Reader Responses to “Built to Hold Disagreement”

In response to protests, encampments, and building takeovers, the Brown administration capitulated to the demands of the protestors, thereby incentivizing future protests. As BAM reported, the negotiated agreement included permission for students to make presentations to the Brown Corporation regarding divestment from Israel, as well as a commitment to have the Corporation vote on divestment next October. In addition, under the agreement (and not cited in the BAM article), the University agreed to drop any serious sanctions, like suspension or expulsion, for violating University rules. Although the University refused to drop criminal charges against those students arrested during a sit-in at University Hall, subsequently the students were found not guilty by a Providence Court. By capitulating to the protesters’ demands, the University violated the principle of “institutional neutrality” that it professes to hold dear. By dropping any meaningful University sanctions against the students for violating its rules, the University incentivized further future violations of University rules. In the end, I suspect the protesters will have accomplished very little with their demands, and certainly will not have done anything to influence the ongoing tragedy in the Middle East. The Israel/Palestine issue will continue for some time, even after Israel ends its military campaign in Gaza. When students return to Brown in the fall, student protests will start up again focusing on the October divestment vote by the Corporation. Given the protesters’ success in negotiating the agreement with the University this spring, activist students returning in the fall have reason to be confident that there are no meaningful consequences for violating University rules. Emboldened by the agreement, the Brown campus will once more be beset by disruptive protests. The agreement was a short-sighted expedient, trading a temporary end to protests during this spring’s Commencement for potentially worse disruptions next fall and beyond.

On April 30, Brown’s leadership capitulated to the encampment mob. President Paxson announced “a peaceful end to the unauthorized encampment.” The students “agreed to remove the encampment and refrain from further actions that would violate the Code of Student Conduct through the end of this academic year, including Commencement and Reunion Weekend.” What did the students get in return? “Divestment from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territory,” the scope of which was left unsaid, will for the first time be brought to the Brown Corporation for a vote at the October 2024 Corporation meeting. Brown was the first university in the country to schedule a vote, as opposed to a discussion, on this issue. A few others have now followed Brown down this unprincipled road. President Paxson managed to achieve a trifecta of academic leadership failures in one fell swoop. Like Neville Chamberlain, she guaranteed “peace for our [graduation] time”; like the German planners of the 1936 Olympics who temporarily cleaned up Berlin before the games, she will be able to pretend that all is well on campus—no signs of antisemitism, no one chanting “there is only one solution/intifada revolution”; channeling noted antisemite and Nazi sympathizer Avery Brundage who insisted the 1972 Olympic Games continue after Palestinian terrorists murdered 11 Israeli athletes, for President Paxson “the graduation must go on.”  She and the rest of the Brown leadership who agreed to this Faustian bargain embarrassed themselves and did permanent damage to the institution.

I am writing in response to the article “Built to Hold Disagreement.” I am very disappointed in the one-sided coverage of the war in Gaza. It’s important to remember this war was started by Hamas, a terrorist organization that invaded Israel and then brutally murdered, raped, and kidnapped hundreds of Israelis and other nationals. Hostages are still being held; I and many of my fellow Jews pray every day for their safe return. In addition, I think it would have been important to hear from Brown Students for Israel, especially Jillian Lederman ’24, who has spoken and written about Israel and the current conflict. She could explain that Israel is neither apartheid nor colonialist and why Zionism is important to most Jews. Please make your coverage evenhanded.