Approaches to conflict on American campuses have oscillated between crackdown and compromise. While officials at various Florida and Texas schools quashed anti-Israel protest activity, administrators at Rutgers, Northwestern, and Brown universities opted for negotiations with rule-breaking protesters. At the heart of the debate lies discipline and order vs unconditional compassion and dignity – two concepts that are not mutually exclusive but, in fact, deeply intertwined.
George Washington University (GW) straddles both approaches. Presently, administrators are actively working to heal divisions on campus. The Strengthening Our Community in Challenging Times initiative has bolstered policies on free expression restrictions; established faculty working groups to address free speech and inclusion issues; and pledges to create the New Center for Interfaith and Spiritual Life that promotes cross-cultural dialogue. Simultaneously, GW has suspended the groups Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) for the 2024-2025 academic year.
Yet, as of this fall semester, university officials are still negotiating with members of the newly formed GW Student Coalition for Palestine (GWUSCP), a group that emerged in response to the suspension of SJP and JVP. Members of GWUSCP who were previously suspended have participated in these negotiations, including one student barred from entering campus, who joined via Zoom.
GW holds that divestment and severing ties with Israel are off the table, rendering the prospect of actual negotiation moot. However, appeasing the protesters to a degree is detrimental to administrators and suspended students alike. Administrators relinquish their power to law-infringing students, and such students will learn that violating the law can merit a conversation in their favor rather than due consequences.
This past Friday, I attended a lecture by Timothy Shriver, founder of The Dignity Index [“an eight-point scale that scores speech along a continuum from contempt to dignity in as unbiased a manner as possible”], about communication amid conflict and restoring civility in American public life. He asserted that contempt characterizes the current climate around contentious conversations and that treating everyone with dignity is the remedy.
The index “scores distinct phrases along an eight-point scale from contempt to dignity. Lower scores (1-4) reflect divisive language while higher scores (5-8) reflect language grounded in dignity” by “scoring the speech rather than the speaker.” A“1” score is “they’re not even human, it is our moral duty to destroy them before they destroy us;” whereas an “8” is “each one of us is born with inherent worth, so we treat everyone with dignity – no matter what.”
Shriver’s index is well-intentioned and could work exceptionally well in a world where everyone acted rationally. However, young adults today – influenced by contagious social media disinformation and notions of subjective truth and morality – are too often misled.
One example affecting today’s youth is the distorted belief that harassing Jewish students contributes to freeing Palestine. Another is failing to realize that Hamas, the terrorist organization many unknowingly support, fundamentally contradicts the progressive values they claim to champion, such as LGBTQ+ and women’s rights.
I am unsure whether Mr. Shriver would endorse engaging in negotiations with suspended or formerly suspended students. However, I am confident he would advocate engaging with them and speaking to them with compassion and dignity. During the lecture, he stated, “I don’t believe that criminals should be free, but I [believe]– and most would agree – that in prison, they should be treated with dignity.” Indeed, criminals should be treated with dignity in prison. However, if the goal of a prison sentence is teaching one a lesson or rehabilitation, those convicted should also behave in a dignified manner.
Administrators and university codes of conduct rightfully exercise power and authority over students. With this power, they are responsible for ensuring that Jewish students are treated with the dignity they deserve. Dignity absent of accountability deprives the victims – of hostility, hate, and harassment – of their inherent dignity and justice.
Thus, university administrators must address misconduct through appropriate discipline while they foster learning. When administrators indulge members of the GWUSCP in negotiation, they risk transferring the power of law and authority to those who have misused their privileges and encourage them to continue.
At brown University, administrators who came to an agreement with encampment participants in December are now “considering” divestment – a topic slated for discussion in October of this year. At Northwestern University, while negotiations did not lead to complete divestment, the administration rewarded rule-breaking students with substantial concessions by re-establishing the Advisory Committee on Responsible Investing, renovating a house for MENA/Muslim students; funding two visiting Palestinian faculty members each year; and providing scholarships for five Palestinian students throughout their undergraduate careers.
Just as the belief in intrinsic human dignity inspires treating others with dignity, where power is perceived, power is given. The power to negotiate is a power in itself. It represents a point on the scoreboard for students who have disrespected administrators and violated codes of conduct and the law. Extending the gift of dignity to those who have acted without it deprives students of the opportunity to reflect on their behavior and grow into genuinely dignified individuals.
As Aristotle noted, “Dignity does not consist in possessing honors but in the consciousness that we deserve them.”
Today
TODAY, HONOR is often tied to real or imagined accolades from actions rather than the actions themselves. Administrators can reclaim their eroded dignity by guiding students who violate conduct codes to pursue true honor via virtuous actions. These students should be assigned a non-negotiable research project that challenges them to question their beliefs about their actions on campus and their misinformed perspective on Israel.
Since dignity is inseparable from truth, students must confront the reality of Israel’s actions and intentions in Gaza and acknowledge that it is not Israel committing genocide but rather Hamas terrorists who seek such destruction. They should learn that divestment from Israeli companies only hurts Palestinians and thwarts their collective prosperity.
Students should undergo intensive antisemitism training through the lens of Jewish history to understand the origins and implications of phrases like “Go back to Europe” and “From the river to the sea.” They should study the roots of antisemitism and the rise of Nazism, Soviet anti-Zionism, and Islamic and Arab anti-Zionism, illustrating the convergence of right-wing and left-wing antisemitism.
Additionally, they should explore the diversity and evolution of Zionist thought by reading primary source texts from figures such as Ahad Ha’am, Simon Dubnow, and Theodor Herzl. The film series Zionism and Anti-Zionism: The History of Two Opposing Ideas featuring Einat Wilf and recent Georgetown graduate Zoe Zeigherman is an excellent resource for these topics.
As part of their consequence, rule-breaking students must offer sincere apologies to their Jewish and Zionist peers. Moving forward, these students should also participate in programs that bring Arabs/Palestinians and Jewish Israelis together for meaningful dialogue. Administrators who create educational opportunities for students who break the rules help restore dignity for all students and themselves.
Instead of seeking the empty honor of performative negotiation, students must embark on a journey to develop character and consciousness that exposes them to their flaws, confronts the truth, and helps restore trust in themselves and their community.
The writer is a senior at George Washington University.