top of page

Navigating Encampments

Part 1: Navigating Conflict and Hierarchies: The Campus Dialogue on Gaza Encampments


The Gaza encampments at several universities have ignited intense debates and conflicts within academic communities. Typically located in prominent areas such as the campus quad, these encampments often comprise tents arranged into a communal space, surrounded by banners and signs proclaiming political messages. Some tent frames feature images and artwork designed to draw attention and evoke emotional responses. Fire pits provide warmth and gathering points, while

impromptu stages or platforms serve as venues for speeches and performances. Competing interests often result in a cacophony of voices, with pro-Palestinian chants and music playing alongside counter-demonstrations from other groups. This vibrant yet contentious atmosphere underscores the urgency and passion behind the dialogue, making it both essential and challenging.


Peacemaking circles offer a framework for addressing these complexities, ensuring that dialogue is inclusive, respectful, and productive. Rooted in Indigenous practices, peacemaking circles emphasize the values of listening, respect, and shared responsibility.


A comprehensive review of existing literature on peacemaking circles reveals their origins in Indigenous communities, where they serve as a method for conflict resolution and community building. Research indicates that these circles are effective in various settings, including schools, workplaces, and judicial systems, due to their focus on equal participation, mutual respect, and collective problem-solving. Studies on academic applications highlight their potential to foster inclusive dialogue, reduce conflict, and build stronger community ties.




The discussion around the Gaza encampments on campuses was profoundly influenced by the pervasive presence of social media and the relentless 24-hour news cycle. Platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram enabled immediate sharing of information and opinions, ensuring that news and updates resonated instantly with a global audience. This immediacy often resulted in heightened emotions and tensions, as the flow of information was constant and unstoppable.


Screenshots and videos depicting graphic scenes from Gaza were circulated widely, often without warning or context, provoking strong emotional reactions. These visceral images played a significant role in shaping public opinion and campus discussions, as they brought the distant conflict into stark, personal focus for many students and staff. The immediate availability of these visuals, coupled with the ability to share them instantaneously, added layers of complexity to the dialogue, galvanizing some while horrifying and alienating others.


In parallel, the 24-hour news cycle perpetuated a state of continuous engagement, where major media outlets consistently pushed updates and breaking news about the conflict. This constant barrage of information often led to a sense of urgency and crisis, compelling individuals on campuses to take stances and voice their opinions quickly. However, this environment also left little room for reflection or nuanced understanding, as the pressure to react and respond was relentless.


Peacemaking circles can mitigate the effects of this constant influx of information by providing a structured environment for reflection and deep listening. Within these circles, participants can process the information more thoughtfully, share their perspectives respectfully, and engage in meaningful dialogue. This approach helps manage the emotional intensity and fosters a more balanced and empathetic conversation.


      Understanding the Hierarchy: A Complex Academic Landscape


The hierarchical structure within universities creates inherent tensions that shape the discourse around the Gaza encampments. The role and influence of various stakeholders within this hierarchy significantly impact their engagement and perspectives.


Top-tier professors, often tenured and highly respected within their fields, hold considerable sway in academic and administrative decisions. Their perspectives are frequently seen as authoritative, and they have the security to express contentious opinions without fear of job loss. This positioning allows them to be vocal but also places significant responsibility on them to guide the discourse productively.


Their authoritative voices can dominate conversations, making it difficult for others, especially those lower in the hierarchy, to dissent or present alternative viewpoints. While their experience and knowledge are invaluable, there is a risk that their positions could inadvertently stifle the voices of non-tenured faculty and students.


Mid-tier professors, those on contracts but not yet tenured, navigate a precarious position. While they have some level of job security, their futures are not guaranteed, making them more cautious in their public and private stances.


Their position often results in a careful balancing act—supporting free expression while being mindful of the implications for their career trajectories. This caution could either lead to them being less vocal or, conversely, more impassioned if they felt their future security depended on their alignment with dominant views.


Non-tenured faculty, including associate professors on short-term contracts, face significant job insecurity. This often limits their willingness to participate openly in controversial discussions.


Their precarious positions mean they frequently refrain from expressing controversial opinions, fearing retribution or contract non-renewal. This self-censorship removes a potentially valuable perspective from the dialogue and perpetuates a more homogenized discourse.


Senior administrative staff such as deans and provosts hold critical decision-making power, influencing policy and the university’s response to the encampments. Their involvement is crucial in legitimizing the dialogue process and ensuring institutional support.


Their presence in discussions can either empower or intimidate other participants, especially students and lower-tier employees. While their involvement is necessary for enacting change, it is vital to manage their participation to foster an environment of open dialogue rather than top-down directives.


Staff members in mid-level administrative roles, such as budget officers and program coordinators, play a crucial role in the university's operation.


Though not as influential as upper management, these staff members' perspectives are essential in understanding the practical implications of any decisions made. They often act as bridges between policy and implementation, providing insights into the feasibility and impact of proposed changes.


Worker staff, including custodians, maintenance workers, and others in support roles, are vital to the university's functioning but often overlooked in academic discussions.


Their experiences and perspectives are usually underrepresented, leading to decisions that might not fully consider their impact on these essential workers. This oversight reinforces a class divide within the university community.


And finally Students. 


Graduate students often face intimidation from professors who serve on their panels, which can stifle their willingness to engage openly.


Their fear of potential retaliation or negative impacts on their academic progress makes them cautious participants. However, graduate students bring vital, current perspectives to discussions, reflecting the opinions and experiences of the emerging academic cohort.


Though numerous, undergraduate students often struggle to find their voices in these discussions, especially when competing against more experienced and authoritative figures.


Their fresh perspectives and passionate stances are crucial in driving the dialogue forward, but their lack of experience can sometimes lead to oversights or misinterpretations.


Peacemaking circles are an effective tool for addressing the concerns of different university stakeholders by fostering an environment of confidentiality, reducing fear of retaliation, and creating safe, inclusive spaces for dialogue. They provide a structured setting where all participants can engage openly and honestly.


Peacemaking circles ensure confidentiality, which is crucial for participants to feel safe expressing their views without fear of retribution. This environment encourages honest and open dialogue, especially on contentious issues.  By promoting mutual respect and confidentiality, peacemaking circles help reduce the fear of retaliation among participants. This allows individuals to speak candidly and share their true perspectives without worrying about negative consequences.


Peacemaking circles create a space where all participants, from staff to students to mid-tier professors, can engage in candid conversations. The structured format and emphasis on equal voice ensure that everyone has the opportunity to share their perspectives, can discuss sensitive topics constructively, reduces intimidation, bridges gaps, and fosters a more cohesive community, and provides a voice to often the voiceless. 

11 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comentarios


bottom of page