The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement is an international political campaign – consisting of numerous NGOs and activists – aimed at delegitimizing, isolating, and ultimately dismantling Israel. While attempting to frame itself as a social justice movement, the BDS movement employs tactics of diplomatic, financial, professional, academic, and cultural isolation to pressure governments, companies, universities, churches, and individuals to dissociate from Israel and any individual or institution associated with Israel. It advocates for divestment from Israeli companies and those doing business with Israel, boycotts of Israeli academics and universities, and the cessation of military and economic aid to Israel. The movement also opposes efforts to foster cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians, claiming such interactions “normalize” Israel’s existence.
Over time, the link between the BDS movement and antisemitism has grown. One study in 2016 found that “one of the strongest predictors of perceiving a hostile climate toward both Israel and Jews is the presence of an active Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) group on campus.” SJP is viewed as “the leading student arm” of the BDS movement in the US. Another study in 2017 found that “BDS-supporting speaker-events promote anti-Zionist expression by students, which in turn contributes to a campus climate hostile to Jewish students.” Even the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief issued a report in 2019 that acknowledged the link.
At Johns Hopkins University, the leading group using this tactic of political warfare against Israel is the Hopkins Justice Collective (HJC). Allegedly founded “as a coalition of student organizations,” they describe themselves as a “collective of students, affiliates, and alumni… and the community members directly impacted by this institution.” Their mission has centered on a very divisive agenda aimed at dismantling the University’s connections to Israel and its broader institutional practices. Central to their demands, in addition to accusing the University of supporting “illegal Israeli occupation” and labeling Israel as an “apartheid state,” is a call for an end to university investments and partnerships they believe support these claims. In addition, they demand complete transparency regarding the University’s alleged investments in Israel, defense contractors, and military research, advocating for immediate divestment. Their mission from the very beginning was never merely about divestment. Instead, their mission has been about advancing a heavily politized and antagonistic narrative targeting Israel.
As part of their earliest efforts, HJC supported a protest on March 11 organized by Hopkins Students for Palestine. Around twenty students gathered to demand that the University divest from defense contractors supplying the Israeli Defense Forces, including Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. Participants who spoke to the Johns Hopkins Newsletter even admitted that the event was designed to reignite waning attention to the situation in the Gaza Strip.
On April 24, HJC coordinated a protest alongside other campuses nationwide to continue calling for divestment. Unlike the March 11 protest, this event included hundreds of students and community members. It was also jointly organized alongside the University’s SJP branch and Hopkins Students for Palestine. Their demands extended to severing ties between the Bloomberg School of Public Health and Tel Aviv University. At the time, the University clarified that no formal request for divestment had been submitted through the Public Interest Investment Advisory Committee (PIIAC), the proper channel for such proposals.
The situation escalated on April 29, when the Palestine Solidarity Encampment (PSE) was established on the Homewood Campus. In their press release, HJC accused the University of being financially and academically complicit in what it calls an “ongoing Palestinian genocide,” presenting the University’s partnerships with defense contractors and Israeli institutions and its receipt of US Department of Defense funding as direct contributions to the “violence” and “apartheid” in Palestine. The encampment outlined the following demands targeting the University’s operations: divestment, disclosure, boycott, and demilitarization. An additional one, however, explicitly called for the University to acknowledge “the current genocide and ongoing occupation of Palestine” and call for a permanent ceasefire.
The PSE lasted until May 12, when an agreement was reached between the University and HJC. In an official statement, the University stated that protesters agreed to dismantle the encampment in exchange for the University’s promise to review HJC’s divestment petition through PIIAC. In their press release, HJC highlighted their dissatisfaction with the terms of the agreement, describing the University’s accelerated timeline for the PIIAC’s process as “morally outrageous.” Nevertheless, the PIIAC reconvened following the submission of the HJC/PSE divestment proposal, holding its first meeting on June 28 and aiming to decide by the end of March 2025.
On January 16, the PIIAC issued its final report in response to the HJC/PSE divestment proposal. After a thorough process involving ten meetings and analysis of several perspectives over six months, the PIIAC concluded that the proposal did not meet the high bar for divestment and voted 15-1 to decline it, citing several reasons. The most noteworthy ones were that the proposal did not garner broad support from the community of over 300,000 members and that the University’s indirect holdings in the targeted companies constituted only 0.0012% of their market value. HJC responded by characterizing the PIIAC’s decision as dismissive, contradictory, and emblematic of broader systemic issues within the University. They also alleged that the PIIAC secretly declined the proposal two months before publicly releasing the report.
The University demonstrated remarkable consideration in entertaining the HJC/PSE divestment proposal, dedicating months to a rigorous review process through the PIIAC. For HJC to dismiss this effort as “a stain in Hopkins history” and accuse the University of “blatant secrecy” is a glaring display of ingratitude. Instead of respecting a fair process, they have decided to double down on divisive rhetoric and baseless accusations. Hopkins has shown that it will not succumb to the BDS movement. The time has come for HJC and the rest of the BDS Circus to accept the decision, pack up their tent, and leave the stage.
Edited By: Joseph Schneider