Critics of cancel culture on college campuses are quick to point blame at university leadership when students are demonized for expressing a “controversial” opinion- and these administrators usually play a leading role. But little is discussed about how student leaders are canceling their own peers who have differing viewpoints through overreaching student government associations (SGAs).
Some of these groups even threaten loss of privileges if the dissenting student doesn’t fall in line. One such association at Pomona College unanimously passed a resolution in April that would require all clubs on campus to support and participate in the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel in order to receive club funding. When questions were raised among the student body, the Associated Students at Pomona College (ASPC) tabled the issue, opened it to discussion, and ultimately was not able to pass the resolution in its original form- and instead passed a modified version requiring only the student government members to participate and support the BDS movement.
Forcing student leaders to embrace a political issue as a requirement of holding office is appalling enough, but they didn’t stop there. Within the final version of the resolution, the ASPC encouraged all other campuses of the Claremont Consortium to join them in taking a public position of support for the BDS movement. Student government officers were quoted saying, “The idea that this has something to do with Jewish groups on campus…I truly don’t know where that came from.” (As if they didn’t fully understand why this attempted resolution is controversial).
And conversely, there are unspoken consequences for not showing public support. If this original version of the resolution had not been tabled and modified, all clubs on campus, in order to receive any funding, would have been required to account for all spending and travel to ensure it complied with the BDS list of companies, (an extensive and tedious list of thousands of companies and organizations including universities, food brands, retail products, medicine etc.) This would require justifying the origin of every purchase made, including food and materials for events, as well as any other activity they participated in such as trips abroad, invited speakers, and panel topics. Failure to comply would result in loss of funding from the ASPC- period.
So, if a Jewish club for example, wanted to host a fundraiser to send its members to Israel and tour the Israeli universities, it would lose student funding. Another example: if a club wanted to purchase a shared laptop for related club work, rather than opt for the more affordable HP, they would have to purchase a non-HP brand because HP is listed as a company to boycott. This is active discrimination against Jewish clubs on campus as well as a form of authoritarian control over the campus conduct.
Oftentimes, you will hear defenders of BDS saying the BDS movement is anti-Israel, not anti-Jewish, or that it is anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic. Yet, it would systematically restrain Jewish clubs from many of their operations, which is viewpoint discrimination. And can we just acknowledge, that saying something is anti-Israel or anti-Zionist but not anti-Jewish is an incredibly ignorant statement? That’s like saying, “I don’t have a problem with you. I just don’t think your country has the right to exist and your people don’t have a right to have a country.” Israel was established as a Jewish state, a state for the Jewish people. Anti-Israel is anti-Jewish; a slight digression, but a necessary point.
Wherever you stand on the state of Israel, free speech supporters should be horrified by the totalitarian behavior of student government officers. If this is how they behave in the training ground of higher education, imagine the tactics they will embrace once they become elected officials in our U.S. government. Our students are learning that shutting down an argument or forcing everyone to agree with one ideology is easier and more efficient than participating in an open dialogue.
Pomona College is not the only school to enact a boycott against Israel. Back in 2017 at Pitzer College , the Student Senate actually passed a resolution that prevented any student activity funds being used on goods or services from companies listed on the BDS website. It passed 22-0 with 4 abstentions and eventually had to be tossed out by the Board of Trustees. Similarly, the University of Michigan’s Student Government attempted to shame the administration into compliance by posting a letter declaring student government support for the BDS movement and accusing the school of being complicit in anti-Palestinian sentiment for not taking a public position.
This push toward canceling and condemning outside perspectives has gone unchecked on college campuses. As a result, student leaders have adopted totalitarian penchants in an attempt to silence open dialogue and guarantee a one-sided outcome every time.
Cherise Trump is Executive Director of Speech First.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member