The Volokh Conspiracy

I suppose it's a backhanded compliment, on the assumption that the Israelis might actually give a damn. Still, pretty silly.

This is the worst sort of argument. Not, "the Israelis are behaving appropriately, so a boycott is mistaken," but, "look at all these other bad countries, boycott them instead."

Any moron can do the right thing. To do something so acutely, seriously, obviously wrong takes a good deal of Deep Thought, which only the intellectual class can do.
Whatever most folks think, take the opposite view. Then you can be superior, too.
And...you don't have to do any research, either.

Imagine that. Jew-haters discovered at English universities.

Will wonders never cease?

Donald Rumsfeld was wrong about a lot of stuff, but when he spoke about 'old Europe,' he wasn't just a-woofin'.

Not mine, they couldn't. Nobody suspects the English of deep-seated hatred of the Chinese.

I think Eugene's point is that there appears to be a double standard employed by the supporters of the boycott:

one standard for Israel and another for every other country in the world.

That seems to be a very fair point to make.

Yes. It is.

The resolution says, somewhat nervously,

criticism of Israel cannot be construed as anti-semitic.

This would be true if the Union routinely called for boycotts of countries with human rights practices of which it disapproved.

I think that anti-Semitism is a backhanded complement, in general. People hate Jews because, on average, they are smarter than all other ethnicities. (BTW, I am not a Jew.)

Here are some effects of such a boycott:

1. Israeli academics removed from editorships of UK-based journal (scroll to "Mona Baker"). Prof. Baker cited the boycott as the reason.

2. Israeli studeents refused admission to UK universities because they served in the IDF. See the link above.

3. Israel is not a member of the EU, but it is has a level of scientific partnership that allows Israeli academics to apply for research grants, Israeli PhDs to apply for EU-funded post-doctoral positions etc. The union is calling for the EU not to upgrade Israel's status with respect to this program.

4. A few years ago a large EU-Israel cooperation grant could not be renewed until an anti-Israeli professor (French, I think) was replaced in the negotiating committee. This kind of behaviour could become more common, especially from UK-based faculty who will now justify their actions by saying "there's a boycott in place".

The point is that it's the faculty who run the academic operations in the universities and in the larger academic world. The university president doesn't sit on admissions committee. The EU council does not sit on grant committees. This allows individuals to impose non-scientific agenda on scientific discussions. A side problem is that UK academics who subscribe to this boycott can further this kind of discrimination silently. For example, if a UK institute refuses to run a conference that's run by an Israeli, or a UK professor votes to give a grant to a Turkish group instead of an Irsaeli one, it could be for valid scientific reasons.

Still, the affairs of Mona Baker (whose blog prominently features the recent boycott decision) and Andrew Wilkie demonstrat that avowed anti-Israeli animus is also at play.

EV rightly disapproves of these UK academics and their call for a boycott of Israeli universities and academics. Like the UN's infamous "Zionism is racism" resolution in '75, this reeks of political tendention and bias, while masquerading as a principled stance. But what would EV do about it other than cluck his tongue here through the VC?

Aren't the UK lecturers exercising their "academic freedom," and isn't "academic freedom" sacrosanct in EV's libertarian eyes? It doesn't matter, does it, that what the UK lecturers are doing can be seen as an attempt to infringe the "academic freedom" of others, including that of both those in the UK institution and those in Israel. Their own institutions cannot do anything to discourage them in their boycott efforts even if their administrations were so inclined, because were they to try that would be an infringement of the "academic freedom" of academics to wreak havoc or whatever they want on themselves and their own institutions?!

Is this circularity only a product of ad absurdum argument by me, or is the real consequence of unfettered "freedom" for political activists within the academic community? I think it is the latter, and I believe EV is in effect an enabler of that which he genuinely disapproves through his insistence on so expansive a regimen of "academic freedom." If I am wrong about EV's position on "academic freedom," in particular what schools can and should do about efforts within their walls to organize boycotts of other academics and academic institutions; to deny others financial support, various professional opportunities, promotions and career advancement on the basis of politics; to "shout down" and keep from speaking and publishing those they oppose for political reasons; etc.; then I would very much like to hear from him how I am wrong about his position on "academic freedom."

Back on 2/16/07, EV expounded on "academic freedom" in "Of Course It's Academic Freedom," which was apropos an op-ed piece in the Washington Times
by Asaf Romirowsky titled, "Scholar Activism." EV went after Romirowsky's first couple of paragraphs to make the absolutist case for "academic freedom," but he did not fully engage with Romirowsky and his case. Not quoted, and not responded to, was:

In the United States, whatever goes on in a classroom is deemed protected by "academic freedom," whether it is academic or not. Only sexual harassment appears exempt from this blanket protection. Gradually, the entire campus has become an "academic freedom" zone, where protests and other activities now qualify as academic "speech." The freedom to critique is, predictably, directed mostly at the twin Satans, Israel and America, although efforts to curtail speech that academics find unpleasant and unacceptable have been long standing in the form of "speech codes" and restrictions on "hate speech." Clearly academic freedom is a one-way street; only those having the correct opinions may claim it. (emphasis mine)

I have no problem condemning without reservation or qualification what the UK lecturers have done. But some others who would condemn them think there is either nothing academia can do or should do to stop or discourage them, other than perhaps cluck tongues at these "scholar activists" who would march carrying the banner of "academic freedom" while seeking to deny true "academic freedom" to others.

So how am I wrong here?

Aren't the UK lecturers exercising their "academic freedom," and isn't "academic freedom" sacrosanct in EV's libertarian eyes?

Do we have to dance this same dance every time?

Yes, these people have the right to act like dirt-bags. Just as we have the right, and responsibility, to point out that they are acting like dirtbags.