Skip to main content

The Palestine question for these times: Leadership, social justice and viewpoint neutrality

Figure 1: The Nakba that forms the infrastructure of Israeli settler colonialism
 

I was recently approached for a leadership opportunity. 

The person (Let's call them Sam) that approached me for the role stated in great depth how much they valued my commitments to social justice, de-westernizing knowledge systems, and building spaces for the Global South. The position was crafted with the descriptors of social justice, decolonization, and building community that felt appealing. In his initial email, Sam noted that I was one of the top candidates for their group.

After some deliberation, I decided to explore the conversation to see where it would take me. 

Sam was convinced that this opportunity is a great fit for my career, and one I would find challenging in a meaningful way. They shared with me the various resources that would be available for building architectures, programmes, and pathways dedicated to social justice. 

By the third iteration of the conversation, I figured it's an appropriate time to get serious. 

The Palestine question

I asked Sam if they had researched my public scholarship, including my public commentaries on Palestine. 

I pointed them to my blog, my LinkedIn profile, and my X feed, asking if they had gone through these spaces where my voice engages with the Palestine question.

Sam seemed prepared for the question. 

He had done his research and indicated having a robust sense of my digital footprint.

He shared with confidence that he was well aware of my public commentaries, and this was indeed one of the reasons why they were reaching out to me. For this position, it seemed, my public (including digital) footprint was a draw.

Tweeting on Palestine while being a leader

I then asked, what norms there would be about my ongoing public commentary if I were to be successful with the recruitment? 

I asked him if the leadership role would require me to stop tweeting on Palestine and stop writing my blog pieces naming Israeli settler colonialism, Zionist repression of free speech and academic freedom, and genocide. 

Sam responded, he would talk to the wider leadership and get back to me.

We set aside a time for a follow-up conversation.

The texture of the follow-up conversation reiterated the optimism Sam had initially demonstrated. He stated his belief that I could find a way to manage my public scholarship and my leadership role as long as I separated the two.

Separating leadership from the Palestine question and viewpoint neutrality

Sam noted that as a leader in a senior role, I would be expected to lead for all stakeholders, and this included those that didn't agree with my views on Palestine. 

He further noted that leadership is expected to exercise viewpoint neutrality, referring to the notion that institutions take neutral positions on critical issues of the times. 

Institutions, and institutional leadership, are expected not to demonstrate their orientation toward a particular position. 

Further, the Palestine question is a polarizing one and an institutional leader is expected to rise above the commitments to a particular position on the question.

Viewpoint neutrality is not justice

The conversation with Sam elucidates so much the state of the academe. 

Let me begin this section by noting that I commend Sam and the organization he represented for their commitment to justice, especially at a time where the very naming of justice has been forbidden by the political mainstreaming of white supremacy and Zionism across Western democracies.

However, the language of stakeholder management, setting up the expectation that a university leader responds to all stakeholders, across all sides, promotes the sort of both side-ism (or shall we say, all side-ism) that is antithetical to justice. 

Justice by its nature is not neutral. And the Palestine question is the litmus test for calls to social justice. 

The concept of social justice calls upon us to take sides, to stand with those being oppressed by the machineries of power. Calls to social justice place upon us the responsibility of taking sides, holding us accountable to those experiencing the sheer force of injustice. This is especially true for leaders across the academe who hold significant institutional and societal power.

Calls to social justice place upon us the moral responsibility of naming the forces of settler colonialism, imperialism and racial capitalism that are carrying out the worst excesses of violence. 

Calls to social justice implore us to act intellectually, politically, and materially amidst the unfolding of a genocide, naming the genocide, knowing fully well that powerful Zionist forces are organized precisely to pathologize the acts of naming the genocide. 

Timing is key here; the urgency for speaking out and standing up is now, not after Palestinians have been expelled by the violent forces of Israeli occupation.

The Palestine question reveals real-time the workings of settler colonialism, imperialism, and racial capitalism. Any claims of a commitment to social justice therefore, at this juncture, must first-and-foremost be evaluated through the framework of the Palestine question. 

For academic leaders who evince a commitment to social justice, the question must be asked: What is/was your position on the Palestine question? Are you/Did you making/make this position public? How are you acting/did you act as an academic leader with power on the Palestine question? 

Have you advocated to divest your institution from the Israeli occupation?

Viewpoint neutrality within this context is a managerial coverup for standing by as deep injustice unfolds in the form of a genocide. It's an easy alibi. You can't be viewpoint neutral in the middle of a genocide.

In 2025, amidst the ongoing genocide being carried out by Israel in Gaza and the forced starvation of Palestinians, viewpoint neutrality is the fundamental antithesis of a moral commitment to justice.

Popular posts from this blog

The Haka, the Hurt, and the Work We Owe

  The Haka, the Hurt, and the Work We Owe An Indian in Aotearoa reflects on resistance, complicity, and the solidarities we have yet to build Mohan Jyoti Dutta I watched the haka. I watched it several times, in fact. Each time, I tried to sit with what I was feeling before reaching for what I was supposed to think. Let me be honest about who I am in this conversation, because that matters. I am an upper caste, upwardly mobile Indian man. I am a professor at a university in Aotearoa. I carry the accumulated privileges of Brahminical socialisation, of English-medium education, of institutional access that was never designed for the communities I now write about and alongside. I say this not as confession but as orientation — because where you stand shapes what you see, and I have learned, through years of working with communities at the margins, that the refusal to name your own location is itself a colonial habit. The haka directed at Parmjeet Parmar did not offend me. It ...
Read more

Whiteness, NCA, and Distinguished Scholars

In a post made in response to the changes to how my discipline operates made by the Executive Committee of the largest organization of the discipline, the National Communication Association (NCA), one of the editors of a disciplinary journal Rhetoric and Public Affairs (RPA), Professor Martin J. Medhurst, a Distinguished Scholar of the discipline, calls out what he sees as the threat of identity (see below for his full piece published in the journal that he has edited for 20+ years, with 2019 SJR score of 0.27). In what he notes is a threat to the "scholarly merit" of the discipline, Professor Medhurst sets up a caricature of what he calls "identity." In his rhetorical construction of the struggles the NCA has faced over the years to find Distinguished Scholars of colour, he shares with us the facts. So let's look at the facts presented by this rhetor. It turns out, as a member of the Distinguished Scholar community of the NCA, Mr. Medhurst has problems with w...
Read more

The Substack and the Slur: How a Manufactured Crisis Toppled a Wahine Māori Political Editor

  The Substack and the Slur: How a Manufactured Crisis Toppled a Wahine Māori Political Editor On the architecture of the Aotearoa culture-war machine, and the danger it poses to a democracy heading into 2026 There is a particular cadence to the afternoon on which the career of a senior Māori journalist  at TVNZ is finished. It is unhurried. It begins with a tweet — in this case, a single image of a typed statement, posted by Maiki Sherman, the now-former political editor of TVNZ, on the afternoon of Friday, 8 May 2026, announcing that she had parted ways with the broadcaster. The post was terse, dignified, and final. As RNZ later reported , Sherman wrote that the scrutiny of the previous week had placed enormous pressure on her and rendered her role "untenable." The first wahine Māori to lead a major broadcaster's political team was gone. The story that finished her had not, ten days earlier, existed in any newspaper, on any wire, on any website you would consider mai...
Read more