| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
As I noted previously, the AUT, which is the leading British lecturer’s union, has approved a policy of boycotting Israeli universities. This blatant policy of intellectual repression has led to a revolt on the part of British academics. From Melanie Phillips:
The revolt against the Anglosphere’s jihad
Academics appalled at the AUT’s boycott of Israeli universities have hit upon an elegant and appropriate way to protest at this infamy. They are asking the AUT to add their names to those to be boycotted as a roll of honour. Thus Emanuele Ottolenghi of St Antony’s College, Oxford has sent a message to the AUT thus:
‘Regarding the AUT recent decision to boycott Haifa University and Bar Ilan University in Israel, I am shocked to learn that, in addition to a call for boycott, the AUT is ready to offer a waiver to scholars on condition that they publicly state their willingness to conform to the political orthodoxy espoused by the academics who sponsored your motion.
‘Oaths of political loyalty do not belong to academia. They belong to illiberal minds and repressive regimes. Based on this, the AUT’s definition of academic freedom is the freedom to agree with its views only. Given the circumstances, I wish to express in no uncertain terms my unconditional and undivided solidarity with both universities and their faculties. I know many people, both at Haifa University and at Bar Ilan University, of different political persuasion and from different walks of life. The diversity of those faculties reflects the authentic spirit of academia. The AUT invitation to boycott them betrays that spirit because it advocates a uniformity of views, under pain of boycott.
‘In solidarity with my colleagues and as a symbolic gesture to defend the spirit of a free academia, I wish to be added to the boycott blacklist. Please include me. I hope that other colleagues of all political persuasions will join me.’
This not only avoids the obvious ethical drawbacks of a counter-boycott, but if enough academics join in making such a request—particularly those with international reputations—this can seriously discommode the boycotters, along with exposing them to widening opprobrium and ridicule and creating a coalition of principled revulsion. Brilliant.
(Hat Tip to Georgette Gelbard.)
