The Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Enquiry into Anti-Semitism last September criticized the two main academic unions - the AUT and NATFHE – on the grounds that they endorsed academic boycotts of Israel that were 'anti-Jewish in practice' (see APR para. 213). Those two unions have now amalgamated to form the UCU, and the UCU has reacted with indignation, and at length, to the Report. There has been, in my view, a very thorough critical analysis of the shortcomings of the UCU response, focusing on weaknesses in the cogency and relevance of its arguments. (This can be seen in a longer version here, and in a shorter version in the THES, and also here. Declaration of interest: I've signed my name to both of these documents.) But I want to consider, and indeed praise, a different aspect of the UCU response, one which has a very interesting and distinctive inner logic, a logic with wider applicability than might appear at first glance.
One notable feature of the UCU response is its palpable concern about the Report's claim that anti-Semitism needs to be fought in as well as out of the universities. The UCU is at pains to stress its hostility to anti-Semitism - it tells us about it nine times during the course of its response - but it's reluctant to accept the Report's recommendations as they stand. This is because there's something else the UCU is equally keen to stress: it thinks that we shouldn't take steps to discourage anti-Semitism without also taking action against Islamophobia.
'...[T]o enquire into anti-Semitism alone was misconceived and unhelpful'; 'inappropriate to have taken anti-Semitism as a topic in isolation at a time when Islamophobia is also on the increase and when the two issues surely need a balanced joint approach'; '... throughout the report the recommendations need to be even-handed'; 'it would be clearly inflammatory to give Jewish student organisations a privileged role in policing perceived anti-Semitism, and not accord a similar status to Islamic students' organisations with regard to Islamophobia'; '[t]here is also the danger of witchhunts and vigilantism'; '... institutional systems need to be transparent and patently fair if they are to contribute positively to the fight against racism, and not exacerbate the situation'; '[w]e support this recommendation [that Jewish Societies should not be delegitimised] but it must be even-handed - we are aware of one university where the Palestine Society has been delegitimised...'; '[i]t is clear that Muslim and other student groups also feel disproportionately threatened'; 'we would support a consistent approach provided that charges of anti-Semitism, or for that matter, Islamophobia, are not used to stifle legitimate debate and inquiry, or academic freedom'.I think it's impossible to read these various claims from the UCU document and not come away thinking that the UCU is very concerned about fairness and even-handedness; that it thinks that Islamophobia is at least as severe a problem as anti-Semitism; and that in its view we would be wrong to set up procedures to fight the latter without doing the same about the former.
Now, I've no desire at all to dispute this demand for even-handedness – as the protest letter to the THES says, 'we urge UCU to address Islamophobia seriously'. What I'm concerned with is the inner logic of the UCU claim, which can be summarized thus: we shouldn't seek to prevent one kind of wrongdoing without seeking to prevent other very similar kinds of wrongdoing. It's unfair to be so selective; it's inconsistent; it's not even-handed; it's clearly inflammatory; it may lead to witchhunts; our arrangements need to be patently fair or they'll exacerbate the situation.
If it's the case that anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are similar phenomena and occur at similar levels on campus, then the logic of the UCU claims seems pretty compelling. Now let's look at how this logic applies in another case, one where the UCU wants to reject the Report's criticism (see its response to paragraph 23 of the Report): the case of the proposed boycott of Israeli academics. To the best of my knowledge no supporters of such boycotts have been able to show that Israel's human rights violations are anything like the worst in the world - not that they've actually tried very hard to do so, since it's pretty obvious that there are very many regimes whose treatment of those within their power is far, far worse than anything that Israel does. By the UCU's own logic, it's clear that to boycott Israel without also boycotting at least a few of Russia, China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Burma, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran (and many others) would be unfair, inconsistent, not even-handed, inflammatory, likely to lead to witchhunts and to exacerbate what is already, as we can all agree, a very inflamed situation. If taking steps against anti-Semitism while ignoring Islamophobia is wrong, then taking punitive actions against Israelis while ignoring what is happening in Chechnya and Darfur and Tibet must also be wrong. In fact it must be much more wrong, since what is going on in these unhappy places is so very much worse than what is going on in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. The UCU itself shows us why such selective action is objectionable: it would be 'invidious to single some out for particular special treatment', and '[t]here is clearly a need for consistency in the handling of these issues'. Indeed support for a boycott might even be patently unfair! We can all be grateful to the UCU for making this point so clearly. (Eve Garrard)