We are a group of staff and students trying to convince the University of Otago to take a stand against Israel’s actions in Gaza and the Occupied Territories, actions which the International Court of Justice and many human rights experts argue plausibly amount to genocide.
Our aim is to get the University Council to pass a motion that would, first; suspend academic and cultural collaborations with Israeli universities; and second; investigate and publicly disclose the university’s ties to financial entities complicit in the violation of Palestinian rights. Where such investments are found, the university must immediately divest from such corporations and terminate existing contracts. Lastly, our pension fund, Unisaver, is invested in military contractors such as Elbit Systems and Palantir. We would like our council to lead calls for divestment.
In our meetings and correspondence with the higher-ups, they acknowledge that there is "horrific violence" occurring and also that it is "impossible not to be moved by what is happening in Gaza". We are also assured that "Otago steadfastly supports the right to peaceful protest and the right to freedom of expression".
However, the university is not prepared to have a frank exchange about our potential collaboration with Israeli state violence, something that requires more than just a cursory look at our investments.
We are told that their "focus" is "the wellbeing of our university community" and that the principle of "institutional neutrality" effectively limits their ability to take a stronger stand. So, while the university insists that they are moved by events in Gaza, "institutional neutrality" effectively binds what it can do to bring those events to an end.
Institutional neutrality is certainly an important principle. As John Stuart Mill put it, "the rough process of a struggle between combatants fighting under hostile banners" is necessary for us to reach "truth in the great practical concerns of life". Universities provide the resources and space within which such a "rough process" can proceed.
But institutional neutrality has not stood in the way of the university taking noteworthy and commendable political positions on a number of pressing issues. When the university made the decision to refuse to invest in fossil fuels, this was a political decision: a "rough process" of debate was conducted in the public sphere, advanced in no small part by global academia. The truth was subsequently discovered, which in turn helped responsible agents develop a framework to transition our societies away from fossil fuels. As a responsible agent, the university acted accordingly: it took a stance, and is now a better, more ethical place for it.
In addition, the university’s decision to become a Te Tiriti-led institution was also a political decision, something that should be eminently clear when one observes those who have arrayed themselves against that commitment. Indeed, just recently the university took a side in supporting the hospital marches. To be sure, this position was defended according to the university’s interests, but it remains a political stance of support for one side against another.
Moreover, the Kalven Report originally drafted in the late 1960s at the University of Chicago — and often cited when the university wishes to uphold "institutional neutrality" — was never meant to serve as a ultimate trump card against all political stances. Indeed, it accepted that there are circumstances in which the university must take a stand. Per the report, in "the exceptional instance", that the "corporate activities of the university may appear so incompatible with paramount social values" as to override the presumption of neutrality. Genocide, the crime of crimes, is surely just such an "exceptional instance". Further, the university cannot use "institutional neutrality", the purpose of which is to ensure the freedom of individual academics and students, as a shield to deflect criticism for their decision to be complicit in highly unethical investments and purchases. Unethical corporate activities are not a prerequisite for the free expression of ideas.
Finally, an important feature of this plausible genocide case is the attack on universities in Gaza. Thus far, over 9000 school and university students, 397 teachers, 105 professors, and three university presidents have been killed. In addition, every university in Gaza has been either damaged or destroyed.
We value and cherish our right to speak on this issue, something that academics at Columbia, NYU and Harvard do not enjoy. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, these elite institutions have been the worst offenders in suppressing the Palestinian solidarity movement. This issue has cut to the heart of free speech on campus and the role of international law in western democracies. The university has thus far passed the first test, but has done little with respects to the second.
To be clear, we are calling for an end to Palestinian suffering both as a result of the current violence and through the long-standing regime of apartheid in the Occupied Territories. With this end in mind, we respectfully reject the idea that the university’s commitment to institutional neutrality adequately answers our demands. We must join universities across the globe, including in New Zealand, to do what it can to bring an end to the oppression and destruction of Palestinian life.
• Dr Jenkins is a lecturer in political theory and Dr Jutel is a lecturer in the department of media, film and communication, both at the University of Otago.
