israel, right? And we had the sort of impression, the sense, that people were speaking for us, right? People were assuming that we needed to be protected, that we felt vulnerable, people assuming that we all shared a particular political point of view. And we wrote this letter to President Shafik to clarify that, to explain sort of the diversity of different political opinions on campus and to question this idea of a single, hegemonic Jewish position or voice or experience.
And the letter goes on to implore President Shafik not to capitulate to this kind of politics of weaponizing antisemitism. One of the remarkable things that we have seen in recent months, since the fall, are the ways that right-wing politicians have suddenly discovered — they’ve had a come-to-Jesus moment and have discovered Jews and have discovered the scourge of antisemitism. And, of course, many of these folks are people who flirt with white nationalism — right? — in their everyday life, which is to say with actual antisemites, right? So, we wanted to make the case, and that my colleague has made, as well, that antisemitism here is being used as a wedge. It’s being used as a Trojan horse for a very different political agenda. And that is a broader and deeper kind of desire or effort to insert politics into the university.
So, we can see how right-wing politicians, even yesterday, on display in the congressional hearings, have a bigger agenda, a bigger ax to grind. They are interested in undermining academic freedom, in attacking wokeism. This is not about antisemitism so much as attacking areas of inquiry and teaching, whether it’s about voting rights or vaccine safety or climate change — right? — arenas of inquiry that are uncomfortable or inconvenient or controversial for certain groups. And so, this is essentially what we’re seeing, antisemitism being weaponized in a broad attack on the university. And I think that’s really worrisome. And we’re all sort of looking to November to think about what happens then. I mean, if this is what is going on now, what happens if Trump is reelected, and then we get these inclinations coming not just from Congress, but also from higher up?
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we want to thank you both for being with us. Nara Milanich is a professor of history at Barnard-Columbia. She co-wrote the open letter to President Minouche Shafik titled “Jewish faculty reject the weaponization of antisemitism.” We also want to thank professor Rebecca Jordan-Young in the Department of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Barnard College-Columbia, member of the Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine.
***
Columbia Students Risk Arrest, Suspension to Maintain Gaza Solidarity Encampment on Campusby Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
April 18, 2024
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/4/18/ ... transcriptStudents at Columbia University and Barnard College in New York have set up dozens of tents to occupy the South Lawn of the campus to create a Gaza Solidarity Encampment. Democracy Now! spoke to some of the student-activists, who say they are occupying the space, despite the administration’s threats of suspension and disciplinary action, as part of a demand that the Ivy League school divest from companies and institutions that profit from Israeli occupation. “It seems like the repression is only getting worse and worse,” says Maryam Alwan, a student-activist with Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine.
TranscriptThis is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. As Columbia University President Shafik testified before Congress about accusations of antisemitism at the school, Democracy Now! spoke to Columbia and Barnard College students yesterday who set up a Gaza Solidarity Encampment early Wednesday morning with dozens of tents, occupying the South Lawn of the campus outside the main library. As we broadcast, students have been threatened with suspension and discipline action but are still refusing to leave until their demands are met. They spoke about what they’re calling for.
PROTESTERS: Down, down with occupation! Down, down with occupation! Up, up with liberation! Up, up with liberation!
MARYAM ALWAN: My name is Maryam Alwan, and I’m with Columbia SJP, Students for Justice in Palestine. And we are here today to demand that Columbia divest immediately from all stakes in Israeli apartheid. Over 33,000 Palestinians have been killed. And as we speak, our president is testifying in front of the House in a game of political theater that is conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism. We want to focus the attention on what’s going on in Gaza and tell Columbia that we are not going anywhere. No matter how much government suppression we face, we will keep fighting until they divest.
They have been completely repressive. I mean, we’ve faced police brutality. We have faced countless policy changes. I mean, my group, along with Jewish Voice for Peace, was suspended in the fall semester completely illegitimately. And I filed a lawsuit to counter that action. And it seems like the repression is only getting worse and worse and worse. But the more they repress us, the more we rise up. And that’s why we’ve escalated — that’s also why we’ve escalated here today.
Not only are they not listening to us when we peacefully protest, when we attempt to just pass referendums for student voices to even be heard, they don’t even want to listen to the students. They don’t want to know what the students think. And so, we’re here to tell them that we will take up space and presence on this campus, and they’re not going to be able to erase our support for Palestine.
PROTESTERS: What do we want? Justice! When do we want it? Now! If Gaza doesn’t get it, shut it down!
SOPH: My name is Soph. I am with Jewish Voice for Peace at Columbia. And I am here today because I will not stand by while thousands and thousands of people are dying because of our tax dollars in this country, as Columbia’s money is going towards a genocide. The money that should be funding our education is going to the bombs that are dropping on Gaza right now. Columbia is a majority share — has massive amounts of shares in various organizations, like Lockheed Martin, that are supplying Israel with bombs right now, and we will no longer be complicit.
In a campus like this that is filled with repression, that is — every day we wake up, and the administration tries to silence us more and more. We are here to say, “The more you try to silence us, the louder we will be.” We will not be complicit. We will stand in solidarity, because we know that we keep us safe.
We refuse to believe that Israel is in any part related to our Judaism. In fact, our Jewish values inform why we’re here, why we’re standing in here — Jewish values of tikkun olam, of love, of appreciation, of respect, of mutual liberation. And so, as Jews, we are here to say that we will always support the liberation of Palestine, because that is what historically Jews have done. We have stood up for other oppressed peoples, because we know that there can be no freedom until we are all free.
PROTESTERS: Free, free Palestine! Free, free Palestine! Free, free, free Palestine! Free, free, free Palestine!
SARAH BORUS: My name is Sarah Borus. I’m a student at Barnard College. And I’m here because I was raised as an anti-Zionist Jew. It is important for me to stand with Palestine. I go to a university that is actively profiting off of the genocide of Palestinians and then is hiding behind Jewish students by saying that they want to crack down on us because of antisemitism. But as an anti-Zionist Jew, I know that that is the farthest thing from the truth. They are doing that because they know that we are on the right side of history, that they are doing something that is profoundly wrong. And it is our job during this genocide to come out and resist.
There were Jews protesting against this genocide who were harassed and then attacked with a chemical weapon. That is not being addressed. This is — quite frankly, we’re seeing McCarthyism once again. And our administrators need to be aware of the experience of anti-Zionist Jews, the way that antisemitism is being weaponized in order to crack down on this movement.
AMY GOODMAN: Voices from the South Lawn of Columbia University, where students have set up a Gaza Solidarity Encampment. Special thanks to Democracy Now!’s Hana Elias and Tey-Marie Astudillo and Eric Halvarson for that report.
***
Israel Considers Attacking Iran and Invading Rafah as Netanyahu Seeks Lifelines to Stay in Powerby Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
April 18, 2024
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/4/18/ ... transcriptNew reporting indicates that the Biden administration has approved Israel’s plan to attack Rafah in exchange for Israel not launching counterstrikes on Iran. “Israel is almost certainly going to respond to the Iranian strike in some way,” says Mairav Zonszein, a senior Israel analyst for the International Crisis Group. Now “it has the benefit of being able to dangle both threats”: an invasion on Rafah that would heavily increase the death toll of Palestinians in Gaza, or an attack on Iran that would likely spark a wider regional war. While Israeli approval of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has drastically waned, Zonszein suggests that its military campaign shows no signs of stopping. “Israeli society is largely a right-wing society. It is a society that has not spoken about or thought about Palestinians or the occupation except when it’s forced to. And it’s a society that has gotten used to acting with impunity.”
TranscriptThis is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Israeli forces have killed at least 11 people, including five children, in strikes on the southern city of Rafah. Israel has repeatedly attacked the city ahead of an expected ground invasion. There are new reports the Biden administration has approved Israel’s plan to attack Rafah in exchange for Israel not launching counterstrikes on Iran.
The latest article by our next guest is headlined “Why Israel-Iran War Is a Lifeline for Netanyahu.” In it, she writes, quote, “Just days ago, much of the world’s attention was on the impending famine in Gaza, and on Israel’s failure to achieve its war objectives of toppling Hamas and returning hostages more than six months into the war. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was under pressure from U.S. President Joe Biden to allow in sufficient humanitarian aid and reach a cease-fire, as well as appeals from Israeli protesters to seal a hostage deal and hold new elections.
“But at night on Saturday, April 13, all that faded instantly as Iran launched hundreds of drones and missiles at Israel in much-anticipated retaliation for an Israeli strike that killed senior Iranian military [officers] in Damascus, Syria, on April 1.”
AMY GOODMAN: That article is by Mairav Zonszein, a senior Israel analyst for the International Crisis Group. She’s joining us now from Tel Aviv.
Mairav, thanks so much for being with us. Can you start off by just continuing your argument? Lay out what you think has happened in the last few days.
MAIRAV ZONSZEIN: Thanks for having me.
Well, essentially, we have an ongoing war, for months and months, that Netanyahu has orchestrated in a way that, clearly, he’s talking about a total victory, that most Israelis now understand he’s not able to achieve. He has lost a lot of legitimacy both at home and abroad. At the same time, many Israelis have supported the war effort. They’re in trauma. And so you have this chaotic situation.
And just days ago, we started to see what looked like, at least rhetorically, cracks in what has been U.S. support for Israel’s war effort in Gaza. And just as things started to seem to change a little bit, primarily as a result of an absolute humanitarian disaster, man-made, in Gaza, all of a sudden attention has gone elsewhere, to another very worrying development with Israel and Iran.
Now, I can’t speak to Netanyahu’s intent on the decision to strike the Damascus consular facility on April 1st, but what I can say is that when you’ve lost legitimacy, and when former security officials and even some current ones are telling everyone that Netanyahu is not fit to lead and is not fit to be providing any kind of safety and security for Israelis, and then he takes the decision to strike a consulate, then that’s clearly something that he took into account. In other words, it could have either led to nothing, or it could have led to what we saw, and in which case he’s now basically, you know, benefiting from the fact that all the world now has to kind of cooperate with him. The Western capitals, surely, some Arab countries, as well, have no choice but to kind of band together against this Iranian threat.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Mairav, could you explain? Your article before this one, earlier this month, is titled “The Problem Isn’t Just Netanyahu, It’s Israeli Society.” Explain what you mean by that, and what you think the problem is with people focusing only on his being the head of Israel, Netanyahu, and taking all the decisions.
MAIRAV ZONSZEIN: Right. Well, I mean, it’s important to understand some of the nuances. I mean, basically, Israeli society is largely a right-wing society. It is a society that has not spoken about or thought about Palestinians or the occupation except when it’s forced to. And it is a society that has gotten used to acting with impunity.
After the Hamas October 7th attack, which was truly unprecedented for Israelis, there was huge consensus for the war, and there’s been almost, you know, complete apathy to what’s happening in Gaza. Israelis are not really interested or emotionally capable of handling that. And there’s been a dehumanization of Palestinians for a very long time. So you have this kind of consensus and just support for Israel’s war effort.
At the same time, you have a leader, specifically Netanyahu, but also the far-right government in general, that many liberal secular Israelis don’t support. And so you have a situation in which the Western capitals in the world, that have pretty much unconditionally supported Israel, have found a way to try and kind of split between, you know, criticism of Netanyahu but supporting Israeli society at large. Now, I understand why they’re doing that, but it’s just important to understand that even if you took Netanyahu out of the equation and you put somebody else, some of his political rivals, in the leadership positions, their approach to the Palestinian issue is almost identical. There’s really no difference there. So, the Israelis that are protesting Netanyahu now are not protesting him about his policies on Palestinians. They’re protesting him about his attacks on their own freedoms and the fact that kind of the same rights violations that Israel has been doing for years are now starting to seep into their own world.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk, Mairav, about this possible trade-off that’s being reported, U.S. wanting Israel not to attack Iran again, but they can invade Rafah?
MAIRAV ZONSZEIN: I think all of this is largely theater and largely performative. I mean, basically, Israel has been dangling the threat of an invasion in Rafah for months now. It doesn’t mean that I don’t think it’s something that it plans to do. But the U.S. pushback on it, while firm rhetorically, hasn’t really been convincing. You know, I’m not convinced that the U.S. is actually about to withhold aid or that the U.S. or Biden were actually going to stop Israel from invading Rafah, because they largely support the war effort.
And Israel is almost surely going to respond to the Iranian strike in some way. And it’s understandable, you know, if we understand the ways Israel works, that it would do so. I think it’s also understandable that Israel, you know, would now — since it hasn’t already responded, it’s now going to consider its options in how it can do that and how it can leverage that situation. So, now, in effect, it has the benefit of being able to kind of dangle both threats — we’re both going to attack Iran, and we’re going to attack Rafah. And so, ultimately, those things are still the case. You know, so I —
AMY GOODMAN: We have to leave it there, Mairav Zonszein, senior Israel analyst for the International Crisis Group. We’ll link to your piece in Foreign Policy. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh, for another edition of Democracy Now!