The University issued a statement on institutional neutrality on May 8th in response to mounting pressure to have a political stance on the genocide in Palestine. Shortly afterward, Critic Te Ārohi ran its fifth annual census, published on May 13th, including the question: “Do you think Otago University should issue a stance on Israel-Palestine?” 681 students responded: 45.7% yes, 23.7% said no, and 30% were unsure.
Numerous groups– including a United Nations Special Committee, Amnesty International, and academics such as Otago University’s own Professor Robert Patman– believe that the state of Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians. With an underlying and complex history, following the 7th of October 2023 when Hamas attacked Israel, the state has claimed “self-defense” with actions consistent with genocide. One out of every 44 people in the Gaza Strip have been killed and entry of desperately sought supplies into war-torn populations was blockaded.
The Uni’s statement on institutional neutrality came in response to mounting pressure from University staff and students. Both Otago Students for Justice in Palestine (OSJP) and Otago Staff for Palestine (OS4P) have been particularly vocal in their opinion that the university should make a political stance in solidarity with Palestine and ensure no links whatsoever exist between the university and Israel. Critic’s census invited all students to contribute their thoughts, of which 201 obliged. Here’s the breakdown.
The Yeses: “Have the Balls to Say Genocide is Bad”
There were a range of approaches among those in favour of the University taking a pro-Palestinian stance. Some approached it from an empathetic and nuanced perspective based on their understanding of the conflict, acknowledging the issue’s complexity. For others it was more simple, calling out the university for not having the “balls” or declaring it to be a “pussy” for not saying that “genocide is bad”. Someone simply said, “Because genocide is fucking horrifying and I want to know the university thinks so, too.”
Many criticised the University’s traditional role of being the ‘critic and conscience of society’, a role some students believed that the uni has failed to fulfil by refusing to denounce a genocide. One response said that while they could understand why institutions might be neutral, they found a certain irony in the stance: “These very institutions teach students about the atrocities of past genocides, and how we must never let them repeat. Despite this, institutions are suddenly incapable of denouncing genocide when thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians are being killed daily.”
Olivier Jutel has been a very outspoken member of OS4P, speaking on Radio One, commenting to Critic Te Ārohi, and penning opinion pieces for the Otago Daily Times. One student referenced an argument that he made, comparing New Zealand’s response to apartheid South Africa, cutting off cultural, sporting, diplomatic, and investment ties with the country. Jutel has argued that the same action needs to be applied to Israel in this “exceptional time of genocide.”
A first-year Muslim student wrote that the university’s refusal to make a political stance has made her regret choosing Otago to study. They referenced the statistics of suffering among children in Gaza: “The fact this is even a question is beyond me. I don’t even know if my family is alive yet I have to deal with the selfishness of this school refusing to stand up for what is right – and when students do, they harm them and make up stories.” The student referred to the incident during a Clocktower protest last October where a tussle between Campus Watch and a student that accidentally broke a glass door mistakenly landed the student in handcuffs.
The Nos: “It’s None of Our Business”
Students who were against the University taking a stance were by and large in agreement with the reasoning given by the institutional neutrality working group’s 25 page report which recommended that the university remain neutral.
The main argument given was that the university represents a diverse population on campus, and it would be unfair to lump everyone under the umbrella of one political opinion, potentially ostracising those who disagreed or had personal ties to Israel. Those who clicked “no” also argued that it’s the government’s role, not the university’s, to make political statements. Universities should remain neutral and instead facilitate an environment where staff and students could voice their own opinions, such as holding rallies and seminars like the one held by three Otago academics in March titled ‘Gaza – Yes it is genocide’.
Others simply thought it wasn’t the business of a university in the bottom corner of the world to issue a political statement on a genocide happening far from our shores. “I’m not saying we as a nation/student community should ignore what is happening. But we cannot do anything for those people by sending a blast email out and marching every other Saturday in solidarity,” said a second-year Health Science student. She reckoned it was up to “larger powers” and that the university could better spend its time “focusing on nurturing the environment for Otago students who have the privilege to study to one day become one of those larger powers that can actually have everlasting change.”
The loudest voice among the no’s was from a postgraduate student who wrote a 730 word answer (formed almost entirely from rhetorical questions). He reiterated others’ points about who would form the stance, what exactly a stance would be, whether it would open the floodgate to issuing stances on other conflicts such as India-Pakistan and Ukraine-Russia, and what the implications would be for academic freedom.
While those in favour of a university stance have cited its role as critic and conscience, this essayist offered an alternative perspective: “If we and the University are to be the critic and conscience of society, then the University must not issue a stance on Israel-Palestine, but should instead encourage serious debate and serious scholarship.” On the topic of academic rigour, the keyboard-warrior showed his postgrad greys by shaking his fist against the “highly uninformed students” and “depressed rich Pākehā children with a persecution and white saviour complex who cannot be bothered to actually think longer than the twenty to thirty seconds that it takes to make a post on twitter”.
The Unsures: “It’s too complex”
Our fence-sitters either cited a lack of understanding of the issue, said it was “too complex” to make it a binary question, or that they could see equal merit in both sides of the argument.