A cause for grave concern for all union members
The UCU's adoption of Motion 25 at Congress on May 28th 2008, and the NEC's subsequent decision of June 13th to refer the question of its implementation to a Union committee, notwithstanding specialist legal advice that it breaches anti-discrimination legislation and Union rules, is further evidence of the UCU's continuing and relentless obsession with the academic boycott of Israel; an obsession which the newly formed Union began when it adopted Motion 30 at its inaugural Congress in May 2007. The UCU's behaviour with respect to Motions 30 and 25 inevitably raises questions which are of grave concern to all UCU members.
Firstly, there is the question of the UCU Executive's deception. Evidence for this can be found, inter alia, in: (a) Sally Hunt's pre-election manifesto promise that any Israel boycott motion would be put to a full ballot of the UCU membership. As General Secretary, she reneged on this commitment following the adoption of Motion 30. (b) Linda Newman's campaign for election to President on an anti-boycott platform. As President, she seconded Motion 25. (c) The claim that Motion 25 is a 'Solidarity with Palestine' motion and not a boycott motion. This is blatantly untrue: it is clearly a boycott motion in intent and effect in that it will introduce a policy of exclusion based on nationality.
The UCU Executive's persistent use of deception suggests that the UCU is unwilling to place this important issue before its members in the form of a vote, and as such indicates a clear disregard for basic democratic principles. On important issues, decisions ought to be made on a Union franchise basis so that subscription-paying members can have their say. The outcome would then be a definitive decision of the membership. The UCU Executive's reluctance to allow its members to decide this important issue themselves can only be rationally explained on the grounds that it knows that the boycott would not be supported. A refusal to hold a full ballot on financial grounds is insupportable.
Secondly, the refusal to let the members decide must raise a reasonable perception that the motivation for the boycott is not as publicly declared - to support the Palestinians - but, rather, that the underlying aim of the boycott is to stigmatize Israel, and to do this irrespective of the harm it will cause the Union. This perception is strengthened by the fact that there have been strong arguments put to the UCU that indicate that an academic boycott of Israel would actually hurt the Palestinians. One must conclude from this that the UCU is indifferent to the harm their proposal would cause to the Palestinians. That the UCU is not being fully open about why it is pursuing an academic boycott of Israel is even further evidence of its deception.
Thirdly, the conduct of the UCU Executive is likely to lead to a serious weakening of the Union's standing, and significantly this will include its financial position. For it will inevitably result in a loss of credibility for the Union, and a loss of members, both through failure to join and through resignation. I have resigned, and I am acquainted with other academics who have resigned, purely to protest the boycott campaign and the Executive's machinations. From the above it is evident that the Union ought to have in its rules a requirement that anyone on the Executive must make full public disclosure of any activist interest they have in the Palestine/Israel conflict, and where an activist interest exists, to give a disclaimer that they will not use the Union as proxy to further their political agenda, or that of others. Only then will the UCU be in an unfettered position to proceed with the business of serving its members' interests in the field of industrial relations. (Lesley Klaff)