The American Studies Association describes itself as “nation’s oldest and largest association devoted to the interdisciplinary study of American culture and history,” and has approximately 5,000 members. On December 4th, 2013, the ASA National Council announced a unanimous decision that it would be endorsing an academic boycott of Israel before announcing a vote among its members to decide whether to follow through. It is informative to note that their “understanding” of an academic boycott is quite different than that of BDS:
“Our resolution understands boycott as limited to a refusal on the part of the Association in its official capacities to enter into formal collaborations with Israeli academic institutions, or with scholars who are expressly serving as representatives or ambassadors of those institutions, or on behalf of the Israeli government, until Israel ceases to violate human rights and international law.”
Compare that to PACBI, which is against “participation in any form of academic and cultural cooperation, collaboration or joint projects with Israeli institutions.” Even from the very start the ASA did not completely mimic the BDS call, preferring instead to pass a watered down resolution that even its supporters agree is “largely symbolic.”
In the mere two weeks given to the membership of the ASA to vote on whether or not to endorse the boycott, criticism poured in against it. Eight past presidents of the ASA wrote a letter saying that they felt boycotts are “antithetical to the mission of free and open inquiry for which a scholarly organization stands.” This was followed by an op-ed by Henry Reichman, the chair of the American Association of University Professors’ Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure. Reichman pointed out that the ASA refused to post the AAUP’s open letter opposing the boycott and followed up by criticizing “one-sided and disingenuous presentations sadly offered on ASA’s website.” This one-sided attitude toward the boycott was confirmed when the ASA hosted an “open discussion” on the subject in which pro-boycott speakers outnumbered anti-boycott speakers by a significant margin. that the ASA was intent on “stacking the deck” to ensure the resolution passed.
Ultimately, it did pass with 66.1% in favor and 30.5% against. However, only 1,200 out of a total of more than 5,000 ASA members voted in the poll, due to it taking place during finals week and at the end of the semester. Among much rejoicing by boycott supporters, the Native American Studies Association followed up with an announcement that they would be imposing an academic boycott on Israel as well.
But a backlash against the ASA’s decision began almost immediately. The President of Wesleyan University called their decision “a repugnant attack on academic freedom.” Princeton University President Christopher L. Eisgruber expressed his “dismay,” and even prominent critics of Israel such as Peter Beinart and Howard Schweber criticized the decision, correctly labeling it an attack on Israel’s existence. Former Harvard University president Larry Summers called the ASA boycott “anti-Semitic in effect,” and urged universities to counter boycott the ASA.
Some did. Brandeis University and Penn State University canceled their institutional memberships in the ASA. So has Kenyon College and Indiana University. More than twenty-five universities (so far) have issued statements denouncing academic boycotts of Israel. The Association of American Universities came out against the ASA’s decision as well.
Although this story continues to develop, some things are clear: from the ASA’s perspective it has lost much academic legitimacy and has reaped an ugly backlash from its fellow members of the intellectual community. In return, it has gained very little, considering its academic boycott of Israel was never going to be implemented in the first place. The only people who have gained from this whole debacle are the pro-BDS delegitimizers, who have gained a prominent patsy for their campaign against Israel.