Debating Divestment

It was the first of many public faux pas committed by University President Lawrence H. Summers. It was 2002, and Harvard’s new figurehead was widely criticized for equating divestment from Israel to one of many “actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent.” And, as we are familiar with the reaction to Summers’ controversial comments—and the uproar they can stir—a debate was borne, inciting some serious discussion about a controversial and complicated issue. Though we disagreed with Summers’ conflation of divestment with anti-Semitism, the silver-lining was that it ultimately encouraged educated discourse, one of the foremost goals of academia.

Last week, several student groups, including the International Relations Council, the Woodbridge Society of International Students, the Society of Arab Students (SAS), and the Palestinian Solidarity Committee (PSC) attempted to revive the divestment debate, hosting a panel of pro-divestment speakers to talk about the Presbyterian Church USA’s decision to divest from firms supporting Israeli soldiers and settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Rather than welcoming an opportunity to hear the arguments of an unpopular—and underrepresented—opinion, however, many students were outraged by the panel and its one-sided presentation.

As we said three years ago, we are staunchly against divestment from Israel, but not because we regard its proponents as anti-Semitic. Rather, we believe divestment would lead to further instability in Israel and the Occupied Territories and thus work against establishing eventual peace in the region—a prospect that has rarely looked more promising than right now. As we have stressed before, touting Harvard’s divestment from South African firms in the 1980s is a misguided parallel. The situations are entirely different, and thus while divestment was the appropriate decision two decades ago—and one which certainly contributed to ending the Apartheid system—it is an inappropriate comparison today.

Because of these concerns we are against the Presbyterians’ decision to divest. But we realize that intelligent and tolerant people can disagree. Anything that contributes to public discourse should therefore be encouraged, not curtailed. While we do not agree with the divestment defenders who sat on the panel, we are glad that student groups are interested in holding events that seek to educate students about controversial positions. Even though the PSC is in favor of divestment, and some members of SAS may sympathize it is not dishonest for the two groups to have sponsored the panel.

Failing to present an anti-divestment point of view might have been frustrating for students offended by the idea of divesting from Israel. But it is up to individual student groups to decide who they want to bring to campus; they should not be admonished for neglecting one side or be expected to include it. Particularly in this case, it is unlikely that the roughly 40 attendees to the presentation were unfamiliar with the arguments made by divestment opponents. If anything, arguments for divestment are far more underrepresented on campus and benefit from being emphasized during this kind of event. It is unlikely that any Harvard students would be brainwashed by a one-sided presentation. We like to believe that we are informed, independent individuals who benefit from having our views challenged and refined.

Instead of unfairly reproaching student groups for the speakers they choose to bring to campus, it would be more encouraging for the sake of bringing awareness to the issue if student groups offended by the panel sought out speakers to come present their side. In the name of academia, this should be expected.