Pros And Cons Of Boycotts

Just days ago the American Anthropological Association began voting on whether to boycott Israel.

Much debate has surrounded boycotts since the American Studies Association (ASA) endorsed an Israel boycott two years ago.

Aren’t boycotts completely antithetical to the mission and values of academia?

Don’t boycotts directly violate academic freedom?

The American Association of University Professors, the American Council on Education, the American Association of Universities, 134 members of Congress and hundreds of university presidents, including the heads of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Brown and Dartmouth, all thought so and condemned ASA. In fact, many universities withdrew their memberships

Among all the non-democratic, non-feminist, and non-free religion, free speech and free press countries, why Israel? Israel is the only country in the Middle East to provide equal rights to women and all members of the LBGTQ community, to guarantee freedom of press and religion, and to safeguard the opportunity to vote, regardless of ethnicity. In fact, Jews, Christians and Muslims all serve in Israel’s government. North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan, Myanmar, Russia and many other recidivist human rights violators are not singled out for boycott. Among the 196 nations in the world, why is the only Jewish state being singled out? Are boycotts of Israel really thinly-veiled anti-Semitism?

Putting those concerns aside, though, there is a new question gaining much traction in legal circles: Are such statements in support of Israeli boycotts even legal? Renowned law professors Eugene Kontorovich and Steven Davidoff Solomon on the Wall Street Journal opinion page recently concluded they are not. And this week, a group of distinguished professors, founders of American Studies departments, longtime members of ASA and recipients of honorary ASA lifetime achievement awards sued the

are governed by the D.C. Non-Profit Corporations Act. It mandates an organization is limited to the terms of its charter. Knowing that non-profits are often run by a small handful of active members, the law was created to protect the inactive majority from a small group abusing their positions for personal gain. Funds from members cannot be used for purposes beyond activities authorized in the charter. Activists cannot legally trade on an academic association’s reputation to push a personal political agenda that has nothing to do with the association’s mission.

ASA’s constitution is clear. It states that “[t]he object of the association [is] the promotion of the study of American culture through the encouragement of research, teaching, publication…about American culture in all its diversity and complexity.”

According to the professors, for 60 years, ASA has been an association focused on American Studies. It is not a social justice organization, nor is it a foreign policy organization. Indeed, according to the professors, boycotting a foreign nation has absolutely nothing to do with ASA’s mission and is therefore illegal. I agree, which is why my organization is helping the professors with their