The Pros of Preaching to the Choir
At the CAMERA Student Leadership Conference, I asked the students I advise in the southeast U.S. to share some challenges they faced advocating for Zionism on campus. Many, most notably my Florida students, reported relatively few problems. These students regarded themselves as “lucky” not to face the same levels of hostility as their peers on other campuses.
This raises an important question: Is it worthwhile to engage in pro-Israel activism on campuses with little explicit hostility?
In short, yes!
Effective activism tends to be evaluated based on how likely it is to change someone’s mind, while “preaching to the choir,” or talking to people who may already agree with you, is usually shorthand for ineffective activism. But judging activism only by its ability to change minds overlooks its role in mobilizing existing supporters.
Persuasion is about changing someone else’s mind. Mobilization is about preparing people who already share convictions to act on them by staying educated and learning to articulate sound arguments. That preparation helps students turn their support into action, whether by writing an article, organizing an event, or answering a classmate’s questions. Effective movements require both.
Today’s comfortable campus environment may not be tomorrow’s. College does not last forever, either. Students will eventually graduate and encounter different workplaces, communities, social circles, and political environments. They should have opportunities to practice activism before the stakes are higher and there is no supportive audience.
Students may have the conviction to advocate for Israel but lack the ability to articulate their thoughts in a coherent, meaningful way. Giving supporters room to make mistakes, test arguments, and recognize gaps in their knowledge in a more forgiving environment can help prepare them to have constructive conversations.
For example, during the CAMERA conference, video journalist Kassy Akiva presented common claims made by Israel’s detractors, including genocide and settler colonial libels and apartheid accusations, and invited students to debate her as she took on an anti-Israel persona. Students later shared how much they valued the opportunity to practice thinking on their feet, answering difficult questions, and responding respectfully. Struggling with an answer gave them an opportunity to figure out what they needed to learn before a confrontation happens.
One concern about preaching to the choir is the potential for intellectual complacency. Of course, there is a legitimate risk of creating an echo chamber. But Akiva’s exercise illustrates how a supportive setting can still challenge students: they have to answer opposing arguments rather than simply agree with one another. Students should be going out of their way to encounter opposing arguments in their strongest credible form, check sources, receive honest feedback, and recognize where their own arguments need work in order to prepare themselves for activism. In other words, the goal is not for our choir to hear itself sing; it is to develop our voices and use them when it matters.
On campuses where pro-Israel students feel “lucky,” that preparation may seem unnecessary. But activism is not only about responding to the environment students face today. It is about preparing them for the environments they will face tomorrow. A campus with little hostility is not a reason to stop training advocates. It may be the best place to start.