Linguists Against Boycotts

[Jonathan Ginzburg]

Doug Arnold wrote:

>Dear Colleagues,

> Some days ago a message appeared on this and other lists signed by a
> number of linguists, including friends and colleagues of mine,
> opposing the academic boycott on cooperation with Israeli universities

> and other research institutions. So far I have seen only one voice
> raised against this: a mail from Dick Hudson. I want to add my voice
to
> his.

There is a lot that can be said about this issue. In the interest of
brevity I would refer people to Jonathan Freedland's excellent
article on this issue in last week's issue of The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,752521,00.html

An initial correction: although the original message also expressed
opposition to
boycotting Israeli universities, the main trigger to its writing was the
targetting of individual Israeli researchers, as exemplified in Mona
Baker's actions.


> The original message gives two reasons for opposing the boycott: (i)
the
> boycott is indiscriminate at the individual level (directed against
> people without reference to their view or actions), and (ii) the
boycott
> is discriminatory at a higher level (directed only at Israel, when
other
> countries also abuse human rights and commit brutal military
> interventions).

> I think these reasons should be rejected.

> The second reason is an argument taking action against any injustice:
it
> implies that one should not act against any injustice unless one can
act
> against all.

No, the point is that there have been and continue to be many
potential candidates for such boycott action. When these other
candidates continually escape this type of boycott, suggestions of
hypocrisy or worse are difficult to dismiss.

> The first reason is an argument against all `national' or broadly
based
> boycotts, because it is in the nature of boycotts of this kind to be
> indiscriminate.  Boycotts of South African produce during the
apartheid
> era undoubtedly harmed opponents of apartheid (black farm workers, for

> example) and boycotts on sporting contacts affected South African
> sportsmen and women regardless of their political views.

The first questions to be asked about a boycott is: who is the intended
target, what is the intended effect and who/what might be an
unintended beneficiary.  Consider why during the Soviet occupation of
Afghanistan, there was no proposal to boycott Soviet academics.  Why?
Because such a boycott would weaken a community from which much of the
dissident community was drawn, providing welcome relief to the regime
whose actions were being deplored.  If you know something about the
political situation in Israel, you will realize that a boycott of
academic institutions and individual researchers would simply further
demoralize a community which has provided much of the backbone of the
peace camp, over the last 25 years and not least over the last two
very difficult years.


> Imposing and
> observing this kind of `national' boycott  strengthens the hand
> of opposition groups within the country under boycott, because it
> manifests the extent of the opposition from outside public opinion.

Sounds good in theory, but often fails in practice, as per the two
above examples or countless others.


> I do not see why academic or cultural institutions should be exempt
from
> boycott any more than, say, sporting links should be.

You have provided no grounds for your uniform theory of boycotts: a
boycott of produce from the Occupied Territories (which I, as well as
some of my petition signing colleagues, support), to take one example,
has a quite different status and range of effects from a boycott of
academics, working within internationally recognized boundaries, and
who cannot be faulted for actions committed by their government.  (To
take an example close to home, situate yourself in, say the mid 1980's
and consider Northern Ireland and the controversial actions of the
Thatcherite UK government there (or if you have problems with Northern
Ireland as an example [It's a complex issue, civilian casualties on
both sides etc], pick any appropriate example from the UK's rich
colonial past.).  Should a boycott of UK academics have been
instigated at the time?  Or France and Algeria in the 1950's etc)

> (The anti-boycott message makes several other points, which I think
are
> regrettable, and which I hope will be dropped in future discussion ---

> in particular, the astonishing suggestion that the boycott is "no less

> racist than the exclusionary policies that they [the supporters of the

> boycott] purport to oppose", and the unsupported speculation that
those
> who support the boycott might not do so if it put at risk lucrative
> sabbaticals and research opportunities).

It sure is unsupported speculation, but nonetheless an explanation
needs to be found as to why the US, that has been at the centre of so
many controversial military actions, that have lead to no small loss
of civilian life, has never been a candidate for such a boycott.
Lucrative sabbaticals and varied research opportunities seem a good
first guess, but there may of course be others.

Best,

Jonathan



--

Dept of Computer Science
King's College, London
The Strand, London WC2R 2LS
UK

phone: +44-20-7848-2752
fax:   +44-20-7848-2851
ginzburg at dcs.kcl.ac.uk
http://www.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/staff/ginzburg