More than a few captive organizations have forsaken integrity in their quest for ideological purity. Think ACLU and ABA. Now, it’s the AAUP, the American Association of University Professors. which reversed it principled position against academic boycotts. Emeritus Northeastern law prof Steven Lubet explains.
There was a time when the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) deserved its self-description as the “most prominent guardian of academic freedom” for faculty and students in the U.S. But not any longer.
Last month, the organization rescinded its longstanding opposition to academic boycotts, which it had previously recognized as aiming “directly at the free exchange of ideas,” in favor of a new policy declaring that such boycotts “can legitimately seek to protect and advance…academic freedom and fundamental rights.”
We were always at war with Eurasia, even if we weren’t before last month. What could possibly cause this wholesale reversal?
Although the revised AAUP statement does not mention Israel or Palestine, it is obvious that it came about in the context of the siege of Gaza and the intensified efforts of the boycott, divest, sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.
The AAUP leadership has admitted as much, saying the decision was made “in the context of what’s happening in Gaza and Israel.
The irony is that academic institutions “happen to be the most liberal, peace-oriented, and integrated institutions in the country.” Unsurprisingly, Israeli academics are no less victims of progressive ideology than American profs, and yet they are now pariahs in the academic world because of the country from which they come.
But isn’t this fair game given that, for those who sincerely believe that Israel is a settler colonial state, engaging in apartheid, in general, and genocide, in particular, any and all pressure should be put on anyone connected in any fashion with Israel to end its awfulness? You know, “by any means necessary” if the goal is so important that the means no longer matter?
The turnaround is a betrayal of academic values, which ideally comprise the “freedom of teachers and researchers to engage in work with academic colleagues” and “the freest possible international movement of scholars and ideas,” without political restraints.
The very purpose of an academic boycott, however, is to impose limitations on scholarly exchanges by placing certain institutions or faculty off-limits.
Much like free speech, the core of academic freedom is the protection of scholars and ideas that don’t enjoy widespread approval. Academics who come from beloved nations and express adored ideas don’t need the protection of academic freedom any more than people who exercise their First Amendment rights to say “puppies are cute” don’t need its protections.
The rationalization from within the academy is little more than turning the principle on its head.
But the facilitation of a political campaign, whatever its merits, cannot justify retreating from academic principles.
Defenders of the AAUP’s position claim that a boycott can actually “protect and advance” academic freedom by targeting only those nations or institutions “that themselves violate academic freedom or the fundamental rights upon which academic freedom depends.”
First of all, Tel Aviv University is neither in charge of the Israel Defense Force nor involved in decision-making with regard to Gaza. Whether you support Israel or Palestinians, there is absolutely no rational connection between the university and Netanyahu’s policies.
Second, this is little more than another flavor of censoring “hate speech,” where the woke powers of the AAUP have taken upon themselves the authority to decide which words are permitted and which are forbidden. Here, they’ve decided that Israel “violates academic freedom or the fundamental rights upon which academic freedom depends” because they’ve chosen to side against Israel, just like all the other cool kids on campus.
Regardless of what Israel does, in what way does this reflect on Tel Aviv University? It doesn’t. Instead, it seeks to hold Israeli universities and scholars culpable for what its nation does. Consider the Vietnam War, widely and, as history bore out, correctly condemned. Should that mean the American scholars should be boycotted?
Academics and students were at the forefront of opposing the Vietnam War, and yet if the AAUP rationalization made any sense, they would have been turned into pariahs. While there is nothing comparable about the Vietnam War and what’s happening in Gaza, the example nonetheless serves its purpose.
Academic freedom is often a difficult subject given that a not insignificant number of academcs, supposedly intelligent people, express some monumentally outrageous views, calling into question whether they should be allowed anywhere near students. And yet, the principle demands that they be free to hold outlier views without being penalized. After all, who is to say that today’s outlier view won’t prove to be the correct view at some point in the future. Granted, it may not, but since one never knows, we err on the side of academic freedom.
But once the AAUP, the putative guardians of academic freedom, have disavowed the principle they exist to defend, and have, instead, empowered universities and scholars to engage in the very sort of censorship they once abhorred, what’s left of either academic freedom or the AAUP? The answer, of course, is that nothing has changed with the principle of academic freedom, and it is still every bit as worthy of protection now as it was a month ago. What has changed is the AAUP, now captive to woke ideology that has undermined its reason to exist. Much like the ACLU and the ABA.
H/T Hal