Hear from Academics against Student Encampments: “I would ask all protestors to reconsider their view of Israel”, says leader of movement

As a publication, we are committed to highlighting the diversity of opinion and perspectives among students and academics. We are committed to accurately reporting the events in the Solidarity Camps, and invite all students and academics who may agree or disagree with the position presented in this article. We invite you to share your reaction and response with us, by contacting editor@per-capita.co.uk. 

“Free Speech will return to our great universities– a high quality university experience depends on it”, penned Arif Ahmed in The Telegraph in March. “One in seven students do not feel free to express their view on campus”. But, for the protestors residing in encampments outside King’s College Cambridge, in Oxford or those in several student encampments that have sprung across higher education institutions globally, they are making sure that their moral calculus is heard – loud and clear.

While several academics have publically expressed their support for their students who have chosen to participate in the camp, a growing number of academics have taken to sign an open letter expressing that they “oppose the movement to create encampments on University grounds. Such actions sow division and create exclusionary spaces, undermining the purpose and functioning of a University.” They believe “the current encampments are in fact hostile environment for those who disagree.”

The open letter has several notable signatories from the University of Cambridge– David Abulafia, Béla Bollobás and Nobel Laureate, Gregory Winter, alongside academics from Oxford University and institutions in the US, Germany and Switzerland.

I spoke to the leader of the movement, Academics against University Occupations, Dr Craig Walton (referred as CW, henceforth). Walton is a researcher at both ETH Zürich and the University of Cambridge, studying the origins of life on Earth and planetary evolution. Per Capita also contacted other co-signatories, as well as academics who have participated in pro-Palestinian marches.

“I would ask protestors to make the camps visibly non-partisan. Focus on the agreeable point about divestment from war and actively disavow violence against civilians. Fully acknowledge Israel’s pain from Oct 7th. Join them in calls for Hamas to release their family members still kept as hostages. Put pressure on Hamas to change their stance towards co-existence with Israel, not replacement, and vice versa in the case of the Israeli government. Such conciliatory moves would be an immense step towards compromise and, eventually, lasting peace. Just imagine how much could be achieved if you had not only the voices on side that you have already persuaded, but everyone else, too.”

Per Capita has agreed to publish Dr Walton’s responses in full to ensure that his position, and those of the other co-signatories of the open letter, are not misconstrued.

“I penned an open letter by academics from around the world against the University occupation protests. The open letter has raised many interesting questions online and it is a pleasure to be invited to elaborate further here. Like many people, I watched with trepidation as increasingly chaotic scenes unfolded at Universities across the United States with the creation of the camps. I started an open letter calling for the Universities to act to dispel the camps because I am concerned for the academic safety and freedoms of my fellow staff and students at the Universities. Having visited the Cambridge encampment and engaged frankly but cordially with the appointed representative available at the time, I am also deeply worried about the irreversible damage that could be caused to the historic buildings of Cambridge in particular. My decision to start the letter was solidified by seeing ETH Zurich take a firm and clear minded stance against the camps from the outset”, Dr Walton told Per Capita.

SS: Why do you, and your co-signatories, feel that the camps including the ones at the University of Cambridge on impinge on academic freedom, and create “exclusionary spaces” within the University. Do you support student’s calls for the University’s divestment in arms funding as a whole and where there appear to be funding links with Israel? Would you, alongside other signatories of this movement, support this position if the solidarity marches were paused/ceased, and the camp dismantled?

CW: The open letter format necessarily requires the adoption of a less nuanced position and I deliberately drafted the letter to be apolitical. My personal (and necessarily more political) view on the issue of encampments adds a key caveat to the position outlined in the letter: that, in specific circumstances, rule-breaking encampments may be acceptable (though this is not the case for the current encampments).

I think encampments may be justified where: there is an extreme moral calamity; and the University is directly involved in funding this; and the encampments are peaceful, safe environments inviting those who disagree to access the space as well and debate the issues.

“The current encampments are in fact hostile environment for those who disagree, even if those organising the camps cannot see it.”

I feel that this is important to outline, since the most valid criticisms of the letter online were that it did not address the cores arguments made by protestors that there is a moral emergency that requires disruption to fix – regardless of the costs. Obviously, to do so requires taking some kind of stance on the Israel-Hamas war. Protestors would argue that the criteria listed above are fulfilled:

1. Genocide is taking place; and
2. The University is directly involved in funding it; and
3. The tone of the encampments is persuasive and inclusive rather than aggressive and exclusionary.

In my opinion, these requirements are not currently satisfied. Point three was the main one raised in my open letter and stands regardless of one’s beliefs about points 1 and 2. Indeed, the camps would likely be much more effective all around at building consensus and less controversial if they dealt with some valid criticisms mainly around point 3 – at least in my view.

Genocide is the mass slaughter of people with the aim of eradicating that group. For now, I maintain that both evidence and rhetoric suggest that Israel is trying to defeat Hamas – not kill all Palestinians. What does fully fulfil the definition of genocide is the attack by Hamas on October 7th, which involved the mass murder of Jews by a group motivated by the desire to eradicate all Jews. Perhaps using the correct term for Oct 7th would help to make clear the immense moral dilemma being felt by both sides. Norm Finkelstein, a prominent pro-Palestinian activist and scholar, said in a recent interview that – paraphrasing – ‘anything’ done in response to genocide is justified. We can see how dangerous this attitude is since, applied to Israel, it would fully justify their response to Oct 7th. Yet, many people have deep criticisms of the response, including me, which I think that is entirely reasonable.

Is the University plausibly ‘funding genocide’? My answer to 1 means that the answer here is a simple no. We can soften the position to ask whether the University is funding war, generally. Here, the answer is that a small fraction of the investments must be going towards military equipment and the like. Whilst it will be impossible for us to completely morally police College investments – we will all have valid criticisms of many things – divesting from war wherever possible seems good as it takes the University further away from being either an explicitly or implicitly activist organisation. Hence, I would generally support a careful process of divestment from all arms etc. and reinvestment into other less controversial areas.

The current encampments are in fact hostile environment for those who disagree, even if those organising the camps cannot see it. The Cambridge encampment is decorated with Palestinian flags only, many people are wearing full masks/balaclavas, and there are placards calling for “intifada revolution from Cambridge to Gaza” and stating that “all resistance is justified”. This is clearly a partisan space that does not currently project a peaceful welcome to Jewish or Israeli people to come and try to find common ground with those protesting. I know from the many people who have spoken to me privately that it is intimidating to many Jewish students/staff at the University.

If we zoom back out to the global stage, the narrative offered by many supporters of the camps truly does minimise the genocide committed by Hamas on Oct 7th, with many people again arguing that “all resistance is justified.” It is hard for me to believe that the placard at Kings quoted above is not referencing this event. Indeed, toward the end of my chat with folks at the Cambridge encampment, there was an unwillingness to condemn violence against civilians in general and no desire to make any comment on Oct 7th. All I could get on these sorts of topics was repetition that they were not to talk about any of this – despite being surrounded by the giant placards that I mentioned. This is simply not good enough and obviously creates an exclusionary, partisan, and frankly disturbing intellectual space. Anyone who supports the Oct 7th genocide but uses genocide as their prime moral imperative for occupation encampments is either acting in bad faith or has a pretty big blind spot.

A final point here. In my conversation with a few people at the Cambridge camp, we discussed their logic for disruptive protest. The argument was made that they are simply doing the minimum necessary disruption to achieve their goals. When I asked whether, if the minimum necessary action would be to destroy the whole University, the answer from those present was an emphatic ‘yes’. According to the protestors, paraphrasing, ‘one human life is worth more than any work of art or building.’ Whilst on its face that statement is true, I would urge everyone who thinks that the camps are a peaceful endeavour to consider that at least some of the protestors are so confident in their being right that they are willing, if necessary, to fully destroy your place of learning. This is the logic that led to chaos at American universities. Damaging a place of learning is wrong – full stop. This stance should be disavowed.

SS: What other “style” of protest or form of canvassing would be more appropriate, in your view? Do the circumstances differ, in this case, compared to other forms of strike action or student protest (for instance, student support for Ukraine, or extreme forms of protest by student climate activists)?

Peaceful protests that do not restrict the freedoms of others or cause huge disruption on private property without permission are absolutely fine. Crossing that line is an intentional move to force the University into a difficult spot and it is not surprising that, unless in full agreement with the justification given to break the rules, people will oppose such rule breaking. The question each of us must weigh up when considering action of this sort is whether the case being made to cause disruption outweighs the costs of the disruption. If it happened constantly, for example, the University would not function.

SS: At the time of publication, you indicated that there was a skew towards signatories from STEM fields. Would you be able to provide any suggestions, perhaps based on anecdotal or personal experiences, about why academics in the Humanities are more vocal in supporting and “egging on” the solidarity camps?

I cannot know for certain. Surveys indicate that the humanities have grown to be dominated by left-leaning academics whereas the political make-up of people in STEM fields remain more centrist. In turn, articles coming out of the humanities view the world through that left-leaning perspective – particularly that of neo-Marxist Critical Theory. To quote the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, “Critical theory aims not merely to describe social reality, but to generate insights into the forces of domination operating within society in a way that can inform practical action and stimulate change.” Macdonald and Young (2016) emphasize – in a positive light, as I understood the article – “the role of critical theory as a form of ‘scholar-activism’.” This institutionalisation of activism within the humanities seems a plausible way to explain the high % of signatures on pro-encampment letters coming from humanities relative to STEM, and vice versa.

On that note, I would ask all protestors interested in driving progressive social change to reconsider their view of Israel. Women’s rights, Gay rights, Religious freedom, and so on are all enshrined in law in Israel, yet the same cannot be said of anywhere else in the Middle East. Be extremely careful before you stop engaging with everyone in Israel wholesale. A huge number of people there are resilient, open minded, intelligent, and progressive. Israel is a potential lock in the key of entrenched anti-progressive views that still dominate that entire region of the world (including Jew hatred, sadly). I believe that seemingly impossible things can be achieved given the desire to work closely with the Israelis. These people are not evil. [emphasis included by CW]

If you would like to share a response to the claims and argument made by Dr Craig Walton and Academics against University Occupations, email editor@per-capita.co.uk