This essay was originally sent to The Guardian for consideration as a guest op-ed piece, but was mutually agreed upon to be published as an individual response to the events of May 6th and the encampment. Professor Allan Havis is in his 35th year on the faculty at UCSD, previously having been a Marshall College provost (2006-2016) and the Theatre & Dance Dept Chair (2018-2020). He is currently the Jewish Studies Faculty Director and a Professor of Playwriting.

The turmoil and unrest this academic year at UC San Diego and on so many campuses in our nation has challenged us, perhaps, in historic proportions. The tragedy spiraling from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has confounded many of the most astute peace negotiators, political leaders, scholars, theologians, and media commentators. Countless university presidents and chancellors have been tested on their moral sensibilities governing the rights to free speech, the rights to protest publicly, and protecting the principles of community. What has been gravely missing over the last eight months on our campuses is a civil, respectful, and lucid dialogue that might be anchored by global memory. After the 1947 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 which proposed an Arab sovereignty and a Jewish sovereignty, the Oslo Accords (1993 and 1995) were the most compelling efforts to bring the Palestinian people on a path to nationhood and ensure a two-state solution for the region.  Last November, the New York Times had published a complex Oslo Accords conversation regarding a realistic, negotiated settlement. Last month, the Union Tribune posted my Op/Ed essay addressing the performative elements of political protest. Last night, I dreamt that our chancellor had four students over for dinner. The topic was the Oslo Accords and everyone at the table had researched the matter thoroughly. UCSD TV was present, but there were no theatrics. Two students argued why Yasser Arafat and Ahmed Qurei were disappointed with the settlement terms. The other two students highlighted their positive views on Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin. The chancellor moderated the discussion and spoke about the 1995 assassination of Israel’s Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the 1981 assassination of Egyptian’s President Anwar Sadat. Because the dinner conversation opened possibilities regarding commonalities and the end to violence, the chancellor decided to host more dinners— again, recorded by UCSD TV.  Our campus had the benefit to watch the monthly broadcasted dialogue. It was a very good dream for a realm of what could happen now.

This essay asks for two opposing sides to work towards a respectful, and lucid dialogue over many sessions that might be anchored by shared global memory and factual history. This CBS posting two days ago leans in the hopeful spirit of shared discourse. In the entire academic year on our campus and most campuses in our nation, I could not discern any platform building towards a civil forum and relying on key historical moments over 75 years.