In a move that will surprise no one, the American Anthropological Association voted at its annual meeting overwhelmingly, 1040-36, to endorse the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement and to boycott Israeli colleges and universities. The resolution must be voted on by the full association, but the result is, in my pessimistic view, not in question (though I certainly think it is worth making a fight of it). Mustering a sense of self-importance that seems to come naturally to the armchair activists, “Anthropologists for the Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions” have called the vote “historic.” Hardly, but it is another small move in the direction of the discrediting of academics about which, being an academic, I have to admit I care.

Let’s begin with the political homogeneity of the American Anthropological Association. Daniel Klein and Charlotta Stern found in a survey of various social science fields that anthropology tilted further toward the Democratic party than any of the other fields surveyed, coming in at an astounding 21:1 ratio of Democrats to Republicans (compare history at 8.5 to 1 or political science at 5.6 to 1). Klein and Stern add that there is virtually no diversity of opinion among these Democrats, at least on the issues they presented to them. To be sure, party affiliation is not a great proxy for one’s stance in the BDS discussion, since many Democrats oppose BDS. Nonetheless, that anthropology is among the most politically lopsided fields in a politically lopsided academic world helps explain why the American Anthropological Association is the first quasi-mainstream academic association to endorse BDS. Although it should be evident to a schoolchild that the political homogeneity of the field raises questions about its scholarly, not to speak of its political, conclusions, the professional academics that make up the AAA are unconcerned. Confirmation bias is for the little people.

But more striking than that problem is the way in which the AAA and organizations like it fall into a trap as old as Socrates, who noticed those whom he questioned falling into it. They think that because they are experts in one thing, they can pronounce on everything. There is no reason to think most of the 1040 people who voted for the resolution have more insight into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than my next door neighbors, yet they feel confident in putting their scholarly credentials behind a series of accusations against Israel that supposedly justify the boycott.

Yet they don’t even seem to know anything about the boycott, at least I hope not. For they have put themselves behind, as we have seen again and again in these pages, a movement that, although it purports to be nonviolent, cheers violence on. I end with the words of David Rosen, himself an anthropologist from Fairleigh Dickinson University, who tells us what, if anything, is historic about the AAA vote: “Any contemporary observer knows that in recent weeks the forces of radicalism — left and right — have seized the opportunity for promoting violence in Israel and Palestine. In this conflict, the movement is demanding that the American Anthropological Association align itself with some of the most radical and irredentist forces within the Palestinian national movement, against the forces of moderation, including our own colleagues and their departments in Israel. I have grave doubts that American Anthropology can ever recover from taking such a radical step.”