By Joel Magalnick, Editor, JTNews
A vote on May 30 by Britain’s University and College Union, the country’s largest teachers union, would advance a boycott against any Israeli lecturer or academic institution that does not publicly declare opposition to Israel’s West Bank presence.
On August 8, a full-page advertisement taken out by the American Jewish Committee in the New York Times featured a statement from Columbia University president Lee Bollinger protesting the boycott.
Three hundred college and university presidents and chancellors from around the country, including four in Washington State, added their names in support of Bollinger’s protest of the boycott.
“I find this idea utterly antithetical to the fundamental values of the academy, where we will not hold intellectual exchange hostage to the political disagreements of the moment,” Bollinger’s letter read. “In seeking to quarantine Israeli universities and scholars, this vote threatens every university committed to fostering scholarly and cultural exchanges that lead to enlightenment, empathy, and a much-needed international marketplace of ideas.”
Bollinger concluded the letter by adding his own university to the list of institutions to be added to any boycott: “We gladly stand together with our many colleagues in British, American and Israeli universities against such intellectually shoddy and politically biased attempts to hijack the central mission of higher education.”
JTNews spoke with university officials around the state about their reasoning for signing — or in some cases, not signing — their names to the letter.
“I think it was one of the easier decisions I’ve made,” Mark Emmert, president of the state’s flagship institution, the University of Washington. “The position taken by the British union was, I think, completely at odds with everything that academic institutions should stand for…. Universities and scholars should never be used as political weapons.”
Emmert said that the UW has a number of faculty members that exchange positions with faculty in both Israel and in Britain, and that he would be surprised if there would be any consequences in this realm should a boycott take effect.
Ronald R. Thomas, president of the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma, was unavailable for comment, but Gayle McIntosh, the university’s executive director of communications, gave a statement regarding Thomas’ position.
“For University of Puget Sound, it’s a matter of principle,” wrote McIntosh via e-mail. “As a university community we are committed to the free and open exchange of ideas, and the signing of the letter is consistent with our mission and supportive of our colleagues in higher education — not just here in the United States and in Israel, but throughout the world.”
Father Stephen Sundborg, president of Seattle University, did not add his name to the list because at the time he was unaware of the significance of the statement. He said he did take notice of the New York Times ad, however.
“I support it and I just missed the opportunity to be on board,” he said. “It was nothing intentional on my part.”
Two university presidents who lent their names to the statement, Daniel K. Church of Bastyr University in Kirkland and Rodolfo Arevalo of Eastern Washington University in Cheney were unavailable for comment.
Two issues stem from this boycott, or the idea of a boycott: one is the refusal to associate with Israel or its citizens specifically, or buy its products (as a boycott a British journalists’ union attempted to push through earlier this year would have done). The other is the stifling of what Bollinger called “intellectual exchange” as the focal point of such a boycott.
The UW’s Emmert said he saw his signing the letter was a matter of academic freedom and not a political statement.
“This isn’t the University of Washington taking a position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” he said. “This is the University of Washington saying they picked the wrong target.”
Emmert said he has mostly received support for his position. When challenged by one dissenter, he suggested the professor think in terms of the union pushing forward a boycott against the U.S. because of its involvement in Iraq, which in his opinion would be a similar example.
Though the controversy surrounding this boycott has been heated, there’s always the possibility the motion will never go through. The University and College Union has, at this point, merely voted to advance the measure, and a vote on adapting it has yet to take place.
A similar measure was passed and later rescinded last year by Britain’s Association of University Teachers, which merged with the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education to form the UCU in June.
Whether it passes or not, the idea that these motions are brought up is troubling to many university leaders, as was evidenced by their signing onto Bollinger’s letter.
“The clear message needs to be that academic institutions and scholars and students are useful vehicles for promoting understanding amongst peoples,” Emmert said. “Therefore, when you are trying to leverage them as political weapons it’s a completely backward approach.”
JTNews Assistant Editor Daniel Levisohn contributed to this report.