Rosenberg ’30: Ending study abroad to Israel would be putting politics above education

On Oct. 10, Brown Students for Justice in Palestine officially launched their campaign to end the University’s study abroad programs in Israel during their Rally for Palestine. The University generally approves five study abroad programs in Israel, and Brown’s Global Risk Assessment Committee reviews all travel to Israel on a case-by-case basis according to the security situation at the time of application. Despite the fact that no undergraduate study abroad in Israel has been approved since October 2023 because of safety concerns, its decision to keep these programs underscores an important distinction: temporarily restricting travel for safety reasons is not the same as permanently eliminating educational opportunities through an institutional boycott. 

Studying abroad should encourage students to confront complexities rather than avoid them. Eliminating opportunities for students to study in Israel would not make those complexities disappear, but remove an excellent avenue for students to begin to understand what is happening. 

The very purpose of studying abroad is to give students new perspectives and experiences. Given the divisive and polarizing nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel is one of the most productive places to do this. I’m currently taking Arabic, I already speak Hebrew and I’m considering a concentration in Middle East Studies. In summer 2025, I had the opportunity to intern in Israel with the Ethiopian National Project, which was an experience that taught me more about the complexities of Israeli society than I could have from a distance. Through my work reading and editing immigration narratives, participating in meetings with community leaders and government representatives and cultivating partnerships with organizations, I developed a nuanced understanding of how questions of immigration, integration and identity shape the experiences of Ethiopian Israelis. I chose to learn Arabic because understanding the Middle East requires engaging with the languages and perspectives of the people who live there. With my goal of understanding the Middle East, there are simply parts of my education I cannot get on College Hill. 

The five programs Brown generally approves in Israel promote this intercultural understanding. For instance, at the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies, students participate in peace-building seminars beyond their coursework that are designed to encourage dialogue across political, religious and cultural differences. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem has a year-long exchange program focused on Israeli-Palestinian relations. In her recent op-ed, Brown alum Ellen Ginsberg Simon ’00 recalled working with Palestinian professors and visiting religious sites that hold value for a wide range of faith communities. Of course, these exchanges do not resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But they allow students to engage directly with a depth and diversity of viewpoints that we can’t get on College Hill.

Studying abroad in Israel does not necessarily mean accepting or endorsing the policies of the Israeli government. Each of Brown’s approved programs allows students to engage critically with the conflict and develop relationships with people who have been affected. Even just having the option to do so shows Brown’s commitment to the discourse that will help end the conflict, and not the one-sided displays that only exacerbate political animus. 

Restricting Brown students’ access to study abroad limits their academic opportunities in ways that have nothing to do with politics. Brown’s Warren Alpert Medical School offers an international medical exchange program that allows fourth-year medical students to complete clinical rotations at universities abroad, including Tel Aviv University and Technion-Israel Institute of Technology. Ending such partnerships would cripple Brunonians’ opportunities to learn from professionals and experts whose innovations and ideas have shaped industries around the world. 

There is an important difference between a student-led boycott of Israeli programs and an institutional ban. No student should be compelled by Brown to study anywhere, and likewise, no student’s academic options should be limited by the University taking sides in an international conflict. Brown’s voice is powerful. It should be used to protect an intellectual environment where competing viewpoints and respectful debate is valued, not subject to intimidation. 

This practice of institutional neutrality is essential to protecting academic freedom and ensuring that students can engage with different perspectives without the University endorsing one over another. Universities should be places where students are encouraged to question ideas, challenge their own beliefs and make independent conclusions. When an institution like Brown takes a political stance, it risks discouraging disagreement and undermining the intellectual independence that Universities are supposed to foster. Brown’s 2025 Statement of University Values and Voice reinforces this ethos. That commitment to institutional neutrality is consistent with the University’s decisions against divestment. Following that 2024 decision, Chancellor Brian Moynihan ’81 P’14 P’19 and President Christina Paxson P’19 P’MD’20 wrote in a letter to members of the Brown community that divestment would “signal to our students and scholars that there are ‘approved’ points of view to which members of the community are expected to conform.” If the University believes that changing the status quo constitutes a statement, then consistency demands that changing its current study abroad policy would similarly constitute an endorsement. Brown must maintain these opportunities for academic exploration to allow students to make their own decisions about where and what to study without being subject to leadership’s political positions.