[News] The ivory tower behind the Apartheid Wall
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Wed Jul 25 17:08:45 EDT 2007
The ivory tower behind the Apartheid Wall
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article7124.shtml
Margaret Aziza Pappano, The Electronic Intifada, 25 July 2007
[]
Palestinian teachers and students at a UN school in Gaza protest
against Israeli airstrikes on the previous day (8 November 2006)
which killed 18 Palestinians, mostly women and children, in Beit
Hanoun, Gaza. Israel's use of 'collective punishment' are one of the
reasons given by Britain's University and College Union for a boycott
against Israeli academic institutions. (Hatem
Omar/<http://maanimages.com>MaanImages)
In the last few weeks, university presidents across the US and Canada
have rushed to issue statements about the proposed boycott of Israeli
academic institutions by the British University and College Union.
They view this boycott as a serious violation of academic freedom.
Yet, given the general failure of these leaders to comment on any
number of infringements of academic freedom that have occurred in
recent years, including those close to home in the form of the
politically-motivated denial of tenure to Norman Finkelstein and the
colleague, Mehrene Larudee, who very publicly supported him, the
harassment of Columbia University professors Joseph Massad and Rashid
Khalidi, and the intimidation of faculty by Campuswatch, one might be
excused for concluding that university presidents prefer to remain
above the political fray and reserve their office for grave and
important but non-controversial pronouncements on tsunamis. But now,
even in the midst of the hot and hazy summer recess, university
presidents have mobilized their most imposing academic rhetoric in
expressing solidarity with Israeli academics and upholding the rights
of all to engage in "an open exchange of ideas" and "freedom of association."
What is perhaps most perplexing about this trend is its entirely
virtual nature, for in fact no one's freedom has been violated by the
boycott yet under discussion. Nevertheless, university presidents are
preparing in advance for what could be an "attack ... [on] all
universities at their core mission" (Gilles Patry, University of
Ottawa) and a "threat ... [to] the moral foundation of each and every
university" (Amy Guttman, University of Pennsylvania). [1] University
of Virginia President John Casteen compares the proposed boycott to
"the conduct of the most vicious political movements and governments
of the 20th century." Yet, surely they must realize that Palestinians
have for many decades suffered a multitude of assaults on their
universities and schools by the Israeli occupying forces. Surely if
university presidents are up in arms over a proposed boycott of
Israeli academics, they must have something to say about the shutting
down of universities, jailing and shooting of students and faculty,
daily impeding of students and faculty from getting to classes,
denial of student permits to attend universities, and revoking of
visas to visiting scholars and researchers that characterizes
academic life in Palestine. If a boycott of academic institutions is
considered unfair, what does one call the methodical destruction of
an educational system? If Patry warns about potential "acts of
exclusion" against Israeli academics, isn't he concerned that right
now, as we speak, all but a handful of Palestinian students are
excluded from Israeli institutions and that even within Palestine,
the Israelis exclude Palestinian students from their own universities
by refusing to issue them the necessary travel permits? Might he see
the deportation and nineteen-year exile of his colleague, Birzeit
University president Hanna Nasir, as an "act of exclusion"? My own
university principal, Karen Hitchcock, is committed to "defend the
freedom of individuals to study, teach and carry out research without
fear of harassment, intimidation, or discrimination." Do these
"individuals" include Palestinians, one wonders? If so, is she
prepared to address the erection of checkpoints outside of
universities, such as the one outside of Birzeit that resulted in a
20-40 percent reduction in class attendance in 2001 according to
Human Rights Watch? The philosopher and critic Judith Butler argues,
"If the exercise of academic freedom ceases or is actively thwarted,
that freedom is lost, which is why checkpoints are and should be an
issue for anyone who defends a notion of academic freedom." [2]
It is important to realize that the British UCU is targeting Israeli
academic institutions (and not individuals) not only because they are
linked to the same profession but also because of the place of
universities in Israeli society. Israeli universities, far from being
sites of dissidence and resistance to their government's
discriminatory and violent policies, are themselves guilty of human
rights abuses. Bar-Ilan University founded a branch in Ariel, an
illegal settlement in the West Bank, making it directly complicit in
a continued colonialist expansion project. Hebrew University has a
long and deleterious history of appropriating Palestinian land. In
1968, in opposition to a UN resolution, the university evicted
hundreds of Palestinian families to expand their campus in East
Jerusalem. This history of confiscation continues, as October 2004
saw more evictions of Palestinian families and destruction of their
homes for another campus expansion. Israeli faculties collaborate
with intelligence services, using their academic expertise to devise
sophisticated "interrogation" methods for the Israeli military. And
Israeli academics themselves serve in the military as reservists,
often in the occupied territories. The British UCU's position is
ultimately designed to encourage Israeli academics to do something
about the complicity of their universities in the illegal occupation.
Rather than merely showcase inflated rhetoric and verbally denounce
the British UCU's boycott, a few university presidents are prepared
to go further. In her statement, Karen Hitchcock threatens to add
Queen's to the UCU's "boycott list." Modeling her position after
Columbia University President Lee Bollinger, ironically a First
Amendment scholar, Hitchcock is referring to the petition initiated
by Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz that enjoins academics to
sign on to consider themselves as honorary Israelis and ask also to
be boycotted by the UCU. University of California-Berkeley Chancellor
Robert Birgeneau and McGill University Principal Heather Munroe-Blum
express similar sentiments in their statements, declaring that should
the British UCU choose to boycott Israeli institutions, they should
also boycott Berkeley and McGill as well.
When these university presidents challenge the UCU to boycott them in
their statements, they indicate that Columbia, Berkeley, McGill and
Queen's academics wish to be boycotted along with their Israeli
counterparts because they think that such boycotts are wrong. One
suspects that there may be faculty, staff, and students at these
schools who do not want to be considered honorary Israelis and be
boycotted by British universities. Is it within the proper purview of
a university's president to make unilateral pronouncements that have
such potentially significant consequences for the intellectual
welfare of its members? What sort of academic freedom is this if a
president has the power to make such decisions for his/her faculty,
students, and staff? While there may be many at these universities
who welcome such a position, in principle one cannot and should not
support it. I believe that it is itself an infringement of academic freedom.
Indeed, for all their professed commitment to "the exchange of
knowledge and ideas" (Munroe-Blum) "scholarly understanding and free
academic exchange and expression" (Patry), "open inquiry and exchange
of ideas" (John Casteen, University of Virginia), "free and
unfettered debate" (David Skorton, Cornell University), none amongst
this cadre of university presidents seems the least bit concerned
with providing the type of open debate on this issue that is
purportedly the very hallmark of their institutions. Sadly, it seems
that these presidents in fact are rushing to issue statements
precisely in order to pre-empt such debate on their campuses. Were
these university presidents really committed to their stated
positions on intellectual exchange, would they not organize or at
least foster a discussion of the issues amongst their constituencies
that would examine the motivations behind the proposed boycott? Or
are they rushing to stifle debate because they are afraid to be
involved in a potentially controversial set of issues? When there has
been no open discussion of these issues on campus, what sort of
example is set by these statements from on high? I do hope that they
will have a "free and unfettered debate" at Cornell. Let the fetters fly!
I suspect, however, that this spate of statements does not bode well
for what Casteen calls the university's "unique capacity to serve the
public good." It seems that a dangerous precedent has been set in
which university presidents recently have taken on the customary role
of politicians and accepted politically organized and motivated tours
to Israel. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that seven
university presidents from the US visited Israel in early July in a
campaign designed "to explain Israel's policies to the leaders of US
academic institutions and to strengthen scientific collaboration
between the two countries."[ 3] In addition to meeting with the
educational minister and academic leaders, the university presidents
also met with "military experts." Presumably they did not exchange
views on Aristotle with the Israeli generals. While we are now
accustomed to our elected officials participating in such tours, the
university is, I agree with Casteen (a member of the delegation to
Israel), supposed to serve the public in a unique way. While I'm not
saying that some educational purpose and "free exchange of ideas" did
not occur during the presidents' visit, I remain stumped by the
meeting with the Israeli military. The Haaretz correspondent, Tamara
Traubmann, pinpoints a political agenda in the timing of the trip,
writing that "The visit takes place amid attempts to impose an
academic boycott of Israel and controversy over Israel on US campuses
between the right and the left." If this trip was designed to target
university presidents in an attempt to pre-empt debate on campus,
then we must ask whether the universities have succumbed, in
Bollinger's ominous phrase, to "politically biased attempts to hijack
the central mission of higher education."
The university presidents might argue that they are prepared to
defend the rights of any group, not just Israelis, to academic
freedom. As Tom Traves, President of Dalhousie writes in his
statement, "Universities do not have foreign policies and they must
assert their right always to be independent of government dictates in
the name of short-term political agendas." Yet, when university
presidents have allowed numerous violations of academic freedom to
Palestinians to pass without comment, they must realize that their
statements, rather than "defending the freedom of individuals" as
they claim, function precisely as politicized pronouncements in
support of the Israeli regime. You cannot let decades of gross
injustices to one side pass and then suddenly leap to the defense of
the other side without implicating yourself in a political position.
It strikes me as particularly unfortunate, though given the recent
mistreatment of Middle East Studies professor Joseph Massad, not
unexpected, that Columbia's president should be leading the charge.
In 1968, as Hebrew University busied itself in confiscating
Palestinian land in East Jerusalem, on the west side of Manhattan,
Columbia University was doing something similar. In April of that
year, Columbia broke ground in Morningside Park, a neighborhood park
adjacent to its main campus, in order to build a gym. The
neighborhood outcry was immense and students immediately organized to
stop what they saw as an arrogant appropriation of neighborhood space
for largely private use. A long protest followed, which though at
first violently suppressed by police, was ultimately effective in
achieving its goal. The plan for the gym was abandoned and the
students' demand for Columbia to sever ties with the Institute of
Defense Analysis was also met, a step that surely allowed its
scientists to work with greater "openness" and "free exchange of
ideas." This was a galvanizing event in Columbia's history and the
effectiveness of the protest and ultimate good it achieved in
respecting the neighborhood's rights and highlighting the complexity
of the racial relations of its residents with the university is now
told as a proud moment in Columbia history and nicely archived on its
website. This is a history Bollinger and others might learn from, for
institutions do need motivation to move forward and transcend their
sometimes less-than-illustrious pasts. Supporting a boycott of a
university can help those dissidents within the university more
effectively work towards change, for the wish to make a favorable
impression in the world has frequently served as a catalyst for
positive transformation. World opinion was absolutely central to
pressuring the US government during the Civil Rights era and to
dismantling Apartheid in South Africa. Since the boycott is aimed at
institutions not individuals, rather than isolating Israeli
academics, the boycott could provide a sort of support to those
academics who wish to reform their universities.
There are other tactics aside from a boycott open to us as academics
for addressing the suffering of Palestinians in the occupied
territories. A university community might well decide upon a
different strategy. Recently New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman
suggested that universities would do better to educate Palestinian
students, establish exchanges, and send faculty to teach in
Palestinian universities. I think that these are great ideas and hope
that Israel will agree with Friedman and no longer refuse to issue or
arbitrarily revoke visas of visiting faculty and prevent Palestinian
students and academics from attending meetings abroad. I am certain
that "an open exchange of ideas" on university campuses will lead to
a lot of different and creative suggestions for considering how we,
as academics, can contribute towards improving the plight of our
Palestinian colleagues and supporting our Israeli colleagues in doing
the same. But let's not condemn the boycott out of hand before that
discussion has taken place.
To this end, I have created a petition at my university to ask the
principal to retract her statement and support the organization of a
forum to discuss the issues relating to the proposed boycott. This is
the very least that a university should do. I urge my colleagues at
other universities to do likewise.
Endnotes
[1] All quotations from university presidents, principals,
chancellors, etc. that I cite are taken from their statements posted
on their university websites.
[2] "Israel/Palestine and the paradoxes of academic freedom," Judith
Butler, Radical Philosophy 135, January/February 2006, p. 11.
[3] "U.S. university presidents visit Israel to strengthen academic
ties," Tamara Traubmann, Haaretz, 3 July 2007.
Margaret Aziza Pappano is an Associate Professor of English at
Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario; her specialty is medieval
literature. In 2006 she visited the West Bank as part of the
institute, "Connecting Dearborn and Jerusalem," sponsored by the
Center for Arab American Studies at the University of Michigan-Dearborn.
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863-9977
www.Freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20070725/5c625e16/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list