The decision by the UCU's Strategy and Finance Committee to end all consideration of an academic boycott of Israel is a welcome event well worth celebrating. The fact that the UCU has acted in response to advice from the union's lawyers indicating that the proposed boycott violates UK equal opportunities laws makes the decision particularly satisfying. It confirms the view of the anti-boycott movement that efforts to impose a collective sanction on Israeli academics, alone among academic communities of the world, are racist in effect, regardless of the boycott advocates' stated intentions. It also frees us from the endless cycle of defensively arguing the case against the boycott each time a new motion is introduced at a UCU conference. The activists at Engage have played an important part in securing this victory through their relentless campaign to build public opposition to the boycott, and we are in their debt.
Oddly, some of the people commenting on the UCU decision on the Engage website have expressed disappointment that the boycott proposal has been defeated through legal means rather than by a popular union ballot. This is a puzzling response. The Jim Crow laws in the United States were overturned in the 1950s and 1960s through Supreme Court decisions and civil rights legislation, rather than by popular referendums in southern American states. The civil rights movement did not attempt to argue with segregationists to give up their misguided commitment to discriminatory practices. It invoked legal authority in order to compel them to respect the human rights of African Americans. In a liberal democracy the rights of individuals and minorities against racist exclusion are ensured by legal guarantee. They do not depend upon the consent of groups who refuse to acknowledge these rights as indefeasibly binding. That the UCU has now been similarly compelled to recognize that the boycott proposals that it has been entertaining violate the country's anti-discrimination laws is a cause for celebration rather than regret. It places the discussion of these proposals in precisely the right context, and it provides clear vindication of the strategy of opposing the boycott on legal grounds as an exercise in discrimination.
While the UCU decision is an important victory, it would be a mistake to regard it as the end of the boycott campaign. An innocent observer might expect the authors of this campaign to experience some sense of embarrassment at falling foul of laws enacted to ban racial exclusion. Instead they give every indication of pursuing their offensive activities without pausing to re-evaluate the wisdom of their basic views. They may well challenge the union's legal advice and seek to overturn its decision. One wonders how long it will be before we are subjected to the usual claims of 'well-funded outside lobbies' and 'Zionist' cabals, to explain this latest setback to their cause. The boycott campaign is a symptom of a much deeper political perversion. Its main advocates do not seek to end the dispossession of the Palestinian people through a settlement that provides political independence, peace, and security to both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They are committed to eliminating Israel as a country, and so effectively subjecting Israelis to the dispossession that the Palestinians now suffer. The academic boycott campaign has not ended. It is simply moving to different methods and other venues. We are still faced with a long, hard struggle against the bigotry that this campaign expresses. It remains virulent on our campuses, and it continues to flourish in mainstream public discourse in Britain.
Above all, it is important to recognize that the union leadership has consistently failed to provide serious moral and political leadership in the face of the boycott campaign. Neither of its antecedent executives in the AUT and NATFHE ever took strong, unequivocal stands against the boycott. They sought to appease the boycotters on each occasion that a boycott resolution was introduced and passed. These executives and the current UCU administration effectively stood aside, adopting a position of studied neutrality. Given the clearly discriminatory nature of the proposals and the AUT's decision excluding boycotts except in very restricted circumstances, the obvious question to ask is why the UCU executive did not seek legal support for excluding the boycott when the current motion was first introduced, prior to the national UCU conference in May 2007.
It is gratifying that the UCU has now recognized its responsibilities as specified by UK anti-discrimination legislation. However, accepting legal advice should not be confused with active commitment (in this case at least) to the principles that the law encodes. There is a significant difference between an organization that sullenly acknowledges its obligations under the law and one which serves as an advocate of political decency. Until the executive accepts the latter role the UCU will not be a union worth rejoining. (Shalom Lappin, King's College, London)
