Boycott opponents gain momentum
Olga Wojtas and Jon Marcus - The Times Higher Education Supplement
Published: 15 June 2007
www.thes.co.uk/current_edition/story.aspx?story_id=2037095

Olga Wojtas and Jon Marcus report on global backlash to UCU motion as union
prepares to consult wider membership.

Opposition to the threatened boycott of Israeli universities gained momentum
this week with a debate in the House of Lords, a Government delegation to
Israel and a flurry of anti-boycott initiatives.

Baroness Deech, the independent adjudicator for higher education, led a
Lords debate in which she condemned the UCU vote for a boycott as
"McCarthyite anti-intellectualism".

She said the proposed boycott was contrary to the 70-year-old principle of
the "universality of science", published by the International Council of
Scientific Unions and originally designed to prevent German scientists being
excluded from international conferences.

"Boycotting scientists and others by reason of their country of residence
should not be permitted, because the advance of knowledge is potentially
beneficial to all mankind," she said.

"It is not morally justifiable either to hold all Israeli academics
collectively responsible for the actions of their government - and they are
the ones most likely to be in opposition - or to use them as hostages to
further the political aims of others."

The debate followed a trip to Israel over the weekend by the Higher
Education Minister Bill Rammell, who said that a boycott would "make the job
of the progressives much more difficult" and "entrench the position of
people who take a hardline position".

Mr Rammell was joined by Drummond Bone, president of Universities UK, who
said that while academics were free to criticise the policies of any
government, a boycott was not "defensible" under the obligations of academic
freedom.

The British Academy has also this week restated its 20-year opposition to
any academic boycott, warning that boycotts are inimical to research.

It quotes the statement of the International Human Rights Network of
Academies and Scholarly Societies, to which it belongs: "Moratoria on
scientific exchanges based on nationality, race, sex, language, religion,
opinion and similar factors thwart the network's goal. They would deny our
colleagues their rights to freedom of opinion and expression; interfere with
their ability to exercise their bona fide academic freedoms; inhibit the
free circulation of scientists and scientific ideas; and impose unjust
punishment."

Reinhold Behringer, professor in creative technology at Leeds Metropolitan
University, has used the "weekly ethical reflection" slot on the university
website to offer to establish links with Israeli and Palestinian academics
and institutions "in the belief that collaboration between the two parties
can contribute more towards mutual understanding and lasting peace than any
ill-conceived boycott".

A website, www.stoptheboycott.org , has been launched. It condemns the UCU
congress vote in favour of a boycott motion as "the actions of a small and
unrepresentative minority that flies in the face of academic freedom". And
it calls on UCU general secretary Sally Hunt to "honour her pledge" to
ballot the union's 120,000 members over the proposal.

The Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, an independent
organisation that aims to boost support for Israel in the UK, is urging
staff and students opposed to the boycott to register their names. It says
it is engaging with a number of high-profile academics "who are not only
anti-boycott but are also pro-Israel."

But Dame Nancy Rothwell, former Times Higher columnist and vice-president
for research at Manchester University, said the issue of Israel was a red
herring. She has resigned her long-standing union membership in protest at
the UCU vote. "The danger is that some people think if they're against the
boycott, they're in favour of Israeli actions, and it's not that at all,"
she said.

"It's the principle that's so important. It's nothing to do with Israel: I
would do exactly the same if it was Palestine. It is censorship on the basis
of political views and that is fundamentally wrong - it's madness,
actually."

Tom Hickey, chair of Brighton UCU, who proposed the boycott motion, said it
was "a rather bizarre turn of events" that those who criticised the boycott
on the grounds of academic freedom were seemingly trying to prevent the
possibility of even discussing the proposal. Following the union's national
executive committee meeting last Friday (June 8), the UCU has confirmed it
is now considering the necessary steps that are needed for members to be
able to debate the arguments for and against the boycott.

A spokesperson said that after individual branches had debated the issue,
"the union's democratic structures will be used to ensure any decision on
boycott is one that best represents the views of the majority of members."

He added: "It is important that all UCU members have the opportunity to have
their say and the local debates are a good place for that to happen."
But with the summer break in sight, it seems unlikely there will be
consultations before next term.

Ms Hunt said: "Personally, I believe that any decision to boycott another
country's academic institutions should only be taken if the majority of UCU
members support it."

US FUND LAUNCHED TO SUPPORT ISRAELI ACADEME

An international group of Jewish foundations has launched a fund to pay for
exchange programmes between universities worldwide and Israeli universities
that might be the targets of a boycott by British academics.

Universities in the UK whose academics vote for and take part in any boycott
would not be eligible for any of the money.

The Jewish Funders Network, which represents Jewish philanthropists and
foundations, started the fund quietly the day after members of the
University
and College Union voted for a motion supporting a boycott of Israeli
universities. The network quickly raised $200,000 to cover its start-up
costs.

Mark Charendoff, president of the Network, said that Jewish foundations and
funders control some $30 billion in the United States alone.

"The fund was started really as a reaction by members of ours," Mr
Charendoff said. "We represent family foundations and independent funders
and philanthropists who were outraged at the decision in the UK and wanted
to take action.

"Some of our members are considering action that would impact directly on
universities and academics in the UK but collectively they were urging us to
do something positive to help Israeli academics that might be impacted by
the decision."

Mr Charendoff declined to reveal what other actions those foundations might
be contemplating and said his organisation's policy was not to identify its
members.

"Jewish organisations are just incensed by what's going on. The question is
really what to do about it," Mr Charendoff said.

"Our funders are people who are used to using money to solve problems.

There's no question that there are members of ours who as individuals have
every intention of reconsidering any funding that would go to British
acade-mics and institutions that support the boycott."

Mr Charendoff said the money his organisation is raising would be used to
provide incentive grants to universities outside Israel to create new
academic exchanges with Israeli universities and colleges.

"If as a result of this terribly irresponsible decision Israeli academics
and institutions have fewer opportunities to interact with their colleagues
outside of Israel then our funders want to try to remedy that by creating
more opportunities for Israeli academics outside of Israel," he said.

"They also want to create opportunities for academics outside of Israel to
experience Israel for themselves."

British universities with staff supporting the boycott would be excluded, Mr
Charendoff said. But he said that funders would be looking for ways to
engage British institutions that "stood up against this boycott".

At least one foundation that has contributed to the new fund is the
Goldhirsh Foundation, one of whose directors, Elizabeth Goldhirsh, last week
wrote a letter of protest about the boycott vote. Ms Goldhirsh also said
that she had considered extending eligibility for grants from her foundation
to British academics, but had changed her mind.

"I had been considering extending the grants to British scientists. After
this call was made I decided I would no longer be able to do so," Ms
Goldhirsh said.
"I was very sad to have to write that letter. But I feel that there has to
be a message sent that if Israel is going to be singled out and demonised
above all other countries, there will be a consequence."

Meanwhile, the Anti-Defamation League has taken out full-page advertisements
in The New York Times, the Financial Times and the International Herald
Tribune saying the British boycott calls were anti-Semitic.

One of the ads reads: "400,000 murdered in Darfur. And British academics are
boycotting Israel?"

Another reads: "700 human rights activists detained and tortured last year
in Zimbabwe. And British academics are boycotting Israel?"

The adverts conclude: "When British unions single out Israel for boycott,
that's not activism. That's anti-Semitism."