Villanova faculty led a significant and timely teach-in on Palestine, the question of genocide, the background of the current ceasefire and recent statements by President Donald Trump regarding Gaza. On Feb. 18, 2025, in Driscoll Hall, a teach-in was led by various members of the Political Science and History Departments. The event was also co-sponsored by various departments around Villanova, including the Center for Arab and Islamic Studies, the Lepage Center, the Center for Political Theology, Ethics and more.
Due to the ongoing developments in the Middle East, this teach-in was highly anticipated among students and faculty. The panelists noted that dozens of emails were sent to the Villanova office, raising questions and concerns regarding the topics discussed. The faculty leading the event demonstrated a great care and desire to orchestrate conversations that may be difficult, in order to create greater understanding of the correlation between historical context and current events, and to bring different viewpoints together.
Katherine Morris, a political science professor at Villanova, opened the event by discussing the definition of genocide and debate over its political versus legal usage. She explained that the legal definition, established by the United Nations, requires proof of intent to destroy a group, whereas the political usage is often broader, applied by governments, activists and media to adjust discourse and response. She noted that in the context of Gaza, writers and journalists have grappled with the use of certain terminology in headlines and articles. Some media outlets avoid or debate the validity of the term entirely.
Another speaker, Elisabeth Kolsky, discussed terminology used to describe the situation in Gaza and how human rights experts and organizations justify their language choices. Terms such as “genocide,” “ethnic cleansing,” “settlements” and “occupation” were examined in the context of media coverage. It was noted that The New York Times, for instance, has advised its journalists to avoid certain terminology when reporting on the conflict, largely due to fear of potential misuse.
Other speakers at the event, Paul Steege and Anna Duensing, faculty of the History Department, emphasized the importance of historical context when analyzing and applying terminology to current events. Steege and Duensing referenced a historic tragedy such as the Holocaust and treatment of Black individuals during the Civil Rights Movement, discussing how terms such as “genocide” can sometimes oversimplify how complex historical realities can be.
“Problems of today are not new and have existed from the beginning,” Duensing said, highlighting how understanding history is crucial to making sense of contemporary conflicts, one of the main themes of the panel.
“There is a problem with summing up genocide with Auschwitz,” Steege said. “You miss the complexities that go along with genocide and the Holocaust.
He emphasized the importance of recognizing the tragedies involved in these historical events while also acknowledging the nuances of defining them.
“We’re going to see the power struggle and who is able and justified to claim that term,” Duensing said.
The discussion further addressed recent statements by President Trump, particularly regarding Gaza. Panelists examined how his comments about a U.S. role in Gaza have sparked debate over global power dynamics and terminology related to population transfers and governance.
Trump’s comments have created significant discussions on the historical role of the U.S. in foreign relations and what the impact may be in terms of geopolitical relations. Panelists explored how Trump’s statements contribute to ongoing debates about sovereignty, territorial control and the ethical implications of external governance. They also mentioned how language used to describe these actions, such as “occupation,” or “population transfer,” leads to many political implications that can influence certain international responses.
“For most human rights experts, the question of genocide in Gaza is not a question,” Kolsky said, emphasizing that many advocacy groups and scholars argue where and how the term applies.
However, legal bodies and international organizations continue to debate the classification within legal frameworks.
Overall, the teach-in provided attendees with a comprehensive discussion on the historical and political dimensions of terminology in conflict reporting, as well as the complexities of defining and analyzing such terms within academic and media contexts. The event reflected the University’s engagement with challenging global issues and the ongoing debates surrounding them.
