As a student of history, I look for patterns and would suggest the following: the closer the links with Israeli institutions and industries, the more restrained the language will be in relation to Gaza.
On September 11, 2025, the University of Oxford, in its ‘response to the crisis in Israel and Gaza,’ wrote that “as with all international conflicts and crises, the University as an institution will not take a particular advocacy position.”
The reason it gives is that “our institutional role is to enable free speech and open debate.” Reasonable enough, you would think, were it not for the fact that, on March 21, 2024 in its ‘response to the Ukrainian invasion’ (with a banner image of the Ukrainian flag at the top of the page) the University opines on the “unprovoked aggression of Ukraine by Russia” and that “members of our community are appalled by Russia’s actions and in awe of the bravery shown by Ukrainians”.
I am no Oxford graduate, but am I wrong to detect double standards here? Would it not have been more consistent had the University either written that they, too, ‘are appalled by Israel’s actions and in awe of the bravery shown by Palestinians’, or that they had decided not to ‘take a particular advocacy position’ on the ‘crisis’ in Ukraine?
In fact, given the institutional consensus by leading human rights organizations on Israeli crimes, one would think that the University would have condemned Israel’s actions in the strongest possible terms. Indeed, the latest report by the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory has found that “Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”
Is it possible that the University does not know that between October 7, 2023, and July 31, 2025, 18,430 children have been killed in Gaza, whereas the figure in Ukraine, over a longer time frame (24 February, 2022 to 31 July, 2025), is 726? In other words, the figure in Gaza is almost 48 times higher than in Ukraine. You would think that this fact alone would galvanize the University to act. Instead, the University whitewashes Israel’s crimes by appealing to a facile argument, that “freedom of speech is the lifeblood of our University and we uphold the right for everyone to openly express their views and opinions with respect and courtesy.” It is a pity that the lifeblood of Gaza’s children does not figure in the University’s calculations.
No doubt Oxford is not alone in this. Cambridge University Vice-Chancellor “has watched with mounting outrage the events unfolding in the wake of the Russian Federation’s invasion of Ukraine”, “strongly condemn[ing] this unprovoked act of war”.
In contrast, the Vice Chancellor speaks of “the humanitarian tragedy unfolding in Gaza”, as though it were an act of God and not a man-made tragedy. The tone is similar to Oxford’s, appealing as it does to “balancing rights and responsibilities during this difficult time”. Importantly, nowhere does the statement state that Israel is culpable, instead relying on the more neutral “tragic events”, the “loss of life”, and “the appalling destruction of educational institutions and infrastructure in Gaza.”
Why is this? There probably are a number of reasons. One of these is hinted at in both statements on the universities’ positions in relation to Gaza. The Oxford statement claims that due to student and staff concerns, the “University also accelerated a review of the current ban on direct investment in companies manufacturing arms that are illegal under UK law and in funds that primarily invest in such companies.”
In the case of Cambridge, student groups “have expressed a concern to us that our current investment may not be in line with our institutional values, especially in relation to the arms/defense industry.”
Is it possible that both universities have invested in industries that are complicit in the genocide of the Palestinian people, and that this investment has made both universities reluctant to apportion blame?
Of course, Oxford and Cambridge universities are not alone. No doubt other universities have made guarded statements in relation to the ‘crisis in Gaza’. No doubt a variety of statements have been made, ranging from condemnation of Israeli actions (the Rector of St Andrews University, in a statement, condemned Israeli actions as “genocidal attacks”) to the soft diplomatic language by Oxford and Cambridge.
As a student of history, I look for patterns and would suggest the following: the closer the links with Israeli institutions and industries, the more restrained the language will be in relation to Gaza. Conversely, the weaker the links, the more unambiguous the condemnations.
University response, no doubt, is susceptible to other factors, including the potential loss of income from students who become increasingly aware of Israeli crimes (difficult to hide, given their enormity) or the threat of continuing student encampments.
It is possible to imagine that students who are, in some way, aware of the links between their university and the arms industry would be indignant, even angry, that their hard-earned money would contribute to this. After all, it seems as though universities have set out principles that guide what they invest in, like the Cambridge University Endowment Trustee Body (CUETB), which oversees the Cambridge University Endowment Fund (CUEF). Cambridge University may not be living up to its principles in at least two ways: in its commitment to promoting ‘good governance’ and to aligning with ‘net-zero’ greenhouse gas emissions.
How then can we encourage universities to divest from companies that may have blood on their hands? The fact that Oxford and Cambridge are reconsidering their investment portfolio is a reflection of pressure from below: the University Council at Oxford is due to consider the review findings “later this year”, while Cambridge “commit(s) to working with a Task Force” and “a Working Group to review [its] approach to responsible investment” (though one would be hard-pressed to understand exactly how Cambridge intends to review their approach given the various bodies it intends to establish, not to mention the fact that this pledge was made last year but features in a September 2025 update).
My suggestion – and one which would rely on the participation of others – is for university advisers in secondary schools to inform prospective students about a given university’s decisions, especially those that have an ethical dimension. Of course, the decision as to whether or not to apply to a university has to lie with the prospective pupil, just like it is ultimately up to a customer to decide what product to buy. However, this does not mean that, as advisers, we ought to keep our mouths shut; in fact, it could be argued that we have a special responsibility to communicate all aspects of a university’s profile to prospective pupils (it could happen that the student runs afoul of a given university’s regulations on peaceful protests, for example).
As a university adviser in an IB World School, I have a responsibility to uphold the International Baccalaureate’s mission statement: to develop “inquiring, knowledgeable, and caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through education.”
It is, in fact, possible to help create a worse and less peaceful world through education, if by education we mean paying tuition fees to a university complicit in human rights abuses. This is why I propose that, as university advisers, we ask that universities make a ‘responsible investment’ pledge. If you are interested in helping me, please contact me at my email address below. Together, we can signal to universities that their decisions have consequences.
