‘Dangerous Business’

Princeton educators speak out against the call for an academic boycott of Israel

By W. Raymond Ollwerther ’71

Published Jan. 21, 2016

1 min read

Princeton voices were prominent as American universities spoke out against the American Studies Association’s December call for an academic boycott of Israel to protest the country’s treatment of Palestinians.

“Scholarly engagement sustains learning and helps to build liberal democratic values,” President Eisgruber ’83 said in a statement. “American universities should continue to work constructively with scholars and institutions throughout the world, regardless of whether we admire or dislike the governments under which they operate.” He said his personal support for academic engagement with Israel is “enthusiastic and unequivocal.”

As of mid-January, the presidents of more than 175 colleges and universities had rejected the call for a boycott by the association, described as the nation’s largest group devoted to the study of American culture and history. In May the Association for Asian American Studies had approved a similar resolution.

Hunter R. Rawlings III *70, president of the Association of American Universities, was among those signing a statement by the group’s executive committee that the boycott violated academic freedom. He said his group was concerned that scholarly groups increasingly were calling for boycotts.

“It is dangerous business, and basically unwise, for institutions to become embroiled in these kinds of debates,” former Princeton president William G. Bowen *58 told The Chronicle of Higher Education. “The consequences for institutions are just too serious.”

While voicing dismay over the ASA’s action, Eisgruber said he would not “make it unwelcome on campus or inhibit the ability of faculty members to affiliate with it.” He said he hoped that eventually the group’s members would bring it “to its senses.”

Published in the Feb. 5, 2014, Issue

2 Responses

L.V. Watrous ’66

8 Years Ago

Re “Dangerous Business” (On the Campus, Feb. 5): A boycott of Israeli academics might well be premature at this time. But if the European economic and U.N. pressure on Israel has no effect, then such a boycott by universities will become a moral obligation. Why? For the reason that universities exist within society. Universities teach young people. For both these reasons, a university is a moral institution. The PAW account implies that, somehow, academics live in a moral vacuum, to be protected from the ugly facts of reality. Thank goodness that students, also part of academia, have immediately understood otherwise, as their anti-Vietnam protests made clear in the 1960s and ’70s. The justification offered against a boycott is “academic engagement” or freedom of speech, but what it amounts to, on a practical level, is making addressing the Israeli problem a taboo subject. William Bowen *58’s quotation that “the consequences for institutions are just too serious” may reveal a more venal motivation; that is, that Princeton should not become involved because it might offend donors.

David W. Lewit ’47

8 Years Ago

On the issue of boycotting Israeli academic institutions (On the Campus, Feb. 5), President Eisgruber ’83 condemned the decision of the American Studies Association and hoped that its “more thoughtful and reasonable members will eventually bring the organization to its senses.” His concern was that collaboration among scholars across boundaries would be impeded.

In fact, ASA’s resolution encourages scholar-to-scholar interaction across all borders, including U.S., Israeli, and Palestinian scholars in Israel, Palestine, and the United States. It proscribes only Israeli government-sponsored institutional collaborations, because that government openly and persistently has violated human rights, international law, and academic freedom in its suppression of Palestinians, including professors and students. For example, ASA’s website reports that “Palestinian universities have been bombed, schools have been closed, and scholars and students deported.”

The ASA’s boycott decision, endorsed by two-thirds of the record number of members voting, was the result not of a presidential or council edict, but of more than six years of committee work and democratic member forums including members working the Middle East. It is reminiscent of the 2008 member vote of American psychologists to reject the American Psychological Association council’s stand allowing member participation in U.S. military/CIA torture.

I hope that President Eisgruber will extend his thinking to the systemic basis for intellectual freedom for all, going beyond the energetic promptings of Israel advocates, perhaps by sponsoring a forum of Princeton faculty and students.