Below is a collection of responses from Stony Brook University faculty and students to Interim President Richard L. McCormick’s email about the red banner protest incident. On Thursday, Nov. 21, a banner was held up at the Student Activities Center that showed the red hands symbol. After the initial email, faculty and students began to respond to McCormick’s comments on the incident.

This is an email sent by Josh Dubnau, a professor in the Department of Anesthesiology: 

Dear President McCormick,

I am emailing with a heavy heart.

Your email today (Maintaining our campus culture) leaves me with feelings of grief, disappointment, and outrage. 

I hope that you will read my email in full, and that you will take some time this holiday season to ponder the implications of what I am about to say, because today you caused great pain. Your email can only be described as doing violence.

Over the past 14+ months, the Israeli government has carried out one of the most intense and brutal campaigns of annihilation that the world has seen. The Israeli government campaign against Palestinians in Gaza (and the West bank) has systematically destroyed all aspects of civilian life. This includes the complete obliteration of every school and hospital, destruction of roads, sewage treatment, potable water, places of worship. The vast majority of the civilian homes have been destroyed. Thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians have been detained, held hostage without charge, and tortured. The Israeli regime has intentionally blocked entrance of food, for months, while also decimating all indigenous food production. This includes vaporizing agricultural lands, systematic bombing of all of the bakeries, and destroying fleets of fishing boats. Officially, this brutal campaign has killed more than 45,000 people and maimed well over 100,000. But epidemiologists agree that the death count is certainly far higher because the destruction is so intensive that accurate counts are impossible. The destruction of Palestinian lives is so brutal that most hospitals must estimate the death rate by weighing body parts that can be collected after massive bombs explode entire families. How many kilograms of fingers, toes and livers does it take to make one Palestinian child or pregnant woman? These are the calculations that epidemiologists now use to estimate how much higher the body count is than the official estimates in Gaza. The vast majority of these brutalized bodies are children and women, and most of the men also are innocent civilians. Starvation and disease are rampant in Gaza, not as a side show, but as a centerpiece of the Israeli government policy to create conditions in Gaza that are incompatible with life. We know that this is an intentional policy because we have the amply documented words that say so, words that are daily spoken and written by the leadership of the Israeli government, and by [Israeli Defence Forces (IDF)] commanders who dutifully set up ‘kill zones’ in which any man, woman or child who enters will be assassinated. The people of Gaza are never told the borders of these kill zones, which change at the whim of commanding officers, but they learn the boundaries over time because the stray and starving dogs enter to consume the flesh of entire families. Palestinians watch the dogs, and they learn the borders of these extermination zones. Every day, children are maimed. Doctors report that many victims of this brutality go on to endure major surgeries without anesthesia or pain medicines because the Israeli government does not permit medical supplies to enter the Gaza strip. There are reports of children undergoing amputation of limbs while awake, with no mother or father alive to comfort their cries of agony. This is the reality of genocide, it is a bloody horror. That blood stains the hands of those who perpetrate these crimes, as well as the hands of those who are complicit.

All of the above is exhaustively documented by the leading human rights organizations including B’Tselem (The leading Israeli humanitarian organization), Amnesty [International] (The largest and most respected human rights group in the world), Human Rights [Watch], [Doctors Without Borders], [The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East], [The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights], and many others. It is for these reasons that the major human rights groups have concluded that the Israeli government is carrying out genocide or genocidal acts.

These also are the reasons why the international criminal court and the international court of justice have issued preliminary rulings that the accusation of genocide is plausible and issued international arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant. The conclusion that Israel is guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide also is supported by many of the world’s leading experts in holocaust and genocide. This includes Omer Bartov (the renowned Israeli American holocaust scholar who is described by the US holocaust museum as “one of the world’s leading specialists on the subject of genocide”), Raz Segal (the Israeli scholar of genocide) and many others.

Any person who has retained a shred of humanity and watches this live streamed genocide will surely reach the conclusion that the perpetrators of this genocide ‘have blood on their hands’. And surely you are aware that this phrase has been used to describe perpetrators of violence by every anti-war protest movement in modern history. Families of Israeli hostages routinely accuse [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu of having bloody hands.

Your communications to our community have not expressed even a word of concern for the unspeakable suffering of Palestinians in Gaza and in the diaspora. Instead, you privilege the feelings of those who defend that genocide. While ignoring the feelings of those who are the victims of this genocide, you instead focus your concern on the idea that Jews may feel targeted by criticism of a genocidal Israeli government. The irony is that in doing so you also place collective blame for these crimes on all Jews, even those many of us who ourselves criticize the Israeli government. In your “new McCarthy era” attempt to avoid any accusation of antisemitism, you therefore commit a cardinal antisemitic act of blaming all Jews for the crimes of a foreign nation’s government. And at the same time, you totally ignore the deep trauma that runs through the veins all in our community who are Palestinian, Arab or Muslim as well as the trauma of all of us who are decent enough to feel empathy with those communities.

Where was your email to the community to express outrage when Seawolves for Israel sponsored an event that asked participants to write letters to IDF [(Israel Defense Force)] soldiers who are daily murdering innocent Palestinians in a genocide? Where was your concern about how unsafe this made Palestinian, Arab and Muslim students feel? If an event had been organized to send letters to Hamas fighters who had participated in the [Oct. 7, 2023] massacre, would you have remained equally silent? We know the answer.

Where was your email when Hillel and the interfaith center sponsored a speaker who has openly and publicly supported killing children in Gaza? Where was your concern then about how this made others feel? If an event had sponsored a speaker who openly supported murder of Israeli children, you would not have been silent.

I will be frank, [President] McCormick, your email is the most hurtful communication that I have seen from any administrator at any institution that I have been associated with across 40 years as an undergraduate, a graduate student, a postdoc and a faculty member.

Your email leaves me awash in despair for our community. You have work to do if you wish to make amends.

Sincerely,

Josh Dubnau, Professor

This email comes from Abena Asare, an associate professor of Modern African Affairs in the Department of Africana Studies:

Dear Dr. McCormick, 

I am writing in regard to your most recent message to the campus community. As my previous messages about the president’s office have not been replied, I can only hope that they are being read and considered. Nevertheless, I continue to write and share. 

The most recent message you sent disparaging a peaceful campus protest action– a banner calling for university divestment from the ongoing [United States]/Israeli war against Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank– was disturbingly incendiary. The phrase and imagery of blood-on-hands, is not and could never be the provenance or property of any single event.

– Shall we start with “Macbeth,” the lines of Lady Macbeth, Act V Scene I? “Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood / Clean from my hand?”  

– Or perhaps we ought to go back to the book of the prophet Isaiah, Chapter 59, versus 1-3: “Surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear. / But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you so that he will not hear. / For your hands are stained with blood, your fingers with guilt / Your lips have spoken falsely, and your tongue mutters wicked things.” 

In the interest of time, perhaps we can skip up some years and look at the way the image and rhetoric of the bloody hands has been used in Israel in the past year is ways that have absolutely nothing to do with the narrative that you forced on all of us at Stony Brook in your recent email, and hew toward the more general and common sense understanding of the phrase. 

Please see this 11/23 “Haaretz” article featuring a hostage family that tells the world that Netanyahu has their loved one’s “blood on his hands.” 

Indeed, I have compiled a screenshot of a number of articles from “Haaretz” from the past [six] months using that exact phrase “blood is on your hands.” I list the citations for you here and also attach the screenshot. 

– Gidi Weitz, “Netanyahu knew the Israeli hostages were on borrowed time. Their blood is on his hands.” 9/1/24 

-Uri Misgav, “Netanyahu and his squad of cease fire refuseniks have hostages’ blood on their hands.” 2/2/24 

-Ronit Marzan, “Qatar has Israeli blood on its hands. It’s no honest broker for the hostages.” 10/30/23

-Gideon Levy “The perfect Israeli reservist from 60 [minutes] has children’s blood on her hands.” 9/20/23 

-Nehemia Shtrasler, “My family’s blood is on Netanyahu’s hands.” 11/6/23

-Haaretz Editorial, “Israeli protesters’ blood is on Netanyahu’s hands” 7/12/23

– Iris Leal “The blood of murdered Israeli Arabs is on Netanyahu’s hands,” 6/11/23. 

If we are to look even more specifically at recent protest culture, we can see again the widespread and frequent use of this phrase and image, making the idea that this phrase must somehow be a reference to a single incident, non-credible at best. 

– See this “[The] Times of Israel” article where runners in the Jerusalem Marathon this past March ran with fake blood on their hands as they called for a hostage release deal. 

I could go on, but I won’t. I trust that you are aware of all the above and the point is made. 

Lastly,  I must just be a little vulnerable and share my deep hurt that you would disparage student protesters for divestment in this way, disparaging their call as anti-Semitic. Are you aware that there are groups on our campus that regularly publicly praise and support the […] IDF, going so far as to encourage students to write letters thanking and praising these soldiers? Are you aware that this same IDF in this year has boasted about, been found guilty of, and admitted to atrocities such as this, this, and this. Please know that these group’s efforts to champion the IDF in their full throated defense of genocide I find personally terrorizing and harmful. I find these efforts to praise and cheer the IDF to be anti-Palestinian, racist, pro-sexual violence, pro-infanticide, and utterly dehumanizing. Of course, everyone has a right to their opinion, even if I find such opinions abhorrent. I think these pro-genocide apologists on our campus should not be cast out; instead I feel our job as educators is to work to create a campus culture where people who hold such views could be exposed to more, exposed to better, and meet a “norm” that inspires more humane beliefs. However when your office sends out such biased and offensive emails, you circumvent and undermine many of our collective  efforts to build a more humane and respectful campus climate. 

I have written to you before explaining that a key part of equity policy in university is understanding that the squeaky wheel cannot always and only get the grease– not every member of the campus is equally able to make their concerns, fears, and issues known. Pursuing equity means refusing to create institutional practices where those who complain the loudest are always appeased. Your campus community emails make it clear whose voice is heard and whose is ignored; whose life when it is lost “matters” and whose life is deemed worthless; whose experience of terror must be prevented and who can be terrorized (as happened at the [Health Sciences Library (HSC)] when [Stony Brook] doctors verbally put down students) without comment. You may not value all of our students and faculty equally, but we know the worth and the brilliance of our students and our colleagues. We all deserve better. 

Would you please consider a cease and desist on these mass emails? They are not helping. 

I could go on, but I won’t. I am reminded of Toni Morrison’s bracing insight that the thing that racism does is distract us from our work. As I have spent time writing to you about rhetoric and history, subjects that you surely know much about, I have writing deadlines that must be met. I will return to that work now. 

Wishing you a safe and happy holiday season. I sincerely hope your office does better with this in the new year. I would very much welcome a retraction and apology from your office on that last campus community email. 

All best, 

Abena 

This is an email by Richard Larson, a distinguished professor in the Department of Linguistics: 

Dear Dick, 

I appreciate your message to the campus, and the instinct to help motivating it. But the case is a tricky one linguistically, and I fear you are on very shaky ground.

As you surely know, the expression “to have blood on one’s hands” has existed for thousands of years, in many languages, as a way of expressing one’s guilt for wrongdoing, in the worst case for murder. One simple interpretation of the [Student Activities Center] banner – again, surely the simplest without further context – is therefore that SBU has guilt in the death of Palestinians for not divesting itself of investments in Israeli enterprises [and] companies. 

To select one particular, highly specific meaning for this, very widely used symbolism, based on one particular historical incident, and to privilege that meaning on campus at the insistence of one group, amounts to giving that group exclusive possession of that symbolism and phrase, and exclusive rights to its use. That then becomes an element of [University] policy that I myself, as a linguist, find very difficult. It says we accept that only a single group has a right to use certain vocabulary and expressive means at [Stony Brook], despite its global [and] historical ubiquity.

Similar issues arose last Spring, as you know, with “from the river to the sea”, with one group wanting to use it to express broad solidarity with Gazans and another group insisting that it be understood expressing genocidal intentions toward Jews. As I recall, President [Maurie] McInnis wisely abjured from endorsing one group’s interpretation, simply insisting that the phrase could be, and had been, interpreted that way, and urging that people be mindful of this.

I think (under the general spirit of the Kalven principles) the University should maintain neutrality, not only [with respect to] to its political stance on ongoing events, but with respect to the language and symbolism used to express positions on them by the community, at least when, as in this case, that usage is unarguably a common and standard one. Otherwise [Stony Brook] really is taking an implicit stand on political issues, and that only means trouble and division.

Sincerely,

Richard 

This email comes from a PhD candidate from the College of Arts and Sciences at Stony Brook who wishes to remain anonymous: 

Dear Dr. McCormick,

I highly encourage you to review both history and international law before sending incendiary emails to the entire school. I would also like an explanation for why a banner about divestment that was up for 15 minutes is getting more attention from your office than Arab and Muslim students being harassed in the library while studying for finals by faculty members. 

First of all, having blood on your hands did not start with this incident in Ramallah (it was used as far back as Shakespeare in “Hamlet”), and is a common idiom used to refer to institutions, such as Stony Brook, complicit in crimes against humanity. It makes sense to use in the context for calling for divestment, as an institution financially benefiting from genocide via investments has blood on its hands. I’m not even going to provide sourcing on this because it is such a simple google search. There is no clear association between this common phrase and any one historical incident.

For historical context, this incident with the bloody hands you refer to in your email happened during the Second Intifada, which occurred in response to worsening economic conditions for the Palestinians, further land and water theft by illegal settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, and the continuation of an, at that point over 50 year-old, apartheid regime in which Palestinians were violently relegated to the lower class. The incident you are referring to occurred at the beginning (one month into) the [five]-year Intifada, at which point Israel had murdered 73 Palestinian civilians and injured hundreds more, while Palestinians had killed [one] Israeli civilian. This incident occurred during the funeral of a child, Halil Zahran, who Israelis had murdered. The soldiers who were murdered decided to enter the funeral procession for this boy. Keep in mind these are soldiers, they have full freedom of movement and were not supposed to even be in Ramallah when they were taken captive by attendees of the funeral.

Also, as they were soldiers who had been called back to active duty that day, their killing was fully justified under international law. Soldiers often die in ways those of us who are not in a war zone consider to be brutal. This is not a crime against humanity or an act of hate though because they are soldiers who are consenting to take part in the act of war. They are not innocent children, like Halil Zahran. The right of people living under occupation, which Palestinians are, to resist the occupying state, which active duty soldiers represent, including by armed conflict, is affirmed both in Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Convention and UN General Assembly Resolution 37/43.

It is a further sign of the differential treatment of your administration toward Arab and Muslim students that you have highlighted an incident involving a banner that was up for 15 minutes while releasing no commentary on those of us who were recently harassed in the HSC library by faculty members Martin Griffel, Lisa [Senzel], and Jeff Adelman. They circled around us, filming us, zooming in on our faces because we were wearing keffiyehs, which is a cultural garment. Martin Griffel even walked up to one of the Arab students and told her (with no provocation) “I hope you are never a doctor.” Numerous faculty witnesses reported this incident to Title VI and [human resources] and have heard nothing back, let alone anything from your office. 

Please do better if you truly care about “campus culture.”

This email comes from Nerissa Balce, an associate professor in the Department of Asian and Asian American Studies: 

Dear President McCormick,

I am writing you as a Filipina scholar and as someone who grew up during a very divisive time in Philippine history, during the last years of the Marcos dictatorship. As a Filipino citizen, I know the importance of the university as [a] site of learning and critical thought in a time of state violence, military terror and censorship. It was a routine for the Philippine military and police to pose as students, spy on professors and students, and later kidnap, torture and kill them. This Philippine military practice of “salvaging,” an Orwellian word, appeared in Margaret Atwood’s novel, “[The] Handmaid’s Tale.” My small Catholic university in Manila was actually a haven for writers and artists who lost their jobs at the state university. 

So when I read your email that a protest banner was removed from the student center all because of one interpretation of “bloody hands,” I was surprised. Surely an American historian like you, who has studied the history of the Black student movement, is familiar with this visual trope. I know you are aware that many communities use this image for different protests, in the U.S. and around the world. Just to cite the American examples, here are a few:

• In 1988, New York City AIDS activists used bloody hands to criticize Mayor Ed Koch and the NYC health commissioner Stephen Joseph because they refused to recognize the recorded deaths during the AIDS epidemic. 

• In 2020, New York City activists splashed red paint on the streets of the city to protest racism and police brutality.
• In recent times, Native American activists used bloody hands to draw attention to the history of the systematic torture and violation of Native children in boarding schools.

Please do not limit the meaning of this powerful image to one narrative, one interpretation. As professors, we must profess knowledge by discussing different histories and community experiences. We need to ask difficult questions to enable real dialogue.

As a public university, we are a community of scholars, students, and families. We should have many academic dialogues about the issue raised by our students regarding the ongoing genocide in Gaza. If not, we have blood on our hands as we reach for our laptops, as we give our lectures, as we pretend that there is nothing going on in the world that affects us as global citizens. Please, do not give in to censorship. If you do, we might as well stop pretending we are scholars. 

Last I checked, this is not Atwood’s Gilead.

I look forward to hearing from you. And I would welcome a dialogue about divestment and how we must end the ongoing genocide in the Middle East.

Respectfully,

Nerissa Balce

This is a response from an anonymous faculty member: 

Dear President McCormick,

As the new year approaches, I wish you to find the intellectual courage to resist the temptation to bow by whatever forces are pushing you to deny historical facts in favor of damaging propaganda. I wish you the moral strength to protect academic freedom and freedom of speech, in spite of continuous attacks from those with a less than noble agenda. I wish you to find within yourself the deepest meaning of being a leader in higher education and let the students voice their distress over the injustices of the world, rather than repressing them and pressing them within the tidy walls of a neat and clueless rosy bubble.

I am sure that deep inside, as a historian, an academic and an educator, you must have felt humiliated and frustrated every time you were pushed, more or less gently, into issuing statements like the last one in question, where you denied historic facts in favor of propaganda, you repressed freedom of speech and once again tried to push the students back into a fantasy bubble where a genocide is not happening. I wholeheartedly wish you to find the serenity to put an end to this trend.

With greatest respect,

A fellow academic.