International solidarity and academic boycotts

Key points

*A boycott of Israel is likely to be an issue again at first UCU Congress in 2007

*The issue is highly divisive and overshadows our other international work

*Any final decision to boycott should be made by full membership ballot not conference alone

*UCU’s international work should focus on supporting staff and students and defending academic freedom and trade union rights

*UCU should adopt the AUT policy on international solidarity not the NATFHE boycott of Israel

*UCU should work with Education International and other UK trade unions to promote academic freedom and equality of access to education for all

Background

In 2005 AUT’s national council voted narrowly for an academic boycott of two Israeli universities because it was claimed that they were participating in the oppression of the Palestinian people by the Israeli state.

A reconvened AUT Council later in the year subsequently overturned the boycott following branch meetings around the country at which it became clear that the majority of members did not support the proposed boycott. It was also agreed to ask a working group to examine AUT’s overall policy with regard to international solidarity, including the use of academic boycotts.

This group reported to the 2006 AUT Council and set out a very careful, staged approach to boycotts which ensures that they are applied only in exceptional circumstances, are fully justified by the facts, and can be shown to be an effective way of furthering academic freedom and human rights. AUT Council supported this position overwhelmingly.

However, in May 2006 at its last conference, NATFHE passed a motion inviting their members to consider boycotting Israeli academics under certain circumstances. It is unclear how much support there was from NATFHE members for this.

The transitional arrangements committee of the UCU has now agreed to adopt the AUT policy rather than NATFHEs. You can read the AUT policy here AUT policy on future boycotts

What does this have to do with the general secretary election?

Some sections of the union believe that the election of a new general secretary is an opportunity to resurrect the issue of a boycott of Israel. The Socialist Workers Party for example in its recent editorial on the election has said that:

“The choice of general secretary will shape the future of the new union. It will affect wider political issues such as the academic boycott of Israel and the union’s support for organisations such as the Stop the War Coalition.”(http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=9908)

On this basis it seems very likely that, whatever personal position the candidates take, the supporters of a boycott will bring the issue back to the first UCU congress in 2007.

That is why I am making my own position crystal clear.

What I believe

I believe that our union has to focus on issues that unite rather than divide us. As AUT general secretary in 2005, I dealt with the claims and counter claims of both lobbies, the threats to sequestrate our union’s assets and saw our members and staff vilified and abused.

Like many members, I have my own strong opinions about the unequal conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis and – from UCU’s point of view – the pressure upon academics and students on both sides of the wall.

However an academic boycott with only limited support is damaging to the union and highly divisive which is why I believe we need to follow the AUT guidelines that were agreed in 2006 and to make sure any contribution we make is constructive, promotes peace and enhances our credibility as an organisation that defends academic freedom.

Ballot before boycott

In my opinion the decision to launch an academic boycott of any country, including Israel, is at least on a par with the decision to take strike action – some members believe it is even more serious.

This means, in my view that decisions of this type should be made in the same way as we decide whether to take industrial action or not – by a full ballot of the membership.

This could be done cheaply by electronic means but it does have to be done because I think it is simply untenable given the clear lack of agreement about the issue for a decision of this magnitude to be made by an annual conference without recourse to our full membership.

I hope that all sides of this debate will support the principle of giving the final say to members on this issue which has the potential once again to tear our union apart.

My track record

As AUT/UCU general secretary and as the TUC general council’s spokesperson on international issues I have wide experience in this area.

Too often it is lecturers, teachers and other education professionals who find themselves in the front line in conflicts around the world – not least because academic freedom is the first thing that is threatened when democracy is under attack.

Among the many international solidarity initiatives AUT was involved with was the strong support for lecturers and teachers in Columbia who face assassination or torture because of their trade union membership or political affiliation. Most recently the same issue has reared its ugly head in Iraq with academics and teachers facing kidnap and murder.

I have also met with trade union colleagues in both Palestine and Israel and have been inspired by the commitment to peace that many on both sides of the wall have even under intolerable pressure.

Our union must be clear that we abhor attacks on our colleagues – whoever commits them. We also have to make sure that our views about the importance of academic freedom in a democracy and the rights of lecturers and teachers to live and work unharmed are not drowned out.

What our policy should be

As general secretary of UCU, I will put forward proposals that:

1. UCU’s first congress should adopt the former AUT policy of a staged and cautious approach to international academic boycotts rather than the policy passed at NATFHE’s last conference

2. Our international policy should be firmly focused on defending academic freedom and the rights of educators and students to live and work unharmed and unthreatened rather than on a wider political analysis which distracts from our main message

3. Any future proposal for an international academic boycott of any institution or country that is agreed by UCU Congress should go to a full ballot of the members affected before any action is taken

4. The union work with Education International to protect educators worldwide against threats to their person, their family or their work

5. We consider a fund to support the promotion of academic projects that enhance cooperation and dialogue between communities in areas of conflict

Sally Hunt
Candidate for General Secretary of UCU

This document in full, is here.