WINNIPEG — There is a dangerous confusion spreading across campuses: the idea that activism automatically qualifies someone for leadership.
It does not.
The Vice-President Student Life is not a megaphone for ideology. It is a steward of the community. It is a position entrusted with protecting inclusion, fostering safety, and ensuring that every student, regardless of background, feels represented.
That responsibility is incompatible with rhetoric that alienates an entire minority group.
Promoting an “Emergency Rally” opposing U.S.–Israel action against Iran, while adding “See yall there,” may be framed as political engagement. But context matters. Iran’s regime is internationally sanctioned. The IRGC is designated a terrorist entity in Canada. The Iranian leadership has openly called for Israel’s destruction and funded proxy militias across the region.
Jewish students are not imagining the implications when they see such messaging amplified by someone seeking to represent them.
They are reading the signal.
It does not stop there.
Describing Israel as a “genocidal state.” Calling it a “great evil.” Declaring that the goal is to “end Zionism.” Praising figures tied to organizations listed as terrorist entities in Canada. Glorifying “resistance fighters” and celebrating militant sacrifice.
Supporters may call it passionate political speech.
But when rhetoric consistently characterizes the Jewish state as uniquely monstrous, calls for dismantling the movement tied to Jewish self-determination, and echoes narratives associated with violent groups, the issue is no longer about policy debate.
It becomes about judgment.
Zionism is not an abstract slogan for many Jewish students. It is intertwined with identity, history, survival, and collective memory after centuries of persecution. When campus rhetoric targets Zionism as something to be eradicated, Jewish students hear something far more personal than geopolitical disagreement.
And when the individual using that rhetoric seeks a role tasked with fostering inclusion for all students, the contradiction becomes impossible to ignore.
Free speech protects the right to say controversial things.
It does not confer immunity from scrutiny.
No one is entitled to leadership. Leadership is earned through demonstrated maturity, restraint, and the ability to separate ideological fervor from institutional responsibility.
If rhetoric widely perceived as dehumanizing were directed at any other minority group, there would be no hesitation in raising alarms. The same standard must apply when Jewish students are the ones raising concerns.
This is not about silencing debate over Israel.
It is about refusing to normalize language that crosses from criticism into demonization.
The VP Student Life must be someone who can walk into every room on campus, Jewish student groups, Muslim associations, international student gatherings, secular clubs, and be trusted as a fair representative.
Trust cannot coexist with rhetoric that makes one community feel targeted.
Universities are supposed to be places where pluralism thrives. That requires leaders who understand the difference between mobilizing a base and stewarding a diverse institution.
Students now face a simple but serious civic question:
What kind of campus culture are we willing to endorse?
One where leadership means uniting a fractured community?
Or one where activism that marginalizes a minority is excused as politics?
Every ballot cast in a student election signals something about the standards we accept.
Voters should weigh not just platforms and promises, but judgment, tone, and the impact of words.
Because leadership is not about volume.
It is about responsibility.
Leadership is not a reward for the loudest activist or the most polarizing voice. It is a trust, and trust demands moral clarity. If rhetoric that many Jewish students experience as dehumanizing, erasing, or threatening is brushed aside as “just politics,” then inclusion on campus is a slogan, not a standard.
Universities must decide whether they mean what they say about protecting minority communities, all minority communities, or whether that protection ends when Jews are the ones raising the alarm. The line is not blurry. The standard is not complicated. Leadership either unites and safeguards every student, or it does not.
