The 31stst from March on New York Times reported Hesen Jabr, a nurse who was fired after using the word genocide when referring to Gaza during a speech at an awards ceremony. A working nurse herself, she said the following while accepting her award: “It pains me to see the women of my country suffering unimaginable losses themselves during the current genocide in Gaza… Even though I cannot holding their hands and comforting them as they mourn their unborn children and the children they lost during this genocide, I hope to continue to make them proud by continuing to represent them here at NYU. According to a hospital spokesperson, Jabr was warned in December not to express her “views on this controversial and contentious workplace issue.” Many of Jabr’s colleagues attended the awards ceremony, “some of whom were upset by his comments.” As a result, Jabr is no longer an employee of NYU Langone,” the spokesperson said.
From the above we can deduce a number of things. First, Jabr was probably a very good employee, since she received a reward for her work. Second, she was saddened to see so many Palestinian women losing their children, born or unborn. A question that is probably close to her heart, being herself a workplace nurse. Third, she used the word “genocide” to refer to what is happening in Gaza, in agreement with hundreds of genocide scholars and international rights institutions who either claim that genocide is already taking place. unfold, or follow the ICJ’s warning of plausible genocide. . Fourth, the hospital deemed his comments “controversial and accusatory.” His comments upset “some of his colleagues” and his dismissal was therefore legitimate. Because some of Jabr’s colleagues were unhappy, Jabr was forced out in the most literal sense, losing her job.
When I came across this article, it reminded me of a blog post I wrote to myself a few months ago. In it, I talk about how I’ve seen people, mostly in higher education institutions, use the argument that we should refrain from using the word “genocide” because it might be hurtful to some people. In my article, I marvel at the fact that the feelings of “some” people are considered more important than talking about the killings and human rights violations of others.
One of the arguments for silencing events and discourse about Palestine, on college campuses and other workplaces, is the emphasis on “inclusion,” which has seen a growing trend these last years. Many employers develop policies and projects on what are called D&I (diversity and inclusion), DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) or DEIB (diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging). Although in the literature there is not a single definition of the “inclusion” part of these approaches, in my research on the subject, I encountered two main axes. Some inclusion policies focus on emotions and the importance of creating a work environment in which individuals and groups feel welcomed, respected and valued to participate fully. Other definitions focus more on structural inclusion, in which employers ensure that they provide equal opportunities and that employees have sufficient and equal access to decision-making and information. Some approaches combine the two.
In the two examples I mentioned above, that of Nurse Jabr and that of my own observation in academic institutions, the employers/managers/decision makers seem to focus on the first definition, while completely ignoring the second . Having some employees feel upset or hurt is what threatens this feeling of inclusion, and to ensure that they feel a sense of ownership of inclusion, it is justified to silence other employees, or even to fire them. How ironic that when it comes to Palestine, the inclusion of some leads to the exclusion of others, and decision-makers do not seem bothered by this exclusion.
Does this mean, however, that employees always have the right to say what they want and should never be excluded? Definitely not. Most institutions and workplaces have a code of ethics and publicly proclaim that they support and respect international conventions and human rights documents. Most employers would say they do not tolerate hate speech, which includes racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination. When a coworker uses a racial slur against another coworker or against a group of people, work ethics require that this exclusionary language be countered and the person held accountable.
The question, however, is whether calling the murder, mutilation and starvation of thousands of Palestinians a genocide is racist and exclusionary language? Or if, on the contrary, silencing those who criticize an ongoing genocide is in itself an act of exclusion and often racist? I would say it is the latter. If workplaces, including hospitals and universities, take “inclusion” seriously, they will ensure they create spaces to talk, cry, and criticize the grave violations of Palestinian human rights. Even if – or especially – when it makes some people feel uncomfortable.
Further reading on international electronic relations
