Since last year, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) has positioned itself as a moral compass on campus, championing a referendum asking that the College disclose its exposure in investing in weapons manufacturers and requesting them to not invest in them in the future.

While its intentions might be grounded in strong convictions, the manner in which it has gone about this referendum has done more harm than good for our college community. By stifling public debate and turning this complex issue into an exercise in virtue signaling, SJP has delivered a profound disservice to the values that should define our academic environment at the College.

Let’s be clear: The Israel-Palestine conflict has lasted longer than all of our lifetimes. It is a deeply complex issue that cannot be reduced to a simple binary of right and wrong, black and white. SJP’s push to paint this debate as morally one-sided ignores the nuances that make this conflict so difficult to resolve in any meaningful way. The situation demands open-mindedness and critical thinking, not slogans and unilateral decisions. And yet, SJP has taken it upon itself to position its view as the only correct one, effectively narrowing the scope of debate on campus.

One of Bowdoin’s primary missions is to foster critical thinkers—individuals capable of analyzing complex issues from multiple perspectives. Imposing a view through administrative statements or divestment on such a deeply divisive issue will further inhibit freedom of speech on campus. Instead of creating an environment where students are encouraged to engage thoughtfully with difficult topics, SJP’s approach has fostered an atmosphere of pressure and tension, where dissenting opinions are silenced or dismissed as immoral. This does not build a community of critical thinkers; it builds one of conformity.

By pushing its agenda with such fervor, SJP is also obstructing the work of the Ad Hoc Committee on Investments and Responsibility. This committee was set up by the administration specifically to listen to the students’ perspectives. Instead of supporting this process of open dialogue, SJP has launched a concerted effort to attack the committee and its goals, portraying the administration as foreign to the students’ needs and wants.

Once again, SJP claims that there should not even be a discussion about its requests, as if the matter were so settled that no further debate is necessary. This effort is deeply divisive and misguided. SJP has taken advantage of the fact that there is no longer an organized group of people such as those who argued voting “No” in last year’s referendum to offer a counterbalance. SJP is portraying its views as the monolithic voice of the student body and ignoring the fact that one in three students opposed the referendum’s proposals.

President Zaki’s decision to refrain from making political statements and instead encourage open public discussions is the right path forward. It allows us, as students, to engage with these difficult topics without fear of institutional bias. More importantly, it promotes the very values of critical inquiry and freedom of thought that the College should and does stand for. Our administration’s refusal to issue political statements or rush to judgment on such divisive matters is not a failure of leadership, but rather an intentional decision to protect students’ freedom of speech.

We must continue to resist the temptation to simplify and impose one-sided views on such complex issues. In doing so, we preserve the intellectual rigor and openness of our academic community.

The College, up until now, has managed to avoid the division and unrest seen on other campuses;  this is a testament to our success. We have been able to talk about the Israel-Palestine conflict without disrupting academic life or tarnishing our institution’s reputation. SJP’s current approach, however, threatens to unravel that progress by fostering polarization and pushing a singular narrative. It is crafting an environment where students would rather not discuss the Israel-Palestine conflict or the referendum than suffer the social consequences of sharing a “non-orthodox” opinion. If this trend continues, we risk losing the healthy discourse that has allowed us to navigate these complex times without conflict.

Since last semester, SJP has slowly become intolerant towards criticism and unwilling to accept compromise. Not only is its behavior radical and dangerous for campus unity, but it is also deeply counterproductive. No deal can be reached with an organization that labels anything short of fully complying with its referendum as “insulting, insufficient and undemocratic.”

SJP may see itself as the guardian of morality on campus, but in reality, its approach has hindered debate, discouraged intellectual growth and divided the student body. SJP must cease its propaganda and participate in constructive and honest dialogue with opposing parties.

If we are to truly engage with the important issues of our time, we must do so with open minds and respect for differing opinions—not through the imposition of a single perspective.

Alessandro Carelli is a member of the Class of 2026.