The text was originally published in Croatian language in the journal Political Analyses.
Vozab, D. i Kralj, K. (2024). Čemu služe naši fakulteti? Akademske reakcije na Gazu. Političke analize, 13 (51), 12-19. https://hrcak.srce.hr/328621
"The very enterprise of social science, as it determines fact, takes on political meaning. In a world of widely communicated nonsense, any statement of fact is of political and moral significance. All social scientists, by the fact of their existence, are involved in the struggle between enlightenment and obscurantism. In such a world as ours, to practice social science is, first of all, to practice the politics of truth.” CW Mills, The Sociological Imagination[1]
Listening to the numbers of those killed, wounded, and forcibly displaced became part of everyday life during the genocide in the Gaza Strip.[2] The killing of civilians pointed to the profound weakness of a number of international institutions built to prevent war and punish war crimes. It also pointed to the incredible willingness of the West, and especially some of the European Union members, to passively or actively support war crimes. Some "liberal" European leaders not only ignored the mass killing of civilians, but actively engaged in its normalization, even justifying such killing as an almost inevitable consequence of war. The same "liberal" politicians rushed to support the far-right Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and the former Defense Minister Gallant. Not even the International Criminal Court's arrest warrant issued against the aforementioned duo in November 2024 prevented them from expressing their support.
In this article, however, we do not intend to deal with state and international actors, but with academic institutions and associations, especially those in the social sciences, which we consider important for the democratic order. Above all, we want to open a discussion on a number of arguments according to which academic institutions and organizations should not speak out about the suffering of civilians in Gaza. ne bi trebale oglašavati o stradanjima civila u Gazi.
As a rule, Western universities, institutes and professional organizations did not express solidarity with the Palestinian victims, nor did they condemn the attacks of the Israeli army.[3] Only a few academic institutions of international importance expressed solidarity or condemned the murders of their colleagues (e.g. SOAS, 2023), offered programs aimed at students and scholars from Gaza, or established working groups and networks to discuss the issue of Palestine (e.g. EUI, 2024).
The cautious behavior of academic institutions could be explained as a reaction to the repression that we could see in a number of Western countries – those that we usually call liberal democracies. The repressive response and attack on academic freedom was particularly pronounced in Germany (Della Porta, 2024). The University of Cologne canceled a visit by the distinguished American professor Nancy Fraser, openly stating that the reason for the cancellation was her support for an open letter entitled “Philosophy for Palestine” that demanded a ceasefire. The Max Planck Institute canceled cooperation with the equally distinguished anthropologist Ghassan Hage due to his social media posts, and for a similar reason the Darmstadt Institute for Political Science canceled a lecture by political scientist Camila Vergara. Germany banned the entry of the distinguished British-Palestinian surgeon Ghassan Abu-Sittah to the country in order to prevent his participation in a conference on Palestine that was interrupted by the German police. Attacks on academic freedom were also very pronounced in the USA, where professors were suspended or fired for their views.[4]
Institutions have chosen to silence not only academics but also student movements. In the United Kingdom and the United States, disciplinary measures have been taken against students, and lawsuits have been filed. On several occasions students have been banned from university premises, the police have been called in to remove and detain student protesters, and in some cases, university security forces have attacked students (BRISMES, 2024; Taft, 2024). Police have also arrested protesters, students and professors in France, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany and other countries.[5] In Germany, politicians have called for the deportation of students, and the media have engaged in inflammatory campaigns against professors who have stood up for their students (Celikates et al., 2024). From a human rights perspective, the reactions to student protests have been disproportionate and have violated freedom of speech and assembly (King and Mead, 2024).
Global trends have reached Croatia. As in many other contexts, the majority of academic institutions and associations – even those that, due to their disciplinary character, could certainly say something about society, history and politics – have chosen not to speak out about Gaza.[6] However, in the Croatian case there is one very important difference. Namely, the primary cause of the silence of Croatian academic structures is neither intimidation nor repression. Although academic freedoms have long been threatened on a global level by various types of economic and political pressures, most Croatian academic institutions still enjoy relative autonomy. Apart from assistants and postdoctoral fellows, as the most vulnerable part of the domestic academic workforce, for the vast majority of academic workers employment is secure and does not depend on the whims of public or private donors.
One of the attempts to raise awareness of solidarity with Gaza within the domestic academic context is the Initiative for the Academy of Solidarity and Epistemic Justice, whose letter of solidarity was signed by over 700 academic workers and students. We do not consider the content of this letter particularly radical. Its demands, such as securing freedom of speech and research, and condemning of war crimes, do not go beyond the scope of any liberal democratic order.
As members of the aforementioned initiative, in the past few months, we have initiated and participated in debates on responding to crimes in Gaza in several different domestic and international organizations and institutions. In this text, we wish to address all the arguments in favor of not responding that we have encountered on these occasions in one place.[7] Although there are many arguments, we have divided them into five main categories. We will briefly present each argumentative approach and explain why we consider it wrong. In doing so, we do not wish to address the arguments according to which we, individually or as an initiative, have been repeatedly qualified as anti-Semites, supporters of Hamas or victims of Hamas propaganda. Unlike the arguments that we deal with in the remainder of this text, we consider such ad hominem arguments absurd and malicious, and we refuse to pay attention to them. ad hominem argumente smatramo apsurdnima i zlonamjernima te im odbijamo pridavati pažnju.
First argument: Social sciences are value-neutral.
One of the most common arguments we have encountered concerns the fundamental question of the character of social sciences and social research. Namely, a part of our academic community considers social sciences to be inherently value-neutral or, in a milder version of the same argument, believes that social scientists should be value-neutral. According to this argument, in order for science to create knowledge based on facts, scientists must set aside their values.
We would like to emphasize that this position is not entirely baseless. For example, we strongly believe that university professors should not use their position of power in the classroom for propaganda or political speeches. This is not only ethically problematic but also problematic from a pedagogical perspective.
However, when it comes to scientific research and writing, we believe that value positioning is inevitable and that the promise of value impartiality and neutrality in most cases remains unfulfilled. The inherent value orientation of the social sciences is well summarized by the already quoted C.W. Mills: "Values are involved in the selection of the problems we study; values are also involved in certain of the key conceptions we use in our formulation of these problems, and values affect the course of their solution." (Mills, 1959/ 2000: 78). In other words, our values already influence the choice of the research problem itself, which makes it illusory to think that they do not affect other phases of research implementation and related inference. As Mills notes, values are also visible in the topics of scientific projects funded through various calls for proposals. For example, research interest in democratization is often implicitly associated with a positive evaluation of the values of liberal democracy. The values of fostering academic freedom and equality are also liberal values that can be considered “radical” in authoritarian systems. If we agree with this assumption, instead of adopting a neutral stance, it is crucial to become aware of one’s own value positions and declare them. Only through explicit positioning of researchers, following the path of “reflexive sociology” (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992), can we truly ensure that scientific work does not turn into uncritical self-promotion of one’s own political position.
Na kraju, Zygmunt Buman u knjizi Modernost i holokaust Finally, Zygmunt Buman in the book Modernity and the Holocaust describes how understanding science as an exclusively rational activity from which "irrational" and "affective" values have been deleted can be dangerous. Such science is reduced exclusively to the instrumental logic of achieving the goal and can be fully instrumentalized for the needs of the government and powerful social actors. When the needs of government are profoundly immoral, science can be instrumentalized for profoundly immoral ends while simultaneously appealing to rationality and neutrality. In the most extreme case, during the period of Nazi rule, science played a direct and indirect role in the implementation of extermination policies (Bauman, 2017: 152).
Second argument: The neutrality of academic associations helps to open the debate
In April 2024, 450 social scientists wrote an open letter to the Executive Board of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR), one of Europe's leading academic associations in the social sciences, asking it to condemn Israel's war activities in the Gaza Strip. The Executive Board refused to do so, which opened a very interesting debate about the role and inner workings of this influential organization.
One of the key arguments against ECPR's positioning, which was subsequently further elaborated by Hana Kubatova (2024), claims that through its neutrality, the organization maintained "openness for discussion". More specifically, by not making any declarations in the organizational capacity, ECPR ensured the possibility of disagreement between different members of the association. As an example of such a practice, Kubatova points out the policy of the University of Chicago, which established as early as 1967 that "institutional neutrality" ensures individual academic freedoms (Kalven Committee, 1967). Whether one agrees with this argument or not, it can be noted that in the case of Gaza, the rhetoric of "institutional neutrality" was used as a pretext for canceling and limiting academic freedoms, rather than supporting them.[8]
Several reactions followed this text. Adam Standring (2024), one of the initiators of the letter, recalls two important counter-arguments in his answer. First, universities and academic associations are two fundamentally different entities. As academic workers, we are mostly in an employment relationship with universities that brings along a specific set of legal rights and obligations. Academic associations, on the other hand, are based exclusively on voluntary membership, and entry and exit from membership is more flexible. Second, if member-based organizations could make decisions only based on consensus, and not the statutory majority opinion, they would no longer have any collective decision-making power.
Third argument: One cannot react to every war suffering.
Why react specifically to the suffering of civilians in Gaza? At every moment in the world, a whole series of social injustices and open war conflicts are taking place, which causes terrible human suffering. If we react to the bombing of Gaza, should we also react to the bombing of Yemen? Will we react to every casualty of civilians?
This type of argument is not easy to answer. Namely, it is true that the relevance of a topic mainly stems from a combination of factors that may seem randomly connected: its media coverage, historical significance and geopolitical relations. We are aware that sometimes seemingly unimportant topics receive unjustifiably great attention relative to other topics that might seem more important. It is also clear that no one, except perhaps large international organizations, has the capacity to react to all globally relevant topics. If we look back at the previous cases, we can notice that academic institutions and associations typically react to the issues that are highlighted in the public or nearby events. A good example is the Russian aggression against Ukraine, which was promptly and unequivocally condemned by a number of academic organizations. Finally, sometimes topics acquire symbolic significance that makes taking a stand important. When we add to this the active role of one's own state in supporting, relativizing or ignoring war crimes, the reaction becomes a matter of moral duty.
Fourth argument: Our reaction will not contribute anything.
In his book The Rhetoric of Reaction political scientist Albert Hirschman describes several common argumentation patterns that oppose calls for social change (Hirschman, 1991). He calls one of the patterns The Futility Thesis. It was this pattern that was ubiquitous in justifying the decision not to express any positions. Indeed, it would be unrealistic to expect that the declarations of academic institutions and associations, even the most globally prestigious ones, will change the direction of the global political relations behind the killings in Gaza. This is especially true for academic institutions and associations in small and peripheral countries.
However, this argument largely forgets two essential elements of positioning. First, expressing a position, even when it is contrary to the majority position, is one of the basic elements of democracy. Second, the effects of the actions taken by "small" players can have a cumulative effect, especially over a longer period. Just as the reaction of a larger number of institutions and organizations could potentially change the direction of Croatian policy towards Gaza, their inaction allows the Croatian government to continue its existing policy legitimately and without any controversy. Reacting might not lead to change, but it could represent at least some level of symbolic irritation for the government. An example could be academic activism against apartheid in South Africa (Nordkvelle, 1990). Although it could be said that academic activism was more symbolic in nature and that, of course, powerful states played a key role in the dismantling of the apartheid system, widespread academic opposition to the apartheid system legitimized the struggle of civil society. Thanks to its symbolic power and social prestige, academic involvement in the struggle against apartheid made it difficult to politically ignore the issue.
In addition, some kind of institutional support could provide protection for members of the academic community who have become targets of attack or repression because of their academic work or the expression of their opinions. Many members of the academic community who have publicly expressed opposition to violations of international humanitarian law or criticized war crimes, as well as those who deal with issues of genocide and human rights protection in their academic work, have been exposed to attacks on their work. As we described above, their institutions have often participated in the attacks by restricting academic freedoms. This has also produced achilling effect, and many scholars have subsequently decided to keep their opinions to themselves out of fear. If academic associations or institutions had taken a position condemning violations of international law, human rights, or simply supporting freedom of speech and protest, they would have stood up for members who are under political pressure.[9]
Fifth argument: We must not allow ourselves to be carried away by emotions.
Although we have already explained that we believe that there is no impartial or completely objective social science, it is true that keeping emotional distance can make it easier to strive for the ideal of objectivity. But distance and analytical attitude should not be confused with the absence of feelings or compassion. In his book Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, Barrington Moore Jr., one of the most important classics of comparative politics, states: Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy Barrington Moore Jr., jedan od najvažnijih klasičnih autora u komparativnoj politici, navodi:
"Postoji snažna tendencija prema pretpostavci da su blagoglagoljive izjave u korist statusa quo “There is a strong tendency to assume that mild-mannered statements in favor of the status quo are ‘objective’ and that anything else is a form of ‘rhetoric.’ This type of bias, this misinterpretation of objectivity, is the one most common in the West today. It confuses objectivity with triviality and meaninglessness. For all students of human society, sympathy with the victims of historical processes and skepticism about the victors’ claims provide essential safeguards against being taken in by the dominant mythology. A scholar who tries to be objective needs these feelings as part of his ordinary working equipment.” (Moore, 1967: 522-523).[10]
In the tradition of the Frankfurt School, important for the development of media studies, the idea of achieving emancipation from authoritarian systems was not considered incompatible with the use of scientific methods and scientific research. Emotions certainly played a role and motivated researchers to explain the systems in which terrible crimes occurred. However, their personal lived experiences did not diminish the value of their scientific research.
---
Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the above arguments, the fact remains that, despite the absence of pressure and a generally very comfortable and secure position, Croatian faculties, institutes, academic associations, and individual members of the academic community, have largely failed to speak out about the suffering of civilians and the complete destruction of academic life in Gaza. Although our goal in this article was not to determine the causes of such paradoxical behavior, it would be important to ask ourselves what caused it. It is worth noting that the most active part of the academic community was actually the one at the bottom of the academic hierarchy – the students.
Let us return to the question in the title: What are our faculties for? Are faculties really just ivory towers where scientists collect their samples, measure, observe, calculate ECTS credits, p-values, and advance their careers completely excluded from the social world that surrounds them? In a period in which we are clearly threatened by various serious political attacks on academic freedoms, we do not believe that academic institutions can be saved by feigning neutrality. On the contrary, we consider it a capitulation and an opening of space for further restrictions on freedom.
References
Bauman, Z. (2017). Modernost i holokaust. Zagreb: TIM press. (Izvorno izdanje: 1989.)
Bourdieu, P. i Wacquant, L.J.D. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
Bortun, V. (2024). What is political science for? A comment on ECPR’s silence over Gaza. The Loop, ECPR's Political Science Blog. 22. svibnja. https://theloop.ecpr.eu/what-is-political-science-for-a-comment-on-ecprs-silence-over-gaza/ (pristupljeno: 19. veljače 2025.)
BRISMES (British Society for Middle Eastern Studies). (2024). BRISMES Committee on Academic Freedom Statement on Universities’ Repression of Student Encampments and Protests in Opposition to Israel’s War on Gaza. 5. kolovoza. https://www.brismes.ac.uk/files/documents/05082024_CAF_Statement_final.pdf (pristupljeno: 19. veljače 2025.)
Celikates, R., Koddenbrock, K., i Koloma Beck, T. (2024). Attacks on German Campus Protests Fuel Authoritarian Turn. Jacobin. 21. svibnja. https://jacobin.com/2024/05/germany-palestine-protest-authoritarianism-universities (pristupljeno: 19. veljače 2025.)
Center for Constitutional Rights (2025). In Solidarity With Katherine Franke, Our Former Board Chair. 10. siječnja. https://ccrjustice.org/home/press-center/press-releases/solidarity-katherine-franke-our-former-board-chair (pristupljeno: 19. veljače 2025.)
Della Porta, D. (2024). Moral panic and repression: The contentious politics of anti-Semitism in Germany. Partecipazione e Conflitto, 17(2), 276-349. DOI: 10.1285/i20356609v17i2p276
EUI (European University Institute). (2024). EUI Working Group on Palestine. 27. prosinca. https://www.eui.eu/research-hub?id=eui-working-group-on-palestine (pristupljeno: 19. veljače 2025.)
Hirschman, A. O. (1991). The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy. Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University Press.
Kalven Committee (1967). Kalven Committee: Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action. 20. siječnja 2025. https://provost.uchicago.edu/reports/report-universitys-role-political-and-social-action (pristupljeno: 19. veljače 2025.)
King, J. i Mead, D. (2024). Gaza campus protests: Two human rights law experts write new principles for universities. The Conversation. 14. lipnja. https://theconversation.com/gaza-campus-protests-two-human-rights-law-experts-write-new-principles-for-universities-231629 (pristupljeno: 19. veljače 2025.)
Kubatova, H. (2024). Scholarly societies and political crises: the case for neutrality as academic freedom. The Loop, ECPR's Political Science Blog. 18. lipnja. https://theloop.ecpr.eu/the-case-for-neutrality-as-academic-freedom/ (pristupljeno: 19. veljače 2025.)
Mills, C. W. (2000). The Sociological Imagination (40th anniversary edition). Oxford University Press. (Izvorno izdanje: 1959.)
Barrington Moore Jr. (1967) Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Beacon.
Nanz, P. (2024). I run a university – people like me should be backing students’ right to protest over Gaza. The Guardian. 27. svibnja. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/27/university-student-protests-gaza-right (pristupljeno: 19. veljače 2025.)
Nordkvelle, Y. (1990). The academic boycott of South Africa debate: Science and social practice. Studies in Higher Education. 15:3, 253-275, DOI:10.1080/03075079012331377390
OHCHR (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights). (2024). UN experts deeply concerned over ‘scholasticide’ in Gaza. UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. 18. travnja. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/04/un-experts-deeply-concerned-over-scholasticide-gaza (pristupljeno: 19. veljače 2025.)
Reuters (2024). Police beatings of pro-Palestinian schoolchildren spark outrage in Italy. Reuters. 23. veljače. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/police-beatings-pro-palestinian-schoolchildren-spark-outrage-italy-2024-02-23/ (pristupljeno: 19. veljače 2025.)
SOAS (School of Oriental Studies, University of London). (2023). Statement on Dr Refaat Alareer and the higher education sector in the Gaza Strip. 15. prosinca. https://www.soas.ac.uk/about/news/statement-dr-refaat-alareer-and-higher-education-sector-gaza-strip (pristupljeno: 19. veljače 2025.)
Standring, A. (2024). ‘The case for neutrality as academic freedom’: a response. The Loop, ECPR's Political Science Blog. 10. srpnja. https://theloop.ecpr.eu/the-case-for-neutrality-as-academic-freedom-a-response/ (pristupljeno: 19. veljače 2025.)
Taft, I. (2024). How Universities Cracked Down on Pro-Palestinian Activism. New York Times. 25. studenog. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/25/us/university-crackdowns-protests-israel-hamas-war.html (pristupljeno: 19. veljače 2025.)
Verdeja, E. (2025). The Gaza Genocide in Five Crises. Journal of Genocide Research, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623528.2025.2452707
* Reference to the speech of Students for Palestine, at the Solidarity March held in Zagreb on November 29, 2024: "If they do not serve to criticize political decisions, if they do not serve to call for truth and justice, if they do not serve a responsible attitude towards the world, our faculties are of no use!"
[1] pp. 178
[2] Although we noticed in our conversations with colleagues that not everyone agrees with the use of this term, we believe that it is important to use this term because it reflects the professional and scientific consensus that has already been reached on this issue (Verdeja, 2025).
[3] In the context of academic inaction, it is important to mention that scholasticide has also been carried out in Gaza. According to data reported by the United Nations, in the first few months of October 2023, Israeli forces completely or partially destroyed twelve universities in Gaza, completely wiping out the infrastructure necessary for academic work. As early as the first half of 2024, at least 60% of the entire education system (including schools and libraries) was destroyed, and 5,479 students and pupils, 261 teachers and 95 university professors were killed (OHCHR, 2024).
[4] One of the latest in a series of cases is that of professor Katherine Franke of Columbia University. Franke did not participate in student protests, but instead stood up for students who were disciplined or physically attacked during protests (Center for Constitutional Rights, 2025).
[5] In many cases, riot police reacted violently, in full gear and with batons, and in Italy, the police response provoked public condemnation for attacks on student and underage protestors (Reuters, 2024).
[6] Rare exceptions are, first of all, the Department of Sociology and several other departmenrs of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, the Croatian Sociological Society, and the Independent Union of Science and Higher Education.
[7] Rare exceptions are, first of all, the Department of Sociology and several other departmenrs of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, the Croatian Sociological Society, and the Independent Union of Science and Higher Education.
[8] For example, Harvard Medical School recently canceled a panel featuring patients from Gaza, explaining that the event was “biased.”
[9] One of the rare cases in which institutions have clearly stood up for the protection of their members is the case of the European University Institute (Nanz, 2024).
