Surely I’m not the only person who has wondered what I would say if I were one of the college presidents who has been summoned to testify before the House committee on education and the workforce. How would I answer their unmistakably hostile questions about how the war in Gaza has been affecting campus life – and about how the university administration is dealing with the divisive and threatening atmosphere that the conflict has created among students and faculty?
After two presidents – Harvard’s Claudine Gay and the University of Pennsylvania’s M Elizabeth Magill – lost their jobs this winter, at least partly because of their responses to the committee’s interrogation, I imagined that I might have tried to sound more thoughtful, more human, less lawyered up, more cognizant of the difficulties and complexities inherent in these issues. But both women seemed to be repeating what they’d been instructed to say. They claimed that their response to an openly antisemitic statement would depend on context, a word that – they must have known – was wide open to the misinterpretation, dissatisfaction and mockery it almost instantly engendered. I even imagined appealing to the lawmakers’ decency and intelligence, to their sense that we were all working to find a way to end this brutal war. But, as time has shown, that would have been an absurd idea.
Now that the Columbia University president, Minouche Shafik, has been called before the committee to testify about her administration’s handling of campus unrest – disciplining protesters, prohibiting demonstrations, considering whether or not to fire professors who have been accused of being overly zealous in their support of Israel or Palestine – the circumstances surrounding the subject have changed.
The war has been going on for months. More than 30,000 people have died as we sign letters and petitions, block roadways, give speeches and post on social media even as we feel (and prove to be) increasingly powerless to end the carnage. So I have come to imagine a somewhat different response to the committee’s questions:
“With all due respect, esteemed committee members, let me get one thing straight. The war that you are approving and partly funding is understandably causing division and anguish and a sense of crisis on my campus – and you are blaming me? Are we surprised that the massive bloodletting which the average American citizen feels powerless to staunch might be causing tensions to run high in a community – an academic community – whose members have strong political and religious loyalties and which, as an institution, values free speech?
“Is it so hard to imagine that a war that we taxpayers are partly supporting might wind down if our government took a stronger position against it? Again, with all due respect, don’t you think there’s something shameful about using the deaths of more than 30,000 human beings as an excuse to go after our universities and try to exert control over those bastions of the ‘liberal elite’. And aren’t such places – for all their flaws, their expansion plans that have razed low-income neighborhoods, their reprehensible investment policies, their ties to morally sketchy corporate and private donors – nonetheless dedicated to the principles of education, which (at least some of us think) is a good thing.
“Excuse me if I can’t remember when precisely the government was authorized to oversee the policies of private universities and determine the punishment of those who offend certain standards determined by politicians.
“And while we’re on the subject of professors being censured and possibly fired for making (allegedly) extremist statements” – Shafik has apparently agreed to terminate the contract of a tenured professor accused of being pro-Hamas – “shouldn’t the same standards and penalties be applied to members of this very committee who, in their virulence, have outdone the most outspoken faculty members?
“Though he later attempted to amend and explain his statement, the Michigan Republican representative Tim Walberg suggested that the proper response to the war in Gaza might be to simply nuke the territory. ‘It should be like Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Get it over quick.’ Nor was Walberg alone in his suggestion about how to deal with Gaza. Senator Lindsey Graham proposed that we should ‘level the place’.”
Meanwhile, the killing goes on, and we – that is, our government – continue to condone and support it. The war has caused every negative aspect of human behavior to bubble to the surface. The rhetoric of rancor and hatred has spiked. Antisemitic incidents have risen at a terrifying rate. Three Palestinian students were shot on the streets of Burlington, Vermont.
My ultimate answer to the US representatives currently interrogating Shafik would be this: “Throughout history, wars have begun and ended. This one too will have to end. Leave our educational institutions alone. The conflict in the Middle East is not their fault. Were we to join together in working toward a peaceful resolution to the slaughter and famine in Gaza, I can almost promise you: the rancor, the unrest, the division in academia is not a permanent situation that anyone expects or desires to perpetuate. It’s not conducive to learning. Broker a viable solution to the conflict, and the rage and misery on our college campuses will disappear on its own – as soon, or very soon after, the war ends.”
Francine Prose is a novelist. Her memoir, 1974: A Personal History, will be published in June
