Anti-Israel campus groups have made inroads at American universities through creating strategic partnerships with mainstream left wing groups, use of the campus media, and support of certain members of the faculty and staff of the institution. Activists who wish to combat this threat must respond to all three of these avenues by getting organized, utilizing the media and maintaining relationships with organizations, campus influentials, and the Jewish community. The Coalition of Hopkins Activists for Israel (CHAI) was created in September 2000 in order to enact these steps in the hopes of preempting potential anti-Israelism on the Johns Hopkins University's Homewood campus.
Background the Johns Hopkins University:
The Johns Hopkins University (JHU) was founded in Baltimore City, Maryland in 1876. It is comprised of nine divisions including the School of Arts and Science, the School of Engineering, the School of Professional Studies, Business and Education (all located on the Undergraduate Homewood campus), various schools on the Medical campus and the School of Advanced International Studies (located in Washington DC) as well as a number of other schools. The Undergraduate population is roughly 4000 students, though graduate students nearly double that figure on the undergraduate campus. In the year 2000 roughly 10% of the undergraduate student body was Jewish; in 2004 that number reached 13%. The students tend to be politically conservative. The largest events on campus are lacrosse games, Diwali Dhamaaka-a Hindu cultural event, and two symposia dealing with domestic and foreign policy.
I. Introduction: Conflict on Campus
The current Arab-Israeli armed conflict, fought on a territorial region far from the United States has developed a new front bisecting the University quad. The conflict has found a niche on campus and has, in the past four years, acted as a conduit for political expression, involvement and power at the American university. The following article is a strategic assessment of the Arab-Israeli conflict on American university campuses, examining both the methods employed by anti-Israel activists and effective pro-Israel activity. Activities of both pro and anti-Israel activists on the Johns Hopkins campus will be considered as examples of the topics discussed heretofore.
The Arab-Israeli conflict is one of the few international issues debated on college campuses. The manner in which these issues arise and the goals of anti-Israel detractors are concerning.
The first important component of activism of any kind is organization. Activists on both sides of this issue have joined together, found one another throughout a single campus and begun group-thinking. This conflict has mobilized various pro and anti-Israel organizations on single campuses and, moreover, fostered a network between various locales. These newly mobilized groups have learned to affect the mood on campus using various tools available to the average student group. At the Johns Hopkins Homewoord Campus the Coalition of Hopkins Activists for Israel (CHAI) was created in September 2000 in order to enact these steps in the hopes of preempting potential anti-Israelism.
II. Tools of Activism:
i. University Newspapers: Vulnerable Media
Most American universities have an independent college newspaper or radio station (a lesser number also broadcast their own television station). The media is affiliated with the university and covers events that occur on campus, however, they receive no funding from the institution. As such, the independent campus media becomes the voice of the student body, but bears no burden of accountability either to the school or the students (who do not, usually, pay a subscription fee). Implied herein is that while University media review the institution it cannot be limited or 'punished'by the university.
The media serves another important role. Perspective students often look to the university newspaper for an understanding of the campus. Moreover, alumni of the University tend use the campus media to 'stay in touch.' Thus, the campus media acts as a link between many generations of students.
Mirroring mainstream media outlets, the University media covers the events of the Middle East closely1. Opinion pieces, letters to the Editor, and news articles appeared in college newspapers, radio and television stations throughout various University campuses. Insofar as campus media is both reflective of, and the cause of, interest and opinions at the University, the media is a tool of campus groups. The attention to the Middle East, thus, assured that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would remain a 'campus event.'
At some Universities, like Hopkins, the media-or rather bias against Israel in the media-provoked the founding of a pro-Israel group to combat this imbalance. After a series of scathing op-ed and news pieces glorifying Palestinian terrorism and maligning the very existence of the State of Israel, and after repeatedly ignored attempts by pro Israel students to find a voice in the publication, CHAI opted for strategic targeting of the Newsletter. Student members interested in journalism and foreign policy were encouraged to apply for weekly or bi weekly columns in the publication. This proved significant;2 at the conclusion of CHAI's first year, a co-founder was named editor of the opinions section. On his staff were three regular columnists also involved in CHAI. This ensured that weekly an article or column expressing a pro Israel view would appear.3 Indeed, by the third year of the pro-Israel group's emergence, members of the group who were active writers for the Newsletter were elected Editor-in-Chief and managing Editor of the publication.
ii. Partnerships:
a. Strange Bedfellows4
While the media can be used to advance either a pro or anti-Israel agenda, detractors of the Jewish State have used other partnerships to promote their 'cause.' These strategic partnerships are made with other political or cultural groups on campus considered more mainstream. Partnerships with human rights organizations-like Amnesty International, feminist's organizations, political groups and even certain faculty organizations have placed the 'Palestinian issue' at the center of educated liberal debate on American campuses. Many of the groups considered the protectors of equality and fairness on the campus became mouth pieces for the 'Palestinian cause.'
These partnerships are formed naively using anti-Israel propaganda to imply points of commonality. An appropriate response is targeted education campaigns. By running specific events with groups susceptible to these naive partnerships, pro-Israel groups can preempt a united anti-Israel front. Some groups have brought Israeli women in leadership positions to form a basis of commonality with feminist's groups; and representatives of Jewish refugees from Arab countries to help unite Human Rights groups.
b. The Anti War Movement
The power of these linkages became evident in the wave of anti-War rallies held throughout American campuses in the months leading to the war in Iraq. On many American campuses (and non-University, rallies) anti-Israel rhetoric was combined with anti-War statements5. Opposition to War in Iraq was linked to opposition to the State of Israel. While relatively inconsequential at Hopkins, which had a small anti-War movement, it has been an important relationship spreading the 'Palestinian cause'.6 At JHU the response was an article identifying this phenomenon and referenced by a number of Professors in various classes.
c. Individual partners - Identifying Influentials
Partnerships are not forged only between campus groups, but also between individuals. There is no universal definition for campus influentials; as the character of campuses differs significantly, so does the type of student who becomes influential. At some schools leaders of the student government are these decision makers; on others, like Hopkins, the leaders of specific groups - such as those creating the symposia and athletes, are more influential than the elected leadership of Student Government. Still other campuses may be 'lead' by members of the Greek life-fraternities and sororities -- and the like.
Relationships with such influentials can affect great change to the atmosphere on campus. There are two ways through which to influence campus leaders. The first is by developing good relations with these individuals. The other is to encourage members of a pro-Israel group to become these campus influentials. At Hopkins both paths were followed. Firstly, CHAI organized as a group that could bring together many different leaders on campus7. Events were designed to further CHAI's pro-Israel agenda as well as cement its place on campus as a leading and influential organization. The first of these events was the CHAI Leadership Dinner - a private dinner meeting convened by CHAI which brought together leaders of influential campus groups with the local congressman Benjamin Cardin and the Treasurer of the University's Board of Trustees and deputy to the University President8.
Next, pro-Israel activists interested in other groups were encouraged to become involved and take on positions of responsibility. By becoming leaders in activities outside those narrowly defined as 'pro-Israel', members were able to reach a larger audience. Pro-Israel messages, thus, reached students uninterested in political debate, and also helped change the general atmosphere on campus. Involvement in diverse activities prevents detractors from using campus-wide events as an opportunity to attack Israel. At Hopkins, students who were interested in planning and participating in the symposia were encouraged to do so. This involvement helped turn two symposia which, over the past three years, had become open to anti-Israel and anti-American rhetoric, into more balanced and academically honest events9. These events -- the Milton S. Eisenhower Symposium, and the Foreign Affairs Symposium -- were particularly difficult to influence as the chairs of each year's symposia are selected by the outgoing chairs. Some applicants have claimed that nominations were based on the political inclination of both the incoming and outgoing chairperson.10 CHAI members were staff members of both symposia. In 2004-2005 both symposia are led by CHAI activists.
d. University Jewry: A 'Natural' Home?
On most campuses, however, the organized Jewish community has been, at least limitedly, supportive of a pro-Israel agenda. In these situations, the Jewish community is a natural home for pro-Israel activism and offers several significant advantages. This more established community can provide assistance -- financial and organizational -- with the establishment of a new group. Additionally, the natural founders of a pro-Israel political group are in the Jewish campus community. Indeed, at JHU, the eventual founders of CHAI met through Rabbi Joseph Menashe, Director of the campus Hillel organization with whom each had privately spoken. This is a recurring role that leaders in the Hillel community play in the facilitation of a pro-Israel activist organization. Moreover, the established Jewish community already created relationships with other campus groups as well as the leaders of the university such as the President's office, which are helpful for pro-Israel activity.
Such activism also provides a link between non-religious students and the Jewish community. Many students involved in Israel activity are not, particularly religious, and may not be very active in the Jewish community if not for the political issue11.
The Jewish community itself may present an important challenge to pro-Israel activity. Jewish political views on campus are hardly monolithic. At a number of Universities, Jewish student organizations have contributed to anti-Israel rhetoric. Moreover, on a number of campuses Jews have lead anti-Israel organizations. This varied support poses an important challenge for emerging pro-Israel activists. While anti-Israel activists are beyond the realm of inclusion, groups must find a way to cope with, and attract members of the pro-Israel camp with diverging opinions. Many groups fall victim to this pitfall -- they become too identified with a particular political 'solution' for the conflict resulting in the alienation of a significant sector of the pro-Israel camp. CHAI chose to support the democratically elected leadership of the State of Israel, and tends to toe a 'middle-of-the-road' political line12.
e. Involvement from the Ivory Tower: Professor Activists and the University Institution
The tone of the University is set not only by the student body and their activities but also by professors. Unsurprisingly, schools which are home to outspoken and anti-Israel professors, tend to produce violent anti-Israel activities among its student body, divestiture petitions, and virulent anti Israel hate speak. In the University of California system, professors changed the academic credo away from the search for academic and honest truth in order to allow virulently anti-Israel classes to proceed13.
Most universities adhere to some sort of credo or constitution which enshrines the quest for knowledge and honest academic truth. Adherence to academic honesty is particularly important in situations where students are faced with anti-Israel rhetoric from professors in various classes. Intimidation in classes must be fought. In order to do so a record of all anti-Semitic and anti-Israel occurrences ought to be kept for analysis by activists and professionals.
Professors can also offer significant assistance to an activist group. Some, as was the case at Hopkins, have links and relationships with academics in Israel, or may, themselves, be involved with pro-Israel activity. In some cases, like in University of California, Santa Cruz, professors band together in order to fight against the anti-Israel bias on their campus14. As such, professors can offer perhaps the most crucial assistance by ensuring that anti-Israel speak is removed from the classroom (and is thus, devoid of the inappropriate academic 'honesty' the discourse has been granted).
The university, as an institution, is critical in setting the tone on campus. Recently, University presidents have become increasingly involved in the dismissal of divestiture petitions15. This subtle change in the tone of the discourse can be the outcome of activities unrelated to the conflict in particular. For example, joint ventures by the Johns Hopkins University and the Technion in Haifa, as well as the inauguration of the Jewish Studies program in JHU's Krieger School of Arts and Sciences are important parts of creating long-term links to the greater Jewish world and Israel.
f. Trans-generational Activism: Alumni Affect the University
Further elements of campus influence are alumni. Alumni influence mainly through philanthropy. Jewish alumni tend to financially support their alma mater in disproportionate numbers to the Jewish population of the school16. Hillel organizations and Alumni associations keep records of alumni contact information. Alumni, as the former generation of graduates tend to be interested in campus activities. As former students they have a strong interest in the reputation of the school and the experience of current and future students. Moreover, as donors to the University, they have the power and right to demand that certain issues -- like those of intimidation and the changes in academic integrity -- be addressed.
Through the Hillel organization, CHAI was able to gain the attention of former students who had graduated before the group's inception. The pro-Israel group was able to draw into the community alumni who had no previous connection to Hillel, but were particularly interested in the continuity of Israel related activity on campus. Alumni support can be 'positively' financial. They can sponsor the group or fund some activities. Or the support could be 'negatively' financial; donations can be withheld until the University affects specific change in anti-Israel rhetoric or activities. Assistance from alumni might also come via connections and networking.
iii. The Campus in Context: The Role of the 'Off-Campus' Community
University campuses are not isolated and are affected by their physical location within a community. The larger community influences politics and activities on campus. Since the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has reignited, community and national organizations have organized attempting to affect national politics. Part of their target audience is students on the University campus. Groups such as SUSTAIN, Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel among others have targeted university campuses to promote anti-Israel rhetoric from the outside.
Community groups, however, can also help promote pro-Israel activities. In the past few years Jewish and political organizations have created departments to advance pro-Israel and anti-Terror responses on various campuses. AIPAC, Hillel International, AEPi fraternity, Hagshama, the AviChai foundation, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, among others, have been at the forefront of providing services, assistance and advice to college students involved in pro-Israel activism. These groups offer funding and program ideas, as well as a series of ways in which to "take back the campus." While all of these groups offer invaluable assistance it is important that group leaders understand the character of their university and adjust suggestions and advice to fit the specific campus on which the pro-Israel group functions.
Involvement in diverse varied activities of pro-Israel activists is important off-campus as well. Many influentials in the city or town of the university, in its Jewish and secular community are quite open and welcoming to college students. Participation in groups -- such as the Federation and JCC, as well as non-Jewish clubs and organizations -- in the area, yields deserved attention and assistance to the pro-Israel group. Moreover, many community members have some link to the University -- either as alumni or staff and faculty of the institution. They, thus, have an interest and impetus to help affect the mood on campus.
CHAI developed a close relationship with the Hillel of Greater Baltimore, and through them, the Associated (Federation of Baltimore). These relationships allowed members of the group access to influentials in the broader Jewish community. Furthermore, these relationships helped make JHU important for community pro-Israel activities -- such as concerts and lectures -- in addition to University based activities.
Conclusion
Anti-Israel activism -- often called pro-Palestinian activism -- stands on three legs, strategic relationships, professors, and the media. Each must be addressed by Pro-Israel activists strategically. While CHAI, like most other pro-Israel groups on American campuses, began as an ad hoc and quick response unit to biases and misinformation on the campus, it quickly developed strategic mission. This strategy was geared toward the specific character of the school and concentrated on the type of activity most successful on the JHU campus. A cerebral and politically 'apathetic' school, education campaigns were deemed the best approach both to the conflict and debate 17. Thus, biases in the media were addressed. Simultaneously, CHAI's niche in the university's Jewish community was established.
Once the method of approach to the campus was determined and successful, forging relationships within the University and the larger Jewish community were priorities. By involving University officials, such as the Dean of Student Life, the University Chaplain, members of the Board of Trustees and the President's Office in the planning and execution of events, CHAI could maintain a significant profile within the University. By actively choosing events which drew the greater Jewish community to the campus, JHU became a central and integral part of the general pro-Israel community. Relationships with alumni and professors have been critical to affecting long term change on the campus. Finally, CHAI's relationship with a broad pro-Israel network proved important for the training of activists, as well as a positive site for planning and refining the activity and role of the group.
Four years after the creation of this group, all its original founders have graduated and left the area. However, the mark of success lies in that CHAI members now have a part in all the major organizations on campus. They have maintained relationships with University deans and faculty. The campus has never been prone to aggressive or violent anti-Israel activity.
The university years are traditionally those in which American youth explore political activism and cement their notion regarding the World. It is crucial that pro-Israel activism be conducted strategically.
The author is a recent graduate of the Johns Hopkins University and a co-Founder of CHAI. She is a Masters candidate at the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). This study was conducted during a stay at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
Foot Notes
1. Many university newspapers use Associated Press and Reuters articles as the sources of news.
2. Personal Correspondence 4 August 2004.
3. This should not be thought of as 'taking over' the campus media. It is legitimate that campus groups ought to have a voice in the campus media. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the college media itself to provide this voice. CHAI group members may have been encouraged to write on behalf of the Newsletter, but were elected to and awarded positions of responsibility and honor because of their journalistic talent.
4. Summers, Lawrence. Address at morning prayers, Memorial Church of the Harvard University. 17 September 2002.
5. Neuman, Brooke, Is anti-war effort anti-Israel? The Newsletter, Johns Hopkins University 28 February 2003.
6. At many anti-War rallies crowds chanted "one, two, three, four, we don't want your racist war, five, six, seven, eight, Israel is a racist state." Furthermore, many of the 'activists' donned pins such as 'Zionism is Racism" alongside pins such as "No blood for oil". Ibid
7. Private correspondence, co-Chair CHAI Leadership Dinner.
8. The Gazette, the Johns Hopkins University. 11 November 2002.
9. At Hopkins, as in other Universities, the chair-persons of these events name their successors thus allowing anti-Israel activists to continually hold these positions of influence. In the upcoming school year, chairs of both of the high profile symposia dealing with domestic and foreign policy, respectively, are members of the pro-Israel group. Private communication, Yonina Alexander 15 July 2004.
10. Private correspondence, Bita Azhdam, 1 August 2004.
11. While two of the original five founders of the organization had attended a Jewish Day School all but one considered themselves to be secular and cultural Jews. All had spent varied, though significant, lengths of time in Israel – living and studying in the State.
12. www.jhu.edu/chai
13. Private communication from Dr. Leila Beckwith, Professor of Psychology University of California, Santa Cruz. 10, July 2004.
14. Ibid.
15. Harvard President Lawrence Summers issued an address which discussed the concerning links between the divestment movement and the growth of anti-Semitic incidents. Address at morning prayers, Memorial Church of the Harvard University. 17, September 2002.
16. At Northwestern University nearly 25% of alumni donations come from Jewish graduates although only 17.5% of the undergraduate student body is Jewish (1997 statistics).
17. Approximately 1/3 of students major in the fields of International Relations and Political Science. JHU Campus Guide.
Back to Index, click here
The views expressed in the articles and posts are those of the writer and not of
the Teen-To-Teen management and editorial board. To find out more about our organization or to make a contribution, please send email to Sarale at write@ttt.org.il
Support our sponsor David's Consultants RGA Ltd. All Rights reserved©, 1997-2008