31stYingshi In March, The New York Times reported on nurse Hesen Jabr, who was fired for using the word genocide when referring to Gaza during an awards ceremony speech. A labor and delivery nurse herself, she said in accepting the award: “It pains me to see the unimaginable loss that women in my country have suffered during the current genocide in Gaza…even though I cannot hold their hands and comfort them. “They grieve for their unborn children and the children they lost during this genocide, and I hope to continue to make them proud as I continue to represent them at NYU,” Jabr said last December. was warned not to raise her “views on this divisive and alleging issue” in the workplace. Many of Jabr’s colleagues attended the ceremony, “some of whom were upset by her comments. As a result, Jabr is no longer an NYU Langone employee,” the spokesperson said.
We can deduce many things from the above. First, Jabr may be a very good employee because she is rewarded for her work. Secondly, it pained her to see so many Palestinian women losing their born and unborn children. As a midwife, she may be concerned about this issue. Third, her use of the word “genocide” to refer to what is happening in Gaza is consistent with the views of hundreds of genocide scholars and international rights bodies who either believe that genocide is already occurring or follow the International Court of Justice’s decision Warning of possible genocide. Fourth, the hospital considered her remarks “divisive and accusatory.” Her words upset “some of her colleagues” and therefore her dismissal was legal. As some of Jabr’s colleagues were upset, Jabr was literally left out and lost his job.
When I saw this article, it reminded me of an article I wrote myself a few months ago. In it, I recount how I have personally witnessed people (mainly in higher education institutions) using the argument that we should avoid using the word “genocide” because it may harm some people. In this article, I was struck by the fact that how “some” people feel is considered more important than talking about the actual killings and human rights violations of other people.
One argument for suppressing events and speech about Palestine, on college campuses, and other workplaces is that concern for “inclusion” has been on the rise over the past few years. Many employers are developing policies and programs related to D&I (diversity and inclusion), DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) or DEIB (diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging). Although there is not a definition in the literature for the “inclusion” part of these methods, in my research on this topic I came across two main foci. Some inclusion policies focus on emotions and the importance of creating a work environment where individuals and groups feel welcome, respected and valued, and are fully engaged. Other definitions focus more on structural inclusion, where employers ensure equal opportunities so that employees have full and equal access to decision-making and information. Some methods combine the two.
In the two examples I mentioned above, that of Nurse Practitioner Jabr and my own observations in academic institutions, the focus of employers/managers/policy makers seems to be on the first definition and completely ignores the Two definitions. The fact that some employees feel upset or hurt threatens this sense of inclusion, and to ensure that they feel a sense of belonging in inclusion, it is reasonable to silence other employees or even fire them. How ironic that, when it comes to Palestine, inclusion of some leads to the exclusion of others, yet policymakers seem unaffected by this exclusion.
But does this mean that employees always have the right to speak out and should never be excluded? of course not. Most institutions and workplaces have codes of ethics and publicly declare that they support and adhere to international conventions and human rights documents. Most employers will say they will not tolerate hate speech, including racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination. When a co-worker uses a racial slur against another co-worker or a group of people, workplace ethics rules should push back on this exclusionary language and hold that person accountable.
However, the question is, does calling the killing, maiming and starvation of thousands of Palestinians genocide constitute racist and exclusionary language? Or is it the other way around – is silencing those who criticize an ongoing genocide itself an exclusionary and often racist act? I think it’s the latter. If workplaces, including hospitals and universities, were serious about “inclusion,” they would ensure that spaces were created to discuss, mourn, and criticize the gross human rights violations committed by Palestinians. Even — or especially — when it makes some people uncomfortable.
Further reading on electronic international relations
