Loyola students vote for divestment

THE UNIFIED Student Government Association (USGA) at Loyola University in Chicago voted March 24 to divest from companies profiting off of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian land, becoming the third major campus in Chicago to do so this year. This is the third time in two years that the Loyola USGA has passed such a resolution. The democratic will of the Loyola student body has been silenced twice though undemocratic methods demanded by supporters of Israel.

Last year, a similar resolution passed by a vote of 26-0, with two senators abstaining. Supporters of Israel forced a re-vote, however. After an intense debate and second vote, the resolution passed again, 12 to 10, with 9 senators abstaining. However, after a private meeting with the well-funded off-campus organization, the Jewish United Fund, the resolution was vetoed by then-USGA President Pedro Guerrero.

This year, the #LoyolaDivest campaign kicked off three weeks prior to the vote, spearheaded by the Loyola chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). During that time, a number of events were held on campus, including a meeting with Loyola Hillel, and more than 1,200 signatures were collected in support of the resolution.

Companies named in the divestment resolution include Raytheon (which supplies the Israel Defense Forces with weapons used in the illegal Israeli occupation), Caterpillar (whose weaponized bulldozers have destroyed countless Palestinian homes and were used to kill American Rachel Corrie), Valero (which supplies the Israeli Air Force with jet fuel) and United Technologies (whose F-16 fighter jets were used last summer to destroy 22 Palestinian schools and bomb 118 more, in addition to bombing Gaza University).

INSIDE THE Senate meeting, there was a stark contrast between supporters of divestment and its opponents. The pro-divestment side was packed, with nearly 200 people representing more than 21 different student organizations, filling the right side of the room. About a dozen turned out to oppose the resolution, primarily from Hillel.

During the scheduled hour of public debate, the opposition appeared disorganized and demanded an "equal" voice. In practice, this meant that while opponents for the resolution were able to speak three, four and even five times in one case, and respond to comments, supporters of divestment were only able to speak once. At one point, the USGA Speaker moved to suspend public debate purely because the opposition couldn't get anyone to speak against divestment.

The opposition's prepared comments were neither new nor convincing--the bulk of their arguments seemed plucked from an anti-democratic guide produced by the Reut Institute attacking campus divestment campaigns. They declared the diverse coalition of 21 different student organizations across campus to be "divisive," when just the opposite was the case.

Among other things, the opponents of divestment claimed that the resolution targeted them and made them feel unsafe as Jews for supporting Israel, "the only country that accepts Jews anywhere in the world," according to one anti-divestment campaigner. The support for the divestment resolution from Jewish students and organizations, including Jewish Voice for Peace and Jews for Justice in Palestine, was ignored.

Students from SJP responded to these claims by describing how products from companies like Raytheon and United Technologies were used to actually target and, in some cases, kill their own family members by Israel Defense Forces. "There is a difference between feeling unsafe and being unsafe," said SJP President Nadeen Darweech. Another divestment supporter stated, "You don't have to support Palestinians to support human rights."

One thing the opponents of divestment didn't seem interested in talking about was the actual resolution. Instead, they talked about rockets, air sirens, going to Israel and swastikas on campus (implying that white supremacy is linked to divestment)--and they demanded a vote against divestment in favor of "a more civil" dialogue, as if the act of demanding the university not invest in internationally recognized human rights violations was somehow "un-civil."

Student Senator Nashiha Alam, a divestment supporter, finished the USGA debate by saying, "I want you all to recognize that this is a movement that will go down in history...The occupation will end one day, and when the occupation ends, will you know that you were on the right side of history?"

In the end, the USGA voted 15-15 with two abstentions. The tie was broken after a tense moment, when the Speaker of the USGA Senate voted in favor of the resolution.

AFTER THE vote, in an open letter to Loyola students, University President Father Michael Garanzini signaled that the University would not respect the students' decision.

In his letter, Garanzini stated that he felt "compelled to speak out about this vote," saying that it "pits student against student." Garanzini finished his letter by emphatically stating that "the University is not interested in taking up the matter of divestment in this instance. What we are interested in is having students engage in thoughtful and respectful open discussion."

In an open letter of their own, Loyola SJP responded to Garazini:

After the numerous tragedies that have occurred over the course of your tenure here at Loyola, your silence has been discouraging. You have chosen to remain silent on issues of racism, sexual assault, access to education, the exclusion of Queer communities on campus, and worker justice...You chose this moment to target a campaign spearheaded by a diverse group of student organizations and voices, to speak out and undermine the voices of the Loyola Student Body...

We are dismayed at your encouragement of "dialogue" as an alternative way to confront the issues the measure addresses. Although you suggest dialogue and discussion, you have not made any efforts to reach out to or meet with the coalition of students who dedicated months of their time, physical and emotional energy, and resources to raise awareness and educate their campus on the human rights issues at the heart of the Measure to Divest.

We have been engaging in non-stop dialogue, through weeks of tabling and community engagement. Your use of the word dialogue appears only to support the prolonging of suffering, silencing and marginalization of student groups and Palestinians.

Once again, supporters of Israel have proven that they cannot function on U.S. campuses except by silencing democracy. Just as we must demand full democratic rights for Palestinians, we must also fight for full democratic life on our campuses--including the right to divest from Israeli apartheid.