The Tartan

By Tahaseen Shaik

Editorials featured in the Forum section are solely the opinions of their individual authors.

It has been 183 days since the most recent iteration of the humanitarian crisis in Palestine commenced. Since then, I have struggled with depression and a healthy dose of survivor’s guilt. The ease at which the Carnegie Mellon community seems to have moved on from the conflict is concerning and prompts me to consider Carnegie Mellon’s responsibility and my role in processing the conflict.

There is no excuse for turning a blind eye to the immense human suffering happening in Palestine. There is no safe zone in Gaza — not even in hospitals. It is imperative that we at least afford the dying and dead the basic recognition that is undeniably theirs. Let me be very clear. Babies are being born dead due to low birth weight. Children are starving to death and crying over the smallest sip of broth. Women are being stripped and raped in public. Men are being declared terrorists and systematically brutalized. More than 30,000 Palestinians have been indiscriminately slaughtered and many more have been tortured and taken prisoner. One by one, aid organizations have been discredited and attacked to the point that they are rendered useless or forced to withdraw from Gaza — starting with the United Nations’ Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and most recently the World Central Kitchen. Yet, we are still tip-toeing around the issue by making subtle euphemisms.

Carnegie Mellon’s Deeper Conversations series was designed to respond to the Israel-Palestine conflict by providing context without taking a side. However, it appears that Carnegie Mellon’s approach has dehumanized the conflict down to theoretical “whys”. None of the recent lectures have begun with a moment of silence or words of reflection, which the Misinformation in Times of Conflict lecture from April 1 highlighted. Presenter Zeve Sanderson sprinkled in references to Palestine with minimal acknowledgement of the conflict’s true devastation. The focus of the lecture was so intensely theoretical that it was unable to do justice to the topic. I spoke with staff and students in attendance, and this was a common sentiment. The other lectures have similar shortcomings as previously discussed in The Tartan. 

Similarly, Speaker Amer Ahmed’s lecture on Islamophobia on Feb. 19 failed to meet its mark. In my time at Carnegie Mellon, this has been the only directed programming towards Muslims despite Islamophobia intensifying in our rhetoric. While it communicated the social context of Islamophobia, the lecture failed to provide any solutions to support Muslim students, staff, and faculty. 

As the ex-President of the Muslim Student Association, I can attest to the difficulty the organization has in securing funding, community spaces, and visibility. These points were easy pickings for a lecture intended to workshop solutions to Islamophobia. Given the timing of the lecture, it is crucial to represent Islamophobia as a serious and deadly threat.

When we are divided and silent, our divisions grow in bitterness and permanence. Regardless of political beliefs, I encourage the Tartan community to communicate in order to build back the basic foundations of trust in each other. It is vital that we set the tone on fundamental human rights and acceptable behavior on our campus. We should endeavor to hold weekly remembrances to those innocents slain. Laying flowers on the Cut together and taking a moment to remember together is the least we can do.

Despite my efforts, I feel more hopeless as the past few months haunt me. Watching the people of Gaza persevere every day gives me the inspiration I need to continue my fight from afar. And so I ask: what will it take for us to ALL recognize Palestinians as humans?