resolution 352- divestment in debate

8/10/2019 Resolution 352- Divestment in Debate

1/36

Resolution 352: Divestment in Debate

A study of divestment legislation and the conflict which resulted

James Peterson


2/36

Table of Contents

Section

Introduction

Literature Review

Design

Data

Methods

Body

Conclusion

Bibliography


3/36

Appendices


4/36

4

Introduction

At Loyola University Chicago, in the spring of 2014, a member of student government

introduced Resolution 352 calling on the university to divest from companies doing business in

Israel as a statement of support for the human rights of Palestinians. This resolution prompted

major controversy and polarized the student body along national, religious, and ideological lines.

The conflict was eventually eased by a presidential veto of the legislation, however the philo-

sophical and political schism which the conflict revealed is still very much present in the student

body. The polarization of students occurred due to local factors such as interpretation, and per-

ceived intent, of the legislation. However, it was intensified by strongly opposed political and

religious perspectives, specifically beliefs about the ongoing Israeli Palestinian conflict. Con-

flicts surrounding this divide in the student population are sure to reappear if the issue at hand is

not better understood and addressed in a more constructive manner. This study aims to better

understand why this conflict arose and how it affected those involved. It aims to create a more

developed understanding of the people and perspectives involved in this conflict. Hopefully

through this understanding a true solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict may someday be

reached, both on the Loyola campus and internationally.

Literature Review

History of Israeli Palestinian Conflict

This was in many ways the manifestation of the renaissance of the Zionist movement

which began to rise in the late 19th century. Faced with widespread and growing religious op-

pression, the Jewish people primarily in Europe began to call for a return to Zion and the re-


5/36

5

establishment of the State of Israel. The Holocaust served as the lynchpin event in the new Zi-

onist movement, serving as a widely accepted example of the necessity of a Jewish state. How-

ever, the region had already begun to face cultural turmoil as an influx of Jewish immigrants to

the region had already resulted in ethnic strife. Following WWII a UN resolution created two

distinct, non-contiguous states for Jewish and Arab people within the Palestinian region located

between the Mediterranean and Black seas. This land was historically significant for both

groups and upon the formation of these states conflict almost immediately ensued. Israel de-

clared independence in 1948 and a full scale war between the newly established Arab and Jew-

ish states. The conflict ended with an Israeli victory and subsequently the State of Israel laid

claim to territories beyond the partitions established originally by the UN. Upon laying claim to

this new territory, Israeli forces expelled between 700,000 and 750,000 arab people from the

area.

Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli war Israel reached agreements with surrounding Arab

nations, primarily Egypt and Jordan to cease conflict. This arrangement included new territorial

boarders being established. Egypt retained control of the Gaza Strip, Jordan controlled the

West Bank and East Jerusalem. Palestinian refugees however, were not allowed to return to

Israeli controlled territory. The region was far from pacified however, Israelis and Arabs had

near constant strife including numerous attacks on civilians for decades following the armistice.

Constant violence in the region between Israel and its Arab neighbors reached a head in 1967

when Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egypt. This began the Six Days War which re-

sulted in Israel gaining control over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.


6/36

6

Since 1967 there has been nearly constant combat in the region, the battle between

Palestinians and Israelis has been one of the longest standing and most fiercely fought conflicts

of the last century. It has been an international conflict marked by significant bloodshed and

failing measures to ensure both the peace of the region and the safety of civilians that live

there. The 76 year long strife has come with numerous military skirmishes between the Israeli

forces and those fighting on the side of Palestine. These military flare ups have often been the

result of territory disputes primarily over the occupation of the Holy City of Jerusalem, a prob-

lem which persists today. Issues of human rights lay at the core of this issue, as Palestinian ref-

ugees are well documented to be oppressed by what they view as Israeli military occupants.

Another central issue to this ongoing strife is the issue of mutual recognition. Neither Palestine

nor Israel view each other as legitimate which has further entrenched the gridlock.

As political landscapes have developed in this time issues between Palestinians and Is-

raelisare further complicated by the support and involvement of outside states, particularly

Egypt and the United States. The conflict between Israel and Palestine has been a bitterly

fought one over the last 76 years and is one that forges on every day. It is worth noting that

this is a far from exhaustive analysis of the conflictshistory, countless events in the 20th centu-

ry but have contributed to the complexity of this issue, in addition to religious and ethnic dy-

namics which are thousands of years old.

Israeli and Palestinian Forms of National Expression

Nationalism is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves an individual identifying

with, or becoming attached to, one's nation. For both Israeli and Palestinian people these sen-

timents have existed far longer than the last 76 years of conflict. Jewish nationalism, also re-


7/36

7

ferred to Zionism has been part of their culture for millennia. Palestinian nationalism too has

existed for centuries, and throughout history these two ideologies have clashed significantly,

primarily because central to both of their goals is the occupation and ethnic dominance of the

same region. As articulated earlier however, these two ideologies experienced a renaissance in

the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They have gone on to develop and change greatly since

that time and the conflicts between the two ethnic groups, particularly since the 1948 declara-

tion of Israeli independence and the events that followed have, in many ways come to define

their ideology and how they are made manifest today. Furthermore, the ongoing conflict be-

tween these peoples has deeply effected the manifestation of their own individual nationalism.

In many ways the relationship to one another has become the defining factor for both Palestin-

ian and Israeli nationalistic realities.

History of Divestment

Divestment or divestiture is an economic strategy of reducing some kind of asset for fi-

nancial, ethical, or political objective. It has long been a strategy employed in social movements

to weaken the financial strength of entities standing in opposition to a certain political objec-

tive. Sometimes called disinvestment, the basic strategy of this activity is to create financial in-

centive to act in one way or another based of the organizations goals by employing and focus-

ing the power of shareholders. This strategy is often employed by groups in support of and in

advocacy for people outside their own state, seen particularly in the US which is the largest

consumer market and also particularly in the increasingly global economy. Divestment can be

employed as a tool to induce social change on a state, organizational, and individual level.


8/36

8

Divestment can be employed at a state level through trade and tariff barriers. The US

embargo with Cuba is a piece of legislation aimed to express a rejection of the communist gov-

ernment in the state and also weaken the economic standing of their state. This measure was

taken in 1962 through a direct order of the Kennedy administration. It has not been successful

in crippling the communist regime in the state, however, it has undoubtedly added economic

pressure to their government in that time.

An example of organizational divestment initiatives in the US would be the 1980s South

African divestiture initiative. Apartheid was a system of oppression and segregation present in

South Africa from 1948-1994. Beginning in the 1960s, a movement to boycott companies in

business with the South African government gained support from US citizens and Private organ-

izations as a means of expressing disapproval of the system of Apartheid present in South Africa

at the time. Apartheid was a system of oppression and segregation present in South Africa from

1948-1994. In the movements early stages it was established the US politicians were not in favor

of economically isolating South Africa. This lead to the co called Sullivan principles wherein

private corporations took the lead in helping to induce social change. The Sullivan principles

were authored by a Philadelphia preacher of the same name who was a board member for general

motors, at the time the largest employer of Black South Africans. The principals set standards for

racial equality in their facilities. These principals ran in direct opposition to the legally mandated

segregation in South Africa. Additionally, the movement had a strong foundation of student sup-

port and action. Universities such as Michigan State implemented policies of total divestiture

which led the Michigan governor to implement the same at over 30 institutions across the state.

Although this act was later struck down as unconstitutional it sent a clear message that profit by


9/36

9

apartheid was not viewed as acceptable by large portions of the American public and set the

foundation for federal action. During the Reagan administration this movement resulted in com-

prehensive legislation being passed in the United States in 1986.

TheAct banned new U.S. investment in South Africa, sales to the police and military, and new

bank loans, except for the purpose of trade. Specific measures against trade included the pro-

hibition of the import of agricultural goods, textiles, shellfish, steel, iron, uranium and the

products of state-owned corporations

In this case a movement primarily started and supported by private organizations worked so

well as to result in US federal policy and played a sizable role in the expedited end to the Apart-

heid system in South Africa.

An example of divestment being used on an individual scale, which could also be classi-

fied as a boycott, as a means of inducing social change would be the campaign against sweat-

shop labor in the United States. Dating back to the 19th century where there was a major call

for consumers to boycott products and services which employed slave labor practices divest-

ment as a prompter of social change has a long history in the United States. Contemporary

movements such as the anti-globalization movement which reached a peak of influence in the

1990s,employ the same philosophy and strategy in an attempt to improve working conditions

for people around the world. The foundational strategy of this movement was to motivate and

organize the power of the American consumersright to choose and purchasing power to goad

American and international corporations to improve the working conditions of people abroad.

By advocating that they individually boycott goods from companies such as Nike which em-

ployed abusive and oppressive labor management strategies in developing states the move-


10/36

10

ment aimed to create an financial incentive for them to change their labor practices. The basic

thought is that if enough people were to boycott the products of a company such as Nike their

financial outlook would suffer in such a way as to create incentive to improve labor standards

and thus regain a lost share of the market. This particular strategy was criticized for its lack of

effectiveness and experienced heavy backlash for neglecting to acknowledge the potential eco-

nomic growth benefits that these companies provided. Citing states such as Singapore where

many claimed that the employment provided by us manufacturers provided the foundation for

economic growth and development. Additionally, they were criticized for their overall lack of

effectiveness in reaching goals. Regardless of the success of this movement it stands as a ster-

ling example of a movement for social change driven by and rooted in individual divestment.

Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions Movement

The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions Movement is the globalmovement for a campaign

of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel until it complies with international

law and Palestinian rights. Started in 2005 by the Palestinian Civil Society, BDS is a strategy

constructed to help palestinian supporters around the world fight for Palestinian civil rights. In

their view Israelhas denied Palestinians their fundamental rights of freedom, equality, and

self-determination. Also claiming this has been done through means of ethnic cleansing, colo-

nization, racial discrimination, and military occupation despite multiple directives from the UN

to curb these practices. The Palestinian BDS National committee, the organization created in

2007 in charge of managing the BDS movement, has called on human rights supporters around

the world to engage in this strategy to aid the Palestinian cause. The movement has three de-

mands that must be met to satisfy their cause.


11/36

11

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and disman-

tling the Wall

2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality

3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their

homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.

Furthermore the strategy of BDS is to Boycott companies and products that profit from Israeli

occupation and the violation of human rights, stressing that anyonecan boycott Israeli goods.

Divestment is targeted harming corporations complicit in the violation of Palestinian rights,

sighting specifically the need to ensure university investment portfolios are not a source of

their support, and going on to say that divestment can be a tool in raising social awareness of

the issue. Finally it includes an effort to call for economic sanctions against the state of Israel.

History Israeli Divestment at American Universities

Divestment initiatives designed to articulate recognition of and support for the Palestin-

ian people in their struggles against Israel have been appearing in the student government bod-

ies of American Universities across the US since 2007. Divestment bills have consistently been

supported by student organizations such as Students for Justice in Palestine at these universi-

ties. The majority of these have featured acknowledgment of the legitimacy of Palestinian

claims consistent with the BDS movement, such as the right of return and a condemnation of

the Separation Wall surrounding Occupied Palestinian Territory. These claims also consistently

feature references to the UN and International Court of Justice appeals which also condemn

these aspects of Israeli policy. Divestment has been met with opposition in all of these cases

leading to highly contentious debate and mixed results from campus to campus. Notable ex-

amples of Universities which have faced conflict similar to that seen on Loyolascampus are


12/36

12

Hampshire College, the University of Michigan, and DePaul, many of which have garnered local

and national news attention.

Divestment Legislation was first offered for consideration to the student government of

Hampshire College in the spring semester of 2009. The university, based in Amherst, Massa-

chusetts, became the first university to pass divestment from their student government. The

measure was the result of an exhaustive two year campaign by the collegesSJP chapter. Not

only was the measure approved by the student government but by the board of trustees as

well, a massive and seldom seen step in divestment campaigns. The decision followed Hamp-

shireshistoryof being the first college in the country to divest from apartheid South Africa 32

years ago, a decision based on similar human rights concerns.

In the Spring of 2014 Divestment Legislation was brought to the Central Student Gov-

ernment of the University of Michigan. The measure was brought to the organization and after

six hours of debate was voted down overwhelmingly by a vote of 25-9 and featured a secret

ballot. The proceedings were viewed by over 350 students present at the meeting as well as

viewed by over 3,000 student via live stream to a computer. The atmosphere which surround-

ed the legislation featured death threats and other intimidation tactics.

Divestment Legislation gained support and success at DePaul University in the Spring of

2014. The Students for Justice in Palestine chapter of Chicagos DePaul university initiated di-

vestment legislation at the university. The measure was brought to a general vote of the stu-

dent population, in accordance with their student government practices, and won by a measure

of 1,575 to 1,333. The issue met heavy backlash from external Jewish organizations such as Is-

rael in Chicago, although it was not sufficient to sway the vote.


13/36

13

These examples of divestment legislation highlight how varied the student government

response to divestment legislation has been between different institutions. However, many

consistencies remain in these cases. For universities passing said legislation this causes a rift

between University administration and the voice of the student body. Two of these cases also

highlight that in the Spring of 2014 these movements saw an influx, coming to more Universi-

ties than ever before. Finally, in all cases the measure met heavy student and alumni opposi-

tion, resulting in heated debate and highly contested votes by student government associa-

tions. These polarizing debates revealed an ideological schism in US university populations, one

which if trends follow and divestment legislation comes to more university senate floors in the

future will be further exacerbated.

Students for Justice in Palestine Loyola

Students for Justice in Palestine is a registered student organization on the campus of

Loyola University Chicago. SJPcondemns the discrimination underlying the policies and laws

of the state of Israel, SJP rejects and condemns any form of hatred or discrimination against any

religious, racial, or ethnic group. Self identifying as an advocacy group the organization en-

gages in events to endorse Palestinian human rights and an end to Israeli occupation.Students

for Justice in Palestine was a primary supporter of Resolution 352 brought to LoyolasUnified

Student Government Association. The organization shares some strategical insights into com-

batting Israeli occupation with the BDS movement, including advocacy of the three demands of

BDS.

The group shares its name with other autonomous chapters at universities around the United

States and roots itsstrength in the diversity of its membership, SJP welcomes individuals of all


14/36

14

ethnic and religious backgrounds to join in solidarity with the struggle for freedom and justice

in Palestine.

Unified Student Government Association

The Unified Student Government Association, now known as the Student Govern-

ment of Loyola Chicago, is the representative student government organization of Loyola

University Chicago. It is comprised of legislative, executive, and judicial branches whose

membership changes each academic school year.

The legislative branch is comprised of a senate thirty-five students, individuals rep-

resenting each class. The senate democratically forms the official voice of Loyola's under-

graduate student body. Senators are popularly elected in the Spring semester of each

school year to serve a term running into the Spring semester of the following year. The

body is further represented and presided over by the speaker of the senate who coordi-

nates and runs meetings.Senators are tasked with representing the interests and voicing

the opinions of the student body. Voting on legislation, resolutions, and amendments falls

under their responsibilities.

The executive branch is headed by the President of the USGA, who maintains the

efficiency of the entire student government. The Executive branch houses the Financial

Department, the Communications Department, and Campus Activities Network. It admin-

isters the mandates of the Senate, and implements the government's projects and initia-

tives. President and Vice President of the Senate run on a ticket together and similar to

senators are elected by popular vote in the student body in the spring semester of each

year. Pedro Gurerrero was the USGA President serving in 2014.


15/36

15

The Judicial Board is comprised of four Associate Justices and one Chief Justice within

the Judicial Branch. The Judicial Board is tasked with determining the constitutionality of all

Executive Orders and passed Legislation. The Board also reviews acts of internal misconduct

and hears cases of censure and impeachment.

Resolution 352

Resolution 352 was a measure of the measure of the Unified Student Government Asso-

ciation entitled Divestment from Companies Profiting from the Occupation of the Palestin-

ian Territory: To ensure adherence to Loyola University Chicagos socially responsible in-

vestment policy. Chiefly sponsored by USGA senator Sharifa Abdallah, the measure was

co-sponsored by nine other senators active during that semester.

Resolution 352, was first presented and voted upon by the USGA on March 18th,

2014. The measure calls for the USGA to advocate Loyola University Chicago to divest its

holdings from companies involved in and profiting from the Isaeli occupation of Palestini-

an territory and the violation of Palestinian Human rights. It does so sighting grounds of

International Court of Justice findings that (ICJ), the construction by Israel of a wall in the Oc-

cupied Palestinian Territory and its associated regime are contrary to international lawin addi-

tion to the UN General Assemblys application of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the establish-

ment and expansion of settlements in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied

Palestinian Territory, especially settlements activities [...] remain contrary to international law

and cannot be recognized, irrespective of the passage of time. to substantiate its claim that the

state of Israel and the corporations with which it does business are complicit in the violation of

Palestinian human rights.


16/36

16

This claim is directly applied to Loyola University Chicagos investment portfolio

through a policy statement on Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) in 2006 which affirmed that

the Board of Trustees is firmly committed to an investment policy that balances effective sup-

port of its academic programs and broader educational and social mission with the promotion of

social justice and the dignity of the individual.Companies specifically sighted in a non exhaus-

tive list included in the report were, Catapillar, General Electric, Hewlett Packard, Group 4 Secu-

rior, Reytheon, Elbit, Sodastream, and Violia. The measure does not include specific details of

Loyolas current investment portfolio, but ultimately calls for Loyola to divest from these afore-

mentioned companies or any others that in the future may be found to have similar complicity to

within one academic year.

Design

This project uses a two-way contrast of casesdesign. In the main analysis, the views

and experiences of the three major groups involved in Resolution 352 will be examined for simi-

larities and differences. In a secondary analysis, the divestment effort at Loyola will be com-

pared and contrasted to divestment efforts at other U.S. campuses.

Data

The project uses three main sources of data: campus media, official USGA documents,

Loyola students, and national media. First, Loyola Phoenix Articles and USGA minutes record-

ed from the March 18 and 25 meetings were used to gain further background on the narrative of

conflict which unfolded at Loyola over Resolution 352. These documents highlighted major

events and actors of the conflict. This data was used to construct the introduction to the data sec-

tion which expressed the timeline of the conflict as well as highlight many of the conflicting and


17/36

17

conflicted perspectives involved. It was from this public record that quotes on the conflict were

derived and rough outline of the two battling perspectives was derived prior to interviews.

I am interviewing people who were present at some point during the USGA debate over

divestment legislation. These people were found through USGA and Phoenix documentation of

these three meetings at which the legislation was discussed. These people were taken from three

distinct groups, those in favor of the legislation, those opposed, and those who voted on the leg-

islation. These groups are identified through USGA and Phoenix official and published docu-

ments as voicing a distinct opinion or actively voting on the legislation.

There will be nine interviews conducted with participants selected from the snowball

method of sampling. This sampling method should ensure that there is consistency in the spheres

of support and should allow there to be balance in the respondents preferences (in favor, against,

or involved in the legislation). Subjects were classified into three groups; senators who voted on

the legislation, students who supported the legislation, and students who opposed it. All students

were asked questions about their involvement in the legislation and were also asked questions on

their religious, ethnic, travel, and family background in order to further identify possible extra-

neous factors which may have effected their response.

This study will employ a quota sample. While they are part of the student population their

opinions are not necessarily indicative of the broader student populations views on these issues.

It is my belief that the majority of students at Loyola were not aware of divestment legislation

brought to the USGA floor. For many that were however, the legislation and the events that oc-

curred involving it had a significant impact. These cases are, I hope typical of their distinct

group, however, for the broader population of Loyola they could be considered unusual as they

were affected by a relatively small phenomenon.


18/36

18

Finally, national media sources are used in order to describe the national movement of

SJP chapters in offering divestment legislation. Similar resolutions were offered to student sen-

ates around the country and nearly all came with similar conflict. However, not all schools

reached the same resolution to conflict that Loyolas USGA did. These media accounts came

from student and established media publications across the country and were employed to dis-

play how profound and truly large this movement was. Additionally, these sources were em-

ployed to articulate the history of this specific movement as well as outline its goals and meth-

ods. These sources made clear the relationship between SJP leadership and resolutions offered on

the floor.

Methods

My main method for collecting data on this topic is interviews. Interviews were conduct-

ed with students from the three major student groups involved in the conflict and eventual out-

come; those advocating for passing of the bill, those opposed to the bill, and those who voted on

the bill. These interviews will be constructed to ascertain the students motivations, intentions,

feelings, thoughts, and actions, throughout the conflict, and will hopefully provide insight into

how and why the conflict developed as it did. Interviews were further coded and analyzed in

order to ascertain the thoughts, feelings, and actions of students in relation to the legislation. I

attempted to assess trends or themes which reveal themselves through the data.

Body

Timeline


19/36

19

In the spring of 2014 conflict broke out on Loyola University Chicagos campus over the

approval of divestment legislation by the Unified Student Government Organization. Resolution

352 was offered to the USGA for voting and consideration on March 18, 2014. The bill, chiefly

sponsored by Sharifah Abdallah, requested on behalf of the student government that the Univer-

sity pull its investments from companies profiting from h man rights violations. The examples of

human rights violations cited in the document focused heavily on these companies involvement

in contracts with the state of Israel, and how their products and services were being employed to

oppress and abuse the Palestinian people. The resolution passed by a vote of 26-0-2. In the week

that followed the members of the USGA were flooded with complaint emails concerning the leg-

islation, specifically citing the support of Palestine, and rejection of Israeli legitimacy as a core

motive and issue of the legislation. What had been passed unanimously as a resolution of support

for global human rights, quickly gained ardent disapproval by a large number of students and

alumni perceiving the document to have heavy national and religious implications. Additionally,

Loyola University Chicagos administration issued a statement in the week that followed stating

that they would not embrace the measure regardless of USGA advocacy.

The intent of the legislation began to be called into question and many demanded

that it be reviewed through the lenses political message and allegiance, and not simply of human

rights. The conflict reached a head in the next weeks meeting of USGA as students and alumni

flooded the meeting hall and debate on repealing the legislation was held. In which it was re-

vealed but by Senator Ryan Kelley through an investigation preformed in conjunction with fel-

low senator Danish Murtaza, that Loyolas investment trust portfolio did include roughly $30,000


20/36

20

worth of shares in Raytheon a company listed in Resolution 352s divestment list. Senators and

speakers from the audience alike voiced opinions and after hours of debate another vote on the

legislation was held. The resolution was upheld by a vote of 12-10-9.

The following day, March 26th, President Pedro Gurerrero exercised his power as presi-

dent of USGA to veto the bill. He offered an explanation for his decision in issuing this decision

in which he sighted the authors lack of consideration for a diversity of thought and opinion on

campus in constructing the legislation, and the need to separate the two primary objectives of the

legislation, to divest from companies that profit from the Israeli occupation of Palestine and to

urge the university to engage in socially responsible investing.

The veto was contested in senate the following week on April 1st. The senate had the

ability to veto the legislation on the grounds of a technical flaw in the cause for vetoing the legis-

lation. It would have required a two thirds margin to reverse the decision. Senators voted 12-10-

3 to overturn the veto, failing to reach a two thirds majority. The veto was upheld and official

discourse on Resolution 352 was brought to a close.

Findings

Subjects were first asked to articulate their feelings directly after Resolution 352 was

passed by a vote of 26-0-2. Six of nine respondents expressed positivity feelings for the vote.

The six which responded positively were the three senators and three students in favor of the

measure. These feelings ranged from good to ecstatic in terms of intensity. Two senators indi-

cated that they understood the legislation to be straightforward and in support of human rights

through socially responsible investing practices. Two of three students in favor of the legislation

also noted that they were surprised at the lack of opposition by senators, and were surprised by


21/36

21

how easily the measure passed. Additionally, one senator responded expressing frustration over

the lack of debate, despite feeling positively about the result.

The three students who responded negatively were all classified as, in opposition to the

legislature. Their negative feelings ranged from outraged to frustrated. All three cited ignorance

of senators to the implications of the measure as a source of frustration. Additionally, two of the

three respondents expressed surprise with Senators lack of knowledge on the subject. Mary

highlights these sentiments as she states:

I thought it was a very ignorant vote because out of that many senators who are leaders here at

loyola no one knew enough to raise concern on it.

Subjects were then asked to articulate their feelings following the rehearing held on

March 25th at which Resolution 352 passed aging by a vote of 12-10-9. Respondents were di-

vided with four feeling negatively, four feeling positively, and one expressing neutrality about

the result of this vote. All four that registered positive opinions were among the six which felt

positively about the March 18th vote, including three pro legislation students and one senator.

Two of these respondents also expressed positive feelings surrounding the debate which took

place. Tom stated:

On march 25th when both opposition and those in support of the bill got to debate each other

and we still managed to obtain the majority from the USGA it felt a lot sweeter and a lot more

well deserved.

Worth noting was the fact that six respondents including all four who felt negatively

about the results of the vote and two who felt positively all noted improved feelings in the proce-


22/36

22

dure and results of the March 25th vote as opposed to the March 18th. Three of these respond-

ents referenced directly that the discourse in the meeting was a cause for this increased positivity.

Respondents were then asked to describe the USGA hearing held on March 25th and their

participation in it. Seven respondents described the atmosphere of the environment with de-

scriptors of intensity. This consensus was half across demographics with only one respondent in

attendance who did not reference tension in the room. Furthermore, six respondents used de-

scriptors indicating division in the attending population. Among those five identified the room

to be divided along Palestinian/ Arabic and Israeli lines. These findings speak strongly to the

development of a polarized environment which mirrored debate on the subject.

Additionally, four respondents, mentioned the presence of police/ campus security offic-

ers outside the meeting room as a contributing factor to the meetings atmosphere. Frank high-

lighted the effect this had on him personally:

The fact that they were checking IDs at the door, and there was such an increased security kind

of made you realize how tense of a topic it was. it was just a really uncomfortable scene I felt

more like it was a grand jury scene than Loyola USGA.

Six of nine respondents stated that they had participated in the meeting through offering

an opinion. Among these six were two senators, three students against the legislation, and one

student in favor of the legislation. Three of these respondents, two opposed and one in favor of

the legislation, signified that they were designated presenters, chosen to speak on behalf of their

side of the argument. In one response Frank indicated that he was selected by the student organ-

ization Hillel to speak on behalf of those opposed.


23/36

23

Students were asked to articulate their feelings following President Pedro Gurerreos veto

of Resolution 352. Four respondents indicated positive feelings, four expressed negative feel-

ings, and one expressed conflicted feelings concerning the veto decision.

The four respondents who felt positively about the veto were comprised of the three stu-

dents opposed to the legislation as well as one senator. Their comments ranged from pleased to

relieved. All four respondents mentioned directly that they thought it was the right choice given

the circumstances. The three students who were opposed to the legislation went on to express a

consistent opinion that it was inappropriate for the USGA/ University to take a stand against the

state of Israel. Mary highlighted this in saying:

I think the veto showed that this is a contentious issue and have different views but a university

has no business divesting from a country especially Israel

The students who felt negatively about the veto all had feelings which were classified as

unjust. Three of the four respondents which consisted of one senator, and the three students in

support of Resolution 352, cited that they viewed the decision as unfair to voters and to those

who invested time into the campaign.

In addition to to asking to express their feelings on the veto, respondents were asked to

express what, in their opinion prompted President Gurreros decision to veto Resolution 352.

Four respondents, a senator and the three students in favor of the motion, cited outside pressure,

from organizations external to Loyola and the Loyola administration, as a primary driver of the

decision. One from this group questioned if the decision was made for fear of personal loss of

opportunity. Terry stated:


24/36

24

In his position you make pretty powerful relationships and get some pretty awesome internships

and he felt like those might be threatened. He didnt want to risk it.

Three of these students also referenced pressure of a threatening nature as a cause for his deci-

sion. This is interesting because Frank, who felt positively about the veto, also referenced threats

when saying: I think Pedro did the right thing even though I heard he got death threats and secu-

rity had to walk him home everyday. Implying that he believed that threats were a possible im-

pediment to the Presidents ultimate decision to veto.

Respondents were asked if they felt animosity as a result of the conflict which occurred

over divestment legislation. Seven of nine respondents replied that they had experienced ani-

mosity as a result of this conflict. This included all three senators, all three students in opposi-

tion to the measure, and one who was in support of it. The degree of animosity varied greatly

ranging from facial expressions to rape and death threats. Frank recounts the threat: they said

something like they were going to pin me down and rape me like palestinian women are raped

every day. One respondent reported that he needed a security escort to and from his apartment

for over a week.

Three respondents including two senators reported feeling animosity within the March

25th meeting. Two of whom referenced direct verbal attacks which occurred during the hearing.

All three included facial expressions as a part of the animosity they felt during the meeting as

well.


25/36

25

Three respondents highlighted instances of cyber harassment. One representative from

each of the primary three groups. These accounts referenced harassment through email, Face-

book, and twitter. One respondent in opposition of the legislation highlighted three death threats

and a rape threat which were received via email. Two respondents including who received those

threatening emails also highlighted that the perpetrator was not found and there were no reper-

cussions.

Finally, four respondents also reported being actively avoided by other students on cam-

pus. I went to classes where students would give me dirty looks and not sit next to me not talk

to me. If I asked them a question they wouldnt answer me. They wouldnt even look me in the

eyes. Mary said. Two of these students referenced avoidance in conjunction with a loss of

friendship. Four students, two senators, one pro legislation and one anti legislation student re-

ported continued feelings of animosity carrying through today.

Respondents were asked if the conflict surrounding divestment legislation prompted them

to any sort of change. Eight of nine respondents indicated that following the conflict over di-

vestment legislation they made a change in their life. Two respondents, both senators, indicated

that the conflict caused them to research the conflict. The other six respondents indicated that

they joined or became more involved in a student organization following the conflict. The three

respondents in support of divestment as well as one senator indicated an increased involvement

in the organization Students for Justice in Palestine. The two students who indicated change who

were opposed to the legislation indicated that they joined the USGA following these events.


26/36

26

Students were asked what the intention of divestment legislation was in their opinion,

based on the responses it was clear that a distinction needed to be drawn as nearly all respond-

ents identified ideological or what could be considered long term objectives and practical short

term objectives. While four respondents did not make this distinction the majority did. For the

four which identified a single intention behind divestment legislation three were senators and one

was a student in opposition to the legislation. Two of these individuals, both senators, one who

supported Resolution 352 and one who abstained, viewed the goal behind divestment as a pro-

motion of socially responsible investing policy, a divestment from the conflict in doing so neu-

tralizing our position. The other senator, who voted against the measure, identified the intent as

targeting divestment efforts at the state of Israel. Finally, the student who opposed the legisla-

tion identified it as an effort to smear the reputation of Israel and promote negative public opin-

ion of it in doing so. She articulated this when asked what the intent of the measure was: To

demonize the state of Israel and in doing so really tainting peoples image of it

In accessing the long term over arching goals of the divestment campaign the five re-

maining respondents broke into two basic schools of thought. Three respondents, all of whom

were students in support of the legislation, identified that the overall objective of Resolution 352

was to advocate for socially responsible investing. They identified that this goal entails divesting

from armed conflict and companies who profit from the violation of human rights. The remain-

ing two, both students opposed to the legislation identified the long term goal of the legislation

was the economic destabilization of Israel.

In identifying the short term goals of divestment legislation the five respondents again

broke into two schools of thought. All agreed that the immediate goal of the divestment cam-


27/36

27

paign was to promote public awareness of the conflict and promote discussion on the matter.

However, the three respondents in support of the bill identified this public awareness campaign

on bringing attention to the human rights violations occurring as a result of the ongoing conflict.

Two of the three stated that they did not expect the legislation to become enforced and for di-

vestment to actually occur. They also stated their happiness with an immediate increase in pub-

lic discourse which the witnessed. Ted stated it as such: I feel like we were effective in starting

that conversation I saw it on campus that week. Even though a lot of what I heard was negative I

was happy just to see the conversations taking place. The two students in opposition of the leg-

islation identified the goal of the public awareness as intending to shift public opinion on Israel

in a negative way. Frank stated it in this way: Their whole goal is to implant that idea into your

head like a Public Relations war, making Israel look bad, smearing the name

The perceptions surrounding the context of Loyolas divestment campaigned were ascer-

tained, as respondents were asked if the effort was isolated to this campus or if it was, in their

opinion part of a larger initiative. All respondents agreed that the Legislation was not born of an

effort isolated to Loyolas campus. Seven of nine respondents identified it as part of an interna-

tional initiative, four of whom, one student in opposition and all three in support, specifically

identified it as a part of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement. Two students referred to

the BDS handbook in highlighting the overarching goals of the movement and how divestment

fit internationally, one was opposed to the legislation one in support of it.


28/36

28

The other two respondents, one senator and one student in opposition, identified it as part

of a national movement, however four others identified a strong national component of the

movement while calling it an international initiative. All six of these respondents cited similar

divestment campaigns occurring at universities around the United States in support of their

claim. Divestment campaigns at DePaul, Northwestern, University of Michigan, Arizona State,

and UCLA, were all referenced with one student identifying links in the campaigns, despite vary-

ing outcomes.

Summary

Conclusion

This study of Resolution 352 at Loyola University Chicago and how it affected the stu-

dents involved, provides insight not only to the thoughts and perceptions of those involved but

how they may be a reflection of larger social forces. This is an ongoing conflict both locally and

internationally, one which has the potential to intensify. In refusing to pick sides in the interna-

tional strife, students of Loyola opened the door to further discourse and action surrounding the

issue they created the potential for constructive collaboration between the two staunchly opposed

student groups and allowed an opportunity for a future resolution on Human rights that may be

more comprehensive and certainly less offensive. However, none of these opportunities can

achieved without a fundamental understanding of the conflict that has already occurred. Without

such an understanding, of the people and perspectives involved, there is no chance for reconcilia-

tion between these students and the conflict will continue seething waiting for another painful

outburst. Loyola University Chicago may not be the place where the conflict between Israel and

Palestine comes to an end but with a proper understanding of the conflict which has, and contin-


29/36

29

ues to exist, and an openness to learn from one another it could be the place where peace begins

to grow.


30/36

30

Bibliography


31/36

31

Appendix

Request Statement

Hello, I am James Peterson, a senior at Loyola University Chicago. I am conducting a

series of interviews for my senior research paper in Sociology. My study focuses on the social

effects and implications that Resolution 352, otherwise referred to as divestment legislation,

brought to those students involved. Additionally, this study aims to better understand the dy-

namics of the conflict that resulted surrounding this legislation. As you are either a senator who

voted on this measure or a student who was involved in the student discourse on the matter, I

would like to ask you to participate in one thirty to forty-five minute interview. The questions

will be focused on your personal experiences, opinions, and affiliations concerning Resolution

352 and the student discourse that surrounded it. There are neither foreseeable risks involved in

your participation nor direct benefits. However, it is my hope that by learning more about the

perspectives, opinions, thoughts, and affiliations of those who were involved, the legislation and

the conflict which surrounded it can be better understood and explained. If you decide to partici-

pate, I will keep your identity and all the information you give me confidential. Participation in

the study is voluntary, and even if you decide to participate now, you can withdraw at any mo-

ment. If you agree to participate, lets schedule the interview for the day and time that is best for

you. On the day of the interview we will meet at a predetermined location which meets your

convenience and which is conducive to an interview. That day I will give you more detailed in-


32/36

32

formation about the nature and goal of the study. Thanks in advance and see you the day of the

interview.

Consent Form

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

Project Title: Resolution 352: Divestment in Debate

Researcher(s): James Peterson

Faculty Sponsor: Dana Garbarski

Introduction:

You are being asked to take part in a research study being conducted by James Peterson for a Sen-

ior Sociology Capstone project under the supervision of Marilyn Krogh in the Department of Soci-

ology at Loyola University of Chicago.

You are being asked to participate because you have been identified as a student who was involved

in the legislative process either by voicing or authoring an opinion on Resolution-352, divestment

legislation, or by voting on the legislation.

Please read this form carefully and ask any questions you may have before deciding whether to

participate in the study.

Purpose:

The purpose of this study is to investigate the conflict that occurred on Loyola University Chicagos

campus in the spring of 2014 surrounding divestment legislation. The goal of this paper is to ascer-

tain how this debate, which occurred over the course of three weeks, affected the feelings, thoughts,actions, and passions, of those involved.

Procedures:

If you agree to be in the study, you will be asked to:

Answer interview questions completely and honestly concerning your involvement in Reso-

lution 352 and the USGA decisions that were rendered. Additionally, you will be asked

about your perceptions of and feelings about various aspects of the legislation and the con-

flict which surrounded it. You will be asked questions concerning your student involvement.

Finally, several questions will concern your and religious and ethnic identity as well as trav-

el history. This interview will be recorded for coding purposes although this recording will

not be distributed and identities will remain anonymous.

Risks/Benefits:

There are no foreseeable risks involved in participating in this research beyond those experienced

in everyday life.

There are no direct benefits to you from participation, however, it will contribute to a study that

aims to better understand the effects this controversy had on our students and grant insight as to

why it occurred.


33/36

33

Confidentiality:

Information gathered in this interview will remain confidential in relation to your identity. None of

the names of respondents used in conducting this experiment will be released, or published with

this work. Interview responses will be recorded on my phone and will remain stored there until I

transcribe responses, at which in time your responses will be assigned a case number. Three

months after the completion of this study audio tapes will be deleted. Data will be gathered from

these transcriptions through a coding process focused on deriving general information from therespondent, such as sex, age, school year, religion, ethnicity, student involvement, and travel histo-

ry. Additionally, responses will be coded to assess aspects of a respondents feelings and percep-

tions concerning Resolution 352 and the conflict which surrounded it.

Voluntary Participation:

Participation in this study is voluntary. If you do not want to be in this study, you do not have to

participate. Even if you decide to participate, you are free not to answer any question or to with-

draw from participation at any time without penalty.

Contacts and Questions:

If you have questions about this research study, please feel free to contact James Peterson at 248-

943-1533 or [email protected] or the faculty sponsor Dana Garbarski at [email protected].

If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact the Loyola Uni-

versity Office of Research Services at (773) 508-2689.

Statement of Consent:

Your signature below indicates that you have read the information provided above, have had an

opportunity to ask questions, and agree to participate in this research study. You will be given a

copy of this form to keep for your records.

____________________________________________ __________________

Participants Signature Date

____________________________________________ ___________________

Researchers Signature Date

Questions Asked

1.Would you please state your name, age, gender, and class at loyola?

2. Were you a voting member of the Unified Student Government Association in the spring of

2014?


34/36

34

3. Were you present for voting on Resolution 352, divestment legislation, on March 18 or 25,

2014?

4. If you cast a vote on divestment legislation how did you vote? (In favor, against, abstain) If

multiple votes were cast, please indicate what vote you cast in association with each date.

5. If you did not vote on legislation how would you have voted? (In favor, against, abstain) If

multiple votes would have been cast please indicate what vote you cast in association with

each date.

6.

How did you feel after the legislation passed on March 18th with a vote of 26-0-2?

7. How did you feel when the legislation was upheld on March 25th by a vote of 12-10-9?

8. Were you present for the USGA meeting on March 25th? If so please describe the scene. Did

you participate? If so in what ways?

9. How did you feel when Resolution 352 was vetoed on March 26th?


35/36

35

10.In your opinion what prompted Resolution 352s veto?

11.Did you at any time feel animosity from another student or group of students as a result of

this conflict? If so please explain?

12.

Did any of the feelings, before, during, or after Resolution 352 was brought to USGA,

prompt you to action? If so please explain, this includes further research on the conflict, at-

tending meetings of a student organization, or authoring anything on the subject.

13.

Do you think the procedure of the USGA resulted in a just conclusion to debate over Resolu-

tion 352?

14.What was the objective of the divestment legislation, in your opinion?

15.

Was Resolution 352, divestment legislation, an effort isolated to Loyola or was it part of a

national or international initiative, in your opinion?


36/36

16.How do you identify yourself in terms of religious identity and national origin?

17.

Do you affiliate yourself with either Students for Justice in Palestine or Hillel?

18.Have you ever traveled to Israel or Palestine?

19.

Were you, or an immediate relative, born in Israel or Palestine?

20.What prompted controversy over Resolution 352, divestment legislation, at Loyola in your

opinion?

resolution 352- divestment in debate

Documents