College presidents react to British boycott of Israeli academics

Parents Forum
1

<p>Some of you may be interested in seeing which college presidents support Lee Bollinger --Columbia's President --on this issue:
<a href="http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395-D25925B85EAF%7D/NYT_ISRAEL_BOYCOTT_AD_080807.PDF%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395-D25925B85EAF%7D/NYT_ISRAEL_BOYCOTT_AD_080807.PDF&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Statement by President Lee C. Bollinger on
British University and College Union Boycott</p>

<p>As a citizen, I am profoundly disturbed by the recent vote by Britain’s new University and College Union to advance a boycott against Israeli academic institutions. As a university professor and president, I find this idea utterly antithetical to the fundamental values of the academy, where we will not hold intellectual exchange hostage to the political disagreements of the moment. In seeking to quarantine Israeli universities and scholars this vote threatens every university committed to fostering scholarly and cultural exchanges that lead to enlightenment, empathy, and a much-needed international marketplace of ideas.</p>

<p>At Columbia I am proud to say that we embrace Israeli scholars and
universities that the UCU is now all too eager to isolate -- as we embrace
scholars from many countries regardless of divergent views on their
governments' policies. Therefore, if the British UCU is intent on pursuing its deeply misguided policy, then it should add Columbia to its boycott list, for we do not intend to draw distinctions between our mission and that of the universities you are seeking to punish. Boycott us, then, for we gladly stand together with our many colleagues in British, American and Israeli universities against such intellectually shoddy and politically biased attempts to hijack the central mission of higher education.</p>

2

<p>Statement by President Amy Gutmann Opposing Boycott of Israeli Academics
June 26, 2007</p>

<p>A small leadership group of the new British University and Colleges Union has recommended a boycott of Israeli universities and scholars by British universities. This proposed boycott represents a direct assault on a core principle of academic freedom. University scholars must be free to produce and disseminate knowledge and understanding, without threat of interference or penalty, regardless of the policies of their national governments. This freedom is a sine qua non of higher education's global--and globally recognized--mission. </p>

<p>The proposed boycott therefore amounts to nothing less than an attempt to hold hostage the academic freedom of Israeli students who wish to study abroad, their British counterparts who want to host them, and the Israeli scholars who wish to engage in the normal academic process of collaboration. Indeed, it directly threatens the moral foundation of each and every university.</p>

<p>I join my fellow university presidents in adamantly opposing this effort to ostracize Israeli academics and universities from the global community of scholars of which they are an important and highly respected part. </p>

<p>-- Amy Gutmann, President, University of Pennsylvania</p>

3

<p>Could someone please post the statement from Britain's University and College Union?</p>

4

<p><a href="http://alternatives-international.net/article933.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://alternatives-international.net/article933.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>mini-you can find it here.</p>

<p>19 more college presidents have signed on:
<a href="http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.2818289/apps/nl/content2.asp?content_id=%7B3F240389-C5AB-4A3F-9667-58562C9D01A0%7D&notoc=1"&gt;http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.2818289/apps/nl/content2.asp?content_id={3F240389-C5AB-4A3F-9667-58562C9D01A0}&notoc=1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

5

<hr>

<p>Some of you may be interested in seeing which college presidents support Lee Bollinger --Columbia's President --on this issue:
<a href="http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D7536..._AD_080807.PDF%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D7536..._AD_080807.PDF&lt;/a>
<<</p>

<p>Excuse me for my cynical view, but that is so political! Columbia was accused a couple of years ago as being "anti-Semitic" because of a professor (bogus charges), and now Bollinger thinks he has to cater to that crowd.</p>

6

<p>But if we take your cynical view, why would so many college presidents have followed Bollinger?</p>

7

<p>But if we take your cynical view, why would so many college presidents have followed Bollinger?<<</p>

<p>I'm referring to why Bollinger allowed himself to be the major, featured quote in the advertisement.</p>

8

<p>Look at the number of major universities that have not signed on; that's as significant as the ones who have. Now mind you--I don't believe what the UK universities have done is right, but I consider this as poorly-thought out a reaction as that.</p>

9

<p>Dear 2incollege,</p>

<p>I would be tremendously interested in having you define "that crowd" to whom the Columbia president is supposedly beholden. You know, the crowd you suggested pushed him toward his ill-thought out challenge to the British boycott to atone in the face of "bogus charges" of Antisemitism . That crowd.</p>

<p>Also, could you explain in what way the Columbia/Penn reaction is "poorly thought out." Do you suppose that Bollinger and Gutman's otherwise sound judgment flagged because they were so terrified by the overwhelming yet malign influence of "that crowd?" Would this be the same crowd that controls the banks, the media, the Communist party, U.S. foreign policy, and organized crime? (Well, maybe not organized crime, but possibly the Kennedy assassinations.) </p>

<p>Do spell it out for us. Is there some special reason that a university president couldn't reach Bollinger's conclusions on his own without "that crowd's" influence? It's pretty clear where you're coming from, but it would be nice if you'd make it explicit. (Oh dear, does raising these issues make me a member of "that crowd?")</p>

10

<p>Now that I've read it as carefully as I can make out, it seems like Bollinger and the other Prez's way overreacted. The vote on the boycott resolution was in fact defeated, with only a single vote in favor (or, actually, against the resolution NOT supporting a boycott):</p>

<p>That interim report accepted by the union this afternoon says: ’The commission believes, after careful consideration, and noting that we are not capable of policing the academic world in a pro-active way, that triggers for actions leading to greylisting and boycott can only result from a request from a legitimate organisation within the state, or within the occupied territory or institution in question. Legitimate organisations would include a trade union movement, a recognised higher education union or other representative organisation. Exceptionally, a decision to impose greylisting or boycotting might be taken following consultation with Education International in circumstances where legitimate organisations cannot be lawfully established within the state or institutions in question, or in circumstances where institutions or branches of institutions, are established in territories under unlawful occupation as defined by UN resolutions.</p>

<p>’It is recognised that this is a difficult area. We are aware of great wrongs being committed throughout the world against colleagues in other countries. But there is always a balance to be drawn between boycotting and damaging those colleagues in the hope that the state will address the harm that it is inflicting on academia, and the harm that the boycott itself inflicts on academia.’</p>

<p>If I give Bollinger and Gutman the benefit of the doubt, I would say they are not stupid, and can read at least as well as I can. The resolution that they so resolutely oppose by the AUT dates from 2005, and the universities and colleges union virtually unanimously REPUDIATED it. So it can be only interpreted as an attempt to create an issue (not necessarily by them, but by others) when there really wasn't any. As to whether the issue was a put-up job by a pro-Israeli lobbying group (or their financial backers), I would leave to other super-sleuthers of the Web. On its face, it sure looks that way. </p>

<p>In other words, I would suggest they are being used, willingly or knowingly or not.</p>

<p>"Now mind you--I don't believe what the UK universities have done is right,.."</p>

<p>As far as I can see, they didn't do anything, except oppose a boycott.</p>

11

<p>From the article linked by pyewacket:
On May 30th 2007, the UK University and College Union meeting at its first Annual Congress in Bournemouth passed the following resolutions. The final texts are the result of the approval of ‘friendly’ amendments to the original proposals which have the effect of strengthening them.</p>

<p>First annual congress? Anyone can come up with a nifty name...is the "UK University and College Union" an established legitimate group? Do they represent a broad range of UK institutions? or is it some yahoos with letterhead, anger, and knack for publicity?</p>

12

<p>But the report accepted by the UK University and College Union (posted by pyewacket) specifically repudiated those earlier resolution of the "alternative unions":</p>

<p>"The delegates earlier overwhelmingly (just one vote against) voted to accept the recommendations of a report from a body set up in the fallout of the 2005 decision by AUT to impose an academic boycott of Israel."</p>

<p>"That interim report accepted by the union this afternoon says: ’The commission believes, after careful consideration, and noting that we are not capable of policing the academic world in a pro-active way, that triggers for actions leading to greylisting and boycott can only result from a request from a legitimate organisation within the state, or within the occupied territory or institution in question. Legitimate organisations would include a trade union movement, a recognised higher education union or other representative organisation. Exceptionally, a decision to impose greylisting or boycotting might be taken following consultation with Education International in circumstances where legitimate organisations cannot be lawfully established within the state or institutions in question, or in circumstances where institutions or branches of institutions, are established in territories under unlawful occupation as defined by UN resolutions.</p>

<p>’It is recognised that this is a difficult area. We are aware of great wrongs being committed throughout the world against colleagues in other countries. But there is always a balance to be drawn between boycotting and damaging those colleagues in the hope that the state will address the harm that it is inflicting on academia, and the harm that the boycott itself inflicts on academia.’</p>

<p>I posted their conclusions above. Bollinger and Gutman wittingly or unwittingly chose to make an issue where there was none. (I think they were being used; how much they actually knew I have no idea.)</p>

13

<p>It looks to me like the boycott resolution will still be submitted for discussion among union locals. Anyway, it's just thinly veiled antisemitism.</p>

14

<p>And with nearly unanimous lack of support. (only one vote opposing acceptance of the interim report.) Looks like the American Jewish Congress decided to use Bollinger and Gutman as political tools - and they either fell for it, or actually didn't mind. </p>

<p>I doubt whether Bollinger knew that the Union did NOT vote to "advance the boycott". I expect that the statement to which he affixed his name was probably written by a publicity flak at the AJC.</p>

15

<p>
[quote]
And with nearly unanimous lack of support. (only one vote opposing acceptance of the interim report.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ummm, you might also look at the vote on Resolution 30:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Congress notes that Israel’s 40-year occupation has seriously damaged the fabric of Palestinian society through annexation, illegal settlement, collective punishment and restriction of movement.</p>

<p>Congress deplores the denial of educational rights for Palestinians by invasions, closures, checkpoints, curfews, and shootings and arrests of teachers, lecturers and students.</p>

<p>Congress condemns the complicity of Israeli academia in the occupation, which has provoked a call from Palestinian trade unions for a comprehensive and consistent international boycott of all Israeli academic institutions.</p>

<p>Congress believes that in these circumstances passivity or neutrality is unacceptable and criticism of Israel cannot be construed as anti-semitic.</p>

<p>Congress instructs the NEC to</p>

<p>§ circulate the full text of the Palestinian boycott call to all branches/LAs for information and discussion; § encourage members to consider the moral implications of existing and proposed links with Israeli academic institutions; § organise a UK-wide campus tour for Palestinian academic/educational trade unionists; § issue guidance to members on appropriate forms of action; actively encourage and support branches to create direct educational§ links with Palestinian educational institutions and to help set up nationally sponsored programmes for teacher exchanges, sabbatical placements and research.</p>

<p>A count was taken of the voting on this motion which was as follows: FOR 155 [61%] AGAINST 99 [39%] ABSTAIN 17

[/quote]
</p>

<p>155 in favor, 99 against.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I doubt whether Bollinger knew that the Union did NOT vote to "advance the boycott".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do you think that Bollinger knew that Resolution 30 was passed 155 to 99?</p>

16

<p>Many hateful eras in human history, including the Chinese Cultural Revolution and the takeover of Germany by the Nazi party, began with the purging of intellectuals from universities. If some leading American college presidents speak against the proposed boycott of Israeli academes, I don't know or care if the presidents were fooled by the AJC into it or Aunt Sadie shamed them into it. Objecting to it is the correct response.</p>

<p>A boycott such as was proposed in Britain, left unchallenged, is a signal to the rest of the world to begin isolating Israeli professors and students from global participation in academia. Who can possibly support that? Silence implies consent.</p>

17

<p>Well, you should care. These are leading academics and college presidents, and if they can be fooled so easily by what appears to be political propaganda in this case, what else can they be fooled about? I see that as a far, far greater danger. That's what Nazism had as one of its intellectual sources, and shows how leading intellectuals can be manipulated for political ends. </p>

<p>Ad something even more dangerous, really stunningly so, would be to find out that they weren't fooled at all.</p>

18

<p>Do you think that Bollinger knew that Resolution 30 (apparently) passed 155 to 99?</p>

<p>Do you think that Bollinger knew that Resolution 31 apparently passed on a show of hands with a wider margin?</p>

<p>Here's resolution 31 (apparently):</p>

<p>
[quote]
1. That since the Palestinian elections in January 2006 the Israeli government has suspended revenue payments to the Palestinian authority (PA), and the EU and US have suspended aid, leaving public-sector salaries unpaid and earning the condemnation of the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions;</p>

<ol>
<li>That Israel is seeking to upgrade its relations with the EU to the same level as Norway and Switzerland, permitting free passage of goods, people and capital, while denying these freedoms to Palestinians.</li>
</ol>

<p>Congress resolves to campaign for:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The restoration of all international aid to the PA and all revenues rightfully belonging to it;</p></li>
<li><p>No upgrade of Israel’s status until it ends the occupation of Palestinian land and fully complies with EU Human Rights law;</p></li>
<li><p>A moratorium on research and cultural collaborations with Israel via EU and European Science Foundation funding until Israel abides by UN resolutions</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Congress instructs the NEC to encourage Branches/Associations to</p>

<ol>
<li><p>raise these campaigns in their Institutions and</p></li>
<li><p>investigate the possibilities of twinning their Institution with a Palestinian University or College</p></li>
</ol>

<p>

[/quote]
</p>

19

<p>I think (and hope) Bollinger was absolutely and totally ignorant of the context - that these resolutions had originally been passed by a body of alternative institutions meeting as a congress two years earlier in 2005 (I'll bet he had no knowledge of that whatsoever, or that he was taking action two years late), and that the full UK University and College Union in May 2007 basically repudiated both resolutions, with only a single vote of dissent. </p>

<p>I very much hope he was ignorant. I think (and hope) that if he read the resolution of UK University and College Union in May 2007, he would have embraced it almost in its entirely, and I expect AJC made quite sure not to show it to him.</p>

20

<p>
[quote]
I think (and hope) Bollinger was absolutely and totally ignorant of the context - that these resolutions had originally been passed by a body of alternative institutions meeting as a congress two years earlier in 2005

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ummm, Resolution 30 was passed in 2007.</p>

<p>Cite:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ucu.cam.ac.uk/resources/motion30.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ucu.cam.ac.uk/resources/motion30.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Do you think Bollinger knew that? Did you know that?</p>