On Aug. 13, Students for Justice in Palestine posted an infographic on Instagram detailing the professional history of Yael Grushka-Cockayne, the new dean of the Darden School of Business. Following the post, numerous individuals, including a columnist within The Cavalier Daily, have critiqued the details of SJP’s post. The uproar and dismissal of SJP’s valid criticism of Grushka-Cockayne’s new leadership role reflects an absurd ignorance of Grushka-Cockayne’s troubling CV, and particularly her involvement with the Israel Defense Forces.
Much of the resulting discourse has focused on whether Grushka-Cockayne’s professional history constitutes direct involvement in Israeli state violence and if SJP’s language was sufficiently precise. However, what has been overlooked is the fundamental understanding of this critique. Any leader deserves scrutiny for their professional past, regardless of their background and especially if they have ties to brutal military-industrial complexes through the IDF. It is no surprise that students are questioning the standards the University applies in deciding who gets to lead its institutions. Furthermore, students — particularly those directly affected by the genocide and other actions of the Israeli state — are justified in scrutinizing a University leader’s past because holding a position of institutional authority makes those affiliations relevant to the students they represent.
We routinely expect University leaders to be accountable for their professional histories, affiliations and public positions. Why should that standard disappear when the institution that the leader is involved in is the IDF?
The University asks students, faculty and University administrators to demonstrate not only academic or professional excellence but also judgment, integrity and responsibility. On Aug. 25, Josh Hawkins' commentary on SJP’s post notes that Grushka-Cockayne should be evaluated on measurable standards, insinuating that ethical standards are secondary. This raises the obvious question of deciding what counts as a measurable standard. Is a candidate's history with a foreign military irrelevant? Is their relationship to a government guilty of systematic human rights abuses suddenly unrelated to their work in academia? It should not shock Hawkins that students do not want to accept a University's administrative decision without questioning the values and morals of the new leadership — a measurable standard in itself. The University's responsibility is not merely to hire people capable of doing their jobs. It is also to ensure that those entrusted with institutional power can gain the trust of the communities they serve.
A counterargument to the basis of SJP’s post is that criticism of Grushka-Cockayne’s IDF service is anti-semitic and irrelevant to her potential as the new dean. This could not be more false, as criticizing an individual’s professional history is not inherently criticizing their nationality. Nationality is something a person is born into, but participation in or support for political and military institutions involves choices and positions that can be scrutinized. Moreover, the argument that “every Israeli will serve” does not end the conversation. Conscription does not mean every Israeli holds identical beliefs about the state or military, given that there have been individuals who criticize, resist or distance themselves from Israeli military policy.
Even when military service is compulsory, an individual's subsequent public statements and relationship to that service remain subject to scrutiny — particularly when that service is on behalf of an apartheid state and becomes part of their professional identity. In fact, Grushka-Cockayne has stated her support in previous interviews, saying her experience in the IDF sharpened her instincts around leadership under uncertainty. It is perplexing how participation in a violent army correlates to the ability to lead the upcoming generations. In short, SJP’s post discusses Grushka-Cockayne’s military service in the IDF, as it is part of her publicly available and publicly discussed professional history — not just because she is Israeli.
SJP’s post focuses on the IDF's disgusting practices, whose modus operandi is to target Palestinians, including but not limited to sniping, starving and raping Palestinians both in Gaza and the West Bank. Yes, when you partake in this military, you should be expected to, at the very least, denounce those actions and make it clear you do not align yourself with what the IDF perpetrates on a daily basis. Grushka-Cockayne has not done so. Furthermore, SJP did not criticize a random faculty member who happens to be Israeli. Rather, SJP’s critique is rooted in Grushka-Cockayne’s pride in her participation in the IDF, having earned and clearly displayed on her CV the President of Israel Outstanding Officer Award in 1995. Grushka-Cockayne’s public display of this award is aligned with dignity in serving an army that has been targeting Palestinians for decades.
The issue is not just that Grushka-Cockayne served in the military. It is that she served in an institution with a deeply contested and extensively documented record of violence against Palestinians, has not denounced the actions of the IDF and now serves as the new face of Darden.
Students do not need to prove that Grushka-Cockayne personally committed a war crime before they can question whether she deserves to be named dean of Darden. That is precisely where Hawkins' framing becomes counterproductive. By turning SJP's criticism into an accusation of individual criminality, he avoids the question of why the University itself ignored this part of Grushka-Cockayne’s history. Whether or not Grushka-Cockayne personally committed a war crime is not what makes her appointment worthy of scrutiny. The question is whether her documented participation in and support for a military accused of vile abuses should matter when evaluating her suitability to lead one of the University’s institutions.
SJP’s criticism made some uncomfortable, angry and irritated. But discomfort should not be a reason to dismiss the questions it raises. If the University demands high moral standards from its students, why does it erase this expectation for a dean who served in one of the most bloodthirsty modern militaries?
Ayat Younis is an opinion columnist who writes about academics for The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com.
The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of The Cavalier Daily. Columns represent the views of the authors alone.
Read More
ELJAZZAR: Do not be fooled by the Vanderbilt Report
By Farah Eljazzar | 2 days agoA report chaired by a philosopher that aims to invoke objective inquiry is hypocritically holding itself to a lower evidentiary standard than it criticizes.
GARVIE: Fighting the sustainability fight requires an army
By Adeline Garvie | 2 days agoIn order for these students’ sustainability actions to reach a broader sphere of attention, green practices need to be encouraged and attainable, both of which can be achieved with increased advocacy.
HASNAIN: Virginia must be for all lovers
By Zehra Hasnain | 4 days agoAccording to various bumper stickers, t-shirts and other state gift-shop paraphernalia, Virginia is for lovers — yet the state constitution begs to differ.
