In times of crises and worldly discussion, many seek the opinions and stances of those around them, and those in power or public appearance. 

While this statement is broad, it’s supposed to be. The stances and subjects at play on social media have taken the divides of political discourse and cultural differences and has cut indiscriminately through parties, communities, organizations, friendships, and families. This is ever prevalent in the discussions about the conflict between Israel and Hamas. 

To be clear, these are the players. This is not the Israeli army vs. a Palestinian army, seeing as how Israel doesn’t recognize Palestine as the rightful state to the land it inhabits, and Palestine does not have a standing military. 

Palestine “does not have effective sovereignty over its territory, but over a kind of archipelago of small portions of its territory,” says Isaías Barreñada, PhD in political science and co-author of Palestine: From the Oslo Accords to Apartheid, in an interview with El País, a national paper in Spain. 

However, even though this conflict involves Hamas and Israel, at the end of the day it is Palestinians in Palestinian homes being hurt and killed by continuous rocket and missile attacks. 

Its topics, like this and more, that some students at Western Connecticut State University feel that interim university President Manohar Singh didn’t speak upon in his letter loosely addressing the issue in the Middle East on October 17, 2023. To start, the letter mentioned conflict between Israel and Hamas, but did not specify on the insurgence of fighters into Israel, nor the counter offensive taking place. As well, the letter switched focus towards counseling services for students and human resources for faculty after asking all to “be cognizant of heightened sensitivities because of what is taking place in the Middle East.” The sentiment is of course in good regard, however it’s vague as to what it’s asking of us as a community. When paired with the prior sentence “During difficult times like these, it is imperative that we continue to focus on our collective relationship as a community that rests on the foundations of kindness and compassion,” both points don’t say much in the way of what President Singh’s thoughts are on the conflict. Many were left more confused and unsure of what stance the Office of the President of WCSU has taken on the issue, and what the administration seeks for the community of WCSU to do about it. 

I asked students about President Singh’s letter to the WCSU community, and if it aptly met the concerns of those at the university about the global issue. 

Tara Jamil, a senior studying political science, says the letter “took a definitive stand for being there for the students, providing resources for those who are struggling and hurting. I don’t have a problem with the statement made, I’m quite happy that it was made from a neutral stance as to not make anyone feel alienated.” 

I asked if she thinks the letter should take a stance on the conflict, to which Jamil said “I think that the school should not necessarily side with either side and have a role in influencing students’ views. The only stance they should take is that of peace and protection of human life.” 

I asked if there was anything else she felt the administration should say or do regarding the conflict in the Middle East. “I think they should host events in which the topic is discussed and provide background for the situation to inform students of this issue. Having speakers from both sides to discuss how we came to current events.” she said. 

Arianna, a senior studying political science who wished not to have her last name present, said that she did not originally read nor hear of the article when it was released. After reading, she said “I feel like the university should provide answers and information about the conflict. I don’t think the school should take a side, nor did they, but they should open the conversation. I don’t think anyone would find a problem with the statement, but I don’t think it fully addressed the situation either.” 

But it was best for President Singh to keep his letter vague and indecisive, seeing as how other institutions across the U.S. are dealing with backlash after taking either side of the conflict. Currently, Harvard University is in a bind after facing backlash from donors after 30 to 34 student organizations banded together under the title of Palestine Solidarity Groups (PSG), co-signed a letter calling “the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence.” Even though Harvard University didn’t sign this letter, nor did anyone from its administration, the university is facing backlash from donors for not immediately opposing the letter and its sentiment. Since then, Harvard has since opposed it by saying it was “completely wrong and deeply offensive.” Other organizations at Harvard have also given their own statements on the issue, such as Harvard Hillel, the university’s Jewish center, saying the letter by PSG “further[ed] hatred and anti-Semitism.” 

Of named donors that have spoken publicly on Harvard’s initial inaction to PSG’s letter, many have also said they have met with the university’s administration. Kenneth Griffin, a billionaire alumnus of Harvard, said he and Penny Pritzker, senior fellow of the Harvard Corporation “were in passionate agreement” about if a statement should be made by the administration. 

Another vocal alumnus of Harvard, William Ackman, hedge-fund manager, and head of Pershing Square Capital Management has asked Harvard for a black-list of all students in connection with the PSG letter. In a meeting, Ackman called on other executives at Pershing Square Capital Management not to hire any students in the association. As well, he posted on X that the necessity of a list would be to make sure he and others did not “inadvertently hire any of their members.” However, some donors and alumni also felt this response by Ackman to be a bit extreme. Lawrence Summers, former Harvard President and U.S. Treasury Secretary, commented on Ackman’s requests in an interview with Bloomberg television, saying he was getting “a bit carried away.” He went on to say, “Now is not the time for demonizing students.” 

Free speech and its ability to be utilized on college campuses and protected by universities has been an issue for decades, with the need for university institutions and student organizations to be separated at every level of oversight. However, when differing views and narratives are given between universities and students, there is the question of if oversight or condemnation of student views by the university is needed. If donor sponsorship is in jeopardy every time a student holds a differing opinion from the universities, then students may find themselves in opposition to universities that prioritize donors over students. These incentives give certain political views or expressions for universities and can change university culture from free expressions and understandings of personal beliefs and values to the beliefs of the highest bidder. When controlling oversight of speech is coerced through financial incentives, it may be hard to voice our “diverse backgrounds and perspectives.”