On the morning of Dec. 4, 2024, GU-Q students stood shoulder to shoulder in the hallway outside 1A04, where the US Ambassador of Qatar, Timmy Davis, was invited for exclusive class discussions. Donning Kufiyyas and Palestinian symbols, they carried posters with statements saying, “The US is complicit in genocide.” This protest followed an official objection statement issued by the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) club at GU-Q, which was displayed in the Red Square the previous day, along with many QR codes exposing the unhidden US notorious crimes in the Middle East.
The SJP objects to the presence of an official representative of the United States on campus, as many students have been directly impacted by US interventions in their countries. They issued a statement condemning the visit and demanded that GU-Q reconsider its invitation. When no action was taken, they organized a peaceful protest to explicitly express their rejection of the Ambassador’s presence.
This class visit is particularly provocative, especially since the class is about foreign policy formulation. The presence of a US representative, whose country is relentlessly supporting Israel, a state of genocide and violations of international human rights laws, brings into question the values being taught. If this institution aims to produce leaders with humanity, empathy, and conscience, and if we want to produce leaders who break the continuous cycle of injustice that our world is going through, maybe this was not the appropriate guest to invite.
The protest concluded with a speech by the ambassador, described by the protesters as “the most diplomatic speech ever.” He expressed that he felt and heard the protesters and wished he had the chance to listen to them and learn what they wanted. One of the protesters suggested he visit the compound in Qatar where many injured Gazans live. The ambassador’s simple answer was, “Yes.” The protester later commented that this diplomatic but seemingly meaningless response was expected.
The SJP community organizer clarified that the protest was not intended to compel the ambassador to take any action. Instead, it was a simple act of objection and condemnation of the ambassador’s country and a rejection of his visit. This protest serves as a documented proof of students’ sentiment, which is often disregarded in decision-making processes.
The ambassador's high level of diplomatic behavior explains why he was invited to the classroom. However, it raises the question of whether we need more individuals who offer words without actions in our classrooms. It challenges us to reflect on the culture of our institution and whether it aligns with the values we aspire to instill in our students.
While the ambassador’s visit sparked controversy, it also highlighted the passion and activism of GU-Q students. Their protest serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of standing up for one’s beliefs and the need for educational institutions to consider the diverse perspectives of their student body while making decisions.
Comments