logo
‘The Encampments': Behind the scenes at Columbia's student protests

‘The Encampments': Behind the scenes at Columbia's student protests

Washington Post03-04-2025
'The Encampments' hits theaters with the kind of PR money can't buy. One of the voices of resistance to the war in Gaza featured in the new documentary — which goes behind the scenes at the protests that roiled the campuses of Columbia University and other colleges last spring — is Mahmoud Khalil.
That's a name you may have heard. Born in a Syrian refugee camp to Palestinian parents, Khalil, who received his master's degree from Columbia's school of international affairs last semester, was one of the student leaders of the protest and a negotiator between students and the school administration. On March 8, he was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Despite having a green card and being married to an American citizen, deportation proceedings have been initiated against him.
But his backstory, in which Khalil explains his journey from refugee camp to campus activism, is only a small part of 'The Encampments,' which arrives in the choppy wake of last month's thematically similar documentary 'October 8.' Co-directed by Kei Pritsker and Michael T. Workman, 'The Encampments' aims, among other things, to counter that earlier film's narrative about spiking campus antisemitism in the aftermath of Hamas's attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. To do so, the directors of 'The Encampments' focus on the organizers of Columbia's protest, including student spokesperson Sueda Polat and Grant Miner, a Columbia grad student and president of the Student Workers of Columbia union.
As they characterize it, the initial 14-day protest — a kind of sit-in or tent city centering on demands that Columbia divest from weapons manufacturers and defense contractors with ties to Israel — was more about kumbaya moments than bomb-throwing. Although it eventually devolved into some violent clashes with pro-Israel counterprotesters, the encampment, organizers say, was a mostly peaceful gathering of people from all religious and ethnic backgrounds, with hardly a rude word spoken.
'Where are the sound bites of people saying antisemitic things?' asks one of the film's subjects, a worker in Columbia's communications office who appears on camera with his face obscured and voice altered, presumably because he disagreed with the university's handling of the protests. Never mind the ample evidence that there were such encounters.
The film's vibe of harmony — at least inside the encampment, where leaders claim antisemitism had no home — seems more than a little stage-managed, if not whitewashed. Students in yarmulkes are shown side by side with those in kaffiyehs. Singers deliver an impromptu rendition of the Mexican folk song 'Cielito Lindo,' a woman hands out free chicken wraps. It's 'We Are the World,' against a backdrop of tense negotiation.
There is, however, a kernel of truth in there. Despite accusations of rampant antisemitism by some Jewish students, faculty and others, the documentary points to a surprising number of Jews among the protesters, including Miner, a PhD candidate who was ultimately expelled for his role in the protest. Jewish Voice for Peace, a leftist group in solidarity with Palestinians, was one of the main protest organizers, Miner notes.
Miner also offers a provocative explanation of why some Jews may say they felt unsafe, and how their voices have been amplified. 'There's a certain minority of students who feel threatened by the very presence of people who are advocating for stopping a genocide,' Miner says. 'And those people are listened to much, much more than the majority of the people who are advocating for cutting ties with a genocidal regime.' It's an argument that strays perilously close to the trope of undue Jewish influence.
In contrast to 'October 8,' Pritsker and Workman barely acknowledge that any protesters indulged in such tropes. There's an early clip of Minouche Shafik's testimony before Congress, in which Rep. Lisa C. McClain, a Michigan Republican, is shown grilling Columbia's then-president about whether she considers the chant 'From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free' to be problematic. (Some take it to be a call for the eradication of Israel.) 'Yes,' Shafik eventually concedes, after hemming and hawing. More embarrassingly, in the same clip, McClain mispronounces intifada, the Arabic word for uprising or resistance, as 'infitada.' So does Fox News host Greg Gutfeld in another sound bite.
There is one moment of heartbreaking poignancy in the film: We listen to a 2024 audio recording of a 6-year-old Palestinian girl in Gaza, Hind Rajab, speaking to an emergency dispatcher after her family's car was fired upon by what appears to have been Israeli troops. Hind was ultimately killed, along with several other family members and two paramedics who rushed to their aid. After protesters took over Columbia's Hamilton Hall, they temporarily renamed the academic building in the girl's memory. It's a stark and powerful reminder of what the protesters are actually protesting.
Too often that gets lost in 'The Encampments,' whose name, perhaps unintentionally, suggests the very conflict between factions — both armed and unarmed — that is at stake here. Labels are bandied about, without definition: Zionist, anti-Zionist, genocide, terrorism, resistance, colonialism. Too often, in a film about an ostensibly peaceful form of dissent, it feels like adversaries are being targeted, albeit subtly, when the real enemy is war itself.
Unrated. At AFI Silver Theatre. Contains scenes of violence and some coarse language. In English and some Arabic with subtitles. 82 minutes.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

A Dirty Dozen: 12 New-Order Trump Icebreakers For Polar Security
A Dirty Dozen: 12 New-Order Trump Icebreakers For Polar Security

Forbes

timea few seconds ago

  • Forbes

A Dirty Dozen: 12 New-Order Trump Icebreakers For Polar Security

Over the past several months, America's approach to Polar security has been a perplexing mix of future commitments coupled with tough, near-term pull-backs. In the interim, China is highlighting America's apparent retreat, surging icebreakers and other craft to both the North and South Poles. It is high time for President Trump to walk his own talk, cutting administrative red tape to contract out the construction of a 'Dirty Dozen' new ships with new American icebreaker-builders. America needs at least 12 tough, mid-sized Trump icebreakers—utilitarian bruisers—for service in both the Arctic and the Antarctic. Despite a lot of White House attention, America's icebreaking fleet remains in a shambles. The venerable USCGC Polar Star (WAGB 10), commissioned in 1976, completed the vessel's 28th voyage to Antarctica, and the Coast Guard commissioned the USCGC Storis (WAGB 21). That vessel is a something of a frankencutter, cobbled together from an unwanted anchor handling tug with icebreaking characteristics. Immediately after commissioning, the converted 'icebreaker' was sent on patrol, likely to track one of the five recently-built Chinese icebreakers currently operating waters off Alaska. One other ship, the USCGC Healy (WAGB-20) is available for moderate icebreaking tasks in the Arctic. In the Antarctic, research programs—the basis for a future U.S. territorial claim to the continent—are being slashed. The contract to operate RV Nathaniel B. Palmer, a research icebreaker, was abruptly terminated, joining the recently terminated ARSV Laurence M. Gould support ship, in some form of layup. Meanwhile, China and Russia are rushing to build new 'research' bases across the frozen continent and deploying massive fishing vessels to exploit America's retreat. Only the little R/V Sikuliaq, an 'ice-capable research ship' more suited for Arctic work, is left. The scientific stewards of America's various footholds on the Antarctic continent have been left scrambling. Right now, America's icebreaker shipbuilding effort is offering more pomp than product. The President has been vocal about increasing America's icebreaking capabilities during his first administration, and has continued pressing forward from the earliest days of his second term. But things are not working out. Bollinger Shipyards, after inheriting the Coast Guard's troubled Polar Security Cutter program, is struggling to get the job done. In an almost universal industry sign of programmatic trouble ahead, the company has focused more corporate energy upon building a powerful political machine than upon building Coast Guard icebreakers. Bollinger's political campaigning has worked, but the $951.6 million the yard won to advance production of the first PSC and stands to get $4.3 billion in funding for additional vessels. But that funding may not go as far as the government might hope. A glance at publicly available data hints that the shipyard's efforts seem focused on building stakeholder confidence in Mississippi rather than upon building real capacity. The PR doesn't hold up. As the funding rolled in earlier this year, Bollinger bragged that, since Nov 2022, the company spread some $76 million in capital investments across 4 Mississippi shipyards. In shipbuilding, that amount of capital investment is no more than chump change. In December 2022, BAE Systems Southeast shipyard in Jacksonville, Florida, announced an $250 million investment in a massive Pearlson shiplift, and, while Bollinger was busy celebrating their political wins, the Trump Administration—in a strange case of really poor staff work from the Navy's front office—lost a chance to showcase their maritime commitment. Rather than make headlines, BAE had to quietly 'cut the ribbon' in a low-key celebration two months ago. If the Navy's front office was actually doing their job, the White House should already be primed to have the President show up as the first Navy vessel arrives. Gulf Coast braggadocio, coupled with an incredibly effective government relations team, makes Bollinger an exciting-sounding partner. But the fact remains that America's first heavy icebreaker won't go into service for years yet and Bollinger, despite lashing up with the well-regarded Canadian shipbuilder Seaspan and Finnish shipbuilder Rauma last month, is struggling to move forward with their current icebreaker contract. The only bright sign of life in American icebreaker shipbuilding is Davie Shipbuilding, currently setting up to invest upwards of a billion dollars in what will soon be the former Gulf Copper shipyards in Texas. This dynamic and experienced icebreaker builder—with integrated icebreaker-building shipyards in both Finland and Canada—is the only foreign shipbuilder besides the Korean shipbuilding giant Hanwaha that has, as of yet, responded to the President's call to invest billions in the United States to bring manufacturing jobs back home. 12 Trump Icebreakers Are Needed Now America's Polar policy is a mess. The only way to improve things is for the President to follow up on his long-held desire for more icebreakers. An announcement of 12 new mid-sized icebreakers—more than the expected eight–makes sense. To keep a single ship on station, the Navy needs three ships—one on duty, one in training, and the other in refit. For icebreakers—whose job is to batter themselves against on unwitting ice field—a user needs around four ships and a lot of spare engines and other key parts to keep one on station. By adding four more 'Arctic Security Cutters' to the Coast Guard's minimal ask, another set of robust mid-sized bruisers can be forward-deployed in Australia, tasked with the job of supporting America's modest footholds on the Antarctic continent and pushing back against Chinese and Russian efforts to erode America's long-benevolent stewardship of the continent. It is time for America to get back into the Polar security game, and the White House can do it today, right now, by announcing the purchase of a 'Dirty Dozen'—12 tough, new Trump icebreakers.

PDK Poll Shows Waning Support For AI In Schools
PDK Poll Shows Waning Support For AI In Schools

Forbes

time22 minutes ago

  • Forbes

PDK Poll Shows Waning Support For AI In Schools

Not a great idea, say Americans. getty The 57th annual PDK survey of American attitudes about public schools is out. Support for AI in public schools and public schools themselves is down this year, while the dismantling of the fedderal Department of Education is hugely unpopular. Nearly two thirds of those surveyed agree that teacher pay is inadequate. The 2024 survey asked about specific uses of AI in schools. In all cases, that support has dropped from last year. For helping teachers prepare lesson plans, support dropped from 62% to 49%. For using AI interactive computer programs to tutor students, support dropped from 65% to 60%. For having students practice taking standardized tests, support dropped from 64% to 54%. For students using AI for homework help, support dropped from 43% to 38%. When it comes to sharing student information with AI, 68% were opposed. It seems that as more Americans come more familiar with the idea of AI in school, they are less welcoming to it. When it comes to cellphones, 86% support some sort of ban, with 40% supporting a complete ban on the devices in school. Others support letting students only access their devices outside of class time. When judgign the importance of some school factors, 99% said that security measures to keep students and teachers safe were very/somewhat important, followed by 98% saying that initiatives to make students feel they belong as part of the school community were important. Improving teacher pay, solving the teacher shortage, and providing CTE (career and technical education) all scored in the 90s. Diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives scored lower, but still earned support from 61% of respondents. Efforts by the Trump administration to dismantle the federal Department of Education are not popular. Only 12% strongly support the move, with 66% opposing or strongly opposing ending the department. 65% believed that closing the department would have a negative effect on education; only 19% believed the effect woiuld be positive. As has been the case since 2004, respondents give far higher grades for their local schools than for the nation's schools. But both those numbers are dropping. 43% give their local school an A or a B, the lowest score since PDK started asking (the highest score ever was 53% in 2013). The score for the nation's schools has been dropping since 2017, when it stood at 24%, and now stands at an all-time low, with only 13% giving the nation's schools an A or B. Many of the items on the survey broke along political lines. For instance, 70% of parents responding were satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the amount of say they have in their child's education. But that response includes vastly different responses by party. 48% of Democrat parents were very satisfied; 48% of Republican parents were not at all satisfied. The poll results can be viewed in greater detail here.

The ‘Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox' Cast vs. Real-Life People
The ‘Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox' Cast vs. Real-Life People

Cosmopolitan

time30 minutes ago

  • Cosmopolitan

The ‘Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox' Cast vs. Real-Life People

Amanda Knox may be the role a million actresses would kill for, but it's the role Grace Van Patten got. When a true-crime saga as infamous as Amanda Knox's gets the scripted treatment, the first question isn't what story they'll tell, but who gets to play the part. Hulu's The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox, produced by Knox herself and Monica Lewinsky, reanimates one of the most dissected trials of the 21st century. Onscreen, we've got the wide-eyed exchange student, the performative prosecutor, and the puppy dog-like Italian love interest. Some choices are uncanny doppelgängers, others lean more vibe than resemblance. Here's how the actors stack up against their real-life counterparts. Van Patten leans into Knox's uncanny mix of girl-next-door innocence and tabloid fixation, down to the colored contacts that became shorthand for her American-in-Italy persona. As Knox's bespectacled boyfriend, De Domenico nails the awkward, bookish vibe—part loyal puppy, part deer in headlights. The mop of curls and soft-spoken energy feel ripped straight from those infamous Perugia photographs. Horgan and Lanza play Amanda's mother and stepfather as the skeptical yet fiercely protective counterbalance to Amanda's father's calm. Horgan especially imbues Edda with a razor-sharp maternal intuition that cuts through the media frenzy. John Hoogenakker as Curt Knox Hoogenakker plays Amanda's steady, pragmatic, Midwestern father, thrust suddenly into the global spotlight. As Amanda's sister, Anna Van Patten (who is Grace's IRL sister, too) gives us the family member who never asked for a headline but got pulled in anyway. Francesco Acquaroli plays the fire-and-brimstone prosecutor on Amanda's case, bringing theatrical flair to the Italian courtroom. And as the detective who led the charge, Roberta Mattei gives Napoleoni the brisk, cigarette-in-hand confidence of an Italian cop who's seen it all—and decided Knox was guilty before the first cappuccino. 'The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox' is streaming on Hulu. Watch Now

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store