Politically motivated academic boycotts
Sarah Morgan from the Henry Jackson Society (you know what’s coming, don’t you?) seems aghast that a motion was proposed and passed at LSE SU’s twinning with the Islamic University of Gaza. She writes on Harry’s Place:
LSE Students’ Union has shamelessly elected to ally with Hamas University. In the coming weeks, taking a page out of the LSE SU’s book, Queen Mary, University of London Students’ Union will hear a similar motion.
Bizarrely, no recommendations are made. Should universities here stop working with universities they find politically unpalatable or not? The implication of that post is that British universities shouldn’t have anything to do with Palestinian universities that may be even vaguely associated with Hamas.
But then students could quite legitimately make the same arguments of Israeli universities. I’m pretty sure various people have spoken out stridently against universities in Israel that are (directly or indirectly) funded by the govt of Israel – which itself committed warcrimes in Gaza recently. I thought the line at Harry’s Place was to keep politics out of academia. Clearly not.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Current affairs,Middle East
Erm… aren't you then just politicising the argument because you want everyone to do what Sunny Hundal says…
that's right.
Before you take yet another opportunity to take a pop at Harry's Place, it would be interesting to know how many UK Students Unions are twinned with Israeli ones.
Not too many I reckon.
And what is the relevance? Aside from the fact that they are felt to be on opposite sides of an ideological as well as a political fence?
I haven't done any surveys chairwoman so I don't know,
I'm against boycotting Israeli universities, as writers on HP are. No harm in pointing out that this sort of hypocrisy against Palestinian universities isn't on.
Which was the town which was twinned with Gaza was it Worcester?
Except Hamas is a designated terrorist organisation with a violent antisemetic ideology to match; and Israel happens to be a country of 6 million people which includes around 1 million Muslims and is a working democracy.
Having pointed out this clanger, academic boycotts are anti-academic, counter-productive, and well, pretty fecking stupid. If it's a University, even if they have racist or otherwise unacceptable views, academics should be engaging their arguments, not putting up an apartheid wall of ignorance.
But, the gist I gather from the article from PP's arch-nemesis, HP, the student union appears happy to ally with an Hamas University, but when it comes to Israel there's a very significant opposition. Why is this? Isn't this rank hypocrisy on behalf of these macbook owning leftist students? Surely, if you morally weigh up which should and should not be boycotted, wouldn't you agree an organisation associated with a charter based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Jihad would be a better candidate for boycott than University simply because it's located in Israel?
I think this post raises a fair point. But does anyone in a senior position say anything quite like this? (I'm now quoting from the HP piece)
IUG’s Rector of Advanced Studies has said:
“The Jews are the Jews…. They do not have any moderates or any advocates of peace. They are all liars. They must be butchered and must be killed…. It is forbidden to have mercy in your hearts for the Jews in any place and in any land, make war on them anywhere that you find yourself. Any place that you meet them, kill themThe Jews are the Jews…. They do not have any moderates or any advocates of peace. They are all liars. They must be butchered and must be killed….
Sorry – I meant to say 'anyone in a senior position in an Israeli university'
There's an important distinction to be drawn between advocating the exclusion of Israeli academics from participation in international academic discourse and conferences purely because they are based in Israel, and protesting about the decision of a self-styled progressive Students' Union to voluntarily twin with a university whose senior staff advocate the genocide of the Jews as a race, don't you think, Sunny?
I don't see anything in the article that says “Palestinian academics should be excluded from international academic discourse because they are Palestinian”, but that's because I read what the post actually said, instead of distorting it to use it as a springboard to slag off Harry's Place. Are your hits down or something?
Just to clarify: I don't for a moment think that Sunny would approve or endorse the anti-Jewish remarks made by the Hamas University bloke. My personal view is that all academics should be free to participate in academic discourse internationally regardless of where they are based absent something racist or offensive that *they* have said which may make others uncomfortable about involving them.
Yes – boycotting is singling out one country for exclusion – twinning suggests special approval and friendship.
Students connecting with other students is what brings about revolution.
By the way, I don't read Harry's Place. The regular mudslinging is getting quite tiresome.
I used to be a political activist as a student. I was member of the Socialist Workers party and handed out papers and called people comrades and wore mohair jumpers and donkey jackets and everything. But I came out of Marxism 92 and was disgusted to hear some other rival wanky Socialist group, I forget their name, chanting 'Ice pick in the head', and I thought: come the revolution, all you pricks are just going to kill each other, aren't you? Haven't given a toss about politics since.
A lesson there perhaps.
Yup it's you shouldn't base your view of what politics is on the idiocy of the SWP!
Maybe – but this seems to be confusing the personal and institutional. It is not the role of Student Unions, Trade Unions and the like to allow indivicuals to use them to make a point.
I was previously working at a medical royal College. The Colleges have a charter to develop medical practice. Not to develop practice, and make a political point by not developing it in certain places. Many doctors had deep reservations about work with countries like Saudi and Sudan (far better candidates for a boycott than I/P) but have to swallow pride and accept the terms of the charter.
Unions and the like should be more effective at telling individuals to take their campaign up by means other than take-overs. And the Henry Jackson Society can bug out.
I don't see anything in the article that says “Palestinian academics should be excluded from international academic discourse because they are Palestinian”,
Well, how many universities do you know in Palestinian territories? You don't think they'd be related to Hamas in some way or another?
I made the point above – you're the one trying to twist it around Katy/Marvin. I'm against trying to use academics and universities in political games. This is typical of that attempt.
The Palestinian people aren't just a bunch of romantic revolutionaries with nice scarves and AK47s, Sunny, they go to school and have jobs. There are lots of Palestinian universities, in both Gaza and the West Bank. See here. No one has suggested that they should be banned from academic discourse.
This is a different thing that we are talking about here. This is a decision to twin with a *particular* school whose teachers have openly espoused extremism. You don't have a problem with that? Seriously? You're saying that anyone who disagrees with that decision by LSE SU is advocating the boycott of Palestinian academics generally? Try to think of it as the difference between accepting that Nick Griffin has a right to express his views and enter the European Parliament as an MEP, and inviting him to your birthday party.
But then why would I be surprised? Organisation A calls for the slaughter of the Jewish people. Organisation B decides to twin with that organisation. Person C wishes they hadn't made that decision. Of *course* you'd say Person C is in the wrong, Sunny. It's what you do. What an odd set of values you have these days.
Erm Katy my point is quite simple – if we're going to start singling out entire universities and calling for them to be boycotted on the basis of what people a professor there said, or who started them, then it's a very slippery road to go down to.
I thought that would be an obvious point to make. Clearly not.
You're taking two concepts – boycotting and twinning – and saying that anyone who's against the latter in one particular instance must be in favour of the former in all instances. Which is like saying that anyone who doesn't want to be friends with a racist must be in favour of shutting down free speech for everyone.
I thought that my point, i.e. that this is flawed reasoning, was obvious. I share your frustration.
Merely unpalatable? A rector of this “university” is a raving antisemite who preaches in favor of finishing what Hitler started. Don't euphermise.
Israeli universities are places where free and vigorous political debate takes place. Both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian political organizations and parties conduct frequent and animated activities on their campuses. Every Israeli university has thousands of Arab students.
By contrast, how many pro-Israeli or pro-Jewish organizations and individuals are allowed to study and campaign in the Islamic University of Gaza? When has any political activity other than Islamist been allowed on its campus? And why do left-dominated British university groups seek their friendship? Could it be because the leaders of the student unions are planning to further intimidate, delegitimize and abuse pro-Israeli and Jewish students?
Just this week the IDF uncovered a huge Hamas cache of explosive belts intended for homicidal attacks against Israel. Are the inner core of fanatics at the LSE SU going to be importing such to Britain too after twinning with the IUG?
Whilst I lived in Israel I was involved in many pro-Palestinian activities – openly and without condemnation; though admittedly with some, occasionally vigorous though never physical, counter arguments.
Though by and large I agree with the points raised by Ben, I feel that his argument has been let down somewhat by the last paragraph in particular when we are discussing the rights or wrongs of academic boycotting and/or twinning.
Once you allow such elements to influence whether or not academic debate can take place/should take place then academic debate cannot take place. Mainly as it opens up the debate to a series of mud-slinging, claim and counter-claim of anti-humanitarian/criminal activity.
Bearing in mind that this particular conflict has been raging, both checked and un-checked, for the better part of the 20th century it can safely be assumed that both* sides have at times been guilty of subversive/anti-humanitarian/criminal acts.
* I say both sides however it is actually more then merely two sides however that is another debate altogether.
Well, the obvious response would be: how many Palestinians do you see illegally occupying Israeli land and disenfranchising their population by denying them basic human rights? Oh right, now the 'by contrast' debate doesn't seem to appealing, does it?
Consider the wider context before you go harping on about democracy, and mentioning it in the same sentence as the Terrorist State of Israel (see what I did there?).
This is a decision to twin with a *particular* school whose teachers have openly espoused extremism.
Exactly.
So, the most charitable interpretation is that these students are idiots.
The less charitable is that they know what Hamas stands for, but don't really care.
Either way, screw 'em.
Still, it's LSE? They'll all be safely ensonced in investment banks within a couple of years.
well said Kismet hardy.
I couldn't see the point of trying to boycott Israeli universities and I see no problem with this 'twinning' in principle. Possibly do the Gazans some good and it will help the LSE SU lot as well with insight.
Naturally we can't expect everyone to be happy about this, but its a free world. the more exchange and discussions that happen, the better. Perhaps we can get to a stage where we don't boycott people, but engage them to see a more peaceful, constructive future – for everyone.
In any case, it's good for students to debate and argue amongst themselves and with each other. Universities have always been political hotbeds.. LSE is a particularly interesting example I always thought because there's a bunch of neoliberals in the making (being brainwashed at the Economics department) and all the people who will go off to be the 'imperialist' class – working for banks, the IMF/world bank etc. – and at the same time you have a few raging hot socialists floating around here and there.
heh, rest assured cjcjc the ones going off the banks aren't the ones involved in the SU. they're too busy trying to get jobs. this lot will be looking to get into government positions and politics.
Well said Miriam.
MaidMarian – Student Unions- I think the point of the Union is to purely be a vehicle for the collective of students. there is a governance structure – its democratic. Who are we to say what their role is? It is a completely separate thing from the Institution. This is a student body representing students. They have voted to do something, and that's that.
We may not like what they decide to do – but really, its up to them. If other LSE students don't like it, well then – that's fair enough, because it represents 'them' too. As per usual – they would have to get involved in Student Union politics to change that.
Your point about invididuals using a political democratic process – to take up their “personal campaign” – well i daresay that applies to politics in general.
Sonia
Well said.
One thing though – do you really believe that everyone who worked for/works for World Bank/UNDP is Imperialistic.
Working to build tubewells and getting drinking water or building community hubs so farmers don't get screwed over by middlemen are not usually work of exploitative imperialists. Also, building roads so that medicines could reach children who otherwise would die from fever —
And most people in the world bank are not paid that much either – trust me on that one. You would make far more in the private sector.
But I digress from the thread.
Your points otherwise are absolutely spot on.
Shamit I know lots of people who work for banks and the IMF and World Bank. ( i too went to lse) i understand all the reasons for individuals to do what they do – the point is they are keeping up (as we all do to various extents) imperialistic institutions. Until and unless they then go on use their learning and insider experience to challenge and critique these institutions – which does happen a lot – and is great – as that is what we need. People who have the experience and knowledge to see how these institutions need to be reformed.
After all, our entire economic system as it currently stands – is imperialistic. There is no global truly free market. And we all participate within this system. It is up to all of us to be aware of this – and take collective responsibility for it. ANd do something towards changing it. We can't if we don't see that we all contribute to keeping up the problem organisations, processes and activities. And that collective responsibility needs firstly – to acknowledge the systems and the problems within these systems and secondly – to work together collaboratively to resolve the problems.
Mind you, some people don't actually think there is a problem in having a few powerful, transnational institutions effectively regulating people to whom they are not accountable.
In which case – fair play. (I still think they should be honest about what they are doing – is regulation – simply not – national -regulation. Clever play on words though. De-regulate nationally and re-regulate globally.) If we are to have supranational global governance – then fine -(we do already of course but its not transparent, not very accountable, and what 'nation-state' you belong to pretty much sets your constraints) but let's talk about how we can make these processes democratic to a global community of individuals.
So just to make it clear – that I think the current system of international organisation (and hence politics) – is deeply imperialistic- and I'm talking about systemically.
'Empire' to me means keeping up the system of one little core group ruling over all the rest, and 'the rest' having very little input into their governance.
“calling for them to be boycotted”
Is saying that one university shouldn't twin with another the same as it should boycott it? Does that mean that all universities that LSE isn't twinned with are boycotted?
P.
Considering the dire reputation of British engineering, a link between a British University and Hamas U. is nothing much to worry about.
A link with a Japanese university would be far more worrying; if Hamas were mass-producing low-cost rockets each equipped with precision accuracy THEN we might choose to wet ourselves with worry.