The 'boycott'
of Haifa and Bar-Ilan Universities:
Palestinian and US academics condemn move |
Published: 4 May 2005
Briefing Number 140
|
Click
to Print |
Summary: On 22 April
2005 the British Association of University Teachers (AUT)
voted by a narrow majority to boycott the Israeli universities
of Haifa and Bar-Ilan. The teachers’ union vote
was greeted by a deluge of protest from academic institutions,
eminent individuals in the world of higher education,
student groups and alumni groups. This Briefing highlights
condemnations of the AUT boycott:
- by the Palestinian University of Al Quds in Jerusalem
- by the American Association of University Professors
and a startling (and effective) response by a prominent
academic linguist.
|
The AUT ‘boycott’ motion
The motion to boycott Haifa and Bar-Ilan was proposed by academic
linguist Dr Sue Blackwell, of Birmingham University in the UK.
The motion claimed that Haifa had discriminated against a Haifa
faculty member; and that Bar-Ilan was associated with an educational
institution on the West Bank. These claims were dismissed as
false and /or irrelevant by both universities; and it was argued
that in any event a boycott was completely unjustified.
Worldwide protests ensue
Israelis and Jewish communities worldwide reacted with outrage
to the AUT move. They protested that the boycott was ideologically
motivated and based on false information; that it was hypocritical,
biased and blinkered; that it harmed Israeli-Palestinian dialogue,
and that it threatened to damage Israeli scientific and humanitarian
projects. They also argued that the AUT motion had been passed
using improper procedures, with no due process.
The most prominent argument against the boycott was that it
violated the principle of that there should be free exchange
of people and ideas in the worldwide academic community.
Palestinian Al-Quds University in Jerusalem
– “build bridges not blocks”
The Palestinian university of Al Quds in Jerusalem released
the following statement condemning the boycott (reported
in the Jerusalem Post, 29 April 2005):
“We are informed by the principle that we should
seek to win Israelis over to our side, not to win against
them….. Therefore, informed by this national duty,
we believe it is in our interest to build bridges, not
walls; to reach out to the Israeli academic institutions,
not to impose another restriction or dialogue-block on
ourselves….”
|
American Association of University Professors
(AAUP) – academic freedom must be upheld
The following statement was published on the AAUP website:
“We reject proposals to 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. The AAUP urges the AUT to support the right
of all in the academic community to communicate freely
with other academics on matters of professional interest.”
|
American academic Stanley Lubinsky makes Sue Blackwell
herself subject to the AUT boycott
Stanley Lubinsky, a scholar at the University of South
Carolina, is book review editor of the academic journal
‘Language’, which covers the field in which
boycott campaign leader Dr Sue Blackwell works. In response
to the AUT move, Lubinsky obtained an immediate academic
affiliation to Bar-Ilan University. He then contacted
the AUT and requested that his name be added to the list
of academics to whom the boycott pertains.
In an email exchange which is in the public domain, Lubinksy
then pointed out that if Sue Blackwell submitted a book
for review in the journal, or submitted a book review,
she would be in breach of the AUT boycott.
Lubinsky wrote (in a email to British academics), that
in light of his move:
“members of the AUT will have to choose between
advancement of their academic careers and a violation
of the AUT boycott…”
He confirmed that he would not himself boycott anyone
(as he would uphold academic freedom), but he would advise
British correspondents and colleagues of the dilemma in
which the AUT boycott places contributors to ‘Language’.
|
Conclusion
As at the date of publication, intensive activity is underway
to revoke the AUT boycott. Whatever the final outcome, the boycott
has resulted in a startling restatement of core principles of
academic freedom. Israeli universities are bastions of academic
freedom, and thousands of Israeli Arabs and Palestinian Arabs
take the full benefit of the opportunities which Israeli universities
offer. The misguided boycott campaign by British academics may,
ironically, serve to remind a large international audience of
these underlying facts.
Other Beyond Images resources
Briefing 30 – Boycotting Israeli Academics
