On March 3, President Michael Roth ’78 visited the Wesleyan General Assembly for his regularly scheduled recap of the February 2024 board retreat. However, his reception at this particular meeting was different than usual. Dozens of students lined the walls and sat on the scratchy carpeted floor of Boger Hall to have a chance to ask Roth about the board of trustees. The Q&A centered on a student zine published a week prior, which alleged misuse of power by Roth and the board of trustees. Students questioned Roth about a sexual assault allegation against the chair of the board of trustees, the revelation of Wesleyan’s ties to the Uyghur genocide through trustee Marc Casper, and student fear of retaliation for criticizing Wesleyan power dynamics. However, Roth disregarded the zine on the grounds that he believes some of the art in it is antisemitic. Roth responded to my and other students’ concerns aggressively, as if our worries about the future of Wesleyan were a personal attack. His outright dismissal of the zine’s allegation is a disappointment, squandering an opportunity for community unity and education.

Roth asserted that a power map in the shape of an octopus was blatantly antisemitic, stating, “We know what that’s about.” Although a Jew myself, I did not know what that was about. I subsequently spent some time researching Nazi-era caricatures of Jews. I was unaware of the styles of caricatures or usage of cephalopods until I saw a Nazi propaganda poster of Winston Churchill. Many of my peers are similarly uneducated about the propaganda used against Jews during the German Reich. Further, I am deeply involved in my Jewish community: I used to spend three days a week at my synagogue’s Talmud Torah study, I am the child of my synagogue’s former president, and I am the grandchild of a Rabbi. While I am not an expert on antisemitic tropes, I have received more education on Jewish history than many of my peers who have relied on the American education system. I truly believe the similarities between the “Rothtopus” power map and the Churchill caricature are coincidence rather than malicious intent. 

Rather than educating students on the histories of antisemitic caricatures, President Roth used this art to dismiss “Begging for Table Scraps” as a whole. I understand the emotional burden of educating others on a marginalized identity. I have dealt with it my whole life. But as president, it is his role to facilitate student growth and unity himself, or to appoint another to do so. Instead of channeling his pain into productive conversation, President Roth turned it against “Begging for Table Scraps” as a whole. When asked about his reception of the sexual assault allegation, Roth jokingly questioned the student on whether they were the anonymous author. When another student asked Roth’s opinion on whether Casper’s role in the ongoing Uyghur genocide went against the Wesleyan’s moral compass, Roth deflected, asserting that Casper’s company, Thermo Fisher Scientific, “saved your asses” during the pandemic. Roth mocked a student and raised his voice when he felt threatened. In this moment, Roth failed to look past his own feelings of hurt and thus did not fulfill his self-proclaimed “duty as university president to ensure that students, faculty and staff have opportunities to make their views heard, and to learn from reactions that follow.”

I do not suggest that we ignore the real anger felt by Jewish readers of the zine. We must tend to feelings of unwelcomeness, fear, uncertainty, and rage. But we must also critically analyze the context in which microaggressions occur. I have experienced antisemitism on this campus. For example, during summer break, the mezuzah on my doorpost was torn down and stolen. However, my individual pain should not be used to invalidate the extraordinary pro-Palestinian organizing on the Wesleyan campus. My pain is my personal issue. In moments of contention, the Wesleyan community should look to learn from one another. 

We need to educate each other about stereotypes of marginalized communities and create a culture where we are able to learn from mistakes and become better community members. But President Roth has refused to educate students on these histories of antisemitism, instead using a single drawing to disengage from valid and timely student criticism. As Roth himself wrote in his blog, “[w]e must not protect ourselves from disagreement; we must be open to being offended for the sake of learning, and we must be willing to risk giving offense for the sake of creating new opportunities for thinking.” I hope President Roth can lead us by example.

Amira Pierotti is a member of the class of 2026 and can be reached at apierotti@wesleyan.edu.