Get Herald RSSWhile perfectly aware of the corporate and worldly side of the university, historian Richard Hofstadter said that the university as an institution is "committed to certain basic values of freedom, rationality, inquiry and discussion." Inquiry, protected by the aegis of academic freedom, produces a diversity of views - "a citadel of intellectual individualism" - that at the same time must claim support from the society it critically and unstintingly examines.
With this in mind, I want to praise President Simmons' strong stance against the University and College Union's motion to boycott Israeli universities - indeed, against even the discussion of such a motion. The motion is a political one, aimed to attack Israeli politics through Israeli universities. The search for objective truth is something quite distinct from politics, and any push toward a politicized university will be likely to produce mere opinion, rather than knowledge.
Some would argue that the political is everywhere, and the university is no exception. Thomas Haskell articulates this view in his essay "Justifying the Rights of Academic Freedom" by saying that "the pervasiveness of the political is commonly presented as a plain and palpable fact of the sort that only fools or knaves could deny." However, he goes on to say that "in fact it is the predictable outcome of a hermeneutics of suspicion to which all of us resort to in our most cynical moments, when we are eager to project our own aggression outward into the world." In other words, the political is not everywhere - it is just everywhere when you are cynical. In truth, the UCU resolution to boycott, and much of the discussion that is prompted by such a resolution, is a thin, one-dimensional affair, bearing little resemblance to the subject of political science or anything else that should exist in the university.
Even the discussion of the boycott attacks and punishes Israeli academics, who are our brethren in academic inquiry. I wish to quote President Simmons' excellent words on this topic: "A boycott of the sort (UCU) is considering - a measure that attempts to silence or marginalize the scholars of an entire nation - is inimical to those fundamental principles and could do great harm to colleges and universities." She continues by saying that "supporting such a boycott of scholars from Israel or any other part of the world is not an option for people who are dedicated to the core principles of the academy."
Three years ago, writing about the University's divesting from Israeli businesses, I said this: "I find the movement to be insidious and tantamount to racism itself. Divestment seems less about human rights, and to be more a tool to perpetuate armed conflict in which there are no winners or losers, a conflict in which Brown as an institution cannot choose sides." I stand by that statement - Brown cannot take sides in the Middle Eastern conflict. But it must take sides in the question of whether Israeli universities have the right to exist and whether Israel academics have the right to free inquiry. Brown must be for freedom of speech everywhere, freedom to write everywhere and freedom to learn for every student. President Simmons wrote a letter to the UCU outlining our support for Israeli universities, but that is not enough. It is our duty to give more than quiet words to this debate hidden in ill-publicized letters. We must give our support through proudly pronouncing our values across the campus, country and world.
There are those who say Simmons was not objecting to a ban, which might be okay, but was rather objecting to a debate, which is not. To those people I can only reply that some debates, in some venues, are not worth having. There is no doubt that questions and debates need to happen. Perhaps the most germane one is this: Does Israeli policy deny the educational rights of Palestinians? A question like this one should drive our discussion, one in which reasonable people can passionately disagree. Those now campaigning for a debate on whether to ban Israel universities contribute not at all to larger issues. The distortions of fact and hyperbole of expression that are inherent in the framing of such a debate must be rejected with the same vigor with which we embrace the ideals of freedom for academics everywhere, including in both Israel and Palestine.
Brown has moral obligations. We cannot retreat from the big issues of society, the world and our time. We cannot become cynics paralyzed by our own disdain, and we must not become social, political and moral isolationists. To that end, the University and President Simmons must be especially vigilant on issues that directly impinge upon the very heart of the university and academia.
Zachary Townsend '09 shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.
