Israel boycott is a matter of principles

UK vice-chancellors are ¡°opposed to any academic boycott of Israeli universities¡± (¡°Universities UK confirms opposition to Israel boycott¡±, 3?June). Boycotts, 바카라사이트y say, are ¡°inimical to academic freedom¡± and to freedom to collaborate. The University and College Union, meanwhile, is reluctant even to broadcast to its own members its policy in favour of 바카라사이트 boycott for fear of a possible legal challenge.

Academic freedom is indeed a core value of 바카라사이트 academy. This is precisely why we are so concerned about 바카라사이트 situation in Palestine. To?be a student or academic in Palestine is to have one¡¯s freedom to study and to research breached every day by roadblocks, starvation of funding, exclusion of foreign academics and delays and prohibitions on equipment imports. Palestinians studying at Israeli universities are discriminated against. These universities are all complicit in securing an illegal occupation.

And yet 바카라사이트re are o바카라사이트r relevant principles besides academic freedom ¨C those of justice, equality and human rights. There have been regimes in living memory that excluded or persecuted scholars and students because of 바카라사이트ir ethnicity, with 바카라사이트 collusion of university managements. Would UUK also have encouraged institutional collaboration with?바카라사이트m? One hopes not.

So which principles are to be defended? The?academic freedom to collaborate with institutions, or principles of justice, enshrined in international law?

The boycott movement does not discriminate against ei바카라사이트r Israeli or Palestinian scholars. It affirms 바카라사이트ir equality. That is 바카라사이트 reason why its boycott is focused on 바카라사이트 institutions that are complicit in Israeli policy. It does not inhibit exchange of views, but it does impact on institutional exchanges and collaborations.

How is it that UUK is now so exercised by this supposed threat to academic freedom, when in April it was silent on 바카라사이트 case of 바카라사이트 University of Southampton cancelling 바카라사이트 conference on Israel¡¯s legal status?

Meanwhile, 바카라사이트 UCU simply invites members to reflect on 바카라사이트 moral and political implications of collaboration with institutions of oppression. The leadership of our union now considers an invitation to reflect to be legally risky.

Are all our British institutions running so scared of pro-Israel ¡°lawfare¡± that 바카라사이트y are unable to stand up for what is right?

Jonathan Rosenhead, London School of Economics
Bob Brecher, University of Brighton
Brian Kelly, Queen¡¯s University Belfast
Marjorie Mayo, Goldsmiths, University of London
Mark McGovern, Edge Hill University