Since the start of the war between Israel and Hamas last October, college campuses across the United States have been split in two by the conflict. Opinions on the war range a wide spectrum of allegiances, ideologies, and policy proposals, and when it comes to talk about discrimination, emotions can run very high. To address some of these concerns, a meeting of Mesa College’s Academic Senate on March 4 put to the floor a resolution combating anti-Semitism on campus, which sparked a heated discussion within the school’s governing body.

The core of the resolution was simple: a clear acknowledgment of Jewish identity and culture at Mesa College, inclusion of Jewish people within the school’s DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) educational framework, and round condemnation of all forms of anti-Semitism. The resolution was introduced by Mesa psychology professor Helen Greenbergs, aiming to protect Jewish students and staff on campus in the wake of an unprecedented rise in anti-Semitic violence since the start of the war in Gaza.

Though no direct mention of Israel was made in the resolution’s text, it was met with severe criticism from certain members of the Academic Senate. Namely, history professor and chair of the Social Sciences Department John Crocitti contended that the resolution was not inclusive enough, failing to acknowledge the near-equal rise in anti-Muslim/anti-Arab violence since October: “Why doesn’t it mention hate toward other groups, such as Islamophobia?” He also criticized the presence of programs run by the Anti-Defamation League (a controversial Jewish advocacy group) within the resolution, stating that there are already programs at Mesa to promote diversity, which presumably include Jewish culture.

Crocitti’s argument was, in turn, directly rebuked by math professor Katherine Naimark, who said that the spirit of the resolution was peaceful and well-meaning; it simply encourages education on certain issues that don’t receive enough attention at Mesa, without necessarily undermining the issues of any other group. “When standing up against hate toward a particular group, we focus on this group’s story, and it’s simply impossible to include all others,” she said.

The following half-hour was spent on a many-sided and at times passionate debate among the various Senators in the room, with many offering their unique perspectives both in support and opposition to the resolution. Black studies professor Thekima Mayasa at once voiced both her tentative approval and criticism of the resolution, saying that “hate is hate, no matter who it’s directed to.” Biology professor Michael Brewer made the point that specifically opposing anti-Semitism does not preclude simultaneously opposing Islamophobia, and that the two did not always need to be addressed together to both be acknowledged equally.

After a lengthy discussion and at least one extension of the meeting to allow all points of view to be heard, the SDCCD/SDMC Pledge to Fight Anti-Semitism was put to a vote, which proved to be no less uneasy than the conversation that preceded it. At the final count, 12 of the Senators voted for the resolution, 6 voted against, and 16 abstained.

Since the majority of Senators did not vote in favor of the resolution, much confusion was had over whether or not it had passed. Academic Senate President Andrew Hoffman promised to look into the matter and come back with a clear answer at a later date, and on March 6, an email sent by Hoffman to the members of the Senate explained that “the abstentions are not considered.” He said that considering abstentions would “[have] the same effect as a negative vote,” which would “deny members the right to maintain a neutral position by abstaining.”

As a result, the resolution to oppose anti-Semitism ultimately passed. However, the plurality of abstentions indicates a broad hesitancy among Mesa College’s leadership to openly acknowledge anti-Semitism as a problem worth addressing, and the constant need for equivocation shows the double standard to which Mesa’s Jewish students and staff are held. Though the Academic Senate’s resolution to fight anti-Semitism passed in the end, the victory rang hollow and muted.