In the United Kingdom, the initial UCU motions document were distributed to branches. These motions need to be defeated. The IAB is requesting British Scholars and those who are in contact with British Scholar colleagues to help defeat these motions which have direct policy impact on the academic boycott issue. There are four policy motions are:

Motion IN1 comes from the UCU Transitional Arrangements Committee, and moves to adopt the AUT Guidelines on Greylisting and boycotts. If adopted, it would impose strict test criteria on imposing boycotts.

• IN2 would force UCU to hold a full membership ballot before imposing a boycott on international colleges in the future. It is unclear if this motion changes the UCU rules, so it could potentially be overridden by any actual boycott motion.

• IN3 is more or less the BRICUP sample motion. It represents the synthesis between the 2005 AUT and 2006 NATFHE boycott motions. It was passed by Brighton and London Metropolitan Universities.

• IN4 is a motion calling for the end of the aid boycott of the Palestinian Government. It has come from Birmingham University (Sue Blackwell’s branch).

At this stage, branches still have the power to submit amendments to motions so this document should not be regarded as final. The full motions are presented at the end of this mail.

The IAB wishes to ask for your assistance with the following actions:

• Write to your UK colleagues. We have prepared a draft of a letter you might want to send to British colleagueswho you believewould like to help defeat this campaign, it appears at the end of this mail, after the full list of motions.

• Ask your UK Colleagues if they know delegates; to find out who the UCU delegate from their university is, and to contact them, ask how they are planning to vote, and present arguments such as those in the letter to persuade them to vote against any kind of boycott resolution. Ask them tosuggest similar action to their colleagues.

• Forward us the names of UCU delegates you know about to Ofir Frankel at the International Advisory Board at fofir@netvision.net.il –

For Further Information Contact: Ofir Frankel

International Advisory Board for Academic Freedom (IAB)

TeleFax +972-3-5603634; Mobile +972-545-424043;

fofir@netvision.net.il http://www.biu.ac.il/academic_freedom/

UCU Motions:

In1

Policy on international greylisting and boycott (Transitional arrangements committee)

Congress endorses the policy on international greylisting and boycott in UCU/16.

In2

Academic Freedom (Canterbury Christ Church University)

Recognising the unique importance of Academic Freedom to colleges and universities, Congress determines that:

1) any motion passed at this, or a future congress, that restricts academic freedom in any way, that motion will be put to a ballot of all members with a brief statement of arguments for and against before becoming, if supported, UCU policy;

2) any motion passed at this, or a future congress, that calls for an academic boycott of one or more colleges or universities outside of the UK, when such a boycott has not been requested by properly constituted and quorate branches of academic unions at those colleges or universities, that motion will be put to a ballot of all members with a brief statement of arguments for and against before becoming, if supported, UCU policy.

In3

Composite: Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions (University of Brighton, Grand Parade; University of East London, Docklands)

Congress notes that Israel’s 40-year occupation has seriously damaged the fabric of Palestinian society through annexation, illegal settlement, collective punishment and restriction of movement.

Congress deplores the denial of educational rights for Palestinians by invasions, closures, checkpoints, curfews, and shootings and arrests of teachers, lecturers and students.

Congress condemns the complicity of Israeli academia in the occupation, which has provoked a call from Palestinian trade unions for a comprehensive and consistent international boycott of all Israeli academic institutions.

Congress believes that in these circumstances passivity or neutrality is unacceptable and criticism of Israel cannot be construed as anti-semitic.

Congress instructs the NEC to

· circulate the full text of the Palestinian boycott call to all branches/LAs for information and discussion;

· encourage members to consider the moral implications of existing and proposed links with Israeli academic institutions;

· organise a UK-wide campus tour for Palestinian academic/educational trade unionists;

· issue guidance to members on appropriate forms of action.

In4

European Union and Israel (University of Birmingham)

Congress notes:

1. That since the Palestinian elections in January 2006 the Israeli government has suspended revenue payments to the Palestinian Authority (PA), and the EU and US have suspended aid, leaving public-sector salaries unpaid and earning the condemnation of the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions;

2. That Israel is seeking to upgrade its relations with the EU to the same level as Norway and Switzerland, permitting free passage of goods, people and capital, while denying these freedoms to Palestinians.

Congress resolves to campaign for:

1. The restoration of all international aid to the PA and all revenues rightfully belonging to it;
2. No upgrade of Israel’s EU status until it ends the occupation of Palestinian land and fully complies with EU Human Rights law.

Proposed Letter to send to UK Colleagues:

Dear

It is now certain that a resolution to boycott all Israeli academic institutions will be proposed at thenew University and College Union’s (UCU) first Congress this coming May. I hope I can impose upon your patience to read the following explanation of why this boycott call must be opposed. I hope also that you will see fit to take an active role in opposing this attempt to politicize the academic environment.

Unfortunately, there is reason to be concerned. Two previous boycott motions were passed, one by AUT and one by NATFHE. The former was reversed, and the latter lapsed when the unions merged. We expect the boycott proponents to try again at the May UCU meeting, and would like to help raise awareness of the issue among our colleagues so that the attempt will be defeated.

An academic boycott is counter to the universal principle of Academic Freedom. Academic life is about building bridges, not destroying them; opening minds, not closing them; hearing both sides of an argument, not one alone. Boycotts are a betrayal of these values. This principle has been formally recognized by UNESCO, the International Council for Science, the Middle East Studies Association, the journals Nature and Science, the American Association of University Professors, and other learned societies around the world. Only in an atmosphere of academic freedom, unfettered by partisan political manipulations, can scientific advances of benefit to all mankind be made.

Not only would a boycott of Israeli academia violate the principle of academic freedom, it would do so in a discriminatory matter. Any institution representing academics, including trade unions, must adhere to universal, objective criteria for determining its policy towards academic boycotts. This has not been the case. Only Israel has been singled out for such treatment. Whatever the rights and wrongs of Israeli government actions, Israel is very far from being the worst abuser of Human Rights in the world, yet no other country has been targeted for boycotts.

Prof. Sari Nusseibeh, President of Al-Quds University, bravely opposes the boycott and issued the following statement:

“An international academic boycott of Israel, on pro-Palestinian grounds, is self-defeating: It would only succeed in weakening that strategically important bridge through which the state of war between Israelis and Palestinians could be ended and Palestinian rights could therefore be restored. Instead of burning that bridge, the international academy should do everything within its power to strengthen it.”

And indeed, there are a number of joint projects between researchers at Al-Quds University and Israeli universities, a choice that is far more likely to contribute to peace than would the blacklisting of researchers of one nationality.

If a boycott resolution is passed, it would provide a dangerous precedent, opening the door to the spread of political boycotts to other organizations and other countries, and to other political issues as well. Clearly, a trend of this kind would destroy the system of peer review which assesses academic research on merit, not nationality or political opinion.

With very few exceptions, those leading the boycott call are not the leaders of British academia, but, rather, political extremists seeking to use the boycott as part of their broader campaign to delegitimise the State of Israel. These boycott proponents seek to hijack the union and use it as a weapon for propagating their marginal political agenda. Whether you are a member or not, the UCU claims to speak in your name. If they do not, I hope you will be able to find a way to make your opposition heard, so that the labour union will not become a tool for corrupting academic intercourse.

Yours sincerely,

SPME’s Editor’s Note: For Ongoing Details and Analysis On Boycott Developments The Following Groups Can Provide Useful Information:

International Advisory Board on Academic Freedom of Bar Ilan University

Scholars for Peace in the Middle East

Academic Friends of Israel

International Academic Friends of Israel

ENGAGE