Published: 16 July 2025
Last updated: 16 July 2025
In response to a recent university lecture, which framed the Israel-Gaza conflict through a one-sided lens, I wrote a letter to my tutor to shed light on the Jewish-Israeli narrative and open a conversation.
Publishing this letter now, my intention is to reflect on the act of speaking out: why we must voice discomfort when narratives are excluded, and how we can do so with both compassion and conviction, even when it’s difficult.
This piece is not an attack on my university nor my tutor — who has welcomed my letter with generosity — but a call to uphold academia as a space for ethical, rigorous and plural dialogue.
Dear university tutor,
I want to thank you for an inspiring semester. As my time at university concludes, I'm glad to have taken part in three of your units, all guided by your knowledge, wisdom and passion for literature and the arts.
Thank you for providing me with an opportunity to reflect on your recent lecture. I would like to share with you some of my considerations regarding the content of your lecture, especially the current conflict in Israel-Gaza, and its relation to the limitations imposed on academic freedom and thought. I am hoping to open a conversation.
Addressing the notion of what it means to write, publish and read in the socio-political climate today, you brought to light the main provocation: What does one write against?
You spoke about writing as a form of resistance to the “pattern of the neat arc”. You highlighted that stories themselves can become too polished, too persuasive, and can obscure the messy, unfinished, contradictory nature of reality. When we ask people to tell us a story of their experience, we may be asking them to “smooth” out their perception, to make it legible in familiar terms.
Comments2
Ian Bowie17 July at 07:17 am
There is a debate to be had about the way in which we use words whose meanings cannot be precise in common usage. Alas, few of us have the precise understanding that Humpty Dumpty did when he said “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less”. So, when we use words that are ‘charged’ in the manner of, say, ‘genocide’ we need to be aware of the context to understand it. If that context conveys a legally defined meaning, understand that few of your hearers will be legally trained. Most chat about ‘genocide’ has the same weight as, say, describing Hitler as ‘insane’, it’s just chat unless it is a professional judgment.
Stephi16 July at 10:43 am
This is a strong letter and underlines that a much more difficult and open dialogue is needed in classrooms and lectures at this time.