Words: Lorcan Adams (he/him)
Years from now, the moderates of the future will look back on this genocide as an unavoidable tragedy, and forget the role their rhetoric played in allowing it to happen.
What does it mean to be progressive? Centrists, Liberals and other flavours of moderates often love to describe themselves as progressive, flaunting the term as if it were a badge declaring their moral superiority. To appear empathetic and reformist, they uphold progressive movements of the past, perhaps in the hopes of appealing to an audience of left-leaning youths. This isn’t limited to politicians of course, with many institutions and organisations following the same playbook, our university included. So why then, do we see these same groups repeatedly fail to support current movements for change? For Palestinian liberation?
In its 2025 strategy, the University of Glasgow has listed its values: championing education as an engine for social progress, upholding honesty, integrity and fairness, and taking responsibility. They plainly state “We do the right thing, not the easy thing – or we don’t do it”. The university proudly highlights itself as a place of egalitarianism and progress. In fact, after an investigation in 2018 proving the university had benefitted from the slave trade, it pledged £20 million to a joint Glasgow-Carribean centre for development research alongside the university of the West Indies. What makes it so much easier for the University to recognise their historical contribution to exploitation?
It’s well known the University of Glasgow has nearly £7 million invested in arms companies such as BAE systems. These companies direct benefit from the genocide in Palestine, marking record profits just last year. Outrage against association with these companies has been unprecedented, with constant protests – and the recent student referendum resulting in a staggering 89% in favour of divestment. Yet the university has barely responded. Millions of pounds are still tied up in Palestinian suffering and slaughter, while the university claims it wishes to avoid the implication of its opposition to the UK defense sector, or its research partners involved in the industry.
It seems the University is, ironically, refusing to do the right thing because it is too inconvenient. In the face of encampments and hunger strikes organised by the GUJPS, as well as multiple student organisations, including the QMU and SRC, supporting the campaign, the UofG’s position remains stubbornly uncompromising. It is eager to recognise its brutal history with slavery but unwilling to act with the most elementary moral conduct, ignoring the overwhelming student voice on divestment. By acknowledging the past, the university enjoys “progressive” credentials, whilst conveniently sidestepping its current crimes. When will they finally drop the act and join the vanguard fighting for real progress?
Our quasi-progressive university, rather than pioneering the movement for the liberation of Palestine, follows feebly in the footsteps of Westminster – the value of arms imports to Israel from the UK reaching a record high in June, and the RAF continuing to run spy flights over Gaza.
In a most stunning example of this hypocrisy, multiple MPs strutted out of Parliament in suffragette colours for a photoshoot, marking the anniversary of women’s suffrage in the UK, the same day they voted to proscribe Palestine Action as a terror group. This encapsulates the faux progressivism of moderates almost parodically. Have they misremembered the suffragette movement they champion? If these same MPs had been around 100 years ago, it is not difficult to assume that they would have not, in fact, have applauded the struggle they so proudly pose for.
In all likelihood, our moderates of today would have been opposed to the progressive movements of the past. As they do now, they would have been quick to defend the status quo and oppose more meaningful action in the name of stability. But thankfully for them, supporting these movements once they are widely accepted is extremely easy. At little cost to themselves, they can claim they were on the right side of history all along, appealing to supporters of historically progressive causes.
Organisations and politicians that embody faux progressivism are entirely disinterested with fundamental changes that could threaten conventionality. Fighting for the rights of the oppressed is a costly and disruptive process, something moderate technocrats despise. So instead, they pretend to care. They celebrate historical feats and support meek, gradual reforms that don’t challenge the establishment too much.
The counterfeit comrades that don’t support the full liberation of Palestine are no allies to the progressive movement, they’re opportunists. But this opportunism isn’t only shameful – it’s deadly. Years from now, the moderates of the future will look back on this genocide as an unavoidable tragedy, and forget the role their rhetoric played in allowing it to happen. It’s up to genuine progressives to call out liberal hypocrisy and to demand real action from our institutions and politicians. After all – in our university’s own words – doing the right thing is rarely the easy thing.
