Linguists Against Boycotts

[Dick Hudson]

Dear Jonathan,
Here are some comments on your reply to Doug Arnold. I'm very sorry I can't
agree with you - I would much rather be on the same side.
	With best wishes,  Dick

>> 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.
## Boycotts are conducted by individuals who exercise individual
judgements; if I decide to boycott Israel I can't be blamed for the fact
that *other* people haven't boycotted other countries! I don't see how
hypocrisy comes into it. Different people feel strongly about different
issues.

>
>> 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.
## Why would the Israeli peace camp oppose a boycott? The anti-apartheid
movement in South Africa welcomed theirs as a sign that colleagues in other
countries supported their goals. As Doug said:

>> 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.
## If it sounds good in theory, and sometimes doesn't fail in practice, it
sounds worth pursuing.

>
>
>> 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.
## But in a democracy we all share responsibility for the actions of our
governments. Being an academic doesn't help any more than being (say) a
school teacher or a doctor.

(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)
## Maybe it should. I wonder how we would have reacted.

>
>> (The anti-boycott message makes several other points, which I think
>are regrettable, ... 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.
## This is ridiculous, as you must surely know. Most of us from outside the
US have never benefitted personally from US academe, and have no prospect
of ever doing so. There must be some other reason why the US doesn't
attract the same criticisms as Israel.



Richard (= Dick) Hudson

Phonetics and Linguistics, University College London,
Gower Street, London WC1E  6BT.
+44(0)20 7679 3152; fax +44(0)20 7383 4108;
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm