B.D.S. ROUND 2
A response to “UO President Schill says ASUO decision to pass controversial BDS resolution is divisive” - Nguyen, 2018
In 2018, the University of Oregon witnessed a fervent debate surrounding the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, with the ASUO Senate passing a resolution that garnered both support and opposition, but which ultimately failed to pass due to unconstitutionality. Now, in a new chapter of the ongoing discourse, recent efforts by the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) have reignited conversations around divestment and sanctions as a means to address concerns about the Israeli government's policies.
Former University President Michael Schill, in a statement from 2018, expressed reservations about the BDS resolution, citing concerns about its divisive nature and its perceived inconsistency with the university's commitment to inclusion. He emphasized the importance of not dividing the UO community based on ideology, religion, or national origin, and voiced unease over the BDS movement questioning the right of Israel to exist.
President Schill's full statement could not be located at the time of this publication. While he is no longer the University President, his sentiments represent the previous movement against BDS initiatives at UO and offer insight to the opposition the newest efforts might still face.
Advocates of the BDS movement, including members of the student group Students United for Palestinian Equal Rights, argued that BDS is an anti-racist human rights movement. They contended that the university should do more to create an inclusive environment for people of color. The resolution, introduced by the student group and endorsed by 30 other student organizations, aimed to align UO with the BDS movement.
Additionally, in the changing climate of the ethnic cleansing currently taking place, a reevaluation of BDS’s alignment with UO morals is needed.
However, concerns were raised during the ASUO Senate meeting in 2018 about whether the resolution was consistent with ASUO's mission of inclusion and constitution, particularly given BDS's promotion of a "cultural boycott" involving Israel. This boycott extends to events, agreements, and projects involving Israel, its lobby groups, or its cultural institutions, according to the BDS Movement website.
At the time, ASUO Senator Shea Northfield questioned the alignment of the resolution with ASUO's mission, which emphasizes social, cultural, educational, and physical development for its members. The debate within the ASUO Senate underscored the complexity of balancing free expression, inclusivity, and the university's values.
Fast forward to the most recent rally organized by the Students for Justice in Palestine, where chants and speeches echoed calls for divestment and sanctions to curtail UO's support for Israel's apartheid and genocide against the Palestinian people. This revival of efforts showcases the enduring nature of the debate and the persistence of student activism on this crucial international issue.
The BDS debate is not unique to UO; it has sparked discussions and decisions at various universities nationwide. The role of university leaders, such as President Scholz, becomes pivotal in navigating the intersection of ideological expression, inclusivity, and the broader mission of the institution.
As the BDS conversation evolves at the University of Oregon, it remains a complex and nuanced issue that prompts reflection on the delicate balance between diverse perspectives, free expression, and the university's commitment to fostering an inclusive community.
