My co-deplatformee Maarten Boudry has announced in Quillette that he’s written an open letter (with coauthor Prof. Mark Elchardus) against the growing worldwide call to boycott Israeli universities. Although it’s called a “faculty open letter”, you don’t have to be an academic to sign it, though the signatures will be vetted to keep out trolls. You can read about the letter at the first link (it presents an earlier version of the letter), and then click the second headline to actually sign the latest and most comprehensive letter if you agree with its sentiments.
From Maarten’s introduction in Quillette (I won’t reproduce the whole thing):
Universities across the world are facing pressure—from students but also from academic staff—to cut ties with Israeli institutions over the war in Gaza. In the US, a dozen universities have struck agreements with activists and partly conceded to their demands, including divestment from Israeli companies. In Europe, dozens of Spanish universities and five Norwegian universities have resolved to sever all ties with Israeli partners deemed “complicit” in the war in Gaza. Several Belgian universities have now suspended all collaborations with Israeli universities because of their collaborations with the IDF. Even without a formal boycott, pressure from anti-Israel protests and the BDS movement has already led to pervasive exclusion of Israeli scientists and students. In the liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz, over 60 academics have testified what this amounts to: cancelled invitations to lectures and committees, desk rejections of papers on political grounds, freezing of ongoing collaborations, disrupted guest lectures, and withdrawn co-authorships.
And then, since Maarten is a philosopher, he goes into the arguments for and against such a boycott.
On the “con” side he criticizes the Netanyahu government and its policy of settlement on the West Bank, but in the end, as you must have guessed, he concludes that a blanket boycott of Israeli universities is counterproductive, not just for Israel but for the liberal Western values that universities are supposed to represent.
In liberal democracies such as Israel, universities are indispensable parts of civil society, which facilitate the critical examination and questioning of government policies. Despite the country’s flaws, such criticism is still very much possible in Israel. Those who oppose the policies of Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right coalition partners will find numerous allies among Israeli academics. Many of them took the lead in the protests against Netanyahu’s dangerous judicial reforms of 2023, which threatened Israel’s democratic character. Finally, Israeli universities enrol tens of thousands of Palestinian and Arab students, often supported by government programs. They too will be targeted by a blanket boycott of Israeli universities, which will in no way contribute to peace, but will instead further weaken the constructive and liberal forces in Israeli society.
Let me add that Bob Zimmer, the late President of the University of Chicago, was pressured to divest from Israel and also engage in an academic boycott against its country’s universities He responded in 2016 by issuing this statement:
The University of Chicago will not divest from companies for doing business in Israel and opposes academic boycotts aimed at specific nations, including Israel. The University is restating its policy to address questions regarding its institutional position.
The University does not take social or political stances on issues outside its core mission. Using investments or other means to advance a social or political position held by some segment of the University community would only diminish the University’s distinctive contribution – providing a home and environment for faculty and students to engage freely and openly on the widest range of issues. The Kalven Report outlines this approach and the values behind it, concluding that preserving the freedom of individual scholars to argue for or against any issue of political controversy requires “a heavy presumption against” collective political action by the University itself.
The University has been consistent in its opposition to proposed academic boycotts, issuing statements in 2007 and again in 2013. The University has from its founding held as its highest value the free and open pursuit of knowledge. Faculty and students must be free to pursue their research and education around the world, and to form collaborations both inside and outside the academy, encouraging engagement with the widest spectrum of views. For this reason, the University continues to strongly oppose boycotts of academic institutions or scholars in any region of the world, including recent actions to boycott Israeli institutions.
QED. Now click below to go to the letter itself, and then, if you want to append your name, click again on the “sign the open letter” boxes at top right or bottom—or just click here.
Of course I asked Maarten what would become of the letter so that readers who sign it aren’t simply engaging in a performative gesture. Maarten said this:
What will become of it? Obviously we want to send a signal to universities across the world that plenty of academics firmly oppose any form of boycott, so that the cowards won’t follow the path of least resistance and cave into the loudest protestors (as my uni had done already). I like to think that our well-publicized letter in Dutch (in two newspapers) played some role in the public announcement by the Dutch rectors that they reject a boycott, two weeks later.
The more people sign, especially academics, the stronger the signal.
Leaving aside the particularities and hypocrisy associated with the Israel Palestinian issue, I always found it crazy that even rational, good faith actors could believe that it is productive to punish the people when you don’t like the government (note-I don’t want to get into a discussion about Israel, this is not my broader point). I edit for an academic journal, and when Russia invaded Ukraine some editors thought we should not publish the papers of Russian scientists. This is a very bad take, punishing the captives for the crimes of the leaders. All it does is potentially radicalize those who are likely already at least partly sympathetic to your viewpoint.
Signed, thanks!
Me too.
Signed.
At my university pro-Hamas members of the faculty union forced union members to vote on a motion to boycott Israeli universities. The vote was compromised by an attempt at electronic ballot-stuffing (on the morning the vote was to close, with a number of votes that would guaranteed to tip the result) by a hack of the university IT system. Almost a month ago, still no details from the university or the union except to confirm the hacked account was a university employee. A second vote succeeded by a margin of about 3%, so my union will now denounce Israel.
I’m reminded of this bit of TS Eliot. Not sure about “half”. Pretty sure about the struggle by my colleagues to think well of themselves.
“Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm, but the harm does not interest them; or they do not see it; or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.”
On the T.S.Eliot quote:
Truer words were never said. I do include myself in that pitiful group and I have plenty of company. And things haven’t changed for the better as evidenced by the character of the recent anti-Israel protest in front of the White House.
Signed.
I want to know what y’all think about this: I think that BDS and, relatedly, Israel losing the so-called PR war to Hamas is due to its sheer numbers disadvantage. Seven million Jewish Israelis cannot advocate for themselves as loudly on the global stage, participate as fiercely in Western civil society, and influence the discourse as effectively as 440 million Arabs from 22 Arab countries and 1.8 billion Muslims from 50 Muslim-majority countries can.
Not to mention being nervously eyed by governments as swing voters allied with organized labour and prone to fanatical violence in many Muslim-minority countries.
Signed.
Especially when Israel is portrayed as the white oppressor vs. the brown & oppressed Hamas. This fits neatly into the critical theory paradigm, which then instantly forces a moral judgment of Israel=evil / Hamas=good. Therefore you have an audience primed to hear a good vs evil narrative with a large voice to proclaim it.
Signed
Although I am not directly affiliated with any university, but as an academic, I feel committed to the university spirit
It asks for your institution. Required. I didn’t sign because I’m not an academic and I don’t have an institution.
my institution is the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society, which is an educational/trainig institution collaborating with the University. so somehow I am affiliated 🙂
also I am an alumni of the university of Vienna – medical department
i hope this will be enough
I’m not affiliated with anything. I’ve been retired for years. Before I retired I was a civil servant. I did graduate from a university, in 1973.
Hmm… I am a subscribing member of AAAS as a “science advocate.” Do you think that would suffice?
No idea
Just try
Done
I accurately signed as *former* (title) for my University…
Signed
Signed. Thanks for the link.
Signed.
From an article in today’s WSJ. Sorry, I can’t archive from an iPhone.
Gaza Chief’s Brutal Calculation: Civilian Bloodshed Will Help Hamas
For months, Yahya Sinwar has resisted pressure to cut a ceasefire-and-hostages deal with Israel. Behind his decision, messages the Hamas military leader in Gaza has sent to mediators show, is a calculation that more fighting—and more Palestinian civilian deaths—work to his advantage.
“We have the Israelis right where we want them,” Sinwar said in a recent message to Hamas officials seeking to broker an agreement with Qatari and Egyptian officials….
In dozens of messages—reviewed by The Wall Street Journal—that Sinwar has transmitted to cease-fire negotiators, Hamas compatriots outside Gaza and others, he’s shown a cold disregard for human life and made clear he believes Israel has more to lose from the war than Hamas. The messages were shared by multiple people with differing views of Sinwar…
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/gaza-chiefs-brutal-calculation-civilian-bloodshed-will-help-hamas-626720e7
The letter, in its present form, is not just an anti-boycott letter. It also states that the signatories reject the characterization of Israel’s war policies as constituting genocide. Perhaps everyone who would want to take a stand against the boycott would also accept that view. But it is a distinct issue.