Disclaimer: The Sophian is dedicated to providing a platform for diverse perspectives. The author of this particular piece has opted to maintain anonymity, which typically contradicts our established policies for guest essays. Consequently, we were unable to verify the author’s identity before publication.
Oct. 7 2023, saw the mass murder, rape, torture and kidnapping of 1,400 Israelis by Hamas, a virulently antisemitic terrorist group dedicated to the destruction of Israel, a group that is holding hostage almost 240 people (including babies and the elderly) more than a month later. In the wake of the heinous atrocity and the resulting war, the public discussion on the Smith College campus has been remarkably and painfully one-sided. If there were a real dialog occurring on campus, things one might hear include:
· The use of the word “genocide” to describe civilian casualties in an urban war against a terrorist group imbedded in a civilian population is misplaced and especially offensive when applied to a Jewish state given the history of Jews with genocide. Without proof that the goal of the offensive is to destroy “the Palestinians” as opposed to Hamas, the word doesn’t apply. Saying Israel should do more to reduce civilian casualties is not the same thing as using the “G”-word.
· The slogan “From the River to the Sea….” may well have a meaning to some people that does not portend the annihilation of the Jewish population of Israel, but it does not have that meaning to many people, including Hamas. The slogan sends chills down the spines of many.
· Describing the movement for Jewish self-determination as a form of “European colonialism” or even “white supremacy” is historically ignorant and offensive.
These kinds of slogans, and others, are used by students who would bend over backwards to avoid language that other minority groups might view as hurtful, offensive or micro-aggressive. Students using them either don’t know (hopefully) or don’t care (perhaps) how the discourse on campus may be affecting Jewish students. Or they may take solace in the fact that some Jewish students may use the same slogans.
Given all this, something remarkable is happening at Smith College: Silence. Of all places, on a college campus, the raison d’etre of which is the gaining of knowledge and exchange of ideas, why is this column being written anonymously? Why does the climate on campus exclude intellectual discourse on the events in Israel/Gaza? And why, when only a single viewpoint is being expressed on a highly charged topic on a campus of thousands, are these questions themselves not even being asked?
The answer lies in part in the passion and seeming unanimity of campus voices that have presented a groundswell of enthusiastic and unqualified support for the one-sided sloganeering that has taken over the campus. When one-sided passion takes over from the reasoned and intellectual discourse that a college campus should embody, it drives out the expression of opposing viewpoints. And the vicious attack on a Jewish Studies professor for daring to utter anything other than Smith SJP orthodoxy on this topic made clear that speaking on this topic at Smith College can be dangerous, with silence the only reasonable option, at least for students who wish to avoid personal attack, ostracism or worse. This juggernaut of one-sided discourse is so powerful that student organizations whose purposes and mandates have nothing to do with making political statements are nevertheless being pushed to sign petitions without regard to the fact that they may have members who don’t agree with the message their organization is being pushed to endorse and who may yet feel uncomfortable speaking up. This is the current reality at Smith College.
This silence represents a terrible situation for Smith College to find itself in. Whatever one’s views on the conflict between Israel and Palestinians, a campus climate that breeds silence is unhealthy for the community and every member of it. It doesn’t matter whether one agrees or disagrees with the viewpoint in this column. The entire Smith community — the administration, faculty and students — whatever their views, should still come together to examine how and why voices have been silenced at Smith. The community should make a concerted effort to bring the voices of the silenced and, equally importantly, the facts and views that students are afraid to express out loud, into the campus conversation.
