A university in Canada has set an unfortunate precedent, much to Israel’s detriment and its own financial standing.
On July 10, the president of the University of Windsor, Robert Gordon, caved in to Palestinian and pro-Palestinian protesters and signed an agreement that closed the “Liberation Zone” encampment on campus that they illegally set up on May 9.
Gordon signed a similar agreement with the University of Windsor Students’ Alliance, which endorsed the demands of the Palestinian students and their supporters.
The agreements are politically slanted and a discredit to the university, which should not take sides on an issue as sensitive and explosive as Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians.
This is probably the first time that a Canadian university has signed such a problematic agreement. That Gordon chose to follow this crooked path is presumably a reflection of his personal views and a sign of the times.
Under the terms of the agreements, the university promised not to pursue academic pacts with Israelis universities “until the right of Palestinian self-determination has been realized.”
The Palestinians are entitled to statehood in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip under a negotiated two-state solution that respects Israel’s legitimate security needs. But a university should never be guided or influenced by a partisan political dispute in a distant land.
In effect, the University of Windsor is boycotting Israeli universities in accordance with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, whose goal is a one-state solution and Israel’s demise.
The university also committed itself to a more “responsible” investment policy, which in this particular case is a euphemism for divestment from Israel. That the university chose to take this drastic and misguided step means that it has adopted a pro-Palestinian narrative at Israel’s expense.
The university will pay a price for its short-sightedness.
Two big donors, Barry Zekelman and Jay Kellerman, both graduates of the university, are understandably upset. So much so that Zekelman has announced the withdrawal of a $1 million gift, while Kellerman has withdrawn a pledge to donate a significant sum to its law school.
One can only hope that major Canadian universities, such as the University of Toronto and McGill, will play it smart and refrain from following Gordon’s lead.
Indeed, universities in this country would be wise to embrace a policy of “institutional neutrality,” which already has gone into effect at universities in the United States. This constitutes a sensible and pragmatic approach to a problem that started after Hamas’ murderous invasion of Israel on October 7.
Hewing to this non-confrontational policy, these universities will avoid getting needlessly entangled in global political conflicts over which they have no influence whatsoever. And best of all, they will be able to focus on their core mission of learning and research.
A succession of elite American universities, ranging from Harvard, Columbia and Stanford, have adopted this policy since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war last October.
Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor, explained its rationale in a recent statement.
“First, the integrity and credibility of the institution are compromised when the university speaks officially on matters outside its institutional area of expertise,” he wrote. “Second, if the university and its leaders become accustomed to issuing official statements about matters beyond the core function of the university, they will inevitably come under intense pressure to do so from multiple, competing sides on nearly every imaginable issue of the day.”
Maud Mandel, the president of Williams College, echoed Feldman when she correctly pointed out that “the practice of issuing statements supports some members of our community while disregarding others, intentionally or otherwise.” This is a prescription for divisiveness and chaos, as she implied.
Obviously, universities should abide by their mission to educate students and refrain from taking positions on international political issues that could inflame passions on campus.
As far as universities are concerned, neutrality is the way to go, now and in the future.