On May 30, the British academics’ association, the University and College Union, voted to endorse a Palestinian trade union’s call for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions. The next day, Britain’s largest public service employees union said it also would consider a boycott.

Many supporters of Israel, particularly in the United States, believe the calls for a boycott are antisemitic.

Into this charged atmosphere, the presidents of New York University, Columbia University and Yeshiva University have all issued statements condemning the calls for a boycott. (The British academic union emphasizes that no actual boycott has begun, though branches of the union are to debate the pros and cons of a boycott.)

Interestingly, the presidents of Columbia and Yeshiva argued that their respective institutions should be included – that’s not a typo – in any such boycott.

While there are individual scholars who disagree, like Norman G. Finkelstein, the overwhelming consensus among American academic establishments is that academic boycotts inhibit the free exchange of ideas. That consensus was affirmed in a statement last year by the American Association of University Professors, although the association has seen significant dissent on the issue.

In a June 12 statement, Lee C. Bollinger of Columbia wrote:

… if the British U.C.U. is intent on pursuing its deeply misguided policy, then it should add Columbia to its boycott list, for we do not intend to draw distinctions between our mission and that of the universities you are seeking to punish. Boycott us, then, for we gladly stand together with our many colleagues in British, American and Israeli universities against such intellectually shoddy and politically biased attempts to hijack the central mission of higher education.

And in a statement on Friday, Richard M. Joel of Yeshiva wrote:

I proudly add our institution to the roster of universities on the boycott list and decline to participate in any activity from which Israeli academics are excluded.

Also on Friday, John E. Sexton, the N.Y.U. president, said in a statement the university “rejects completely” the idea of a boycott, but did not use the same angle as Mr. Bollinger and Mr. Joel had, by calling for his institution to be added to any boycott list. Mr. Sexton instead emphasized that N.Y.U. was moving forward to create a new study-abroad site with Tel Aviv University.

Edward S. Beck, the president of Scholars and Peace in the Middle East, a pro-Israel group founded in 2002 that believes calls for a boycott are antisemitic, commended the university presidents for their stance.

“It’s a solidarity stance with Israeli academics,” Dr. Beck told me this morning. “It’s basically saying, ‘If you boycott Israeli academics or academic institutions, you are boycotting me, personally. If you’re going to have a conference where you’ve made the decision not to accept Israeli papers or accept an Israeli scholar, then in doing that please don’t invite me or deal with my papers.’”

Dr. Beck, who is based in Harrisburg, Pa., teaches psychology for Walden University, a Minneapolis-based online school. In a phone interview, he said he did not think the issue would go away soon. “I’m afraid it’s here to stay for a while. We have to keep the pressure on,” he said.

Although there are individual scholars who disagree, like Norman G. Finkelstein, the overwhelming consensus among American academic institutions is that academic boycotts inhibit the free exchange of ideas. That consensus was reaffirmed last year in a report by the American Association of University Professors, although the report itself has its critics.