On May 21, the University of Michigan administration removed the Gaza solidarity encampment from the Diag, citing fire safety concerns. Speaking at the American Jewish Committee Global Forum, University President Santa Ono revealed that he intended to remove the encampment long before the semester ended, but refrained from doing so after consulting with Facts on the Ground and University of Michigan Hillel, two prominent pro-Israel groups on campus.
The misleading removal of the encampment is not an isolated incident but part of a larger, systemic issue of pro-Israel bias. This bias permeates our institution, which claims to support free speech and open debate while silencing dissenting voices. By yielding to pro-Israel groups and using flimsy justifications like “fire safety” to deploy the police against students, our administration has demonstrated a clear preference that undermines its credibility and integrity.
While Ono deliberated on when to end the encampment, pro-Israel student groups advised him to wait until after graduation to act, so as to limit conflict on campus. In the letter to the U-M community explaining his decision to end the encampment, Ono said “we are taking steps to broaden the dialogue around these critical matters.” But by only constructively engaging with people on one side of the issue, he played favorites.
The administration cannot claim to want to foster debate while simultaneously dismissing such a large portion of the University community. This approach insults the people who have been targeted by the administration the most — pro-Palestine students — by acting like there was any intent to “foster debate” in the first place.
A bigger insult to pro-Palestine students is the fire safety excuse. Indeed, this was merely a cover for the fact that Ono and the administration did not want the encampment on campus, regardless of any safety issue it posed. The claim seemed dubious at best from the beginning, but now, it seems almost wholly dishonest. Was there some element of a fire hazard? Probably. And while we don’t have a real way of knowing, it certainly could have influenced the decision to remove the encampment. But we also know that Ono wanted the encampment gone well before the fire marshal inspection, casting doubt on the legitimacy of his excuse.
At the end of the day, President Ono is pro-Israel. He wanted the encampment gone, and received feedback from pro-Israel student organizations to wait until after the seniors graduated. The fire safety excuse may have been utilized to make the removal of the encampment more palatable in the eyes of students, the community and the administration, but palatability does not equal truth. It is clear that the University would have never allowed the encampment to continue under any circumstances.
There is value in obtaining feedback from students, especially groups with varying perspectives. University administrations can become removed from the day-to-day experiences of campus life. Listening to that community is a good thing and it should be prioritized. We also know that listening to the community is possible here on campus — it was what helped stop the evidently unpopular draft disruptive activity policy.
But that’s not what happened in this case, reflecting broader societal tendencies to marginalize pro-Palestine perspectives and revealing a deeply entrenched imbalance in how Palestinian advocacy is treated. If the University truly values inclusivity and dialogue, Ono and the administration must confront this bias and create a genuinely open environment for all viewpoints. Addressing these systemic issues is essential for fostering a campus where all students feel heard and respected, regardless of their stance on the Israeli-Hamas war.
One way Ono could gauge campus sentiment more fairly is by looking at student government election results. While certainly not representative of the entire student body, the winter term’s election results indicate that at least a significant portion is pro-Palestine — enough to bring a TAHRIR-backed party into presidential office. This suggests a continuation of the protests in the fall. These results certainly don’t indicate that a majority of students are pro-Palestine, but they show that the feedback Ono received was not representative of real student sentiment.
If even the most traditional means of trying to make our voices heard — protesting, writing, emailing — cannot work, then there is nothing more that students can do but work outside of those traditional means. The onus is on Ono and the administration to come to the table and treat differing campus voices fairly. Any notions of “fostering dialogue” will now feel like hollow rhetoric used to divert attention away from the conflict and pro-Palestine protests.
The worst part about all of this is that Ono did not have to make his biases so obvious. He did not have to reveal his decision-making process. He could have at least tried to act as an impartial leader of the community and University in these contentious times, but he did not.
His actions have indicated that he doesn’t feel the need to tell the whole truth to the students and the community — as seen in the excuse of fire safety as reasoning for the encampment removal. He is blatantly admitting that he and the administration took sides in this conflict long before the encampment started.
Given that Ono is the president of our University, and makes almost a million dollars a year, he should have to own up to his decisions. If he doesn’t, we must question his leadership abilities. With no end in sight to Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, and with divisive action taken by our administration, it seems increasingly likely that protests will resume in the fall.
Only listening to one side further strains the tensions on campus and has proven thus far to be unproductive. Ono allowing his own personal bias to influence his decision has not only harmed our community, but is also representative of the forceful removal of encampments across the country. Oftentimes, these protests escalate because of inaction from parties with power, which then inevitably leads to a forceful removal by those very same parties.
To move forward, the University of Michigan must demonstrate impartiality by equally engaging with both pro-Palestine and pro-Israel groups. Concrete actions, such as engaging with our new Central Student Government and hosting balanced forums, will help restore trust and create a genuinely inclusive environment. Only through tangible changes can the administration address its biases and truly foster the open debate it claims to support.
Gabe Efros is an Opinion Columnist who writes about the American political climate, on and off campus. He can be reached at gefros@umich.edu.
The post President Ono misled students about the encampment appeared first on The Michigan Daily.
Leave a Reply