Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
The Tufts Daily
Where you read it first | Sunday, February 16, 2025

Israeli academic boycott is unwarranted

On Sept. 28, Britain's University and College Union (UCU) called off debate about boycotting Israeli universities, which had been initiated in May 2007. The proposed boycott by the UCU represents the latest in a string of efforts by institutions of higher learning to divest academic thought from Israel.

This particular petition, as reported by Guardian, was called for by Palestinian trade unions on charges of complicity by Israeli academia with regards to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and thus calls upon signatories to cut off ties to Israeli institutions because of moral implications.

Announcement of the proposed boycott in May met considerable opposition among American universities. In early August, many college presidents came out publicly against the proposed academic boycott in a New York Times advertisement signed by 286 college presidents. The petition and accompanying letter criticize British universities for attempting to stifle free thought and hurt international academic values. University President Lawrence Bacow was one of the petition's organizers.

The explanation for this most recent effort to sever ties with Israeli academic institutions centers around the charge that Israeli academia is complicit in the denial of educational rights to Palestinians and its many causes.

Other boycotts have been proposed because of the failure of Israeli academics to speak in opposition of the government's alleged human rights abuses. Many proponents of an academic boycott of Israel draw parallels to the situation of apartheid in South Africa, where they claimed divesting from academic thought helped pressure the government to restructure its discriminatory policies.

Drawing a comparison between the two situations is offensive and erroneous. First, there is minimal evidence that the academic boycott played any role in ending South African apartheid. Second, divesting from academic thought in South Africa was a protest against racially discriminatory policies in universities. No such parallel can be drawn to Israeli universities. Even more offensive is the concept of divesting in the lone democracy in the Middle East. Israeli higher education enjoys complete freedom from governmental influence, something which cannot be said about most other countries in the region.

The debate over divesting from thought in Israel can be disentangled from individual opinions on the Arab-Israeli conflict itself. Whether you agree or disagree with the policies of the Israeli government is secondary to the issue of whether the concept of divestment in thought infringes on academic freedom and the supposed values of Western higher education systems. The free flow of academic thought is a core value held by American universities, and discarding viewpoints which contradict our own sets us back in this mission.

Columbia University President Lee Bollinger issued a statement in response to the proposed UCU boycott, stating that the boycott "threatens every university committed to fostering scholarly and cultural exchanges," and that we should "embrace scholars from many countries regardless of divergent views on their governments' policies." That is the fundamental issue, not whether or not you feel that the security fence unjustly oppresses Palestinians, or that the Israeli government should withdraw to the 1967 borders.

We should embrace every opportunity to exchange thought, especially coming from places where learning institutions are free from governmental influence. The choice to divest in thought from Israel represents a departure from our commitment to academic freedom, and we should remember this if the issue arises in the future.

Andrea Lowe is a sophomore majoring in economics.