-
assistance from faculty in Fiji and academic unions inNew
Zealand and Australia.
When the AAUP learned of the 2005 call for a boycott,the
Association’s staff promptly drafted, and Committee Aapproved, a
statement that condemned any such boycottsas prima facie violations
of academic freedom. The state-ment, cited at the beginning of this
report, singled outitem four of the call (which exempted dissenting
Israelifaculty) as an ideological test repugnant to our
princi-ples.3 While a meeting of an AUT Special Council votedto
drop its call for the boycott within a month’s time ofthe initial
decision and, therefore, no Israeli universitywas boycotted, we
have been urged to give fuller consid-eration to the broad and
unconditional nature of ourcondemnation of academic boycotts. We
are remindedthat our own complex history includes support for
cam-pus strikes, support for divestiture during the anti-apartheid
campaigns in South Africa, and a questioningof the requirement of
institutional neutrality during theVietnam War. In what follows we
engage with the ten-sions that exist within some of our own
policies as wellas with the larger tension between a principled
defense ofacademic freedom and the practical requirements for
ac-tion. Finally, we offer a set of guidelines to address
thosetensions.
AAUP PoliciesThe Association’s defense of academic freedom, as
ex-plained in the 1940 Statement of Principles on Acade-mic Freedom
and Tenure, rests on the principle that“institutions of higher
education are conducted for thecommon good . . . [which] depends
upon the free searchfor truth and its free exposition.” Although
the statementsays nothing about academic boycotts, plainly the
searchfor truth and its free expression suffer if a boycott is
inplace. Legitimate protest against violations of academicfreedom
might, of course, entail action that could beconstrued as
contradicting our principled defense of aca-demic freedom. One such
action is the Association’spractice of censuring college or
university administra-
tions, which dates back to the early 1930s. The Associa-tion is
careful to distinguish censure—which bringspublic attention to an
administration that has violatedthe organization’s principles and
standards—from aboycott, by leaving it to individuals to decide how
to acton the information they have been given. The AAUP en-gages in
no formal effort to discourage faculty fromworking at these
institutions or to ostracize the institu-tion and its members from
academic exchanges, as isthe case in AUT “greylisting”; but moral
suasion couldhave such results if faculty members were to decide
tohave no contact with an institution on the censure list.
AAUP censure differs from the AUT boycott in otherimportant
respects. Censure is preceded by an oftenlengthy effort to correct,
and an investigation to docu-ment, violations of AAUP policies
essential to academicfreedom and tenure. Censure does not rest on a
findingin regard to “member interests.” Indeed, it is not re-quired
that faculty be AAUP members in order to havetheir complaints
pursued by the organization. This is notto say, however, that the
AAUP supports no practices thatcorrespond to the AUT boycott
undertaken in the inter-ests of its members. Under AAUP policy,
chapters that en-gage in collective bargaining can participate in a
strike.Moreover, while AAUP policy states that strikes and
othersuch actions are “not desirable for the resolution of
con-flicts within institutions of higher education,” it alsostates
that in certain cases “resort to economic pressurethrough strikes
or other work actions may be a necessaryand unavoidable means of
dispute resolution.”4 A strikeis an economic boycott (we will
distinguish among typesof boycotts below), but it often involves
pressures that arenot exclusively economic, such as the local
facultyunion’s asking outside speakers not to come to a
campusduring a strike or the refusal of faculty elsewhere to
at-tend conferences held on a campus where a strike is inprocess.
So, while the AAUP insists on action that con-forms to its
principles, practical issues sometimes pro-duce dilemmas that must
be addressed.
AAUP HistoryIn 1970, the AAUP published two conflicting
commen-taries on institutional neutrality; there followed an
in-tense debate on the subject.5 The context was the war inVietnam,
and the question was whether universitiesshould take a position on
the war. One side, by far themajority, argued that all ideas had to
be tolerated withinthe academy, lest the university “become an
instrument
R e p o r t
WWW.AAUP.ORGSEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2006
40
3. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
CulturalOrganization (UNESCO) advances the same principle asthe
AAUP: “[H]igher-education teaching personnel shouldbe enabled
throughout their careers to participate in inter-national
gatherings on higher education or research, [and]to travel abroad
without political restrictions. . . . [They]are entitled to the
maintaining of academic freedom, thatis to say, the right, without
constriction by prescribed doc-trine, to freedom of teaching and
discussion, [and] freedomin carrying out research and disseminating
and publishingthe results thereof.” UNESCO,
RecommendationsConcerning the Status of Higher-Education
TeachingPersonnel (November 11, 1997).
4. AAUP, “Statement on Collective Bargaining,” PolicyDocuments
and Reports, 9th ed. (Washington, D.C.,2001), 252.5. See AAUP
Bulletin 56 (Spring 1970): 11–13; (Summer1970): 123–29, 257; (Fall
1970): 346–47.
-
of indoctrination,” and that therefore a university shouldnot
take a position on disputed public issues. The otherside asked
whether “perilous situations” called for ex-traordinary action: “It
might be worthwhile to debatejust how bad things would have to get
before the princi-ple of academic neutrality were no longer
absolute.”While this discussion about institutional neutrality led
tono policy recommendation, it raised issues that havesince
surfaced in discussions about academic boycotts.Are there
extraordinary situations in which extraordi-nary actions are
necessary, and, if so, how does one rec-ognize them? How should
supporters of academic free-dom have treated German universities
under the Nazis?Should scholarly exchange have been encouraged
withHitler’s collaborators in those universities? Can one
plau-sibly maintain that academic freedom is inviolate whenthe
civil freedoms of the larger society have been abro-gated? If there
is no objective test for determining whatconstitutes an
extraordinary situation, as there surely isnot, then what criteria
should guide decisions aboutwhether a boycott should be
supported?
In 1985, the AAUP’s Seventy-first Annual Meetingcalled on
colleges and universities “as investors to op-pose apartheid,” to
“decline to hold securities in bankswhich provide loans to the
government of SouthAfrica,” and to favor divestiture of holdings in
compa-nies that did not adhere to the Sullivan principles.
Themeeting also urged similar action on the part of publicand
private pension funds serving higher educationfaculty.6 Three years
later, the Association’s Seventy-fourth Annual Meeting urged
TIAA-CREF to divest itself“of all companies doing business” in
South Africa.7 Al-though the resolutions did not apply to
exchangesamong faculty and, in this sense, did not constitute
anacademic boycott, some argued at the time that the in-direct
effect of disinvestment would be harmful to uni-versity teachers
and researchers. Some individuals,publishers (University
Microfilms), and organizations(the American Library Association,
for example) didengage in an academic boycott, but the AAUP
limitedits protests against apartheid to resolutions of
condem-nation and to divestment, because it was consideredwiser to
keep open lines of communication amongscholars in accordance with
principles of academicfreedom.
Throughout its history, the AAUP has approved nu-merous
resolutions condemning regimes and institu-tions that limit the
freedoms of citizens and faculty, butSouth Africa is the only
instance in which the organiza-tion endorsed some form of boycott.
Indeed, the Associa-tion has often called for greater freedom of
exchangeamong teachers and researchers at the very time that
theU.S. government has imposed restrictions on these ex-changes, as
occurred with the Soviet Union and is stilloccurring with Cuba. The
Association has also disputedarguments of various administrations
in Washingtonthat the requirements of national security justify
haltingacademic travel for bona fide academic reasons or schol-arly
communications.
BoycottsThough often based on assertions of fundamental
prin-ciple, boycotts are not in themselves matters of principlebut
tactical weapons in political struggles. Differentkinds of boycotts
can have different results. Economicboycotts can have a direct
effect on a nation’s economy;other forms of boycott are usually
more symbolic. This isthe case with sports boycotts, such as the
exclusion frominternational competitions (the Olympics, for
example)of a team that carries the flag of a nation whose
policiesmembers of the international community consider ab-horrent.
Cultural boycotts have a similar status, thoughthey can affect the
earning capacity of artists and writerswho are banned from
international events. Academicboycotts, too, although they
certainly have material ef-fects, are usually undertaken as
symbolic protests.
In protesting against apartheid in South Africa, theAAUP
carefully distinguished between economic and ac-ademic boycotts
largely on matters of principle. Eco-nomic boycotts seek to bring
pressure to bear on theregime responsible for violations of rights.
They are notmeant to impair the ability of scholars to write,
teach,and pursue research, although they may have that re-sult.
Academic boycotts, in contrast, strike directly at thefree exchange
of ideas even as they are aimed at univer-sity administrations or,
in the case of the AUT call for aboycott of Israeli universities,
political parties in power.The form that noncooperation with an
academic institu-tion takes inevitably involves a refusal to engage
in aca-demic discourse with teachers and researchers, not all
ofwhom are complicit in the policies that are beingprotested.
Moreover, an academic boycott can compounda regime’s suppression of
freedoms by cutting off con-tacts with an institution’s or a
country’s academics. Inaddition, the academic boycott is usually at
least onceremoved from the real target. Rarely are individuals
oreven individual institutions the issue. What is beingsought is a
change in state policy. The issue, then, iswhether those faculty or
ideas that could contribute to
R e p o r t
WWW.AAUP.ORG SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2006
41
6. Academe: Bulletin of the AAUP 71 ( July–August 1985):4. In
1977, the Rev. Leon Sullivan initiated a program topersuade
companies in the United States with investmentsin South Africa to
treat African employees as they wouldtheir American counterparts.
The program included severalspecific courses of action, or
principles, for the companiesto follow.7. Academe: Bulletin of the
AAUP 74 ( July–August 1988): 6.
-
changing state policy are harmed when communicationwith outside
academic institutions is cut off and how toweigh that harm against
the possible political gains thepressure of an academic boycott
might secure.
This issue divided opponents of apartheid withinSouth Africa.
There, in the 1980s, many liberal academ-ics argued against the
academic boycott on principledgrounds (it could not be reconciled
with principles of ac-ademic freedom and university autonomy) and
also onpractical ones (it was vital to maintain channels of
in-ternational communication). Even more radical groupsopposed a
total boycott and urged instead a selective boy-cott, one that
would target supporters of apartheid butnot its challengers. This
position, like the Palestiniancall for an academic boycott that the
AUT initially en-dorsed, introduced a political test for
participation in theacademy.
The Academic Boycott as a TacticAddressing the African National
Congress, Nelson Man-dela stressed the need to choose tactics
carefully. “Insome cases,” he wrote, “it might be correct to
boycott,and in others it might be unwise and dangerous. In
stillother cases another weapon of political struggle mightbe
preferred. A demonstration, a protest march, a strike,or civil
disobedience might be resorted to, all dependingon the actual
conditions at the given time.”8
Even from a tactical standpoint, as a way of protestingagainst
what some see as the Israeli occupation’s denialof rights to
Palestinians, the academic boycott seems aweak or even a dangerous
tool. It undermines exactly thefreedoms one wants to defend, and it
takes aim at thewrong target. Defenders of the Palestinian call for
an ac-ademic boycott have argued that, as in South Africa,
“themarch to freedom [may] temporarily restrict a subset offreedom
enjoyed by only a portion of the population.”9
But this argument assumes that the ranking of freedomsas primary
and secondary is the only way to accomplishthe goals of “freedom,
justice, and peace” and that theacademic boycott is the best or the
only tool to employ.Some argue that it is appropriate to boycott
those institu-tions that violate academic freedom. But would we
wish,for example, to recommend a boycott of Chinese univer-sities
that we know constrain academic freedom, orwould we not insist that
the continued exchange of fac-ulty, students, and ideas is more
conducive to academicfreedom in the long run? Other kinds of
sanctions andprotests ought to be considered. Some of them are
listedin the Palestinian call we cited at the beginning of this
report, such as resolutions by higher education organi-zations
condemning violations of academic freedomwhether they occur
directly by state or administrativesuppression of opposing points
of view or indirectly bycreating material conditions, such as
blockades, check-points, and insufficient funding of Palestinian
universi-ties, that make the realization of academic freedom
im-possible. These and similar actions may be more effectivein
obtaining better conditions for academic freedom. Butif boycotts
are to be used at all, economic boycotts seema preferable choice,
both tactically and as a matter ofprinciple.
Colleges and universities should be what they purportto be:
institutions committed to the search for truth andits free
expression. Members of the academic communityshould feel no
obligation to support or contribute to in-stitutions that are not
free or that sail under false colors,that is, claim to be free but
in fact suppress freedom.Such institutions should not be boycotted.
Rather, theyshould be exposed for what they are, and,
whereverpossible, the continued exchange of ideas should beactively
encouraged. The need is always for more aca-demic freedom, not
less.
Summary and Recommendations1. In view of the Association’s
long-standing commit-
ment to the free exchange of ideas, we oppose
academicboycotts.
2. On the same grounds, we recommend that other ac-ademic
associations oppose academic boycotts. We urgethat they seek
alternative means, less inimical to theprinciple of academic
freedom, to pursue their concerns.
3. We especially oppose selective academic boycottsthat entail
an ideological litmus test. We understand thatsuch selective
boycotts may be intended to preserve aca-demic exchange with those
more open to the views ofboycott proponents, but we cannot endorse
the use of po-litical or religious views as a test of eligibility
for partici-pation in the academic community.
4. The Association recognizes the right of individualfaculty
members or groups of academics not to cooperatewith other
individual faculty members or academic in-stitutions with whom or
with which they disagree. We be-lieve, however, that when such
noncooperation takes theform of a systematic academic boycott, it
threatens theprinciples of free expression and communication
onwhich we collectively depend.
5. Consistent with our long-standing principles andpractice, we
consider other forms of protest, such as theadoption of resolutions
of condemnation by higher edu-cation groups intended to publicize
documented threatsto or violations of academic freedom at offending
insti-tutions, to be entirely appropriate.
R e p o r t
WWW.AAUP.ORGSEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2006
428. Nelson Mandela, No Easy Walk to Freedom (London:Heinemann
Educational, 1990), 63.9. Omar Barghouti and Lisa Taraki in
PalestineChronicle.com.
-
6. Recognizing the existence of shared concerns,higher education
groups should collaborate as fully aspossible with each other to
advance the interests of theentire academic community in addressing
academicfreedom issues. Such collaboration might include
jointstatements to bring to the attention of the academiccommunity
and the public at large grave threats to aca-demic freedom.
7. The Association recognizes the right of facultymembers to
conduct economic strikes and to urge othersto support their cause.
We believe, however, that in eachinstance those engaged in a strike
at an academic insti-tution should seek to minimize the impact of
the strikeon academic freedom.
8. We understand that threats to or infringements ofacademic
freedom may occasionally seem so dire as torequire compromising
basic precepts of academic free-dom, but we resist the argument
that extraordinary cir-cumstances should be the basis for limiting
our funda-mental commitment to the free exchange of ideas andtheir
free expression. ¨
JOAN WALLACH SCOTT (History), Institute for AdvancedStudy,
chairERNST BENJAMIN (Political Science), Washington, D.C.ROBERT M.
O’NEIL (Law), University of VirginiaJONATHAN KNIGHT, staff
Subcommittee of Committee A on Academic Freedomand Tenure
R e p o r t
WWW.AAUP.ORG SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2006
43
On-Academic-Boycotts-1boycotts
