Can one have opposite views on the “should this voice be included” debate and still be morally consistent? Here is my take. On the Hillel excluding Jewish non-Zionist voices, they are wrong because Hillel is supposed to represent ALL Jews on campus. An ideological litmus test on Zionism is therefore illegitimate because many Jews say it is, not because Zionism is inherently wrong or right. If Jewish ideas are banned at Hillel, it can not claim to be universally Jewish. On the other hand Black Lives Matter, Feminism, Palestinian call for BDS as examples are not trying to represent all people.

They are representing marginalized people knowing full well that most power and in many cases majority opinion are not on their side. Social Justice movements by definition are working to change and challenge power and by definition those who are oppressed don’t need to make room for those who already have all the cards and power. Excluding for example Zionists and White Nationalists from social justice movements makes sense as their presence serves little purpose but to distract and destroy the very fabric of the change that is sought.

So all in all yeah, I won’t loose any sleep over advocating both the inclusion of non-ZIonists in Hillel while making the case that a litmus test that excludes white supremacist views and Zionism is quite appropriate for Black Lives Matter and all anti-opression networks.