By S. Ghazi
Yesterday, the University of Toronto sent out their “deal” to the organizers of the encampment. Although they called this proposal a deal, it is far more akin to an ultimatum. There is no room for negotiation as the university quite clearly stated at the end of this supposed deal that rejection of this deal would lead to “further action.” In any case, this deal should be broken down and examined to reveal the true intentions behind it, as well as shed some light on the University’s motive behind this “proposal’”.
The first part of the University’s deal includes a statement highlighting “the University’s commitment to academic freedom, human rights, and international cooperation.” While this sounds great, it effectively does nothing; no real policy change, no tangible effect. The University then goes on to outline their path to divestment. This consists of the formation of an Advisory Committee that will generate a report that the president will then look at. The entire pathway the University has proposed gives them a variety of places to either cancel or delay the process indefinitely, since they haven’t actually committed to divestment; it’s only an assessment. It’s also just a way for the University to pretend they’re considering divestment through some sort of extensive process while never genuinely engaging with it.
The University’s proposal for disclosure also follows along these nothing-burger lines, saying an expert working group will make recommendations to the President, who will then consider it. Then finally, the deal outright refuses to break ties with Israeli universities that have buildings on occupied land citing their “commitment to academic freedom,” and refusal to commit “academic boycotts.” However, they say nothing of the illegal buildings those universities possess. Is it really a commitment to academic freedom when the University you’re building bridges with is building those bridges on top of land they do not own? Ironically, one of these Universities that UofT is building bridges with is the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, which is located in the occupied West Bank and itself has made statements claiming that the growing global view of Israel as an oppressor is something we should fight. In fact, a campus of the Hebrew University was built on land forcibly confiscated from the Palestinian village of Al Issawiya. Quite telling coming from a University from whose windows you can see the continual “excavation” of the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound as well as other religious sites.
Unsurprisingly, the deal was soundly rejected by the encampment organizers as inadequate in meeting their demands. I believe the University ultimately saw this coming, for no reasonable negotiation is framed as an ultimatum. That being said, news headlines never go into the details of a deal: all that will appear is that the university made a deal, and the students adamantly rejected it. The deal is likely just a way to save face for the University, to uphold their imagined moral high ground before they call in the cops to dismantle and forcibly remove the encampment. One could say this was a smart move by the University. They can claim they tried to negotiate, but those meddling kids weren’t reasonable and had to be removed. The University has never worked in good faith since the start, always sending emails praising themselves for their patience while attempting to intimidate the encampment and any protesters. What they don’t seem to understand is that this isn’t a fad for us. Just as students honourably protested against the War in Vietnam and Apartheid in South Africa, we will fight for a Free Palestine. Even then, the older generation, with their outdated world view and deep economic ties to the oppressor, painted students as radicals and used force to disrupt their actions. Yet as we learn from history, we see that the students are always on the right side of history. Perhaps the school won’t disclose and divest, but we, the students, will be vindicated, and history will smile upon us.
*The author is a U of T student using a pen name, given the gravity of the situation.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of 9awtak.com, its staff, or other contributors.
