On Friday, Feb. 10, the U.S. Department of State nominated Wesleyan Professor of the Practice James Cavallaro to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). Only four days later, on Tuesday, Feb. 14th, the State Department withdrew his nomination because of an article written by a Trump-affiliated, pro-Israel newspaper criticizing Cavallaro’s tweets in response to Rep. Ro Khanna’s visit to meet with Palestinian students in Ramallah. From his personal Twitter account, Cavallaro asked, “Did they say anything about high-level, US congressional delegations legitimating and praising the Israeli apartheid state?” State Department spokesman Ned Price justified the withdrawal of Cavallaro’s nomination by arguing that his statements “clearly do not reflect U.S. policy,” and deemed his remarks “inappropriate,” despite the fact that the Commission is an autonomous body separate from U.S. policy and many respected global human rights organizations have made the same assessment as Cavallaro. By imposing U.S. political interests over objective human rights discourse, the U.S. risks undermining the autonomous nature of the Commission, thus compromising its ability to objectively assess human rights abuses.

International Human Rights Community Consensus

While Professor Cavallaro’s claims “do not reflect U.S. policy,” they do reflect international consensus regarding Israel’s system of apartheid. Prominent voices in international politics including the former UN Secretary-General, the Director General of Israel’s Foreign Ministry, the South African government, and the French foreign minister have all referenced apartheid in relation to Israel’s systematic subjugation of Palestinians. Within the human rights movement, reports by leading human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Israeli human rights group B’Tselem and the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School substantiate the claim that the state of Israel’s policies of suppression constitute the crime of apartheid. In condemning Cavallaro’s opinions on Israel/Palestine for differing from “what we [the U.S. Department of State] believe,” the U.S. government is expecting an independent human rights expert to turn away from the human rights corpus and let U.S. policy goals supersede critical analysis and the mission of the Commission.

Autonomy of the IACHR

The State Department’s decision to pull Cavallaro’s nomination demonstrates an incestuous relationship between what is designed as an oversight mechanism and the countries it is meant to oversee. The Commission holds autonomous authority to promote and protect human rights in the Western Hemisphere. As an independent organization, the Commission has an obligation to shield its stance and judgements from the influence of any particular state, lest it cease to be objective and trade its role as an oversight body for a position in the service of a powerful state. Filtering candidates by how much they agree with the U.S. aggrandizes the political views of the U.S. within the Commission. A candidate selected based on their compliance with U.S. policy may be reluctant to hold the U.S. and its allies accountable for human rights abuses, which jeopardizes the integrity of the Commission’s judgments. The autonomy of the Commission must be preserved.

It cannot be ignored that the primary accusation leveled against Professor Cavallaro is antisemitism. It is certainly true that issues concerning the state of Israel are closely tied to Jewish identity: Israel is a deeply sacred place and has acted as a vital refuge for Jewish people fleeing persecution. Thus, discourse around Israel/Palestine is not only political but also emotional, social, and spiritual. The issues concerning Israel/Palestine are incredibly fraught, complicated, and controversial, and that complexity should not be minimized. However, to conflate criticism of the state of Israel with criticism of the Jewish people is to establish a false equivalency and diminish the diversity of opinion and identity within the Jewish community. Controversy can be a stimulus for constructive dialogue, but reducing the complex discourse Cavallaro engages in down to merely antisemitic hate speech does not serve the global promotion of human rights.

The withdrawal of Professor Cavallaro’s nomination is part of an alarming trend where claims of antisemitism are used to delegitimize and silence advocates for Palestinian human rights. This trend includes incidents such as that of Ken Roth, former director of Human Rights Watch, who was denied an appointment to the Harvard Kennedy School for his work in Israel/Palestine (a decision that has now been reversed). Just last month, George Washington University refused to defend Dr. Lara Sheehi, a professor who has been heavily harassed by a right-wing pro-Israel group for her Palestinian advocacy work. 

The State Department’s decision to pull Cavallaro’s nomination risks undermining the autonomy of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and sets a dangerous precedent for future nominations. Advocates like Cavallaro should not be punished for retaining the integrity of their analyses against U.S. political agendas. While a reinstatement of Professor Cavallaro’s nomination by the State Department may no longer be possible, the U.S. administration should ensure that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights nomination process is based on strictly human rights expertise and experience, not a candidate’s adherence to U.S. official policy.

Briana Rodriguez Castillo can be reached at brodriguezca@wesleyan.edu.

Anisah Colon can be reached at apcolon@wesleyan.edu.

Desaree Edwards can be reached at dedwards01@wesleyan.edu.

Noor Jerath can be reached at njerath@wesleyan.edu.

Elijah Leshnick can be reached at eleshnick@wesleyan.edu.

Molly Meyer can be reached at mkmeyer@wesleyan.edu.

Kaori Sakurai can be reached at ksakurai@wesleyan.edu.

Esme Smith can be reached at eosmith@wesleyan.edu.

Sofia Perez can be reached at sperez01@wesleyan.edu.

Geo Wood can be reached at gwood@wesleyan.edu.