Less than a year after its suspension, Brown’s Students for Justice in Palestine returns to campus praising violence and defying University policy.
During a Sept. 10 meeting, the recently-reinstated Brown Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) promised a return to the same behaviors that got the group suspended from campus during the 2024-25 school year. The meeting offered no signs of reflection or reform. Instead, as recordings and statements reviewed by The Spectator reveal, SJP leaders doubled down on the conduct that made the organization a chief source of campus strife.
Brown’s SJP chapter was suspended last year following a pattern of harassment and disorderly conduct that included “banging on a vehicle carrying members of the community, physically blocking passage of a vehicle, screaming profanity at individuals at close and personal range, profanity and a racial epithet directed toward a person of color and following and screaming at individuals while filming them,” according to Russell Carey, Brown’s Executive Vice President for Planning and Policy, in a university-wide email. These actions, proudly displayed on SJP’s social media, created an atmosphere of hostility for Jewish and pro-Israel students.
Once SJP was removed from campus life, the campus climate improved noticeably, showing a direct link between the group’s activities and the climate of fear many Jewish students described. Yet less than a year later, Brown reinstated the very organization that caused widespread disruption, called the Oct. 7 massacre “a victory,” and is tied to the rise in antisemitism on campuses across the country.
In a partial recording obtained by The Spectator of SJP’s September meeting, attendees repeatedly chanted “Free, free Palestine” while the group’s leader described opponents as “the forces of fascism and Zionism.” Attendees were encouraged to wear masks to avoid identification by “infiltrators,” and were told explicitly not to document the event. “Do not take any photos, videos, or recordings of this meeting,” one leader instructed. “If you cannot abide by this rule, we will have to ask you to leave.” Another urged members not to use University systems for communication, an explicit attempt to evade Brown’s oversight.
Leaders then called on members to “organize and resist,” pledging to continue efforts “beyond institutional and bureaucratic policies.”
The bulk of the meeting consisted of inflammatory rhetoric. SJP speakers described Brown Corporation members and President Christina Paxson as “terrible,” “funding violence,” and “complicit in genocide.” The discussion included a distorted retelling of the history of Israel and repeated accusations that Brown University itself “supports genocide” by refusing to divest from Israeli companies. The group also promised to escalate its activism following the Corporation’s 2024 decision not to divest, declaring they would now pursue “any and all ways and avenues” to force the University to sever ties with Israel.
Perhaps most disturbing was a speaker’s assertion that “our institutions have blood on their hands,” followed by a call to “follow in the incredible example set by the people of Gaza and continue in their struggle with them.” This comment evidently refers to Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023 terrorist attacks on Israel, which left nearly 1,200 civilians murdered, raped and kidnapped. The invocation of that massacre as an “incredible example” underscores the group’s moral depravity and open endorsement of violence. The meeting concluded with participants uplifing a Hamas terrorist who has also served as a reporter for Al Jazeera.
In a Brown Daily Herald interview, SJP members portrayed themselves as victims of institutional overreach. “We could not do anything as an organization for many months, which was frustrating, to say the least,” said member Kenan Zaidat ’25, claiming Brown “did not have sufficient evidence,” despite the existence of video footage and an external investigation. In that same Herald article, another member, Matisse Doucet ’27, added that members “weren’t aware at any point” of breaking policy, even though a Student Activities Office representative was present during prior demonstrations to monitor compliance.
Not all students share SJP’s view. Adi Beniluz ’28, described the group’s presence as deeply frightening and exclusionary. “SJP’s approach to activism is about silencing and intimidating anyone who disagrees with them,” Beniluz said. “They reduce a deeply painful and complex conflict into a simple oppressor-versus-oppressed narrative.”
Having lived in Israel during the Oct. 7 attacks, Beniluz recalled her shock at SJP’s response. “Last October 7, I tried to mourn on the most painful day for me and my people. Seeing SJP post messages legitimizing murder and terror simply because some of the victims were Jewish and Israeli terrified me. It meant that — had I been a few kilometers south on that terrible day — I could have been pulled out of my bed in my pajamas, murdered in front of my sister, and it would be justified.”
Such statements, especially those recorded at the September meeting, highlight the ongoing conflict between SJP’s conduct and Brown’s obligations under federal law. Earlier this year, the University struck an agreement with the federal government to restore certain federal funds and pledged to take concrete action against antisemitism on campus under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Yet Brown has reinstated SJP without meaningful change: the same national organization, the same leadership, the same membership, the same playbook.
With no turnover and no demonstrated reform, the University is effectively inviting the harassment, intimidation, and threats of physical violence that accompanied SJP’s previous activities to return in full force following their probation period.
As the recording makes clear, SJP is already preparing to resume the same tactics that earned its suspension. By lifting an “indefinite” suspension after only a few months and restoring nearly all privileges, Brown signals to the entire campus that serious violations carry little consequence. Actions that should prompt forceful and decisive responses are treated as temporary inconveniences rather than urgent breaches of community standards.
SJP’s reinstatement leaves Jewish and pro-Israel students once again wondering whether Brown’s promises of protection, and its commitments under federal law, mean anything at all.