On Thursday, April 11, the Pitzer College Council voted to pass Resolution 60-R-5 to permanently close the college’s study abroad program with the University of Haifa, removing it as a pre-approved program and preventing the college from opening any new programs with other Israeli universities. The resolution passed 48:19 with no abstentions, although Pitzer President Strom C. Thacker announced during the discussion period before the vote that he would be vetoing the legislation.
Thacker’s verdict on the resolution is the last step of the bill’s enactment, which already passed a 34:1 vote by the Pitzer Student Senate on Feb. 11.
In the months preceding Thursday’s vote, students and faculty members at Pitzer have been increasingly calling for a suspension of the college’s study abroad program with the University of Haifa through Resolution 60-R-5, which demands that the college cease its support of a university complicit in “Israeli apartheid and ethnic cleansing.”
Despite recent escalations, these calls are not the first; the college saw a similar resolution in the past. In 2019, the Pitzer College Council voted 67:28 to suspend Pitzer’s program with the University of Haifa. Hours after this vote, former Pitzer President Melvin Oliver vetoed the motion.
Now, over five years later, Pitzer moves to repeat history. Unlike in 2019, however, the college’s program with the University of Haifa is no longer listed as a pre-approved option within Pitzer’s Study Abroad and International Programs (SAIP) Office.
This change was announced on April 1, when the Faculty Executive Committee voted to remove 11 study-abroad programs from its pre-approved list, including the University of Haifa. This vote followed recommendations made by the SAIP Committee last month after it reviewed two proposals, one of which argued that Pitzer’s partnership with the University of Haifa does not align with the college’s core values.
According to the college’s Guiding Principles for Opening and Closing Pitzer-Approved Study Abroad Programs, all approved programs must “[align] with Pitzer values, educational objectives, and/or student learning outcomes.”
The aforementioned proposal suggested that, because the program does not align with Pitzer’s core values, it does not meet the criteria of the Guiding Principles and thus should be removed as a pre-approved option.
In an April 2 statement, Pitzer’s Dean of Faculty Allen Omoto stated that the removal of the 11 programs’ pre-approved status was a direct result of their failure to meet the college’s study abroad criteria, emphasizing that they were not removed in a symbolic decision.
“The programs are no longer pre-approved for enrollment by Pitzer students because they do not meet our criteria, due, specifically, to lack of enrollments for at least five years, exchange imbalance, or curricular overlap,” Omoto’s April 2 statement read. “I want to clarify that these programs are not closed, nor do any of these actions reflect an academic boycott.”
Because the removal of the program as a pre-approved option was not part of an academic boycott, it can still be reopened. Resolution 60-R-5 would prevent this from happening until “Israeli universities end their complicity in apartheid,” as one student explained at a rally in support of the resolution outside McConnell Dining Hall just before Thursday’s vote took place.
Despite the resolution passing the College Council and the rally continuing throughout the meeting, Thacker announced his plan to veto the bill, advocating against academic boycotts altogether and claiming that the resolution would undermine the college’s procedures for determining whether to open or close study abroad programs.
Thacker went on to expand on these thoughts in a statement sent to the Pitzer community on April 11 following the vote.
“I have considered the issues with an open mind, listened actively, engaged in thoughtful and considered discussion, and shown respect throughout,” Thacker wrote in the statement. “As president, I have made my decision based on … the best interests of the College as a whole. I know many will disagree with this decision. I look forward to engaging further in constructive and respectful dialogues in our shared community.”