<p>And by the way, if you read it carefully, the "commission report" doesn't repudiate either resolution at all.</p>
<p>I guess I'll answer my own question:</p>
<p>Bollinger knew that Resolution 30 was passed in 2007. Thus, he wasn't duped by anyone. </p>
<p>Also, Resolution 30 was never "repudiated" by a commission report. Thus, by any stretch, there was no overreaction.</p>
<p>JMHO</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>That's just what happened on the Columbia campus about the professor--a group of people (better than "crowd"?) went after a professor for what they thought were anti-Semitic statements. They weren't, and the charges were trumped up. This, of course, has had a horrendous affect on this professor's chances for tenure, even though his books are brilliant and he is an excellent teacher. </p>
<p>In New York it is very difficult to say anything negative the motives of people who accuse others of anti-Semitism without being accused of being anti-Semitic. I believe that Bollinger jumped the gun with this one as a way of showing that group of accusers that Columbia was not anti-Jewish, given the extreme negative publicity he weathered over the professor.</p>
<p>Mini: It seems your "careful read" stopped half way down the page and you neglected to read Resolution 30 and 31 (as mentioned by lskinner). Both resolutions are as repugnant as a boycott would have been.</p>
<p>Amherst's reaction to the advertisement:</p>
<p>" Statement from President Anthony W. Marx Regarding August 8 New York Times Ad</p>
<p>August 13, 2007
Contact:
Stacey Schmeidel
Director of Public Affairs
413/542-2321</p>
<p>Amherst College is strongly opposed to the boycott of Israeli academics and universities currently under consideration by the United Kingdom's University and College Union. We believe in academic freedom and in the full exchange of ideas as the surest basis of resolving differences and the bedrock of liberal education. We find the notion of exclusion from debate, even the exclusion of views many disagree with, to be abhorrent and misguided.</p>
<p>For these reasons, following consultation with the Trustees, I joined in signing the statement against the proposed boycott circulated by Columbia President Bollinger early this summer. I also offered to contribute to pay for an ad publicizing our firm commitment. I did not, however, choose to participate in an ad sponsored by the American Jewish Committee. I was and remain concerned that our principled stance against a boycott and for academic freedom would be diluted or compromised by an ad sponsored by a third party, no matter how distinguished that group might be.</p>
<p>I will continue to look for opportunities to ensure that Amherst's position is clearly stated on such deeply important issues."</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's just what happened on the Columbia campus about the professor--a group of people (better than "crowd"?) went after a professor for what they thought were anti-Semitic statements. They weren't, and the charges were trumped up. This, of course, has had a horrendous affect on this professor's chances for tenure, even though his books are brilliant and he is an excellent teacher.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Does this professor have a name?</p>
<p>Does this professor have a name?<<</p>
<p>It's all over the web and easily searched. I guess I feel bad enough, in a way, bringing it up and bringing more down upon him.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's all over the web and easily searched.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If it's easily searched, then you should have no problem finding the name of the Columbia professor you claim was falsely accused of anti-semitism.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I guess I feel bad enough, in a way, bringing it up and bringing more down upon him
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then just tell me the guy's initials so I know we are talking about the same person. What I am concerned may happen is that somebody will post facts showing that your claims are false, and you will say "How do you know that's the professor I was talking about?"</p>
<p>Mini--I'm confused. You say that the motion was repudiated in May 07, yet lskinner's link shows different. Can you clarify.</p>
<p>For the record, I don't always agree with Presbo's actions, but I was one hundred percent behind him in his defense of affirmative action at Michigan, and I am totally unconvinced that he is now acting out of either ignorance or pandering (both of which you claim or imply) in this case. Nothing in his history at either institution (and I am proud to be associated with both) supports your accusations, both the overt and the insinuated.</p>
<p>Mini doesn't seem to be too interested in clarifying his or her position. Or retracting his or her inneundo that the university presidents are the dupes of some pro-Israel lobbying group or its "financial backers."</p>
<p>2incollege seems happy to rest on his vague accusation against a "crowd" that trumped up bogus charges of antisemitism against an unnamed professor.</p>
<p>Like CCSurfer, I'm wondering if the "crowd" and "financial backers" are the same crowd that controls "the banks, the media, the Communist party, U.S. foreign policy," etc.</p>
<p>August 13, 2007
To the Williams Community,</p>
<p>On August 8th a full page ad appeared in the New York Times with the headline “Boycott Israeli Universities? Boycott Ours, Too!” It was signed by hundreds of U.S. college and university presidents but not by me.</p>
<p>Let me explain my thoughts on the matter.</p>
<p>First of all, what exactly is going on in Britain? In May, delegates to the annual conference of their University and College Union (UCU) submitted a motion to consider a boycott of Israeli institutions and academics. Their motion, having passed 158 to 99, moves forward for discussion and possible vote among the broader group of 120,000 UCU members.</p>
<p>This issue is an important one for academic freedom throughout the world and is of great concern to me personally. During the past few months, I have been to Britain several times and have met with a number of academic leaders there. While the consensus is that the UCU membership is unlikely to support any boycott resolution, I think it is appropriate for U.S. institutions to consider their responses should this happen.</p>
<p>A boycott could mean many different things and could have a wide range of effects. If Williams were to commit to being boycotted in the same manner as an Israeli institution, it might lead to suspension of our Williams-Exeter junior year abroad program, the end of financial support for our students in post-baccalaureate programs at Oxford and Cambridge, a promise that our faculty will not attend conferences in the United Kingdom or publish with British presses, and much more. No one knows since the terms of the boycott have not been defined. To commit the College to such uncertainty deserves consideration by the College community as a whole. I, for one, would support a very strong response by Williams if the boycott were to be put into place, but I would also bring our faculty, students and board of trustees into the discussion.</p>
<p>So why didn’t I sign the ad in the New York Times? There are three reasons — (1) without any community-wide discussion, I don’t think the President of Williams should make institutional commitments that might affect many members of our community in serious ways; (2) I think that such public pressure from the U.S. at this stage might very well backfire and actually strengthen the position of the UCU delegates who advocate a boycott; (3) the ad was paid for by the American Jewish Committee and I feel very strongly that it was inappropriate to involve a third party in expressing our outrage.</p>
<p>I will continue to be actively involved with this important matter and will inform you in case of any College actions.</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>Morton Owen Schapiro
Professor and President
Williams College</p>
<p>--</p>
<p>Mini--I'm confused. You say that the motion was repudiated in May 07, yet lskinner's link shows different. Can you clarify.</p>
<p>I already quoted it, in full, twice.</p>
<p>Since you're back mini, can you answer my question:</p>
<p>Do you think Bollinger knew that Resolution 30 was passed in 2007?</p>
<p>And given your quote from Williams college, do you now concede that Resolution 30 has not been repudiated?</p>
<p>"3) the ad was paid for by the American Jewish Committee and I feel very strongly that it was inappropriate to involve a third party in expressing our outrage."</p>
<p>I can understand this viewpoint, as an ideal, but:</p>
<p>Was anyone else out there offering to pay for this ad? Would Williams College have paid for it, if the American Jewish Committee didn't?</p>
<p>Or rather wasn't it the case that if this organization did not provide financial backing for the ad there would have been no ad.. people would just sit by silently and individually displeased, but nobody would have done anything about it, or opened up their pockets?</p>
<p>Paying for the ad is obviously different than putting the words in the mouths of these people. It is merely making it financially possible for their voices to be heard.</p>
<p>Universities need not take out an ad. They can release letters as other college presidents have done, hold press conferences, etc.</p>
<p>The presidents of Williams and Amherst make very good points in their letters and while Columbia and the other signatories are in the right as far as trying to keep the channels of scholarship open, one does have to understand that the REASONS the boycott was suggested makes sense.</p>
<p>The boycott itself is unnecessary and ultimately harmful to the entire educational comminuty at large.</p>
<p>I don't agree with taking out an ad. And I think that it was largely premature.</p>
<p>Why didn't these colleges write letters to their counterparts in the UK?</p>
<p>It's quite interesting that Columbia would take the lead. I am under the impression that they're international relations program is the most anti-Israel biased around.</p>
<p>Mini--your Williams letter itself doesn't seem to show that the boycott was repudiated--at least, Schapiro doesn't seem to believe so. His letter basically takes a "we don't want to stick our necks out" point of view. Very prudent, I'm sure. You still haven't clarified why the link in lskinner's post contradicts what you said.</p>
<p>Then just tell me the guy's initials so I know we are talking about the same person. What I am concerned may happen is that somebody will post facts showing that your claims are false, and you will say "How do you know that's the professor I was talking about?"<<</p>
<p>Since I'm not making this up, I'm not worried about that.</p>
<p>2incollege seems happy to rest on his vague accusation against a "crowd" that trumped up bogus charges of antisemitism against an unnamed professor.</p>
<p>Like CCSurfer, I'm wondering if the "crowd" and "financial backers" are the same crowd that controls "the banks, the media, the Communist party, U.S. foreign policy," etc.<<</p>
<p>Hmmm....who would that be?</p>
<p>Very steely reply by Dr Schapiro. Williams will go to the barricades to defend academic freedom as long as it doesn't cost them a Junior Year abroad. I nominate him for the M. Chirac Weasel of the Week award.</p>
<p>"Universities need not take out an ad. They can release letters as other college presidents have done, hold press conferences, etc."</p>
<p>Ok, but were they going to, in this case?</p>