Dean Greteman sends a troubling message to the TU community.
On Oct. 13, Dean Blaine Greteman published a letter to the editor about a Sept. 29 horoscope, stating that he was disappointed to find several antisemitic tropes within it. After reading his article, there was an apparent need to respond, because the horoscope was clearly aimed at criticizing the state of Israel and not referring to Jewish people.
Dean Greteman’s criticism stems from the reference to “one blue, six-pointed star” that the author satirically claims is offering them lots of money to use their platform for pro-genocide propaganda. Israel is a genocidal state, as declared by many human rights organizations and the United Nations. The Jewish people are not committing a genocide. This very important distinction makes it clear that the horoscope was referencing the Israeli flag and not the Star of David as a religious symbol. Furthermore, the author later mentions being in Tel Aviv, which confirms the fact that their intention was to critique Israel, not to be antisemitic. The horoscope was clearly intending to critique the media for its one-sided coverage that often dehumanizes Palestinians and downplays the genocide that Israel is committing.
Dean Greteman’s response to the horoscope showcases the dangers behind conflating antisemitism with anti-Zionism. By conflating Israel and Judaism, the Jewish people become less safe because now their religion and identity become associated with a genocidal terror state. As a Muslim, I know that Judaism is a religion of peace. I believe in the Torah as it was originally revealed and have nothing but love for the Jewish faith. I also know, as a Muslim, how important it is to distinguish between terrorist groups and religion. When the media calls groups like Boko Haram and the Taliban “jihadists” or “Islamic terrorists,” I am heartbroken because Islam is a religion of peace. I distance myself from these groups even though I have no connection to them. It is not fair, but it is necessary in the face of widespread Islamaphobic media coverage associating my religion with violence and terrorism. Similary, I can only imagine that Jewish people are heartbroken to see the symbol of their religion, the Star of David, associated with genocide because of its presence on the Israeli flag.
It is important to consider the wider pattern here: the pro-Palestinian movement is often accused of antisemitism in order to discredit its true message — that they are against imperialism, colonialism, apartheid and genocide. The movement is rooted in political actions such as boycotts, divestment and political pressure, all of which are clearly framed against the Israeli state.
Dean Greteman asserts that The University of Tulsa commits itself to institutional neutrality, but in practice, there is no such thing. Universities are inherently political through their program partnerships, endowment investments, hiring decisions and donor agreements. For example, TU is switching its Human Resources services to Oracle, a company that actively supports the Israeli military both ideologically and financially. “Neutrality” is selectively invoked to silence some views while advancing others through policy and money. It functions as a rhetorical shield for the status quo — which, in this case, is the genocide that Israel has been committing for over two years in Gaza. Even if we were to ignore the fact that true neutrality cannot be achieved, how can we justify our university’s silence as Israel kills thousands of civilians, destroys entire neighborhoods and blockades Gaza? Even if silence in the face of mass atrocity may be considered neutral, it is undoubtedly an abdication of moral responsibility. The point of university is not to hover away from moral questions but to equip students to confront them openly. Staying “neutral” is not a sign of impartiality, but rather a silent betrayal of the mission of education.
