In an act of political solidarity, the American Studies Association resolved last month to boycott Israeli academia.
But instead of effectively protesting the Israeli government’s oppression of the Palestinian people, the boycott has provoked a sweeping debate that ultimately distracts from the Palestinian cause.
Rather than promote exclusion of Israeli universities, supporters of Palestinian academic rights should advocate for more inclusion of and support for Palestinian institutions. Doing so would encourage academic freedom in the region instead of constraining it.
Israeli universities have long been home to a significant progressive voice within Israeli society, said David Myers, a history professor at UCLA who specializes in Jewish history. Supporters of Palestinian rights should be collaborating with this population, not alienating it.
“To excise that voice from the debate is to remove one of (Israel’s) great assets and agents of change,” Myers said.
To be sure, indiscriminately boycotting universities discounts their progressivism and ultimately severs connections with possible allies for the Palestinian community.
Refusing to boycott Israeli institutions does not absolve Israel of responsibility for its infringements of human rights or its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza – rather, it simply prevents further hindrance to academic freedom.
The whirlwind rejection of the boycott by more than 100 university and academic association leaders – such as UC President Napolitano, UCLA Chancellor Gene Block, and eight of the association’s own past presidents – demonstrates the ineffectiveness of academic boycott as a method of protest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
By passing such a broad-based condemnation, the American Studies Association essentially shot itself in the foot. The boycott is a red herring, allowing those who oppose the sanction to preach about academic freedom in the abstract while conveniently ignoring the Israeli government’s culpability in restricting Palestinian scholarship.
Indeed, most university statements rejecting the boycott do not mention Palestinians at all. The boycott’s original purpose, to shed light on the Palestinian cause, thus disappears from the picture.
Perhaps the American Studies Association would have better served its own goals by calling upon universities to acknowledge and address the lack of academic freedom in the occupied Palestinian territories. University leaders could not reject such a proposal so easily.
Education in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is not free. Palestinian students and professors do not enjoy easy freedom of movement, for example. Gazan students may no longer enter the West Bank to study in its universities, a provision that amounts to denying them the basic right of education.
Palestinian professors, like almost all West Bank Palestinians, may not enter Israel without specified permission and identification, preventing them from forming fruitful partnerships with their Israeli counterparts. – not only a significant infringement on academic freedom, but a challenge to human dignity in general.
But these inequalities and injustices are a government policies, not university scholarship.
UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi and Executive Vice Chancellor Ralph Hexter put it simply in their statement against the boycott: “Holding academic institutions, and by extension their faculties, responsible for the actions of their governments punishes the institutions where critical discourse and thoughtful engagement take place and limits the academic freedoms of the faculty who engage in such discourse.”
The American Studies Association’s decision to hinder academic freedom for some in order to attain it for others is fundamentally hypocritical and irresponsible. Instead of imposing more restrictions on the region, the organization should attempt to open doors and increase support for Palestinian academics.
If the American Studies Association hopes to effectively improve the lives of Palestinians and confront Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, it should begin by identifying a legitimate opponent, and pursuing a productive, not destructive, agenda for change.
Email Ferdman at mferdman@media.ucla.edu or tweet her @MaiaFerdman. Send general comments to opinion@media.ucla.edu or tweet us @DBOpinion.
I do understand why some are against this boycott. However, I suggest a nice research project on how internal and external pressure from all areas helped to stop Apartheid in South Africa. Yes, there were South Africans who hated the political system and the inequities and boycotts did hurt them. It would be quite interesting to ask them if boycotting major Israeli institutions to stop their apartheid would be more harmful or helpful.
We are not reinventing the wheel here kids.
Except that comparing Israel to South Africa is not only ignorant, it is irresponsible
I’d have to disagree. There are certainly some very strong correlations between the two, though Israel’s occupation is not nearly as overtly racist as was Apartheid (but it looks to be getting similar).
Now I generally tend to side with the pro-Palestinian point of view on matters relating to this, but I don’t think that boycotting Israeli academic institutions are all positive. There’s no doubt that a lot of scientific/research endeavors will be negatively affected (which I don’t know if I’m down for).
But it’s definitely a valid way of bringing attention to the humans rights issues that are occurring in occupied territories, and it brings much more credibility to the Palestinian cause than launching rockets at Israel.
Also, when individuals such as Stephen Hawking are in support of it, you have to recognize it as legitimate.
Boycott, Divest, and Sanction (BSD) Israeli apartheid! This is a form of non-violent protest against the policies of the Israeli government, to let the populace know that the settlements and occupation cannot continue if you want to be a part of the international civilized society. In Serbia, NATO bombed civilian targets (water treatment plants, electric power stations, etc) to make the populace aware of the criminal actions of their government.