The current discourse surrounding the response of Cambridge’s Trinity College to the Israel-Hamas war has ignited significant criticism from its student body, particularly regarding perceived disparities in institutional support for victims of different conflicts. Professor Dame Sally Davies, the head of the college, has recently expressed remorse over the college’s decision to establish a relief fund for Ukrainian students, labeling it a “mistake.” According to reports, this fund—which was initially set up amid the Ukraine conflict in 2022 and comprised a substantial £250,000—has created a problematic precedent perceived as inconsistent with the college’s response to the war in Gaza and the plight of Palestinians, which has gone largely unaddressed despite vocal student demands for support.
The situation escalated following the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war, particularly as the college had previously taken a strong stance on the Ukraine crisis, culminating in both divestment from Russian companies and the establishment of a dedicated relief fund. Students have organized numerous protests over the past year, advocating for equal treatment regarding conflict responses from Trinity College, particularly demanding divestment from arms companies implicated in operations in Gaza. Reports reveal that Trinity holds investments in several arms manufacturers, including Elbit Systems, a notable Israeli defense contractor whose products are reportedly employed by the Israeli military in their operations, further complicating the institution’s position.
In a recent meeting with student unions, Davies faced pointed inquiries regarding the perceived “double standards” informing Trinity College’s responses to international conflicts. Particularly, students questioned the college’s reluctance to replicate or initiate a relief fund dedicated to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza akin to the one benefiting Ukrainian victims. Despite this scrutiny, Davies reportedly reiterated a stance against divesting from arms companies and expressed regret over the earlier decision to initiate the Ukraine relief fund, lamenting its unintended implications for the college’s future responses to wars and humanitarian crises.
This stance stands in stark contrast to promises made by the college in earlier discussions, particularly in response to student-led protests demanding a review of Trinity’s arms investments. Initial commitments from the college to reassess these investments and implement a “student-led task force” to guide policy on arms reflected an awareness of the academic community’s concerns and a commitment to ethical investment practices. However, reports from the meeting suggest that Davies did not provide clarification or commitment to any specific course of action regarding processes or a reevaluation of investment strategies tied to arms manufacturers.
In the aftermath of Davies’ remarks, a spokesperson for Trinity College attempted to clarify the situation, asserting that the comments were part of a broader discussion about conflict response. They indicated that the college had set up various support programs for students affected by conflicts beyond the Ukrainian situation, including potentially for those from the Middle East. Nevertheless, many students remain unconvinced, citing a lack of tangible support for Palestinian students and highlighting the inadequacy of existing measures in light of the urgent humanitarian crisis resulting from the Israel-Hamas conflict.
The ongoing protests at Trinity College echo a larger, global movement among pro-Palestinian activists, who continue to call for historical accountability and a re-evaluation of institutional ties to entities that contribute to the violence in Gaza. Many universities worldwide are witnessing similar demonstrations as students advocate for social justice and financial ethics within their institutions. The sentiment at Trinity reflects a broader demand for equity in institutional support for victims of conflicts, representing an increasingly vocal and politically aware student body advocating for a responsible and consistent ethical stance in the face of international crises.