ENGAGE - ARCHIVE

Below are the responses, verbatim, from a number of candidates in the upcoming UCU elections - to two questions posed to them by Engage: 1) Do you support or oppose a boycott of Israeli academia by the UCU, and for what reason? 2) How do you propose to end the annual divisiveness in our union which is the boycott?

Jon Bryan – Newcastle College: (running for Further Education, North East)

Dear Engage Team,

Thank you for your good luck wishes.

In answer to your questions:

1.) I oppose a boycott as I cannot see what it will do to help the situation.

2.) Not talking about boycotts would do much to make the issue go away and would start a discussion about some of the more important aspects which need discussing.

Hope this helps,

Jon Bryan

Alastair Hunter – University of Glasgow (running for President-elect or vice president from the higher education sector)

I think it is no secret - since it is in my manifesto - that I am personally opposed to the boycott tool except in the most extreme circumstances. I
believe that academic boycotts in general are likely to do more harm than good, but in any case will be ineffective and so are only going to create adverse publicity without any moral gain.

These remarks, of course, apply also to proposed boycotts of Israeli institutions or academics.

The other question is unanswerable. I know of no legal or procedural device which can guarantee the absence of motions which might be divisive, whether on boycotts of Israel or any other issue. We have a mechanism in place to ensure membership ballots where a boycott is proposed and supported by Congress. There are rules about not returning to an issue within a certain
period of time. Some contentious motions might be ruled out of order if they can be shown not to relate to the aims of the union, but such rulings can be overturned by Congress itself, and unless they are very clearcut, can create more contention than the original motion.

Alastair G Hunter
Senior Lecturer
Hebrew & Old Testament Studies
Department of Theology & Religious Studies, University of Glasgow

Andrew Morgan – Swansea University (running for Higher Education, Wales)

Dear Engage,

* Do you support or oppose a boycott of Israeli academia by the
UCU, and for what reason?

I am fundamentally opposed to academic boycotts. Once a line is taken that an academic should be excluded from academic discussions and exchanges - without that exclusion following from academic malpractice - one sets at risk the primacy of academic freedom. UCU is in part responsible for defending academic freedom - it should not act to undermine it.

* How do you propose to end the annual divisiveness in our union
which is the boycott?

The key to undermining this divisive issue is to remind members that the union must function under a significant democratic deficit when it comes to any matter that is not obviously and directly concerned with the pay and conditions of service of its members. People join the Union with all sorts of reasons and motives but the majority join in order to have some level of protection, should they get into a dispute with their
employer, and to have a louder voice and more negotiating power when it comes to improving pay or other conditions of employment. A few, inevitably, join because they see a potential to add the Union's name to their own political interests or hobbyhorses. We need to be very wary of the political opportunists - they are not thinking of the members, or of the interests of the members, but exclusively of their own interests. Union action should always be directed, specifically, at the objects of the Union - where there is obvious doubt, as in the Israeli boycott, if action is suggested a ballot of members should follow.

Yours,
Andrew Morgan
Swansea

Joe Gluza – University of Cambridge (running for UK-elected members of the National Executive Committee (NEC), higher education)

Dear Engage team,

Thank you for your questions.

a) I oppose an academic boycott of Israeli universities not only because 30-odd years ago as a researcher I had many contacts with the University of Haifa but also because I believe in the principles of academic freedom and freedom of speech and that these principles should only be breached in the most extra-ordinary of circumstances.

b) I think that there will continue to be divisions in the union until a lasting settlement can be reached between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Even then it is likely that a very small minority holding extreme views on either side will continue to abuse each other's beliefs.

Joe

See Sally Hunt's (running for General Secretary) position here.

Marion Hersh - University of Glasgow (running for National Executive Committee, Higher Education)

I want to explain my thinking here, rather than provide yes/no answers.

I consider myself a bundist rather than either a zionist or an
anti-zionist. (Very very briefly, the Bund was a socialist movement of Jews in Russia and eastern Europe that acted as both a political party and trade union and saw the solution to the oppresion experienced by Jews in combatting anti-semitism to avoid the need for emigration.) I am therefore concerned by the growth of anti-semitism and the fact that the fight against it should be much stronger than it currently is. I also believe that the fight against anti-semitism should form part of
the wider struggle against fascism and racism, including islamophobia and prejudice and discriminatory laws against asylum seekers. I am a long term campaigner against racism and fascism and am currently active in Glasgow Campaign to Welcome Refugees.

With regards to academic boycotts, I consider that they are a legitimate tactic and do not threaten academic freedom. I would suggest conditions of the following type should hold before a boycott is instituted:

1. There is a very serious issue with regards to, for instance human rights abuses, discrimination or the treatment of workers
2. Boycotts are generally carried out against institions rather than individuals. Exceptions would include cases where individuals are very directly implicated, for instance in human rights abuses.
3. An organisation that represents a reasonable proportion of the people experiencing the problem have called for a boycott.
4. The boycott should be about a specific issue or issues.
5. The boycott has a reasonable chance of being successful or at least making an impact in terms of both membership response and the likely response to the boycott. This does not mean that I am oposed to boycotts to draw attention to an issue and/or to say 'not in our name'.

In addition in most cases I would add the following conditions:

6. Other forms of protest/pressure, whether by UCU or other
organisations have not worked.
7. The organisation has been told a boycott will be imposed unless certain conditions are met.

There may be situations of great urgency where it is not appropriate to apply these conditions.

In applying a boycott there should also be a list of one or more
conditions to be met by the organisation being boycotted which lead to a termination of the boycott.

Currently there are organisations in most countries which could
justifiably be boycotted. I would therefore suggest that making choices about boycotts is a question of strategy and tactics rather than fairness. To my mind it should not necessarily be a case of choosing the worst offenders (and how do you choose them, there are so many?), but looking at what will be effective both in terms of the specific issue and in terms of strengthening UCU with regards to its ability to campaign more generally as well as on the specific issue.

I think that either of the following are legitimate issues to consider for a boycott of Isreali institutions, but am concerned when a boycott is called about the second issue, but seems to really be about the first issue. An end to the occupation,
The treatment of Palestinian students and staff in a given Israeli university.

This is getting rather longer than I intended. Therefore, without going into detail, I think that the current situation has become very polarised both within Israel/Palestine and probably even more so between supporters of the two sides outside Israel/Palestine. Any solution which brings real social justice as well as peace is going to have to take account of both sides rights aspirations, as well as do something about this polarisation and mutual suspicion. As a socialist I would
generally look at ways of making the 'cake' larger. Unfortunately, the 'cake' here is geograpically determined and will always remain too small. Therefore, compromises will be required on both sides, but will have to include the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

However, again, without evaluating the conditions I have suggested, I would currently in general vote against a boycott, though act in solidarity with it if agreed. My position on voting for or against a boycott could change if the situation changes and would also depend on the specific institution and the issues about which the boycott is called.

With regards to the related issue of anti-semitism and zionism, of course they are not the same. However, there is some criticism of Israel, which though totally correct and fully justified, is motivated by anti-semitism. In addition the rhetoric of some anti-zionists is sometimes anti-semitic. There are also important human rights issues which are being ignored, such as the treatment of gays by the Palestian authority and the fact that a lot of gay Palestinians are living illegally in Tel Aviv, where at least there lives are not under threat.

I am actively involved in campaigns that directly affect members,
particularly on equality issues and currently against the closure of the Crichton Campus of Glasgow University. (Please email Sir Muir Russell - principal@gla.ac.uk - to oppose this closure.) I also think that UCU should be active in wider political campaigns, including giving solidarity to other workers' struggles and on international issues. As an education union I think we should have views and engage in debate on contraversial issues and be able to disagree with each other. I would
be concerned about the effects on union democracy of any attempt to restrict this debate. Therefore I disagree that the annual (or slightly less frequent) debate on boycott is divisive. I have personally found the debates I have participated in to be fairly civilised. I realise that there are members on all sides of the debate with very strong views and that it is not going to be possible to settle on a final policy which all members like.

However, I would suggest that drawing up a framework of conditions under which international boycotts takes place, is the way forward. This could involve some components of the former AUT policy on intenational greylisting and boycotts, but members from all sections of the union should be involved in drawing up the revised version. This approach would probably also not be popular with members, but at least would provide a mechanism for treating all potential boycott decisions in a comparable way.

Marion Hersh

Philip Burgess - University of Dundee (running for National Executive Committeee, Higher Education)

Dear Engage,

As a candidate for the UCU National executive, my attitude to
the boycott is as follows:
1) As a member of AUT Executive and Council in 2005, I voted against the boycott.
2) My manifesto makes it clear that I regard the events of 2005 as a fiasco which would never have happened had we consulted ordinary members.
3) I am generally opposed to boycotts since I think that academics should engage no pun intended, althought it is rather appropriate) with people with whom they might disagree.
4) Although i am not an unconditional supporter of Israel's behaviour (and have, for example, protested to the Embassy about the treatment of Mordecai Vanunu), were I to be compiling a list of middle-eastern governments whose behaviour in
terms of human rights might justify some sort of boycott, then Israel would be very low on my list. To single out Israel for demonisation is unreasonable and I could not support this.
5) Regarding the future, I will, if elected, point out to Executive that UCU is not a nation-state with a foreign policy and we should concentrate on our core activities; salaries, pensions and conditions of service. Boycotts are divisive and arguably, outwith our remit. I submitted a letter to THES this week in response to the intemperate latter from Steven Rose. Unfortunately, it does not look as if it will be published.

Regards,
Philip Burgess.

Paul Hudson - Queen's University Belfast (running for Trustees of the Union)

I believe that UCU should concentrate on the basics of pay, conditions of service, educational policy and protecting the individual member. That is why the vast majority of members join. To devote a lot of energy to divisive fringe issues (of which the boycott is one) alienates members and so weakens the union. If people feel strongly on these issues, there are purpose-made pressure groups that they can join. They should not subvert UCU from its main purpose.

Paul Hudson, candidate for Trustee.

Linda Newman - University of Sussex (running for Presidents, Officers of the Union)

Colleagues,
Thank you for your enquiry. As you know I am standing for election as President of UCU. I hope that my election statement will give you a flavour of my approach to division of opinion within the union.

To answer your specific questions:
1. I opposed the earlier call to AUT for boycott of Israeli universities for two reasons. I felt that the boycott would be ineffective and I did not believe that it was supported by a majority of members. I think the subsequent decision by the extra AUT Council endorsed my belief that the boycott was not supported by a majority. I was a strong supporter of the former AUT policy on international solidarity that emerged from that Council and which imposes tests prior to boycotts.

2. I will seek to promote and gain support from UCU for increased links between Israeli and Palestine academics. I will also seek to ensure that any proposal for an academic boycott is subject to a vote of all members if such a proposal is passed at a future Congress.

I trust this answers your questions. I hope I can rely on your support.

Linda Newman
Presidential candidate, UCU
Sussex University.

Mary Davis - London Metropolitan University (running for Representatives of Women Members in Higher Education)

I oppose the boycott as is well known which is why I presume, I have been omitted from the so called left (utterly sectarian) list.

Professor Mary Davis

Head of Centre for Trade Union Studies
Deputy Director Working Lives Research Institute
London Metropolitan University

Terry Hoad - University of Oxford (running for National Executive Committee, Higher Education South)

You invite me, as a candidate for election to the UCU National Executive Committee, to respond to two questions:

1)Do you support or oppose a boycott of Israeli academia by the UCU, and for what reason?

2)How do you propose to end the annual divisiveness in our union
which is the boycott 'debate' ?

I believe that UCU should have and adhere to clear general principles with regard to academic boycotts, in whatever situations they may be proposed. AUT's Investigative Commission on Israel/Palestine made proposals which were adopted by AUT Council and subsequently by UCU's Transitional Arrangements Committee. They therefore constitute current UCU policy. Those proposals sought to establish clear rules as to the reasons for which a boycott might be called, and clear mechanisms for a gradual and measured procedure should any proposal to boycott be pursued. The intention was evidently, and rightly, that boycotts should be seen as serious steps to be undertaken only with the greatest care and deliberation, and for reasons justifiable in the light of the union's basic aims.

My own Local Association took a motion to the AUT Special Council in May 2005, proposing that academic boycotts should not be undertaken except in wholly exceptional circumstances. Our motion was proposed (I spoke as proposer) but, like some others, it was not put to a vote because of lack of time. The Special Council had in any case by that stage already voted to reverse the decision to embark on boycotts that had been taken earlier in the year at the annual AUT Council meeting. My LA on 6 February 2007 reaffirmed its wish to see those strict limits applied to any consideration of a boycott, and I agree with and support what has now twice been established at general meetings of our members as our very clearly held position.

My answers to the two questions follow from what I have said above. I am opposed to a boycott of Israeli academics or academic institutions, as I am opposed to academic boycotts elsewhere, unless and until compelling reason is shown for such action, conforming to the principles democratically agreed by the UCU membership.

I believe that adherence to such principles is the proper and will be the most effective way for us to avoid the boycott issue becoming or remaining divisive and destructive within UCU. We must of course allow appropriate opportunity for the expression of a range of views, but I believe the UCU membership is for the most part very aware of the dangers that the union would face if it did not exercise very great caution over such matters. I do not believe that the exceptional grounds currently exist that would justify an academic boycott of Israeli academics or academic institutions by UCU, and I do not believe that most members think such grounds exist either.

Terry Hoad
Hon Secretary, Oxford UCU