As students at The Fletcher School, we are deeply disappointed by the administration’s response to the three resolutions passed by the Tufts Community Union Senate on the morning of March 4. While we are aware that the administration is not obliged to comply with resolutions approved by the Senate, its response has been grossly inadequate. As graduate students, we were not permitted to attend or participate in the March 4 Senate meeting; we write this letter in affirmation of the fact that we too have a stake in university proceedings and in the financial impact this institution makes on the world.
The Office of the President’s March 4 response message states that it is the responsibility of Tufts as a university to “educate our students on the complex history of the region and to provide them with the tools to have nuanced conversations.” The statement claims that the resolutions “do not promote nuanced understanding through broader dialogue,” and disparages the Senate’s student action as “slogans, incomplete narratives, and simple yes/no votes.”
In voicing this perspective, the administration ignores and devalues the depth of expertise of the resolutions’ drafters and supporters, which include but are not limited to students from Palestine, students with relevant geographical and subject-matter expertise, students with lived experience of this issue and students who have reached a principled conclusion on the basis of careful research. It further ignores the calls made by faculty and staff — including Tufts professors with decades of expertise in Middle Eastern studies, international affairs, humanitarian response and other highly relevant disciplines — who have also demanded that Tufts take active steps to avoid complicity with Israel’s crimes in Gaza. We reject the implication that members of the Tufts community who are supportive of resolutions S.24–2, S.24–3 and S.24–4 are uninformed and devoid of critical thinking. We challenge the administration to take seriously the perspectives and efforts of its students and the Senate that represents them on this issue.
We further reject the willfully inaccurate and intellectually dishonest characterization of the resolutions as presented in Tufts' statement. In the response, the administration states, “These resolutions do not promote nuanced understanding through broader dialogue. We mourn with the Palestinians, but we also feel for the Israelis grieving over those they have lost and share their desire for the safe return of the hostages. It is possible to hold both of these views simultaneously.” We believe that nothing within the resolutions precludes the possibility of extending compassion toward Tufts community members of all backgrounds who are grieving the loss of loved ones, holding the pain of those who fear the immediate and distant future this war will bring, and uplifting voices that seek to promote human rights and self-determination in the region. It is the Office of the President that draws this false dichotomy.
The Office of the President’s message states that Tufts rejects the “Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement.” However, the resolutions did not ask for an endorsement of the BDS movement — a formal organization with clearly defined goals that extend beyond boycott and divestment. The resolutions passed on March 4 did not demand that Tufts adopt the guidelines of the BDS movement, but rather end all forms of financial complicity with Israeli actions in Gaza through divestment and boycott. Specifically, resolutions S.24–2 and S.24–4 direct the Tufts Investment Office to disclose all of Tufts’ investments and then divest from companies tied directly and indirectly to Israel. These resolutions come at a time when the International Court of Justice has issued provisional measures to the State of Israel based upon the determination that Palestinians in Gaza have a right to be protected from acts of genocide and that such rights are under a “plausible” risk of being breached. The Court’s decision also does not preclude the culpability of the State of Israel in other war crimes, including starvation and indiscriminate attacks on civilians. While Tufts is an academic and educational space, it is also an institution of significant financial power, with an endowment in the billions of dollars. It is the right and responsibility of the students who fund Tufts in part with our tuition, and of the Tufts community in general, to know where our tuition money and the university’s endowments are being invested, and to demand that the university avoid its complicity and engagement with acts deemed criminal internationally. By simply reaffirming their rejection of the BDS movement, the administration has failed to engage with its students on this important demand.
The Office of the President’s message states that “the deliberations that lasted well into the early morning hours show how our campus reflects the deep division in society on these issues.” It is incontestable that our community holds differing opinions on this issue. What the length of Sunday night’s meeting also evidenced is the strength of the TCU Senate’s democratic process, which permitted debate for over four hours, and deliberated together until a consensus was reached. It is this democratic process, presided over by the student body’s main tool for enacting systemic changes within the university, that the Tufts administration has dismissed.
As students of international affairs at Fletcher, we know that creating change in the present requires learning from our past. On Feb. 26, 1989, Tufts University withdrew its investments from the apartheid government in South Africa. William Meserve, then the head of the Board of Trustees, said then that, “This is a symbolic act in many ways. … It nevertheless is an important statement about what we believe about equality and civil rights.” Divesting from states actively committing international crimes should be a priority for Tufts, not simply for reasons of financial complicity, but to demonstrate that the protection of basic human rights is an institutional priority. Tufts University is indeed a place where we all must commit to engaging in dialogue regarding the issues most urgent to us, and to the world. However, what we expect of this institution and of the Tufts community at large is not only dialogue but leadership and action. We applaud the Senate for exhibiting leadership on this issue, on behalf of the entire Tufts community. We urge the university administration to do the same.
This op-ed was written by Amaia Elorza Arregi (MALD’21, current PhD Student), Yael Krifcher (MALD’24) and Erin Norris (MALD’24) and is endorsed by 94 other current Fletcher students.
