The Controversial Truth: Unpacking the Complexity of Student Protests against Israel

Nicole Hemmer, an associate professor of history and director of the Carolyn T. and Robert M. Rogers Center for the Study of the Presidency at Vanderbilt University, shares her opinion on the current situations in Israel and Gaza. As the crisis worsens, American focus has centered around the university. Numerous opinion pieces with titles such as "The War Comes to Stanford" and "Students for Pogroms in Israel" have been published in national outlets.

Nicole Hemmer

Following the Hamas attack that resulted in a death toll of at least 1,500 people, various student groups at Harvard University publicly blamed the Israeli regime for the violence. In response, prominent figures such as billionaire hedge fund CEO Bill Ackman called for the public disclosure of these students' names and information, effectively advocating for their blacklisting and doxxing. Moreover, a nonprofit organization established by billionaire couple Leslie Wexner and Abigail Wexner, who are associated with Victoria's Secret, announced their decision to sever ties with Harvard, accusing the institution of handling the Hamas attack with caution and restraint.

At the University of Pennsylvania, the Huntsman Foundation, led by former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, withdrew its promised multimillion-dollar donations this week. The foundation argued that the university's failure to comment on the attack amounted to "silence in the face of reprehensible and historic Hamas evil." Huntsman, a former ambassador and Penn trustee, expressed in his email to the university's president that "silence is antisemitism."

War voices.

- Ilan Troen: My mother witnessed her mother's death in a violent attack. I was speaking to my daughter on the phone when she was also killed in a similar incident.

- Yasmine Mohammed: There are many Palestinians in Gaza who strongly dislike Hamas.

- Gal Katz: I find myself attending one funeral after another. I survived a music festival by hiding in an orange grove for six hours.

- Yuli Ben Ami: The final message I received from my father was his warning that they were trapped together in a safe room.

- Omar Ghraieb: In Gaza, we have no safe place to seek refuge.

- Neta Heiman Mina: My mother was kidnapped by Hamas, but I condemn the destruction in Gaza.

The historical context is crucial as it sheds light on the persistent pattern of the American establishment's negative response to college students' political activism. This condemnation has been a recurring theme since the 1960s when student radicals began to explore new methods of protesting against issues such as anti-Black racism, the Vietnam War, poverty, and censorship. Actor John Wayne once controversially stated that protest supporters carrying the Vietcong flag should be shot.

Despite being important contributors to social movements, students held significantly less power than other influential figures in society, such as politicians, business leaders, and university presidents. However, it is intriguing why these students garner such disproportionate attention.

Partly, this can be attributed to fear—the fear that the upcoming generation will bring about profound changes to the country, reshaping its political landscape in ways that provoke disapproval from the current holders of power. However, this fear has not materialized in reality. Despite the expectation, the 1980s and 1990s did not witness a surge in left-wing radicalism among middle-aged Baby Boomers (many of whom had served in the Vietnam War). Instead, this period was characterized by a notable conservative streak in US politics. Cultural shifts did occur, but the political sphere exhibited little resemblance to the Democratic Party of 30 years prior, which had been divided by antiwar protesters opposing American involvement in Vietnam.

Its worth noting that the current criticism directed towards student protests represents only a small fraction of their peers. This is partly because social media and news outlets tend to amplify the most provocative and sensational voices, overshadowing the more nuanced discussions and viewpoints held by student activists. However, as we observe these events unfolding in recent days, a more significant dynamic emerges, drawing parallels to lessons learned from the 1960s. Those in positions of power have become adept at utilizing student protests and youth-driven radicalism as a political strategy, using the content of these protests to discredit entire political parties and movements.

American youths rally in front of the Capitol in Washington, DC on April 25, 1971, protesting against the United States' military involvement in the Vietnam War. They proudly wave the flag of the Vietcong and hold up a portrait of Chinese leader Mao Zedong as symbols of their resistance.

Students can sometimes exhibit clumsy, rigid, narrow-minded, and forceful behavior in their protests. During the 1960s, student radicals occasionally displayed the Viet Cong flag as a gesture of solidarity with the Vietnamese people. Others showcased Mao Zedong's Little Red Book, a Chinese leader whose policies resulted in the deaths of millions. These symbols became significant points of reference for certain students who were trying to understand and oppose American imperialism, as the two-party system in the US offered limited outlets for such political stances.

However, these tactics also made students vulnerable targets during a time when US soldiers were engaged in deadly battles with the Viet Cong, and when support for the millions of Vietnamese affected by the war was hard to find. The image of a student with a Viet Cong flag allowed proponents of the war to argue that the entire antiwar movement was essentially anti-American. Additionally, the presence of such students made it convenient to dismiss young people all over the country, as well as leftism in general, as ill-informed, unpatriotic, and unworthy of backing, without ever needing to seriously consider the students' critiques of American power.

{{img_placeholder_2}}

On October 10, 2023, LA F.U.E.R.Z.A, a student-led advocacy group, organized a Day of Resistance protest for Palestine at CSU Long Beach in Long Beach, CA. The event was marked by a march through the campus, with the majority of participants wearing face coverings and declining to engage with the media. However, they took breaks during the march to deliver speeches. (Photo by Brittany Murray/MediaNews Group/Long Beach Press-Telegram via Getty Images)

Brittany Murray/MediaNews Group/Long Beach Press-Telegram/Getty Images

Opinion: For students and scholars, words matter. Thats why this is so appalling

The students themselves lacked significant authority, and thus there was no need for their involvement. Universities had the ability to suspend or expel student protesters, while police could use force and make arrests. Political parties often dismissed and overruled them, even though the Democratic Party eventually made reforms to include more young people, which did not significantly alter their political stance in the following years.

Nevertheless, students possessed the ability to create disruption, capture media attention, and produce iconic images that defined an era. This led to an exaggerated perception of their power, with those in positions of actual power and material resources playing the victim card. President Richard Nixon used the term "silent majority" in 1969, implying that unruly and unrepresentative protestors had taken over US politics, and patriotic Americans needed to reclaim their country. As the governor of California in the late 1960s, President Ronald Reagan criticized student protesters, using it as a platform to eventually become president. Although the students did not achieve their desired revolution, conservative politicians found them useful in gaining their own political influence.

A similar dynamic is evident today as students from various schools across the US rally in support of Palestinians. Some students blame Israel for the Hamas attack as part of their broader condemnation of the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza. Critics, particularly those who criticize the National Students for Justice in Palestine, have called out their "day of resistance" event, which explicitly celebrated the attacks and solely attributed the violence to Israel. This position is offensive to most, especially to fellow students who may feel alienated or horrified by their peers' efforts. However, despite these actions from US universities, there has been no significant change in national support for Israel at this time – in fact, it seems to be growing stronger.

Sign up for CNN Opinions newsletter

Join us on Twitter and Facebook

However, this tactic has resulted in severe consequences for many students, such as losing their jobs, facing widespread criticism, and even the possibility of being blacklisted within their industry. It has also been utilized as a means to discredit the left in a broader sense. Some individuals view this as the main objective. Christopher Rufo, a right-wing activist notorious for attacking universities and detailing his propaganda methods, outlined his strategy on social media. He argued that by associating Hamas, Black Lives Matter, Democratic Socialists of America, and academic discourse, the right can effectively "attack, delegitimize, and discredit" both universities and the American left, ultimately rendering them politically insignificant.

Executing such a maneuver depends on convincing the majority of Americans that students possess disproportionate power, enabling them to influence national politics. Consequently, those who oppose the political causes of these students believe they must be silenced at all costs. However, this notion is far from the truth. While you may disagree with the words and actions of these student activists, they are not the ones holding the actual power. Instead, our attention should be directed towards those individuals who have the authority and examine how they employ it.