NEED TO FIGHT ACADEMIC BOYCOTTS, POLITICIZATION OF UNIVERSITY– “EUROPEANIZATION” OF U.S. ANTI-ISRAEL “BDS”, FROM BKLYN TO CALIF.

 Contents:         

Academic Boycotts, Ignorant and Hypocritical, Violate the University’s Essence: Freedom: Frederick Krantz, Dec. 24, 2013 — The American Studies Association’s embrace of “BDS” restrictions against democratic Jewish Israel has been condemned in many quarters.

Rage & Nausea: Daniel Gal, Dec. 23, 2013 — At first, a feeling of surprise. Then, astonishment followed by a growing sense of annoyance.

Are Jewish Students Safe at SFSU?: Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, Dec. 16, 2013 —  Dear President Wong: Last week you issued a public statement regarding an on-campus General Union of Palestine Students (GUPS) event glorifying the murder of Jews and numerous antisemitic social media postings by GUPS President Mohammad G. Hammad, including postings expressing his desire to murder an Israeli soldier and "all others who support the IDF."

Anti-Semitism, Academic Freedom and Brooklyn College: Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, New York Daily News, Nov. 14, 2013— Does Brooklyn College have a Jewish problem?

There They Go Again: KC Johnson & Asaf Romirowsky, Jerusalem Post, Dec. 3, 2013 — Last year, Brooklyn College’s political science department voted to officially affiliate itself with a talk by two advocates of boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel.

On Topic Links

Dozens of Universities Reject ASA Boycott of Israeli Academics; None Known to Support It: Joshua Levitt, Algemeiner, Dec. 23, 2013

Schooling the ASA on Boycotting Israel: Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, Times of Israel, Dec. 15., 2013

SFSU "My Heroes Kill Colonizers" Followup: President Wimps Out, Haters Double Down: Elder of Ziyon, Nov. 20, 2013

Non-Student Groups Force President Wong to Address Student Rights of Free Speech: Golden Gate Xpress, Dec. 11, 2013

Students Angered by Hillel’s Pro-Israel Standards: Lori Lowenthal Marcus, Jewish Press, Dec. 9, 2013

In Praise of ‘Censorship’ at Hillel: Matti Friedman, Tablet, Dec. 23, 2013

ACADEMIC BOYCOTTS, IGNORANT AND HYPOCRITICAL,

          VIOLATE THE UNIVERSITY’S ESSENCE: FREEDOM           Frederick Krantz

Dec. 24, 2013

The American Studies Association’s embrace of “BDS” restrictions against democratic Jewish Israel has been condemned in many quarters. That it is based on ignorance, hypocrisy and implicit anti-Semitism goes almost without saying; that the motion was passed by a small voting minority of the 5,000- member association is less known. But what concerns me here are the implications of its action as a professional academic group, which raise questions  about the appropriateness of professional associations and other corporate groups, and above all universities,  taking overt political positions.   

As a professional association, the ASA's primary purpose is to promote the professional concerns of its academic members, not to take highly ideological and politicized public positions (which–as in the case of this group–often do not in any case represent the majority of their members: only ca.40% of the ASA membership voted, and of that group, over a third, I  gather, opposed the motion, meaning a minority of the overall membership  determined its policy). 

But the key issue, nevertheless, isn't whether a clear majority did, or didn't, support the ASA's action. It is about whether it is appropriate for academic entities–colleges and universities, and the Faculties and departments which compose them, as well as professional academic associations-to take public political positions binding on all their members.

In terms of these unique institutions, the key consideration, and principle, must be respect for academic freedom (as the American Association of University Professors, in opposing academic boycotts of any kind, has affirmed).  Above all, care must be taken not to violate the rights of individual faculty members.  As importantly, we are citizens before we are "faculty", and as such our primary political arena–within which political action is not only legitimate, but incumbent on us, and where rights and freedoms are guaranteed by constitutions, human rights charters and civil law–is not the university or professional association, but the state, or "society", generally.

Again, an academic unit or association is a pedagogical, not a political, entity; its primary duty is teaching and research, not politics. Politicizing it, even for what may at the moment seem an issue of over-riding importance, can in the longer run prove inimical to its fundamental purpose and ethos.

That academics do, or should, stand for key shared values, is evident and appropriate. And like them, the larger body of which they are part, the university, embodies (or should embody) shared liberal values of freedom, the quest for truth, and mutual respect.  

This means, however, that it should not allow ideological-political values to determine University policy (or tenure and promotion decisions, or how we evaluate student performance, and so on). But the fact that the University is a "values-laden" corporate entity insofar as its function, and functioning, are concerned does not give it (which means those bodies and persons entrusted with directing it) the moral right to take specific and implicitly coercive political-ideological positions in the name of all its many, and different, members. 

That happened in the great German universities in the '30s (and, less well-known, to Russian universities with the advent of Bolshevism after 1917, and Italian universities after fascism came to power in the 1920’s), to their eternal shame: the philosopher Martin Heidegger, “boycotting” Jewish academics and imposing Nazi values as installed Chancellor of Freiburg U., was a representative example, not an anomaly. A contemporary imagined analogue  would be Quebec universities proclaiming–as universities, i.e., as corporate entities taking actions supposedly binding on their members—political support for separatism (not, I hasten to add, because Pequistes are Nazis, but because insofar as the coercive effect of such an act is concerned the result–stifling the very freedom on which the university is founded—would be similar: muffling, if not excluding, difference and opposition, and compelling consent.

The ASA case, like a number of other recent “BDS” examples, is simply a screen for a highly tendentious and politicized ideological position, a hypocritical act of bumbling, self-righteous mediocrities wishing to impose their views on others.  That it singles out democratic Israel, the Jewish state, the (only) shining example of representative justice and the rule of law in its region, while ignoring the scores of con-temporary dictatorships truly oppressing, often murderously, their own people as well as subordinate religious and political groups, condemns the organization itself. And, clearly, the self-righteous and uninformed ASA leadership (again, not representing a clear majority of all its members), in its rush to single out Jewish Israel, is also, consciously or unconsciously, antisemitic. The ASA’s act exemplifies the dangers of allowing corporate, and above all academic, entities supposedly dedicated to individual liberty, free speech and objective research, to violate their specific purposes and values and, despite their “progressive” rationales, to act in an authoritarian manner by committing their members to highly politicized and prejudicial courses of action.

That there may well be “boundary” situations in which corporate academic political stances vis-à-vis external socio-political causes or crises in the larger polity are justified is a related, but different, issue.  In the case of the ASA and its embrace of “BDS” sanctions against democratic Israel, however, the action is clearly, insofar as its professional mandate is concerned, ultra vires. And insofar as simple morality and justice are concerned, it is indefensible, and rightly to be condemned.

(Dr. Krantz is Professor of History, Liberal Arts College, Concordia University,

and Director of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research [Montreal])

                                                                                    Contents
                                       

RAGE & NAUSEA

Daniel Gal

Dec. 23, 2013

At first, a feeling of surprise. Then, astonishment followed by a growing sense of annoyance. Finally, this morning, a feeling of revulsion bordering on nausea. Several newspapers reported during the weekend that Haifa University had decided not to confer an honorary doctorate to Nobel laureate Professor Israel Auman. The reason invoked for the decision was that Professor Auman’s views did not represent those of the university. Is the policy of boycotting Israel already at our own doorstep? Yesterday, in a televised interview, Professor Auman stated that a good part of the boycott movement, particularly the insidious BDS campaign, had its sources right here at home. Fortunately, Professor Auman has an incisive sense of humor. At the end of his interview, with a touch of mockery, he stated that having this title bestowed on him has been one of his lifelong ambitions. Let’s be serious. This title would bring more honor and fame to Haifa University than to Professor Auman. But for those us of who believe in the value of pluralism, especially within the hallowed confines of a university, the matter is grave.

This should be seen as a strident alarm bell signaling that universities are banning individuals based on rigorous political criteria and not scientific ones. Thankfully, the Nobel Prize jury members proved to be more open-minded. Looking back, the ceremony at Haifa University, not so long ago, during which it was decided that the national anthem would not be played should have been viewed with more concern than it was at the time. Haifa University has once again failed in its obligation to be open to all and to set aside outright discrimination on the basis of political views. The authorities must act. Nothing is easier than cloaking yourself in democracy in order to impose your personal views in its name. The act carried out by this university is contemptible. It is a vile and unhealthy decision for a true democracy, and I am firmly convinced that all those who cherish justice and objectivity will condemn it unequivocally.

Translation From French by Gad Elbaz.           

(Daniel Gal is a distinguished former Consul-General of Israel to Montreal)

                                                                                Contents
                                       

ARE JEWISH STUDENTS SAFE AT SFSU?                                                                                           

Tammi Rossman-Benjamin

Dec. 16, 2013

Dear President Wong,

Last week you issued a public statement regarding an on-campus General Union of Palestine Students (GUPS) event glorifying the murder of Jews and numerous antisemitic social media postings by GUPS President Mohammad G. Hammad, including postings expressing his desire to murder an Israeli soldier and "all others who support the IDF."  In your statement, you say that "first and foremost" the University community must be "firmly committed to free speech," although you also claim to work hard "to achieve a balance where both expression and safety are fostered."

Therefore, we ask you to clarify your position on this matter: Is it acceptable for a registered student organization receiving university funding to display or use rhetoric that glorifies or promotes violence against Jews? Is it acceptable for a registered student organization receiving university funding to display or use rhetoric that glorifies or promotes violence against African Americans, Hispanics, or Muslims?

We look forward to your prompt response. Unless we hear otherwise, we will assume that your answer to these questions is "YES," and we will inform the Jewish community that Jewish students, and all supporters of Israel, are not safe at San Francisco State University.

Sincerely,

Tammi Rossman-Benjamin

Co-founder, AMCHA Initiative

                                                                             Contents

                                                                                           ANTI-SEMITISM, ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND BROOKLYN COLLEGE                                                     

Tammi Rossman-Benjamin

New York Daily News, Nov. 14, 2013

Does Brooklyn College have a Jewish problem? For the second time this year, the university's political science department has outraged the Jewish community by agreeing to co-sponsor events hosted by Brooklyn College Students for Justice in Palestine, an organization whose sole mission is to engage in campus activities that demonize and delegitimize the Jewish state. In February, the department co-sponsored a Students for Justice event advertised as “a lecture by Judith Butler and Omar Barghouti on the importance of BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) in helping END Israeli apartheid and the illegal occupation of Palestine.” Both Butler and Barghouti, who are major figures in the BDS movement, consider all of the State of Israel as part of the “illegal occupation of Palestine” and advocate for BDS as a nonviolent means of ending Israel as a Jewish state. In addition, virtually all of the 22 other organizations that joined the political science department in co-sponsoring the Students for Justice event actively promote BDS, and many openly advocate elimination of the Jewish state.

Despite the outcry of Jewish students and community members over the highly offensive nature of this Students for Justice event and the political science department’s unwillingness to rescind its sponsorship, the department has once again decided to stick it to the members of its community who support Israel, most of them Jews, by co-sponsoring two more Students for Justice events. According to the department’s website: “The department of political science at Brooklyn College is pleased to announced that it is co-sponsoring two talks organized by the Students for Justice in Palestine at Brooklyn College. The first is by Josh Ruebner, whose talk — ‘Shattered Hopes: Obama’s Failure to Broker Israeli-Palestinian Peace’ — will be on Wednesday, Nov. 13, at 6:30 p.m., on the sixth floor of the student center. The second is by Ben White, whose talk — ‘Israel: Apartheid, Not Democracy” — will be on Thursday, Nov. 14, at 6:30 p.m., on the sixth floor of the student center.” Not surprisingly, the speakers at these two Students for Justice events — Ruebner, the national advocacy director of the U.S. Campaign to End Israeli Apartheid, and White, a virulently anti-Israel journalist — are leaders in the BDS movement who both publicly advocate the elimination of the Jewish state and condone terrorism against Israel.

Let’s be clear: Advocating for and working toward the elimination of the Jewish state — whether by violent or non-violent means — is considered anti-Semitic by every contemporary scholar of anti-Semitism, as well as by official government bodies in the U.S., Canada and the European Union. It is not hard to understand why. The elimination of the Jewish state poses an existential threat to the 6 million Jews who live there — nearly half of the worldwide Jewish population. Furthermore, no other country on Earth has had its very existence challenged. The fact that only Jewish self-determination is open to such threats underscores the deeply hypocritical and anti-Semitic nature of calls for the elimination of the Jewish state.

Nevertheless, both Brooklyn College President Karen Gould and the political science department defend the anti-Semitic activities of a university-sanctioned student organization and the right of a university department to bestow academic legitimacy on implicit Jew-hatred, by wrapping them both in the mantle of “academic freedom.” In an open letter to the Brooklyn College community last February, Gould suggested that calling for the economic, cultural and academic boycott of Israel and advocating the elimination of the Jewish state are part of the “critical debate” that is the “hallmark of the American education system.” Sadly, that may be true. However, there is no doubt that giving academic legitimacy to rank anti-Semitism is the hallmark of Brooklyn College. The Jewish community, New York taxpayers and decent people everywhere should be outraged.

                                                                            Contents

THERE THEY GO AGAIN                                                           

KC Johnson & Asaf Romirowsky                                               

Jerusalem Post, Dec. 3, 2013

Last year, Brooklyn College’s political science department voted to officially affiliate itself with a talk by two advocates of boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel. In other words, these professors openly endorsed boycotting (among other groups) fellow academics based solely on their nationality. The department cloaked its move by expressing fidelity to the First Amendment, but events proved its purported free speech interest to be one-sided. According to a subsequent CUNY report, four Jewish Brooklyn students were improperly removed from the BDS event, all as a Brooklyn dean stood idly by. That same dean then apparently passed along misleading information suggesting the students’ eviction was based on their behavior, rather than their presumed opposition to the BDS speakers’ agenda. The department seemed untroubled. Lest anyone think Brooklyn’s faculty was chastened by the BDS fiasco, consider that not one but two Brooklyn academic departments (political science and sociology) have voted to officially “support” a talk by the latest anti-Israel extremist invited to campus, propagandist Ben White. The departments have claimed their move doesn’t imply an endorsement of White’s toxic views. Instead, they simply consider White’s perspective on Israel so insightful that Brooklyn’s students should take time out of their busy schedules to hear him speak.

So what is it that two Brooklyn departments, acting in their official capacities, deem of such import? In 2006, White tried to rationalize the indefensible, after former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publicly proclaimed that Israel should be “wiped off the map.” The figure two Brooklyn academic departments now support expressed the opinion that “Ahmadinejad had not necessarily, as many assumed, called for an apocalyptic battle to wipe out the Jews.” Instead, White mused, Ahmadinejad was merely expressing his concerns about “Palestine’s cartographic absence.” A few years earlier, White was even more direct in apologizing for anti-Semitism. “I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are,” he wrote. Imagine the outrage if two CUNY departments voted to support a talk from someone who asserted that while he didn’t consider himself a racist, he could “also understand why some are.”

It’s important to note that there is no First Amendment issue in the current contretemps over White’s talk. A student club called “Students for Justice in Palestine” is sponsoring the event, and White will be paid any fee out of student activity funds. Under longstanding CUNY and state policies, a student group has the absolute right to invite outside speakers of its choosing; if Students for Justice in Palestine wants to bring David Duke to campus it would have the authority to do so. The two departments’ blessing, therefore, is wholly symbolic, a way to demonstrate that these professors find White’s anti-Israel extremism congenial.

How should the college respond to this provocation? Some have suggested the college should invite a speaker to provide “balance” to White’s views, perhaps Brooklyn alumnus Alan Dershowitz. Yet such a move would unintentionally mainstream White’s arguments, implying that he’s about as anti-Israel as Dershowitz is pro-Israel. Rather, an ideological “balance” to someone like White would be a speaker who advocates the expulsion of the Palestinians from the West Bank. It’s inconceivable that any Brooklyn academic department would support a talk by such a figure, or encourage students to attend such a talk with an open mind.

In the contemporary academy, on matters related to the Arab-Israeli disputes it seems as if academics (like those in the two Brooklyn departments) are attracted to extremists on one side of the issue only. That’s the most important lesson to the drawn from the reactions to both the BDS event and the White talk. Instead of attempting to achieve a “balance” that’s impossible to obtain, Brooklyn president Karen Gould should redeem herself from her poor performance in the BDS fiasco, and announce that departments, acting in their official capacities, can heretofore only support talks from student groups afflicted with the department. In light of the White affair, it’s clear that at least some of the college’s departments are unable to unwilling to respectably utilize the authority they now possess, and more aggressive oversight from the administration is necessary. Finally, institutions of higher education should foster the unfettered and free exchange of ideas for members of their own academic communities, but are under no obligation to provide support for the views of speakers from outside the campus walls. This is especially true when, as in this case, the invited guests are well-known for their anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism, and where their speech may well contribute to the creation of a climate of fear, harassment and intimidation for Jewish students and other supporters of Israel.

                                             Contents

Dozens of Universities Reject ASA Boycott of Israeli Academics; None Known to Support It: Joshua Levitt, Algemeiner, Dec. 23, 2013 Dozens of universities have rejected a decision by the American Studies Association last week to boycott Israeli academics, according to William Jacobson, a legal scholar who authors the Legal Insurrection blog.

Schooling the ASA on Boycotting Israel: Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, Times of Israel, Dec. 15., 2013  Last week, the American Studies Association’s (ASA) national council, unanimously passed a resolution calling for the boycott of Israeli academic institutions.

SFSU "My Heroes Kill Colonizers" Followup: President Wimps Out, Haters Double Down: Elder of Ziyon, Nov. 20, 2013 Yesterday, I noted that at a pro-Palestinian Arab rally at San Francisco State University the organizers handed out stencils to people could paint placards saying "My heroes have always killed colonizers."

Non-Student Groups Force President Wong to Address Student Rights of Free Speech: Golden Gate Xpress, Dec. 11, 2013 SF State President Leslie E. Wong sent out a mass email to the campus community Monday, addressing a balance between expression and safety.

Students Angered by Hillel’s Pro-Israel Standards: Lori Lowenthal Marcus, Jewish Press, Dec. 9, 2013 Hillel, which self-defines as the “center of Jewish life on campus,” and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, are calling attention to their frequent collaboration in an op-ed penned by national Hillel’s new president and chief executive officer, Eric Fingerhut, and Jonathan Kessler, AIPAC’s leadership development director, in this week’s issue of the New York Jewish Week .

In Praise of ‘Censorship’ at Hillel: Matti Friedman, Tablet, Dec. 23, 2013 The debate about changing the guidelines governing who may and may not participate in discussions of Israel at college Hillel’s is an interesting one even for someone distant from American campuses, as I am, not because of the guidelines themselves but rather because the discussion provides an opportunity to investigate the use, abuse and general misunderstanding of words.

Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at https://isranet.org/.

The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.