Conditions in Gaza have become unlivable. According to the Human Rights Watch, the Israeli military has intentionally destroyed life-sustaining infrastructure, leaving the city with little to no cropland, water, sanitation facilities and hospital services. Israel has also blocked trucks that carry life-saving international humanitarian aid to Gaza, where its 2.2 million people now face starvation, according to reports provided to the United Nations. Bombing campaigns continue and perpetual displacement has not stopped.

Throughout this violence, the United States has continued its pattern of unconditional support for Israel. In February, President Donald Trump and his administration approved about 7.2 billion dollars in military assistance to Israel, per reporting from Reuters, and defunded the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, one of Gaza’s most vital aid agencies, during his first term.

The United States and Israel claim to be bastions of democracy, human rights and freedom of speech — this is a blatant lie. Genocidal intent is baked into political discourse, with propaganda and government repression keeping us complicit and active participants in violence.

In Israel, dehumanizing, racist and derogatory language toward Palestinians is frequently used by officials. For example, in October 2023, former Israeli Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant said of Hamas that “we are fighting human animals and we act accordingly.” In June 2024, the Israeli government posted a now-deleted video on X, where a released hostage said that “there are no innocent civilians” in Gaza.

This language only justifies and normalizes genocide against Palestinians. Reports from Amnesty International suggest that there is “systemic impunity but also the creation of an environment that emboldens, if not tacitly rewards, such behaviour” like unlawful conduct and violence — even now. For instance, last week, the Israeli war cabinet announced an operation called “Gideon’s Chariots,” which details potentially permanently occupying Gaza through a mass removal of Palestinians. This plan’s genocidal details are clear — the name itself is a reference to a biblical warrior who led people to annihilate the Midianites, a group of people in the Middle East.

Here in the United States, atrocity propaganda is common in mainstream media reports on Gaza. This is a form of psychological warfare that spreads “information about the crimes committed by an enemy, especially deliberate fabrications or exaggerations,” according to a Mondoweiss article. Propaganda like this keeps us complacent through its goal of vilifying the enemy to justify violence as “retaliation.”

The common “fighting to free the hostages” narrative is atrocity propaganda. Israel is not meaningfully fighting to save the hostages, as it repeatedly sabotages ceasefire deals. The violated agreement with Hamas in January is a clear example of this.

This deal, which led to 25 Israeli hostages being released in its first phase, was supposed to continue, but Israel broke the agreement. As of May 12, 58 hostages remain in Gaza. On March 29, over 100,000 people across Israel protested the government’s failure to protect its citizens and decision to continue an unpopular war.

Recently, Trump said that aid to Gaza has not reached civilians because “Hamas is making it impossible because they’re taking everything that’s brought in.” This contradicts aid officials who have stated that little humanitarian aid went astray when supplies were allowed in January, according to the Guardian. Misinformation like this makes Israel’s intentional starvation of the population in Gaza seem justified.

In the United States and Israel, Palestinians are portrayed as aggressors, overlooking the fact that Israel attacks the fabric of Palestinian identity and life. This narrative in media and language conditions us to believe that Israel’s violence is a form of self-defense, shielding us from the reality of genocide. Being critical of mainstream narratives and educating ourselves on colonial violence and Palestinian liberation movements is necessary to unlearn this propaganda.

Doing what we can to help Palestinians and dismantle the systems around us that cause this violence should be our obligation.

Rocco DiMatteo is a senior majoring in environmental science.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.

In most policy debates, both sides are represented in the capital. Politicians line up on either side of the debates over the minimum wage, gun regulation and diversity, equity and inclusion. Even on climate change, where all experts take one side, not all politicians may follow them, but at least some do. Trade is uniquely the one issue where all experts seem to line up on one side and all politicians line up on the other.

It wasn’t always like this. Among economists, the idea that free trade is good and tariffs are bad dates back 250 years to classical economist and thinker Adam Smith, who explained this concept in his 1776 book “The Wealth of Nations.”

Smith argued that trade allows people to specialize. You don’t need to learn how to make sneakers yourself, because you can buy them from Nike or Adidas. Shoe designers at those companies don’t need to learn to write software because they can hire software engineers.

The same principle applies at the group level between countries. We in the United States may have a better aerospace industry than New Zealand, but they have a stronger wine industry than we do. Trade allows the United States to focus on airplanes and not need to worry about how to make wine.

Of course, we can still make wine if we want to, and they can still make planes. However, allowing American retailers to purchase wine from New Zealand removes economic pressure to make those wines at home and allows our workers to specialize in something else, making both Americans and New Zealanders richer and better off.

Over the 19th and 20th centuries, Smith’s insights were refined and expanded upon by later economists. Today, the principles of comparative and absolute advantage are staples of every introductory economics textbook, and Smith’s predictions about free trade were turned into models that were tested extensively and verified using real-world data in a study published by the Journal of Policy Modeling. By the end of the 20th century, economists slowly gathered around a consensus that free trade is good and tariffs are bad.

For a while, it looked like politicians caught on, too. In 1980, Ronald Reagan campaigned on a promise to craft a free trade agreement with Mexico. After signing a free trade agreement with Canada in 1988, the United States, Mexico and Canada began negotiating an agreement for all three countries that would become NAFTA.

When NAFTA was finally signed under former President Bill Clinton in 1993, everyone from both parties and all sides of the political spectrum cheered with joy. Clinton said NAFTA was “just the first step in our effort to expand trade” and that he would soon meet with leaders from 15 Asian Pacific countries and then with several more Latin American countries to make free trade agreements with them, too.

For the next two decades, both major parties in the United States remained committed to free trade. Then came the 2016 election.

On the right, Donald Trump rose to prominence and, against his Republican peers, he began pushing an anti-free trade narrative. Bernie Sanders did the same on the left. Both repeated the false and nonsensical claim that trade deficits were somehow bad and Trump asserted, contrary to the prevailing opinion of every economist alive, that countries such as China and Mexico were “ripping us off.”

At the time, former President Barack Obama was set to complete his second term with the signing of a new free trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which included the United States and 11 other countries. But owing to Trump and Sanders’ rhetoric, popular support for the agreement evaporated and even Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, was forced to turn her back on the agreement.

In January 2017, Trump took office for the first time, and within a week, he withdrew the United States from the TPP. The remaining countries went on to sign the agreement among themselves. Trump, meanwhile, placed tariffs on countless goods from raw materials, such as steel and aluminum, to consumer products, like washing machines and electric vehicles.

Normally, some of the tariff cost is borne by the country that imposes it and some by the country it is imposed on. But economic analyses of Trump’s first-term tariffs subsequently found that nearly all the costs were borne by Americans and not only did the price of washing machines go up, but the price of dryers did too.

Joe Biden took office in January 2021, and one might have hoped that with the presidency switching parties, tariff policy would see substantial change. Unfortunately, by this point, politicians of both parties had turned their backs on free trade, soaking up the lies of Trump and Sanders; the lessons of Smith were long-forgotten or buried deep in a garbage can. Biden kept most of Trump’s tariffs in place and even increased several of them, yet economists were mostly silent about Biden’s tariffs, likely due to the general left-wing bias of academia.

While Trump’s 25 percent tariff on Chinese electric vehicles initially helped limit their presence in the United States, with time, China got better at production. In response, Biden increased the tariff to 100 percent.

At a time plagued by our struggle against the climate emergency and our desperate need for green technology, Biden blocked us from accessing it. While China offers us high-quality, affordable electric vehicles, Americans are forced to turn them down and drive ugly gas guzzlers belching noxious, asthma-inducing gases into the air of our cities.

With Trump’s return to the presidency, all this has worsened. Three weeks ago, Trump held up a chart before the American people and lied, claiming that one of its columns contained the amounts countries charged us in tariffs and that the other merely matched them with “reciprocal tariffs.”

When questions from the press came in, the administration produced a silly post hoc equation showing that, in fact, Trump’s tariffs were purely based on trade deficit numbers and bore no relation to tariffs other countries charge against the United States. As half the country continues to repeat the leader’s propaganda, we slide ever closer to a recession.

To rescue our economy and to have the resources to tackle the world’s biggest problems, we must restore free trade policy. Unfortunately, as a decade of tariffs has now shown, politics in the United States is less about principles, truth or science, and more about rhetoric, lies and slogans of the day. Perhaps a silver lining in Trump’s war on the economy is that it may yet galvanize the public against tariffs and usher in a return to free trade. For the time being, let’s all take Smith’s lesson to heart and build up our collective outrage. We may still be able to take our country back.

Isaac Cohen is a graduate student majoring in computer science. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. 

Terminated.

Not just me — our entire Office of Communications at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 20 professionals in total, wiped out in an instant. Elon Musk and his faux “Department of Government Efficiency” dissolved the office entirely, abolishing every single position under the guise of eliminating “waste, fraud and abuse.”

A reporter followed me as I left the building, my face streaked with tears.

But this isn’t just about me. It’s about what’s happening to public service itself.

The government is being gutted before our eyes. I recently visited the Hart Senate Office Building to meet with other federal employees who have been fired. Here’s what I heard:

A web developer at the Social Security Administration was working on a project modernizing our payment system. His entire team was let go. Does making Social Security more efficient not count as “government efficiency?”

A researcher at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was studying the effects of climate change and natural disasters on the Gulf Coast. Her work is now gone. Is protecting citizens from hurricanes and flooding a waste of resources?

Former U.S. Agency for International Development employees were creating international markets for American farmers, helping them sell soybeans to East Asia and Africa. Since when is supporting our farmers considered abuse?

I’ve seen firsthand how hardworking, understaffed teams at the OPM devoted themselves to making government services more effective. I was part of the effort to rebuild the OPM’s website so job seekers, federal employees and veterans could easily access the resources they need. Maybe some billionaire thinks fixing outdated systems is “wasteful.” I’d argue the real waste is keeping broken systems in place and forcing Americans to struggle with them.

These cuts aren’t just numbers on a budget. They’re people.

I was your RA. Your academic advisor. Your peer counselor. Your intramural referee. I built my career around helping others, and I believed my whole life that public service was an honor. But today, we’re being told that serving the public is a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Look around. You know someone in public service — a nurse, a firefighter, a teacher. Your professors are public servants. The roads you drive on, the water you drink, the safety of your community — these are protected by public servants. When we defund the government, we don’t just lose jobs. We lose safety, stability and opportunity.

Billionaires call public service a “Ponzi scheme.” Tell that to the senior citizens relying on Social Security to survive. Tell that to the families depending on disaster relief after a hurricane. Tell that to the farmers who need government trade programs to sell their crops.

U.S. Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand voted to advance a budget that slashes vital services and hands our government over to private billionaires. They voted to let Donald Trump and Elon Musk dismantle the institutions that serve us.

They need to hear from you.

Call their offices now:

● Sen. Schumer: (202) 224-6542

● Sen. Gillibrand: (202) 224-4451

Tell them they’ve abandoned their constituents. Tell them they won’t win their next primaries. Tell them that public service is not expendable.

Be loud. Show up at their offices. Make it clear that they work for us — not for billionaires. Because if we stay silent, we’ll wake up in a country where public service is a relic of the past.

And by then, it’ll be too late.

Dominic Bossey ‘23, MPA ‘24 received undergraduate degrees in political science and human development and earned a Master of Public Administration in 2024. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. 

In New York, the insulin price was capped at $35 per monthly prescription for those without health insurance, leaving all the financial burden on public health care systems. In 2025, the state eliminated the insulin copay for people with state-regulated medical insurance. Because universities offer students these types of health insurance plans, self-funded universities now need to cover the entirety of insurance costs for students with diabetes.

As data shows, insurance costs went up proportionally with costs saved by patients after caps. Because of this, universities with external health care providers, including Binghamton University, may face rising premiums as insurers absorb costs from state-mandated insulin price caps. This could lead to contract renegotiations, cost-shifting to other services or adjustments in coverage tiers.

At Binghamton University, students are automatically enrolled in a health insurance plan unless they can provide evidence of equivalent coverage from another provider. These insurance plans are granted by United Health Care, where Tier 3 medication, including insulin, requires a copayment of $50 from students. With the cap now set at $35, the remaining $15 must be covered by either the insurance provider or the University. In practice, this implies that either one of these organizations will have to increase the price of their health insurance plans, which will ultimately still affect students. Notably, as insulin prices increase, this strategy becomes unfeasible for either students or health insurance providers.

The insulin pricing crisis is a free market gone wrong. According to an independent report by RAND, insulin prices in the United States are nine times higher than those of 33 other developed nations. Currently, insulin manufacturing costs range from $2 to $4, yet the shelf price reaches as much as $500 in some states and even $800 in others. This staggering price difference stems from something market analysts refer to as inelastic demand.

In a free market, price is indirectly regulated through supply and demand. When the supply exceeds the demand, prices inadvertently go down for said product to be sold by enticing buyers through cheaper costs and maintaining a competitive advantage, as other sellers also drop prices in these circumstances. However, when the demand is high, prices are likely to rise.

Yet demand is dictated by need. Somebody may want a new car but not need it. Hence, they may also not buy it. However, when talking about insulin, this product is something that patients need to live. Demand in this case is therefore constant, or inelastic, enabling pharmaceutical companies to drive prices high for profit. In the lack of state regulatory action, these companies are left unchecked and exploit this dependency to maximize their financial gain without concern for patient affordability. Now, this patient affordability seems to have reached a top ceiling.

According to research conducted at Yale University in 2022, over 14 percent of people needing insulin to survive had to spend 40 percent of their income solely on this life-saving drug. In 2018, when prices were noticeably lower compared to 2022, 25 percent of patients on insulin had to ration the medication due to costs.

In 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act set a cap on insulin copayments at $35 per month for those with Medicare. Nevertheless, since this benefit was granted only to those on federal insurance, costs were diverted to these organizations. This approach, therefore, does not cover university insurance plans. New York’s departure from federal legislation in 2023 and the subsequent elimination of copayments under state-regulated insurance plans in 2025 significantly alleviates the financial burden on students but not on universities and their health insurers, which now need to cover the additional costs.

In the absence of state-level intervention, the financial pressures caused by the cost of insulin triggered legal actions. Several states are now part of a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL No. 3080) against insulin manufacturers and pharmacy benefit managers who are accused of artificially raising the prices and blocking cheaper generic options to maximize profits.
Plaintiffs here include various states, local government entities and public bodies such as universities, which raised concerns about the significant increases in health insurance premiums for their students with diabetes. As universities often contribute to or fully cover health insurance for their students, these educational bodies are directly impacted by the rising medical costs.

Notably, this collective legal action makes one thing clear — there is a growing consensus among states and their educational institutions on the urgency of state-level interventions to effectively control and regulate insulin prices. Corporations are unlikely to exhibit pro-social behaviors without these regulatory actions and simply fall back on their for-profit agenda.

Yahn Olson is a skilled attorney working at Environmental Litigation Group, P.C., where he specializes in providing case evaluations and legal representation for those who have suffered due to corporate misconduct.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.

Every day I’m here and every day that passes by, I think about separation and loss. Now that we don’t live on campus, I think about the impermanence of the faces that were at one point so constant around me — those hallway buddies you never even ever spoke to but knew because you were both always late for that one class. I go to class now, and I like to watch people and think of who they just might be. I imagine them living the beautiful parts of my experience in a way that’s just recognizable enough, in a world that I’ll never be able to comprehend even if I knew everything about it.

I sit alone in CIW dining hall after class and see a group of girls eating together, and I smile and think of my first meal with my housemates. I reminisce about these old stomping grounds without memory — I feel without thinking. When I say I think of all these people around me, I do so in terms of me and you and everything we ever did, experienced or could feel. And though these different universes around me will never fit into the hollowness of my heart, knowing that theirs at least might beat the same is simply enough to fill it just the same.

Some of your faces I see as a brother and cannot even begin to imagine college life without. Then there are those of you whose minds in this most ineffable, conscious way reflect mine so uniquely that there is a certain magnetism despite every difference, every flaw, between us. There are others, those I’ve always admired and, at times, yearned to truly know. But we’ve already met each other, so it’s easier not to daydream of a night when we’re walking alone through campus, laughter roaring in the dead of the night. You’re people I’ve wanted to learn from, people I’ve wanted to kiss, people I’ve wanted to hug and promise better things. I remember those sleepless teenage nights when I dreamed of meeting you.

It’s cruel to let me be around you with my soul unable to know yours, your fences locking me out because the world you exist in forces you to. Then again, we adapt to pick up on the cruelty of it all, to think, isn’t it all fucking-A if we stay apart? So I do what you do and my eyes blink away all your faces into a blur. Into concepts and tropes and ideas and all other sorts of clearly defined bullshit categories; self-isolating intellectualizations. They eventually only assure me of the great irony that even my deepest emotions are meaninglessly impermanent.

When I dream with my eyes open, about us and every emotion our lives together could ever evoke, it is an infinity so small. One that is just enough for me to feel so intensely about so much all the time, and then choose to continue to look away and get on with my day. It is a palette with the colors so liminal, so complex, yet so impotent to capture what really is, so that to sit down to paint would be to let life run over me and speed off into the distance. My world is and has always been you. I have never been in my life. I can’t sit to paint. But from time to time, the blinking turns to tears, and I remember.

What do I have but you? The soul that I met and got to know in whatever capacity in a time of my life where I’m expected to put my feelings on a shelf, preserved for a perfect partner or a close friend to pick up in the correct moment, just so we can both begin to get to know me. Every lovable part of me is what we made “me,” whatever little fleeting moment your souls knew mine, every word you said, every smile you asked for, every boyhood dream of mine you fulfilled. It’s me and you. I love you.

Why shouldn’t I crumble beneath the profundity of just how beautiful the fact we ever shook hands is? Why shouldn’t I write to you in abstractions and bare my heart praying for your familiarity? Why shouldn’t I tell you that I have thought your thoughts, that I know? That nothing that you could say to me will scare me from you, because unlike the world, all that I ever wanted from you was your affection?

With all the pain my heart can take and the contagious joy that my brittle soul can muster, this is a love letter to you, oh friend, you’re my favorite stranger.

Armaan Rizvi is a junior triple-majoring in political science, anthropology and history. He is the president of the Binghamton Law Quarterly and has previously served as social vice president of College-in-the-Woods. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. 

The best way to approach this situation is with care and understanding, and there are practical approaches college-age students can use to help.

Older adults are at an increased risk of opioid misuse due to the high incidence of opioid prescribing. Per the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s 2021 and 2022 surveys among older adults, baby boomers make up 20 percent of the general population. Among them, 7.1 million older adults had a substance-use disorder in the past year with males being more likely than females to have used illicit drugs. About 1 in 45 older adults misused opioids in the past year and similar percentages were seen among older adult men and women. These statistics correlate with opioid prescription — according to the National Center for Drug Abuse Statistics, pharmacies fill 153 million opioid prescriptions in a year, and doctors write enough opioid prescriptions for 46.7 percent of Americans to receive one. Ninety-two percent of opioid abusers use prescription opioids, which are a factor in 32 percent of opioid overdose deaths, at least once a year.

Additionally, older adults are often at an increased risk of developing addiction. For example, polypharmacy, creating a typical dependence on prescription medication, such as opioids and benzodiazepines, is a common problem among the elderly, and this often leads to addiction. It can be challenging for family members to distinguish between polypharmacy and normal aging as the symptoms overlap. Close family or friends could be utterly oblivious to the number of prescription medications their loved one is taking. Unfortunately, the symptoms of neglecting responsibilities, memory issues, changes in sleep and deterioration in physical appearance could be mistaken as normal aging rather than drug dependency or addiction.

Ultimately, this ties into misunderstanding opioids, their effects and the signs of addiction. Knowing this information can empower you to act — research common prescribed medications, their potential for dependency and the behaviors associated with misuse.

If you know or suspect an older adult has a problem with opioids, communicate with them openly. Initiate the conversation by finding a calm and private moment when they are more likely to be receptive. Express concern and avoid casting judgment. Share your feelings, tell them how you’ve noticed they have changed and express worry and concern. Most importantly, listen actively and allow them to express their feelings and experiences. A conversation such as this can open the door to them asking for help or, at the very least, being open to the idea of receiving assistance. If they are open to the idea, encourage professional help, such as therapists, counselors, medical detox, outpatient treatment or residential rehabilitation. Their family doctor, for example, could help assess their situation and explore treatment options. This is a challenging road to travel, so patience and support are crucial. While not always easy, continue to offer your support without pressure and reassure them you are there when the time comes.

While there is no one-size-fits-all solution, support is a good start. Support could look like encouraging them to seek help or offering to help them find a counselor in person or online through telehealth. It could also involve helping them address co-occurring issues, such as medical problems they have neglected. Support could also include helping them plan for triggers or cravings or encouraging them to explore new interests.

However, it is also crucial to set boundaries for yourself, take care of your mental health and do not enable their addiction. Supporting someone with an addiction is emotionally taxing, which means you need to be realistic about how much time you’re devoting to helping them. It’s also vital to be aware that they may take advantage of your time with no intention of accepting help. Familiarize yourself with the resources available locally, at the state level and nationally, such as SAMHSA, which provides a national helpline (1-800-662-HELP). The National Institute on Drug Abuse offers information on treatment and prevention. If it is an emergency due to an overdose, seek immediate medical help.

Your support can make a significant difference. By educating yourself, communicating openly and encouraging professional help, you can play a vital role in their journey toward recovery and breaking intergenerational addiction. Generational cycles also concern you — data has shown that roughly 2 million children in the United States have lived with a parent who had a substance use disorder and growing up with parents who abuse drugs or alcohol can normalize substance use in the family. Unfortunately, problems with drugs and alcohol often begin at a young age, when teens and young adults are introduced to recreational drug use and binge drinking in high school or college. If you had parents or grandparents who struggled with addiction, you have increased your chances of continuing the cycle of becoming addicted when experimenting with drugs or alcohol. Once a substance use disorder is carried over into adulthood, it becomes that much more challenging to stop. Thus, prevention, education, treatment and access to resources on college campuses are also key.

Being involved in drug prevention and education in college is vital. For example, supporting awareness campaigns, mental health programs, treatment options and sober initiatives on college campuses ultimately save others from falling into the pit of drug or alcohol addiction. Drug education and prevention is the first line of defense in preventing substance use disorders at any age, but it could potentially save college-age adults from decades of pain and anguish battling addiction after college and from letting opioid addiction among older adults go unnoticed.

ECDOL was created to help seniors and their loved ones find care that fits their individual needs. The organization provides tips and insightful resources to guide and inform them on the different aspects of senior living.

Resolution 3: Fostering Compassion, Not Preference 

The Judicial Board’s ruling against Resolution 3’s clause, which encouraged attendance at commemorative events led by Jewish organizations, interpreted this as a violation of the SA Constitution’s nondiscrimination clause, suggesting it showed “preference” on the basis of religion and/or nationality. If this interpretation holds, one must question why the SA has ever supported or encouraged attendance at events hosted by any protected category, especially since Article A of our constitution explicitly states that the SA exists to “promote and facilitate diverse activities for its members that cultivate different and sometimes opposing ideas, cultures, skills, and pastimes.”

Further, and perhaps more importantly, this reading misrepresents the clear intent of the resolution and completely removes it from the context of the bill. This clause was not designed to “prefer” any group but rather to foster campuswide empathy by encouraging support for peers facing profound pain. Uplifting the Jewish community in moments of grief does not discriminate against others. It is a call for collective empathy and solidarity — values that unify rather than divide. Viewing this encouragement as preferential treatment risks overlooking our responsibility to stand with those who are struggling.

Resolution 7: Impact Assessment Supports Inclusion and Upholds Free Speech

The impact assessment in Resolution 7 was designed specifically to protect the SA’s commitment to nondiscrimination by ensuring that any BDS-related proposals would undergo due diligence to assess their impact. The Judicial Board’s view that this violates free speech and viewpoint neutrality fundamentally misinterprets the measure’s intent and actionable consequences.

The assessment does not restrict discussion or prevent any proposal from advancing based solely on its viewpoint. Instead, it serves as a safeguard, ensuring that any proposal aligns with the SA’s values and does not inadvertently harm or marginalize any group within our community. Free speech is preserved entirely, as all perspectives may still be discussed and proposed. This assessment simply upholds our responsibility to protect students from discriminatory practices. If a proposal is found nondiscriminatory, it proceeds without restriction, making this process one that enhances rather than inhibits our commitment to equity.

Viewpoint Neutrality Applies Specifically to SA’s Financial and Regulatory Decisions 

The Judicial Board’s concern that this assessment violates viewpoint neutrality misses the specific application of this principle. As adjudicated by the Judicial Board last year, the viewpoint neutrality clause is pertinent to corporate “regulatory or financial” decisions. They did not apply it to broader statements, and there is certainly no precedent to apply it to an internal congressional policy. In that same brief, which struck down clauses in last year’s BDS resolution, the J-Board affirmed that financial impact is a moot point here as we have not called for the SA to “financially adhere to a non-neutral stance.” This impact assessment is not an overreach. It applies solely within the scope of the Congress and ensures that any proposal aligns with our values of fairness and inclusivity. It is a balanced, reasonable measure meant to safeguard inclusivity without overstepping our authority.

Temporary Prohibition on Reintroducing BDS Legislation: A Fair, Responsible Step

The Judicial Board’s ruling against the clause preventing the reintroduction of BDS legislation this year overlooks an important aspect of parliamentary governance. According to Robert’s Rules, legislative bodies like SA Congress have the authority to set temporary procedural limits within a term. This is a common practice that allows focus and stability, enabling us to work on other pressing matters without being repeatedly sidetracked by highly contentious issues. This measure doesn’t limit future Congresses, it only establishes a responsible framework for this session.

Given the strong majority of representatives who voted to rescind the BDS resolution from last spring and implement these policies, any reintroduced BDS legislation this year would almost certainly be dead on arrival. Instead of spending the valuable time of Congress on a reintroduction of legislation that has already been heavily considered, this measure would ensure focus remains on other issues to best represent the student body. This procedural measure, therefore, reflects both the will of SA Congress and a commitment to our campus community’s well-being.

A Call for Unity and Compassion

These Judicial Board decisions ultimately reflect an interpretation that, while procedural, detracts from the broader, compassionate goals these resolutions sought to advance. By striking down these clauses, the Judicial Board missed an opportunity to support actions that uphold our community’s values of empathy, safety and respect. Our resolutions were carefully crafted to make inclusivity more than an abstract ideal but an actionable standard — one that protects students from divisive policies and prioritizes unity.

Procedural integrity is undoubtedly important, and I respect the Judicial Board’s dedication to it. However, the very narrow interpretation applied by the J-Board defeated the purpose of the procedure in the first place. Today, unfortunately, they have hindered, rather than helped our ability to create a campus where all students feel safe and valued. It is crucial to consider not only the letter of the SA’s governing documents but also the spirit of our shared community values. These clauses not only should have been deemed acceptable according to the letter of our bylaws but should have been recognized for what they were — important measures to uphold the spirit of them.

Should there be any further review beyond this point, I call on the Judicial Board to consider what I have presented carefully, as both the justices and Congressional representatives strive to make Binghamton University a better campus for all.

Saul Hakim, a senior double-majoring in political science and Judaic studies, is a representative in the SA Congress and a senior advisor to the Binghamton University Zionist Organization. 

A Letter to the Editor is an opinion column published in response to a column or article previously published. This is Hakim’s response to news coverage on 11/4 titled “Judicial Board strikes down parts of two resolutions passed at last SA Congress meeting.” 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. 

Binghamton is located in Congressional District NY-19, one of New York’s seven congressional “swing districts” that helped Republicans gain control of the House of Representatives by electing Marc Molinaro in the 2022 midterms. Activists on campus and throughout our state traveled to Pennsylvania in 2022 and made text and phone calls to Wisconsin and Michigan to get out the vote in midwestern “swing states,” while New York redistricting combined with the deep apathy of the blue-state voting mindset allowed Molinaro to win NY-19 by a margin of just under 4,500 votes and Republicans to secure a House majority.

Meanwhile, there are around 16,000 undergraduate students living on campus at Binghamton University and Cornell University combined, just two of many colleges and universities in NY-19. Yet, fewer than 750 students voted in the 2022 midterms on Election Day from Binghamton’s on-campus polling place — about 20 percent of eligible voters.

College students from upstate New York and Long Island have the voting potential to deliver the House back to Democratic control this year, setting the stage to prevent unscrupulous challenges to the election results brought by Donald Trump or the “Stop the Steal” crowd that attempted to use the House to circumvent the democratic process in 2020. A Democratic House will be an essential partner for a President Kamala Harris to enact a legislative agenda or an indispensable backstop against a second Trump administration’s Project 2025. 

This crucial election season, Binghamton students need to exercise their considerable political power and register to vote from their campus addresses, even if they were previously registered from home addresses before the registration deadline this Saturday, Oct. 26.

Binghamton students can register or re-register to vote at their campus addresses online at studentvote.info/binghamton and get campus-specific voting information, including where to vote when early voting starts at the end of the week.

It’s not an understatement to say that Binghamton alone can profoundly impact the future of the country, and we are all depending on BU students to lead the way forward.

Amanda Aaron is the founder of Swing the Vote, a grassroots political group dedicated to helping college students register and vote.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.

The resolution states its purpose is to “prohibit the use of hoods, masks, and other facial coverings to conceal identity during lawful and unlawful assemblies or riots, while safeguarding personal protective equipment during public health emergencies and attire worn for religious observance.” Regardless of one’s political stance, to intimidate any students out of protesting by imposing health risks and limiting privacy in the name of “accountability” is unconstitutional. We urge students to attend the next Congress meeting, Nov. 12 at 7 p.m., to speak out against any possible attempts to overturn this veto.

By ignoring the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and raising the risk for transmission of any illnesses, there is a restriction on our First Amendment right to protest. According to the World Health Organization, “As of 21 July 2024, over 775 million confirmed cases and more than seven million deaths have been reported globally since the beginning of [the] pandemic,” which is an extreme underestimation due to low rates of detection and testing. COVID-19 is still a significant risk, disproportionately affecting immunocompromised and disabled students. Repeat exposures increase the likelihood of developing Long COVID, a disabling condition that affects the entire body. Even with vaccinations and booster shots, masks keep us and our communities safe.

Although the resolution includes a medical and religious exemption, this is insufficient because the vague wording cedes an excessive amount of power to enforcers. All students should have equal rights to peacefully protest without fear of harassment, questioning or punishment. Students would be forced to disclose their disabilities, infringing upon their privacy, dignity and autonomy, as well as contradicting the Americans with Disabilities Act. Legally, no one is obligated to reveal or justify their disability, even to law enforcement. The resolution is part of a growing attack on the disabled community’s right to exist in public. For example, in Nassau County, police can interrogate individuals who wear masks in public spaces. As citizens, we should be able to protect our health and retain our bodily autonomy without questions or repercussions, even while protesting.

Without criticizing the lack of diversity of the voting sponsors, there is still hypocrisy of the SA, as this violates their own words in the SA Constitution, which states that “The Student Association cannot have rules or undertake actions which discriminate against, or give preference to, anyone on the basis of … disability, ethnicity … nationality, political belief, race, religion…” In reality, this bill is a corrosion of civil liberties and is an implicit attack on privacy for anti-Zionist students, as many may choose to protest anonymously — reasonably so, as activists have faced death threats and doxxing and last spring, pro-Palestinian protesters received letters threatening academic sanctions.

Supporters assume that any face covering indicates “unlawful behavior” and blatantly aims to suppress forms and parts of “political speech” by criminalizing students who choose to wear masks, keffiyehs and bandanas. This resolution could have fueled anti-Arab and Islamophobic rhetoric by politicizing the apolitical hijab or niqābs, forcing students to prove their faith for exemptions and further enabling discrimination and surveillance of an already vulnerable group. Additionally, allowing for the conflation of a keffiyeh — a traditional Arab headdress, now a symbol of resistance and a celebration of Palestinian culture — as a harbinger for hate speech and labeling all anti-Zionist expressions as antisemitic undermines the complex nuances of both political speech and individual identity.

DSU is a proud member of the Divest from Death coalition and stands in solidarity with the pro-Palestinian movement at Binghamton University. We’d like to thank the Young Democratic Socialists of America, Students for Justice in Palestine and the student body for their quick efforts through petitions and letters to administration.

With the ongoing atrocities, we must recognize how disabling this genocide has been for the Palestinian people. By also recognizing the interconnectedness of the fight for disabled and Palestinian autonomy, freedom and empowerment, we work toward collective liberation. Protesting is a foundational practice in disability activism and justice, and the inclusion of disabled protestors is essential to any movement. In the future, resolutions, bills and any policy affecting disabled students need to have diverse, disabled representation present.

The Disabled Student Union is an organization for disabled students and allies focused on education, advocacy and community.

A Letter to the Editor is an opinion column published in response to a column or article previously published. This is DSU’s response to news coverage on 10/10 titled “What happened at Tuesday’s SA Congress meeting,” which has since been updated in a 10/14 article titled “SA E-Board vetoes two resolutions passed last Tuesday.”

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.

The two actions that have received the most backlash and anger are F2425-R4 and the motion to rescind last semester’s Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions resolution. The first piece of legislation sends letters to New York’s State Legislature encouraging them to pass mask bans and calls on the administration to add a mask ban to the Student Code of Conduct. This would prohibit efforts to conceal one’s identity through masks, hoods or facial coverings at public assemblies. The Executive Board shot down the resolution within days, but it is still worth breaking down the recent trend in mask bans.

Take the “religious” and “health” exceptions present in the mask bans in the State Legislature bill and SA’s vetoed resolution. Nassau County’s recently implemented mask ban has similar exemptions, but police officers are trained to interrogate at length anyone claiming to have an exemption. These supposed exceptions give police an excuse to intimidate and harass already-vulnerable communities and, as the SA Executive board stated in their veto, “this would set a precedent for the SA and the University to police students’ bodily autonomy.”

The effect of the anti-mask resolution would have been to stifle political protest, specifically pro-Palestine protest. People mask themselves at protests and gatherings not to commit crimes but to protect themselves from the rampant intimidation, doxxing and harassment promoted by social media accounts and websites such as the Canary Mission.

Last year, a community member was wrongly accused of making a Nazi salute at a rally. The accusation was proven false by a police investigation as well as video from the event and a statement from the SA president. Still, that student was identified and harassed endlessly. There could not be a clearer example of why the SA should be trying to protect student protestors, not to make them more vulnerable.

Jewish history teaches us all the importance of our right to protest. From 1900-1909, Jewish immigrants in New York City organized kosher meat boycotts, rent strikes and the largest strike of women in American history with the Uprising of 20,000. In the 1960s, Jewish activists disproportionately participated in the Civil Rights movement. Some Jews in South Africa, despite facing ostracization from their institutions and communities, fought against apartheid on all fronts. All were fighting against oppressive laws and police abuse, not supporting it.

The second unacceptable piece of legislation was the repeal of last year’s BDS resolution. Enough ink has been spilled, including by the Yiddish Bund, on why this resolution was important. It had acknowledged and condemned the genocidal assault on Gaza, making an effort to humanize those who have been diminished, demonized and ignored in American media and the political establishment. By repealing the resolution and ignoring the death, displacement, destruction of homes and manmade starvation, the SA has reversed course, choosing to take part in that culture of dehumanization instead of fighting it.

At last week’s candlelight vigil, Arab and Palestinian students spoke out against this dehumanization. Speaking about a 12-year-old boy killed by Israel in the West Bank, one said “He is not a number. He was a child, he was a son, he was a brother. He had a favorite food, he had a favorite song, favorite color, and I’m outraged that I have to prove that Palestinians are just as human as the rest of us.”

Just as important as the content of what was repealed is how. Tuesday’s resolutions give lip service to “debate and dialogue,” yet according to a post by the BU Zionist Organization, the resolutions were meant to be passed “on the down low,” subverting democratic debate. When the BDS legislation was originally being considered last semester, fliers, protests and discussions engulfed the campus. The SA session itself took over five hours, stretching past midnight, with speakers giving passionate speeches for and against the resolution. Never before were issues of Israel’s apartheid and genocidal war in Gaza so forefront on campus.

Dozens of student leaders came together to support the resolution. Some of the largest organizations included Students for Justice in Palestine, the Muslim Student Association, the Latin American Student Association, SHADES, the Black Student Union and numerous others. It seems the reason the divestment resolution was repealed so quietly was to silence all the political and multicultural organizations that could have opposed it. The authors and supporters of last Tuesday’s slew of legislation knew that when hours-long debate happens when the whole range of campus voices have a chance to speak, divestment wins.

The Yiddish Bund of Binghamton University is a student-run multicultural and political organization. The Bund led the effort to pass a cease-fire resolution in the Binghamton City Council and co-sponsored last April’s divestment resolution. 

A Letter to the Editor is an opinion column published in response to a column or article previously published. This is The Bund’s response to news coverage on 10/10 titled “What happened at Tuesday’s SA Congress meeting,” which has since been updated in a 10/14 article titled “SA E-Board vetoes two resolutions passed last Tuesday.”

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial. 

This deliberate exclusion contrasts sharply with the inclusive, collaborative spirit that defined the passing of the original resolution. One of the greatest strengths of our movement is the diverse support it received from the campus community. We, Students for Justice in Palestine, are proud that 18 multicultural organizations on campus have joined as allies in the fight against Israel’s crimes of genocide and apartheid, including organizations representing Muslim, Jewish, Asian, Black, Latinx and queer communities. Despite the broad coalition of multicultural organizations united in our cause, the nondiverse SA Congress responded by passing legislation that undermines and targets these very communities — actions that directly contradict their responsibility to represent the student body. Their decision reflects a disregard for the voices and safety of marginalized students, and the attempt to ban masks is another glaring example of this discrimination.

Throughout the history of political activism in the United States, masks have been used to protect activists — specifically activists of color — from being targeted by the American police state. On the streets of Ferguson in 2014 and Minneapolis in 2020, many protesters masked up to protect themselves from and protest against racist police practices. Advocates of the Palestinian cause are urged to mask up for protection from counterprotesters. Across the country, doxxing and harassment have ruined countless lives, and on our campus, we’ve repeatedly seen pro-Israel counter-protesters resort to filming and photographing protesters’ faces as an intimidation tactic.

In the current resistance against Israeli genocide, masks have become a crucial tool for safeguarding activists and preserving their safety. The goal of these agitators is to intimidate protesters so that they do not raise their voices. Unsurprisingly, the SA Congress did nothing to address the pressing issue of doxxing and harassment — they mentioned adding a clause on doxxing but promptly abandoned it. Instead, they passed a resolution that we feel would strip people of color from their primary defense against thuggish intimidation tactics like doxxing. By trying to ban masks, the SA Congress not only ignored the real threats faced by activists but has actively enabled those who seek to silence them through fear and harassment. This resolution is a betrayal of the very students the SA is meant to protect, making it clear that the safety and voices of marginalized communities are not a priority.

While the SA Executive Board vetoed two resolutions passed by the Congress — one supporting a mask ban and another barring unrecognized organizations, including SUNY BDS, from campus — this is only a temporary reprieve. These vetoes will return to the SA Congress at their next meeting on Nov. 12, where a three-fourths majority could overturn the E-Board’s decision. The fact that these harmful resolutions were passed in the first place speaks volumes about the hostile environment facing activists and marginalized communities on our campus.

Finally, we want to highlight that less than 10 percent of Binghamton students voted in the SA E-Board elections — the same can be assumed about last year’s SA congressional elections. Regardless of whether Congress representatives were fairly elected, it is clear the SA congress does not represent the entirety of the University’s diverse and pluralistic student body. Furthermore, the lively debate and open dialogue that characterized the BDS vote back in April was replaced by a clandestine process. We at SJP denounce the undemocratic rescinding of April’s BDS resolution and wholeheartedly object to the SA’s frenzy of anti-Palestinian legislation, including the effort to ban SUNY BDS and its affiliate organizations from campus.

The vetoes offer a moment of relief, but the fight is far from over. The student body must remain vigilant, knowing that the Congress meeting on Nov. 12 could bring these discriminatory policies back to life. Now more than ever, we must continue to stand united in solidarity and advocate for the voices and safety of marginalized communities on campus.

Students for Justice in Palestine is an activist group working to raise awareness and empower Palestinians, their culture and their liberation. 

A Letter to the Editor is an opinion column published in response to a column or article previously published. This is SJP’s response to news coverage on 10/10 titled “What happened at Tuesday’s SA Congress meeting,” which has since been updated in a 10/14 article titled “SA E-Board vetoes two resolutions passed last Tuesday.”

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.

There was hope that this semester would be different. With the teeth taken out of the resolution by an SA Judicial Board decision that ruled certain elements unconstitutional, the campus seemed once more focused primarily on the here and now, not global politics. However, by taking this long to release a statement in accordance with the revised resolution on the heels of a new SA Congress opening, the student government shows that it is committed to once more fostering a negative environment on campus. This move will serve to only reignite tensions regarding divestment, dragging the entire student body into the matters of global politics, of which it has both no influence and no expertise.

While it is imperative to remember that there are global issues surrounding us, it is the student government’s primary responsibility to ensure a positive campus climate that fosters open discourse regarding events both on campus and globally. In this sense, both last year’s Congress and this year’s SA E-board have failed miserably. Last semester marked a new low in campus climate, with students choosing to hate their peers based on a conflict occurring 6,000 miles away over sitting down to discuss how we can coexist and develop useful discourse regarding the subject. Instead, the discourse has evolved into disrespectful conduct across the aisle, marked most noticeably by the creation of “safe spaces” that feel exclusionary toward the other side, creating a sensation that coexistence is impossible. By continuing with the release of the statement six months after the decision (and with no context on social media), the Student Association has shown their continued lack of commitment to healing campus tensions, choosing to instead pursue their own objectives and foster yet another year of negativity.

Additionally, the statement posted above poses its own flaws which both misrepresent the student body and mischaracterize the groups that support the statement. The statement begins by stating that “We, the Binghamton University Student Association Congress, have an obligation to vocally represent the will of the undergraduate student body, including in matters of global and social justice…” I agree that above all else, it is the Student Association’s duty to represent the opinion of the student body to the administration and general public. However, preluding a divisive statement by saying that it is representative of the will of the student body is both contrary to the politics of our campus and unfound based on general American campus statistics.

A Generations Lab poll published in May found that college students pose much greater concern regarding issues such as climate change, with the Israel-Hamas war coming last out of nine listed concerns. Of the 14,000+ undergraduate students at BU, it is reasonable to assume that under 50 percent voice a strong perspective regarding the Israel-Hamas war, with the majority caring mostly about their classes, extracurriculars and personal lives. The reality of our campus is that the student body cares about global issues, but not to the point where there is a unified coalition with significant outspoken support calling for alignment on any particular issue. Therefore, to state that the SA Congress is taking action to decisively promote an opinion that is pressing on the minds of the general student body is inaccurate and misrepresentative of the average student, who I’m sure would much rather the SA Congress focus on matters much closer to home.

The statement also misrepresents certain multicultural groups as being supportive of the resolution. The post states “We were compelled to pass S2324-R11 … after hundreds of student signatures and twenty club sponsorships — including Jewish, Arab, Muslim, Latin American…” It is telling that the first multicultural group mentioned is Jewish, given that the majority of Jewish students our age have been found to express either pro-Israel or neutral opinions regarding the Jewish state’s conduct in the Israel-Hamas war as of April 1. Binghamton, with roughly 4,000 Jews, is no exception, and while the resolution does have written support from The Yiddish Bund, its membership pales in comparison to the larger Jewish, pro-Israel organizations on campus, which routinely host hundreds (if not thousands) of students at events. Phrasing the statement as having (first and foremost) support from the overall Jewish community misrepresents one of the largest cultural denominations on campus.

War is harrowing to watch, especially with such easy access to breaking updates and close-up coverage afforded by social media. However, it cannot be forgotten that the Student Association’s priority must be first and foremost the well-being of the student body it represents. I do believe I am with the majority of students on campus when I say that I’d prefer walking down the Spine to food trucks as opposed to hate-filled shouting from students protesting a war they know very little about. By releasing this statement, the SA shows a strong disillusionment with the student body and marks a commitment toward pursuing their own agenda of global politics at the expense of our campus.

Jacob Birman is a senior majoring in business administration. 

A Letter to the Editor is an opinion column published in response to a column or article previously published. This is Birman’s response to news coverage on 9/24 titled “Student Association publishes divestment statement.” 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 has been the subject of much recent news, and it aims to strip away the fundamental rights of millions of Americans under a second Donald Trump term. Its policy recommendations include plans to severely limit access to abortion, restrict Medicare enrollment and prescription coverage, dismantle the Departments of Education and Homeland Security and curtail unions and worker protections — and that’s nowhere near all.

But what does the Republican candidate know about the Project 2025 plan? According to USA Today, over 80 percent of Project 2025’s authors have connections to Trump and his former administration. Furthermore, not only do his policies align with Project 2025, but, most recently, Trump stated that Project 2025 contains some things “that everybody would like” on the Lex Fridman Podcast, and yet stated he did not read it during the September presidential debate. The scary truth is that he either knows about Project 2025 or doesn’t, depending on who he is speaking to. So, what’s more likely? By coincidence, 31 out of 38 of the Project 2025 authors are connected to Trump and his policies just happen to align with Project 2025, or coincidences after coincidences are no longer coincidences at all, and the man with 34 fraud convictions with a propensity for lying is, indeed, lying again. As a voter, it is essential for you to draw your own inferences, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and associates with other quacking ducks, what’s the reasonable inference? It’s a duck.

It would then seem to be common sense to support the leading candidate against implementing a dooming Project 2025, but some non-Trump supporters still support third-party candidates. There’s just one issue with that — practicality. The Pew Research Center says that in the 2016 election, third-party candidates Gary Johnson and Jill Stein — who is also running in this election — took 3.3 percent and just over 1 percent of the popular vote respectively. These were the best showings for each party since the start of the 21st century. The race for the White House is won by achieving 270 votes in the Electoral College and any vote that doesn’t go to the Kamala Harris-Tim Walz ticket — or not voting at all — keeps them further from 270, giving the Trump-JD Vance ticket a better chance of winning. This statistical, objective truth leaves us with only one rational conclusion — what’s at stake in this election and the minimal probability of third-party success provide a political, socioeconomic and moral imperative that we vote for the Democratic ticket. Make no mistake — lobbying our presidential candidates for policy reform is highly important, and Harris is the best pick to represent the needs of the American people, having stated in a recent interview, “I believe it is important to build consensus, and it is important to find a common place of understanding of where we can actually solve problems” and highlighted in September’s debate that she aims to be a president for all people.

However you may take it, this election revolves around our responsibility as Americans to choose country over party. For those not yet convinced that Harris is the best pick, I ask you — do you believe a man with 34 fraud convictions can be trusted as president? Do you think the man impeached for inciting a government insurrection should be the commander-in-chief? Do you sincerely believe the man whose former vice president said he “should never be president again” should take office? Would you trust Trump, a man who has ceaselessly prioritized profits over people, to negotiate a peaceful return of the Israeli hostages and listen to voters to stop the mass atrocities perpetrated against the Palestinian people? If you believe that Trump would be able to protect the rights and interests of all people, then go ahead — vote for him or a third-party candidate, as that is your right.

But, I implore you. Consider the consequences of your actions of choosing party and candidate before our country, not only on you but also on your loved ones. On the teenage girl who was raped and needs an abortion to survive. On our BIPOC friends and family, who are systemically mistreated simply because of a difference in skin complexion. On our country’s LGTBQ+ children, scared to be who they are. On all Americans. And on the entire world.

Frank Rizzo is a senior double-majoring in biochemistry and philosophy, politics and law.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.

During my junior year at SUNY New Paltz, I took a course on film noir taught by a brilliant professor. His course taught me the multifaceted elements of cinema, and he always exuded excitement about the topic. Film noir resembles a choose-your-own-adventure with the mayhem of crime because the audience is also doing the work. They decide to invest in the hero, who is guilty of a crime that they did not commit or is trying to uncover the truth behind one, the corrupt villain or both as one in the same. Sometimes, everyone involved is morally ambiguous and has an ulterior motive.

What struck me the most about film noir is how timeless it remains in media as well as the cultural and political ethos. There are still various forms of the cinematic genre on the smaller screen, like the new Batman animated series, as well as older television programs like “Breaking Bad.” At times, characters sprinkle dry humor with a splash of cynicism to cope with what comes toward them, like a femme fatale or a mad scientist. Each film also acknowledges absurdity within the American landscape that consistently speaks to audiences throughout the 21st century.

Thanks to cinema classes as well as access to these gems through the Internet Archive, more individuals can discover these cult classic films.

Here are the five best film noirs ranked by me:

1. Kiss Me Deadly (1955, dir. Robert Aldrich)

Kiss Me Deadly – Sourced from Internet Archive

Robert Aldrich’s film captivates its audience with its introduction. It opens with a woman, Christina (Cloris Leachman), in trouble, heavily panting and running barefoot on the road from an ominous threat, when she gets picked up by a private detective, Mike Hammer (Ralph Meeker). Aldrich’s film carries an eerie feeling that leaves the viewer on edge until the end title washes over the screen. It implies horror with the backdrop of crime and also touches upon social issues that are linked to the 1950s. Its relevance can still be seen in contemporary cinema, as well as television with its bleak cinematography.

2. Mildred Pierce (1945, dir. Michael Curtiz) 

Mildred Pierce – Sourced from Internet Archive

Mildred Pierce (Joan Crawford) is an everyday woman facing many challenges that remain relevant. After Mildred separates from her husband (Bruce Bennett), she struggles on her own to raise her two daughters, Kay and Veda. Veda (Ann Blyth), grows up into a corrupted, venomous creature in Mildred’s life. It’s the perfect Mother’s Day film because it makes a person appreciate the mother they have, or, for mothers, it can also help them cherish not having a Veda in their lives to darken their doorstep. Its examination of a complicated relationship between a mother and her daughter is timeless and is also incredibly campy at times, which is always fun with Crawford.

3. Double Indemnity (1944, dir. Billy Wilder) 

Double Indemnity – Sourced from Internet Archive

Billy Wilder’s film opens with Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray), who has hit rock bottom and is wounded by a gunshot. Walter’s story entails his job as a sleazy insurance salesman and relationship with Phyllis Dietrichson (Barbara Stanwyck). It remains a beloved favorite of mine because of how it takes the viewer down a rabbit hole of corruption and deception. Stanwyck is also magnetic as an actress in every scene she is in — her gaze locks the viewer in.

4. The Third Man (1949, dir. Carol Reed) 

The Third Man – Sourced from Internet Archive

Suppose someone was traveling all the way to a foreign country to see their childhood friend for a job. Upon arrival, this person finds out that their friend is being buried after being hit by a car. Carol Reed’s film opens with this premise, following a writer named Holly Martins (Joseph Cotten). Holly is driven by his own ego and decides to stay in order to uncover the mystery behind Harry’s (Orson Welles) death as everyone at the funeral has a different story about Harry. Fair warning — after watching this film, one may see spiral staircases in a darker light. Cotten embodies the restlessness of a caricature throughout the film, and Welles does as well. Reed’s film remains one of my favorites because of how it hooks the audience member in the second act — who can we really trust?

5. The Night of the Hunter (1955, dir. Charles Laughton)

The Night of the Hunter – Sourced from Internet Archive

This story carries the blackness of evil, embodied by a killer and self-proclaimed man of God named Harry Powell (Robert Mitchum). Unfortunately, the recently widowed mother to John and Pearl, Willa Harper (Shelley Winters), has become Harry’s new target. Despite being panned by critics upon release, this film remains a classic with its cinematography by Stanley Cortez and spellbinding acting. Not only is it film noir, but it is also a mixture of Southern Gothic storytelling and horror. The mixture of all these genres allows for the viewer to be captivated by a film that feels like its own work of art. Charles Laughton’s film is a masterpiece that allows viewers to feel a profound sense of empathy for its characters. Despite their young age, the children fight against darkness to find light.

Natasha Hendler is a second-year graduate student pursuing a master’s degree in French and a certificate in translation studies.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial. 

In 1933, German Jews faced economic discrimination through a series of legislative measures and informal practices. Local and regional ordinances in March, led to the enactment of antisemitic legislation in April, including laws targeting Jewish professionals and restricting Jewish access to certain professions and services. Despite government assurances that these laws would only affect the public sector, the “Aryan clause” effectively extended into the private sector. It mandated that firms be “free of Jewish influence” to secure contracts and orders, leading to widespread boycotts and divestment from businesses with Jewish ties. This economic discrimination permeated the private economy and impacted Jewish individuals and businesses across Germany. In 1935, the Nazis enacted the Nuremberg Race Laws targeting Jews in Germany, thereby depriving them of civil rights based on their ethnoreligious identity. Anyone classified as Jewish lost citizenship, voting rights, and government employment.

The dehumanization of Jews, years before they were sent to concentration camps, began through economic and social means. The Nazis advanced their ideologies under the guise of a legitimate public interest. Similarly, the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) organization brands itself as a progressive grassroots movement, yet continuously proves its purpose to be marginalizing the Jewish community through social and economic sanctions. According to NGO Monitor, while BDS relies on “legitimate criticism of Israel,” the rhetoric used in BDS campaigns, and consequential action, explicitly violate a number of precepts of the U.S. State Department Definition of Antisemitism.

This definition of antisemitism includes — “Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, [or] the state of Israel.” BDS personifies this aspect of the definition, as it aims to collectively punish the Jewish community for the actions of the Israeli government under the guise of supposedly progressive values. According to the Anti-Defamation League Website, “[BDS] is an international campaign aimed at delegitimizing and pressuring Israel, through the diplomatic, financial, professional, academic and cultural isolation of Israel, Israeli individuals, Israeli institutions and, increasingly, Jews who support Israel’s right to exist.” BDS has a consistent track record of investing huge resources in ensuring that dialogue and cooperation with pro-Israeli groups are prohibited. If Binghamton’s administration allows this to escalate, it will result in the discriminatory collective punishment of Jewish students and organizations for the actions of the Israeli government.

The definition also includes — “justifying the killing or harming of Jews.” On Oct. 7, in response to the largest mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust, the BDS Movement published a statement framing this atrocity as a “powerful armed reaction.”

Furthermore, BDS and its advocates consistently invoke antisemitic Holocaust comparisons, that undermine the memories of the 6 million Jews murdered for being Jewish. For example — a BDS-affiliated group, The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, claimed in a Twitter post that they were displaying a photo where a massacre took place in 1948, but a Holocaust expert proved it was actually a Nazi concentration camp in Germany. Intentionally fabricating propaganda using photos of Jewish trauma, especially when villainizing the Jewish state, is antisemitic and morally repugnant.

A fact that many BDS advocates resist acknowledging is that “88 [percent] of Jewish voters self-identify as pro-Israel, and a majority of Jewish voters are critical of at least some of the current Israeli government’s policies,” according to a 2020 national survey of Jewish voters. Targeting Jewish organizations and individuals simply because the majority of Jews believe in the Jewish right to self-determination in our ancestral homeland is immoral, illegal and unproductive for the Palestinian cause. This is exactly what BDS’s real mission is.

It’s no coincidence that increased BDS presence on campuses has occurred simultaneously with an unprecedented rise in college antisemitism. According to the Anti-Defamation League Website, “In the aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel, we have seen an unprecedented increase of antisemitic incidents, including violent assaults, intimidation and harassment against Jewish students by their peers.” Columbia University successfully passed a divestment resolution in a referendum introduced back in March, and now my Jewish friends there are facing immense antisemitism, including being physically blocked from entering campus. The situation is so dire that the community Rabbi encouraged students to “return home as soon as possible and remain home until the reality in and around campus has dramatically improved.”

Regardless of one’s stance on the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, we must collectively recognize BDS as the divisive, manipulative, dishonest and hateful organization that it is. As the descendant of generations of Jews who were persecuted for their Jewish identity, I am begging you not to let the same happen to me.

Atara Globus is a guest columnist and a senior majoring in political science. 

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the views of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.

I was supposed to speak as a public commenter at the BDS resolution hearing. The SA Congress procedure dragged on for hours in a disorganized manner. When they finally got to the debates for and against BDS, SA representatives seated in the front rows whispered among themselves, stared at their phones and shopped for shoes online. After over an hour of debates, the SA voted to suspend the rules and vote that night, moving public comments to after the vote happened. I did not get the opportunity to speak. By the time the SA had voted to pass BDS shortly after midnight, no one wanted to publicly comment — our words would have been spoken in vain to a divided crowd.

Since I did not get to speak, I did not get to say how personally impactful the passing of the BDS resolution would be for me. I did not get to say that I have been targeted, singled out and ostracized at Binghamton University and abandoned by close friends because of my Jewish identity.

The BDS resolution blames only the existence of Israel for the pain and suffering of the innocent people in Gaza and Palestine — neglecting completely to address the militant terrorist organization of Hamas, embedded in Gaza’s civilian institutions and hidden in hundreds of underground tunnels, as a major factor preventing peace and justice for the Palestinian people. BDS resolutions, often cheered by terrorist organizations including Hamas, deny Israel as the legitimate indigenous homeland of the Jewish people and instead refer to Israel as a settler-colonialist apartheid state committing genocide. This information, implicated in the language of the SA resolution, is not only false, but harmful and dangerous as it labels Jewish people and Israelis as malicious oppressors, potentially inviting more violence and hatred toward them.

Speakers who argued for BDS neglected to mention the hostages still held by Hamas, the atrocities of Oct. 7 and worsening antisemitism nationwide. Until the BDS resolution author was prompted by another SA representative to add a sentence demanding the unconditional release of the hostages, the hostages were excluded from the resolution’s supposed calls for justice altogether. The vast majority of pro-BDS debaters did not speak about any personal connections to Gaza or Palestinians. Meanwhile, almost every debater against BDS spoke in-depth about a personal connection to a friend or relative in Israel affected by Hamas’ genocidal attacks.

What dispirited me most about the BDS hearing is that several Jewish Binghamton University community members spoke in favor of BDS, including the author of the resolution. It feels to me like Jewish community members arguing for BDS are weaponizing their own shame, and the BU community ignores this possibility. As Dara Horn writes in “People Love Dead Jews,” when discussing some Jewish individuals’ historical compliance with antisemitic ideologies, “[Bigotry] doesn’t involve ‘intolerance’ or ‘persecution,’ at least not at first. Instead, it looks like Jews themselves are choosing to reject their own traditions. It is a form of weaponized shame.”

When BU students engage in antiracist and anti-oppressive discourse, most are aware that intention does not equal impact. If the impact of an action is racism, the intention scarcely matters — we are all learning to correct the racist ideas we have been socialized to hold and practice, even implicitly. Good intentions do not negate a harmful impact. When BU students talk about Israel, this sense of existing implicit bias is not discussed. The BU Jewish organization Hillel says — passing the BDS resolution will have an impact of worsening antisemitism and a hostile BU environment. The pro-BDS movement disregards our calls, and seems to respond — well it’s not intended to be antisemitic, so it isn’t. Is this anti-oppressive action? Is this doing the work to value diversity, equity and inclusion?

My life at BU has changed drastically since Oct. 7. Former friends of mine won’t look me in the eyes. Social media has revealed that many of my peers have voiced support for Hamas, a terrorist organization. I am isolated from progressive groups with whom I was previously aligned.

BDS has ties to terrorist organizations, denies Jewish ancestry to Israel, and is already banned by New York state from using SUNY intellectual property. The SA hearing was a chaotic, disheartening and shameful event. I hope that before graduation, the BU administrators will use their leadership power to prevent the implementation of BDS. Saying NO to BDS is saying NO to virulent antisemitism. The hatred, ostracization and scapegoating of Jewish people cannot be tolerated at BU or anywhere.

Tova Wilensky is a guest columnist and a second-year graduate student studying social work.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the views of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.

The crisis in the Middle East has no direct connection with our contract, our campus or our professional lives. It is an issue about which many people feel strongly, and that’s their right, but it is not an issue that affects the Union in any manner. The resolution claims to be supporting “free speech and academic freedom” — and yet, the rest of the resolution directly undermines that goal by purporting to speak for all Union members and to dictate exactly how they should think regarding the Israel-Gaza war.

The news out of Gaza is heartbreaking, but there are many legitimate beliefs about whose responsibility it is to bring about a ceasefire. This is widely recognized as an extraordinarily complicated conflict, and someone might hold a range of opinions about the best course of action while still being a moral, humanitarian individual. The E-Board advocates an aggressively singular position that seems fundamentally opposed to the nuanced, complex and analytical thinking that universities ought to cultivate.

Nothing in the resolution suggests any attempt to present a balanced assessment of the situation. This is starkest in the decision to never once mention Hamas. One might be led to believe that it was not Hamas that broke the lasting ceasefire still in effect on Oct. 7, 2023, or that ended the temporary ceasefire in November by refusing to release designated hostages such as a one-year-old, a four-year-old and several teenage girls, etc. By remaining silent on Hamas’s simple existence, the UUP resolution could be read as purposefully erasing a group who butchered and burned children while calling them “Jew dogs” just a few months ago. Ironically, this creates the very “climate of fear” on campus that the resolution purports to oppose. In a bizarre twist, the authors of the resolution seem to anticipate this, invoking certain Israeli and Jewish groups who have argued for a ceasefire. This feels like a preemptive tactic to dismiss charges of antisemitism according to the “I’m not racist, I have black friends” trope.

This resolution does nothing to further dialogue, nothing to further understanding or kindness on campus. It instead pushes a dualistic, antagonistic approach not only to politics but to conceptions of history, human rights and identity. It will have no effect on events in the Middle East, but it will alienate — and frighten — many in our University community.

Frankly, there may well be members of the Union who care little about the conflict in the Middle East and wonder why campus energies are so singularly focused on it. That should also be considered a valid stance. In Sudan, there are currently over 8 million displaced persons because of conflict and almost 5 million at risk of famine. In Beed, India, approximately one in every five women has been compelled to have a hysterectomy so that she can work that much harder to harvest sugar cane for companies like PepsiCo. Here in Broome County, around 8,000 children under age 18 live with food insecurity. In many ways, the world is a terrible place, and each of us may strive in our own way to rectify its wrongs. Joining UUP should not commit you to prioritizing one atrocity over another because these issues ultimately have no bearing on UUP’s mission. If UUP’s response is to point to other unions and their resolutions, my retort is that we are not sheep and should not jump simply because others do.

What if UUP instead devoted its time to food waste on campus, child care for employees or accessibility of pathways and buildings during icy weather? These may not carry the same moral weight, but they do concern the daily lives of union members and are arenas in which UUP can effect real change.

It is absolutely the individual right of E-Board members to exercise their freedom in supporting whatever political or humanitarian cause they believe in and to do so with passion. I wish for that same freedom to be returned to me, a Union member who wishes to remain a Union member and who does not want to be harassed or intimidated into forming unyielding convictions on matters in which I am not an expert and have zero influence on material policy.

Meg Leja is a guest columnist and associate professor in the history department.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the views of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.

My answer used to be a resounding yes — I made friends, built a community and challenged myself at Binghamton. Since Oct. 7 though, Jewish students, myself included, have experienced antisemitism and hate to such a degree, as described later, that the answer to this question has shifted to a no. The friends I made and the communities I involved myself in turned on my Jewish identity. My “friends” started posting that the Israelis deserved the atrocities of Oct. 7 and that the “freedom fighters” were justified and correct in their actions. The community I surrounded myself with in a pre-health multicultural club turned on me. The members of the E-Board I was a part of for two years — and an intern for a semester prior — started making their resentment of my identity clear. They took no notice of the correct pronunciation of my Hebrew name, made major events on Saturday despite my constant warning that Jewish observant students would not be able to participate and forced me to collaborate with an irrelevant pre-professional organization that openly calls Israel a genocidal state. I left after being told that my political stance could not come before my service to the organization. I left because my moral values and Israeli and Jewish identity will always come before serving an organization that claims to be multicultural and professional.

My story is not unique. My friend left his cultural club’s E-Board after multiple anti-Israel and antisemitic statements were published claiming to represent the club of which he was a leader. Another friend applied to be on the E-Board of an organization based on artistic skill and was ghosted after the club requested to follow her on Instagram and found that she had posted photos of herself in Israel. This club has gone on to make multiple political statements supporting the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) organization. Finally, according to another student, a Jewish student was reported by fellow students and suspended from using GroupMe after promoting a purely Jewish event with no political affiliation.

I share these experiences in the wake of the passing of the BDS resolution by the Student Association (SA) Congress. Many of the speakers who spoke in favor of the bill claimed to understand antisemitism and how anti-Israel rhetoric allegedly does not promote antisemitism. I am writing to bring to light the marginalization that I and my Jewish friends have felt since Oct. 7 to help others understand the fear your Jewish friends have about BDS. We fear that the passing of this resolution has begun a change in campus climate that will promote further hate and division. As has been explained, “BDS often gives rise to tensions in communities — in the [United States], we see it particularly on college campuses — that can result in the isolation and intimidation of Jews and supporters of Israel. With the focus on negating Israel and its supporters, BDS campaigns may create an environment in which antisemitic actions and expressions may be emboldened.” Jewish students have war on their minds constantly — always wondering whether it will be them and their family and friends in America or their family and friends in Israel who get hurt next because of their identity.

Regardless of your opinions of the wars in the Middle East, show your Jewish friends that you support them and their culture. If you are on the E-Board of an SA chartered organization, keep these stories in mind when you hesitate to include Jewish, Israeil or Zionist students for political reasons. Let’s work together to create a united student body through dialogue, collaboration and valuing one another’s cultures and friendships.

Yael Bruk is a guest columnist and a senior double-majoring in biology and philosophy.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the views of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.

My name is Myles Resnick. I am a junior, the current vice president of public relations of Hillel at Binghamton and the incoming executive vice president of the organization. I am also a member of the LGBTQ community on campus and a former intern with the Q Center. Over the last year, I have watched a space that is “designed to foster a campus environment that is inclusive and supportive of all sexual orientations, gender identities and gender expressions” become anything but to the queer Jewish population of this campus. Since Oct. 7, I have watched the Q Center’s poster from Keshet, the LGBTQ Jewish Intersectional organization, move out of the main room of the center. I have watched friends who would attend Hillel events with me before Oct. 7 distance themselves from me after it. The climate of this campus has become increasingly divided over the last six months, and these student movements make me feel forced to choose between two aspects of my identity that do not contradict one another.

This pressure will only increase with the implementation of a BDS resolution, which would demonize the Jewish and Zionist components of it. I can no longer stand idly by, forced to pick if it is more important to be Queer or Jewish. I miss my non-Jewish friends. I miss connecting with those who are different from me, all because I am Jewish. This resolution would have you endorse the demonization of aspects of my Jewish identity, normalizing the exclusion of Jewish students from feeling a connection to any intersectional pieces of their identity. I want to return to the Q Center. I want to reconnect with the people I have lost since Oct. 7, and I want to continue to exchange cultures and stories.

I cannot be passive. I am a queer Jew, and any efforts to force me to separate these two central pieces of my life is something I cannot stand by.

A sizable number of those advocating for this resolution were Jewish students. They hoped to emphasize that despite the coalition of Jewish organizations in opposition, there were still Jewish students in favor of this introduction of BDS to campus. While I can respect this minority of our student body, there are more minorities on this issue. The queer community at large on campus has been in favor of this resolution, with two of the more prolific queer clubs — Rainbow Pride Union & SHADES — being presented as organizations in favor. However, these organizations do not speak for all queer students on this campus. These clubs, like the aforementioned coalition of Jewish organizations, may represent a large majority, but not everyone. And if the minority of Jews for this resolution’s voice is allowed to be heard, so too should the voice of Queer students who are confidently and unequivocally proud of their Jewish and Zionist identities.

Myles Resnick is a guest columnist and a junior with an individualized major in mass media studies.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the views of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.

I was present at the Student Association (SA) Congress meeting on April 16. I sat through five hours of objections, counter-arguments and roll-call votes until Resolution 11 was eventually voted on to call for the BDS of Israel via the Binghamton University SA. I watched nearly 1,000 eyes follow the debate back and forth with a fiery passion. This meeting taught me that, regardless of whether we are for the legislation or against it, our campus community is passionate and determined to stand for the causes they believe in.

However, I also saw blatant disrespect on both sides toward their perceived “enemy.” I listened as snide comments were made to me by dagger-staring individuals. I looked into the eyes of those surrounding me and saw nothing but disdain, hating me for carrying a blue-and-white flag. And I scrolled in horror as, to my dismay, BU’s YikYak page filled with horrible comments about “Jewish privilege” and how Jews should go back to their indigenous lands in Europe or Brooklyn. On Wednesday, April 17, “Eat **** Zionists” was one of the hottest posts on the platform, with hundreds of upvotes and comments further degrading their fellow students.

In my 3 years here at BU — and 22 years on this planet — I have never seen two groups of students so divided yet so determined that they are on the right side of history. When I say Zionist, many who supported the BDS resolution hear “enemy” and immediately decide that I am a monster.

I cannot explain to them that for someone like me, who is an Orthodox Jew and member of the 2,000-strong Zionist Jewish community in Binghamton, which irrefutably makes up a majority of the overall Jewish population in BU, using Zionist as a swear is just as hurtful as being called a dirty Jew. I do not know how to emphasize that my Orthodox Jewish community, which I have helped lead over the past year, holds Zionism as a religious staple to our identity, with thousand-year-old prayers uttered daily for the well-being of the land of our ancestors. I am prevented from voicing that although supporters believe that the resolution is a pure positive meant to distance BU economically from war, the greater BDS movement has irrefutably caused a rise in antisemitism within the campuses it appears. This is absolutely a reason for Jewish students on campus to be afraid. But, instead, our concerns are met with complete disregard on the basis of the Jewish privilege we are accused of possessing, leaving us isolated, hurt and feeling quite unwelcome.

I call in this letter for a return to the viewpoint that we are all human. Whether we are pro-BDS, anti-BDS, Zionist or otherwise, we all have a goal to make the world a better place. To those who wore red at the Congress — please heed my words and see that Zionism does not equal inhumanity, and ask us questions as to why we believe so passionately in the State of Israel. To those who wore blue — see that our campus has a desire to end war across the world, and speak with them about how we can both work toward ending the conflict. The animosity that currently exists is a gaping wound in the breathing life that is our campus community, and if left to fester will be its ruin.

I speak from the perspective of viewing the hate from one side, but I also see that the feelings are mutual. Therefore, I encourage anyone who has negative feelings toward Zionism to please speak with me so that we can end this cycle of hatred and move toward acceptance. Both ideologies preach peace, so I am confident we can find that peace between us. And to my fellow Zionists, I implore you all to not take this vote as a reason to shut the gate on the overall Binghamton community and instead foster discussion with differing opinions to see where they are coming from.

Although I personally disagree with many of the statements made by the resolution, I respect the effort expended by those who spearheaded the effort in fighting what they believe in. As a Zionist, I am also in support of a Gaza free of conflict where any individual of any nationality or race can thrive and grow. I also pray for peace in the region, an end to the fighting and the release of hostages being held illegally.

Both sides sincerely believe in these causes, which gives me hope that we can come together, not as people of one mind, but as students who agree to respect each other for what and who we care about. If we leave no room for positive interaction, that is when I fear we have lost sight of one of the many reasons we are together in this college environment. I look forward to the day when we see each other not as enemies, but as human beings advocating for a better world together.

Jacob Birman is a guest columnist and a junior majoring in business administration.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the views of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.

The resolution refers to Israel’s war against Hamas as an “illegal act of collective punishment.” But no reputable international body, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ), has called into question Israel’s right to a military response to the heinous attack of Oct. 7 by Hamas, which not only murdered around 1,200 Israelis and non-Israelis, Jews and non-Jews, but kidnapped over 250 people, dozens of whom have since died in captivity. Hamas also engaged in sadistic rapes and mutilations on wide scale, leading some analysts to believe that it deployed a planned and systematic policy of sexual violence in its attack.

This is not a case of “collective punishment,” as the resolution alleges, but a war to defeat Hamas. Doing so inevitably entails degrading or dismantling its vast terrorist infrastructure, with Hamas operatives and weapons placed behind civilian human shields and its tunnels underneath schools, universities and hospitals, leading to the agonizing toll that the resolution decries. The thoroughgoing disabling of Hamas, the effective government of a territory lying at Israel’s very border, is a matter of Israel’s existential necessity. No country would tolerate such a mortal threat after experiencing an assault of this magnitude.

The resolution refers to the January 26 ICJ ruling but nowhere mentions that the ICJ has not called for a ceasefire, as is within its capacity. Presumably, had the Court believed that Israel was causing actual genocide, it would have called for a ceasefire. As elucidated by the think tank Perry House of the University of Pennsylvania, the Court instead ruled that as of yet, “there was no evidence that the war itself is causing genocide and, hence, that a ceasefire would be needed to prevent genocide.”

The resolution also fails to mention that the ICJ can only comment on the behaviors and intentions of state actors, and that it regards Hamas as a non-state actor and not subject to its rulings on genocide. Without a doubt Hamas is the party in this conflict guilty of genocide in terms of its willful, intentional murder of civilians and of its expressed intent to carry out further Oct. 7-style attacks, as expressed by Hamas official Ghazi Hamad when he boasted, “We Will Repeat the [Oct. 7] Attack Time and Again Until Israel Is Annihilated” — a statement that the resolution nowhere acknowledges.

The resolution refers to “the statements by leading figures in Israel’s government and military declaring the goals of population transfer, depopulation, collective punishment and eradication.” Yet these admittedly reprehensible statements do not reflect the actual policies of the Israeli government, specifically those of the war cabinet, which is solely responsible for determining the war’s execution. Its stated goals, as mentioned, are the defeat of Hamas and the return of the hostages, not the destruction of the Gazan population. This distinction between reckless comments made by cabinet ministers with no actual authority in determining military policy, on the one hand, and members of Israel’s war cabinet, on the other, has been widely reported in the press and reiterated in official statements of the Israeli, United States and other governments. And yet the resolution fails to make it.

Finally, the statement that “the Binghamton [University] chapter of [UUP] endorses the call for an immediate and lasting ceasefire” demonstrates a fundamental if commonplace ignorance of the real facts of the situation, specifically, that every recent ceasefire or ceasefire negotiation has been violated or scuttled by Hamas, not Israel. It was Hamas that destroyed the ceasefire long in operation before Oct. 7 with its horrific and unprovoked assault. It was likewise Hamas that violated the one successfully negotiated ceasefire in late November by failing to return the scheduled number of hostages agreed upon. Since then, Hamas has sabotaged every effort to produce a long-term ceasefire, including several negotiated by Israel, Egypt and Qatar during the last several months.

Indeed, it is Hamas that has long had the power to call a halt to the war that is afflicting the people of Gaza by returning all of the hostages and laying down its arms while removing its leadership far outside the Strip. But the Binghamton chapter’s resolution doesn’t even mention Hamas, let alone condemn its leaders, for their share of the responsibility for the deaths of so many innocent Jews and Palestinians.

The resolution blatantly obscures the magnitude of the crimes perpetrated against Israel and mischaracterizes the policy of its government in order to villainize the country. Stepping into an arena far removed from its proper sphere of concerns, the Binghamton chapter of the UUP has produced a shoddy and one-sided statement articulating a position antithetical to that of no small number of its members and has thereby abused the trust and confidence they have placed in it.

Note from authors — according to reports we received from several individuals who were present when the BDS resolution was debated and passed by the BU Student Association, proponents of BDS invoked this UUP resolution as evidence of faculty support for its goal of boycotting and divesting from Israel in a manner designed to strangle the country, further evidence of the Union E-Board’s reckless and dangerous action.

This guest column was written by the following guest authors. Allan Arkush, a professor of Judaic Studies, Alex Chase-Levenson, an associate professor of history, Rebecca Kahn, director of graduate and undergraduate marketing in the office of communications and marketing, Jonathan Karp, an associate professor of Judaic Studies and history and Andy Morris, senior associate director of enrollment and recruitment in the College of Community and Public Affairs.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the views of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.

Often, this shoddy rhetorical attempt at disarming anti-zionists is phrased as a question, innocently posed as if we are unaware of the world and our place in it. “Don’t you know what they’d do to you there? Don’t you realize that they hate people like you?” Having lived our lives as feminists and as queer, gender-nonconforming individuals in the misogynistic and queerphobic landscape that is the United States, we are well aware that hatred exists in all places, and we see through the racist and antagonistic connotations of this argument. We refuse to buy into the narrative that frames Israel as an all-inclusive haven for queer folks and women while casting Palestinian society as barbaric or uncivilized concerning these topics.

According to Corrine Blackmer, the director of Judaic Studies at Southern Connecticut State University, Israel’s weaponization of a purportedly progressive LGBTQ+ legislative record — which, in itself, has been highly precarious — to conceal its abuse of Palestinians constitutes what is known as pinkwashing. Israel’s hasbara, or propaganda, strategy of pinkwashing ultimately attempts to justify the occupation of Palestinians by promoting the image of Israel as a lone oasis for queer folks, surrounded by violent, homophobic Arabs. This diminishes the existence of queer Palestinians, who suffer greatly under the system of Israeli apartheid. Israel presents itself as an essential part of the ‘enlightened’ West — claiming that it is “the only democracy in the Middle East” — while Palestinians, who are excluded from this “democracy,” are represented as the unwelcome “other,” undeserving of statehood, sovereignty and humanity.

A strategy similar to pinkwashing also appears in the consistent denial and erasure of the systematic abuse of Palestinian women. Women in Gaza have been subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment, with many women using scraps of tents as menstrual products since the start of this genocide. In detention, there are numerous substantiated reports of sexual assault, where both women and men have been stripped naked and searched by Israel Defence Forces (IDF) officers. Media has surfaced depicting IDF soldiers raiding Gazan homes, holding up lingerie and standing in sexually suggestive positions with the garments. Israel presents a narrative of inclusivity but maintains structural and systematic sexual abuse of Palestinian women and men. Likewise, Palestinian society is painted as “backward” for its ostensibly rampant homophobia, while Palestinian queer folks are racialized and barred from accessing equality by Israeli society itself.

Zionist students spoke during the Student Association (SA) Congress Meeting on the sexual violence of Oct. 7, using these stories to both justify voting against SA divestment from Israel and demonize those supporting Palestinian liberation. As an organization dedicated to ending sexual violence, we are outraged at the limited, asymmetrical and sensationalistic perspective that arguments like this one portray. Statements that center the conversation on the experiences of only Israeli women and which seek to demonize Palestinians do not account for the systemic, widespread nature of sexual violence — it is a global crisis that is often exacerbated by militaristic occupation. Furthermore, discussing the Apartheid state of Israel’s systematic abuse of Palestinians does not, in any way, deny the experiences of Jewish women who have faced sexual violence. Incorrect and inflammatory statements that imply the Divest from Death Coalition supports sexual violence in any way misrepresents the cause of divestment and uses violence against Israeli women as an excuse to perpetuate violence against Palestinian women, children and men. Divestment is about ending Binghamton’s complicity in the slaughter of Palestinians, and the perpetuation of a genocide that endangers all in the region.

The issue of Israeli occupation is inherently feminist and queer. Angela Davis notes that the radical possibilities explored by non-binary and trans communities can provide us with hope for abolitionist movements and Palestinian liberation. Gender-nonconforming folks are challenging binarist traditions all over the world, proving that the status quo is nothing but an illusion created by the powerful. We must reject any perspective that attempts to isolate certain women, queer folks and marginalized individuals who are deserving of rights while excluding others, and begin to examine who is suffering under these broader systems. To free Palestine is to free women from patriarchy, trans folks from cissexism and queer folks from heterosexism.

This guest column was written by the BU Feminist Collective.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the views of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.

The “Divest from Death” resolution is, of course, inspired by the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, but in no way condones every statement they have ever made. It is uniquely written for Binghamton University, focusing heavily on removing military contractors from our campus. It is also designed to allow Jewish organizations, such as Hillel, to remain unaffected. This conflation of antisemitism and pro-Palestinian protest harms everyone. Voices against the occupation and against the ongoing genocidal campaign in Gaza are motivated by empathy. We have a right to mourn, speak out and protest — including by using the dollars we give to our University.

At the same time, antisemitism is real and dangerous. Unfortunately, the largest study of incidents is done by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an organization that openly conflates antisemitism and anti-Zionism. According to them, antisemitic incidents increased 388 percent in the weeks after Oct. 7. While this number cannot be taken as an unbiased fact, it is indicative of a trend. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) also reported a 216 percent increase in requests for help and complaints of anti-Arab and Islamophobic bias during that time.

These are interlinked and must be combatted on an interpersonal level on our campus. Hate can thrive in social environments where it is considered acceptable. We must combat stereotypes of Muslim and Arab students as terrorists, terrorist supporters or inherently antisemitic. We must combat antisemitic stereotypes of Jewish students as greedy or evil and remember that Jewish students are in no way at fault for atrocities committed by the government of Israel.

The best widely-accepted definition of antisemitism is the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, which student groups and individuals should look to as they ensure our campus remains safe for all Jewish students.

In no way is abandoning or suppressing the Palestinian solidarity movement an effective method for combating antisemitism. Calling for a cease-fire, demanding dignity and supporting Palestinian voices go hand-in-hand with fighting antisemitism.

These ideals are nothing new. Me and many others see a long history of our values in the legacy of the Jewish Labor Bund. Making a homeland wherever we are (doikayt, in Yiddish), fighting injustice perpetrated against us and our neighbors appeals, and criticizing Zionism as a form of exclusionary nationalism and an oppressive force against Palestinians have been present over the century-long Bundist movement.

Having barely survived the Holocaust — the single most horrific chapter in Jewish history — the Jewish Labor Bund still said that “reconciliation of the claims of the Jewish people with the rights of other peoples is the essence of the Bund’s approach to Jewish problems.” Modern Bundists and many other Jewish voices continue this sentiment of collaboration and coexistence.

The Boston Worker’s Circle — a daughter organization of the Bund — was expelled from the Boston Jewish Community Relations Council for standing for a cease-fire. Jews for Racial and Economic Justice (JFREJ) in New York City proudly identifies with doikayt as they, too, call for a cease-fire.

Other United States groups include Jewish groups like Jewish Voices for Peace and If Not Now — they organized one of the largest recent acts of civil disobedience, shutting down Grand Central Terminal and recently held a massive anti-war Passover Seder. Despite repression and police violence, many in Israel/Palestine continue to protest the war. Standing Together supports grassroots cooperation between Palestinians and Israelis while recognizing the one group’s political domination and demanding an end to the occupation. Veteran Israeli soldiers in Breaking the Silence speak out against apartheid and occupation as ex-participants.

There have always been Jewish voices supporting Palestinian liberation and until there is equal coexistence, there will always be more.

Amari Pavati is a guest columnist and a sophomore double-majoring in geography and classical studies.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the views of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.

It should go without saying that senior constituents — faculty, staff and administration — must defend students’ unhindered rights to participate in reasoned, moral and empirically-based debates and to dissent and protest against dominant establishment-endorsed policies. Even less contestable should be students’ obligations and prerogatives to make democratic decisions without interference from unjustifiable pressure from donors, politicians or lobbies.

On Tuesday, April 16, 2024, the Binghamton University Student Association (SA) adopted a resolution expressing support for the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) campaign which seeks to pressure Israel to meet its obligations under international law. In practical terms, the resolution aims for BU administrators to sever the University’s partnerships with the defense industry, particularly companies like Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems.

Broadly speaking, the resolution, which passed 14 to 11, should not be contentious. It reflects a clear and longstanding global consensus, unequivocal recommendations by the United Nations and a growing majoritarian position in the United States. But even if the resolution were controversial in our narrower context, it should not be censured and overturned as commanded by intrusive state legislators. The University must not succumb to demands for extraordinary processes and authoritarian intimidation that would reverse our students’ fair and transparent vote. Giving into these external pressures entails irreparable costs that might not be fully perceptible.

An obvious cost of subverting the SA’s democratic process is that broad swaths of the campus population, from diverse backgrounds and political traditions, will lose faith in the civic institutions we never tire of encouraging them to participate in. The student body and its representatives will reasonably conclude that these forms of engagement and the spirit animating them are shams.

But overturning democratic student decision-making matters beyond the dulling of civic participation and the cynicism it would breed. Censuring and invalidating the SA resolution, even if achieved through regulation procedures, costs the University, and society more broadly, a valid and useful evaluation of the Israel-Palestine quandary, the ethical and practical clarity of which present-day fog prevents us from appreciating. A recent historical example illustrates the danger and detriment of paying this price.

Over 40 years ago, college campuses across the country were engulfed in a student rebellion advocating for sanctions against and divestment from a foreign state whose policies they deemed violated international law and the human rights, self-determination and dignity of an entire people. As global outrage against apartheid came to a head, student unions and assemblies, from Maine to California, called for universities to boycott South African government and institutions and divest from companies that did business in the country. One might be forgiven for expecting that university administrations immediately complied with a demand that in retrospect appears self-evident. In fact, student demands were stymied.

As the following examples show, instead of adhering to basic and universal principles of equality and democracy, university presidents panicked, demurred and repressed. They vilified students, persecuted activists, closed down common spaces and delayed meaningful action, much as we are seeing today. Columbia accused its students of criminal and civil violations, taking disciplinary measures against and threatening to expel activists. At Berkeley, police raided a student sit-in, arresting over 150 student activists. A few years prior, Harvard’s president opposed divestment for being “legally questionable [and] widely disputed on its merits.” Across the country, students were accused of fomenting tension and disrupting learning. From one campus to another, in sweeping escalation reminiscent of the current spread of protest — students intensified and deepened their democratic and civic engagement only to be disqualified, dismissed and criminalized by their administrators with the backing of state and national politicians.

Eventually, students — alongside allied community and church groups — stirred the conscience of university leaders. Their governing bodies finally embraced sanctions against and divestment from South Africa, helping to deliver a mortal blow to the globally reviled apartheid regime.

Imagine if universities had successfully suppressed and ignored campus activists and assemblies. Students’ principled and democratic activities would have been prevented from contributing to morally grounded debates about how to approach an agitated and oppressed society like South Africa. In short, their engagement made a valuable contribution to our common affairs. Today, lest our lofty pronouncements shrivel into empty verbiage that only serves to alienate our students, the SA resolution must be allowed to stand and generate urgently needed discussion on the destruction and carnage resulting from the conflict between Palestine and Israel.

Overturning the resolution is a price we cannot afford to pay.

This guest column was written by the following guest authors. Mary Albanese, an associate professor of English, general literature and rhetoric, Sandra Casanova-Vizcaíno, an associate professor of Spanish, Tina Chronopoulos, an associate professor of Middle Eastern and ancient Mediterranean studies, Robyn Cope, an associate professor of romance languages and literature, Carl Gelderloos, an associate professor of German, Thomas Glave, a Professor of English, general literature, and rhetoric, Gladys Jiménez-Muñoz, an associate professor of sociology, Claire Kovacs, the curator of collections and exhibitions at the BU Art Museum, Monika Mehta, an associate professor of English, general literature and rhetoric, Joshua Reno, a professor of anthropology, Kelvin Santiago Valles, a professor of sociology, and Leo Wilton, a professor of human development.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the views of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial.

Assemblymen Charles Levine and David Weprin are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution under Article VI. They did not do their constitutional homework in rallying against the alleged illegality of Binghamton University Student Association’s (SA) urging the University to adopt a Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions policy in its investment decisions.

Putting aside whether former-Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s Executive Order 157 applies to the SA and whether the Order violates the First Amendment’s protection of free speech, it is clearly preempted by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which entrusts exclusive control over foreign policy to the federal government to the exclusion of states. That principle was enshrined in Pennsylvania v. Nelson (1956), Crosby v. Foreign Trade Council (2000) and American Insurance Association v. Garamendi (2003). Gov. Cuomo’s Executive Order intended to establish a foreign policy of New York friendly to Israel contrary to the current federal policy, which has repeatedly rejected a federal anti-BDS law.

Under the Constitution, we speak with one voice on foreign policy and that voice is the voice of the United States, notwithstanding the unschooled views of Lavine and Weprin.

Ralph Nader is a political activist, attorney and a four-time presidential candidate.

Bruce Fein is a lawyer specializing in constitutional and international law.

John Richard and Albert Mokhiber are Binghamton University alumni who graduated in 1976 and 1980, respectively.

“Behind the scenes, I’m on the elections committee, and I was able to warn the committee [of the divestment question] beforehand,” the SA member said. “Don’t write this down. I warned the committee, and I told everyone ‘this is what he’s planning on doing.’ So, the only reason [Ferrara] got to ask [his question] twice is because he was the only one to raise his hand, so we had to call on him.”

Ignoring the self-aware culpability in saying not to write down their “behind-the-scenes” actions, this is a clear example of SA representatives using their power to silence dissent to Zionist hegemony on BU’s campus. I am a student whose Jewish heritage makes me keenly concerned with the historical patterns of oppression and genocide wrought by imperialism and ethnostate construction. In fact, I am one of many such Jews who oppose the forced homogenization of the Jewish diaspora. The International Court of Justice has indicated that Israeli actions plausibly constitute genocide, and the true settler-colonial goals of Israel’s invasion are alarmingly clear to those paying attention — the Israeli government seeks the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in Gaza and in the West Bank and the destruction of the Palestinian people and culture. While it is disheartening that Jewish voices are being centered above those of my far-too-often-silenced Palestinian colleagues, many of whom have lost family in the Israeli siege, I feel compelled to use my privilege as a white Jewish student to uplift the Palestinian cause. To that end, consider this a direct challenge to the SA — you have an obligation as student leaders to take a public stance and act upon instituting BDS.

It is idealistic and misguided to argue that the SA is a historically apolitical organization, and it is dangerous to posit that the SA must maintain political “neutrality” despite its massive influence. In 1985, the SA opposed the South African apartheid regime, supporting divestment from an institution that profited from its occupation. It was this effort — which Binghamton University administration resisted until they were dragged kicking and screaming away from putting profits over people — that gave the University Union’s Mandela Room its name and led to SUNY-wide divestment. The SA can legally act politically, within the bounds of its constitution, and should be encouraged to do so.

The modern BDS movement is founded upon the principles and strategies of these successful anti-apartheid campaigns. BDS is a non-violent strategy that utilizes the efficacy of economic pressure, and it is the best way for the student body to make our voice heard. In practice, the SA is not an apolitical institution. Thus, it is the duty of any SA representative who supports lasting peace and Palestinian sovereignty to make every possible effort to pass legislation that achieves transparency from the BU Foundation, and divestment from Israel and the military-industrial complex throughout the University.

To our current representatives on SA Congress and E-Board — now is the time to take action in support of divestment. Admittedly, as many of you will soon graduate, it would be easy to ride out the rest of your terms without taking a stance. If you feel this impulse, I must ask — why, then, did we elect you to your position in the first place? Far too often, student government is used as a means for students to cosplay as politicians — this cowardly practice shirks the responsibility to your community that you take on as elected representatives. You are our leaders and the people we turn to for support and guidance in times of hardship. Right now, you have the rare opportunity to make real progress — do not squander it just because the regressive University establishment opposes you.

Finally, to our incoming president, you told me that you would “lead by example” on BDS. Unfortunately, private, individual boycotting is not enough. I challenge you to emulate former SA President Fred Azcarate, who was a staunch leader in the aforementioned student movement for divestment from South Africa. You have the trust and respect of the students — now use it.

The urgency of this situation cannot be overstated. Over 33,000 Palestinians have been killed, and more than 80 percent of the Gazan population has been displaced. We are facing one of the worst humanitarian disasters of our generation — an egregious attempt at permanently solidifying over 100 years of imperialism — and the SA has the power to combat it. Your actions now will be remembered forever by the international community, by your friends, by your descendants and by yourselves.

John Ferrara is a guest columnist and a junior double-majoring in biology and Italian.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece which represents the views of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial. 

On Tuesday, April 16, a BDS resolution will be presented to the Binghamton University Student Association’s (SA) Congressional Representatives. This is the first step for BDS policy implementation on our campus. Campus groups spearheading the push for BDS adoption are the BU chapter of the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), The Yiddish Bund of Binghamton and the BU chapter of the Young Democratic Socialists of America, who are among other prominent campus groups sponsoring the legislation. As a concerned Jewish student, I feel as though it is my duty to voice my opinion.

The cause to boycott Israeli economy, companies and academic institutions solidified in 2005 with the founding of the current Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement by Omar Barghouti and Ramy Shaat. Israel, its adherents argue, has not sufficiently met their demands and now must face up to their choices. It claims that the Jewish state subjects the Palestinian people to, “settler colonialism, apartheid and occupation.” Since the escalation of the conflict in October of 2023, the movement has joined the call with other anti-Israel groups and has charged Israel with genocide. All of these charges are a libelous mischaracterization of Israel and its policies. The Jewish people’s history in the land of Israel spans over 3,000 years, and there has been archeological evidence found to support this. Israel provides great opportunities to all of its citizens, no matter their religious affiliation or ethnicity. Legally speaking, all Israelis are equal citizens under the law. A report by the U.S. State Department in 2001 says “the Declaration of Independence describes the country as a ‘Jewish state,’ but also provides for full social and political equality regardless of religious affiliation.” Furthermore, the genocide claim levied against Israel has not been supported by a number of world leaders. U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin affirmed that there is no evidence that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza at a Senate Armed Services Committee on April 9.

A notable aspect of BDS is its repeated support for Hamas, the terrorist organization who perpetrated the Oct. 7, 2023 attack against Israel in which 1,163 people were raped, assaulted and murdered. The movement, in a since-deleted post to their official website, called the Hamas attack “heroic” and “reasonable.” The sickening support of Hamas by BDS sheds light on what the movement truly stands for, namely, the destruction of Jewish lives. A report released by Israel in 2019 found that there are links between BDS and Hamas militants.

BDS-aligned policies hurt Palestinians economically. In the second quarter of 2014, the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics released data that showed that 85,200 Palestinians worked in Israel and 24,200 worked in Israeli settlements, a majority of these jobs being in construction. Any blanket boycott of Israeli goods and services will certainly punish Palestinians who work at Israeli firms.

Pro-BDS legislation also disrupts academic infrastructure and research programs utilized by Palestinian professors and students. Mohammed Dajani Daoudi, a notable Palestinian professor who formerly taught at Al-Quds University, voiced his opposition to BDS back in 2014 (19). He declared, “I’m against the boycott in general. We need more dialogue with each other.” Dajani asserts that those wishing to boycott can do so by targeting the universities who are, “calling for occupation.” The Palestinian academic also argues that anti-Israel activists should not, “target those Israelis and those universities and those institutions which actually are your partner.” BDS policies call for the complete termination of all academic institutions supporting Israel.

American universities who have entertained and/or enacted forms of BDS are among the schools with the highest rates of antisemitism, which has skyrocketed in recent months. At Harvard University, the gem of American higher education, an antisemitic cartoon was posted to Instagram by the Harvard Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine on February 19. The image portrayed Jews as puppet masters, playing into the trope that Jews secretly control the world. The following month, Harvard Law School passed an academic BDS resolution.

Fellow Ivy League school, Columbia University, is also in the midst of antisemitic wave after the Columbia College Student Council passed a BDS referendum in early March. On April 17, the House Education and Workforce Committee will hold a hearing featuring Columbia President Minouche Shafik during which she will respond to the pervasive Jew-hatred permeating across the storied campus. Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC 5th District), who heads the Committee, stated that, “some of the worst cases of antisemitic assaults, harassment and vandalism on campus have occurred at Columbia University.” Only time will tell what President Shafik’s response to rabid antisemitism on her campus will be.

The precedence is clear, working toward the implementation of BDS policies directly correlates with a sharp increase of Jew-hatred on American campuses. I implore the SA’s Congressional Representatives to reject this dangerous piece of legislation this upcoming Tuesday just like the over 5,800 individuals, as of publication, who have signed a petition against the implementation at our school. BU should retain its image as an elite and fair school, and not submit to a sinister movement fueled by hatred.

Aviad Levy is a guest columnist and a senior majoring in political science.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece which represents the views of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the Staff Editorial. 

We, the Student Association Executive Board, requested a recent resignation based on factual grounds. The departure of this executive officer stemmed from a failure to meet the expectations of the community they were elected to serve, both in terms of work performance and conduct toward fellow members of the school community.

The decision to ask for a resignation this late into the year was difficult, but we felt it necessary in order to uphold our organization’s values and dedication to meeting the needs of students. Furthermore, certain behavior was inconsistent with the diversity, equity and inclusion values of our office.

Addressing misconduct is uncomfortable, but it is our duty to uphold the integrity of our organization. Despite numerous attempts to address the situation and provide support, the actions persisted, leading to an accumulation of complaints from organizations and SA staff. There was a significant need to take action because the organizations and colleagues were being directly harmed by poor work performance.

It is imperative that we all learn from this experience, especially as student leaders. It is our hope that this serves as a reminder to all that such behavior will not be tolerated, and that sensitivity and inclusivity are essential aspects of leadership.

The SA Executive Board is a group of student leaders elected to oversee the administration of the SA.

Students are taught to love a country that values guns over our lives.

Some of us hear the sound of gunfire when we watch fireworks on the Fourth of July, or when we watch a drumline performance at halftime. But all of us have heard the siren of an active shooter drill and fear that one day our campus will be next.

By painful necessity, we have grown to become much more than students learning in a classroom — we have shed every last remnant of our childhood innocence. The steady silence of Congress is as deafening as gunfire.

We will not wait for individual trauma to affect us all before we respond together — our empathy is not that brittle. Our generation responds to shootings by bearing witness and sharing solidarity like none other. We text each other our last thoughts and we cry on each others’ shoulders and we mourn with each other at vigils. We convene in classrooms and we congregate in churches and we deliberate in dining halls. We’re staunch and we’re stubborn and we’re steadfast.

Our hearts bleed from this uniquely American brand of gun violence. Yet, we still summon the courage to witness firework shows and remind ourselves that we love our country so much that we expect better from it.

We believe that our country has the capacity to love us back.

History has taught us that when injustice calls students to act, we shape the moral arc of this country.

Students in the Civil Rights Movement shared their stories through protest, creating the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) that organized Freedom Rides, sit-ins and marches. In demanding freedom from racial violence, this group’s activism became woven into American history.

Students across America organized teach-ins during the Vietnam War to expose its calculated cruelties — in doing so, rediscovering this country’s empathy. Their work, in demanding freedom from conscription and taxpayer-funded violence, is intertwined with the American story.

This fall, UNC Chapel Hill students’ text exchanges during the Aug. 28 shooting reached the hands of the president. The nation read the desperate words of our wounded community, as we organized support, rallied and got thrown out of the North Carolina General Assembly. We demanded freedom from gun violence, just as we have in Parkland and Sandy Hook and MSU and UNLV.

For over 360,000 of us since Columbine, the toll of bearing witness, of losing our classmates and friends, of succumbing to the cursed emotional vocabulary of survivorship, has become our American story.

Yes, it is not fair that we must rise up against problems that we did not create, but the organizers of past student movements know from lived experience that we decide the future of the country.

The country watched student sit-ins at Greensboro, and Congress subsequently passed civil rights legislation. The country witnessed as students exposed its lies on Vietnam, and Congress subsequently withdrew from the war.

In recent years, the country watched student survivors march against gun violence, and the White House subsequently created the National Office of Gun Violence Prevention on Sept. 22, 2023.

So as students and young people alike, we should know our words don’t end on this page — we will channel them into change.

We invite you to join this generation’s community of organizers, all of us united in demanding a future free of gun violence. We understand the gravity of this commitment, because it’s not simply our lives we protect with prose and protest. It is our way of life itself.

We will not allow America to be painted in a new layer of blood. We will not allow politicians to gamble our lives for NRA money.

And most of all, politicians will not have the shallow privilege of reading another front-cover op-ed by students on their knees, begging them to do their jobs — we do not need a permission slip to defend our freedoms. They will instead contend with the reality that by uniting with each other and among parents, educators and communities, our demands become undeniable.

We feel intense anger and frustration and sadness, and in its wake we search for reaffirmations of our empathy — the remarkable human capacity to take on a tiny part of someone else’s suffering. We rediscover this fulfillment in our organizing, in our community, in not just moving away from the unbearable pain of our yesterday but in moving toward an unrelenting hope for our tomorrow.

Our generation dares politicians to look us in the eye and tell us they’re too afraid to try.

This article was written by Andrew Sun and Alexander Denza, UNC Chapel Hill March for Our Lives. Signed by

I was with a colleague of mine who had heard that I spoke French. She then proceeded to ask me, “Do you actually speak French, like French French, or is it like Haitian … uh Haitian French … Creole or something?” Let’s consider the following:

What is “French French?”

What is “Haitian?”

What is “Haitian French?”

People associate familiar entities naturally. For example, if you see a car seat in someone’s car, you are going to assume that person has a child. In psychology, these associations combine to inform our implicit attitudes — these are ideas someone has developed, resulting from various things they have experienced or heard, of which they are not cognizant. For a lot of people, French is, quite frankly, a white thing. Therefore, a person of color who speaks French produces a sort of psychological incongruence that prompts one to scrutinize this person’s “Frenchness,” so to speak. You can argue that this is a racist thought. Perhaps, but implicit bias might be more appropriate in this case. Bias often functions as a source for prejudice and discrimination.

To further explore my colleague’s bias, we can consider “French French.” Are we implying that some French speakers also do not speak a French that is worthy of being considered “French French?” As for the second utterance regarding “Haitian” — many people think there is a language called “Haitian” — please note that is false. Haitian, by itself, denotes the nationality — Haitian Creole or Creole denotes the language. More importantly, why would a random Black guy who speaks French be presumed Haitian when most Black French speakers are African? Then, we can consider this term that I have heard many a time, “Haitian French.” This young woman, by asking me if I spoke “French or Haitian French,” tells me that she views these two entities as distinct, separate and that she may desire for them to be segregated. Yet, this is not very logical. You likely would not ask someone if they spoke “Australian English or English.” Because Australian English is still English. Likewise, Haitian French is still French. Moreover, French is a very standardized language — that is, French is practically the same around the world aside from accents. Therefore, “Haitian French” is largely not appropriate outside advanced linguistic studies.

This is not an isolated incident. As a Black man who studied French at Binghamton University, I often encountered microaggressions. For example, one of my students once stated, “I saw a group of guys speaking French on campus, but it was African French.” She used “but” to imply — whether she realized it or not — that it was not quite French. It was something else, something different, something foreign. Interestingly, many people are persistent in their bias. I informed my graduate colleague that French and Creole were their own respective languages. She retorted, “But this Haitian girl I know said she spoke French.” Are we suggesting that because she said she spoke French, somehow Creole does not exist? Are we suggesting that a Black girl is not capable of being bilingual? I am not sure what linguistically motivates individuals to bring up the so-called francophone Haitian friend when I mention Haitian Creole. Whether that individual speaks French or not does not negate their knowledge of Creole, nor does it contradict the status of Haitian Creole as a language.

Black francophones are constantly questioned and even denied their linguistic heritage. I admit that this stuff is tricky. Hence, we must recognize our own biases so that our faux pas become learning experiences. In the past few decades, French instructional environments have become increasingly inclusive. While this initiative helps students of French learn more about the myriad of different people who have a relationship with French, it misses the general public. Institutions, be they elementary or university-level, have the power to gradually expose their students to different cultures. Particularly, instructors should be candid about their own biases and those that are likely present among their students. As for students studying particular subjects such as linguistics, history or sociology, it is necessary for instructors to explore the intersection between language, ethnicity and race. An instructor can encourage open discussion regarding how languages are born, how they evolve and the integral role they play in the phenomenon that is culture. It is, however, primarily up to us as individuals to seek out the truth and be skeptical of the commentary we have simply taken as truth throughout our lives. People of any race can be biased and discriminate against someone of a different background. Therefore, it is up to us all to consider what we are thinking, why we are thinking it and how our interpersonal exchanges will make others feel.

Marc Lewis, ‘21, a BU alumnus who double-majored in neuroscience and French, is a current graduate student at Drexel University College of Medicine.