By Jonathan Marks
Monday, December
06, 2021
The Middle East Studies Association
(MESA), which boasts over 2,800 members, has long been a friend of anti-Israel
advocacy. The historian Martin Kramer, considering what was on offer at MESA’s 2005 conference, wrote that “for
MESAns, the Palestinians are the chosen people, and more so now than ever. More
papers are devoted to Palestine than to any other country.” “Paper after
paper,” he added, presents an “elaboration of Palestinian nationalist ideology,
‘academized’ into ‘discourse’ by grad students and post-docs who’ve already
given stump harangues, organized sit-ins, and written passionate propaganda
pieces.”
To learn more about the deep roots of this
kind of thing in MESA and the field of Middle East Studies, one does well to
read Kramer’s 2001 book on the subject. Yet MESA, whose bylaws not so long ago described
it as “nonpolitical” and whose membership includes some principled scholars,
have refrained from endorsing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement
against Israel. Also in 2005, Ali Banuazizi, then president of the
organization, wrote on the Association’s behalf to denounce a boycott of two Israel
universities instigated by Britain’s Association of University Teachers.
Banuazizi explained that the boycott contradicted “the deep commitment of this
association and its membership to the principles of academic freedom and the free
exchange of information and ideas.”
So much for that. In 2017, MESA’s
membership removed “nonpolitical” from its bylaws. And this year, voters at MESA’s
annual conference overwhelmingly passed a resolution that “endorses the 2005
call of Palestinian civil society for BDS against Israel.” A full membership
vote is scheduled for next year.
The text of the resolution can be
found here.
Although MESA’s members, unlike the other
academic groups that have endorsed BDS, study the Middle East, their resolution
rehearses the usual talking points. Presumably, because some members have some
qualms about a scholarly association running a political campaign, most of it
centers on alleged Israeli violations of academic freedom, which arguably fall
under the purview of an academic association. But the charges, as I’ve
explained elsewhere, are overblown. And singling out Israel, of all places in the Middle East, for a
comprehensive boycott over its record on academic freedom is outrageous.
In any case, academic freedom is just a
fig leaf for MESA. If it weren’t, the organization would not have endorsed
the BDS call for economic and cultural sanctions until Israel stops
occupying “all Arab lands,” a formulation that asks Israel to stop occupying
Israel. It would not have endorsed a call for “full equality” that requires the
repeal of the law of return that is essential to Israel’s character as a refuge
for Jews. It would not have endorsed a call for a right of return for
Palestinians that would, as President Obama once said, “extinguish Israel as a Jewish state.” It would not have endorsed the
call of a movement that only pretends to embrace nonviolence.
And it would not have agreed, in the name
of academic freedom, to participate in a boycott that undermines it, as the
American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has recognized. So have over 250 universities, which rejected a similar move by the American
Studies Association in 2011. At that time, some institutions also canceled their institutional memberships in ASA.
If, as seems likely, MESA’s full
membership passes this resolution, university presidents should reject it in
the same manner.
As the 1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure recognized,
academic freedom is premised on the idea that a university is “a non-partisan
institution of learning.” MESA and like-minded
groups dare trustees and legislators to
conclude that, if the university is going to be a partisan institution, then it
may as well reflect their partisanship rather than the partisanship of
professors. That legislators have themselves been indifferent to academic freedom isn’t surprising: academic freedom has few
reliable friends. What is surprising, though by now it’s par for the course, is
the willingness of academics actively to will their own destruction.
And for what? Academics aren’t federal
judges, constrained individually from engaging in political activity. They can
sign petitions, join marches, carry pictures of Chairman Mao, and issue mean
tweets against their political enemies. To throw over the integrity of one’s
profession merely to make official what everyone suspects about the views of
MESA members is sheer incontinence.
Anti-Israel politics brings that out in
people.
No comments:
Post a Comment