Although Oberlin pro-Palestine groups launched a 200-person strong encampment on Wilder Bowl in late April, the organizers dismantled it after less than 48 hours. According to Students for a Free Palestine leadership, this was because SFP viewed educating students as more important than confronting the College.
Rather than seeking to win concessions through continued confrontations with College administrators, SFP originally sought to pressure the College administration into divesting from Israel and declaring Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide through holding sit-ins, walkouts, and rallies. Therefore, SFP has primarily focused on holding teach-ins and fundraisers for Gaza residents since late April and throughout this semester with the exception of holding one rally on Sept. 12 in Wilder Bowl. Teach-ins, which have been utilized by left-wing groups on college campuses since the anti-Vietnam war movement, involve groups of students holding participatory-style discussions, listening to speakers, and sometimes discussing and watching films.
It appears for SFP that the clearest way to help Palestine is through holding teach-ins and fundraisers for Gazan residents: students can educate others about the atrocities committed against Palestinians and attack the school’s policies without having to worry about facing legal or academic repercussions. While their use of teach-ins has greatly informed Oberlin students about the historical oppression of Palestinians, I believe that SFP will not be able to keep pressuring the College administration and raising awareness about Gaza without relying upon traditional nonviolent protest tactics.
On Aug. 14, Oberlin Board of Trustees announced their decision against disinvestment from Israel. Many Oberlin students denounced this decision and the Board’s reasoning through Instagram posts, op-eds, and flyers. Although this announcement was likely announced intentionally two weeks before the start of semester to off-set a response, there has been a noticeable lack of action from campus activist groups in the past month.
I do not believe that SFP is incapable of utilizing nonviolent action to draw attention to their goals. By occupying the Cox Administration Building for several hours last November, SFP was able to obtain meetings with College leadership. Some students view the meetings between protestors and College leadership as purely performative acts that allow the administration to appear responsive to student’s concerns. Yet, this fails to recognize how SFP forced the administration to react to the movement’s demands by taking nonviolent action. Although I did not take part in either the encampment or any of the earlier pro-Palestine protests myself, I believe that this outsider perspective allows me to impartially evaluate how successful SFP was at persuading the student body population to pay attention to Israel’s brutality in Gaza. Even if nonviolent action does not lead to lasting institutional change, protests tend to shape student’s perspectives on Gaza much more than teach-ins simply because they are harder to ignore. And nonviolent action can come in multiple forms through organizing rallies, sit-ins, or walk-outs, as SFP does not necessarily need to reenact the occupation of Cox or the encampment to place pressure on the administration or raise awareness.
In contrast, SFP’s teach-in strategy effectively incentivized the Oberlin administration to ignore Israel’s brutal invasion of Lebanon. SFP has announced that they are planning on holding further teach-ins and film-watching sessions to educate students about the history of the conflict between Lebanon and Israel. But is it not true that the students who attend these teach-ins are probably some of the most informed people about the invasion of Lebanon on campus? Obviously, it is impossible to be educated enough on a social issue to the extent that you do need to discuss it any further. But teach-ins are so effective because they serve as stepping stones for increased political involvement. What is the point of holding teach-ins if political action does not follow? I think that exclusively relying on teach-ins with zero followup action indicates that the SFP leadership has determined that changing existing institutions is an insurmountable challenge.
But students who care less about Gaza and more about other issues including abortion and healthcare, should support the right of the pro-Palestine movement to hold marches. Many liberal students that I have talked to have expressed frustration with left-wing activists’ tendency to suggest that there is little difference between Vice President Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, as they both support the destruction of Gaza. Many students justifiably believe that this comparison downplays important national issues such as abortion rights, voting restrictions, and healthcare. But we must not forget that the reactionary restrictions created by colleges to deal with Palestine protests can be utilized to put down any form of protest on campus. At Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, students now must receive approval from the administration before they can protest. At Carnegie Mellon, unauthorized demonstrations of over 25 people can be broken up by campus police. This level of restriction on protests does not exist in Oberlin. However, that could easily change. Therefore, the ability of SFP to take nonviolent action without debilitating restrictions is imperative not only for the pro-Palestine movement, but to demonstrate that freedom of assembly still exists on campuses regardless of the current climate.
On the other hand, it is understandable to see why the SFP leadership believes that teach-ins are the way to go in the aftermath of the encampment. SFP arguably made the right decision in dissolving the encampment, as they realized that the success of their activism was dependent on their ability to inform the campus about Palestine, and it makes sense to assume that the leadership of SFP, which is partially led by Palestinian-Americans that have relatives suffering and dying in Gaza, have the best understanding of how Oberlin students can help them.
I do not expect that the majority of readers will have come to the end of the article having fundamentally changed their stance on campus protests. I also realize that SFP adopted their teach-in strategies as a result of multiple factors, including ones that are not addressed by this article. However, the pro-Palestine movement must take nonviolent action to advance the movement and to assert the right to freedom of assembly on campus. The teach-ins are extremely important for political education but are rendered inadequate if political action does not follow.
