Is this a 1980s Apartheid moment for our universities?

Lately, our own government, civil society organisations and UN bodies have all condemned the range of human rights abuses Israel is currently committing against the Palestinian population. However, universities in New Zealand, like in many other parts of the world, have made an intentional decision to remain neutral in their position on the genocide unfolding in Gaza, despite public sentiment shifting on this issue.

This stance of institutional neutrality can be traced back to a 1967 study out of the University of Chicago, known as the Kalven Report. The report explored whether universities should play any role in political and social action. The conclusion was that academic freedom and the core educational mission of the university, to support dialogue, dissent and debate, would be significantly impeded if universities were to take a stance on the issues of the day.

However, institutional neutrality has been employed selectively by universities—both in Aotearoa and overseas—in the years since. Universities have taken clear positions on climate change through divestment and by reaffirming commitments to upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi, despite these being (and remaining) contentious political issues.

In these instances, the argument from university leadership has been that these positions are a response to obligations under government legislation.

In the current context of conflict in Gaza, however, it strikes me that institutional neutrality has been used to shield universities against backlash from government, donors and lobby groups of the kind that has been observed in the United States.

I would argue this combination of outward silence, but internal risk mitigation, has undermined academic freedom. While universities across the motu have expressed a commitment to supporting peaceful student protests, they have also characterised pro-Palestinian protests as disorderly or a risk to health and safety. According to one UN Rapporteur, this stigmatisation of pro-Palestinian student has silenced members of the academic community and discourages “the exercise of their rights”.

In Aotearoa, those who have raised their voices and agitated for action on the war in Gaza, have been singled out for criticism on social media and other platforms. The Israel Institute of New Zealand, for instance, named several academics as representing “a growing institutional consensus in which Israel is uniquely demonised” and “a collapse of academic integrity”. Many individuals have told me how they have had to justify their positions and views to senior leaders of their university, and the professional registration bodies to which they are connected.

Such scrutiny has led to many working and studying within New Zealand universities deciding to stay silent out of fear of losing their job, status, or ability to study and remain in the country. This is particularly true for those already on the margins of the university because of their cultural or religious background, immigration status, or precarious employment.

And there is reason to be fearful, based on what is being observed overseas. While academic freedom is something cherished and protected on most topics, when it comes to discussing Palestine, there are clear limits to what can be said.

Groups like the Anti-Defamation League have labelled attacks on Israel’s right to self-determination or the doctrine of Zionism as anti-Semitic and inciting hate. And such criticisms, they argue, are part of the limits to the freedom of expression academics and students within universities typically exercise. A recent report commissioned by the government in Australia is suggesting something similar. If adopted, universities and individual academics might be sanctioned if specific criticisms against Israel or Zionism continue.

In combination, the fear of taking too bold a stand, and risking the reputation and brand of the university, has in many cases led to a continued recalcitrance to take bolder action. But such silence, has directly contributed to rising rates of both Islamophobia and anti-Semitism on university campuses around the world since October 7.

Importantly, this continued stance of neutrality in the context of ongoing violence is itself a political act—and one that aligns with dominant geopolitical and economic interests, as the philosopher Judith Butler argues in her 2009 book Frames of War.

As an example, despite demands from staff, student and alumni, most universities and the umbrella university pension fund (Unisaver) have only reaffirmed commitments they have within their existing responsible investment guidelines. Some universities have declined to divest directly from Israeli companies and government bonds, or fully divest from companies involved in gross human rights violations and/or production of weapons and/or services to the defence industry.

In early July, the UN released its report, From Economy of Occupation to Economy of Genocide, investigating the role multinational corporations have played in sustaining illegal occupation, apartheid and genocide across the Palestinian territories. The report concludes these companies need to be held responsible and accountable for their actions. It notes universities that hold direct and indexed investments in the companies singled out in the report are also accountable to divestment.

Returning to a key claim of the Kalven Report, that institutional neutrality is critical to protecting the educational mission of the university, what do the missions of the universities in New Zealand claim as key values? A review of these mission statements indicates they espouse values such as community and care, academic excellence, ethical integrity, and environmental and civic mindedness.

In a context where the entire higher education system of Gaza has been decimated in what UN experts have called an act of scholasticide, there are clear and compelling reasons as to why taking a stance is central to the educational missions of our own institutions.

For instance, both Otago and Canterbury Universities have come to acknowledge, that as part of this mission, they have obligations to support scholars and students who have lost access to education due to conflict. Other universities have yet to follow suit, and none have focused on supporting universities and academics within Gaza, as has been done in the UK and Canada.

University leaders in Aotearoa have talked of the loss of public trust in our universities, and the need to lead with integrity and purpose, to demonstrate “moral courage”. This might be the moment to demonstrate such courage and to step away from a position of neutrality and towards one of action.

In the 1980s and under growing pressure from staff, students and the public, universities in Aotearoa shifted from a position of neutrality, towards one which denounced Apartheid in South Africa. Forty years later, perhaps it is time for history to repeat itself—this time with Gaza.