Historicist: Life in Wartime
Elsewhere in the Ist-a-Verse
This stupid. [via BlogUT]
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookTIP US OFF
Most Popular
Disgruntled Star Editor Takes Constructive Revenge (80)
Over Time, How Fairly Have TTC Fares Fared? (37)
Enza Anderson Eyes City Council Seat (30)
Drop Fees, End Poverty! And Also Do All These Other Things! (22)
Sign of the Times (17)
Kensington Market's Business, Soon to be Improved (17)
Boo, Yeah! (16)- Newsstand: November 3, 2009 (15)
Reel Toronto: The Tuxedo (15)
Hog-O-Vision (15)
Solidarity is needed. The same way solidarity in boycotting Shell Oil was needed in the African Apartheid era.
I'm not really seeing the "stupid". Israel is using an illegal justification to bomb and invade Gaza - according to international law, an occupying military force cannot invoke "self-defense" when the inhabitants of the territory they've occupied fight back. And if it's not self-defense, it's nothing more than an excuse to maim and kill people that they don't consider fully human in the first place. (I realize, of course, that just as many Palestinians don't consider Israelis to be fully human, either. But they lack the military might to make such a show out of it.) This seems like an event that is entirely deserving of protest, and protesting Zionist academics and their teachings (since the protest doesn't seek to ban Israeli academics altogether, only those that won't distance themselves from Israel's military policies) also seems an apt response.
"Stupid" is claiming self-defense when your enemy's list of casualties outweighs your own by a score of 50-to-1. But boycotting the propagandists of a state that's killing people at that ridiculous rate? That seems rather minor by comparison.
So Israelis are all Zionists and therefore anti-Palestinian and support the current action against Gaza *unless* they publicly state otherwise? Hogwash. This sort of nonsense makes me very pleased to be an *ex*-academic.
stephanie: It's tacit approval. If my country is engaging in a hugely public and contentious action and I fail to explicitly object, then it's fair to assume that I either a) don't care enough about the topic to bother objecting, or b) don't object.
Lands Down: The 'punishment', as it were, is in relation to a political position that excuses the murder of hundreds of people. (And academic freedom is far more slippery and complicated than you seem to be implying it is, though I'm sure you know this.)
Curious, though, that no one is responding to the actual reason for the boycott - which is a military invasion with a dubious legal standing that's seen more than 500 people killed, most of them civilians.
actually, all Israelies of Jewish descent ARE zionists. Sort of the whole point of the 'State of Israel'
Some of you people really need to spend some time there to understand the dynamics of the people, country and the conflict. It would open your eyes dramatically. I promise.
First, no they aren't. There are Jews living in Israel who do not self-identify as Zionist. More important, many who *DO* self-identify as Zionist oppose the current incursion into Gaza and, more broadly, the treatment of the residents of Gaza.
*MUCH* more important, CUPE's stand of insisting that people voice their private political opinions or suffer professional consequence is a disgraceful rejection of all contemporary notions of personal freedoms, which include, outside court order, the freedom to keep one's opinions to oneself. What those political opinions concern is of no relevance to that. That such an idea could arise out of a university-based organization disgusts me, and I say that as a former university-local CUPE activist. Were I in my former position now, I'd be writing my resignation letter.
(Note - this was meant to go in response to the earlier statement beginning "actually, all Israelies of Jewish descent ARE zionists.")
Yea you're right, something like 8% of all jews living in Israel are not self-identified Zionists. PHEW! Now I can sleep better at night!
Israel is a zionist state, sure not all Germans were Nazi's, but what does that make the people that idly sit by and do nothing to stop their own government, religion and culture from these atrocities?
I think the stupid part of this is not just keeping the call for a ban to professors who teach on the occupation or something related to Zionism. Is CUPE seriously going to demand that a biology professor from Israel be booted out of their job because they don't feel their opinion on Israel-Palestine is relevant to their employment?
When did academics become propagandists?* Punishing an individual for his nationality is doubtlessly wrong, but advocating it for universities approaches absurdity. It goes against the academic freedom that's supposed to be central to their being. CUPE are just another shrill voice in this debate, we need more moderates to speak up.
*Answer: WHEN CUPE 3903 WENT ON STRIKE AT YORK.
I'm really hesitant to weigh in on this debate, but something has been bothering me for a while. CUPE has fallen prey to the discourse that (I think) keeps this war going on: the use of the descriptors 'Palestinian' and 'Israeli.' By lumping people into these categories, those who are members of either side are somehow responsible for all others of their group by actions of others in this imaginary group. My point is that, just because the Israeli army invades doesn't mean all people (academics included) who live in Israel ought to be held responsible for it. And the same goes the other way: all those in Gaza should not be held responsible (thus framed as legitimate military targets) because there are some in that particular space who keep firing rockets at Israel.
It really pisses me off when I read or hear the news media say something like "Israel invades Gaza." It's not Israel that invaded, but a military organization run by a few people.
you do realize that hardly any Israelies are actually Israelies, but rather moved there admidst all the conflict (hey why not, you get free Arab land!), The 'military' has almost 100% support from the public. Sort of makes your point moot.
Ok, I can see what you mean (that there's nearly 100% support of the Israeli army by the people who live in the coincidence of time and space called 'Israel') but I don't think this detracts from my point that a single member of a group ought to be responsible for the actions of few who also claim to be part of that group. If one believes that every person claiming the identity 'Israeli' is responsible for the actions of the Israeli Army, then wouldn't it be justified to treat each 'Israeli citizen' as a legitimate military target? And wouldn't it mean indiscriminately accusing every single citizen of his/her government's actions? That is absurd.
And what do you mean that "hardly any Israelies are actually Israelies"? What is a 'true' Israeli? And why does that matter? Are you suggesting that, by implication, Canadian citizens who were not born here do not have the same rights or legitimacy as those who were?
I think Topping's point below is excellent.
>If one believes that every person claiming the identity 'Israeli' is responsible for the actions of the Israeli Army, then wouldn't it be justified to treat each 'Israeli citizen' as a legitimate military target?
Every Israeli citizen is a member of the military so kind of lol. On the flipside, it hasn't stopped Israel from terrorizing and systematically killing Arab citizens. Are you up to speed with this conflict? Sorry I don't mean to be patronizing, but honestly now. C'mon.
Israelies are mostly Jews who have moved there. So they are Ukranian, Canadian etc. That's what I meant. Hope that clarifies for ya.
Well thanks for being so nice
If the academics promise they don't like the bombing can them come then?
yes, that's the whole point. As long as the academics denounce what their country is doing, they are welcome here.
If you can agree that this issue is more complicated than Israel = pure evil, Palestine = pure good, then it should be painfully obvious that academic organizations in particular should not be forcing anyone to declare where they stand, and then forcing someone out of a job if that stance is not explicitly, vocally, and unambivalently anti-Israel. Free speech covers (almost) all speech, including speech you disagree with—and freedom of opinion, which is really what we're talking about here, is even more fundamental than that. It doesn't matter what side you're on in this issue: CUPE's stance is tantamount to witch-hunting, it is mind-numbingly stupid, and it doesn't belong at universities, period.
re: freedom of speech. You don't live in the U.S.A. sorry. We don't have 'free speech' here.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. (emphasis added)
Luckily for us, hate is deemed unreasonable.
You're right. We don't have "freedom of speech". We have "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression". That includes freedom to oppose military actions being taken by governments.
This section is double edged. First it implies that a limitation on freedom of speech prescribed in law can be permitted if it can be justified as being a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. Conversely, it implies that a restriction can be invalidated if it cannot be shown to be a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. The former case has been used to uphold limits on legislation which are used to prevent hate speech and obscenity.[citation needed]
Under section 318 of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is illegal to promote genocide. Under section 319, it is illegal to publicly incite hatred against people based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation, except where the statements made are true or are made in good faith. The prohibition against inciting hatred based on sexual orientation was added to the section in 2004 with the passage of Bill C-250.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Canada
Thank you David. That's a perfect description of what I was thinking.
Hearty doses of information and diverse perspectives always thaw the numbed mind.
Israel and Gaza from the Big Picture photoblog
Michael Bell in The Globe & Mail
Marc Lynch at Foreign Policy
Oddly, I found that the G&B article was quite bang on in many instances, something I don't normally attribute to that rag, thanks for the links Paul!
What is at issue is not Israeli ethnography, nor the political positions that some think are automatically attributable to Israelis in virtue of their nationality and from which they need to opt out, nor the (un)justifiability of the recent military actions, nor the catastrophic nightmare Palestinians are experiencing in Gaza.
This is a question, simply, of whether we ought to be in the business of establishing ideological or political litmus tests for academics - or for that matter anyone seeking to speak on a campus - the answer to which is straightforwardly "no." Hate speech can and should be prohibited, but that is not what is on the table here, where the subject is censoring people for holding or failing to hold certain views rather than censoring particular instances of speech which are objectionable. Whether it's Ahmadinejad at Columbia or Israeli academics in Ontario, campuses are and should be places where one can speak and research free from institutional interference, where the only allowable limits are on what is said or written (not on speakers or writers), and where those limits are the norms of research and rationality that pertain to the work in question.
So you don't believe in boycotts on any level at all?
I mean, traditionally, boycotting something means that the choices of a few (government officials or board of directors) effect many (the citizens or workers in these countries or factories).
Should we not boycott anything? The point of a boycott is to put added pressure on something/someone. They can be highly effective at that. Just ask Shell Oil.
I've no opposition to boycotts as such, and have taken part in many myself. But I have two objections to academic boycotts specifically: One is that a university campus is not an appropriate place for that form of protest. Our academic centres are explicitly intended to be bastions of free expression where the exchange is governed only by the merits of the ideas being debated, and not instruments of political action. Holding scholars' ability to work hostage to their political views thus fundamentally undermines the integrity of the university institution so conceived. Possibly that is our actual point of disagreement: you maybe think that universities ought to be political entities or governed by political principles, at least to some degree. (That would be a fascinating debate, btw, but is definitely going to take more space than the comments section will afford us.)
My other objection is that academic boycotts are a particularly egregious form of collective punishment: you are only indirectly harming your real target (the legitimacy of Israeli military actions) but directly sanctioning others with no actual role in the decision to invade Gaza. When I boycott factory farmed chicken, the targets of my protest are the people and companies that took the decisions I find offensive and not, for instance, the other members of their agricultural association who fail to protest as well. Collective punishment is, after all, one of the major charges that Israel is accused of - punishing all Gazans by instituting a blockade meant to weaken Hamas. Holding Israeli academics to a different standard than their non-Israeli counterparts on the basis of their nationality is precisely the same sort of abuse.
(As an aside, in 2006 the president of Al-Quds University in Jerusalem came out against academic boycotts of Israelis, though he did also acknowledge that his was the minority position: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3264160,00.html)
I agree with you that THIS particular issue (boycott) isn't entirely black and white, and yes it would be a great debate outside of the internet.
The only fallacy I'd like to point out in your logic is this:
>When I boycott factory farmed chicken, the targets of my protest are the people and companies that took the decisions I find offensive
If you're a factory worker, say picking chickens to go to slaughter. Necessity to live is what drives you, not your 'favour' of farmed chicken, I think that's pretty obvious. So how is it the factory workers fault that their company has made decision A or B?
The other fallacy (or at least, I would think so) is
>for instance, the other members of their agricultural association who fail to protest as well.
No, but you can't deny that these association(s) would be greatly affected. Therefore you're collectively punishing the tertiary associations as well. Whether you like it or not.
It's an interesting topic, and thank you for the article. Some interesting stuff in there, even though I disagree with almost all of it.
I'm waiting for the boycott of Canadian academics that don't denounce the seal hunt, or Vancouver's homeless purge, or Canada's role in Afghanistan, or our failure to police the practice of American backpackers sewing on Canadian flags, or why we don't let someone else win the World Juniors, or the practice of mixing cheese curd and french fries, or ...
I don't like the word "denounce" by the way. It reminds me of reading Solzhenitsyn.
I can't find a copy of it online, but there was an excellent essay by Stanley Fish in the last ("Ways of Learning") issue of Lapham's Quarterly in which he drew very strict boundaries around what is and is not appropriate subject matter for the university.
To paraphrase, students and faculty are at the university to learn how to dissect and analyze things, be they fruit flies, works of literature, current events or microprocessors. The opinions and political views of others should be no more than data to be sifted and examined. To be taught to hold or advocate a certain view compromises the remainder of the education.
This is equivalent to what Hamutal says above.
Fish goes on to attack character education, which I am not sure is justified, but the former point is a good one.
Also, I think the experiences of Canadians and Americans of German and Japanese descent during World War II show the futility of tarring domestic scapegoats for the belligerent acts of foreign politicians.
A friend in Dublin tells me that at the "Save Gaza" rally there were posters saying "Make Israel History" which is nice. I bet they weren't asked to leave and would not be here either.
I think it makes sense, in a way, to say that anybody in Israel who works for a University, on a University campus, who has not spoken out to say it's damn wrong to bomb a university campus, should be banned. I don't agree with the tactic, but I understand the logic - if you can't condemn the actions of a state that targets a university, then why should you benefit from another university? And nowhere do I read this is explicitly a 3903 initiative. You may infer that it is, but make that clear that it is your inference and that there is nothing supporting it [unless you link to sources].
Also, note that this was a discussion about the illogic of the actions being advocated by CUPE, not ad hominem attacks on CUPE or Sid Ryan (however richly deserved they may be). The proposed actions are un-Canadian regardless of who proposes them. Further, if it is inconsistent with CUPE's mission to offer partisan opinion on foreign conflicts, then offering such opinions remains inappropriate regardless of whether they originate with CUPE or elsewhere.
That is, no one made the inference you refer to because it would have been entirely irrelevant to the discussion.
Yeah. I'm in the "this is stupid" group.
Stupid because it's not helping the considerable divide within CUPE between the mostly moderate rank-and-file members and the considerably more radical CUPE execs and spokespeople.
Stupid because a union should be about union and labour issues, and not demand a boycott without the whole membership's vote on a political issue with no relevance to the membership's labour issues.
Stupid because, well, is CUPE also going to ask Zionist members in Toronto, let's say, to either drop their beliefs or leave CUPE? Will CUPE be polling all Israeli academics and finding that if they haven't put a press release out condemning the Israeli government, that we won't read their articles in obscure Israeli journals anymore?
How is CUPE going to get their membership to boycott anything? Most of their membership is moderate.
Basically I think the CUPE leaders who want to take a stand on issues like these need to make their own little club where they boycott shit. Because otherwise I feel they are using their leadership of CUPE to call for things that their membership hasn't.
>Stupid because a union should be about union and labour issues
Unions are also 'about' social issues too.
First collective organization to start offering 'same sex benefits' in contract language, first collective organization to start paying women as much as men in the workplace. First collective organization to bring you the standard 40 hour work week.
All of these things trickle down to the rest of the public. US. You've benefited greatly from all that the trade-union movement has done for you.
Your alternative of course is to wait and see what your government will do for you. W/O any pressure, I guarantee they will do nothing.
Wait a second now! W/O any pressure... They will do nothing... Hrmmm... makes you wonder about the article now hey?
Hope you enjoyed your 2 day weekend! (also brought to you by unions)
Your list of things that unions have given us are labour-related. The Palestine/Israel conflict is not. Which was my point.