A few developments in recent days could reasonably lead one to conclude that, come Thursday, the Board of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) will vote against the proposal for a blanket boycott of Israeli academia, culture and research. Perhaps most significantly, as relayed by the indispensable NIJ blog, Norwegian Minister of Higher Education and Research Tora Aasland, a member of the Socialist Left Party, “sees a boycott as a violation of legal practice.”
As a sop to the Israel-bashers, Aasland added that NTNU had the “right” to hold seminars on the Middle East - a reference to a recent series of six discussions featuring such luminaries as Stephen Walt, Ilan Pappe and Moshe Zuckermann. As NIJ points out, no-one has ever attacked this right.
Aasland’s decision to declare her opposition led Ådne Cappelen, a Norwegian research economist and NTNU Board Member, to affirm in writing to a British academic that a boycott was simply not feasible. “Your first argument for not supporting a boycott is identical to the view of the Minister for Education expressed in this morning’s edition of Aftenposten,” Cappelen wrote. “A board at a Norwegian university cannot (and should not) interfere with the choice of research partners because that would amount to interfering with the academic freedom of the academic staff. That is outside the mandate of the board. So the conclusion is quite obvious. The board simply cannot decide on a boycott. If we did I suppose the minister would simply sack us (or those of us who are external representatives which she has appointed).”
However, the Dean of NTNU, Jon Øivind Eriksen, disagrees. A boycott, he says, would in fact be consistent with government policy, given the decision earlier this year to divest Norway’s huge global pension-fund portfolio from the Israeli company Elbit Systems. His colleague Professor Astrid Lægreid concurs. So what are we to conclude?
Given that this all comes down to the votes of twelve Board members, that it’s not over yet. Comments NIJ: “Rector Digernes has stated that he is against a boycott. Mr. Ådne Cappelen has likewise, in an email to Professor Leslie Wagner of Oxford University, stated that he is against a boycott. Chairwoman Marit Arnstad has said no to boycott. Karin Röding has said the same. That makes four nays. In addition to this we have Minister Aasland’s rather lukewarm resistance of a boycott. Seeing as how there are twelve members of the board, NTNU might still actually determine to boycott Israel.”
Should I have expected a response to my e-mail? Cause I haven’t gotten one.
I hope that in their support of a boycott against Israel, Jon Øivind Eriksen and Astrid Lægreid, will never again make use of or buy any product produced by Jews anywhere in the world now or in the past. I think they should make a special point of boycotting any medical or educational product that will benefit their children, themselves and other people dear to them. If they have already vaccinated their children against polio or have used any product made by Jews, they should admit their hypocrisy and vow never again to make such an error.
Well, what NIJ seems to forget is that the Rector doesn’t have a vote in the Board of NTNU. (He is appointed by the board, and just presents cases for the board, when NTNU changed from having an elected, to a hired/appointed rector, they at the same time got a separate chairman of the board.)
As for Mirla G. Raz: I think you misunderstand. The boycott proposal is against Israels universities, not Jews in general. How can it be hypocritical to use medicines an American Jew at a french university have developed, even if one supports a boycott of Israel?
E. S. “As for Mirla G. Raz: I think you misunderstand. The boycott proposal is against Israels universities, not Jews in general. How can it be hypocritical to use medicines an American Jew at a french university have developed, even if one supports a boycott of Israel?”
It’s not that simple, E.S. that hypothetical American Jewish doctor who worked in the French university may (I would say probably has) associations with Israeli medical doctors. So you see every Norwegian or even European who wants to honor the boycott of Israeli medicine or other products is going to have to research the background of every Jew in the world to make sure they are not involved with Israel.
This what the Arab boycotters have been doing for years. Not that it has helped their economies any.
Moreover, you may not know this but there is a law in the US that makes it illegal to boycott Israel. I am sure many Norwegian companies who also do business in the US will not want to jeopardize their standing in the US.
E.S.
Because the boycotters single out Israel for alleged human rights violations. They do not call for boycotts of Sudan, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or any number of other serious human rights violators. The singling out is hypocritical because it targets the world’s only Jewish state. So if the boycotters really want to be consistent about it, they should also boycott all things Jewish period, since they chosen to single out the world’s only Jewish state for a boycott.
Well, The boycotters might be of the opinion that you can hold a democratic, western, friendly state to a higher standard than you expect by a dysfunctional hellhole like Sudan? And that Israel, unlike say China, can be reasoned with.
And You seem to forget the wording of the proposal, which by the way was rejected unanimously, just as expected, said to boycott Israeli universities and the staff associated with those, not jewish scientics who works in other parts of the world. And as all boycotts it’s effect would be symbolic. As you said, unless you boycott everyone who deal with Israel the real effect would be minimal. And as the former vice dean said, she was a supporter for a boycott, but would not dream of asking the staff not to have any contact with Israel, just that NTNU should refrain from public connections and ventures with Israeli universities.
“Well, The boycotters might be of the opinion that you can hold a democratic, western, friendly state to a higher standard than you expect by a dysfunctional hellhole like Sudan? And that Israel, unlike say China, can be reasoned with.”
Okay, the U.S. has been roundly condemned by human rights organizations and others for unlawful detentions and violations of the Geneva conventions - why won’t the boycotters seek to boycott the U.S., the world’s leading liberal democracy?
Well E.S. gave up…
Well, The US has a record for blindly ignoring any form of friendly critics, just look at how France was demonized when the mentioned that attacking Iraq due to a terrorist attack made by mainly Saudi-Arabians was not perhaps the smartest plan in the world.
Regardless, Norway’s foreign minister regularly make formal complaints to the US about the use of capital punishment for instance, and the government pension fund have blackballed more US companies, than the rest of the world combined. So your choice of example was wrong.
Hopefully Obama is more open for influence by foreign powers, and will make an effort to change the image the US have acquired under the Bush II “administration”. The Nobel Peace Prize committee seems to think so anyway.
seems ganselmi didn’t have a comeback?
Excuse me E.S., I just got back from a screening of Bresson’s “Pickpocket” and an amazing brunch. Now here goes…
Your answer was still an evasion, so I will reword: why won’t the specific proponents of these boycotts (and yes, they are pretty much a cohesive movement and group) ever propose targeted boycotts of American academics and universities?
As I mentioned earlier in another thread. Several attempts to start a boycott of US products and Universities with links to the armaments industry in the US have been proposed at the Universities of Oslo and Bergen, neither got reached the board, but in Oslo all student community shops and kiosks are to supply a non-US choice for their products. (I.e. Fair-Trade Ubuntu Cola along side Coca Cola, Japanese computers along side American etc.
The National Student Union also have passed resolutions against Burma, Indonesia, China and Bielo-Russia. And student-owned/controlled traveling agencies do not sell trips to the former. Israel is waaay down the list of nations for most Norwegians, including the majority of the student populous. In fact, as I mentioned on my Blog, when I was the Leader of the Student welfare council in Trondheim, we, the students, _removed_ an older boycott on Israeli foodstuffs in student owned businesses. As we felt it was something each individual should be allowed to decide for him self.
People, keep debating. but do it on this post: http://blog.z-word.com/2009/11/ntnu-rejects-boycott/
Let’s not have two different threads discussing the same thing. This is a rare example of a decent debate in the Z Word comments - so let’s ensure our readers benefit from it!