There are certain topics that are difficult to talk about on a show like this, because there is truly no shared language. The reaction to Israel's bombardment of Gaza and pursuit of Hamas is one of them. When Hamas launched its terror attacks on Israel, more than 1200 people died and more than 200 were taken hostage. Now, after 200 days of war, Israeli attacks in Gaza have killed more than 34,000 Palestinians. That's according to the enclave's health ministry. And the ministry doesn't distinguish between casualties among civilians and fighters. And CNN hasn't independently confirmed them. But in the U.S., none of this is watercooler conversation. It's not something that lends itself to glib partisan debate. And we see that as protests have boiled over on college campuses, from Stanford to Vanderbilt to the physical clashes at UCLA, Arizona, Wisconsin and of course, the police being called in at Columbia University.

Dozens and dozens of police officers with the riot helmets, with, uh, their batons and with the flexicuffs moving down 114 toward Broadway. Now they just moved down this way.

In terms of demands, the students are more or less calling for the same thing. They want their schools to sell off any investments they have in companies connected to Israel, the war in Gaza, or the violation of international law and the occupation of the Palestinian territory. And the language they're using at these demonstrations to make those calls for divestment fuels criticism that the entire movement is antisemitic.

All talk of antisemitism, I think, is a tactic meant to keep people afraid and try to ignore what we're saying.

Here's a Columbia University student talking with CNN's Sara Sidner. He's Jewish, and he says his name is Jared.

And what we're saying is that there's a genocide going on in Gaza, being funded by our government that our university is profiting off of. And I think that if they can use some tactics to portray us all as some sort of hateful mob, then they can go on with ignoring our message.

'Now, while there have been attempts to negotiate, things have escalated. And now some college presidents have responded to these protests, encampments, and sit-ins with suspensions, detainment and arrests. And even then, some in Congress, like House Speaker Mike Johnson, say that's not far enough.

If this is not contained quickly, and if these threats and intimidation are not stopped, there is an appropriate time for the National Guard. We have to bring order to these campuses. We cannot allow this to happen around the country. We are better than this.

'I'm Audie Cornish, and today we're going to hear from two people experiencing this story firsthand. This is The Assignment. Student protesters in the so-called Gaza solidarity encampments have been engaged by proxy in the big questions many of us have struggled with or outright avoided about the morality of war, about what constitutes a genocide and what constitutes antisemitism. So, for example, the common protest chant "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free."

I think I find it offensive. I think I'm meant to find it offensive as a Jew. I hear for some people they're saying, when they say "from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free." They're saying free of Jews.

This is Michael Roth, the president of Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut. We'll hear more from him later.

Once again, I would say that's not true.

And this is Krasimir Staykov, a junior and an activist at Pomona College in Claremont, California. Here's how he views that slogan.

'I would say that those are anti-Zionist slogans against the State of Israel. But I would not say that those are antisemitic slogans, because the existence of an Israeli state as it exists now, right, as an ethno state, necessitates the displacement of Palestinians.

I spoke with Krasimir – he goes by Krasi – because he's one of nearly 20 students arrested after occupying the president's office. In a statement, the university told us that protesters physically pushed past the school president and that, quote, others, scaled the wall of a stairwell behind her. The statement also says that in the weeks leading up to that day, there were, quote, "repeated incidents of mass protesters persistently stalking and harassing people visiting for campus tours, and that the college had repeatedly heard from individuals who reported feeling intimidated – students, staff, faculty and visitors." I didn't litigate this with Krasimir. He's facing an upcoming disciplinary hearing, but we did talk about student demands and why he thinks people should consider more than the clashes depicted on the news. One more thing: I want to note that throughout our conversation, he used the vernacular of the protest. He repeatedly described Israel as an ethno state and uses the terms ethnic cleansing and genocide to describe its military campaign in Gaza. He's aware how these terms might sound to mainstream Americans not versed in what protesters call a liberation movement. He joined this movement himself last fall after the October attacks. Up until that point, he considered himself a labor activist.

For me, labor organizing is not just a fight for better workplace conditions. It's fundamentally about making sure that everyone has the ability to live a life that is free and dignified and autonomous. And I think that those broader values are really intrinsic to the fight for Palestinian liberation. Because when we look at what's happening in Palestine, fundamentally, this is a stripping of autonomy and dignity in the face of an ethnic cleansing and occupation and genocide.

What do you make of how campus protests are being depicted right now?

'I think right now there's a real interest in framing campus protest and dissent as unsafe, even when we've seen that student organizers, pro-Palestinian student organizers are very much not creating a safety risk to individuals. What we've seen in these encampments is, you know, people making art, dancing, hosting teach-ins, reading. These are not threats. These are principaled civil disobedience strategies, right?

It's also split screen with the students who who speak up, who say that they're Jewish students and they feel unsafe, or they're Jewish students, and they feel they can't speak up or they can't talk about what's going on themselves from their own perspective, or that they feel like they're hearing slurs. And I bring that up because I think for Americans who are not on campus right now, they're seeing this kind of conflict on screen.

'Right. And I think that that conflict is manufactured and arbitrary. I think that feeling uncomfortable is not the same thing as feeling unsafe. I'm sure there are some students who would who are supportive of the State of Israel, who are uncomfortable by the fact that students are protesting against their college's investments in Israeli ethnic cleansing and genocide. That is not the same thing as feeling unsafe. And when what I've seen, both looking nationally and looking at Pomona College, is that Jewish students have been instrumental in organizing against the Israeli state and organizing for divestment in pro-Palestinian fights. I have not seen at Pomona or at the Claremont Colleges more broadly, any incidences of antisemitism coming from students who are organizing in support of Palestine. What I have seen

At the same time, I know people are critical of, say, some of the slogans or chants that they hear from students and the one that has become sort of a lightning rod, especially for members of Congress, is saying, for instance, "from the river to the sea," there are ways that people are using the language in the protest that now is being underscored or being scrutinized in ways, that kind of undergird the accusations of antisemitism.

'Once again, I would say that's not true. I would say that those are anti-Zionist slogans against the State of Israel, but I would not say that those are antisemitic slogans, because the existence of an Israeli state as it exists now, right, as an ethno state, necessitates the displacement of Palestinians. But Palestinian liberation does not necessitate ethnic cleansing or the removal of, you know, Jewish people from the area that is, you know, occupied Palestine.

Do you do you feel like students are getting to talk about that distinction or try to say, look, this is what we're trying to say when we chant this or that? Like, do you think that next part of the conversation is happening?

'Yeah, I think that's been very clear. Right? And I think that we've seen that in particular because Jewish students who are organizing for Palestinian liberation have repeatedly reiterated that they do not see the Israeli state as representative of their identity as Jewish students. I also think, you know, even past that, what we've really seen is colleges suppressing Jewish students who are anti-Zionist.

You're saying that there is an effort to somehow undermine those efforts where there's solidarity?

'Yeah, I would say that administrations are actively invested in trying to cover up that Jewish students on their campuses are engaged in pro-Palestinian solidarity movement, that there's an effort on the administration side to conflate Judaism with the Israeli state, which I would argue plays into the trope of dual loyalty, an antisemitic trope.

You use the idea that they're that colleges are weaponizing identity.

'Yeah, I think that colleges want to separate Jewish students from pro-Palestinian activism. When I think that across the United States, Jewish students are extremely involved in divestment fights.

So what do you think they would get out of doing something like that? Help me. Help me follow you.

'It enables villainization of pro-Palestinian organizing because when you frame it as antisemitic, you allow colleges to dodge the fact that they're funding an ethnic cleansing and genocide. You allow them to villainize student organizers. You allow them to cover up solidarity that's happening. Interfaith solidarity, interethnic solidarity that's happening. And divestment movements, in order to paint student organizers as extremists and unsafe and threatening. And that allows, you know, the rejection of student demands.

What people might be seeing on the news right now are a handful of campuses where if things, quote unquote, get out of hand, the police are showing up with zip ties, right? You are you are one of, a few hundred students who have been arrested. And what do you see in that kind of collective response from the colleges?

I think this really shows the true colors of colleges that they are more enthusiastic about funding, occupation, apartheid and ethnic cleansing than they are about meeting their students' popular and democratic demands for divestment, for participation in academic boycott.

Are they also impatient with the tactics that come along with your demands?

'You know, I think that's a bit of a ridiculous claim, frankly, given the history of student organizing on campuses from the 1960s Civil Rights movement, anti-Vietnam organizing in the late 60s and 70s, anti South African apartheid organizing in the 80s. These were all campaigns where students violated campus policies, occupied buildings, constructed mock apartheid walls or tent cities or shantytowns, you know, placed a real pressure on administrations to meet student demands. And when we look back, in retrospect, we're able to celebrate those strategies as both effective and as morally just in the face of something that was fundamentally like a national problem and a national complicity with some sort of violence. But then when we look at the present day, we're suddenly so quick to condemn student organizers for these exact same strategies. I think what that really shows to me is that, you know, colleges keep reaching for the same playbook of suppression, and it hasn't worked in the past, and it's not going to work now. And divestment is going to be won by students because it is the morally right thing.

Students around the country have faced, doxing, threats, harassment and retaliation, for their activism in these protests. Right? For the open letters they've written, for the language that they've used in public settings. Can you talk about the risks of speaking out? Is that something you, as students talk about at all?

There is a real concern about retaliation from the public, also retaliation from our administrations. I have an active Judicial Council hearing at the school against me. I think for me and for the other students who have chosen to speak out at Pomona and put their names out there, we know that the risk of doxing and of harassment that we face is very real, and that we feel compelled. Or maybe I'll speak for myself, at least I feel compelled to speak out despite that risk, because I understand that this pressure on administrations to divest needs to happen.

And also I think it's one aspect, like one aspect of protest and just watching. I've spoken to a lot of, Black Civil Rights era activists who did their work as college students in the 60s, and one of the things they lived with very profoundly were the consequences. And some of those consequences lasted very much throughout the rest of their lives. Are you ready for that?

I am ready for that, frankly. I think consequences, of course, play out. I feel morally justified in every step that I've taken in the fight for Palestinian liberation at Pomona. And if there are consequences to my employment in the in the future, or whatever the case may be, I know that I did the right thing. So to me, it's worth it if it gets us any steps closer to divestment.

When you think about what's been accomplished so far, what he what what to your mind has sort of happened?

There's been a real galvanization in the United States. A real awareness of U.S. complicity in genocide in Palestine, and a real increasing of public pressure on institutions, colleges, but also public institutions more generally. To end their active support of genocide in Palestine. I think that this has come

Or to, just to be precise, just because using your list of demands, to end their active support of the State of Israel.

Which is tied to this ethnic cleansing, and genocide. Those are not really separable. The existence of a mono ethnic Israeli state is what is forcing the displacement of Palestinians. This occupation of land.

The reason why I'm interrupting is, is because you're using language that a lot of people disagree with. Like, they they have real kind of qualms with the way that you're talking. And I think my overall question is, do you think you're changing minds, so to speak? Like, do you if the if the point of protest is to disrupt and help redirect people towards maybe a new set of ideas that conflict with the status quo and the way that they're used to? Where are you guys on that chart? Right. Like what has this movement kind of accomplished so far? Is it just raising awareness? Is it, like I said, making it more of a debate than it might have been last fall?

The goals of the movement are divestment. The goals of the movement are not a sense of awareness. There is a real material relationship between the United States and U.S. Institutions and the State of Israel. And we are looking to address that. Right. I think when we look at

Because because for outsiders or even some campus presidents, they're like, so go protest outside of Congress. Go protest outside of Boeing. Go protest in the places that have a more direct relationship.

'I think when we look back to 1980s South African anti-apartheid organizing in the United States, we see. And Desmond Tutu has even pointed this out, that student organizing on college campuses for colleges to divest from South African companies was instrumental in increasing the pressure on the South African state to end apartheid. So I think this idea that colleges are not complicit, that colleges do not have an active role to play in the continuation of ethnic cleansing

Or not complicit, like relevant

'Or relevant even -- right -- is is false, because what we've seen in the past and very similar movements is that putting pressure on colleges and winning those fights, getting divestment has been an instrumental step to achieving liberation. As a college student at a school that has 1700 students, my power is so much greater on my campus than it is standing outside of Congress. I think I understand very clearly that this is an institution that has a lot of influence fundamentally. We have one of the highest per student endowments. My weight, my my power is best served by fighting for divestment here.

Krasimir Staykov is currently a student at Pomona College in Claremont, California. Pomona College also sent us a lengthy statement in response to this story that reads in part: "Pomona's campus is home to a range of viewpoints, and the college will continue to seek to foster an atmosphere of safety, open discourse, and mutual respect. We uphold free speech and our conduct standards. Since November, college leaders have offered to meet with student protesters and will continue to offer to do so." Now you can read all of Pomona's statements on the protest. The link is in our show notes. Next, we'll hear from a college president about how he is handling the protests at his door. Stay with us. This is The Assignment. I'm Audie Cornish. The last time I spoke with Michael Roth, the president of Wesleyan University, it was just a few weeks before the October 7th attacks by Hamas. And the conversation was rooted in the typical right versus left culture war bickering over ideological diversity on campus. But about a month later, school presidents at Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania were losing their jobs after a hearing before Congress, where they were accused of failing to address antisemitism. And then another batch, including the president of Columbia, were grilled over the same issues just a few weeks ago. At this point, protesters have been arrested at more than 25 campuses across at least 21 states. Hi Michael Roth, we meet again.

Very nice to be with you.

In fact, in the 48 hours between when we booked this interview and when we spoke on Monday, an encampment went up at Wesleyan. I have to admit, I wasn't sure you were going to show up because there are now students protesting at Wesleyan.

Well, that's why I'm here.

I started by asking him about the atmosphere on campus.

'As of last night, there's, a solidarity encampment, and, the students, had a rally last night at Wesleyan, and and some of them stayed in their tents. And, this morning, have, I think, planned to have conversations with students who go by, and maybe some faculty will come over and they'll do what I think they're calling teach-ins, or just informal discussions to explain their views about the situation in Gaza. And so far, the protests have been peaceful.

As it stands right now, hundreds of students across the country have been arrested on their campuses. Right. Or face suspensions or face all kinds of disciplinary action because of this Gaza solidarity movement, these protests in particular. And so much of this, I think, stems from the difficulty that campus presidents were having before Congress, specifically on were they able to adequately describe what is antisemitism and how they would discipline people who committed that violation? When you watched those hearings, did you think those were hard questions?

'I d -- there were a series of questions. To, the first round of Ivy League presidents. That. When from is calling for an intifada hate speech to to is expressing solidarity with anti-colonial movements hate speech and to eventually the the the money shot from Congresswoman Stefanik was, you know, if someone calls for the genocide of Jews is that hate sp-- is that actionable? And I didn't think that was a hard question. If someone calls for murder, that person, should be expelled from campus and reported to the police authories.

But if someone is chanting "from the river to the sea," is that a violation?

'No, I don't think so. Yeah, I I've written about this, I think. I find it offensive. I think I meant to find it offensive as a Jew. I hear for some people they're saying, when they say "from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free," they're saying free of Jews. But many of the people making the chat would deny that that's what they have in mind, that they think that the Palestine should have freedom. Who's against that? And so, the slogans are meant to unnerve people. When, when we, and during the Vietnam War, you may remember it was "LBJ. LBJ. How many babies did you kill today?" And then, the same chant was thrown at Condoleezza Rice when she was Secretary of State. So I think they're offensive. They're unnerving. But I don't think the expression of political opinions, no matter how offensive they are, should be censored by administrations, except --

I'm not sure your answer would have survived this Congress, right when you. I hear you answering. Right. You're bringing some nuance into this. When you recall actually watching these hearings, did you get a sense that lawmakers were interested in hearing that kind of thing?

They will. Not all of them. I mean, Elise Stefanik has, you know, been, associated with replacement theory and has refused to condemn the ideology that led to the mass slaughter of Black people in Buffalo. So, you know, I'm not going to get lessons on antisemitism from, from this, member of Congress

But they are kind of handing out

I think I said.

Punishments in a way. I mean, you're talking about Elise Stefanik. And I think a lot of people would say that the way she's conducted, her line of questioning in these hearings has had a direct effect on these campus presidents, right. And even on the dialogue itself. And as someone in a similar position, what do you think you're watching when you watch campus presidents squirm?

Well, I think the answer to, would it be actionable to call for genocide on your campus? Should have been. Yeah, it was actionable. I think that, you know, I, I was asked this on your network morning news show and on, other networks. I mean, I thought the answer should be obvious, even if the the longer answer is sure, if it's an a play, then it's not actionable right? Or is there a certain context where it's not actionable? But when someone calls me, as they did yesterday and said, "I'm upset that the students at Wesleyan are chanting, things like 'from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free.' I'm upset." I said, "I'm sorry you're upset, but you're going to have to deal with that." Or they'll say, genocide and you can't hide from genocide. That, that that's that's, offensive to you as someone who supports Israel or has affection for Israel. But that doesn't mean they can't say those things. If they say "Jews must die, we must kill Jews," then I'll have them removed from campus.

What's it like trying to explain to someone those delineations?

I think it's pretty straightforward, actually. I don't find it that complicated. I think that in some of the schools, board members have forgotten the free speech associations that they were, you know, using just a year or two ago. And I find, in a way, I find it puzzling because my my own view about free speech issues is a pragmatist view. I don't think free speech is the only value there is. It's a really important value. But sometimes you have to stop people from saying things when they incite violence, for example. If they put a pictures of other students who were naked just for fun, we would we would kick them off campus. That would be a kind of harassment, intimidation. It would destroy the conditions for learning. And I guess that's where I draw the line.

'What I've been kind of watching in the news and seeing how this has been talked about is that, supporters of Israel have branded these kinds of protests as anti-Semitic for a variety of reasons. And then critics of Israel are saying, look, you're you're just saying that to silence the conversation. And. It feels like campus presidents are weirdly at a nexus point where they actually have to be the arbiter somehow of that debate. All of a sudden a campus president has to come in and be like, "okay, well, when you said that, that's a problem. But then when you said this other thing, that's not a problem, but that person over there went too far." It's like you're on the ground of figuring this out. It's not hypothetical. It's not a discussion on podcast.

No it's not hypothetical, but I think if if the conversation is not, one that. Includes outright intimidation, it can be a productive conversation.

Even drawing that line. You know, that's been a conversation. Jewish students on campus or their parents writing letters, etc., because they feel unsafe. And what's the definition of safe or unsafe? You and I talked about that in the past, you know, in a different context. So it's not an easy line to draw. Or maybe I'm missing something.

'Well I don't, I don't. It just it's not always a clear line but it. So I'll give you I give you an example. So we had campus visit day. And when I got up to speak I knew there were protesters in the, the chapel actually where it took place. And they unfurled banners as I got up to speak that call for divestment from anyone doing business with Israel. I called attention to the banner, said, we have students here that feel strongly about these issues at Wesleyan, and I they know I disagree with them, but this is there it is. And and now here's the line. If they had said, you can't speak, President Roth, we're going to make it impossible for anyone to hear you, we would have had to remove them or change the venue or something like that. But what they did was to make their voices heard in a scenario that is atypical, like they unfurled banners without permission in a public event. But they. But in this context, that seemed to me, just fine. There was a person in the audience, who was visiting with her son, who and who had gone to Wesleyan, who was outraged. She couldn't -- She said. She told me afterwards she couldn't stay in the room because she felt it was an antisemitic. Now. If she had stayed in the room, she would have heard me sound like an old Jewish man for like 12 minutes during my talk. I, I kind of doubled down on my own Jewishness, as as one of my, colleagues put it, and sprinkled my talk with Yiddish and then like to send the signal to everybody. Yeah, you can be Jewish and disagree with the people who were putting these banners on, and you can still all be part of the same community.

But do you feel like that conversation is being had?

It was. We had it. We just had it was fine. Now the person who was upset, she was angry at me for not, I don't know, doing something more than that. And I said, this probably isn't the right place for you. And I said, I think your student would be as a Jew, would be safer at Wesleyan than anywhere else in the United States that I know of.

I want to talk about some of the tactics that campuses and universities and colleges are using to deal with the encampments on their on their grounds. So there have been arrests, hundreds, suspensions, disciplinary hearings. There are physical barricades. They're shutting down graduation events or going virtual for several days. They've also suspended the charters of student groups for Jewish Voice for Peace or Students for Justice in Palestine after they hold, let's say, unsanctioned demonstrations calling for a ceasefire. You've done this job. You are doing this job. Are we looking at scared campus presidents taking action, right? because it's in the news. Or do you see a problem?

I think that. That the that campus presidents have a duty to keep their campuses operating as safely as possible. And sometimes they make a judgment call that a protest has made such operation impossible. And they and they, bring in police and and arrest lots of people. We've seen that, as you've pointed out, and all over the place. And I think that it should be the last resort of a president.

Does it look like the last resort

You should never call the pol

Are you watching the news and saying, this looks like last resort decision making?

No, not in all cases. In some cases, it looks like decisions to please donors and board members, or in and probably in public institutions, worrying about, Congress and and state representatives. I think it's so important to protect the rights of protesters, but it's also crucial that we not allow protesters to to make it impossible to have an educational institution. I think it's impossible to have an educational institution if you militarize the campus. And when presidents bring in the police unnecessarily, they're making a big mistake.

Does this mean you're willing to do it? It's just not your first choice.

I am.

Or you're not willing to ever call the police onto your campus?

'Oh, no, I am. I had a student shot in the face when I early in my tenure because she was Jewish. And because she did not return the affections of a man who was seriously mentally ill, and who then vowed to kill all the Jews at Wesleyan before he was apprehended. I, I, I connected to police like nobody's business. So I, I'm ready to pick up the phone, but only when the situation is dire, when it's the last resort. I would rather walk into the protest and and try to have a conversation. I would rather talk to those students who feel beleaguered by slogans. Or if I had staff members who were harassed because they had to go through protests. I would make sure that that didn't happen as best I could. And if if I couldn't do it with conversation, I would, I would use, I would ask the police for their help, but that would have to be in that last resort. And I want to emphasize that the reports I have read, although you know, that protests are, by their nature disruptive to some extent, in many of the cases I've read about, they've been disruptive in such a way as to allow the university to still pursue its core mission. Now there are other views, of course, as you know, people say, well, these are folks breaking the rules and that should have the -- there should be consequences. And I understand that line of thinking, and I am tempted by it myself. When I walked out this morning and there was an encampment there, it's not supposed to be there. And they're violating the rules. I I'm my first reaction is, why aren't they listening to me? I'm the president. But now I think it's so much better that they're worried about Gaza than they're just worried about getting the, you know, I don't know, an A on the paper. I mean, so much better that they care now, I think they're wrong to to focus on investments. I think it's lazy thinking. I think they should be asking the United States government to put conditions on the aid to Israel. But they don't, you know, they approach us the way they want to. So as long as they they they can do that in a way that continues to respect the educational mission. I tolerate the violation of rules. Again, I prefer that to a kind of narrow minded vocationalism that many in Congress and elsewhere would seem where they would prefer we had on campus.

I think the group that's protesting is called Students for Justice in Palestine. And their calls mirror very much the calls we've heard around the Gaza Strip. They want the school to reveal funding sources and divest from all companies and institutions that profit from Israel's actions in Gaza since October 7th. They, specify weapons, tech, surveillance, construction companies, with full transparency regarding those that are what those connections are and also an academic boycott. I know you have written specifically that you don't agree with the divestment movement. What does that mean for you responding to their demands. Right. Like, what's the next step?

So I explain to them why I don't agree with these demands. And also why we can't disclose what the managers who invest our endowment invest in. That those are not the terms of our contracts with the people who invest the endowment money. I try to explain this to them. It's kind of complicated. Sometimes they're interested, sometimes they're less interested. I also, try to make clear that, I in a world where there are weapons, I, I think it's important that there are weapons manufacturers that, we need for our own defense and for the defense of our allies around the world. On the other hand, I have been very public in calling for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza, for return of the hostages.

So why do you think the students believe it and so fervently? Because the divestment movement has been going for many, many, many years. Why do you think that this divestment idea kind of, persists?

It's easy. I mean, instead of, you know, it's right there. And so it's your it's your school as it has investments and you can add and it's hard to know exactly what that means. Most people don't realize when you when you when you divest, you don't destroy the thing you own. You sell it to someone else. Right. And so I mean it. And I think, you know, there are people who believe that they actually, you know, mostly white students who went to college in the 80s and 90s that they just I've had them say to me, "we brought own apartheid." And I and I think that's, there's no evidence that that that's true. But it was an expression of solidarity, with the, the struggle in South Africa that did end apartheid. And so some of this is an expression of solidarity with the Palestinian struggle. And I and I understand that part. And I, I and we have had conversations about that and specifically at Wesleyan, we have a committee on investor responsibility, which allows the students to actually make their arguments for this change in our investment policy to the investment committee, because I don't actually set the investment policy of the school. But I think right now, going to Washington, D.C. And, and advocating for and, and to the United States support of the Netanyahu regime, would be a more direct way of trying to change the conditions in Gaza. I don't think buying Boeing stock or accepting Boeing or not accepting Boeing gifts will actually help Gazans in any way. I think the student protests have been successful in showing the compassion that students have for the suffering of Gazan civilians, and I and I give them enormous credit for doing that, because what's happening in Gaza is a travesty. And, and and so I give them enormous credit for calling attention even more attention to the massacre of innocent people. What I hope happens from these student protests is they get the, their their appetite for politics, continues to grow. I hope there's a cease fire by the time our conversation is over. I hope the killing stops. But I hope the political energies of the students remain because we need them in the coming election cycle. And so I think that, you know, at this moment the part of the protests that are energizing. And to me, admirable, are young people calling attention to atrocities. And I would, you know, like to make a space for them to do that, as long as that space doesn't prevent other people from pursuing their education.

Michael Roth is the president of Wesleyan University. He is also the author of two books you might want to check out "The Student: A Short History" and "Safe Enough Spaces: A Pragmatist's Approach to Inclusion, Free Speech, and Political Correctness on College Campuses." That's it for this episode of The Assignment, a production of CNN Audio. This episode was produced by Carla Javier. Our senior producer is Matt Martinez. Dan Dzula is our technical director, and Steve Lickteig is the executive producer of CNN Audio. Support for our team comes from Haley Thomas, Alex Manasseri, Robert Mathers, Jon Dianora, Leni Steinhardt, Jamus Andrest, Nichole Pesaru, and Lisa Namerow. Special thanks, as always, to Katie Hinman. I'm Audie Cornish, and we want to thank you for listening.