Taking sides?

 

The last six weeks in Israel and Gaza have shown the best and the worst of humanity.  Most of us will have read about or even seen footage of appalling events that we will not forget any time soon, if ever.  In today’s highly mobile and connected world, many in our community have links to the communities who are suffering. Social media means that we are all connected on a human level to victims on all sides.

I have spoken with many in our community, some calling on UWCSEA to take a stance and to condemn one side or the other, or both, or to single out certain actions.  Certainly, many organisations globally have done that.   We have not done so, and this stems from the basic stance that we see ourselves like the Red Cross/Red Crescent - not willing to put out more than humanitarian statements as a necessary condition of our seeking to bring together students from all sides of conflict. We will articulate that approach more carefully in future, because it seems to have been mistaken for a lack of conviction.

The College will not take an institutional position here (whatever we may feel as individuals) for at least further three reasons.  Firstly, our approach is not to pronounce on what to think, but to ask our students (teachers and parents) to critically engage with facts and other views without the backdrop of an institutional position and to thereby arrive at their own intelligent and informed perspectives. This is in line with our educational beliefs, from the fundamental conviction that no-one has a monopoly on truth, and a scepticism about institutional authority in broad social matters.   Secondly, there is the pragmatic point that any College position may well do more harm than good; especially if it is perceived as giving one group of students or parents greater moral standing over another group.  The sharp rise of both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia around the world demonstrates that polarisation can be rapid and harmful, and as some parents have pointed out, is all too often based on failing to distinguish between Israeli actions and Jewish people and Hamas actions and Palestinian people.  Anti-semitism, Islamophobia and any other prejudices are of course utterly unacceptable and all responsible institutions will take action when they see or hear about such behaviours.   Thirdly, there is no unanimity in our community and any College view may in effect mean my view or the view of senior colleagues; but it cannot be right to amplify our voices in this particular way.   

I believe this approach - common among educational institutions -  is sound.  But I want to return to the first reason above.  In February 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine, I saw our students talking about this, wanting to understand and learn - to make sense of things for themselves.  That’s what we believe in.  I have seen less of that for what’s happening in Israel and Gaza , and I worry that the complexity and polarisation here makes this conflict ‘the elephant in the room’ that everyone knows is important, but no one can find a way to talk about.  Simply knowing enough history, and knowing what can be trusted in the news are two formidable barriers to intelligent conversation.  The Singapore context is also one where great care is needed in discussing such matters, especially for foreigners.  And of course, the ugly possibility of being called-out on social media makes the danger of getting things wrong, or expressing oneself clumsily, higher than they have ever been.  I cannot believe I am the only one to be concerned that anything I say or write, however well intentioned, could be posted out of context and used in a very damaging or hurtful way.  How much more chilling that worry must be to teenagers, for whom acceptance or rejection from friends is so acutely important.

So this leads me to wonder, not about our College position per se, but about how we can shape this institutional position to provide an umbrella under which careful and open conversation can take place. With emotions being high, this is not a straightforward matter, but our focus needs to be on enabling these discussions, if we are to be serious about educating for peace around this and other most difficult topics. This will allow students to join the world as peacemakers in whatever fields they find themselves, at whatever scope they can influence.  We know from our alumni that we do this, but we can always do it better and we can reflect on how these conversations should take place in school.

LSE and NUS Professor Lutfey Siddiqi writes about this as developing ‘constructive conflict’ which seeks to allow collaboration and understanding across differences without seeking to convert others to our views.  Now we certainly already engage in debate and argument in an intentional way, but perhaps it’s only in inevitably somewhat sanitised classroom conditions.  The challenge is to do it with the raw and painful material of the world’s tragedies, knowing that there are no simple solutions or easy answers.   But Siddiqi argues that directing our attention to the problems of our times ‘turns our Mission from a scalar to a vector’, and is what it really means to make constructive conflict a teachable skill.

Looking at what is happening in many Universities at the moment, it’s clear that this is dangerous territory.  So some ground rules would need to be stated.  Siddiqi suggests these guardrails for tough topics:

• We accept that conflict is natural and can be positive if approached correctly. However, when conflict arises, our responsibility for our own actions and our beliefs should be greater than our need to assign blame.

• We recognise that not all conflict has to be about 'winning' or point-scoring. The purpose of constructive conflict is to suspend judgement and to ensure that we preserve the dignity of the other person. We will consciously give dignity in conflict.

• We will actively seek to listen to what the other person is saying - not just think about my rebuttal for as soon as they are  done.

• We will isolate the person from the issue of disagreement. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean that I will question your integrity and motivation.

• We will compartmentalize issues of disagreement. We will not carry over grudges from one subject to another. If you disagree with me on one topic, I shouldn't set about disagreeing with you on another topic - just to retaliate.

• We will avoid label-based prejudice, and sweeping generalisation about groups of people.

• Finally, we will look for the opportunity in conflict - the opportunity to go beyond resolution to change perspective or even find a higher solution than what existed before.

These amount to a determined effort to set in place habits of mind that mean arguments remain respectful and free from both physical and verbal violence, even when we are confronted with views that we think are profoundly wrong, dangerous and offensive.  We need to build the reflex that the answer to speech we do not like is not to withdraw or cancel, but more speech; that’s the essence of sticking with diplomacy over war.  And in Canadian author Ishra Manji’s words, we may have to become used to accepting that giving and receiving offence ‘is the price of diversity, not an impediment to diversity.’  The manner in which we hold these conversations in schools is, therefore, critical.

I have written about this in rational terms, as befits consideration of an institutional response.  But at the same time,  we can describe this simply as an inclination for mercy. Musician and actor Nick Cave puts it this way:

Mercy allows us the ability to engage openly in free-ranging conversation — an expansion of collective discovery toward a common good.  If mercy is our guide we have a safety net of mutual consideration, and we can, to quote Oscar Wilde, “play gracefully with ideas.”

Yet mercy is not a given. It is a value we must nurture and aspire to.. [It] allows the spirit of enquiry, the confidence to roam freely, to make mistakes, to self-correct, to be bold, to dare, to doubt and in the process to chance upon new and more advanced ideas. Without mercy society grows inflexible, fearful, vindictive..

Mercy is a value that should be at the heart of any functioning and tolerant society.  We can do our part for our students, to ensure they retain and grow this special faculty, and develop the capacity to talk with others, to help them retain and grow it too.

References

Note 1: I spoke with several families, some of whom fundamentally disagreed with the position outlined here, and who strongly advocated that the College should take up a particular position.  Without exception, those families were empathetic for victims on both sides and I am extremely grateful to them for the conversation and insights.

Note 2: I have already mentioned the danger of polarisation and no one is more vigilant against this than the Singapore authorities.  In a recent release, the Ministry of Home Affairs warned that publicly displaying or wearing foreign national emblems relating to the Israel-Hamas war without a permit is an offence. 

• Butler J (2023) The Compass of Mourning London Review of Books

• Cave, N (2023) What is mercy for you? The Red Hand Files

• Flier, J (2023) Now Is the Time for Administrators to Embrace Neutrality Chronicle of Higher Education

• Keldermann, E (2022) The Silent Treatment Why college presidents don’t speak out Chronicle of Higher Education

• Lautraub, J (2019) It's Time to Teach Young People How to Stop Being So Offended Time

• Singh, K (2023)  US antisemitic, Islamophobic incidents surge with war, advocates say Reuters

• n.a (2023) UN Human Rights Chief condemns rise in hatred United National Office of High Commissioner

• New York Times Anitisemitic and Anti-Muslim Hate Speech Surges Across the Internet 11 Nov 2023

• Siddiqi, L (2016) Fight Club: Seven Rules for Constructive Conflict. Huffington Post

• Siddiqi, L (2016) Ignore trolls, embrace constructive conflict. How to lead in intolerant times.World Economic Forum

• Smith, B (2022) Do Administrators Think They’re Spiritual Healers? Chronicle of Higher Education

• Wong, S (2023) Those wearing symbols linked to Israel-Hamas war can be jailed: MHA Straits Times