Academic Apartheid

[Mycroft]

Lecturers may boycott Israeli academics

Israeli academics who refuse to condemn their government's actions in the occupied territories risk a boycott by the UK's leading lecturers' union.

The Association of University Teachers' annual council, which begins on April 20 in Eastbourne, will also debate whether to boycott three of Israel's eight universities - Haifa University, Bar Ilan University and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem - over their alleged complicity with the government's policies on the Palestinian territories.

The union voted against an academic boycott policy two years ago, but campaigners believe the motions are more likely to be passed this year.

This is so against the principles of academic free expression. Certainly it's one thing to disagree with the policies of a government, it's quite another to insist that citizens of that government repudiate those same policies before they are allowed to freely practice their trade.

The new boycott motion contains a clause to exclude "conscientious Israeli academics and intellectuals opposed to their state's colonial and racist policies".

And in Orwellian fashion, they will be allowed freedom of speech so long as it's correct speech.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1452239,00.html

 

[TragicMonkey]

Smacks of the days when professors were asked to affirm they were against Communism. And before that, that they believed in God. And before that, that they weren't Roman Catholic.

Why do people insist on dragging politics into everything?

I'm betting the proponents of this are the sort of people who would walk out of a dinner party if they found a fellow guest had a contrary political opinion, or would refuse to date someone who voted for the other candidate.

 

[Mycroft]

Smacks of the days when professors were asked to affirm they were against Communism. And before that, that they believed in God. And before that, that they weren't Roman Catholic.

Both my Mom and Dad (both public school teachers) had to do that back in the day.

I never heard about the Roman Catholic thing, but my grandmother is old enough (and was also a public school teacher) to say that when she was teaching there was concern about her being a married woman (and thus familiar with the pleasures of sex).

I'm betting the proponents of this idea are the same people that support the academic freedom of the Ward Churchill types.

 

[Bjorn]

I'm betting the proponents of this idea are the same people that support the academic freedom of the Ward Churchill types.

Don't you?

 

[TragicMonkey]

I never heard about the Roman Catholic thing, but my grandmother is old enough (and was also a public school teacher) to say that when she was teaching there was concern about her being a married woman (and thus familiar with the pleasures of sex).

A while back I read a book that mentioned some of the rules for teachers in the mid 1800's. They included complete teetotaling, virginity if unmarried, and church attendance. I'm not certain if they minded married or not, or widowed, but definitely the singles shouldn't have had sex. And their social lives were monitored, and being seen in a bar or something was grounds for dismissal.

 

[kalen]

Yes, denying people the freedom of speech is so wrong.

So, instead of banning them from speaking, we ought to be digging up the dirt on these individuals and everything they've ever done in the past should be put under a microscope.

 

[Mycroft]

Don't you?

I do, and I should have made it more clear I was commenting on the irony of contrasts.

Ward Churchill should be free to speak his mind, his audience should be free to listen to him, and his critics should be free to criticize him. Freedom goes all around.

 

[Mycroft]

Yes, denying people the freedom of speech is so wrong.

So, instead of banning them from speaking, we ought to be digging up the dirt on these individuals and everything they've ever done in the past should be put under a microscope http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870827079#post1870827079

Something happened with your link.

Digging up dirt and placing their past under a microscope is part of freedom of speech too. As I said previously, freedom of speech is a two-edged sword.

 

[corplinx]

Yes, denying people the freedom of speech is so wrong.

So, instead of banning them from speaking, we ought to be digging up the dirt on these individuals and everything they've ever done in the past should be put under a microscope

Waaaaaaaaaaa, my hero ward churchill is a fraud, waaaaaaaa

 

[aerocontrols]

This is just the same policy that The Association of University Teachers has had in place for other academics from colonial and racist countries, extended to Israelis, isn't it? Surely they've long had the same policy for Chinese or Saudi Arabian (and other) academics.

 

[kalen]

Waaaaaaaaaaa, my hero ward churchill is a fraud, waaaaaaaa

Not sure where you are going there, Corply, but I assume that you think Ward Churchill is a hero of mine. He is not.

Also, your post is way more juvenile than my attempt to bait Mycroft into contradicting himself.

 

[Bjorn]

I do, and I should have made it more clear I was commenting on the irony of contrasts.

So do I.

Which means that "the proponents of this idea are the same people that support the academic freedom of the Ward Churchill types." cannot be entirely true - unless you and I are proponents of 'this idea'?

I'm not really trying to argue with you - I'm sure we agree that there are lots of people who think that academic freedom, or freedom of speech in general, shouldn't be restricted to those persons or ideas we sympatize with.

 

[crimresearch]

Waaaaaaaaaaa, my hero ward churchill is a fraud, waaaaaaaa

That's pure BS...We all know that Corplinx' academic hero is Susan Rosenberg.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16081

 

[Skeptic]

Not sure where you are going there, Corply, but I assume that you think Ward Churchill is a hero of mine. He is not.

Fooled me.

 

[The Fool]

This is so against the principles of academic free expression. Certainly it's one thing to disagree with the policies of a government, it's quite another to insist that citizens of that government repudiate those same policies before they are allowed to freely practice their trade.



And in Orwellian fashion, they will be allowed freedom of speech so long as it's correct speech.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1452239,00.html

It never ceases to amaze me when people are surprised by this sort of thing. Other oppressive regimes have often come under similar pressure. Many private organisations in Australia simply refused to have anything to do with Botha's South Africa or anyone from Botha's South Africa Long before our government got its act together and did anything.....

 

[Skeptic]

Re: Re: Academic Apartheid

It never ceases to amaze me when people are surprised by this sort of thing. Other oppressive regimes have often come under similar pressure.

...which is why, of course, Soviet or Cuban or Saddam-era Iraqi or Iranian students or Libyans or Saudi Arabian students are not welcome in England, since it is high time their respective governments felt the pressure to stop their opressive...

...oh wait.

OK, OK, the rules are differnet when it comes to israel, I know. But, at least, I'm quite sure that the brave human rights protestors who stormed the campuses against the racist South Africa, deeply concerned about the opressions of the native Africans, have been just as unwilling to accept academics from Zimbabwe or Congo or Rwanda or Sudan until their governments...

...oh wait.

Gee. Doesn't seem like opression bothers these guys as much as they claim it does. I wonder what the real reason might be?

 

[The Fool]

Re: Re: Re: Academic Apartheid

It never ceases to amaze me when people are surprised by this sort of thing. Other oppressive regimes have often come under similar pressure.

...which is why, of course, Soviet or Cuban or Saddam-era Iraqi or Iranian students or Libyans or Saudi Arabian students are not welcome in England, since it is high time their respective governments felt the pressure to stop their opressive...

...oh wait.

Botha could not understand why he got the reaction he got either.

 

[Skeptic]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Academic Apartheid

Botha could not understand why he got the reaction he got either.

By why isn't Mugabe getting the same reaction? Or Brezhniev? Or Castro? Or Saddam?

No, "Fool", "outrage" at "opression" is not the reason. Not from people who did everything in their power to make sure Saddam Hussein stayed in power... it's just that hating israel and the US is fashionable now, and academics tend to be creatures of fashion.

Hating apartheid South Africa was fashionable and it happened to be just, but that was just a coincidence. Loving the USSR and rooting for the Vietnamese "liberation" (e.g., the establishment of another communist dictatorship) was fashionable and unjust, at the same time time period--and was just as popular among these "fighters against opression".

The correct analogy here is not to the hatered of South Africa, but to the hatered of the non-communist South Vietnam for "daring" to resist Communist domination, or to the hatered of the USA for "daring" to remove Saddam Hussein and to free millions.

The correct analogy isn't to Botha's lack of understanding of why he is attacked, but to the anti-Saddam Iraqis who supported the invasion and couldn't understand why they were attacked as "agents of American imperialism" (and worse) by these "fighters against opression".

 

[The Fool]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Academic Apartheid

By why isn't Mugabe getting the same reaction? Or Brezhniev? Or Castro? Or Saddam?

No, "Fool", "outrage" at "opression" is not the reason. Not from people who did everything in their power to make sure Saddam Hussein stayed in power... it's just that hating israel and the US is fashionable now, and academics tend to be creatures of fashion.

Hating apartheid South Africa was fashionable and it happened to be just, but that was just a coincidence. Loving the USSR and rooting for the Vietnamese "liberation" (e.g., the establishment of another communist dictatorship) was fashionable and unjust, at the same time time period--and was just as popular among these "fighters against opression".

The correct analogy here is not to the hatered of South Africa, but to the hatered of the non-communist South Vietnam for "daring" to resist Communist domination, or to the hatered of the USA for "daring" to remove Saddam Hussein and to free millions.

The correct analogy isn't to Botha's lack of understanding of why he is attacked, but to the anti-Saddam Iraqis who supported the invasion and couldn't understand why they were attacked as "agents of American imperialism" (and worse) by these "fighters against opression".

No problem skeppers...Israel can just keep on doing what it damn well pleases and whine that its not fair that people decide they are an oppressive regime...You can keep dismissing the fact that the nation you love is being turned into an international pariah by religious fundamentalist racist wackjobs....waaaaaaaa....its all not fair, its all not fair, its all not fair......unfortunately, that won't make reality go away. Botha didn't think it was fair or justified either.

 

[Art Vandelay]

The new boycott motion contains a clause to exclude "conscientious Israeli academics and intellectuals opposed to their state's colonial and racist policies".

So how will that be judged? Will they need to make an official declaration? Will they have to submit an application to be so considered? Is okay to oppose some Israeli policies, or does one have to oppose all of them?

Personally, I'd support this as long as the same standards are applied to Muslims who don't object to Islamic fundamentalism.