Below is a statement from the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) opposing the proposed academic boycott of Israel at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU).
Our friends and colleagues at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim will soon be voting on whether to initiate a boycott of Israeli academic institutions. Faculty members in Norway have already spoken out eloquently and on point about the reasons to defeat this proposal. Because the decision has the potential to have an impact on debates at academic institutions in many other countries, we would like to join our many Norwegian counterparts who oppose the action.
Years ago the AAUP supported a comprehensive economic boycott of South Africa’s apartheid regime, but we have always opposed focused boycotts of academic institutions. As a number of Norwegian faculty members have pointed out, despite its problems, Israel has the best record of supporting academic freedom of any country in the area. Israeli academics exercise their academic freedom by both supporting and criticizing government policies. A boycott applying to Israeli faculty members thus paradoxically punishes some of the country’s most vocal critics.
But the AAUP’s policy against academic boycotts-detailed in our 2006 statement on the subject–is based on the still more fundamental principle that free discussion among all faculty members worldwide should be encouraged, not inhibited. Certainly those Norwegian faculty members already working on joint projects with Israeli colleagues should not have their academic freedom taken away from them. In the long run, more, not less, dialogue with Israeli faculty members is an important way to promote peace in the region.
Dear Board Members Arnstad and Reinersten,
As a US-based, Iranian-American law student and a strong supporter of a just and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I was dismayed to learn that the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) is considering a boycott of Israeli academics and academic institutions. Academic boycott proposals such as the one before the NTNU Board are often driven by anti-semitic biases, are counterproductive to the cause of peace in the Middle East, and stand in breach of the values of free inquiry and academic freedom.
Proposed academic boycotts of Israel have drawn criticism from scholars and students of conscience everywhere because they single out Israel for its alleged violations of international law. The boycotters — who purport to act in the name of universal values — ignore all of the other nations accused of committing human rights violations and choose to condemn Israel, the world’s only Jewish state. This singling out cannot but raise the red flag of anti-semitism to fair-minded observers of the Middle East. This is not to say that Israel is a perfect society or above criticism — no democracy is! But to subject Israel and only Israel to an academic boycott when elsewhere in the region women are regularly stoned to death for adultery and those who would choose to exercise their rights to free speech and assembly are murdered in cold blood should strike you as profoundly troubling.
Moreover, boycott efforts such as the one before you only end up alienating Israeli civil society and barring the kinds of cross-cultural and transnational exchanges that can otherwise serve to build common ground between divided peoples. Boycott proponents typically premise their arguments on the unsound assumption that Israeli civil society in general, and Israeli academics in particular, are in complete agreement with Israeli political leaders and policies. This assumption simply does not comport with the realities of an open and democratic Israel, which boasts fiercely independent academic institutions and benefits from strong traditions of academic dissent. The monolithic and unidimensional caricature of Israeli academics put forth by boycott proponents marginalizes and isolates those Israeli voices who speak out in favor of Jerusalem taking substantial steps towards a lasting peace.
Finally, the boycott proposals violate fundamental principles of academic freedom and open inquiry. As the American Association of University Professors put it in their statement opposing the NTNU proposal, “free discussion among all faculty members worldwide should be encouraged, not inhibited.” As a student, I would always want to hear both sides of a controversial issue. And I’m certain my Norwegian counterparts also appreciate the diversity of ideas and approaches. A boycott of Israeli academics will send the wrong message to your students and your academic community by suggesting that the best way to navigate a highly complex and difficult issue is to silence the other side.
For the above reasons, I urge you to vote against the boycott. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach back out to me.
Sincerely,
Sohrab Ahmari