Image 01 Image 03

Student Govt. at Dickinson College Votes to Ban Israeli Hummus to be More ‘Inclusive’

Student Govt. at Dickinson College Votes to Ban Israeli Hummus to be More ‘Inclusive’

“moved to cease the sale of Sabra Hummus on campus once the existing product sold out”

Do supporters of the BDS movement have any idea how stupid this looks to most people?

Campus Reform reports:

Student gov votes to ban Israeli hummus to be more ‘inclusive’

Late last year, the student senate at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania passed a ban against Sabra Hummus on campus as part of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israeli products.

In the student resolution titled “A Resolution To Endorse the Banning of Sabra Hummus from the Devil’s Den” students moved to cease the sale of Sabra Hummus on campus once the existing product sold out. The students argued that such a ban would follow the “College’s commitment to sustainability and inclusivity.”

The Devil’s Den is a popular campus dining location at which the Hummus is served.

“Sabra Hummus is a brand partially owned by the Strauss Group, which is a company that financially and morally supports the Golani and Givati bridge of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF),” stated the resolution.

“These brigades of the IDF commit human rights abuses against Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and the support of Sabra products helps the Strauss Group support the Israeli Defence Force brigade which maintains a cycle of oppression for Palestinian people in violation of international law,” it continued.

A second “alternative” version of the resolution titled was read weeks later and argued that the original proposal did not “consider the whole community effected to [sic] the proposal of banning Sabra Hummus” as it is “one of the only Kosher and vegan options offered on campus” since a campus dining hall lost its Kosher certification.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Now exclusion really means inclusion…another one of those “it can’t get any crazier” moments and then it does. I’m getting to old to keep up.

Oh goody, more for me.

Maybe the hummus should be put on double secret probation.

At least they didn’t repeat the ridiculous claim used by the BDS nutcases in Ithaca, that Sabra is named in honor of the Sabra & Shatilla massacre!

This is wrong. The obvious solution is for folks who actually want the option of consuming Sabra to bring their own to the dining hall and then sit there saying “Man. this Sabra hummus tastes like, tastes like, tastes like, VICTORY!”

“Your move assholes.”

And if the college enforces this nutcase move, that will put the college in violation of Pa. Statutes title 62, section 3604, which will prohibit any PA purchasing agency from contracting with the college “to acquire or dispose of supplies, services or construction.” That may apply if the college gets grants to perform research for the state. No private right of action, but people should press PA to enforce its law.

Antifundamentalist | January 15, 2020 at 3:09 pm

Exclude a type of hummus based on the ethnic origins of the product….in the name of inclusiveness? These children need to first pick up an oxford dictionary and look up the meaning of the words they are attempting to use, and then they need to look up the meaning of the words “discrimination” and “racism” and apply those definitions to the actions they have taken here. Oh, and they might want to add “ignorant” as well.

    They are not excluding a type of hummus, nor are they doing so based on its ethnic origins. They’re excluding a brand, based on the actions of a company that owns 50% of the manufacturer. Their reason for objecting to that company’s actions is bigoted and irrational, but the boycott itself is based neither on ethnicity nor national origin.

      No, they are boycotting because the company has Israeli ownership, which pays taxes to Israel, and they object to Israel. That meets the statutory definition.

        Milhouse in reply to RRRR. | January 15, 2020 at 7:38 pm

        No, that is not their objection. If it were, then it would indeed be discrimination on the basis of national origin, but it isn’t. Why don’t you read the d*mn article, and find out what these people’s argument is, so you can address it intelligently.