Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Did the Student Encampments Accomplish Anything?

News Feed
Tuesday, September 3, 2024

Mohammad Yassin’s parents had warned him away from politics. His father grew up in Lebanon during the civil war, when having the wrong opinion could get you killed. Yassin, who is Palestinian American, arrived at the University of Toronto four years ago with the intention of studying economics and statistics. He felt that Canada wasn’t his permanent home, and he distrusted existing political institutions, so he avoided involving himself in activism or student government. “I just kind of was like: Hey, I’m gonna put my head down and just study for my entire degree,” he told me, chain-smoking cigarettes in a keffiyeh and sunglasses.But when Hamas viciously attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, everything changed. Later that month, a group called U of T Conservatives organized a rally on campus to display “unwavering support for Israel against Hamas terrorism.” By then, Israel had begun its brutal war on Gaza, and word spread among Yassin’s peers that a counterprotest should be organized. Student groups supporting Palestinians were once vibrant on campus but had diminished in recent years, particularly since Covid. Yassin, who has a sardonic sense of humor and a calm demeanor, joined the counterrally, which drew around 200 people. Many were inspired to organize on an ongoing basis.After months of walkouts, rallies, and cultural events in support of Palestinians, on April 1, 26 students clad in keffiyehs and masks occupied Simcoe Hall, the seat of governance at the University of Toronto, demanding that the school divest from holdings in companies complicit in Israel’s siege. After 30 hours, they left, following an agreement to meet with the university president.The meeting, however, failed to satisfy them. A little over two weeks later, some 500 miles southeast, hundreds of protesters occupied the South Lawn of Columbia University. The pitched tents and mass of demonstrators were a lifeline for the Palestinian groups at U of T, who, like student groups around the world, took the Columbia encampments as inspiration for the next phase of their movement. Anticipating Yassin and his allies’ next move, U of T put up fencing along part of its campus called King’s College Circle, a patch of green space that had recently been renovated. But on May 2, Yassin and about 50 others with U of T Occupy for Palestine set up camp anyway, breaching the fence in the middle of the night. Soon allies just started showing up. “The first day was magical,” Yassin recalled. The group demanded that the university disclose its investments and divest from companies and universities associated with Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land. The school warned the students that they were trespassing on private property. Yassin’s group expected the university to expel them at any moment, certainly within a few days.But that didn’t happen. Toronto police declined to arrest the protesters, so at the end of May, U of T sought a court order to force the issue. For more than two months, the People’s Circle for Palestine operated as a miniature village in the heart of Canada’s largest city. Weeks after almost all encampments on campuses in the United States had been disbanded—Columbia’s lasted just under two weeks—this one continued to operate. Around 200 tents were pitched at one point or another, and many residents, like Yassin, slept there almost every night, returning home only to do some laundry or get the occasional decent rest.On July 2, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice finally granted the university’s injunction to clear out the encampment, which had lasted 62 days. Hours later, Yassin stood with other protest leaders to announce to the news cameras and journalists that they were disbanding the mini-village ahead of the deadline the next evening. That would enable them to leave on their terms and avoid being brutalized by police, he said. Behind him, tents with slogans written on them were still up. “This legal maneuver changes nothing,” he announced defiantly. “Make no mistake, our resolve is stronger than ever. We’ve said from day one that we will not leave this campus until U of T discloses, divests, and cuts ties. That commitment stands firm.”Soon after Yassin spoke, protesters began taking down the many signs on the fence surrounding the encampment. By 6 p.m. the next day, little evidence of the encampment remained, outside of people posing for photos in front of a papier-mâché olive tree with anti-Zionist slogans spray-painted on it. As the sun set, a man and a woman wearing an Israeli flag toppled the structure.The campus rallies against Israel constituted the largest protests at North American universities in the twenty-first century. According to the Crowd Counting Consortium, encampments were erected at more than 130 campuses, and many protests erupted at schools even before Columbia’s tents went up. In the United States, more than 3,600 people were arrested or detained during these campaigns. Encampments eventually spread to Australia, Western and Northern Europe, Latin America, and Asia, including even Israel itself, where some students erected a tent at Bezalel Academy, an art school.But by the summer, most of the protests had disappeared along with the tents, either removed by police or disbanded for the summer break. The Israeli government continues to kill thousands of Palestinians with little compunction, and the Biden administration continues arming it. Yassin is still worried about his family in Lebanon and his mother’s extended family in Gaza. Students who participated in the protests, allies who supported them, and critics who derided them as antisemitic are all left wondering: What did the once-in-a-generation mass protests accomplish? How will they influence the activism that may resume when the new academic year begins?Canada has typically had smooth relations with the Jewish state, but in the twenty-first century, the conservative government of Stephen Harper took it to a new level, marching in lockstep with Israel. That history of support is one reason that concern for Palestine has become commonplace on the left in Canada. And not just in Canada, obviously. Not since South Africa in the 1980s has a people captured the left-wing imagination as a symbol of global injustice. The irony is that this phenomenon is something of a reversal; Zionism was once considered a uniquely heroic cause among many of American left-liberalism’s most exalted figures. According to historian Eric Alterman, author of We Are Not One: A History of America’s Fight Over Israel, liberals and leftists from Eleanor Roosevelt (“The Jews in their own country are doing marvels and should, once the refugee problem is settled, help all the Arab countries,” she wrote) to Progressive Party leader Henry Wallace to Freda Kirchwey, editor of The Nation, saw Jews in Palestine as anti-imperialists battling the British Empire, which was manipulating the Arab states and squaring off against the Soviet Union with little care for the fate of Jews.From the 1940s until 1967, the Palestinians had few advocates in the Western world. They were still recovering after being driven out of their villages by Israel in 1947–1949 during the Nakba, or “catastrophe,” the Arabic term for the dispossession of Palestinians. “It’s very hard to organize politically when you don’t even have a roof over your head,” said Yousef Munayyer, a senior fellow at Arab Center Washington DC. Partly as a result, the myth that Palestinians left their homes voluntarily predominated in the United States.The 1967 Arab-Israeli War created a groundswell of support for Palestinians in the United States for the first time, particularly among radical Black intellectuals and activists. As Alterman explains, the Palestinians began to be seen as a “Third World nation,” deserving of sympathy like other non-Western peoples. But pro-Palestinianism remained a minority viewpoint in the civil rights movement, as more mainstream leaders like Martin Luther King and Bayard Rustin and organizations like the NAACP and the National Urban League issued statements in solidarity with Israel. In the 1970s, Palestinians garnered little institutional backing beyond the furthest left of groups, such as West German terrorists. “We have been unable to interest the West very much in the justice of our cause,” the Palestinian American literary critic and activist Edward Said lamented in his 1979 book, The Question of Palestine. That same year, when President Jimmy Carter secured a peace deal between Egypt and Israel, Palestinians’ anger at having their concerns ignored did little to dilute celebrations in the United States. But at the grassroots level, support for Palestinians had been emerging. It deepened during Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon and especially after the massacre at the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. It grew again with the first intifada, which began in 1987, and has since “grown gradually over time,” Alterman observed.Today, for people under 30 and those on the left around the world, Palestine has become a defining issue. Erin Mackey, who graduated from U of T this year, is a prime example. A Canadian American from Boston who came to Toronto because its university was cheaper than those in the states, she was active in campaigns to encourage the administration to divest from fossil fuels, which U of T announced it would do in October 2021. Mackey has the message discipline of a seasoned politician and is as polite in private as she is confrontational in public. The day we met, she was wearing overalls, her nails painted bright red. She sees a natural evolution from agitating against climate change to agitating against Israel. “I saw the links between climate justice and Palestinian liberation,” she explained, referring to Israel’s environmental destruction and its confiscation of land and water. In late October 2023, she and other activists began targeting the Royal Bank of Canada for both its funding of fossil fuel companies and its investments in the U.S. company Palantir, which sells AI surveillance technology to Israel. Once Arab and Palestinian students decided to construct the encampment, they asked Mackey, as someone trained in media outreach, for help. She soon became one of the most visible spokespeople for U of T Occupy for Palestine. “As someone who isn’t Palestinian, knowing my tuition dollars are going toward the genocide is horrifying,” she told me when we spoke at the encampment.The demographics at U of T Occupy for Palestine are suitably reflective of the changed landscape. Both Mackey and Yassin estimated that Palestinians or other Arabs made up only 60 percent of the people who were at the encampment; the remaining 40 percent were other people of color, Jews, and white leftists. A group called Jews Say No to Genocide maintained a constant presence, hosting weekly Shabbat dinners and absorbing the slurs of pro-Israel Jews who staged a counterprotest. The intellectual/activist Naomi Klein showed up once. But many of the signs and tents contained writing attesting to the personal connections individuals had with people in Gaza, citing relatives who have died or castigating Arabs for not sticking together. One encampment resident has had an unimaginable 26 members of their family killed in the Gaza Strip in the past year. “We’re not spectating,” Yassin said.If nothing else, the 2023–2024 protests showed that the constituency for the Palestinian cause has broadened significantly beyond the Arab- and Muslim-majority countries to which it was once confined. What’s more, the plight of the Palestinians has managed to push tens of thousands of people to publicly demonstrate in solidarity, sometimes at great personal risk and in violation of laws and school policies. “That signals not just a growth in the scale and scope of this thing, but also the depth of commitment to the cause, which, again, is at a new and unprecedented level,” Munayyer said. While conservatives and many Democratic Party politicians deride Palestinians as a nonexistent people, uniformly antisemitic, or congenitally prone to terrorism, such designations no longer have mass appeal beyond the right wing and an aging subset of Democrats.Younger generations, especially, see Israel’s repression as a straightforward question of right and wrong. Pew Research Center found that the number of adults under 30 who sympathized with Palestinians was twice the number who sympathized with Israelis, and the number who say the way Israel is fighting its war against Hamas is “unacceptable” is more than twice the number who say it’s “acceptable.” Young people have a more positive view of Palestinians than of Israelis, and the number who say Hamas’s reasons for fighting Israel are valid is slightly higher than the number who say they are not (notably, however, 58 percent of young people said Hamas’s October 7 massacre was unacceptable). Just 16 percent of young people favor the United States providing military aid to Israel. For Palestinians, who were once synonymous with terrorism in the Western imagination, this widespread support marks a staggering shift. The students holding signs and chanting in unison might eventually be seen as a harbinger of a changed Western approach to the role of Palestinians in the Middle East.But the levels of participation in protests over the last year should not be exaggerated either. For all the attention they received—and for all the anxiety they provoked among conservatives and in the Jewish establishment in the United States—only 8 percent of college students took part in demonstrations in support of either Palestinians or Israelis, according to a Generation Lab survey published on May 7. The Vietnam War–era protests with which the encampments have been compared far outstripped these figures and lasted for years. In May 1970 alone, more than four million students at around 900 campuses went on strike after National Guardsmen gunned down four students at Kent State University. The Gaza encampments “were really centered around student communities and the people you would be expecting to engage in these campus uprisings,” said Lisa Mueller, a political scientist at Macalester College who studies protest movements. The Vietnam antiwar movement “far transcended students and people on the left.” Moving beyond protests that are largely drawing on the left would signal to potential supporters and elites that the movement can be a force for a pressure and not just confined to a fringe, but it remains to be seen whether the pro-Palestinian elements in the West can make it happen.Similarly, while young people are more sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians than their older counterparts are, they are generally less likely to be politically active and engaged than their elders, rendering their sentiments less impactful. People who are under 30 years of age vote in smaller numbers than their elders, feel less informed about candidates and issues than others, believe they’re unqualified to participate in politics, donate less money to political campaigns, and run for office in far fewer numbers. And while young people hold far more pro-Palestinian sentiments than others, that does not necessarily translate into a concentrated bloc powerful enough to alter U.S. policy. The same polls showing the sea change in how younger generations perceive the Israeli- Palestinian conflict reveal that they care most about the same issues that older people do: the cost of living, access to good-paying jobs, and preventing gun violence. “Particularly in a democratic society, there are electoral pressures for elected leaders and candidates to heed the demands and grievances of diverse potential voters,” Mueller said. “I haven’t seen that happen so much yet.”Of course, the usual apathy and cynicism of younger voters are precisely what make the campus protests so unusual. Every organizer knows how difficult it is to get people into the streets for an afternoon, let alone for days or weeks. On day 56 of the camp, Mackey told me, “I don’t think anybody thought we would get here.” After negotiating with the administration the first week, U of T Occupy for Palestine settled in for a long haul. They got trespassing notices and were threatened with expulsion and suffered through rainy nights, hail, and extreme heat. Still they stayed. “This is just a piece of a much broader movement,” Mackey said.Indeed, when Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris selected Minnesota’s Tim Walz as her running mate in August, there was wide speculation that she had passed over Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro because of his insulting comments about the protesters and his arguably greater fondness for Israel. If this calculation played a role in Harris’s choice, it would mean the students had influenced politics at the highest level.At U OF T Occupy for Palestine, five people sat on chairs at the entrance, screening people going in and out. “You Are Entering The People’s Circle For Palestine,” a sign read. One tent held a library with a few hundred books; other tents served variously as the kitchen, a space for art, and a prayer room. Solar panels generated energy for phone chargers. The camp lasted so long that some participants left for trips abroad and returned to a still ongoing project. At the final rally after the encampment was dismantled, about 2,000 Torontonians marched downtown to celebrate and mourn what had unexpectedly lasted for two months. “We galvanized an entire city,” Yassin told me. “We opened a lot of people’s eyes.” Mackey, similarly, believes that the protests persuaded some students who were either indifferent or hostile to the Palestinian cause. “I’ve seen it in my own life,” she told me. “The divide is definitely closing against genocide.”The Gaza encampments garnered copious media attention. As University of California at Berkeley political scientist Omar Wasow said, the “campus protests elevated the issue of the war in Gaza and some of the inequities in the war onto the national agenda.” This is no small thing, because even as Israel kills unfathomable numbers of Palestinians—more than 40,000 at the time of this writing—it is easy to imagine the slaughter falling off the front pages. “They’ve succeeded in raising consciousness broadly in America and Canada among everyday citizens who may not be following the war in Israel and Palestine closely,” argued Mira Sucharov, a political scientist at Carleton University in Ottawa.But attracting attention to a cause is not the same thing as persuading people of its justice, let alone its urgency. On the level of broader public opinion, the number of Americans who opposed the Gaza student protests was twice the number who supported them, and the vast majority of survey respondents backed Israel over Hamas. Even worse, a poll conducted in mid-June found that Americans were as likely to say the protests made them sympathize less with the Palestinians than to say the opposite. In March, the Canadian government halted arms sales to Israel after Parliament passed a nonbinding resolution, but this was before the U of T encampment began. Canadians were no friendlier to the campus protests than Americans were. Generally speaking, the encampments raised public awareness of the huge numbers of deaths in Gaza, but that didn’t translate into encouragement or assistance to the cause.Of course, protests can galvanize change even when unpopular. But they can just as easily be ignored, contained, or trigger a backlash. That reality is one of the risks protesters take when they employ maximalist rhetoric. U of T Occupy for Palestine was constructed to accommodate small tents, but it was unconcerned with building a larger one. The fence that encircled King’s College Circle was plastered with signs, some of which testified to the immense violence that Israel has unleashed in Gaza, quoting Palestinian children who have been orphaned, or referencing mothers who have been made childless. Other posters simply had drawings of Palestinian flags or declarations of solidarity from non-Palestinians. Such placards might be divisive, but they can’t reasonably be perceived as dangerous.Other signs were more ambiguous, praising Palestinian “martyrs” and calling for a “student intifada.” These could be read as calls for indiscriminate violence of the kind Hamas perpetrated on October 7, or they could be considered, as organizers claim they are intended, as general (but not necessarily violent) cheers for rebellion. And indeed, polls showed that slogans were heard differently by different audiences. Two-thirds of Jewish university students heard the ubiquitous chant “From the River to the Sea” as calling for the expulsion and genocide of Israeli Jews, while only 14 percent of Muslim students heard it that way, according to a University of Chicago poll. The Muslim students believed it was a chant for the equality of Jews and Palestinians in one state, or for a two-state solution. While the forcefulness and vagueness of these pro-Palestine slogans may seem sinister to some, the reality may be more banal. “It’s a matter of wanting to be concise,” Sucharov told me. “It’s a matter of wanting to center the Palestinian experience.” In the same way that some people incorrectly perceive the slogan “Black Lives Matter” as suggesting that other human lives are less valuable, so do Palestinians use slogans with meanings they understand but that may be unclear or offensive to others, she said.Of course, one difference is that some elements of Hamas do mean the slogans in the darkest possible sense, hoping for more violence against Israeli civilians to the point that the state itself is destroyed and its people either subjugated, expelled, or killed. In his ruling granting the University of Toronto the injunction to remove the encampment, the Ontario Superior Court judge absolved the organizers of antisemitism. “The automatic conclusion that those phrases are antisemitic is not justified,” he wrote about the ambiguous phrases. These determinations by the court were greatly appreciated by U of T Occupy for Palestine, which had routinely been accused of being a hate-fest. (One professor had written in Canada’s National Post newspaper that “the encampments are led by pro-Hamas advocates who are seeking to justify Islamist terrorism by normalizing antisemitism.”)But while the ruling absolved the organizers of antisemitism, it also clarified that at rallies where pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel protesters squared off, unambiguously antisemitic phrases were directed at Jews. These included comments such as “Death to the Jews,” “We need another holocost [sic],” and “Jews belong in the sea.” The judge noted that none of those comments were uttered by organizers like Yassin or Mackey, nor even any of the encampment occupants, but community members who were adjacent to the encampment. Organizers erased antisemitic phrases when they were written in chalk outside the camp. But the reality is that excising antisemitic elements is a constant requirement for pro-Palestinian activists and will grow increasingly important as the movement attracts new adherents, some of whom will inevitably want to target Jews. Again and again at protests against Israel’s destruction of Gaza, antisemitism reared its ugly head. The presence of bigotry at these events suggests how easily demands for unnamed forms of rebellion can shade into justifications for violence.Antisemitic acts skyrocketed in Canada in late 2023 and 2024, as they did in the United States and around the world. In Toronto, synagogues, businesses, and day schools were defaced with graffiti, a synagogue was set on fire, and Jewish students reported rampant antisemitism at U of T and other schools. U of T Occupy for Palestine wasn’t responsible for these acts, which terrified much of the Jewish community and influenced how the public perceived the protests, and the organizers didn’t seem to care much about any of that. The tents inside the encampment had catchphrases like FUCK ALL ZIOS written on them, short for “Zionists.” But there is a thin line between opposing Zionism and cultivating hatred against Zionists, and such rhetoric thins the line even more. In our conversation, Yassin spoke fondly of the Jews who joined him in supporting Palestinian liberation, as did other organizers. But he pushed back against the idea that the protesters should modify their rhetoric to appeal to anyone doubtful of the Palestinian cause or fearful for Zionist Jews. “It’s more important to maintain the purity of the message,” he said. He cited boxing legend Muhammad Ali’s refusal to participate in the Vietnam War when drafted (“I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong,” he famously said as U.S. troops were fighting them) as an example of how a once-shocking message can later be seen as prescient. In the coming years, Yassin argued, it will become more acceptable to publicly castigate Zionism and Zionists. “Calls for justice are not hatred,” he said.One way in which the pro-Palestinian movement differs from activism against South African apartheid, the Vietnam War, and discrimination against African Americans is that its target, Israel, is also a refuge for a persecuted people and their lone nation-state. Another way is that, so far at least, organizers appear indifferent to how their rhetoric and actions are interpreted by the broader public. Yassin and others are convinced that history is on their side, and that public opinion—and government policy following it—will inevitably swing their way. As Mackey put it about the university divesting from Israel, “It’s when, not if.”This line of thinking absolves activists of pursuing alternative strategies that might be more beneficial, such as allying with Israel’s leftists, clarifying the place of Jews in a free Palestine, denouncing all deliberate attacks on civilians, or engaging in self-criticism that could perhaps help propel the movement forward. Mackey observed that the divestment campaign at the University of Toronto began in 2006. But in 2024, the school is no closer to meeting the movement’s demands than it was 18 years ago. The U of T encampment disbanded without compelling the school to make any changes.Some campuses had victories. At Brown University, students took down their tents when the school’s governing body agreed to vote on a proposal to divest the school’s $6.6 billion endowment from companies affiliated with Israel. “Not only did we force the administrators to come to the table, but we also forced them into accepting a really historic vote,” a Brown encampment participant told reporters at the end of April. “Today we’re seeing the results of negotiations that didn’t seem possible even a week ago.” As far away as Ireland, student protesters caused Trinity College Dublin to divest from Israeli firms. At Macalester College in Minnesota, where Mueller teaches, a task force has been organized to deal with the long-term grievances of students. “Putting campus investment practices on the long-term agenda is probably going to have a decent tail,” she said.But these were the exceptions. From Columbia University and other Ivy League schools to smaller campuses in the United States and around the world, by and large, the students failed in their basic objectives of ending U.S. support for Israel or forcing most universities to divest from it.For now.When students return for the 2024–2025 academic year, activism may resume at a high level, after organizers have licked their wounds and recharged their energies. Mackey and Yassin are adamant that their struggle is far from over, and that they are inspired by their successes, such as they were. “I don’t think that this moment of heightened student protest, for Palestinian freedom on college campuses, has ended yet,” Munayyer of the Arab Center Washington DC agreed. The day after the judge issued the injunction that finished the U of T encampment, one spokesperson said at a press conference, “We are just getting started. This encampment is one of many tactics.”Ultimately, the most concrete impact of the Gaza protests may be in educating a new generation of activists. Tens of thousands of students participated in mass demonstrations against Israel, encounters that may be formative for decades to come. Mackey’s experiences in climate activism contrasted with her pro-Palestinian activism. In April 2023, she and 200 other student activists occupied a building on campus demanding U of T divest from fossil fuel companies; the students stayed for 18 days. But authorities handled that situation very differently. “We weren’t threatened by police,” she said. At U of T Occupy for Palestine, individuals hurled slurs at her and the other students and played music at night to disrupt their sleep. She, Yassin, and other organizers were physically exhausted by showing up each day for two months to arrange logistics for hundreds of people: providing food, disposing of waste, cleaning, dealing with press, negotiating with lawyers and the school administration, dealing with hostile counterprotesters, and hosting community meetings. A tent where coffee was served blew away in the wind at one point. It was draining and stressful to manage these tasks, but the experience was also indispensable in training a generation of activists. Mackey said the connections that Palestinian solidarity groups have made with labor and faculty organizations will be lasting. Research shows that individuals who participate in protests can be profoundly changed by the experience, altering their family and career choices, along with their political trajectories and voting patterns. A study from Tufts University’s Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement found that large-scale protests of the kind following George Floyd’s murder by police in 2020 brought new people into the political process at a higher rate than smaller-scale demonstrations.Yassin told me that he has been emboldened to pursue a career in humanities rather than the safer choice in finance to which he had resigned himself. The support and media attention the encampment received were far greater than anything he or his allies expected, convincing him to envision a better future for himself personally as well. He plans to continue in political organizing in some fashion. “If I learned anything from the camp, it’s that anything is possible,” he said. Mackey has likewise been encouraged by her two months in the encampment. She starts a job soon at an environmental nonprofit and will continue to be involved in organizing on and off. Seeing so many people show up in solidarity with Palestinians “was a very profound and transformational moment,” she said. At the rally sending off the encampment, she was in tears.On a rainy day in mid-July, a visibly more relaxed Yassin visited King’s College Circle for the first time since the encampments were dismantled two weeks prior. All traces of the protests were long gone: the tents, the tarps, the Palestinian flags. An orange plastic fence had replaced the wall that ringed the area, and the grass was growing back where it had been trampled by tents and foot traffic. “God, this is strange,” he said, gazing at the empty space where the small village existed for two months.Yassin’s parents worried once he became an activist. But they grew proud of their outspoken son. When his mother visited the encampment, she cried, moved to see so many Palestinian flags displayed in one place. Yassin told me that he’s heartened that the Palestinian cause has gained acceptance over decades; he knows it has the potential to reach many more people. Even if the encampments don’t recur, other protests will follow in their wake. A religious man, he believes that in the long sweep of history, justice for Palestinians is likely. Even if Israel kicks every Palestinian out of their homeland, still they will not give up on returning. And, eventually, they will return. “All of this is still possible,” he said, walking on the grass.

Mohammad Yassin’s parents had warned him away from politics. His father grew up in Lebanon during the civil war, when having the wrong opinion could get you killed. Yassin, who is Palestinian American, arrived at the University of Toronto four years ago with the intention of studying economics and statistics. He felt that Canada wasn’t his permanent home, and he distrusted existing political institutions, so he avoided involving himself in activism or student government. “I just kind of was like: Hey, I’m gonna put my head down and just study for my entire degree,” he told me, chain-smoking cigarettes in a keffiyeh and sunglasses.But when Hamas viciously attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, everything changed. Later that month, a group called U of T Conservatives organized a rally on campus to display “unwavering support for Israel against Hamas terrorism.” By then, Israel had begun its brutal war on Gaza, and word spread among Yassin’s peers that a counterprotest should be organized. Student groups supporting Palestinians were once vibrant on campus but had diminished in recent years, particularly since Covid. Yassin, who has a sardonic sense of humor and a calm demeanor, joined the counterrally, which drew around 200 people. Many were inspired to organize on an ongoing basis.After months of walkouts, rallies, and cultural events in support of Palestinians, on April 1, 26 students clad in keffiyehs and masks occupied Simcoe Hall, the seat of governance at the University of Toronto, demanding that the school divest from holdings in companies complicit in Israel’s siege. After 30 hours, they left, following an agreement to meet with the university president.The meeting, however, failed to satisfy them. A little over two weeks later, some 500 miles southeast, hundreds of protesters occupied the South Lawn of Columbia University. The pitched tents and mass of demonstrators were a lifeline for the Palestinian groups at U of T, who, like student groups around the world, took the Columbia encampments as inspiration for the next phase of their movement. Anticipating Yassin and his allies’ next move, U of T put up fencing along part of its campus called King’s College Circle, a patch of green space that had recently been renovated. But on May 2, Yassin and about 50 others with U of T Occupy for Palestine set up camp anyway, breaching the fence in the middle of the night. Soon allies just started showing up. “The first day was magical,” Yassin recalled. The group demanded that the university disclose its investments and divest from companies and universities associated with Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land. The school warned the students that they were trespassing on private property. Yassin’s group expected the university to expel them at any moment, certainly within a few days.But that didn’t happen. Toronto police declined to arrest the protesters, so at the end of May, U of T sought a court order to force the issue. For more than two months, the People’s Circle for Palestine operated as a miniature village in the heart of Canada’s largest city. Weeks after almost all encampments on campuses in the United States had been disbanded—Columbia’s lasted just under two weeks—this one continued to operate. Around 200 tents were pitched at one point or another, and many residents, like Yassin, slept there almost every night, returning home only to do some laundry or get the occasional decent rest.On July 2, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice finally granted the university’s injunction to clear out the encampment, which had lasted 62 days. Hours later, Yassin stood with other protest leaders to announce to the news cameras and journalists that they were disbanding the mini-village ahead of the deadline the next evening. That would enable them to leave on their terms and avoid being brutalized by police, he said. Behind him, tents with slogans written on them were still up. “This legal maneuver changes nothing,” he announced defiantly. “Make no mistake, our resolve is stronger than ever. We’ve said from day one that we will not leave this campus until U of T discloses, divests, and cuts ties. That commitment stands firm.”Soon after Yassin spoke, protesters began taking down the many signs on the fence surrounding the encampment. By 6 p.m. the next day, little evidence of the encampment remained, outside of people posing for photos in front of a papier-mâché olive tree with anti-Zionist slogans spray-painted on it. As the sun set, a man and a woman wearing an Israeli flag toppled the structure.The campus rallies against Israel constituted the largest protests at North American universities in the twenty-first century. According to the Crowd Counting Consortium, encampments were erected at more than 130 campuses, and many protests erupted at schools even before Columbia’s tents went up. In the United States, more than 3,600 people were arrested or detained during these campaigns. Encampments eventually spread to Australia, Western and Northern Europe, Latin America, and Asia, including even Israel itself, where some students erected a tent at Bezalel Academy, an art school.But by the summer, most of the protests had disappeared along with the tents, either removed by police or disbanded for the summer break. The Israeli government continues to kill thousands of Palestinians with little compunction, and the Biden administration continues arming it. Yassin is still worried about his family in Lebanon and his mother’s extended family in Gaza. Students who participated in the protests, allies who supported them, and critics who derided them as antisemitic are all left wondering: What did the once-in-a-generation mass protests accomplish? How will they influence the activism that may resume when the new academic year begins?Canada has typically had smooth relations with the Jewish state, but in the twenty-first century, the conservative government of Stephen Harper took it to a new level, marching in lockstep with Israel. That history of support is one reason that concern for Palestine has become commonplace on the left in Canada. And not just in Canada, obviously. Not since South Africa in the 1980s has a people captured the left-wing imagination as a symbol of global injustice. The irony is that this phenomenon is something of a reversal; Zionism was once considered a uniquely heroic cause among many of American left-liberalism’s most exalted figures. According to historian Eric Alterman, author of We Are Not One: A History of America’s Fight Over Israel, liberals and leftists from Eleanor Roosevelt (“The Jews in their own country are doing marvels and should, once the refugee problem is settled, help all the Arab countries,” she wrote) to Progressive Party leader Henry Wallace to Freda Kirchwey, editor of The Nation, saw Jews in Palestine as anti-imperialists battling the British Empire, which was manipulating the Arab states and squaring off against the Soviet Union with little care for the fate of Jews.From the 1940s until 1967, the Palestinians had few advocates in the Western world. They were still recovering after being driven out of their villages by Israel in 1947–1949 during the Nakba, or “catastrophe,” the Arabic term for the dispossession of Palestinians. “It’s very hard to organize politically when you don’t even have a roof over your head,” said Yousef Munayyer, a senior fellow at Arab Center Washington DC. Partly as a result, the myth that Palestinians left their homes voluntarily predominated in the United States.The 1967 Arab-Israeli War created a groundswell of support for Palestinians in the United States for the first time, particularly among radical Black intellectuals and activists. As Alterman explains, the Palestinians began to be seen as a “Third World nation,” deserving of sympathy like other non-Western peoples. But pro-Palestinianism remained a minority viewpoint in the civil rights movement, as more mainstream leaders like Martin Luther King and Bayard Rustin and organizations like the NAACP and the National Urban League issued statements in solidarity with Israel. In the 1970s, Palestinians garnered little institutional backing beyond the furthest left of groups, such as West German terrorists. “We have been unable to interest the West very much in the justice of our cause,” the Palestinian American literary critic and activist Edward Said lamented in his 1979 book, The Question of Palestine. That same year, when President Jimmy Carter secured a peace deal between Egypt and Israel, Palestinians’ anger at having their concerns ignored did little to dilute celebrations in the United States. But at the grassroots level, support for Palestinians had been emerging. It deepened during Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon and especially after the massacre at the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. It grew again with the first intifada, which began in 1987, and has since “grown gradually over time,” Alterman observed.Today, for people under 30 and those on the left around the world, Palestine has become a defining issue. Erin Mackey, who graduated from U of T this year, is a prime example. A Canadian American from Boston who came to Toronto because its university was cheaper than those in the states, she was active in campaigns to encourage the administration to divest from fossil fuels, which U of T announced it would do in October 2021. Mackey has the message discipline of a seasoned politician and is as polite in private as she is confrontational in public. The day we met, she was wearing overalls, her nails painted bright red. She sees a natural evolution from agitating against climate change to agitating against Israel. “I saw the links between climate justice and Palestinian liberation,” she explained, referring to Israel’s environmental destruction and its confiscation of land and water. In late October 2023, she and other activists began targeting the Royal Bank of Canada for both its funding of fossil fuel companies and its investments in the U.S. company Palantir, which sells AI surveillance technology to Israel. Once Arab and Palestinian students decided to construct the encampment, they asked Mackey, as someone trained in media outreach, for help. She soon became one of the most visible spokespeople for U of T Occupy for Palestine. “As someone who isn’t Palestinian, knowing my tuition dollars are going toward the genocide is horrifying,” she told me when we spoke at the encampment.The demographics at U of T Occupy for Palestine are suitably reflective of the changed landscape. Both Mackey and Yassin estimated that Palestinians or other Arabs made up only 60 percent of the people who were at the encampment; the remaining 40 percent were other people of color, Jews, and white leftists. A group called Jews Say No to Genocide maintained a constant presence, hosting weekly Shabbat dinners and absorbing the slurs of pro-Israel Jews who staged a counterprotest. The intellectual/activist Naomi Klein showed up once. But many of the signs and tents contained writing attesting to the personal connections individuals had with people in Gaza, citing relatives who have died or castigating Arabs for not sticking together. One encampment resident has had an unimaginable 26 members of their family killed in the Gaza Strip in the past year. “We’re not spectating,” Yassin said.If nothing else, the 2023–2024 protests showed that the constituency for the Palestinian cause has broadened significantly beyond the Arab- and Muslim-majority countries to which it was once confined. What’s more, the plight of the Palestinians has managed to push tens of thousands of people to publicly demonstrate in solidarity, sometimes at great personal risk and in violation of laws and school policies. “That signals not just a growth in the scale and scope of this thing, but also the depth of commitment to the cause, which, again, is at a new and unprecedented level,” Munayyer said. While conservatives and many Democratic Party politicians deride Palestinians as a nonexistent people, uniformly antisemitic, or congenitally prone to terrorism, such designations no longer have mass appeal beyond the right wing and an aging subset of Democrats.Younger generations, especially, see Israel’s repression as a straightforward question of right and wrong. Pew Research Center found that the number of adults under 30 who sympathized with Palestinians was twice the number who sympathized with Israelis, and the number who say the way Israel is fighting its war against Hamas is “unacceptable” is more than twice the number who say it’s “acceptable.” Young people have a more positive view of Palestinians than of Israelis, and the number who say Hamas’s reasons for fighting Israel are valid is slightly higher than the number who say they are not (notably, however, 58 percent of young people said Hamas’s October 7 massacre was unacceptable). Just 16 percent of young people favor the United States providing military aid to Israel. For Palestinians, who were once synonymous with terrorism in the Western imagination, this widespread support marks a staggering shift. The students holding signs and chanting in unison might eventually be seen as a harbinger of a changed Western approach to the role of Palestinians in the Middle East.But the levels of participation in protests over the last year should not be exaggerated either. For all the attention they received—and for all the anxiety they provoked among conservatives and in the Jewish establishment in the United States—only 8 percent of college students took part in demonstrations in support of either Palestinians or Israelis, according to a Generation Lab survey published on May 7. The Vietnam War–era protests with which the encampments have been compared far outstripped these figures and lasted for years. In May 1970 alone, more than four million students at around 900 campuses went on strike after National Guardsmen gunned down four students at Kent State University. The Gaza encampments “were really centered around student communities and the people you would be expecting to engage in these campus uprisings,” said Lisa Mueller, a political scientist at Macalester College who studies protest movements. The Vietnam antiwar movement “far transcended students and people on the left.” Moving beyond protests that are largely drawing on the left would signal to potential supporters and elites that the movement can be a force for a pressure and not just confined to a fringe, but it remains to be seen whether the pro-Palestinian elements in the West can make it happen.Similarly, while young people are more sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians than their older counterparts are, they are generally less likely to be politically active and engaged than their elders, rendering their sentiments less impactful. People who are under 30 years of age vote in smaller numbers than their elders, feel less informed about candidates and issues than others, believe they’re unqualified to participate in politics, donate less money to political campaigns, and run for office in far fewer numbers. And while young people hold far more pro-Palestinian sentiments than others, that does not necessarily translate into a concentrated bloc powerful enough to alter U.S. policy. The same polls showing the sea change in how younger generations perceive the Israeli- Palestinian conflict reveal that they care most about the same issues that older people do: the cost of living, access to good-paying jobs, and preventing gun violence. “Particularly in a democratic society, there are electoral pressures for elected leaders and candidates to heed the demands and grievances of diverse potential voters,” Mueller said. “I haven’t seen that happen so much yet.”Of course, the usual apathy and cynicism of younger voters are precisely what make the campus protests so unusual. Every organizer knows how difficult it is to get people into the streets for an afternoon, let alone for days or weeks. On day 56 of the camp, Mackey told me, “I don’t think anybody thought we would get here.” After negotiating with the administration the first week, U of T Occupy for Palestine settled in for a long haul. They got trespassing notices and were threatened with expulsion and suffered through rainy nights, hail, and extreme heat. Still they stayed. “This is just a piece of a much broader movement,” Mackey said.Indeed, when Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris selected Minnesota’s Tim Walz as her running mate in August, there was wide speculation that she had passed over Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro because of his insulting comments about the protesters and his arguably greater fondness for Israel. If this calculation played a role in Harris’s choice, it would mean the students had influenced politics at the highest level.At U OF T Occupy for Palestine, five people sat on chairs at the entrance, screening people going in and out. “You Are Entering The People’s Circle For Palestine,” a sign read. One tent held a library with a few hundred books; other tents served variously as the kitchen, a space for art, and a prayer room. Solar panels generated energy for phone chargers. The camp lasted so long that some participants left for trips abroad and returned to a still ongoing project. At the final rally after the encampment was dismantled, about 2,000 Torontonians marched downtown to celebrate and mourn what had unexpectedly lasted for two months. “We galvanized an entire city,” Yassin told me. “We opened a lot of people’s eyes.” Mackey, similarly, believes that the protests persuaded some students who were either indifferent or hostile to the Palestinian cause. “I’ve seen it in my own life,” she told me. “The divide is definitely closing against genocide.”The Gaza encampments garnered copious media attention. As University of California at Berkeley political scientist Omar Wasow said, the “campus protests elevated the issue of the war in Gaza and some of the inequities in the war onto the national agenda.” This is no small thing, because even as Israel kills unfathomable numbers of Palestinians—more than 40,000 at the time of this writing—it is easy to imagine the slaughter falling off the front pages. “They’ve succeeded in raising consciousness broadly in America and Canada among everyday citizens who may not be following the war in Israel and Palestine closely,” argued Mira Sucharov, a political scientist at Carleton University in Ottawa.But attracting attention to a cause is not the same thing as persuading people of its justice, let alone its urgency. On the level of broader public opinion, the number of Americans who opposed the Gaza student protests was twice the number who supported them, and the vast majority of survey respondents backed Israel over Hamas. Even worse, a poll conducted in mid-June found that Americans were as likely to say the protests made them sympathize less with the Palestinians than to say the opposite. In March, the Canadian government halted arms sales to Israel after Parliament passed a nonbinding resolution, but this was before the U of T encampment began. Canadians were no friendlier to the campus protests than Americans were. Generally speaking, the encampments raised public awareness of the huge numbers of deaths in Gaza, but that didn’t translate into encouragement or assistance to the cause.Of course, protests can galvanize change even when unpopular. But they can just as easily be ignored, contained, or trigger a backlash. That reality is one of the risks protesters take when they employ maximalist rhetoric. U of T Occupy for Palestine was constructed to accommodate small tents, but it was unconcerned with building a larger one. The fence that encircled King’s College Circle was plastered with signs, some of which testified to the immense violence that Israel has unleashed in Gaza, quoting Palestinian children who have been orphaned, or referencing mothers who have been made childless. Other posters simply had drawings of Palestinian flags or declarations of solidarity from non-Palestinians. Such placards might be divisive, but they can’t reasonably be perceived as dangerous.Other signs were more ambiguous, praising Palestinian “martyrs” and calling for a “student intifada.” These could be read as calls for indiscriminate violence of the kind Hamas perpetrated on October 7, or they could be considered, as organizers claim they are intended, as general (but not necessarily violent) cheers for rebellion. And indeed, polls showed that slogans were heard differently by different audiences. Two-thirds of Jewish university students heard the ubiquitous chant “From the River to the Sea” as calling for the expulsion and genocide of Israeli Jews, while only 14 percent of Muslim students heard it that way, according to a University of Chicago poll. The Muslim students believed it was a chant for the equality of Jews and Palestinians in one state, or for a two-state solution. While the forcefulness and vagueness of these pro-Palestine slogans may seem sinister to some, the reality may be more banal. “It’s a matter of wanting to be concise,” Sucharov told me. “It’s a matter of wanting to center the Palestinian experience.” In the same way that some people incorrectly perceive the slogan “Black Lives Matter” as suggesting that other human lives are less valuable, so do Palestinians use slogans with meanings they understand but that may be unclear or offensive to others, she said.Of course, one difference is that some elements of Hamas do mean the slogans in the darkest possible sense, hoping for more violence against Israeli civilians to the point that the state itself is destroyed and its people either subjugated, expelled, or killed. In his ruling granting the University of Toronto the injunction to remove the encampment, the Ontario Superior Court judge absolved the organizers of antisemitism. “The automatic conclusion that those phrases are antisemitic is not justified,” he wrote about the ambiguous phrases. These determinations by the court were greatly appreciated by U of T Occupy for Palestine, which had routinely been accused of being a hate-fest. (One professor had written in Canada’s National Post newspaper that “the encampments are led by pro-Hamas advocates who are seeking to justify Islamist terrorism by normalizing antisemitism.”)But while the ruling absolved the organizers of antisemitism, it also clarified that at rallies where pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel protesters squared off, unambiguously antisemitic phrases were directed at Jews. These included comments such as “Death to the Jews,” “We need another holocost [sic],” and “Jews belong in the sea.” The judge noted that none of those comments were uttered by organizers like Yassin or Mackey, nor even any of the encampment occupants, but community members who were adjacent to the encampment. Organizers erased antisemitic phrases when they were written in chalk outside the camp. But the reality is that excising antisemitic elements is a constant requirement for pro-Palestinian activists and will grow increasingly important as the movement attracts new adherents, some of whom will inevitably want to target Jews. Again and again at protests against Israel’s destruction of Gaza, antisemitism reared its ugly head. The presence of bigotry at these events suggests how easily demands for unnamed forms of rebellion can shade into justifications for violence.Antisemitic acts skyrocketed in Canada in late 2023 and 2024, as they did in the United States and around the world. In Toronto, synagogues, businesses, and day schools were defaced with graffiti, a synagogue was set on fire, and Jewish students reported rampant antisemitism at U of T and other schools. U of T Occupy for Palestine wasn’t responsible for these acts, which terrified much of the Jewish community and influenced how the public perceived the protests, and the organizers didn’t seem to care much about any of that. The tents inside the encampment had catchphrases like FUCK ALL ZIOS written on them, short for “Zionists.” But there is a thin line between opposing Zionism and cultivating hatred against Zionists, and such rhetoric thins the line even more. In our conversation, Yassin spoke fondly of the Jews who joined him in supporting Palestinian liberation, as did other organizers. But he pushed back against the idea that the protesters should modify their rhetoric to appeal to anyone doubtful of the Palestinian cause or fearful for Zionist Jews. “It’s more important to maintain the purity of the message,” he said. He cited boxing legend Muhammad Ali’s refusal to participate in the Vietnam War when drafted (“I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong,” he famously said as U.S. troops were fighting them) as an example of how a once-shocking message can later be seen as prescient. In the coming years, Yassin argued, it will become more acceptable to publicly castigate Zionism and Zionists. “Calls for justice are not hatred,” he said.One way in which the pro-Palestinian movement differs from activism against South African apartheid, the Vietnam War, and discrimination against African Americans is that its target, Israel, is also a refuge for a persecuted people and their lone nation-state. Another way is that, so far at least, organizers appear indifferent to how their rhetoric and actions are interpreted by the broader public. Yassin and others are convinced that history is on their side, and that public opinion—and government policy following it—will inevitably swing their way. As Mackey put it about the university divesting from Israel, “It’s when, not if.”This line of thinking absolves activists of pursuing alternative strategies that might be more beneficial, such as allying with Israel’s leftists, clarifying the place of Jews in a free Palestine, denouncing all deliberate attacks on civilians, or engaging in self-criticism that could perhaps help propel the movement forward. Mackey observed that the divestment campaign at the University of Toronto began in 2006. But in 2024, the school is no closer to meeting the movement’s demands than it was 18 years ago. The U of T encampment disbanded without compelling the school to make any changes.Some campuses had victories. At Brown University, students took down their tents when the school’s governing body agreed to vote on a proposal to divest the school’s $6.6 billion endowment from companies affiliated with Israel. “Not only did we force the administrators to come to the table, but we also forced them into accepting a really historic vote,” a Brown encampment participant told reporters at the end of April. “Today we’re seeing the results of negotiations that didn’t seem possible even a week ago.” As far away as Ireland, student protesters caused Trinity College Dublin to divest from Israeli firms. At Macalester College in Minnesota, where Mueller teaches, a task force has been organized to deal with the long-term grievances of students. “Putting campus investment practices on the long-term agenda is probably going to have a decent tail,” she said.But these were the exceptions. From Columbia University and other Ivy League schools to smaller campuses in the United States and around the world, by and large, the students failed in their basic objectives of ending U.S. support for Israel or forcing most universities to divest from it.For now.When students return for the 2024–2025 academic year, activism may resume at a high level, after organizers have licked their wounds and recharged their energies. Mackey and Yassin are adamant that their struggle is far from over, and that they are inspired by their successes, such as they were. “I don’t think that this moment of heightened student protest, for Palestinian freedom on college campuses, has ended yet,” Munayyer of the Arab Center Washington DC agreed. The day after the judge issued the injunction that finished the U of T encampment, one spokesperson said at a press conference, “We are just getting started. This encampment is one of many tactics.”Ultimately, the most concrete impact of the Gaza protests may be in educating a new generation of activists. Tens of thousands of students participated in mass demonstrations against Israel, encounters that may be formative for decades to come. Mackey’s experiences in climate activism contrasted with her pro-Palestinian activism. In April 2023, she and 200 other student activists occupied a building on campus demanding U of T divest from fossil fuel companies; the students stayed for 18 days. But authorities handled that situation very differently. “We weren’t threatened by police,” she said. At U of T Occupy for Palestine, individuals hurled slurs at her and the other students and played music at night to disrupt their sleep. She, Yassin, and other organizers were physically exhausted by showing up each day for two months to arrange logistics for hundreds of people: providing food, disposing of waste, cleaning, dealing with press, negotiating with lawyers and the school administration, dealing with hostile counterprotesters, and hosting community meetings. A tent where coffee was served blew away in the wind at one point. It was draining and stressful to manage these tasks, but the experience was also indispensable in training a generation of activists. Mackey said the connections that Palestinian solidarity groups have made with labor and faculty organizations will be lasting. Research shows that individuals who participate in protests can be profoundly changed by the experience, altering their family and career choices, along with their political trajectories and voting patterns. A study from Tufts University’s Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement found that large-scale protests of the kind following George Floyd’s murder by police in 2020 brought new people into the political process at a higher rate than smaller-scale demonstrations.Yassin told me that he has been emboldened to pursue a career in humanities rather than the safer choice in finance to which he had resigned himself. The support and media attention the encampment received were far greater than anything he or his allies expected, convincing him to envision a better future for himself personally as well. He plans to continue in political organizing in some fashion. “If I learned anything from the camp, it’s that anything is possible,” he said. Mackey has likewise been encouraged by her two months in the encampment. She starts a job soon at an environmental nonprofit and will continue to be involved in organizing on and off. Seeing so many people show up in solidarity with Palestinians “was a very profound and transformational moment,” she said. At the rally sending off the encampment, she was in tears.On a rainy day in mid-July, a visibly more relaxed Yassin visited King’s College Circle for the first time since the encampments were dismantled two weeks prior. All traces of the protests were long gone: the tents, the tarps, the Palestinian flags. An orange plastic fence had replaced the wall that ringed the area, and the grass was growing back where it had been trampled by tents and foot traffic. “God, this is strange,” he said, gazing at the empty space where the small village existed for two months.Yassin’s parents worried once he became an activist. But they grew proud of their outspoken son. When his mother visited the encampment, she cried, moved to see so many Palestinian flags displayed in one place. Yassin told me that he’s heartened that the Palestinian cause has gained acceptance over decades; he knows it has the potential to reach many more people. Even if the encampments don’t recur, other protests will follow in their wake. A religious man, he believes that in the long sweep of history, justice for Palestinians is likely. Even if Israel kicks every Palestinian out of their homeland, still they will not give up on returning. And, eventually, they will return. “All of this is still possible,” he said, walking on the grass.

Mohammad Yassin’s parents had warned him away from politics. His father grew up in Lebanon during the civil war, when having the wrong opinion could get you killed. Yassin, who is Palestinian American, arrived at the University of Toronto four years ago with the intention of studying economics and statistics. He felt that Canada wasn’t his permanent home, and he distrusted existing political institutions, so he avoided involving himself in activism or student government. “I just kind of was like: Hey, I’m gonna put my head down and just study for my entire degree,” he told me, chain-smoking cigarettes in a keffiyeh and sunglasses.

But when Hamas viciously attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, everything changed. Later that month, a group called U of T Conservatives organized a rally on campus to display “unwavering support for Israel against Hamas terrorism.” By then, Israel had begun its brutal war on Gaza, and word spread among Yassin’s peers that a counterprotest should be organized. Student groups supporting Palestinians were once vibrant on campus but had diminished in recent years, particularly since Covid. Yassin, who has a sardonic sense of humor and a calm demeanor, joined the counterrally, which drew around 200 people. Many were inspired to organize on an ongoing basis.

After months of walkouts, rallies, and cultural events in support of Palestinians, on April 1, 26 students clad in keffiyehs and masks occupied Simcoe Hall, the seat of governance at the University of Toronto, demanding that the school divest from holdings in companies complicit in Israel’s siege. After 30 hours, they left, following an agreement to meet with the university president.

The meeting, however, failed to satisfy them. A little over two weeks later, some 500 miles southeast, hundreds of protesters occupied the South Lawn of Columbia University. The pitched tents and mass of demonstrators were a lifeline for the Palestinian groups at U of T, who, like student groups around the world, took the Columbia encampments as inspiration for the next phase of their movement. Anticipating Yassin and his allies’ next move, U of T put up fencing along part of its campus called King’s College Circle, a patch of green space that had recently been renovated. But on May 2, Yassin and about 50 others with U of T Occupy for Palestine set up camp anyway, breaching the fence in the middle of the night. Soon allies just started showing up. “The first day was magical,” Yassin recalled. The group demanded that the university disclose its investments and divest from companies and universities associated with Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land. The school warned the students that they were trespassing on private property. Yassin’s group expected the university to expel them at any moment, certainly within a few days.

But that didn’t happen. Toronto police declined to arrest the protesters, so at the end of May, U of T sought a court order to force the issue. For more than two months, the People’s Circle for Palestine operated as a miniature village in the heart of Canada’s largest city. Weeks after almost all encampments on campuses in the United States had been disbanded—Columbia’s lasted just under two weeks—this one continued to operate. Around 200 tents were pitched at one point or another, and many residents, like Yassin, slept there almost every night, returning home only to do some laundry or get the occasional decent rest.

On July 2, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice finally granted the university’s injunction to clear out the encampment, which had lasted 62 days. Hours later, Yassin stood with other protest leaders to announce to the news cameras and journalists that they were disbanding the mini-village ahead of the deadline the next evening. That would enable them to leave on their terms and avoid being brutalized by police, he said. Behind him, tents with slogans written on them were still up. “This legal maneuver changes nothing,” he announced defiantly. “Make no mistake, our resolve is stronger than ever. We’ve said from day one that we will not leave this campus until U of T discloses, divests, and cuts ties. That commitment stands firm.”

Soon after Yassin spoke, protesters began taking down the many signs on the fence surrounding the encampment. By 6 p.m. the next day, little evidence of the encampment remained, outside of people posing for photos in front of a papier-mâché olive tree with anti-Zionist slogans spray-painted on it. As the sun set, a man and a woman wearing an Israeli flag toppled the structure.

The campus rallies against Israel constituted the largest protests at North American universities in the twenty-first century. According to the Crowd Counting Consortium, encampments were erected at more than 130 campuses, and many protests erupted at schools even before Columbia’s tents went up. In the United States, more than 3,600 people were arrested or detained during these campaigns. Encampments eventually spread to Australia, Western and Northern Europe, Latin America, and Asia, including even Israel itself, where some students erected a tent at Bezalel Academy, an art school.

Mohammad Yassin, a student organizer at the University of Toronto, speaks during a campus rally in support of Palestine.

But by the summer, most of the protests had disappeared along with the tents, either removed by police or disbanded for the summer break. The Israeli government continues to kill thousands of Palestinians with little compunction, and the Biden administration continues arming it. Yassin is still worried about his family in Lebanon and his mother’s extended family in Gaza. Students who participated in the protests, allies who supported them, and critics who derided them as antisemitic are all left wondering: What did the once-in-a-generation mass protests accomplish? How will they influence the activism that may resume when the new academic year begins?


Canada has typically had smooth relations with the Jewish state, but in the twenty-first century, the conservative government of Stephen Harper took it to a new level, marching in lockstep with Israel. That history of support is one reason that concern for Palestine has become commonplace on the left in Canada. And not just in Canada, obviously. Not since South Africa in the 1980s has a people captured the left-wing imagination as a symbol of global injustice. The irony is that this phenomenon is something of a reversal; Zionism was once considered a uniquely heroic cause among many of American left-liberalism’s most exalted figures. According to historian Eric Alterman, author of We Are Not One: A History of America’s Fight Over Israel, liberals and leftists from Eleanor Roosevelt (“The Jews in their own country are doing marvels and should, once the refugee problem is settled, help all the Arab countries,” she wrote) to Progressive Party leader Henry Wallace to Freda Kirchwey, editor of The Nation, saw Jews in Palestine as anti-imperialists battling the British Empire, which was manipulating the Arab states and squaring off against the Soviet Union with little care for the fate of Jews.

From the 1940s until 1967, the Palestinians had few advocates in the Western world. They were still recovering after being driven out of their villages by Israel in 1947–1949 during the Nakba, or “catastrophe,” the Arabic term for the dispossession of Palestinians. “It’s very hard to organize politically when you don’t even have a roof over your head,” said Yousef Munayyer, a senior fellow at Arab Center Washington DC. Partly as a result, the myth that Palestinians left their homes voluntarily predominated in the United States.

The 1967 Arab-Israeli War created a groundswell of support for Palestinians in the United States for the first time, particularly among radical Black intellectuals and activists. As Alterman explains, the Palestinians began to be seen as a “Third World nation,” deserving of sympathy like other non-Western peoples. But pro-Palestinianism remained a minority viewpoint in the civil rights movement, as more mainstream leaders like Martin Luther King and Bayard Rustin and organizations like the NAACP and the National Urban League issued statements in solidarity with Israel. In the 1970s, Palestinians garnered little institutional backing beyond the furthest left of groups, such as West German terrorists. “We have been unable to interest the West very much in the justice of our cause,” the Palestinian American literary critic and activist Edward Said lamented in his 1979 book, The Question of Palestine. That same year, when President Jimmy Carter secured a peace deal between Egypt and Israel, Palestinians’ anger at having their concerns ignored did little to dilute celebrations in the United States. But at the grassroots level, support for Palestinians had been emerging. It deepened during Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon and especially after the massacre at the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. It grew again with the first intifada, which began in 1987, and has since “grown gradually over time,” Alterman observed.

Today, for people under 30 and those on the left around the world, Palestine has become a defining issue. Erin Mackey, who graduated from U of T this year, is a prime example. A Canadian American from Boston who came to Toronto because its university was cheaper than those in the states, she was active in campaigns to encourage the administration to divest from fossil fuels, which U of T announced it would do in October 2021. Mackey has the message discipline of a seasoned politician and is as polite in private as she is confrontational in public. The day we met, she was wearing overalls, her nails painted bright red. She sees a natural evolution from agitating against climate change to agitating against Israel. “I saw the links between climate justice and Palestinian liberation,” she explained, referring to Israel’s environmental destruction and its confiscation of land and water. In late October 2023, she and other activists began targeting the Royal Bank of Canada for both its funding of fossil fuel companies and its investments in the U.S. company Palantir, which sells AI surveillance technology to Israel. Once Arab and Palestinian students decided to construct the encampment, they asked Mackey, as someone trained in media outreach, for help. She soon became one of the most visible spokespeople for U of T Occupy for Palestine. “As someone who isn’t Palestinian, knowing my tuition dollars are going toward the genocide is horrifying,” she told me when we spoke at the encampment.

The demographics at U of T Occupy for Palestine are suitably reflective of the changed landscape. Both Mackey and Yassin estimated that Palestinians or other Arabs made up only 60 percent of the people who were at the encampment; the remaining 40 percent were other people of color, Jews, and white leftists. A group called Jews Say No to Genocide maintained a constant presence, hosting weekly Shabbat dinners and absorbing the slurs of pro-Israel Jews who staged a counterprotest. The intellectual/activist Naomi Klein showed up once. But many of the signs and tents contained writing attesting to the personal connections individuals had with people in Gaza, citing relatives who have died or castigating Arabs for not sticking together. One encampment resident has had an unimaginable 26 members of their family killed in the Gaza Strip in the past year. “We’re not spectating,” Yassin said.

If nothing else, the 2023–2024 protests showed that the constituency for the Palestinian cause has broadened significantly beyond the Arab- and Muslim-majority countries to which it was once confined. What’s more, the plight of the Palestinians has managed to push tens of thousands of people to publicly demonstrate in solidarity, sometimes at great personal risk and in violation of laws and school policies. “That signals not just a growth in the scale and scope of this thing, but also the depth of commitment to the cause, which, again, is at a new and unprecedented level,” Munayyer said. While conservatives and many Democratic Party politicians deride Palestinians as a nonexistent people, uniformly antisemitic, or congenitally prone to terrorism, such designations no longer have mass appeal beyond the right wing and an aging subset of Democrats.

Younger generations, especially, see Israel’s repression as a straightforward question of right and wrong. Pew Research Center found that the number of adults under 30 who sympathized with Palestinians was twice the number who sympathized with Israelis, and the number who say the way Israel is fighting its war against Hamas is “unacceptable” is more than twice the number who say it’s “acceptable.” Young people have a more positive view of Palestinians than of Israelis, and the number who say Hamas’s reasons for fighting Israel are valid is slightly higher than the number who say they are not (notably, however, 58 percent of young people said Hamas’s October 7 massacre was unacceptable). Just 16 percent of young people favor the United States providing military aid to Israel. For Palestinians, who were once synonymous with terrorism in the Western imagination, this widespread support marks a staggering shift. The students holding signs and chanting in unison might eventually be seen as a harbinger of a changed Western approach to the role of Palestinians in the Middle East.

But the levels of participation in protests over the last year should not be exaggerated either. For all the attention they received—and for all the anxiety they provoked among conservatives and in the Jewish establishment in the United States—only 8 percent of college students took part in demonstrations in support of either Palestinians or Israelis, according to a Generation Lab survey published on May 7. The Vietnam War–era protests with which the encampments have been compared far outstripped these figures and lasted for years. In May 1970 alone, more than four million students at around 900 campuses went on strike after National Guardsmen gunned down four students at Kent State University. The Gaza encampments “were really centered around student communities and the people you would be expecting to engage in these campus uprisings,” said Lisa Mueller, a political scientist at Macalester College who studies protest movements. The Vietnam antiwar movement “far transcended students and people on the left.” Moving beyond protests that are largely drawing on the left would signal to potential supporters and elites that the movement can be a force for a pressure and not just confined to a fringe, but it remains to be seen whether the pro-Palestinian elements in the West can make it happen.

Similarly, while young people are more sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians than their older counterparts are, they are generally less likely to be politically active and engaged than their elders, rendering their sentiments less impactful. People who are under 30 years of age vote in smaller numbers than their elders, feel less informed about candidates and issues than others, believe they’re unqualified to participate in politics, donate less money to political campaigns, and run for office in far fewer numbers. And while young people hold far more pro-Palestinian sentiments than others, that does not necessarily translate into a concentrated bloc powerful enough to alter U.S. policy. The same polls showing the sea change in how younger generations perceive the Israeli- Palestinian conflict reveal that they care most about the same issues that older people do: the cost of living, access to good-paying jobs, and preventing gun violence. “Particularly in a democratic society, there are electoral pressures for elected leaders and candidates to heed the demands and grievances of diverse potential voters,” Mueller said. “I haven’t seen that happen so much yet.”

Of course, the usual apathy and cynicism of younger voters are precisely what make the campus protests so unusual. Every organizer knows how difficult it is to get people into the streets for an afternoon, let alone for days or weeks. On day 56 of the camp, Mackey told me, “I don’t think anybody thought we would get here.” After negotiating with the administration the first week, U of T Occupy for Palestine settled in for a long haul. They got trespassing notices and were threatened with expulsion and suffered through rainy nights, hail, and extreme heat. Still they stayed. “This is just a piece of a much broader movement,” Mackey said.

Indeed, when Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris selected Minnesota’s Tim Walz as her running mate in August, there was wide speculation that she had passed over Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro because of his insulting comments about the protesters and his arguably greater fondness for Israel. If this calculation played a role in Harris’s choice, it would mean the students had influenced politics at the highest level.


At U OF T Occupy for Palestine, five people sat on chairs at the entrance, screening people going in and out. “You Are Entering The People’s Circle For Palestine,” a sign read. One tent held a library with a few hundred books; other tents served variously as the kitchen, a space for art, and a prayer room. Solar panels generated energy for phone chargers. The camp lasted so long that some participants left for trips abroad and returned to a still ongoing project. At the final rally after the encampment was dismantled, about 2,000 Torontonians marched downtown to celebrate and mourn what had unexpectedly lasted for two months. “We galvanized an entire city,” Yassin told me. “We opened a lot of people’s eyes.” Mackey, similarly, believes that the protests persuaded some students who were either indifferent or hostile to the Palestinian cause. “I’ve seen it in my own life,” she told me. “The divide is definitely closing against genocide.”

The Gaza encampments garnered copious media attention. As University of California at Berkeley political scientist Omar Wasow said, the “campus protests elevated the issue of the war in Gaza and some of the inequities in the war onto the national agenda.” This is no small thing, because even as Israel kills unfathomable numbers of Palestinians—more than 40,000 at the time of this writing—it is easy to imagine the slaughter falling off the front pages. “They’ve succeeded in raising consciousness broadly in America and Canada among everyday citizens who may not be following the war in Israel and Palestine closely,” argued Mira Sucharov, a political scientist at Carleton University in Ottawa.

But attracting attention to a cause is not the same thing as persuading people of its justice, let alone its urgency. On the level of broader public opinion, the number of Americans who opposed the Gaza student protests was twice the number who supported them, and the vast majority of survey respondents backed Israel over Hamas. Even worse, a poll conducted in mid-June found that Americans were as likely to say the protests made them sympathize less with the Palestinians than to say the opposite. In March, the Canadian government halted arms sales to Israel after Parliament passed a nonbinding resolution, but this was before the U of T encampment began. Canadians were no friendlier to the campus protests than Americans were. Generally speaking, the encampments raised public awareness of the huge numbers of deaths in Gaza, but that didn’t translate into encouragement or assistance to the cause.

An aerial view of the remnants of an encampment on a University of Toronto lawn.

Of course, protests can galvanize change even when unpopular. But they can just as easily be ignored, contained, or trigger a backlash. That reality is one of the risks protesters take when they employ maximalist rhetoric. U of T Occupy for Palestine was constructed to accommodate small tents, but it was unconcerned with building a larger one. The fence that encircled King’s College Circle was plastered with signs, some of which testified to the immense violence that Israel has unleashed in Gaza, quoting Palestinian children who have been orphaned, or referencing mothers who have been made childless. Other posters simply had drawings of Palestinian flags or declarations of solidarity from non-Palestinians. Such placards might be divisive, but they can’t reasonably be perceived as dangerous.

Other signs were more ambiguous, praising Palestinian “martyrs” and calling for a “student intifada.” These could be read as calls for indiscriminate violence of the kind Hamas perpetrated on October 7, or they could be considered, as organizers claim they are intended, as general (but not necessarily violent) cheers for rebellion. And indeed, polls showed that slogans were heard differently by different audiences. Two-thirds of Jewish university students heard the ubiquitous chant “From the River to the Sea” as calling for the expulsion and genocide of Israeli Jews, while only 14 percent of Muslim students heard it that way, according to a University of Chicago poll. The Muslim students believed it was a chant for the equality of Jews and Palestinians in one state, or for a two-state solution. While the forcefulness and vagueness of these pro-Palestine slogans may seem sinister to some, the reality may be more banal. “It’s a matter of wanting to be concise,” Sucharov told me. “It’s a matter of wanting to center the Palestinian experience.” In the same way that some people incorrectly perceive the slogan “Black Lives Matter” as suggesting that other human lives are less valuable, so do Palestinians use slogans with meanings they understand but that may be unclear or offensive to others, she said.

Of course, one difference is that some elements of Hamas do mean the slogans in the darkest possible sense, hoping for more violence against Israeli civilians to the point that the state itself is destroyed and its people either subjugated, expelled, or killed. In his ruling granting the University of Toronto the injunction to remove the encampment, the Ontario Superior Court judge absolved the organizers of antisemitism. “The automatic conclusion that those phrases are antisemitic is not justified,” he wrote about the ambiguous phrases. These determinations by the court were greatly appreciated by U of T Occupy for Palestine, which had routinely been accused of being a hate-fest. (One professor had written in Canada’s National Post newspaper that “the encampments are led by pro-Hamas advocates who are seeking to justify Islamist terrorism by normalizing antisemitism.”)

But while the ruling absolved the organizers of antisemitism, it also clarified that at rallies where pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel protesters squared off, unambiguously antisemitic phrases were directed at Jews. These included comments such as “Death to the Jews,” “We need another holocost [sic],” and “Jews belong in the sea.” The judge noted that none of those comments were uttered by organizers like Yassin or Mackey, nor even any of the encampment occupants, but community members who were adjacent to the encampment. Organizers erased antisemitic phrases when they were written in chalk outside the camp. But the reality is that excising antisemitic elements is a constant requirement for pro-Palestinian activists and will grow increasingly important as the movement attracts new adherents, some of whom will inevitably want to target Jews. Again and again at protests against Israel’s destruction of Gaza, antisemitism reared its ugly head. The presence of bigotry at these events suggests how easily demands for unnamed forms of rebellion can shade into justifications for violence.

Antisemitic acts skyrocketed in Canada in late 2023 and 2024, as they did in the United States and around the world. In Toronto, synagogues, businesses, and day schools were defaced with graffiti, a synagogue was set on fire, and Jewish students reported rampant antisemitism at U of T and other schools. U of T Occupy for Palestine wasn’t responsible for these acts, which terrified much of the Jewish community and influenced how the public perceived the protests, and the organizers didn’t seem to care much about any of that. The tents inside the encampment had catchphrases like FUCK ALL ZIOS written on them, short for “Zionists.” But there is a thin line between opposing Zionism and cultivating hatred against Zionists, and such rhetoric thins the line even more. In our conversation, Yassin spoke fondly of the Jews who joined him in supporting Palestinian liberation, as did other organizers. But he pushed back against the idea that the protesters should modify their rhetoric to appeal to anyone doubtful of the Palestinian cause or fearful for Zionist Jews. “It’s more important to maintain the purity of the message,” he said. He cited boxing legend Muhammad Ali’s refusal to participate in the Vietnam War when drafted (“I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong,” he famously said as U.S. troops were fighting them) as an example of how a once-shocking message can later be seen as prescient. In the coming years, Yassin argued, it will become more acceptable to publicly castigate Zionism and Zionists. “Calls for justice are not hatred,” he said.

One way in which the pro-Palestinian movement differs from activism against South African apartheid, the Vietnam War, and discrimination against African Americans is that its target, Israel, is also a refuge for a persecuted people and their lone nation-state. Another way is that, so far at least, organizers appear indifferent to how their rhetoric and actions are interpreted by the broader public. Yassin and others are convinced that history is on their side, and that public opinion—and government policy following it—will inevitably swing their way. As Mackey put it about the university divesting from Israel, “It’s when, not if.”

This line of thinking absolves activists of pursuing alternative strategies that might be more beneficial, such as allying with Israel’s leftists, clarifying the place of Jews in a free Palestine, denouncing all deliberate attacks on civilians, or engaging in self-criticism that could perhaps help propel the movement forward. Mackey observed that the divestment campaign at the University of Toronto began in 2006. But in 2024, the school is no closer to meeting the movement’s demands than it was 18 years ago. The U of T encampment disbanded without compelling the school to make any changes.

Some campuses had victories. At Brown University, students took down their tents when the school’s governing body agreed to vote on a proposal to divest the school’s $6.6 billion endowment from companies affiliated with Israel. “Not only did we force the administrators to come to the table, but we also forced them into accepting a really historic vote,” a Brown encampment participant told reporters at the end of April. “Today we’re seeing the results of negotiations that didn’t seem possible even a week ago.” As far away as Ireland, student protesters caused Trinity College Dublin to divest from Israeli firms. At Macalester College in Minnesota, where Mueller teaches, a task force has been organized to deal with the long-term grievances of students. “Putting campus investment practices on the long-term agenda is probably going to have a decent tail,” she said.

But these were the exceptions. From Columbia University and other Ivy League schools to smaller campuses in the United States and around the world, by and large, the students failed in their basic objectives of ending U.S. support for Israel or forcing most universities to divest from it.

For now.


When students return for the 2024–2025 academic year, activism may resume at a high level, after organizers have licked their wounds and recharged their energies. Mackey and Yassin are adamant that their struggle is far from over, and that they are inspired by their successes, such as they were. “I don’t think that this moment of heightened student protest, for Palestinian freedom on college campuses, has ended yet,” Munayyer of the Arab Center Washington DC agreed. The day after the judge issued the injunction that finished the U of T encampment, one spokesperson said at a press conference, “We are just getting started. This encampment is one of many tactics.”

Ultimately, the most concrete impact of the Gaza protests may be in educating a new generation of activists. Tens of thousands of students participated in mass demonstrations against Israel, encounters that may be formative for decades to come. Mackey’s experiences in climate activism contrasted with her pro-Palestinian activism. In April 2023, she and 200 other student activists occupied a building on campus demanding U of T divest from fossil fuel companies; the students stayed for 18 days. But authorities handled that situation very differently. “We weren’t threatened by police,” she said. At U of T Occupy for Palestine, individuals hurled slurs at her and the other students and played music at night to disrupt their sleep. She, Yassin, and other organizers were physically exhausted by showing up each day for two months to arrange logistics for hundreds of people: providing food, disposing of waste, cleaning, dealing with press, negotiating with lawyers and the school administration, dealing with hostile counterprotesters, and hosting community meetings. A tent where coffee was served blew away in the wind at one point. It was draining and stressful to manage these tasks, but the experience was also indispensable in training a generation of activists. Mackey said the connections that Palestinian solidarity groups have made with labor and faculty organizations will be lasting. Research shows that individuals who participate in protests can be profoundly changed by the experience, altering their family and career choices, along with their political trajectories and voting patterns. A study from Tufts University’s Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement found that large-scale protests of the kind following George Floyd’s murder by police in 2020 brought new people into the political process at a higher rate than smaller-scale demonstrations.

Yassin told me that he has been emboldened to pursue a career in humanities rather than the safer choice in finance to which he had resigned himself. The support and media attention the encampment received were far greater than anything he or his allies expected, convincing him to envision a better future for himself personally as well. He plans to continue in political organizing in some fashion. “If I learned anything from the camp, it’s that anything is possible,” he said. Mackey has likewise been encouraged by her two months in the encampment. She starts a job soon at an environmental nonprofit and will continue to be involved in organizing on and off. Seeing so many people show up in solidarity with Palestinians “was a very profound and transformational moment,” she said. At the rally sending off the encampment, she was in tears.

On a rainy day in mid-July, a visibly more relaxed Yassin visited King’s College Circle for the first time since the encampments were dismantled two weeks prior. All traces of the protests were long gone: the tents, the tarps, the Palestinian flags. An orange plastic fence had replaced the wall that ringed the area, and the grass was growing back where it had been trampled by tents and foot traffic. “God, this is strange,” he said, gazing at the empty space where the small village existed for two months.

Yassin’s parents worried once he became an activist. But they grew proud of their outspoken son. When his mother visited the encampment, she cried, moved to see so many Palestinian flags displayed in one place. Yassin told me that he’s heartened that the Palestinian cause has gained acceptance over decades; he knows it has the potential to reach many more people. Even if the encampments don’t recur, other protests will follow in their wake. A religious man, he believes that in the long sweep of history, justice for Palestinians is likely. Even if Israel kicks every Palestinian out of their homeland, still they will not give up on returning. And, eventually, they will return. “All of this is still possible,” he said, walking on the grass.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Honduran Anti-Mining Activist Who Fought to Save Rivers Is Killed

By Gustavo PalenciaTEGUCIGALPA, Honduras (Reuters) - An environmental activist who protested mining and hydro-electric projects in northern...

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras (Reuters) - An environmental activist who protested mining and hydro-electric projects in northern Honduras in an effort to preserve tropical forests and rivers has been killed, police said on Sunday.Juan Lopez was shot dead on Saturday night by several men as he headed home in his car from church, an official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.Lopez belonged to the Municipal Committee for the Defense of Common and Public Goods, an environmental organization in the city of Tocoa on the country's Atlantic coast.Three other members of the group were killed last year in what the organization saw as retaliation, in a country that is one of the world's most dangerous for activists.The group had suffered threats and harassment for years amid efforts to preserve the Guapinol and San Pedro rivers, and the Carlos Escaleras nature reserve, amid the growing presence of mining and hydro-electric companies."We demand clear and conclusive answers, this government must answer for the killing of our colleague Juan Lopez," the group said in a post on social media.Last October, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights granted precautionary measures in favor of 30 members of the group and their legal representatives, including Lopez. It urged the Honduras government to strengthen its protection mechanisms.According to the commission, Lopez reported numerous threats, including from a gang member, a local businessperson, and a mining company representative. Since June, two men on motorcycles began appearing around his home, the commission said.The United Nations resident coordinator in Honduras, Alice Shackelford, said Lopez had been threatened for his activism, and she praised his efforts to stand up to powerful interests."We condemn the terrible murder of Juan Lopez, a human rights defender threatened for his work," she said in a post on social media.Latin America accounted for 85% of the world's environmentalists who were killed last year, according to UK advocacy group Global Witness, with 18 deaths registered in Honduras.(Reporting by Gustavo Palencia; Writing by Daina Beth Solomon; Editing by Leslie Adler)Copyright 2024 Thomson Reuters.

Confessions of a Former Carnivore

Nearly two decades on, the mask worn by the anarchist revolutionary in V for Vendetta still commands attention. One recent afternoon, four black-clad figures, all sporting the same maniacal visage, stood back-to-back in silence on a pedestrian plaza in downtown Jersey City, video flat-screens slung across their chests. Strolling couples, commuters, delivery cyclists, and families paused to check out the show, and one felt a grim poignance watching their expressions fall in real time as the images on the screens, hazy in the glare of the June sun, gradually came into focus: baby chicks tumbling live into industrial grinders; pigs writhing and gasping for breath in CO2 gas chambers; steer bellowing in stunned agony after receiving a bolt to the head.What might first appear an instance of street theater was instead a carefully designed intervention—known as a Cube of Truth—staged by the activist group Anonymous for the Voiceless. The video clips were from the documentary Dominion. Made up of hidden-camera and drone footage captured by animal rights organizers, the 2018 feature has won a slew of awards and been streamed more than five million times on YouTube. I urge anyone willing to contend with the less pleasant aspects of our food system to give it a look, but this is not light entertainment. The Internet Movie Database classifies it as “documentary/horror,” and the film’s website offers self-care resources for traumatized viewers.Displaying clips of what some might consider a snuff film to unwitting passersby is undoubtedly a bare-knuckled strategy. But for AV’s devoted volunteers, such measures are the only way to counteract an elaborate apparatus of erasure—crafted over decades, inculcated by parents and teachers, financed by industry, subsidized by government, and underpinned by legislation—designed to sever the connection between the food on our plates and the industrialized mass violence that put it there.There’s good reason for this obfuscation. Few of us want to see innocent creatures suffer and die, and we prefer to know as little about it as possible. (Congratulations on having read this far.) For members of AV, shattering our complacency is just the first step. Then comes what the group calls “outreach,” engaging onlookers in conversation about how their choices as consumers perpetuate practices they view as abhorrent.At one point, I watched Vittorio Chiparo, a reedy 30-year-old Sicilian immigrant who became vegan three years ago, chat with a middle-aged couple. Warily, they agreed to give him just one minute of their time. After haggling to get an additional 30 seconds, he took a deep breath and launched into what was essentially an elevator pitch for basic compassion. “This,” he told them, gesturing toward the gruesome images on the video monitors, “is standard, even for products with the label ‘organic,’ ‘grass fed,’ ‘local,’ ‘humane,’ and so on. If you are personally against animal abuse, but you pay for these products, you’re basically going against your own values. And that makes you a hypocrite.” I thought I detected a stiffening in his listeners when he said the word. Chiparo then made a quick pivot, addressing his own culpability and offering a remedy. “So that’s what made me go vegan,” he went on. “I realized I was responsible for this pain and violence, and I knew I wanted to align my actions with my values.”After an exchange of pleasantries, Chiparo moved along to his next outreach. I hung back to ask what the couple, who declined to share their names, thought of his arguments. The man said the spiel had been “overly simplified” before conceding that he had, after all, demanded the abridged version. He seemed to think “changing how we actually farm foods” might be a more reasonable answer than forgoing animal products entirely.Neither he nor his companion was ready to go vegan, but the conversation had made them think. “When you’re honest, people appreciate it,” Chiparo told me later. “They get the urgency of the message. I’ve learned, speak the truth. Don’t just bullshit around. I call them hypocrites, and they want to shake my hand. They’re like, ‘Thank you!’”Having adopted a vegan diet myself just a few years ago, following decades of blissful unconcern and another few years of guilty but defiant self-indulgence, I’ve found myself increasingly mystified by our culture’s intractable attachment to using animals for food. Why, given the growing plethora of decent alternatives and the many reasons to forswear meat, dairy, and, yes, seafood—self-evidently good reasons, involving ethics, personal health, environmental devastation, and social justice—aren’t more of us doing it? Why are so many otherwise thoughtful, conscientious, and deeply caring individuals so willing to cause so much suffering for the most trifling and transient of gratifications?And relatedly, what took me so long?There was a Brief moment when America’s postwar love affair with meat and dairy products seemed finally to be coming to an end. Vegan cuisine, long known for its sprouts-forward austerity, was embracing a decadent, sexy new aesthetic (e.g., fast-food chain Slutty Vegan). Google searches for veganism doubled. “Alternative milks” were elbowing the old-school stuff off supermarket shelves. Schools and workplaces were declaring Meatless Mondays. And alternative-meat startups were posting unicorn-level valuations. Beyond Meat’s 2019 IPO was the most successful by a major company in nearly two decades. Meanwhile, by 2020, Anonymous for the Voiceless, launched by two friends in Melbourne, had grown to more than 1,000 chapters around the world.And then it all kind of fizzled. When the coronavirus forced a pause in AV’s in-person outreach efforts, the group’s momentum stalled. McDonald’s ended its experiment with the McPlant due to soft demand. As of early August, a share of Beyond Meat Inc. could be had for less than a four-pack of its Hot Italian sausages. Meanwhile, a slew of YouTubers who’d become successful touting the health benefits of various plant-based diets jumped on new wellness bandwagons, and the “Why I’m no longer vegan” volte-face became a genre of its own. “Me and a few other girls were vegan and all kind of denounced or went back on that, like, ‘We’re not vegan anymore,’” recovering wellness influencer Leigh Tilghman (@leefromamerica) told me. Those who become vegan out of concern for animal welfare, known as “ethical vegans,” are believed to be more likely to stick with it than those who adopt the diet primarily for health reasons, like Tilghman. Though her reintroduction of meat enraged some followers, she noted that it also juiced engagement (“Any big reveal is going to get eyeballs”). Indeed: Another popular influencer who made the switch, Alyse Parker, landed a segment on Good Morning America and a sponsorship deal with a meat subscription company.And they don’t call them influencers for nothing. According to Gallup, the percentage of Americans identifying as vegan has fallen from 3 percent in 2018 to just 1 percent now (4 percent profess vegetarianism, forswearing meat but not dairy and eggs).When Noah Hyams, the founder of the “plant-based business community” Vegpreneur, held his first networking event at a New York restaurant in 2018, turnout was so large that late arrivals were kept waiting until the crowd thinned out. Many of those founders have since moved on to other endeavors, he told me. “There was a lot of hype,” he explained. Food startups were being treated like tech companies, and the enthusiasm may have inflated the industry beyond actual demand.And yet the argument for a mass transition away from animal products has, if anything, grown more urgent. The cruelty inherent in the system remains, although an array of “ag-gag” laws have sought to protect the industry from public scrutiny. Slaughterhouses and meatpacking plants exploit immigrant workers, some of them children, who routinely suffer serious workplace injuries. (When ninth grader Duvan Robert Tomas Perez was killed by a machine at a Mississippi chicken plant in 2023, he became the third worker to die in an accident at that facility in a year.) Meanwhile, even as the meat lobby leans into the free-lunch fantasy of “regenerative agriculture,” the vast majority of poultry and pigs (more than 98 percent) and even cows (70 percent) are actually the products of what the United States Department of Agriculture calls “concentrated animal feeding operations,” or CAFOs. Better known as factory farms, they are disproportionally sited in low-income and minority areas, where they issue hazardous levels of ammonia and animal waste and create ideal breeding grounds for new pathogens, like the avian flu, which has spread to cattle and humans, and may well mutate further, creating another pandemic.As for climate change, animal agriculture accounts for as much as 19.6 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, according to one recent estimate. That said, global warming is only part of the sector’s environmental footprint, as John Sanbonmatsu, a scholar of critical animal studies and associate professor of philosophy at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, pointed out. “It’s depletion of the soil,” he explained. “It’s the way all the freshwater is being pumped out of the ground.” It’s deforestation “destroying all the biotic diversity of the planet.” Animal agriculture and the fishing industry, he asserted, “are the most ecologically destructive forces on the earth.”Psychologist Albert Bandura pioneered the idea of moral disengagement, the psychological mechanism by which people preserve a belief in their own fundamental goodness even while doing harm. Bandura found practitioners of “self-exoneration” just about everywhere he looked—from cyberbullies and terrorists to gun manufacturers and the architects of the 2008 financial crisis. He also drew attention to the societal tendency to justify various atrocities by “dehumanizing” the victims—calling them beasts, animals, vermin, etc. But when it came to the treatment of actual animals, Bandura evidently practiced some disengagement of his own. The topic never appears to have come up.Nonetheless, the so-called meat paradox—the common tendency to profess one’s love for animals even while unnecessarily exploiting them for food—has attracted considerable attention from scholars of social psychology, and for good reason. There may be no human activity at once as widespread, deeply cherished, and fraught with moral conflict. “People have a lot of sentimental attachments to animals,” Sanbonmatsu said. “And at the same time, the same people say brutally killing them in the billions and trillions is not only morally unobjectionable but it’s even the best way to live a human life.”“It’s hard to think of a better example of routinely performing self-serving activities at a harmful cost to others,” agreed João Carlos Graça, a professor of sociology and economics at the University of Lisbon, and author of a 2015 study that applied Bandura’s framework to the consumption of meat. Indeed, the full menu of psychic evasions available to the guilty carnivore rivals the bounteous offerings of a typical Greek diner. Hank Rothgerber, a professor of psychology at Bellarmine University, has spent more than a decade studying the issue. “We can talk abstractly about certain values or beliefs we hold, but this is one where you can’t really fake it,” he said. “Diet is where the rubber meets the road.” In 2019, Rothgerber published a scientific paper in the international social science journal Appetite, in which he explored a phenomenon he called “meat-related cognitive dissonance”—a feeling of psychic distress, or “aversive arousal,” arising from the desire to eat meat while simultaneously maintaining one’s positive self-image.Rothgerber has identified 14 distinct strategies by which people manage this psychological conflict. By far the most popular is to avoid it altogether, which turns out to be remarkably easy to do. Unless we stumble across, say, a Cube of Truth or a magazine article (again, congrats for making it this far), our choice to eat animal products will be validated at every turn. The conditioning begins in childhood, when we’re taught to love meat and dairy products before we even know what they are. Then there’s our language, which makes powerful use of euphemism. Philosopher Joan Dunayer, in her 2001 book, Animal Equality: Language and Liberation, declared words “that specify cut of flesh or manner of preparation”—cutlet, pastrami, sirloin—to be “morally irresponsible because they obliterate the victims and their murder.” (That said, lexical precision doesn’t always help; as Homer Simpson once put it, “Lisa, get a hold of yourself! This is laaamb, not ‘a lamb.’”)Unsurprisingly, Dunayer’s preferred terminology (“cow-flesh industry” for beef industry, etc.) has yet to penetrate the mainstream, although when one activist at the Cube told me of his decision to renounce “animal secretions,” he extinguished for all time whatever secret cravings for mozzarella I still harbored. Meanwhile, Dunayer has hardly been alone in taking note of how consumer behavior is framed by linguistic choices. The meat industry has furiously lobbied to prohibit plant-based alternatives from using words like meat and steak. And as Dunayer reported, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association has urged members to avoid the word slaughter, suggesting that they “substitute process or harvest, or say that animals ‘go to market.’”Speaking of market, the old-school butcher shops, where customers might once have found body parts such as heads, intestines, blood, and feet, leading to uncomfortable associations with a dead animal, have long since given way to upscale groceries filled with neat packages of sirloin tips and breast tenderloins—“mechanisms designed to keep this illusion festering,” Rothgerber said.Those of us who were around when New York’s meatpacking district was still “in transition” may recall the queasy experience of stumbling from a club in the wee hours only to encounter a throng of corpses swaying from hooks, effluvia blackening the cobblestones. But in New York as elsewhere, such displays have long since been shuffled out of view.Willful ignorance still fails us on occasion, at which point carnivores are faced with a choice. Either alter their diet, or select from a bad-faith buffet of defensive countermeasures.That said, willful ignorance still fails us on occasion, at which point, Rothgerber observes, carnivores are faced with a choice. Either alter their diet, or select from a bad-faith buffet of defensive countermeasures. Among the most potent are what have been termed the “4 Ns”: claiming that meat is necessary (Where else will we get protein?); natural (What do you think cavemen ate?); and nice (I could never live without cheese). Fortifying all of the above is the most overwhelming “n” of all, that it’s just normal. The most open-minded, progressive person will “still know lots of people like you who eat meat,” Rothgerber explained. “So you can use those individuals. ‘Well, if they’re still eating meat, it must be OK.’ There’s no panic or sense of like, ‘I’m out of step.’” Other “direct justifications,” as he terms them, include denigrating the victims (insisting that farm animals lack intelligence or the capacity to suffer) and claiming that our domination of the animal kingdom is divinely ordained or “just the way things are.”Rothgerber said such direct strategies are more popular among conservatives, for whom moral arguments like those made by AV often backfire. In such cases, appeals to health tend to have more traction.Then there are the somewhat more sophisticated rationalizations, the “indirect strategies,” typically deployed by those who, while ruefully condemning the practice of abusing animals for food, are nonetheless determined to keep doing so. Such people may convince themselves, as I long did, that they eat meat less frequently than they really do. They may highlight what they see as the negative qualities of vegans, framing them as annoying, fanatical, humorless, effeminate, or just kind of weird, what Rothgerber calls “do-gooder derogation” (a weapon long wielded against progressives of all stripes). Spotting perceived acts of hypocrisy among vegans is another favored approach, as if any hint of imperfection (“Is that a leather belt?”) instantly renders the issue moot. Off-loading responsibility to third parties—grocers or restaurants for failing to offer better vegan options, one’s children for being too fussy, or the factory-farm system as a whole—is another venerable technique. So is shifting focus to one’s other social contributions, such as donating to environmental nonprofits.There’s at least one more popular escape hatch: buying “humane” products—free-range chicken, grass-fed beef, eggs from cage-free hens, and so on. “It’s what I call the myth of the Enlightened Omnivore,” said John Sanbonmatsu. “You look at the liberal left; they love the discourse of humane agriculture and sustainability. It gives them the patina of an environmentalist ethos without actually having one.”Sanbonmatsu’s forthcoming book, The Omnivore’s Deception: What We Get Wrong About Meat, Animals, and Ourselves, is a sharp denunciation of what he calls “the new American pastoral—a romanticization of what is in fact a relation of domination of humans over other beings.” As the title indicates, he is especially critical of Michael Pollan, whose 2006 bestseller The Omnivore’s Dilemma provided a “rhetorical scaffolding,” as Sanbonmatsu puts it, for maintaining eating habits that remain as destructive as ever. Nearly two decades after the book’s publication, he reports, “99 percent of meat, eggs, and dairy today still comes from animals raised in intensive confinement.”Sanbonmatsu takes particular issue with what he considers Pollan’s central thesis, the idea that “simply by supporting local farmers, seeking out fresh foods, and sitting at table with family and friends for luxurious meals, we could all be food revolutionaries.” The incoherence of this vision becomes obvious “when you get into the nuts and bolts of how animal agriculture works,” he explained. “You’ve got to sexually reproduce billions of beings, you’ve got to house them, feed them, and then kill them—forever? And you’re gonna do that without causing them suffering?”Pollan’s foodie bible is notably dismissive of vegans. The author declares animal rights an ideology that “could only thrive in a world where people have lost contact with the natural world,” and describes the “vegan utopia” that rejects animal products as “parochial.” Perhaps more utopian, though, is the notion that the small-scale farms he mythologizes could ever begin to feed the world’s 8.2 billion people without a wholesale change in dietary patterns. While the United Nations has come out in favor of regenerative agriculture (a set of more sustainable farming practices), calling it “affordable and effective,” for example, it also nonetheless makes clear that a transition to plant-based diets is a “a logical first step as nearly 80% of total agricultural land is dedicated to feed and livestock production while providing less than 20% of the world’s food calories.”Even as Pollan’s book was garnering ecstatic reviews, scientists working with the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization were readying a major report on the climate impacts of the livestock industry, which found that animal agriculture was “one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases and one of the leading causal factors in the loss of biodiversity.”The Omnivore’s Dilemma doesn’t mention methane, the heat-trapping gas (some 28 times more potent than CO2) that wafts heavenward with every ruminant belch. It touches briefly on nitrous oxide (nearly 300 times as potent), critiquing the overuse of nitrogen fertilizers, but fails to note that a significant portion of N2O comes from animal manure. Pollan suggests that we could mitigate agriculture-related atmospheric warming by converting all the farmland devoted to feed crops to pasture instead. Unfortunately, no such conversion has happened; instead, the popularity of the sort of grass-finished beef championed in the book has led to rampant deforestation in Brazil and elsewhere, with the attendant collapse of biodiversity. Moreover, it turns out that transitioning the U.S. beef industry to grass-only feeding would require 30 percent more livestock—each of which would produce 43 percent more methane.I hadn’t read The Omnivore’s Dilemma until I began researching this story, but it was under the sway of the same Arcadian fetish Pollan helped popularize that my family and I decided, in the Covid summer of 2020, to decamp from our Brooklyn apartment to a tumbledown clapboard house on a 44-acre former dairy farm in the western Catskills. Like so many urbanites, we’d long harbored inchoate primeval yearnings: for dirt, physical labor, night skies exploding with stars. The virus, punctuated by the unceasing wail of ambulance sirens, supplied just enough urgency to get us moving.In retrospect, I think I was less worried that the world might change forever than that it might not. Our lives, at least, would be different. I ordered a subscription to Self-Reliance magazine and assembled a library of Foxfire books and other back-to-the-land classics. We’d learn to pickle, can, chop wood, tap, forage, garden, fish in our own stream, and perhaps—if I could persuade our new neighbor to take me out one morning—even hunt. Eventually, I bought a used tractor (charmingly classified as a subcompact) and an assortment of 3-point implements. We built a big fenced-in garden, covered it with salvaged cardboard, and called in 15 yards of compost. Naturally, there was talk of animals: goats, pigs, maybe a mule. A neighbor had bison, which would cut a handsome figure, I thought, on our craggy hillside. We started small, with chickens.Contrary to Pollan’s lofty claim, I think it was precisely our new experiences with the natural world—sharing a landscape with deer, raccoons, groundhogs, snakes, foxes, eagles, frogs, fish, and so on, and getting to know farmers in our area—that led us to begin appreciating living animals more than dead ones. One day, we all went to volunteer at a small cooperative farm run on regenerative principles, precisely the sort of place in which Pollan sees the possibility of a soulful agrarian restoration. My middle kid, Russell, chatted with one co-op member about his experience slaughtering broiler hens for the local community-supported agriculture group and was struck by how troubled the man was as he described the chore. By this time, Russell had come to know our own chickens as individuals, occasionally sitting in the coop while they crowded into his lap. A few days after our visit to the co-op, he announced his decision to go vegan.In the weeks that followed, Russell and I had a series of dialogues about my ongoing carnism. I adopted a fatherly tone of broadmindedness and ecumenicism. The world is a complicated place, I sermonized, and that’s what makes it interesting. Black-and-white thinking, blind dogma, and reductionism are intellectual traps to be avoided at all costs. I pointed out that I’m a journalist and therefore strive to be objective, nonjudgmental, and adventuresome. I told him one must never say never. Unwittingly echoing an argument of Pollan’s, I asserted the value of being an easygoing guest when invited to dinner parties and barbecues. Besides, I insisted, “I’m pretty much vegetarian anyway.”Though Russell was by this point impressively well-armed with an array of arguments—he had seen Dominion and was soon to don his own Guy Fawkes mask as a member of AV—he didn’t bother to recite them. I knew the broad outlines, of course, and he knew that I knew. Instead, he looked me full in the face, apprising me evenly, with a serious, uncompromising expression. “Dad,” he said. “This is really happening.”Something in that clear, unimpeachable formulation, in the way it called bullshit on all my rationalizations in one go, was precisely what I needed to hear. Changing my diet was a process for me, as it is for many vegans. PETA co-founder Ingrid Newkirk, for instance, told me she was “slow to change,” making the switch “one animal, or taxon, at a time.” For a while, I still enjoyed an occasional egg from our chickens (that is, when I could snag one before Russell threw them into the run for the hens to feast on). And once in a while, on finding myself at a local diner and not especially tempted by the “side salad,” I’d indulge in a grilled cheese. Gradually, however, the appeal just sort of faded, until it became harder to rationalize the caveats than simply to move on.Meanwhile, Russell’s admonition seems to have short-circuited a proclivity I didn’t even know I’d acquired, an ability to take in the dire facts of a given situation while distancing myself from their implications. In time, his words became a kind of gravitational mantra, pulling me back down to Earth as I struggled to absorb the latest news about the devastation of the climate, about the carnage in Gaza, about the sputtering of democracy, and on and on.In the latter half of the last decade, as red-meat sales were declining and excitement about plant-based alternatives was reaching a fever pitch, the beef industry received a welcome gift in the form of an old-school TV drama. Debuting in 2018, Yellowstone was the defiantly atavistic saga of wealthy cattleman John Dutton, played by Kevin Costner, fighting to hang on to his expansive Montana ranch. Despite airing on a second-tier cable network, it soon became the most popular show on television. Big Beef couldn’t have wished for a better P.R. vehicle—a gorgeously produced modern-day Western starring one of the world’s top movie stars, shrink-wrapping their benighted product in such all-American virtues as honor, hard work, family, cowboy stoicism, and the masculine exercise of power. Better yet, the only animals viewers would see getting brutalized were the human ones, a parade of city slickers, hired goons, journalists, and one very unlucky officer of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who dared to challenge Dutton’s sovereignty.The show didn’t take on animal rights directly until season four, in which dozens of activists arrive in town to protest “the mass murder of millions of animals every year,” in the words of organizer Summer Higgins, played by Piper Perabo.“You ever plow a field, Summer? To plant quinoa or sorghum or whatever the hell it is you eat?” Dutton replies with withering contempt. “You kill everything on the ground and under it. You kill every snake, every frog, every mouse, mole, vole, worm, quail—you kill ’em all. So I guess the only real question is, how cute does an animal have to be before you care if it dies to feed you?” (Stung and speechless, Higgins obviously has no choice but to sleep with him.)Dutton’s argument is one often lobbed at vegans. As Pollan put it, “The grain that the vegan eats is harvested with a combine that shreds field mice, while the farmer’s tractor wheel crushes woodchucks in their burrows.... If America were suddenly to adopt a strictly vegetarian diet, it isn’t at all clear that the total number of animals killed each year would necessarily decline.” What this rebuttal fails to account for is that around 40 percent of the world’s cropland is actually devoted to growing animal feed. So yes, some critters may be killed due to the industrial farming of soybeans, corn, and other crops, but a vegan diet is killing considerably fewer. Perhaps more important, studies indicate that global agricultural land use could be reduced by as much as 75 percent if the world adopted a plant-based diet. “Ultimately, we can grow more food on less land, and rewild the rest,” according to Nicholas Carter, director of environmental science for the Game Changers Institute. “Honestly, it’s a complete lack of understanding of how we use land around the world. I mean, how do you think these animals are fed?”Yellowstone creator, showrunner, writer, and sometime actor Taylor Sheridan is hardly a neutral observer. In 2022, he became principal owner of the 260,000-acre Four Sixes Ranch in northwest Texas, which sells its products online (offering a Reserve First Cut Brisket for $75) and will soon be the centerpiece of its own series, 6666. Last year, Sheridan was a keynote speaker at CattleCon, the annual convention of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.Given that Yellowstone remains a phenomenon of the heartland, preaching largely to the red-meat choir, its ability to drive the public conversation is limited. But it represents just a small part of the multifront battle for hearts, minds, and stomachs being waged by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and other Big Ag lobbyists, P.R. flacks, industry-financed researchers, influencers, and advocacy groups.These meat and dairy interests have been extraordinarily successful at shaping public opinion. Carter recently published a comprehensive study of industry propaganda. One of the most successful campaigns he found was a coordinated response to the 2019 EAT-Lancet “Food in the Anthropocene” report. If you’ve never heard of this extraordinary three-year study by an international commission of 37 scientists, which called for “a radical transformation of the global food system” and concluded that worldwide consumption of unhealthy foods, such as red meat and sugar, would need to be cut in half by 2050 to protect human health and that of the planet, there’s a reason. A week before its expected release, the industry-funded CLEAR Center launched a massive, coordinated internet campaign called #YesToMeat that effectively buried it. “When you have lots of time to kind of create stories and marketing, and you don’t need to necessarily use facts, you can win over lots of people and derail progress,” Carter observed.Another more overt campaign was the handiwork of the Center for Consumer Freedom. An industry-financed astroturf organization, now known as the Center for Organizational Research and Education, it was founded by P.R. man Richard Berman in 1995 with funding from Philip Morris, in order to, as Berman wrote in an internal memo that became public as a result of the anti-Big Tobacco litigation, “defend ... consumers and marketing programs from anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-meat activists.” A quarter-century later, the front group was still at it, running a 2020 Super Bowl ad in which a series of young spelling bee contestants are bewildered by the ingredients used in plant-based burgers—part of a sweeping effort to demonize such products and clean up beef’s image. Another target is so-called cultivated meat, the manufacture and sale of which has already been banned in Florida, with the explicit goal of protecting industry interests. In all, Carter’s dossier runs to 120 pages.Overwhelming as this sprawling effort may seem, it betrays a profound insecurity. Corporate purveyors of animal products are every bit as aware as the “abolitionists” of AV that our diet is largely a function of cultural norms, and that such norms are far from stable. That said, given our many political crises, it’s not unreasonable to wonder whether a focus on animal rights isn’t a massive distraction. A Muslim American I met at the Cube of Truth wondered why activists were displaying images of animal cruelty rather than, say, the ongoing suffering in Gaza. “I think people believe that caring is divisible, and we only have so much of it,” Carol J. Adams, author of The Sexual Politics of Meat, told me. But empathy, compassion, love—these are best seen not as finite substances to dole out sparingly, but as skills to be cultivated. They grow easier with practice. In that sense, eschewing animal products is an act of social justice, part of a comprehensive battle against sexism, racism, homophobia, and other forms of oppression—one reason, perhaps, why vegetarian and vegan diets are more common among progressives, women, and Black Americans.That also helps explain why far-right political figures champion the consumption of beef and milk as totems of masculinity and denigrate “soy boys.” (Never mind the evidence linking full-fat dairy consumption with reduced sperm quality, as well as cancers of the prostate and testicles.) If the elaborate social hierarchy that has long placed affluent white men at the top rests to some extent on a foundation of animal exploitation, rejecting our own place in this architecture of dominance, beginning with the food we eat, seems a logical first step in creating a more just world. “As long as people will shed the blood of innocent creatures there can be no peace, no liberty, no harmony between people,” Isaac Bashevis Singer said. “Slaughter and justice cannot dwell together.”“Anima” is Latin for the life force, the spirit, the vital principle. The word also connotes wind or breath, a paradoxical essence at once invisible and replete with ineffable substance. It’s the root of animation, animism, and of course animal. This divine gift is what must be cast aside, through what can only be described as violence, in order to turn a cow into smashburgers, a sow into strips of bacon, a chicken into “tendies.”While the statistics are staggering—the system churns through 150,000 animals every minute—these big numbers can make it hard to comprehend what is, to my mind, a more disturbing reality: Each “broiler hen,” each catfish, every single lamb, is an individual. While their inner lives surely differ from ours, they’re probably not as remote as we like to think. There’s a reason, after all, that people spend $136.8 billion annually on their pets and populate our feeds with videos of their antics. Not only do animals have unique personalities, readily apparent when we bother to look, they have desires, fears, and yearnings just as we do—less complicated perhaps but no less worthy of respect and decency.The Inuit didn’t have a lot of plant-based options when anthropologist Knud Rasmussen visited the community of Iglulik more than a century ago. They hunted seal, caribou, whale, and other animals. But their understanding of what that meant couldn’t have been more different than ours. “The greatest peril of life lies in the fact that human food consists entirely of souls,” Ivaluartjuk, a grizzled ballad-singer, told Rasmussen. “All creatures which we have to kill and eat, all those that we have to strike down and destroy to make clothes for ourselves, have souls as we have, souls that do not perish and which therefore must be propitiated lest they revenge themselves on us for taking away their bodies.”What I find criminal about our food system is not so much that it brings so many innocent creatures into this world only to condemn them to suffer and die for our pleasure, but that it so ruthlessly commodifies the process, turning anima, like clockwork, into a waste product—life itself rendered a kind of refuse.Russell disagrees. “No. It’s both,” he scribbled in the margin after I let him read an early draft of this essay: “Animals don’t care about our attitude when killing or hurting them.” As usual, my son has a point. And yet, as much as I’m disturbed by all the mistreatment and slaughter, and feel grateful to have finally stepped away from the overladen sideboard, I remain even more horrified by a collective madness that now imperils our own species and so many others, lunacy of which I’ve come to regard animal agriculture as only the most salient manifestation.In the 1970s, chemist James Lovelock and biologist Lynn Margulis put forth what they called the Gaia hypothesis, which proposed that living creatures and the environment co-evolved—shaping and nurturing one another over time. As the effects of global warming are increasingly apparent, this once radical-sounding idea has come to seem self-evident. Initially, some readers misunderstood the theory, imagining Gaia as a perfect self-regulating system that could absorb and counterbalance whatever damage humans saw fit to do. In The Ages of Gaia, Lovelock clarified his meaning. Gaia, he wrote, “is stern and tough, always keeping the world warm and comfortable for those who obey the rules, but ruthless in her destruction of those who transgress.”Lovelock was wrong in one key respect. The destruction he describes has been visited mostly on the obedient—not only those nonhuman animals trapped in our food system, but the world’s wildlife, which has declined by two-thirds due to habitat loss since the Gaia theory was introduced. The transgression began centuries ago, when the grand prerogatives of scientific rationalism met the flywheel of capitalist exploitation—and then it just kept getting worse. Whether you prefer to conceive it in spiritual terms or purely as a matter of degrees Celsius, at some point we have to acknowledge: This is really happening.Perhaps we resist this truth because we feel powerless to do anything about it, and as individuals, for the most part, we are. That said, the reason we’re omnivores in the first place is that our distant ancestors were forced to survive on a wide variety of foods, and then learned to use fire to make others more palatable. It’s only thanks to their dietary flexibility that we’re here at all to ponder our gustatory “dilemmas.” Altering our diet once more is something we actually can do—not only mitigating the ruination of the world that sustains our existence, but reimagining our relationship to that world and to the living creatures, human and nonhuman alike, with whom we’re privileged to share it.

Nearly two decades on, the mask worn by the anarchist revolutionary in V for Vendetta still commands attention. One recent afternoon, four black-clad figures, all sporting the same maniacal visage, stood back-to-back in silence on a pedestrian plaza in downtown Jersey City, video flat-screens slung across their chests. Strolling couples, commuters, delivery cyclists, and families paused to check out the show, and one felt a grim poignance watching their expressions fall in real time as the images on the screens, hazy in the glare of the June sun, gradually came into focus: baby chicks tumbling live into industrial grinders; pigs writhing and gasping for breath in CO2 gas chambers; steer bellowing in stunned agony after receiving a bolt to the head.What might first appear an instance of street theater was instead a carefully designed intervention—known as a Cube of Truth—staged by the activist group Anonymous for the Voiceless. The video clips were from the documentary Dominion. Made up of hidden-camera and drone footage captured by animal rights organizers, the 2018 feature has won a slew of awards and been streamed more than five million times on YouTube. I urge anyone willing to contend with the less pleasant aspects of our food system to give it a look, but this is not light entertainment. The Internet Movie Database classifies it as “documentary/horror,” and the film’s website offers self-care resources for traumatized viewers.Displaying clips of what some might consider a snuff film to unwitting passersby is undoubtedly a bare-knuckled strategy. But for AV’s devoted volunteers, such measures are the only way to counteract an elaborate apparatus of erasure—crafted over decades, inculcated by parents and teachers, financed by industry, subsidized by government, and underpinned by legislation—designed to sever the connection between the food on our plates and the industrialized mass violence that put it there.There’s good reason for this obfuscation. Few of us want to see innocent creatures suffer and die, and we prefer to know as little about it as possible. (Congratulations on having read this far.) For members of AV, shattering our complacency is just the first step. Then comes what the group calls “outreach,” engaging onlookers in conversation about how their choices as consumers perpetuate practices they view as abhorrent.At one point, I watched Vittorio Chiparo, a reedy 30-year-old Sicilian immigrant who became vegan three years ago, chat with a middle-aged couple. Warily, they agreed to give him just one minute of their time. After haggling to get an additional 30 seconds, he took a deep breath and launched into what was essentially an elevator pitch for basic compassion. “This,” he told them, gesturing toward the gruesome images on the video monitors, “is standard, even for products with the label ‘organic,’ ‘grass fed,’ ‘local,’ ‘humane,’ and so on. If you are personally against animal abuse, but you pay for these products, you’re basically going against your own values. And that makes you a hypocrite.” I thought I detected a stiffening in his listeners when he said the word. Chiparo then made a quick pivot, addressing his own culpability and offering a remedy. “So that’s what made me go vegan,” he went on. “I realized I was responsible for this pain and violence, and I knew I wanted to align my actions with my values.”After an exchange of pleasantries, Chiparo moved along to his next outreach. I hung back to ask what the couple, who declined to share their names, thought of his arguments. The man said the spiel had been “overly simplified” before conceding that he had, after all, demanded the abridged version. He seemed to think “changing how we actually farm foods” might be a more reasonable answer than forgoing animal products entirely.Neither he nor his companion was ready to go vegan, but the conversation had made them think. “When you’re honest, people appreciate it,” Chiparo told me later. “They get the urgency of the message. I’ve learned, speak the truth. Don’t just bullshit around. I call them hypocrites, and they want to shake my hand. They’re like, ‘Thank you!’”Having adopted a vegan diet myself just a few years ago, following decades of blissful unconcern and another few years of guilty but defiant self-indulgence, I’ve found myself increasingly mystified by our culture’s intractable attachment to using animals for food. Why, given the growing plethora of decent alternatives and the many reasons to forswear meat, dairy, and, yes, seafood—self-evidently good reasons, involving ethics, personal health, environmental devastation, and social justice—aren’t more of us doing it? Why are so many otherwise thoughtful, conscientious, and deeply caring individuals so willing to cause so much suffering for the most trifling and transient of gratifications?And relatedly, what took me so long?There was a Brief moment when America’s postwar love affair with meat and dairy products seemed finally to be coming to an end. Vegan cuisine, long known for its sprouts-forward austerity, was embracing a decadent, sexy new aesthetic (e.g., fast-food chain Slutty Vegan). Google searches for veganism doubled. “Alternative milks” were elbowing the old-school stuff off supermarket shelves. Schools and workplaces were declaring Meatless Mondays. And alternative-meat startups were posting unicorn-level valuations. Beyond Meat’s 2019 IPO was the most successful by a major company in nearly two decades. Meanwhile, by 2020, Anonymous for the Voiceless, launched by two friends in Melbourne, had grown to more than 1,000 chapters around the world.And then it all kind of fizzled. When the coronavirus forced a pause in AV’s in-person outreach efforts, the group’s momentum stalled. McDonald’s ended its experiment with the McPlant due to soft demand. As of early August, a share of Beyond Meat Inc. could be had for less than a four-pack of its Hot Italian sausages. Meanwhile, a slew of YouTubers who’d become successful touting the health benefits of various plant-based diets jumped on new wellness bandwagons, and the “Why I’m no longer vegan” volte-face became a genre of its own. “Me and a few other girls were vegan and all kind of denounced or went back on that, like, ‘We’re not vegan anymore,’” recovering wellness influencer Leigh Tilghman (@leefromamerica) told me. Those who become vegan out of concern for animal welfare, known as “ethical vegans,” are believed to be more likely to stick with it than those who adopt the diet primarily for health reasons, like Tilghman. Though her reintroduction of meat enraged some followers, she noted that it also juiced engagement (“Any big reveal is going to get eyeballs”). Indeed: Another popular influencer who made the switch, Alyse Parker, landed a segment on Good Morning America and a sponsorship deal with a meat subscription company.And they don’t call them influencers for nothing. According to Gallup, the percentage of Americans identifying as vegan has fallen from 3 percent in 2018 to just 1 percent now (4 percent profess vegetarianism, forswearing meat but not dairy and eggs).When Noah Hyams, the founder of the “plant-based business community” Vegpreneur, held his first networking event at a New York restaurant in 2018, turnout was so large that late arrivals were kept waiting until the crowd thinned out. Many of those founders have since moved on to other endeavors, he told me. “There was a lot of hype,” he explained. Food startups were being treated like tech companies, and the enthusiasm may have inflated the industry beyond actual demand.And yet the argument for a mass transition away from animal products has, if anything, grown more urgent. The cruelty inherent in the system remains, although an array of “ag-gag” laws have sought to protect the industry from public scrutiny. Slaughterhouses and meatpacking plants exploit immigrant workers, some of them children, who routinely suffer serious workplace injuries. (When ninth grader Duvan Robert Tomas Perez was killed by a machine at a Mississippi chicken plant in 2023, he became the third worker to die in an accident at that facility in a year.) Meanwhile, even as the meat lobby leans into the free-lunch fantasy of “regenerative agriculture,” the vast majority of poultry and pigs (more than 98 percent) and even cows (70 percent) are actually the products of what the United States Department of Agriculture calls “concentrated animal feeding operations,” or CAFOs. Better known as factory farms, they are disproportionally sited in low-income and minority areas, where they issue hazardous levels of ammonia and animal waste and create ideal breeding grounds for new pathogens, like the avian flu, which has spread to cattle and humans, and may well mutate further, creating another pandemic.As for climate change, animal agriculture accounts for as much as 19.6 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, according to one recent estimate. That said, global warming is only part of the sector’s environmental footprint, as John Sanbonmatsu, a scholar of critical animal studies and associate professor of philosophy at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, pointed out. “It’s depletion of the soil,” he explained. “It’s the way all the freshwater is being pumped out of the ground.” It’s deforestation “destroying all the biotic diversity of the planet.” Animal agriculture and the fishing industry, he asserted, “are the most ecologically destructive forces on the earth.”Psychologist Albert Bandura pioneered the idea of moral disengagement, the psychological mechanism by which people preserve a belief in their own fundamental goodness even while doing harm. Bandura found practitioners of “self-exoneration” just about everywhere he looked—from cyberbullies and terrorists to gun manufacturers and the architects of the 2008 financial crisis. He also drew attention to the societal tendency to justify various atrocities by “dehumanizing” the victims—calling them beasts, animals, vermin, etc. But when it came to the treatment of actual animals, Bandura evidently practiced some disengagement of his own. The topic never appears to have come up.Nonetheless, the so-called meat paradox—the common tendency to profess one’s love for animals even while unnecessarily exploiting them for food—has attracted considerable attention from scholars of social psychology, and for good reason. There may be no human activity at once as widespread, deeply cherished, and fraught with moral conflict. “People have a lot of sentimental attachments to animals,” Sanbonmatsu said. “And at the same time, the same people say brutally killing them in the billions and trillions is not only morally unobjectionable but it’s even the best way to live a human life.”“It’s hard to think of a better example of routinely performing self-serving activities at a harmful cost to others,” agreed João Carlos Graça, a professor of sociology and economics at the University of Lisbon, and author of a 2015 study that applied Bandura’s framework to the consumption of meat. Indeed, the full menu of psychic evasions available to the guilty carnivore rivals the bounteous offerings of a typical Greek diner. Hank Rothgerber, a professor of psychology at Bellarmine University, has spent more than a decade studying the issue. “We can talk abstractly about certain values or beliefs we hold, but this is one where you can’t really fake it,” he said. “Diet is where the rubber meets the road.” In 2019, Rothgerber published a scientific paper in the international social science journal Appetite, in which he explored a phenomenon he called “meat-related cognitive dissonance”—a feeling of psychic distress, or “aversive arousal,” arising from the desire to eat meat while simultaneously maintaining one’s positive self-image.Rothgerber has identified 14 distinct strategies by which people manage this psychological conflict. By far the most popular is to avoid it altogether, which turns out to be remarkably easy to do. Unless we stumble across, say, a Cube of Truth or a magazine article (again, congrats for making it this far), our choice to eat animal products will be validated at every turn. The conditioning begins in childhood, when we’re taught to love meat and dairy products before we even know what they are. Then there’s our language, which makes powerful use of euphemism. Philosopher Joan Dunayer, in her 2001 book, Animal Equality: Language and Liberation, declared words “that specify cut of flesh or manner of preparation”—cutlet, pastrami, sirloin—to be “morally irresponsible because they obliterate the victims and their murder.” (That said, lexical precision doesn’t always help; as Homer Simpson once put it, “Lisa, get a hold of yourself! This is laaamb, not ‘a lamb.’”)Unsurprisingly, Dunayer’s preferred terminology (“cow-flesh industry” for beef industry, etc.) has yet to penetrate the mainstream, although when one activist at the Cube told me of his decision to renounce “animal secretions,” he extinguished for all time whatever secret cravings for mozzarella I still harbored. Meanwhile, Dunayer has hardly been alone in taking note of how consumer behavior is framed by linguistic choices. The meat industry has furiously lobbied to prohibit plant-based alternatives from using words like meat and steak. And as Dunayer reported, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association has urged members to avoid the word slaughter, suggesting that they “substitute process or harvest, or say that animals ‘go to market.’”Speaking of market, the old-school butcher shops, where customers might once have found body parts such as heads, intestines, blood, and feet, leading to uncomfortable associations with a dead animal, have long since given way to upscale groceries filled with neat packages of sirloin tips and breast tenderloins—“mechanisms designed to keep this illusion festering,” Rothgerber said.Those of us who were around when New York’s meatpacking district was still “in transition” may recall the queasy experience of stumbling from a club in the wee hours only to encounter a throng of corpses swaying from hooks, effluvia blackening the cobblestones. But in New York as elsewhere, such displays have long since been shuffled out of view.Willful ignorance still fails us on occasion, at which point carnivores are faced with a choice. Either alter their diet, or select from a bad-faith buffet of defensive countermeasures.That said, willful ignorance still fails us on occasion, at which point, Rothgerber observes, carnivores are faced with a choice. Either alter their diet, or select from a bad-faith buffet of defensive countermeasures. Among the most potent are what have been termed the “4 Ns”: claiming that meat is necessary (Where else will we get protein?); natural (What do you think cavemen ate?); and nice (I could never live without cheese). Fortifying all of the above is the most overwhelming “n” of all, that it’s just normal. The most open-minded, progressive person will “still know lots of people like you who eat meat,” Rothgerber explained. “So you can use those individuals. ‘Well, if they’re still eating meat, it must be OK.’ There’s no panic or sense of like, ‘I’m out of step.’” Other “direct justifications,” as he terms them, include denigrating the victims (insisting that farm animals lack intelligence or the capacity to suffer) and claiming that our domination of the animal kingdom is divinely ordained or “just the way things are.”Rothgerber said such direct strategies are more popular among conservatives, for whom moral arguments like those made by AV often backfire. In such cases, appeals to health tend to have more traction.Then there are the somewhat more sophisticated rationalizations, the “indirect strategies,” typically deployed by those who, while ruefully condemning the practice of abusing animals for food, are nonetheless determined to keep doing so. Such people may convince themselves, as I long did, that they eat meat less frequently than they really do. They may highlight what they see as the negative qualities of vegans, framing them as annoying, fanatical, humorless, effeminate, or just kind of weird, what Rothgerber calls “do-gooder derogation” (a weapon long wielded against progressives of all stripes). Spotting perceived acts of hypocrisy among vegans is another favored approach, as if any hint of imperfection (“Is that a leather belt?”) instantly renders the issue moot. Off-loading responsibility to third parties—grocers or restaurants for failing to offer better vegan options, one’s children for being too fussy, or the factory-farm system as a whole—is another venerable technique. So is shifting focus to one’s other social contributions, such as donating to environmental nonprofits.There’s at least one more popular escape hatch: buying “humane” products—free-range chicken, grass-fed beef, eggs from cage-free hens, and so on. “It’s what I call the myth of the Enlightened Omnivore,” said John Sanbonmatsu. “You look at the liberal left; they love the discourse of humane agriculture and sustainability. It gives them the patina of an environmentalist ethos without actually having one.”Sanbonmatsu’s forthcoming book, The Omnivore’s Deception: What We Get Wrong About Meat, Animals, and Ourselves, is a sharp denunciation of what he calls “the new American pastoral—a romanticization of what is in fact a relation of domination of humans over other beings.” As the title indicates, he is especially critical of Michael Pollan, whose 2006 bestseller The Omnivore’s Dilemma provided a “rhetorical scaffolding,” as Sanbonmatsu puts it, for maintaining eating habits that remain as destructive as ever. Nearly two decades after the book’s publication, he reports, “99 percent of meat, eggs, and dairy today still comes from animals raised in intensive confinement.”Sanbonmatsu takes particular issue with what he considers Pollan’s central thesis, the idea that “simply by supporting local farmers, seeking out fresh foods, and sitting at table with family and friends for luxurious meals, we could all be food revolutionaries.” The incoherence of this vision becomes obvious “when you get into the nuts and bolts of how animal agriculture works,” he explained. “You’ve got to sexually reproduce billions of beings, you’ve got to house them, feed them, and then kill them—forever? And you’re gonna do that without causing them suffering?”Pollan’s foodie bible is notably dismissive of vegans. The author declares animal rights an ideology that “could only thrive in a world where people have lost contact with the natural world,” and describes the “vegan utopia” that rejects animal products as “parochial.” Perhaps more utopian, though, is the notion that the small-scale farms he mythologizes could ever begin to feed the world’s 8.2 billion people without a wholesale change in dietary patterns. While the United Nations has come out in favor of regenerative agriculture (a set of more sustainable farming practices), calling it “affordable and effective,” for example, it also nonetheless makes clear that a transition to plant-based diets is a “a logical first step as nearly 80% of total agricultural land is dedicated to feed and livestock production while providing less than 20% of the world’s food calories.”Even as Pollan’s book was garnering ecstatic reviews, scientists working with the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization were readying a major report on the climate impacts of the livestock industry, which found that animal agriculture was “one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases and one of the leading causal factors in the loss of biodiversity.”The Omnivore’s Dilemma doesn’t mention methane, the heat-trapping gas (some 28 times more potent than CO2) that wafts heavenward with every ruminant belch. It touches briefly on nitrous oxide (nearly 300 times as potent), critiquing the overuse of nitrogen fertilizers, but fails to note that a significant portion of N2O comes from animal manure. Pollan suggests that we could mitigate agriculture-related atmospheric warming by converting all the farmland devoted to feed crops to pasture instead. Unfortunately, no such conversion has happened; instead, the popularity of the sort of grass-finished beef championed in the book has led to rampant deforestation in Brazil and elsewhere, with the attendant collapse of biodiversity. Moreover, it turns out that transitioning the U.S. beef industry to grass-only feeding would require 30 percent more livestock—each of which would produce 43 percent more methane.I hadn’t read The Omnivore’s Dilemma until I began researching this story, but it was under the sway of the same Arcadian fetish Pollan helped popularize that my family and I decided, in the Covid summer of 2020, to decamp from our Brooklyn apartment to a tumbledown clapboard house on a 44-acre former dairy farm in the western Catskills. Like so many urbanites, we’d long harbored inchoate primeval yearnings: for dirt, physical labor, night skies exploding with stars. The virus, punctuated by the unceasing wail of ambulance sirens, supplied just enough urgency to get us moving.In retrospect, I think I was less worried that the world might change forever than that it might not. Our lives, at least, would be different. I ordered a subscription to Self-Reliance magazine and assembled a library of Foxfire books and other back-to-the-land classics. We’d learn to pickle, can, chop wood, tap, forage, garden, fish in our own stream, and perhaps—if I could persuade our new neighbor to take me out one morning—even hunt. Eventually, I bought a used tractor (charmingly classified as a subcompact) and an assortment of 3-point implements. We built a big fenced-in garden, covered it with salvaged cardboard, and called in 15 yards of compost. Naturally, there was talk of animals: goats, pigs, maybe a mule. A neighbor had bison, which would cut a handsome figure, I thought, on our craggy hillside. We started small, with chickens.Contrary to Pollan’s lofty claim, I think it was precisely our new experiences with the natural world—sharing a landscape with deer, raccoons, groundhogs, snakes, foxes, eagles, frogs, fish, and so on, and getting to know farmers in our area—that led us to begin appreciating living animals more than dead ones. One day, we all went to volunteer at a small cooperative farm run on regenerative principles, precisely the sort of place in which Pollan sees the possibility of a soulful agrarian restoration. My middle kid, Russell, chatted with one co-op member about his experience slaughtering broiler hens for the local community-supported agriculture group and was struck by how troubled the man was as he described the chore. By this time, Russell had come to know our own chickens as individuals, occasionally sitting in the coop while they crowded into his lap. A few days after our visit to the co-op, he announced his decision to go vegan.In the weeks that followed, Russell and I had a series of dialogues about my ongoing carnism. I adopted a fatherly tone of broadmindedness and ecumenicism. The world is a complicated place, I sermonized, and that’s what makes it interesting. Black-and-white thinking, blind dogma, and reductionism are intellectual traps to be avoided at all costs. I pointed out that I’m a journalist and therefore strive to be objective, nonjudgmental, and adventuresome. I told him one must never say never. Unwittingly echoing an argument of Pollan’s, I asserted the value of being an easygoing guest when invited to dinner parties and barbecues. Besides, I insisted, “I’m pretty much vegetarian anyway.”Though Russell was by this point impressively well-armed with an array of arguments—he had seen Dominion and was soon to don his own Guy Fawkes mask as a member of AV—he didn’t bother to recite them. I knew the broad outlines, of course, and he knew that I knew. Instead, he looked me full in the face, apprising me evenly, with a serious, uncompromising expression. “Dad,” he said. “This is really happening.”Something in that clear, unimpeachable formulation, in the way it called bullshit on all my rationalizations in one go, was precisely what I needed to hear. Changing my diet was a process for me, as it is for many vegans. PETA co-founder Ingrid Newkirk, for instance, told me she was “slow to change,” making the switch “one animal, or taxon, at a time.” For a while, I still enjoyed an occasional egg from our chickens (that is, when I could snag one before Russell threw them into the run for the hens to feast on). And once in a while, on finding myself at a local diner and not especially tempted by the “side salad,” I’d indulge in a grilled cheese. Gradually, however, the appeal just sort of faded, until it became harder to rationalize the caveats than simply to move on.Meanwhile, Russell’s admonition seems to have short-circuited a proclivity I didn’t even know I’d acquired, an ability to take in the dire facts of a given situation while distancing myself from their implications. In time, his words became a kind of gravitational mantra, pulling me back down to Earth as I struggled to absorb the latest news about the devastation of the climate, about the carnage in Gaza, about the sputtering of democracy, and on and on.In the latter half of the last decade, as red-meat sales were declining and excitement about plant-based alternatives was reaching a fever pitch, the beef industry received a welcome gift in the form of an old-school TV drama. Debuting in 2018, Yellowstone was the defiantly atavistic saga of wealthy cattleman John Dutton, played by Kevin Costner, fighting to hang on to his expansive Montana ranch. Despite airing on a second-tier cable network, it soon became the most popular show on television. Big Beef couldn’t have wished for a better P.R. vehicle—a gorgeously produced modern-day Western starring one of the world’s top movie stars, shrink-wrapping their benighted product in such all-American virtues as honor, hard work, family, cowboy stoicism, and the masculine exercise of power. Better yet, the only animals viewers would see getting brutalized were the human ones, a parade of city slickers, hired goons, journalists, and one very unlucky officer of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who dared to challenge Dutton’s sovereignty.The show didn’t take on animal rights directly until season four, in which dozens of activists arrive in town to protest “the mass murder of millions of animals every year,” in the words of organizer Summer Higgins, played by Piper Perabo.“You ever plow a field, Summer? To plant quinoa or sorghum or whatever the hell it is you eat?” Dutton replies with withering contempt. “You kill everything on the ground and under it. You kill every snake, every frog, every mouse, mole, vole, worm, quail—you kill ’em all. So I guess the only real question is, how cute does an animal have to be before you care if it dies to feed you?” (Stung and speechless, Higgins obviously has no choice but to sleep with him.)Dutton’s argument is one often lobbed at vegans. As Pollan put it, “The grain that the vegan eats is harvested with a combine that shreds field mice, while the farmer’s tractor wheel crushes woodchucks in their burrows.... If America were suddenly to adopt a strictly vegetarian diet, it isn’t at all clear that the total number of animals killed each year would necessarily decline.” What this rebuttal fails to account for is that around 40 percent of the world’s cropland is actually devoted to growing animal feed. So yes, some critters may be killed due to the industrial farming of soybeans, corn, and other crops, but a vegan diet is killing considerably fewer. Perhaps more important, studies indicate that global agricultural land use could be reduced by as much as 75 percent if the world adopted a plant-based diet. “Ultimately, we can grow more food on less land, and rewild the rest,” according to Nicholas Carter, director of environmental science for the Game Changers Institute. “Honestly, it’s a complete lack of understanding of how we use land around the world. I mean, how do you think these animals are fed?”Yellowstone creator, showrunner, writer, and sometime actor Taylor Sheridan is hardly a neutral observer. In 2022, he became principal owner of the 260,000-acre Four Sixes Ranch in northwest Texas, which sells its products online (offering a Reserve First Cut Brisket for $75) and will soon be the centerpiece of its own series, 6666. Last year, Sheridan was a keynote speaker at CattleCon, the annual convention of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.Given that Yellowstone remains a phenomenon of the heartland, preaching largely to the red-meat choir, its ability to drive the public conversation is limited. But it represents just a small part of the multifront battle for hearts, minds, and stomachs being waged by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and other Big Ag lobbyists, P.R. flacks, industry-financed researchers, influencers, and advocacy groups.These meat and dairy interests have been extraordinarily successful at shaping public opinion. Carter recently published a comprehensive study of industry propaganda. One of the most successful campaigns he found was a coordinated response to the 2019 EAT-Lancet “Food in the Anthropocene” report. If you’ve never heard of this extraordinary three-year study by an international commission of 37 scientists, which called for “a radical transformation of the global food system” and concluded that worldwide consumption of unhealthy foods, such as red meat and sugar, would need to be cut in half by 2050 to protect human health and that of the planet, there’s a reason. A week before its expected release, the industry-funded CLEAR Center launched a massive, coordinated internet campaign called #YesToMeat that effectively buried it. “When you have lots of time to kind of create stories and marketing, and you don’t need to necessarily use facts, you can win over lots of people and derail progress,” Carter observed.Another more overt campaign was the handiwork of the Center for Consumer Freedom. An industry-financed astroturf organization, now known as the Center for Organizational Research and Education, it was founded by P.R. man Richard Berman in 1995 with funding from Philip Morris, in order to, as Berman wrote in an internal memo that became public as a result of the anti-Big Tobacco litigation, “defend ... consumers and marketing programs from anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-meat activists.” A quarter-century later, the front group was still at it, running a 2020 Super Bowl ad in which a series of young spelling bee contestants are bewildered by the ingredients used in plant-based burgers—part of a sweeping effort to demonize such products and clean up beef’s image. Another target is so-called cultivated meat, the manufacture and sale of which has already been banned in Florida, with the explicit goal of protecting industry interests. In all, Carter’s dossier runs to 120 pages.Overwhelming as this sprawling effort may seem, it betrays a profound insecurity. Corporate purveyors of animal products are every bit as aware as the “abolitionists” of AV that our diet is largely a function of cultural norms, and that such norms are far from stable. That said, given our many political crises, it’s not unreasonable to wonder whether a focus on animal rights isn’t a massive distraction. A Muslim American I met at the Cube of Truth wondered why activists were displaying images of animal cruelty rather than, say, the ongoing suffering in Gaza. “I think people believe that caring is divisible, and we only have so much of it,” Carol J. Adams, author of The Sexual Politics of Meat, told me. But empathy, compassion, love—these are best seen not as finite substances to dole out sparingly, but as skills to be cultivated. They grow easier with practice. In that sense, eschewing animal products is an act of social justice, part of a comprehensive battle against sexism, racism, homophobia, and other forms of oppression—one reason, perhaps, why vegetarian and vegan diets are more common among progressives, women, and Black Americans.That also helps explain why far-right political figures champion the consumption of beef and milk as totems of masculinity and denigrate “soy boys.” (Never mind the evidence linking full-fat dairy consumption with reduced sperm quality, as well as cancers of the prostate and testicles.) If the elaborate social hierarchy that has long placed affluent white men at the top rests to some extent on a foundation of animal exploitation, rejecting our own place in this architecture of dominance, beginning with the food we eat, seems a logical first step in creating a more just world. “As long as people will shed the blood of innocent creatures there can be no peace, no liberty, no harmony between people,” Isaac Bashevis Singer said. “Slaughter and justice cannot dwell together.”“Anima” is Latin for the life force, the spirit, the vital principle. The word also connotes wind or breath, a paradoxical essence at once invisible and replete with ineffable substance. It’s the root of animation, animism, and of course animal. This divine gift is what must be cast aside, through what can only be described as violence, in order to turn a cow into smashburgers, a sow into strips of bacon, a chicken into “tendies.”While the statistics are staggering—the system churns through 150,000 animals every minute—these big numbers can make it hard to comprehend what is, to my mind, a more disturbing reality: Each “broiler hen,” each catfish, every single lamb, is an individual. While their inner lives surely differ from ours, they’re probably not as remote as we like to think. There’s a reason, after all, that people spend $136.8 billion annually on their pets and populate our feeds with videos of their antics. Not only do animals have unique personalities, readily apparent when we bother to look, they have desires, fears, and yearnings just as we do—less complicated perhaps but no less worthy of respect and decency.The Inuit didn’t have a lot of plant-based options when anthropologist Knud Rasmussen visited the community of Iglulik more than a century ago. They hunted seal, caribou, whale, and other animals. But their understanding of what that meant couldn’t have been more different than ours. “The greatest peril of life lies in the fact that human food consists entirely of souls,” Ivaluartjuk, a grizzled ballad-singer, told Rasmussen. “All creatures which we have to kill and eat, all those that we have to strike down and destroy to make clothes for ourselves, have souls as we have, souls that do not perish and which therefore must be propitiated lest they revenge themselves on us for taking away their bodies.”What I find criminal about our food system is not so much that it brings so many innocent creatures into this world only to condemn them to suffer and die for our pleasure, but that it so ruthlessly commodifies the process, turning anima, like clockwork, into a waste product—life itself rendered a kind of refuse.Russell disagrees. “No. It’s both,” he scribbled in the margin after I let him read an early draft of this essay: “Animals don’t care about our attitude when killing or hurting them.” As usual, my son has a point. And yet, as much as I’m disturbed by all the mistreatment and slaughter, and feel grateful to have finally stepped away from the overladen sideboard, I remain even more horrified by a collective madness that now imperils our own species and so many others, lunacy of which I’ve come to regard animal agriculture as only the most salient manifestation.In the 1970s, chemist James Lovelock and biologist Lynn Margulis put forth what they called the Gaia hypothesis, which proposed that living creatures and the environment co-evolved—shaping and nurturing one another over time. As the effects of global warming are increasingly apparent, this once radical-sounding idea has come to seem self-evident. Initially, some readers misunderstood the theory, imagining Gaia as a perfect self-regulating system that could absorb and counterbalance whatever damage humans saw fit to do. In The Ages of Gaia, Lovelock clarified his meaning. Gaia, he wrote, “is stern and tough, always keeping the world warm and comfortable for those who obey the rules, but ruthless in her destruction of those who transgress.”Lovelock was wrong in one key respect. The destruction he describes has been visited mostly on the obedient—not only those nonhuman animals trapped in our food system, but the world’s wildlife, which has declined by two-thirds due to habitat loss since the Gaia theory was introduced. The transgression began centuries ago, when the grand prerogatives of scientific rationalism met the flywheel of capitalist exploitation—and then it just kept getting worse. Whether you prefer to conceive it in spiritual terms or purely as a matter of degrees Celsius, at some point we have to acknowledge: This is really happening.Perhaps we resist this truth because we feel powerless to do anything about it, and as individuals, for the most part, we are. That said, the reason we’re omnivores in the first place is that our distant ancestors were forced to survive on a wide variety of foods, and then learned to use fire to make others more palatable. It’s only thanks to their dietary flexibility that we’re here at all to ponder our gustatory “dilemmas.” Altering our diet once more is something we actually can do—not only mitigating the ruination of the world that sustains our existence, but reimagining our relationship to that world and to the living creatures, human and nonhuman alike, with whom we’re privileged to share it.

Meet the Long Beach student who fought for green schools — and won

She was a freshman when she started a campaign for green schools in Long Beach and quickly discovered that patience was the key to success.

It was August 2018 and California was amid one of its deadliest and most destructive wildfire seasons. I vividly remember walking home from school with my brother — who was only 6 at the time — and watching him point at the sky and ask, “Is that the moon?” Thanks to the wildfires, the sun was unrecognizable amid orange, apocalyptic skies.The next year, as a freshman at Long Beach Polytechnic High School, I was enrolled in an environmental science class that helped me grasp just how serious the climate crisis is. The message was loud and clear: The world is dying and we have to act now to save it.In the summer of 2020, I came across the Climate Reality Project, a nonprofit that’s involved in education and advocacy related to climate change and offers leadership training. After completing the weeklong program, I was connected to the local Climate Reality chapter and was introduced to the amazing individuals who helped push the Los Angeles Unified School District in 2019 to commit to 100% clean energy in the electricity sector by 2030 and in all other energy sectors by 2040.Those people inspired me. If Los Angeles could do it, couldn’t the Long Beach Unified School District?Leaders in L.A.’s Climate Reality Project mentored me, and I was able to find students and teachers at my high school — including Patrick Gillogly — and in the district, who shared a similar vision. In August 2020, as a sophomore, I founded the Long Beach Green Schools Campaign and recruited some of those like-minded students, who in turn, spread the word to other students at other schools in the district.I was naive at first. I thought GSC would simply present the school district with a 100% clean energy resolution and the school board would vote yes and, boom, done. World saved. I was not expecting a two-year-plus process. As a freshman at Long Beach Polytechnic High School, Michaelson discovered just how serious the climate crisis is. The message was loud and clear, she said: The world is dying and we have to act now to save it. (Google) The campaign had to prove to the district that the students involved in the movement weren’t just an angry, obnoxious group of teenagers. We had to earn the school board’s respect and demonstrate that we were willing to keep showing up.Contrary to what some may believe, the campaign never faced direct opposition — we never encountered climate deniers. Everyone we spoke to believed in climate change and recognized the importance of transitioning to clean energy. The big hurdle was making it a top priority.We had our first meeting with an LBUSD school board member, Megan Kerr (who was to later become one of the greatest supporters of the campaign), in December 2020, and she said that while she fully supported our goals, the resolution would not be passed for some time. The district was focused on the pandemic and distance learning.That made complete sense — school districts, like all governing bodies, are constantly juggling priorities — but it was hard to hear. We wanted to see the board pass a clean energy resolution immediately. But there were benefits to waiting. In what my mom has often referred to as “a marathon, not a sprint,” the many months it took to pass this resolution allowed us to craft a feasible, realistic plan that put climate action at the forefront of LBUSD’s goals.The Green Schools Campaign kicked things off with an online student-led Climate Town Hall, which attracted more than 75 attendees. We started a petition (that was signed by more than 1,000 residents) and continued to reach out to parents, students and teachers to discuss the campaign and its goals.In September 2021, we organized an in-person climate rally that was attended by almost 200 people, including the actor and environmental activist Calum Worthy. The event included talks by energy experts, local politicians and environmental activists. The campaign was also able to bring in 70 different speakers to speak at every single biweekly school board meeting in favor of a transition to clean energy.The second prong of the campaign involved working directly with the district. This involved regular meetings with facilities directors and a district-appointed representative to go over proposals, line by line. We also met regularly with school board members, the superintendent and other school officials to discuss how we could gain their support. We helped bring environmental experts into the discussion to help explore financial incentives and funding streams available to LBUSD to help transition to clean energy.After two years of meetings and community engagement, the Green School Operations - Energy and Sustainability Policy was adopted on Aug. 17, 2022, committing the district to transition to 100% clean energy by 2045.At this point, I have to point out that effective action means collaboration between those currently in charge and those who will be in power in the years to come — that is, my generation. Yelling at a school board to be greener without creating a feasible plan to do so will get you nowhere.Nonrenewable energy has been the norm for so long that our systems are built around this technology, and, quite frankly, it’s easy to stay this way. That’s why it takes a village to decide to fight for these issues.Diana Michaelson is a sophomore studying healthcare policy at Cornell University. She is excited to monitor the district’s compliance to the Energy and Sustainability Policy until the job is done.

In 2014, Protests Around Michael Brown's Death Broke Through the Everyday, a Catalyst for Change

Ten years ago, in August 2014, when a white police officer shot and killed Black 18-year-old Michael Brown on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, protests erupted in the nation’s consciousness

NEW YORK (AP) — There have been moments before, times of heartbreak and grief that led to anger and calls for justice. Sometimes, they never make it past a few sparks. Sometimes they smolder for a little bit before dying out. And sometimes, in certain conditions, they light a fire.Ten years ago, in August 2014, that was the case when a white police officer shot and killed Black 18-year-old Michael Brown on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri. Coming just weeks after the July 2014 chokehold death of Eric Garner at the hands of New York City police, in a country where the nascent push of Black Lives Matter was still reeling after the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the 2012 fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, the protests over Brown’s death and the heavily armed law enforcement response to them erupted in the nation’s consciousness.It set off a new chapter in the United States’ fraught civil rights history, bringing a spotlight to longstanding issues of race and police use of force. And in doing so, it created space for ripple effects to fan out in the years after – not just in conversations about race and policing, but about race and well, everything; about protest and what it should or shouldn’t look like and who is allowed to engage in it, about equality and fairness in all kinds of directions.This story is part of an AP series exploring the impact, legacy and ripple effects of what is widely called the Ferguson uprising. Social movements break through the everyday Having a ripple effect is part of what social movements do. They break through the cycle of day-to-day life to get people to think and hopefully act differently in any number of ways.“What really emerges in the most effective social movements is that they’re trying to not just make visible change in the world on policy, on structure and things like that,” said Hahrie Han, a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland. “But they’re also trying to change the kind of assumptions that people carry around in their head about how the world works.”She pointed to the Civil Right Movement of the 1960s as an example, which was about racial equality. By the end of the decade, though, other movements had started as well, like the women's movement and the environmental movement. “Was it true that the early 1960s agitated a conversation about structural inequality and rights that was new in American politics? I think so,” she said. “And then did that then kind of relate to and lead to the kind of conversation around rights for all these other groups that emerged in the late 1960s? I would say, arguably, absolutely those are related.” Ferguson did more than call attention to police brutality In regards to Ferguson, think about some of the things that have happened since 2014, or things we talk about regularly that we didn't a decade ago: Professional athletes engaging in protest online and on the fields of play, setting off a furor about athletes and activism that has turned into its own conversation; diversity and representation on camera and behind the scenes in the world of entertainment after April Reign created the viral #OscarsSoWhite hashtag, the speed and furor of protests after the 2020 death of George Floyd, as Black Lives Matter took to the streets, and of course, the backlash to all of it, the views from some quarters that those on the left have gone too far.The Ferguson protests didn't directly make those things happen, of course; but by breaking through the everyday to raise issues of justice and equity, it helped create an atmosphere in the months and years after where people were paying attention in different ways and those things COULD happen.When Reign sent out her initial tweet in January 2015, after the unveiling of slate of Academy Award nominees that featured no people of color, her one-liner of “ #OscarsSoWhite they asked to touch my hair” quickly went viral. It wasn't that no one had brought up the lack of representation on screen before, but she was able to take advantage of the social media landscape of the time to create a perfectly encapsulated hashtag that others were able to get in on. And coming mere months after Brown's death in Ferguson, her tweet reached audiences at a moment where equality and justice issues were being talked about in a different way than in years prior.Her catalyst tweet “was as successful as it was because people were open to having the conversation about what it means to be a person of color in this country, whether under the jackboot of state-sanctioned violence or on TV or in film,” Reign said. Protest solidarity jumped from the streets to sports fields and the halls of Congress Some of those people were professional athletes. They had already started to speak out in the wake of Trayvon Martin's death in 2012, with high-profile online posts. That activism went into a higher gear after Ferguson, in moments including a November 2014 NFL game, where five members of the St. Louis Rams came onto the field with their hands raised in a pose that had become synonymous with the protests; athletes referencing the names of those who had been killed on the clothing they wore at games, and in at least one case, joining a protest like New York Knicks basketball player Carmelo Anthony did in 2015.Then came 2016, when San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick began his protest, declining to stand for the national anthem, at first by remaining seated and then by kneeling. It set off a furor as some others, in football and in other sports leagues like women's soccer player Megan Rapinoe, followed. Not just a furor about what they were protesting, the police abuse of power, but about whether it was ok for them to protest at all, athletes as activists.Since then, athletes have continued to make their voices heard, like when the players of the WNBA got involved in the 2020 race for U.S. Senate for Georgia.Douglas Hartmann, a professor of sociology at the University of Minnesota who has written about sports and society said the activism of athletes and sports has been “dramatically different in the last decade” than it had been in the decades before when people didn't look to, or really want, athletes as political actors or activists.“It’s radically new historically that all of a sudden we now kind of allow and accept athletes to be figures like many others,” he said. “I think it’s great in some ways for athletes, but it’s really different.”He also pointed out that when looking at the impact of a social movement, one has to take into consideration the backlash to it. In the current climate, he highlighted the conservative backlash against the diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts of recent years, as well as protections for members of LGBTQ+ communities. ‘Very different visions of America that are being fought over’ Social movements and the pushback that comes are “intimately connected in terms of being very different visions of America that are being fought over,” he said. That the last decade has seen pushes for equality in LGBTQ+ issues as well as in the treatment of women, most famously in the #MeToo movement against sexual misconduct is not a surprise, said Tarana Burke, the longtime activist who has worked on issues including voting rights and gender equity, and is most well-known in the public as the overall founder of #MeToo. “It’s all really under one big umbrella. We are ultimately fighting for a type of liberation that is across the board,” she said.“When you start seeing this domino effect, that’s not unintentional,” she said. “That is because one thing emboldens another.”Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - July 2024

Durrell Kinsey Bey: Portland mayor’s race

Read the candidate’s responses to questions about homelessness, police accountability, Portland’s budget and taxes.

Name: Durrell Kinsey BeyNeighborhood: CentennialRenter/homeowner: HomeownerEducation: Peer support specialist, ASIST training & adept degree of The Moorish Science Temple of AmericaOccupation: Youth advocate & youth essentials coordinator at REAP Inc., director of development of KwaSha Enterprise LLC, co-founder of The BIPOC Rise Moor Healing Center, national prison outreach ambassador of The Moorish Science Temple of AmericaHow long you’ve lived in the city of Portland: Since Jan. 1, 2021Age: 30Pronouns: He/HimPortland is facing an historic election involving a new voting system and an unusually high number of candidates. Journalists at The Oregonian/OregonLive and Oregon PublicBroadcasting share a goal of ensuring that Portland voters have the information they need to make informed choices, and we also know candidates’ time is valuable and limited.That’s why the two news organizations teamed up this cycle to solicit Portland mayoral candidates’ perspectives on the big issues in this election. Here’s what they had to say:For each of the following questions, we asked candidates to limit their answers to 150 words.Why are you the best candidate to serve as mayor at this time? Please point to specific accomplishments as part of your answer.I’m actively leading four exciting initiatives in our city, focusing on youth advocacy from third graders to college-bound seniors. As a Moorish American Agrarian Moslem, I’m deeply committed to food sovereignty and have been involved in Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs since arriving in the City of Roses. In response to the COVID-19 impact, housing crisis and business closures, my campaign team now offers growth capital and various forms of funding to qualifying restaurant owners and other businesses.What are one or two issues that you’d like to draw attention to or champion as mayor that are overlooked or receiving less attention than they deserve?While many issues need attention, tackling homelessness through urban farming is a promising approach to lowering citywide food costs. By integrating urban farming, we can provide fresh, affordable produce and create jobs, which can help alleviate homelessness. Additionally, with anticipated increases in energy rates, expanding the Poop-to-Power Project and improving the (Critical Energy Infrastructure) hub will offer clean, renewable energy. This initiative will enhance environmental safety and sustainability, addressing both energy and waste management challenges.What specific examples do you have that demonstrate your competence to oversee a city with an $8.2 billion budget?At the Department of Energy’s nuclear vitrification plant, working alongside laborers, iron workers, pipefitters, steamfitters, painters, teamsters, electricians, and engineers, I learned the importance of building rapport and trust to ensure safety and adhere to OSHA and federal standards. Currently, in the David Douglas School District, I am dedicated to fostering strong relationships with colleagues at REAP Inc., students, parents, school administrators and district board members. This role enhances my ability to build a sincere, expert team and promote effective collaboration and camaraderie.What are your biggest concerns, if any, about the new form of government? What role do you think the mayor should play in it?While skepticism is natural, we have a unique opportunity to demonstrate that Portland’s challenges are temporary. We need a mayor who is a true leader and visionary, committed to the well-being of all Portlanders — from the homeless and students to veterans, the elderly and marginalized communities. The mayor should not display any form of performative activism but act with strong principles, high moral standards, and innovative thinking.How would you work to promote and boost Portland nationally as mayor and reinvigorate people’s sense of civic pride?My campaign aims to make Portland internationally relevant by leveraging my strong national relationships to bring economic and cultural empowerment to the city. Partnering with Bey Group of Companies, InKind Capital and National Business Capital, we will secure significant funding for small businesses. I will advocate for reintroducing civic-based curriculum in schools and work with all 95 neighborhood associations to strengthen community involvement. By uplifting neighborhood association administrations, we can enhance collaboration with the Office of Civic Life and Portland Street Response, giving the community a greater voice in public safety.Mayor Ted Wheeler has already warned that next year’s budget will be a difficult one as costs rise and forecasts call for lower revenue. What would guide your decisions in developing a budget, what specific ideas would you explore to minimize service reductions and are there specific areas where you would look to make cuts?I believe that “it’s not the possession of things but knowing how to use them” — emphasizing intent versus impact. As mayor, my goal is to lower costs for Portlanders by leveraging our resources effectively. Within the first week in office, I will assess our strengths and weaknesses to create strategic pathways for economic relief. Collaboration with nonprofits that share our vision is crucial to this process. By aligning efforts with these organizations, we can enhance our impact and address community needs more effectively.How can the city of Portland and Multnomah County improve their existing partnership to more effectively address the homelessness, addiction and behavioral health crises?As a community member collaborator with Multnomah County’s community justice department, I demonstrate the power of building effective relationships through humility and collaboration. To improve our partnership and address homelessness, addiction, and behavioral health crises, we must prioritize collective action over personal agendas. By setting aside egos and focusing on shared goals, we can tackle these pressing issues more effectively. With thousands of lives at stake, it’s crucial that we move beyond superficial efforts and implement comprehensive, coordinated strategies to address the dire conditions faced by many Portlanders.If elected, you will oversee the police chief. What is your opinion of police bureau priorities and operations and what changes, if any, would you make? Would you push for the city to fund hundreds more police officers than the City Council has already authorized? If yes, where would you find the money?As one of the youngest mayors since 1973, I will prioritize open communication with the Police Bureau and all community members, from District 1 to District 4, and work closely with neighborhood associations to enhance public safety. My approach will focus on fostering collaboration between Portland Street Response and the Portland Police Bureau without increasing police presence. Instead, I will strengthen efforts against bank fraud, identity theft, drug trafficking and human trafficking by coordinating with the National Guard, state police, sheriff’s department and FBI. Additionally, I will support and expand Neighborhood Emergency Teams (NET) to boost community resilience and safety.For the five remaining questions, we asked candidates to answer in 50 words or fewer:Do you favor arresting and jailing people who camp on public property in Portland who have refused repeated offers of shelter, such as the option to sleep in a city-designated tiny home cluster?Emphatically, no. My ancestors endured too much for me to replicate the injustices from chattel slavery to the war on drugs initiated by the Reagan Administration. Such measures have proven ineffective and unjust.Have the problems impacting downtown Portland received too much or too little attention among current city leaders? Are there other specific neighborhoods in the city that have not received enough attention?Of course, the issue has become conflated. East Portland has been neglected for over 30 years, and now, with increased attention due to the presence of more businesses downtown, the disparity is more apparent.Do you support the decision to use millions from the Portland Clean Energy Fund to backfill budget holes in various city bureaus? Would you seek to continue, expand or halt that practice?The Portland Clean Energy Fund is poised to be a national top-tier program. In my opinion, its funds should be dedicated exclusively to program operations and community leadership development.Do you support a potential change to the region’s homeless services tax that would direct some of the program’s unanticipated revenue to construct more affordable housing? Why or why not?Yes, I support this. To address housing affordability, we need to revise zoning laws and incorporate infill development with sustainable practices to enhance our approach to affordable housing.Describe the qualities and experience you will seek in a city administrator. Describe the working relationship you plan to build with the top administrator and their half dozen deputies.The city administrator must avoid performative activism and uphold high moral standards, remaining uncompromised. A strong, trustworthy relationship is crucial for the success of our term in office.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.