(By Valerie Strauss at Washington Post)

Dozens of American colleges and universities are rejecting an academic boycott of Israeli universities recently approved by the academic American Studies Association, the nation’s oldest and largest association devoted to the interdisciplinary study of American culture and history. Some schools said they are withdrawing from the organization.

Rep. Eliot Engel, the senior Democratic member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, sent a letter (text below) to the ASA president, Curtis Marez, expressing concern over what Engel said was “the unfair double standard Israel is regularly and unfairly subjected to by organizations such as yours.”

The association’s membership — or, rather, 66.05 percent of the 1,252 votes that came in from the group’s 5,000 members — approved the boycott last week over the objections of numerous former presidents of the organization and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who angered activists by saying that he does not support a boycott of Israel (though he does support a boycott of Israeli products in the occupied territories).

Schools including Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Princeton and Boston universities and the Universities of Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Texas at Austin and others have slammed the boycott, issuing statements similar to one by Harvard President Drew Faust that said that academic boycotts “subvert the academic freedoms and values necessary to the free flow of ideas, which is the lifeblood of the worldwide community of scholars.”

Penn State University at Harrisburg and Brandeis University have said they are withdrawing their memberships from the American Studies Association, and other schools are considering doing the same thing. In addition, two major associations of institutions of higher education, the Association of American Universities and the Association of American University Professors, have issued statements rejecting the boycott.

The approved ASA boycott resolution, which followed a similar one by the Association for Asian American Studies, said in part:

The American Studies Association (ASA) endorses and will honor the call of Palestinian civil society for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions. It is also resolved that the ASA supports the protected rights of students and scholars everywhere to engage in research and public speaking about Israel-Palestine and in support of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement.

The Association of American University Professors has long opposed academic boycotts, saying in a 2005 resolution:

We reject proposals that curtail the freedom of teachers and researchers to engage in work with academic colleagues, and we reaffirm the paramount importance of the freest possible international movement of scholars and ideas.

I recently asked Marez if his organization had instituted an embargo on any other country’s academic institution and he responded in an e-mail saying that:

ASA members condemned apartheid in South Africa and urged divestment from U.S. corporations with operations there. More recently the ASA condemned anti-immigrant discrimination in Arizona and in other states.

That’s a long way of saying that the Israeli boycott is the first and only for the ASA.

Here’s Engel’s letter, and following that are some of the statements that presidents of universities have issued:

Mr. Curtis Marez

President
American Studies Association
1120 19th St NW, Suite 301
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Marez:

I noted with great dismay the decision of the American Studies Association (ASA) to launch a boycott targeting Israeli academic institutions. I believe such action by the ASA is another example of the unfair double standard Israel is regularly and unfairly subjected to by organizations such as yours. I could not help but notice that the American Association of University Professors condemns such boycotts as violations of academic freedom, and that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas himself made clear that his government does not support boycotts of the institutions that the ASA is now targeting.

I take great issue with how supporters of the ASA’s misguided actions draw a distinction between boycotting individual Israelis and Israeli academic institutions, which the ASA has termed “party to Israeli state policies that violate human rights.” Simply put, I fail to see how cutting off ties to Israeli universities furthers the interests of peace and coexistence. Does your membership really believe the institutions such as the Walter Lebach Institute for Jewish-Arab Coexistence Through Education at the Tel Aviv University, the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, or the Jewish-Arab Center at the University of Haifa contribute to the purported Israeli assault on human rights and academic freedoms?

Further, I was surprised to learn that Israel is the first country formally subject to a boycott by the ASA, which curiously has chosen to stay silent on China’s suppression of independent academic voices critical of the Communist Party, the Venezuelan government’s retaliation against opposition-oriented universities, or Zimbabwe’s denial of foreign academics from countries critical of Robert Mugabe’s dictatorial government from assuming academic residencies at the University of Zimbabwe. Unfortunately, your response that “we have to start somewhere” when queried about this contradiction only serves to highlight your organization’s bias against Israel. If you must “start somewhere,” than I strongly suggest the ASA turn its attention to Syria, where Bashar al-Assad’s forces have indiscriminately shelled universities, killing students even as they sat for exams.

I have attached several sections from the State Department’s most recent Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for your review. I would note that under the Israel country section, the report states “there were no government restrictions on academic freedom.”

If you desire any assistance in further identifying other countries with human rights records of concern, I and my staff stand ready to assist you and the ASA in that regard.

Sincerely,

ELIOT L. ENGEL

Ranking Member

President Drew Faust

Harvard University

Academic boycotts subvert the academic freedoms and values necessary to the free flow of ideas, which is the lifeblood of the worldwide community of scholars. The recent resolution of the ASA proposing to boycott Israeli universities represents a direct threat to these ideals, ideals which universities and scholarly associations should be dedicated to defend.

President Susan Herbst
University of Connecticut

The recent votes of two scholarly societies — the American Studies Association and Association for Asian American Studies — to endorse the Palestinian boycott of Israeli academic institutions is contrary to both academic freedom and the international exchange of ideas. The University of Connecticut joins the American Association of University Professors in firmly opposing all such boycotts. Choosing one nation for a boycott is patently unfair and represents a disturbing philosophy among some segments of the academy.

As a university with global reach and prominence, UConn seeks research and educational partnerships with people of all nations, and is proud to serve as a force for political conversation, inter-ethnic exchange, and the pursuit of scholarly excellence.

Academic leaders at UConn will continue to visit Israel and Arab nations, invite Israeli and Arab scholars to our campuses, encourage our students and faculty to study in these nations, and pursue research collaboration with the many outstanding Israeli universities. We do this with pride and a productive focus on social justice, to forge the very critical dialogues that will someday lead to the peace we all seek.

That is the true essence of a university — to foster dialogue and develop solutions to problems without regard to political, racial, and cultural differences.

Susan Herbst
President
University of Connecticut

BOSTON UNIVERSITY
PRESIDENT ROBERT A. BROWN

I am disappointed and concerned that the American Studies Association, invoking the principle of academic freedom, would vote to boycott Israeli academic institutions. Research, teaching, and scholarship flourish through robust exchange of ideas, across borders and among institutions in different parts of the world. Universities and their faculties can often transcend even profound political differences. It is ill-advised to make academic institutions the instrument with which to promote a political agenda by attempting to isolate students and scholars. Boston University cannot support this boycott.

I hope that there will be a serious discussion within our American & New England Studies Program, which has an institutional membership in the ASA that, obviously, is funded by the University. This institutional membership does not come with a vote that is exercised by either the program or the University. The poll taken by the ASA represents the votes of individual members of the organization. We are not prepared to suggest (implicitly or explicitly) to faculty members who hold individual memberships (some of which are funded out of professional funds allocated to individual faculty members) how they should vote. That would lead us onto a slippery slope.

I do hope the faculty in the American & New England Studies Program will consider whether or not continuing membership in the ASA will create the opportunity for a temperate and thoughtful reconsideration of the wisdom of the boycott.

For my part, I am somewhat cautious about following a boycott with a boycott. I’d rather see thoughtful discourse and engagement. This is a case in which the application of the principle of academic freedom is both important but fraught with subtlety. I take the point that the ASA boycott is pernicious and a rather direct attack on academic freedom and scholarly interactions across borders. With my formal statement, I have registered that objection. At the same time, we must be careful about reactions that have the effect of further limiting much-needed dialogue.

Robert A. Brown
President

 

TO THE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN STUDIES ASSOCIATION:

(Legal Insurrection) The universities and colleges below are confirmed to reject the academic boycott of Israel passed by the American Studies Association.

This list is based on positions expressed by the Presidents of such Universities or others in a position to state a university’s position (e.g., communications staff). We are aware of no university in the U.S. endorsing the boycott. See University statements rejecting academic boycott of Israel.

This is a list in progress and will be updated as more announcements/confirmations are made. If you have additions, please post in comments with source link or forward confirming emails to me.

These are in addition to the Association of American Universities, the umbrella organization for62 major universities and university-systems, and the American Association of University Professors, both of which reject the boycott.

Reject Boycott

1. American University (D.C.)
2. Amherst College
3. Barnard College
4. Birmingham Southern College
5. Boston University
6. Bowdoin College
7. Brandeis University
8. Brooklyn College, CUNY
9. Brown University
10. Carnegie-Mellon University
11. Case Western Reserve University
12. Catholic University
13. City University of New York
14. Clark University
15. Colby College
16. Colgate University
17. College of Charleston
18. Colgate University
19. Columbia University
20. Cornell University
21. Dartmouth College
22. Dickinson College
23. Drake University
24. Drexel University
25. Duke University
26. Emory University
27. Florida Atlantic University
28. Florida International University
29. Fordham University
30. Franklin & Marshall College
31. George Washington University
32. Georgetown University
33. Gettysburg College
34. Goucher College
35. Hamilton College
36. Harvard University
37. Haverford College
38. Hobart and William Smith Colleges
39. Indiana University
40. Johns Hopkins University
41. Kenyon College
42. Lafayette College
43. Lehigh University
44. Loyola University Maryland
45. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
46. Michigan State
47. Middlebury College
48. New York University
49. Northeastern University
50. Northwestern University
51. Ohio State
52. Pennsylvania State University
53. Pomona College
54. Princeton University
55. Purdue University
56. Ramapo College
57. Rhode Island College
58. Rice University
59. Rider University
60. Rutgers University
61. St. Lawrence University
62. Skidmore College
63. Smith College
64. Stanford University
65. State University of New York (SUNY) System
66. Swarthmore College
67. The City University of New York
68. Trinity College (CT)
69. Tufts University
70. Tulane University
71. Union College
72. University of Alabama System
73. University of California System
74. University of California-Berkeley
75. University of California-Davis
76. University of California-Irvine
77. University of California-San Diego
78. University of California – San Francisco
79. University of Chicago
80. University of Cincinnati
81. University of Connecticut
82. University of Delaware
83. University of Florida
84. University of Illinois System
85. University of Illinois at Chicago
86. University of Illinois at Springfield
87. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
88. University of La Verne
89. University of Kansas
90. University of Maryland
91. University of Maryland – Baltimore County
92. University of Miami
93. University of Michigan
94. University of Minnesota
95. University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill
96. University of Pennsylvania
97. University of Pittsburgh
98. University of Rochester
99. University of Southern California
100. University of Texas-Austin
101. University of Vermont
102. Vanderbilt University
103. Wake Forest University
104. Washington University in St. Louis
105. Wesleyan University
106. Willamette University
107. Yale University
108. Yeshiva University

Termination of memberships – Many if not most Universities are leaving the decision to terminate Institutional Membership up to individual American Studies Departments. We can confirm that the following have terminated or will not renew membership:

1. Bard College (source)
2. Brandeis University
3. Indiana University
4. Kenyon College
5. Penn State Harrisburg

Deny Membership – The following are listed by ASA as Institutional Members, but deny that they are in fact members (via email confirmations or external links):

1. Brown University
2. Carnegie-Mellon University
3. Hamilton College
4. Northwestern University
5. Temple University
6. Trinity College (CT)
7. Tufts University
8. University of Alabama (source)(source)
9. University of Mississippi (source)
10. University of Southern California
11. Willamette University

Miscellaneous

• Trinity College Profs issue letter rejecting anti-Israel academic boycott
• American Council on Education

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.

“If we are to look at Israeli society, it is within the academic community that we’ve had the most progressive pro-peace views and views that have come out in favor of seeing us as equals…. If you want to punish any sector, this is the last one to approach.”

— Al-Quds University President Sari Nusseibeh

• Defining Academic Boycotts
• Why Academic Boycotts are Unjust
• Boycotts are Anti-Peace, McCarthyist, and Often Anti-Semitic
• Notable Academic Boycott Case Studies
• Statements Against Academic Boycotts
• Do Israeli Academics Boycott Palestinian Professors?
• Institutions vs. Individuals
• “Two Wrongs Make a Right”
• Resources

Defining Academic Boycotts

The Academic boycott aims to keep Israeli scholars and students from coming to the United States or any other country, to end all study abroad programs to Israel, end all research cooperation with Israelis and Israeli universities, and end all dialogue between Israel and the rest of the world.

Those pushing for an academic boycott of Israel seek to isolate it by preventing Israeli academics from working with their colleagues abroad. According to PACBI, academic boycotts involve the following measures:

“Refrain from participation in any form of academic and cultural cooperation, collaboration or joint projects with Israeli institutions;

Advocate a comprehensive boycott of Israeli institutions at the national and international levels, including suspension of all forms of funding and subsidies to these institutions;

Promote divestment and disinvestment from Israel by international academic institutions;

Work toward the condemnation of Israeli policies by pressing for resolutions to be adopted by academic, professional and cultural associations and organizations;

Support Palestinian academic and cultural institutions directly without requiring them to partner with Israeli counterparts as an explicit or implicit condition for such support.”

Academic boycotts are not motivated by any particular policy or decision, but rather simply because the institutions that they target are in Israel: “all Israeli academic institutions, unless proven otherwise, are complicit in maintaining the Israeli occupation and denial of basic Palestinian rights [PACBI].”

Why Academic Boycotts Are Unjust

There are three major reasons why the academic boycott campaign against Israel is unjust. First, academic boycotts by their very nature are discriminatory and oppressive. Secondly, Israel is being targeted for an academic boycott while countries that routinely violate human rights and oppress their own people are ignored. Third is that the goal of the academic boycott campaign is not to pressure Israel to change its policies but to annihilate it and replace it with a Palestinian state.

Punishing university professors simply because of where they are from is not only morally wrong, it is a violation of academic freedom, a core principle of academia. Scholars must be free to produce and share their knowledge without threats of interference or penalty, no matter what country they come from or their political views. Boycotts like those endorsed by BDS directly threaten the moral foundation of each and every university that employs them. Chancellor Timothy P. White of California State University explained why his university was against academic boycotts on January 3, 2014:

“The California State University denounces the resolution calling for an academic boycott of the higher education institutions in Israel, which was issued by the American Studies Association and has been supported by other organizations. Academic boycotts violate the basic tenets of higher education including academic freedom and scholarly dialog. Boycotts attempt to limit the unfettered creation, discovery and dissemination of knowledge vital to our tripartite mission of research, teaching and service. These characteristics are essential to preparing students with the analytical and critical thinking skills to lead in business, community, educational and civic organizations.” [CalState Blogs]

Because academic boycotts target all Israeli professors regardless of political position, they include left-leaning professors who advocate for the rights of Palestinians and a two state solution. Boycotts of this kind only serve to create barriers between people and make peace harder to achieve.

Furthermore, it is common for universities to collaborate internationally regardless of politics. American universities for example often host scholars from such repressive regimes as China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. Rarely are academic boycotts of these nations considered, regardless of their oppressive policies, because the purpose of universities is to educate and share knowledge, not to render political judgments. Singling out Israel for a unique form of punishment is not only effectively anti-Semitic, but indicates that the boycotts are not in fact motivated by human rights and rather by a desire to destroy Israel.

This leads to the third reason. According to the leaders of the BDS campaign, the goal of these academic boycotts is not merely to end the occupation and secure the human rights of Palestinians but to destroy Israel. Even if academic boycotts in general were somehow considered acceptable, and even if Israel’s policies were severe enough to warrant this manner of unique attention, this academic boycott’s goal is to deprive Israelis of human rights, not to help the Palestinians. Therefore it is unjust and should be rejected.

Boycotts are Anti-Peace, McCarthyist and often Anti-Semitic

• Boycotts punish the most progressive voices in Israeli society.
• Blocking dialogue and exchanges between Israelis, Palestinians and others makes peace less likely.
• If the boycott applies only to Israeli Jews, then it is anti-Semitic.
• Boycotts trample the Academic freedom that universities stand for and deprive students of their right to international viewpoints.
• A boycott of Israel unfairly singles out one nation, blacklisting all voices and perspectives.

Notable Academic Boycott Case Studies

Association of University Teachers (2005)

University and College Union (2007)

National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (2006)

Canadian Union of Public Employees (2009)

Statements Against Academic Boycotts

American Universities Denounce ASA’s Academic Boycott of Israel

ASA Turpie Awards Winners Opposed to Israeli Boycott Resolution

Trinity College’s Letter to the ASA President

Sari Nusseibeh, President of Al-Quds University

Lawrence Summers: Academic Boycotts are “Anti-Semitic”

Complete List of American Universities Rejecting Academic Boycott

Illinois Representative Peter Roskam and 133 other Congressmen Write Letter Denouncing ASA Boycott

Do Israeli academics boycott Palestinian professors?

• According to Martin Kramer: “Never … not even during the worst days of terror. To the contrary: if you’re organizing a conference in Israel, it’s almost obligatory to have a Palestinian professor on the podium. Free exchange is what academic freedom means, and Israeli universities have done an admirable job of upholding it in trying times. In contrast, the academic boycott against Israel is itself a gross violation of academic freedom, because it explicitly imposes a political litmus test on Israelis scholars. It’s radical-style McCarthyism.”

Institutions vs. Individuals

In cases when BDS is not able to convince their targets to impose a full academic boycott on Israel, or when trying to muster support for one, it attempts to distinguish between Israelis and Israeli universities. The ASA resolution for example says that “We are expressly not endorsing a boycott of Israeli scholars engaged in individual-level contacts and ordinary forms of academic exchange …provided they are not engaged in a formal partnership with or sponsorship by Israeli academic institutions,” because their academic boycott “is not designed to curtail dialogue.” Their BDS supporters attempted to parse a distinction in the op-ed pages of various newspapers:

“There is nothing within the guidelines of the academic boycott that prohibit, hinder, or condemn intellectual collaboration with individual academics from Israeli institutions…” [J. Kēhaulani Kauanui]

This argument is laughable right on the surface. A university is nothing without professors, researchers, and students. It is impossible to target a university without targeting the people associated with it.

“Absurdly, the ASA claims it’s going to boycott only the universities, not the scholars and students working therein. In other words, they intend to catch fish but vow not to go near the water.” [Rex Murphy]

Furthermore, insisting that an Israeli academic disassociate herself with her home university or refuse funding from that university before allowing her to teach, as BDS does, is clearly McCarthyist. It is an even more prominent violation of academic freedom than simply refusing to allow that Israeli academic to teach.

Finally, in practice, Israeli academics are often targeted on an individual level by BDS and their various subgroups. In 2002 an Egyptian professor at the University of Manchester in England campaigned for two Israeli academics to be removed from the editorial boards of magazines that she published. She said this was because “I do not wish to continue an official association with any Israeli under the present circumstances.” In response to criticism, the professor told a report from the Daily Telegraph that “I am not actually boycotting Israelis, I am boycotting Israeli institutions.” In June 2003, Andrew Wilkie rejected a student applicant Oxford University because the student had served in the Israeli army. In May 2006, Richard Seaford of Exeter University refused to review a book for an Israeli journal, saying, “I have, along with many other British academics, signed the academic boycott of Israel.” In April of 2015 three Israeli students who were part of an international studies program had to stand alone on a stage in Germany’s Parliament when the Arab students there refused to appear with them. Despite claims to the contrary, academic boycotts of institutions principally affect individuals. It is a distinction without a difference.

More recently, Jake Lynch, the director of the Center for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney, is currently being sued by Shurat HaDin, the Israel Law Center. Lynch refused to sponsor an application for a fellowship in Australia submitted by Dan Avnon, an Israeli academic from Hebrew University. Lynch cited his support for BDS as his reason for discriminating against Avnon:

“Your research sounds interesting and worthwhile. However, we are supporters of the campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, and that includes the call for an academic boycott of Israeli universities.” [Jake Lynch writing to Dan Avnon]

Although BDS supporters may try and claim that it is possible to boycott Israeli universities without boycotting Israelis, in the real world it does not work out that way.

“Two Wrongs Make a Right”

When the American Studies Association voted to impose an academic boycott on Israeli universities, they claimed it was justified because of alleged Israeli restrictions on the academic freedom of Palestinians. Their BDS supporters were quick to repeat the same rhetoric:

“[Since] increasing numbers of Palestinians might well enjoy academic freedom for the first time if the occupation is brought to an end, we can safely conclude that the principle of academic freedom will be more substantially realized through the support of BDS than by opposing it.” [Judith Butler]

“If anything, the boycott will expand intellectual exchanges and shine a light on the limitations of academic freedom for Palestinians.” [Curtis F. Marez, President of the American Studies Association]

This argument is that “two wrongs make a right,” or perhaps more precisely “academic freedom must be destroyed in order to save it.” The argument goes that because the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict makes it difficult for Palestinian academics and students to teach and learn, BDS is justified in preventing Israeli academics from doing their jobs. If Palestinians can’t have complete academic freedom, then neither can Israelis.

Obviously, two wrongs do not make a right, and punishing innocent people for the actions of their country is neither moral nor just. If BDS was truly concerned about Palestinian education, they would focus their time and resource on improving Palestinian schools and universities instead of trying to hurt Israelis. The solution to this problem is not to further restrict academic freedom, but to strive for peace so everyone can learn, teach, and educate.

Resources:

Academic Boycott Resource Center

What Kind of Academics Signs these Anti-Israel Petitions? by Fred Gottheil

The Real Problem With the ASA’s Boycott of Israel by Peter Beinart

List of Universities Rejecting Academic Boycott of Israel

Is an academic boycott of Israel justified? By Michael Yudkin

In some countries, boycotts of Israelis or Israeli products may actually be against the law.

The American Studies Association is currently under attack because its academic boycott may violate the New York State Human Rights Law Section 296(13), which says:

“”[i]t shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice (i) for any person to discriminate against, boycott or blacklist, or to refuse to buy from, sell to or trade with, any person, because of the race, creed, color, national origin or sex of such person, or of such person’s partners, members, stockholders, directors, officers, managers, superintendents, agents, employees, business associates, suppliers or customers, or (ii) for any person willfully to do any act or refrain from doing any act which enables any such person to take such action. This subdivision shall not apply to: (a) Boycotts connected with labor disputes; or (b) Boycotts to protest unlawful discriminatory practices.””

In America there are other laws that prohibit boycotts are that are not approved by the government such as the 1977 amendment to the Export Administration Act and the Ribicoff Amendment to the Tax Reform Act of 1976.

The United Kingdom also has passed laws forbidding discrimination by national origin. This caused the University and College Union to cease the debate about imposing an academic boycott on Israel in 2007 when they realized that doing so may be illegal.

In 2009, the European Court of Human Rights found that a French mayor who called for a boycott of Israeli products was “inciting to the commission of a discriminatory act.” France has an anti-discrimination act passed in 1981 and convicted a BDS activist in February 2010 of “hinder[ing] the normal exercise of economic activities by making a distinction on the basis of nationality.” Most recently, a French court has ruled against a BDS group that was calling for a boycott of Sodastream, prohibiting them from defacing and manipulating Sodastream’s advertising.

A pro-BDS academic is currently being sued under Australia’s 1975 Racial Discrimination Act for denying a fellowship to an applicant simply because he is Israeli.

On April 22^nd, 2005, the Council of Association of University Teachers (AUT) voted to boycott two Israeli universities: University of Haifa and Bar-Ilan University. The AUT Council claimed to boycott Bar-Ilan because it offers courses at Ariel College and “is thus directly involved with the occupation of Palestinian territories contrary to United Nations resolution.” The University of Haifa was targeted because of claims that the university had wrongly disciplined a lecturer.

The AUT’s decision was immediately condemned by Jewish groups and many members of the AUT. The presidents of Jerusalem-based al-Quds University and Hebrew University issued a joint statement:

“Bridging political gulfs – rather than widening them further apart – between nations and individuals thus becomes an educational duty as well as a functional necessity, requiring exchange and dialogue rather than confrontation and antagonism. Our disaffection with, and condemnation of acts of academic boycotts and discrimination against scholars and institutions, is predicated on the principles of academic freedom, human rights, and equality between nations and among individuals.”

Zvi Ravner, Israel’s deputy ambassador to the UK, commented that “last time that Jews were boycotted in universities was in 1930s Germany.” The British National Postgraduate Committee also voted to oppose the boycott. Project officer Andre Oboler said that the boycott “runs contrary to our objective, which is to advance in the public interest the education of postgraduate students within the UK”.

Finally, members of the AUT gathered enough signatures to call a special meeting on the subject. The meeting was held on May 26^th, 2005, at Friends Meeting House in London. Supporters of rival positions gathered on the streets outside this meeting. At the meeting the AUT membership decided to cancel the boycott of both Israeli universities, citing damage to academic freedom, the hampering of dialogue and peace effort between Israelis and Palestinians, and that boycotting Israel alone could not be justified.