Various universities, student organizations, and academic associations have been joining the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS), urging a boycott of Israeli academics. Their recomendations range from complete non-interaction with Israeli academics to milder “sanctions”, including boycotting of institutions rather than scholars (i.e., you could invite an Israeli academic to speak at your university).
The American Anthropological Association (AAA) is about to vote on a resolution supporting the BDS by imposing a boycott of Israeli academic institutions, based on these principles, outlined in the linked pdf:
Whereas, The AAA’s 1999 Declaration on Anthropology and Human Rights states, “Anthropology as a profession is committed to the promotion and protection of the right of people and peoples everywhere to the full realization of their humanity” and “the AAA has an ethical responsibility to protest and oppose… deprivation;” and whereas the AAA has historically upheld those rights, including the right to education and academic freedom, for peoples around the world. . .
According to The Algemeiner, the resolution will be voted on at the AAA’s annual meeting starting April 15. Several groups of anthropologists are already collecting signatures opposing the resolution, and I have no idea how it will turn out.
In general, I object to academic boycotts as they impede the free flow of ideas among nations. They are, in effect, academic “no-platforming” strategies in which scholars from one nation are singled out to be silenced. And, to be sure, many Israeli academics oppose their government’s policy towards the Palestinians.
Both the University of Chicago and the American Association of University Professors (the AAUP) have urged that such boycotts not be enacted
The University of Chicago’s policy (2013) takes special note of boycotts against Israel:
“The University of Chicago has from its founding held as its highest value the free and open pursuit of inquiry. Faculty and students must be free to pursue their research and education around the world and to form collaborations both inside and outside of the academy, encouraging engagement with the widest spectrum of views. For this reason, we oppose boycotts of academic institutions or scholars in any region of the world, and oppose recent actions by academic societies to boycott Israeli institutions.”
The AAUP’s statement (precis here) includes the points below as part of their general conclusions (but also takes up the issue of an Israeli boycott in some detail):
1. In view of the Association’s long-standing commitment to the free exchange of ideas, we oppose academic boycotts.
2. On the same grounds, we recommend that other academic associations oppose academic boycotts. We urge that they seek alternative means, less inimical to the principle of academic freedom, to pursue their concerns.
3. We especially oppose selective academic boycotts that entail an ideological litmus test. We understand that such selective boycotts may be intended to preserve academic exchange with those more open to the views of boycott proponents, but we cannot endorse the use of political or religious views as a test of eligibility for participation in the academic community.
One wonders, given the AAA’s stated commitment to “protection of human rights for people around the world,” why, among all countries, they single out Israel. After all, there are many other countries whose violations of human rights are more severe, including China, North Korea, or, for that matter, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Bangladesh, where apostasy and dissent are punished by imprisonment or death, and women are officially marginalized. I haven’t checked, but I bet the AAA hasn’t called for academic boycotts of such countries.
While I’ve decried the destructive actions of both Israelis and their government, including the continuing erection of illegal settlements, and while I’ve repeatedly called for a two-state solution (about which, I think, the present Israeli government is doing precious little), one has to recognize that Palestine has multiple human rights violations, including the deliberate encouragements of the murder of noncombatant Israeli citizens via stabbing or car attacks, or the launching missiles at civilians. The Hamas Charter of 1988 also calls for the deliberate destruction of Israel, citing the viciously anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an old forgery. Why do we hear nothing about that from the AAA? Are Palestinians, and people in other countries, held to a lower standard?
But regardless of how you weigh Israeli versus Palestinian malfeasance, you have to ask yourself why, among all nations, Israel alone is singled out for opprobrium by American universities—and by much of the American Left. I’ve written about that before, and won’t repeat myself. Instead, I’ll just quote Steve Pinker’s statement against the AAA boycott resolution, a statement with which I’m in complete agreement:
“Against Selective Demonization”
The current Israeli government does things that many of us deplore. But are their policies really so atrocious, so beyond the pale of acceptable behavior of nation-states, that they call for a unique symbolic statement that abrogates personal fairness and academic freedom? It helps to put the Israel-Palestine conflict in global and historical perspective—something that anthropologists, of all people, might be expected to do. The Center for Systemic Peace tries to quantify the human cost of armed conflict. Their data show that for all the world’s obsession with the Israel-Palestine conflict, it has been responsible for a small proportion of the total human cost of war: approximately 22,000 deaths over six decades, coming in at 96th place among the armed conflicts, and at 14th place among ongoing conflicts. That does not mean that the violence is acceptable, but it does raise questions about invidious demonization. Why no boycotts against academics from China, India, Russia, or Pakistan, to take a few examples, which have also been embroiled in occupations and violent conflicts, and which, unlike Israel, face no existential threat or enemies with genocidal statements in their charters? In a world of repressive governments and ongoing conflicts, isn’t there something unsavory about singling the citizens of one of these countries for unique vilification and punishment?
-Steven Pinker, Harvard University
The answer to the last rhetorical question is, of course, “yes.” And let me add “hypocritical” to the charge of “unsavory.”
Well said, Steven Pinker.
There was an in interesting letter in the Guardian a while ago on this matter:
I am completing a multi-country comparative study of torture. In one country our local researcher had to drop out because of threats from the military. In another, a researcher has fled abroad, while a third has had his university contract terminated. In Israel, by contrast, our local counterpart has completed a highly critical study of torture by security forces in the occupied territories, with no adverse consequences.
The wisdom of the academic boycotters has come too late to influence the choice of countries in this research. Do they suggest I should omit the chapter by my Israeli colleague from the forthcoming book, as a gesture of support for the rights of the Palestinians?
Every country that tortures is in violation of international law. Why do we single out Israel for boycott? Is it because it has a flourishing academic community? Or is there some other reason?
Richard Carver
Senior lecturer in human rights and governance, Oxford Brookes University
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/28/academic-boycott-of-israel-is-misguided
And when will these US universities boycott themselves? The US is widely regarded as the main threat to world peace.
That’s my reaction too. The US and UK have killed hundreds of thousands more civilians between them than Israel, but the BDS people never suggest boycotting those countries.
Personally I’m appalled by the hypocrisy of Netanyahu and his actions that have made the Israeli/Palestinian situation worse. Sometimes I think Israel is more to blame and sometimes I think it’s Palestine; at the moment it’s Israel imo. A two-state solution is needed, and Netanyahu is blocking it so he retains power imo.
However, bullying and boycotts mostly don’t work, and they’re just hypocritical here. Apart from not looking at the actions of their own countries, many in the BDS movement either fail or refuse to acknowledge the faults on the Palestinian side. When they do, they justify it by the genuine suffering of the Palestinian people. Would they use the same argument for North Korea’s missile programme I wonder?
Starting from Peel Commission 1937 and until our days Arabs always answered “No” to every proposal about division of this land between Jews and Palestinians. The logo of Palestinian Authority is the map of the whole territory of Israel as “Palestine”. All the maps, inclusive maps in school books, show the same. This map, erasing Israel, is everywhere. This is the goal of Hamas and it still is on the Fatah’s Carta in spite of promises in Oslo Accords that it will be removed. But let’s forget about all this. With whom should Israel sign an agreement about independent Palestinian state? With Abbas, who is in the eleventh year of his four year term as president and who as some Palestinian say “does not represent anybody except himself, his wife and his sons”? He has no power over Gaza, in case of election on the West Bank Hamas would win (according to all polls), Palestinian diaspora does not treat him as their representative. After teaching generation after generation of Palestinian children that one day the whole Israel will be Palestinian, who would support such an agreement? And we should not forget bloody wars going all around Israel, ISIS on Syrian-Israeli border, Iran trying to arm rebel forces in Jordan and undoubtedly coming to the West Bank as soon as it would gain “independence”. Even Herzog (leader of Israeli opposition)admitted publicly that now is not the time for “two state solution”. Why accuse Natanyahu of hypocrisy when all he is doing is trying to keep Israelis alive?
+ 1
I wasn’t justifying any of the political process in Palestine with my comments, and my opposition to Netanyahu has only really developed since the last election.
I have no argument with any of the criticisms you make of Palestine either – I agree with them. One thing I always say in arguments about this subject is to point out things like the Palestinian State children’s TV programmes that teach kids to hate Israelis. There are probably individual Israelis who teach their children to hate, but it’s Palestine that makes it a state function.
And I believe the reason Hamas has become so popular is because previous, more secular, leadership has failed to make a deal when they could have. Palestinians have become frustrated, and have started to think maybe Hamas has the answer. (It’s not that much different to USians thinking Trump would be a good president because politicians have failed them.)
Having said that, I still think Netanyahu has moved to the right to shore up his power. Herzog looked set to win the last election until Netanyahu made a dog whistle speech, which he has since denied in interviews I’ve seen with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, even when faced with the evidence.
I’d agree with all that, Heather.
Why calls for boycotts on Israel specifically? I think because
(a) the religious right will blindly support anything Israel does, so of course it’s anathema to the left
and
(b) Israel is seen as a client state of the US’s, albeit a client state that has its sponsor by the balls. (Israel does something outrageous, the US says ‘please don’t do that’, Israel says ‘OK’ (or ‘fuck you’, interchangeably) and then promptly does it again, knowing the US won’t actually do anything about it.)
Neither of these applies so strongly to any other country.
cr
Exactly.
At the moment, Israelis are being stabbed in the streets by teenage kids who have been raised to hate Jews.
This moment, by the way, could have been avoided if Yasser Arafat had accepted the Oslo Peace Accords that Israel agreed to. Instead, 15 years ago, he cut bait on the deal and started the 2nd Intifada a short time later.
At the moment, there are more Zionists willing to live in peace with Palestinians than you can possibly imagine.
Just the awfull American bombings of Cambodia and Irak would be more than sufficient to justify and require such boycotts…
Boycott themselves?
I’m not disagreeing with your point but I see certain practical difficulties…
cr
If Israel is to boycotted, then Israel’s biggest supporter-the US-should likewise be boycotted. American academics should be banned from working or speaking in other countries.
I’d agree that logically follows.
Two snags: 1. It’s hard to effectively boycott an entity that big
2. This is the American AA we’re talking about so again, they’d have to boycott themselves.
Other than that…
cr
Liberals: “Islam is a bad religion”
Regressives: “Stop persecuting all Muslims”
Liberals: “We’re not. We criticise ideas, not people.”
….
Regressives: “Boycott Israeli individuals at US universities!”
Yes, double standard.
I certainly am ambivalent about the issue. However I think the reason Israel might be singled out is simply that there are so many fine Israeli academics and Israel has put together so many world class institutions in its short history that to watch as the political views seem to get smaller and smaller is very disappointing and maybe ‘sanctions’ against academics might push the academics into some kind of protest or creative response.
I’m afraid it would more logically push these academics into thinking that their colleagues want a Judenfrei world.
I am so damned tired of boycotts, no-platforms, etc., etc. Grow a pair, thicken up your skin, and admit that maybe you can learn something from someone with a different view. This entire movement is based on totalitarian fear.
I don’t think boycotts should be given up completely as a tool for social change. They have their place. The anti-apartheid boycotts against South Africa may have had some effect.
You’re right, of course, I’m just grousing about fearful and thin skinned dolts. No doubt we should boycott them!
Yes, and one might also note that the anti-Apartheid movement could build on some sound leadership within the country. Nelson Mandela wasn’t calling for the mass slaughter of all the whites, IIRC!
Antisemitism, pure and simple.
Well, you could if you wanted make a case for sanctions on the Syrian Universities if you were a morally consistent BDSer.
We know, according to the independent human rights researchers in Syria that Assad has murdered between 250,000 and 470,000 Syrians. We know that UN reps have called that a genocide. We know, by contrast, that the Palestinian population of Israel/Palestine has increased from 500,000 in the late 40s to 6 or 7 million today so no genocide has taken place there.
We know that Assad runs the Shabiha rape and death squads. It’s also highly likely that one of them, Mohammad Ma’in Kanaan was educated at Damascus University (world university ranking – 4404). It’s also possible that he is the same person as ‘Mohammad Abdullah’, recently accused of war crimes in Sweden.
You could make a credible case for BDS against Assad’s academics based on the actual genocide of a current régime and the existence of genocidal war criminals who are alumni of its university system. But I wouldn’t: still the moral relativism is there. We’ll never hear Stop the War types making this case. x
Sources:
Shabiha: unfetteredfreedom.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/list-of-shabiha-posing-as-refugees-in-europe/
Swedish war crime arrest: news.yahoo.com/syrian-asylum-seeker-accused-war-crimes-sweden-174712881.html?soc_src=mediacontentsharebuttons&soc_trk=tw
“why, among all countries, they single out Israel”
The soft bigotry of low expectations. Anti-semitism. And in the case of China, if it were even possible, it would require considerable sacrifice, and these people aren’t THAT dedicated to their principles.
I can only second your statements in support of the Steve Pinker piece and for the same reasons. Boycotts of any kind are a bad idea unless they are useful, reasonable and fair. I don’t see any of this here.
I have a vague feeling that the apparent double standard relates to these facts:
* There’s apparently no hope for improvement through normal diplomatic channels (largely because of US obstruction).
* Our own government alone among other nations is deeply complicit (e.g. said obstruction, military aid, etc), so American liberals feel we’re partly responsible.
* The occupation has dragged on for so long that people are fed up with it, unlike the situation in Crimea, etc.
* It gets a lot more news coverage than the occupations of Kashmir or Tibet. Call that a biased media, but nonetheless it keeps it in people’s minds to a much greater extent than other conflicts.
* Israel wants to present itself as an especially moral and just country, unlike China or North Korea, and is thus vulnerable to public pressure and criticism.
All this adds up to a sense that if something is to be done it must be done by individuals and non-governmental organizations, and a sense that something can be done, so it’s worth making the effort.
Personally I have no problem with boycotts of organizations that operate out of illegal settlements, and given that sanctions (i.e. government-mandated boycotts) are a favorite tool of the US when trying to alter the behavior of other countries, I don’t see why they would be inappropriate in this case.
I do think academic boycotts of Israeli institutions not directly involved in the occupation go too far, largely because I consider education and science to be somehow important in a way that business is not. But I wouldn’t make them illegal.
That’s probably what’s going on, but couldn’t one argue in such a case that more severely violent and immoral countries would – to be consistent with the demands of a deterrent policy – therefore require correspondingly harsher responses? In which case the charge of a double standard still applies.
And wouldn’t conflicts with lower public coverage in turn require harsher measures too, explicitly to publicize such bad cases and target them?
Basically I agree with you, but I don’t think deterrence is the only criterion in reality.
Is it a double standard to give money to feed the homeless in your own city while ignoring starving children in Africa? Or is it that the standard isn’t simply “help the needy” but “help the needy in my own community”?
Is it a double standard to speak out against torture and imprisonment without trial when done by the USA but say nothing when China does it? Or is it that the standard is “oppose torture and injustice that my tax dollars fund and that I feel personally ashamed by”? Etc.
I’m not really disagreeing with you. To the extent that they’ve explicitly described their standard as an unqualified and egalitarian one – and the AAA did say they were committed to “peoples everywhere” – it’s a double standard. So I agree it’s a double standard, but their behavior seems rather like that of many people, who claim to care about everyone equally to avoid criticism, when the truth is that they don’t for normal human reasons.
In other cases, people often impute a standard to somebody and then claim they’re violating it, but in this case the AAA has made it explicit.
“The occupation has dragged on for so long that people are fed up with it, unlike the situation in Crimea, etc.”
What occupation? Israel shuttered its settlements and withdrew its troops from Gaza in 2005.
The reason they still control its borders is because Hamas–a genocidal terrorist organization–still controls its politics.
Correction: I should have said Hamas is a terrorist organization with genocidal aspirations. They can’t actually do what they want to do.
I think it right that Israel be held to higher standards than the other countries mentioned. Israel is a friend, democracy, and a country ruled by law. We expect better, just as we do of the US itself and other western democracies. But this fact is being used by certain groups to treat Israel unfairly, and BDS is just one example of this. Moreover, BDS punishes a group–Israeli academics–that is more likely to be in favor of negotiating peace with the Palestinians. I strongly oppose BDS.
I have often heard this argument that we expect better of Israel so we hold it to a higher standard, and it has a certain appeal. On the other hand, if you were an outstanding student in a certain class, would you appreciate being given a C while poorer students got A’s and B’s because the prof was holding you to a higher standard?
Wrong analogy. Would you expect the teacher to have the same expectations for an outstanding student as for the class dunce? IMO, it is an insult to the state of Israel to hold it to the same standard we hold for North Korea.
Right analogy. Fair play in the classroom, fair play in the wider world. We may expect more of a student or country, but we don’t penalize them for not being perfect.
The level of naivete and self-importance required to imagine that boycotting academics will have some effect on the relationship between Israel and the surrounding countries is awesome, just awesome.
“One wonders, given the AAA’s stated commitment to “protection of human rights for people around the world,” why, among all countries, they single out Israel.”
That is a great question and I couldn’t come up with an answer that wouldn’t also apply to other nations (e.g. China re: Tibet).
But, the biggest thing that struck me is; What do they expect to accomplish by this? Do they really think that a small group of Israeli academic anthropologists have any sway on Israel’s policies regarding the Palestinians?
They want to take away a portion of the free exchange of ideas, which we know from history, rapidly increases our knowledge of the world and yet get absolutely nothing in return.
Baffling.
Reblogged this on The Logical Place.
Boycotting academia? The outcome of that is pernicious ignorance.
They “single out” Israel for the same reason they “singled out” South Africa: apartheid. As one South African says below, “I have no hesitation in saying that Israel’s crimes are infinitely worse than those committed by the apartheid regime of South Africa.”
Israel’s brutalization of Palestinians has been going on for decades and takes many non-lethal forms. In those circumstances, to focus solely on the death toll is disingenuous in the extreme.
—
“JOHN DUGARD: Israel has committed very, very serious international crimes. And I might add that I’m a South African who lived through apartheid. I have no hesitation in saying that Israel’s crimes are infinitely worse than those committed by the apartheid regime of South Africa.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain what you’re saying. You’re the former U.N. special rapporteur on human rights, as well.
JOHN DUGARD: For seven years, I visited the Palestinian territory twice a year. I also conducted a fact-finding mission after the Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in 2008, 2009. So I am familiar with the situation, and I am familiar with the apartheid situation. I was a human rights lawyer in apartheid South Africa. And I, like virtually every South African who visits the occupied territory, has a terrible sense of déjà vu. We’ve seen it all before, except that it is infinitely worse. And what has happened in the West Bank is that the creation of a settlement enterprise has resulted in a situation that closely resembles that of apartheid, in which the settlers are the equivalent of white South Africans. They enjoy superior rights over Palestinians, and they do oppress Palestinians. So, one does have a system of apartheid in the occupied Palestinian territory.”
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/5/6/ex_un_official_john_dugard_israel
—
RONNIE KASRILS: [W]hat is taking place in Palestine reminds us, South African freedom fighters, of what we suffered from. We are the beneficiaries of international solidarity and need to make a similar payback to others still struggling for liberation. Palestine is an example of a people who were dispossessed of land and birthright just like the indigenous people of South Africa.
As a Jew, I abhor the fact that the Zionist rulers of Israel/Palestine claim they are acting in the name of Jews everywhere. I am one of many Jews internationally, and in Israel itself, who declare “Not in my name”.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/2012925114242310461.html
There are many, many South Africans (without the political agenda of a former U.N. offical or a high standing member of South Africa’s Communist party) who are offended by comparing Israel to Apartheid, because they say that it diminishes the real suffering of Blacks in South Africa: they didn’t have the right to vote, to sit in the Parliament, to attend any educational institution of their choice, to become doctors, university professors, lawyers (even High Court judges) or anything else they wished. They didn’t have the same access to hospitals (both as patients and as medical personnel), couldn’t go to the restaurants or beaches of their choice – and all this anybody can do in Israel – Jew, Arab, white and black. The canard invented by KGB in the 1960s about Israeli apartheid keeps fooling people who want to be fooled. Do look at this article: http://www.aish.com/jw/me/A-Black-South-Africans-Visit-to-Israel.html?s=mm
You are right that the status of the West Bank and its residents needs to be clarified. However, after Israel pulled out from Gaza, any sympathy I had to the cause of the Palestinians dried out. Because they started to use their newly liberated land as a base from which to shell Israeli civilians.
The Palestinians were offered 100% of the Gaza Strip and 95% of the West Bank via the Clinton proposal in 2000. They rejected it because it would have required them to give up their demand for the return of the ex-patriots and their descendants who left what is now Israel in 1948. Any Israeli Government that agreed to such a demand wouldn’t last 48 hour in power. The so-called refugees aren’t going to return to their former homes in Israel and if you don’t like it, tough noogies.
John Dugard saying Israel’s crimes are ‘infinitely’ worse than apartheid South Africa is so absurd as to show nothing but the vapidity and emptiness of his overall statement.
Someone might want to look into how much money is donated to universities by anti-Israel interest groups (Islamic countries, for instance) for the answer. Follow the money.
Pinker is great, standing up to the bullies.
“One wonders, given the AAA’s stated commitment to “protection of human rights for people around the world,” why, among all countries, they single out Israel. After all, there are many other countries whose violations of human rights are more severe, including China, North Korea, or, for that matter, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Bangladesh, where apostasy and dissent are punished by imprisonment or death, and women are officially marginalized. I haven’t checked, but I bet the AAA hasn’t called for academic boycotts of such countries.”
One might also wonder why David Cameron and his government, one of the strongest opponents of BDS, made a deal with Saudi Arabia to put them on the UN HUMAN RIGHTS Commission. If they are so righteous then why are they pro-Israel but also pro-Saudi? Food for thought.
Also, the Canadian government, which is yet another opponent of BDS is manufacturing and selling arms to Saudi Arabia
https://www.opencanada.org/features/ten-facts-about-canadas-arms-deal-with-saudi-arabia/
So again, why are opponents of BDS saying BDS-ers should boycott Saudi Arabia, and then going around and SELLING THEM WEAPONS?
If you actually bothered to look into anyone who supports BDS you would find that they also oppose human rights violations in countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, and so on. For example I’ve donated money to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which does work to support freedom of speech in these countries.
This is really just a ridiculous strawman argument that you should be ashamed of.
I’m sure that many BDS supporters (not all, I’m afraid) also oppose human rights violations elsewhere. The question is why they single out Israel as the only target for BDS.
Because BDS is specifically aimed against Israel, I don’t see the contradiction between being opposed to BDS for singling out one country for its human rights violations, and selling arms to other human rights violators: you can hold a position that BDS should apply to one country, or that BDS should apply to all human rights violators, or you can hold the position that there should not be a BDS against anyone. Position 2 and 3 both represent opposition to the current shape of BDS (position 1), and also have the benefit of being logically consistent and not hypocritical, while being opposed to each other as well. Position 3 is the one where you can be opposed to anti-Israel BDS and sell weapons to Saudi Arabia.
Without the Jews, “Palestine” would be just another failed state like Syria, complete with roving bands of thugs murdering, raping and stealing everything that isn’t nailed down. But at least it wouldn’t have those mean Jews with their liberal democracy and rule of law and advanced science, technology and economy.
BDS–Because there aren’t enough kleptocracies and failed states in the Middle East!
Pinker is absolutely right. On the other hand, I think the EU is absolutely right to refuse to allow goods from illegally occupied Palestinian territory to be advertised as from Israel.
Bear in mind that Israel tried experimenting with the “Two State Solution” by giving Gaza to the Palestinians. What did the Palestinians then do with it? They destroyed the area’s major tourist attraction, the Graves of the Patriarchs (because those patriarchs were Jews), trashed their own infrastructure (which Israel had given them intact), and proceeded to lob missiles into Israel until the IDF finally came and bombed them. I’d say that experiment conclusively proved that the Two State Solution won’t work; it will only give the foaming Jihadi fanatics a platform for further attacking Israel. Why do none of these pious academics mention this?
And what if academics support Israel’s position on the Palestinian areas?
Heresy, heresy, hetesy!
With such actions scientific and psueudoscientific (eg: anthopolpgy as it’s practiced by modern leftist relativist denialist social justice warriors and aging hippies) institutions are quickly turned into de facto religions.
Related commentary:
The Atheist Movement needs move laxative – Making room for social & political conservatives!
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-atheist-movement-needs-move.html
Dogma. Doctrine. Belief maintenance. Heresy trials. Excommunications. These are a few of religion’s favorite things.
Reblogged this on Anthropology Now and commented:
For what it’s worth, I agree with Pinker. Punishing scholars (not governments) from nations with questionable human rights records makes little sense – plus we’d have to punish every nation’s scholars, including the U.S.
This whole thing simply amazes me.
At the corporation where I work, we receive periodic training on business and ethics law.
One thing pointed out very strongly is that boycotts are flat out illegal for businesses. And Israel boycotts are one of the examples given: simply agreeing to a condition of not sending Israel made product to another customer is enough to generate fines for the company and potential criminal charges for the employee (comparable to bribes).
How the hell do academics get away with this?
Well, I’m definitely a detractor of the Israeli government and many of its actions, but I fail to see the point of academic boycotts. How often are academics instrumental in the execution of government policy in any fashion? Somewhere between never and not even remotely? It’s like telling someone, “Look, I don’t like what you’re doing, so I’m going to beat up your smart nephew over here minding his own business until you stop it.”
Pointless and misguided at best.