Having got bored of boycotting their own work in this country, lecturing über-Union NATFHE have gone international.
Don’t worry, I’m not going to bleat on about the assessment of our exams again. Who needs to criticise the union for that, when it is lining itself up for criticism with their boycott of sections of Israeli academia that won’t publicly distance themselves from ‘Israeli apartheid policies’?
Blimey. Good to see that isn’t an emotionally loaded proposition that was put before the conference. It’s pretty much the same as insisting that British academics have to proclaim their opposition to the War in Iraq to not be ostracized from their peers.
Is this really the academic way to get things done? To bar one side from even taking part in the debate on the future of the region goes against the principles they profess to be protecting. Barring one side of the debate means there is no debate at all.
Even while freedoms may be curtailed on the ground, the benefit of academia is that it comprises its own self-contained realm of discussion – and freedom of expression is essential to make that work. The Oslo peace process, for example, was kickstarted by links between Israeli and Palestinian academics. The importance of freedom of expression is not an abstract concept; it is the concrete basis for peace.
Instead, the union is trying to introduce politics into academia. Was I the only person who thought the point of a union was to represent their members’ interests in employment matters?
Anyway, in a thoroughly unusual piece of timing, the union doesn’t actually exist any more. My favourite inept unions NATFHE and AUT merged last Thursday to create the UCU, so this is the last chance they had to create such a hate-filled message.
Interestingly it is almost exactly a year since a boycott of Israeli academics by the AUT was overturned in the name of freedom of speech.
But the topic is muddied somewhat as there is more than one debate going on. There’s the question of freedom of expression; but underlying it there is also a debate going on about the validity of the state of Israel.
Regardless of what you think of the unions choosing to boycott Israeli academics, there is little doubt that the real arguments going on here are about the political hue of the unions rather than a great defence of freedom.
I’m not going to suggest that there is something anti-Semitic underlining the action. But why has Israel been singled out? Why not Russia or China?
It has been argued that Israel is different as Israeli academics are in a unique position of being free to criticise the creation of the security fence. An academic in China is not going to have the same freedom to criticise the state. But the AUT also supports the Cuba Solidarity Campaign, in defence of the socialist state. Cuba is hardly world-renowned for upholding academic freedom.
Instead the dividing lines of what the unions are willing to support or criticise are arguments professing a concern for freedom of expression, when all they really do is reinforce casual stereotyping of the political spectrum.
Still, every cloud has a silver lining. With the unions fighting themselves, their united front on negotiations over pay here stands a greater chance of collapsing.
