Solidarity is, perhaps, the key moral property of the left, just as its distinctive aims are equality and genuine, substantial, liberty. There’s a lot of unpicking to do in each of these, but the call to solidarity – the call to stick together – is one that all those on the left should heed and take seriously. More than that, old fashioned as I am, I think there’s still a lot to be said for class solidarity – for those who sell their labour, to stick together, recognising their common economic position, their common interests and their common goals, to unite across petty divides. Again, there’s a lot to say about how this happens, how solidarity is realised, what the common goals are and so on. But solidarity matters.

Here’s the first dimension. When you’re involved in a dispute in higher education, seeking a catch up pay claim, you need to generate maximum unity between workers in higher education, as well as with students, who often bear the brunt of the action you are taking. That's happening at the moment, here in the UK, where our dispute with the employers (the HCEA) is building momentum and entering a tight phase, with the prospect of exams being cancelled quite immanently. In this situation, it’s obviously essential for lecturers to stick together across the 92 divide, and across the two unions – Natfhe and the AUT. It's important to remember the duty to solidarity in a struggle.

But a few colleagues in Natfhe have forgotten this. They seem to think it’s a good idea to reopen the boycott wars. With impeccable timing, they want the newspapers to be full, not of our case for a pay rise, but of our disagreements over the boycott. The press offices at Natfhe and the AUT will be responding to questions about the boycott, not getting our case into the media. We in Engage, will, of course, fight the boycott proposals, but we’re also pretty furious that the Natfhe boycotters are dragging us away from the dispute with the HCEA. Many Natfhe and AUT members, reading about the boycott dispute in the papers will be exasperated and angry – that the boycotters are stuck into their self-indulgent spring ritual again. Frankly, if the HCEA wanted to disrupt the Natfhe/AUT action, they couldn’t have dreamed of a better way to do so than reopening the boycott debate. At a time where we need to focus on the dispute, maintain our cohesion, and simply stick together, the boycott proposal is disastrously mistimed. For this reason alone, South East Natfhe should withdraw 198C.

But perhaps I’m being too parochial – perhaps there’s more to life than the University pay dispute in the UK. Perhaps these petty local considerations should be trumped by a sense of international solidarity. Perhaps that’s the second dimension, that I’m missing.

Well, perhaps. I’m in favour of international solidarity, and class solidarity across national borders. It’s great that so many of our equivalent trade unions around the world have sent us messages of support in our current dispute. Including the Union covering staff in Israeli Universities. In this letter, the Chair of the Committee of Faculty Associations declares his support for our action. Israeli colleagues are watching our dispute, willing us on, supporting us politically. They are doing this because they understand the nature of our dispute, because they have faced similar struggles in the past and will face similar struggles in the future. This sort of class solidarity ought to be ABC to people on the left, and it ought to be respected, whatever your views on the conflict in Israel/Palestine. But again, the proposers of the new boycott initiative in Natfhe respond to this message of solidarity with McCarthyite political tests and individual boycotts directed against the very same Israeli academics who express their solidarity with us. This strikes me as a bit rude.

Running through the whole boycott argument is a failure to recognise the existence of the Israeli labour movement and the Israeli working class. It’s just written off by the boycotters. Israel’s trade unions, its Labour Party and Communist Party, its bedrock labour movement institutions – and its peace movement – are just written off by the boycotters. Instead of any labour movement perspective, the boycotters opt for individual discriminatory acts against university workers and trade unionists who have the misfortune to live in an ‘illegitimate’ state.

But again, perhaps I’m missing the point. Perhaps I’m paying too much attention to the ‘Zionist entity’ – never mind about them, what I should really be thinking about is the need for solidarity with the Palestinians.

Well, that’s a tricky one. I’m under no duty whatsoever to make solidarity with Hamas, and I don’t agree with those Palestinians who advocate an academic and cultural boycott. I agree with those who oppose a boycott or those that think it’s for us to you can too. But at one level, solidarity is uncontroversial. You should at least listen to Palestinian voices, including ones you disagree with. You should at least try to understand the debate and the positions that people take up. For example, I know that the major organisation calling for a boycott, PACBI – an organisation with which I have a large number of disagreements – has changed its position quite recently. It specifically rules out an individual boycott, and it rules out political tests.

But the proposers of the Natfhe boycott resolution have failed even this uncontroversial threshold of solidarity. They have failed to notice the change in position, because 198C calls both for boycotts of individuals and reintroduces the idea of a political test. Once again, they want to require of Israeli academics that they publicly disassociate themselves from the ‘apartheid policies’ of the Israeli state. The arguments against such a proposal are well rehearsed, and it should be defeated because of this McCarthyite stench. But what I want to highlight here is that the proposers of the motion have ignored the PACBI change of position and blundered on with their own, homespun boycott proposal.

198C does not arise ‘organically’, or ‘out of the struggle.’ It is sucked out of the air by Tom Hickey and his colleagues in the SWP, in wilfull ignorance of the change in the Palestinian call. This is a simple point: the Palestinians who are in favour of a boycott simply do not call for one along the lines of the Natfhe resolution. Don’t get me wrong: I would still oppose a boycott call that was in line with the PACBI position. Solidarity doesn’t mean suppressing disagreement or switching off your critical faculties.

But solidarity does require three things: it requires unity in industrial struggles. It requires respect for international class organisations. And it requires that you listen to those with whom you seek to make solidarity.
198C fails all three tests. It should be withdrawn.

Jon Pike
Senior Lecturer
Open University