Engage

Click here to visit the new Engage website!


76 UCU members: 'in its response to the Inquiry, the UCU does not speak in our name'
Added by David Hirsh on January 18, 2007 01:05:11 PM.
76 UCU members: 'in its response to the Inquiry,  the UCU does not speak in our name'The UCU's Response to Parliamentary Criticism over Antisemitism is Evasive, Disingenuous and Complacent
Summary

1) We are members of the University and College Union, (UCU). Our union has issued a response to the All-Party Parliamentary committee on antisemitism.

2) This is the first substantial statement on antisemitism by our union. On page one it is claimed that the statement is "on behalf of the many thousands of members of the UCU".

3) The UCU statement on antisemitism is evasive, disingenuous and complacent. It fails seriously to address antisemitism and ignores important and justified criticism of the UCU's predecessor unions.

4) On the basis of this statement, the UCU is not serious about combating antisemitism.

5) In this statement, the UCU does not speak for us.
Preamble

Reporting in September 2006, an All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry looked into the problem of antisemitism. The report is available at www.thepcaa.org. Three of the authors of this paper, all of whom are academics in the UK and members of the UCU, submitted written evidence to that inquiry (Shalom Lappin, David Hirsh, Jon Pike). One of us (Jon Pike) gave oral evidence. The UCU made an official submission and has also issued a response to the committee's report. The UCU response is available at www.EngageOnline.org.uk. That response is evasive, disingenuous and complacent, particularly in relation to the effectively anti-Jewish policy of an academic boycott of Israel. The official UCU response to the inquiry purports to be on behalf of its membership. But, because the report is evasive, disingenuous and complacent, we wish publicly to distance ourselves from the UCU response. Regrettably, our Union does not speak for us in this matter.

In what follows we refer by page numbers to the All-Party Report as APR and the UCU response, for which Paul Mackney seems to have had a primary responsibility, as UCUR.

Key criticism of the All Party Report
The key criticism directed at the predecessor unions in the UK by APR are that
They endorsed academic boycotts of Israel that were "anti-Jewish in practice." (APR p.41 para 213)
In UCUR, the UCU ignores, or evades, or mischaracterises this criticism. But the criticism is well founded.

UCUR employs at least four distinct methods of evading criticism:
(i) It ignores or conflates distinctions
(ii) It attacks straw man arguments by mischaracterising criticism
(iii) It employs ad hominem arguments
(iv) It changes the subject.
In the context of the UCU, concern about antisemitism arises largely because of the repeated though as yet unsucessful attempts to impose an academic boycott of Israeli academics and universities. These proposals might be considered antisemitic in (at least) two ways: the first would be that they are motivated by an anti-Jewish sentiment - a conscious antipathy towards, or hatred of Jews. We do not make that claim, and we believe it to be unfair to most of those who argue for a boycott. The second way in which the boycott might be considered antisemitic is that, in effect and in practice, boycotts of Israel largely harm Jews - and this is not justifiable. What might justify it is the provision of a relevant moral property possessed by those who were boycotted, and not possessed by anyone else. But there is no such moral property.

APR implicitly makes the distinction between intentions and effects when it asserts (page 41 paragraph 213) that academic boycotts of Israel are anti-Jewish in practice. It makes the distinction clear in Paragraph 209. UCUR ignores this distinction. Because it is ignored, UCUR is able to conflate the charge that a practice is anti-Jewish in practice with the charge that it is anti-Jewish in intent. UCUR then angrily rejects the claim that the intentions of members of the UCU are, or have been, anti-Jewish. This move entirely misses the point of the criticism levelled in the all party report. It is disingenuous and evasive.

Intentional racism, motivated by race hatred, does not exhaust the possibilities for unjust discrimination against a minority group. Increasingly, and most obviously since the Lawrence Inquiry, serious thinking about racism has been open to the idea that racism can be manifested in effect, through policies and processes that discriminate unjustly against an ethnic or religious group. This takes place when a group is discriminated against in an unjust way. As the Lawrence Inquiry report asserts:
6.13 Lord Scarman accepted the existence of what he termed "unwitting" or "unconscious" racism. To those adjectives can be added a third, namely "unintentional". All three words are familiar in the context of any discussion in this field.

6.17 Unwitting racism can arise because of lack of understanding, ignorance or mistaken beliefs. It can arise from well intentioned but patronising words or actions. It can arise from unfamiliarity with the behaviour or cultural traditions of people or families from minority ethnic communities. It can arise from racist stereotyping of black people as potential criminals or troublemakers. Often this arises out of uncritical self-understanding born out of an inflexible police ethos of the "traditional" way of doing things. Furthermore such attitudes can thrive in a tightly knit community, so that there can be a collective failure to detect and to outlaw this breed of racism....

6.34 Taking all that we have heard and read into account we grapple with the problem. For the purposes of our Inquiry the concept of institutional racism which we apply consists of:
The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.
6.48 There must be an unequivocal acceptance of the problem of institutional racism and its nature before it can be addressed, as it needs to be, in full partnership with members of minority ethnic communities.
That implementation of proposals for an academic boycott would be anti-Jewish in effect is not a matter of opinion (as suggested by UCUR) but a matter of fact. This can be shown be considering the following four facts about the world:
(i) The boycotters threaten Israeli academics, and those with institutional affiliations to Israeli universities with "isolation from the international academic research community" (Rose & Rose 2002).

(ii) Most Israeli academics are Jewish, and a disproportionately high number of British academics with affiliations to Israeli Universities are Jewish.

(iii) The boycott threatens to isolate a group of people who are mostly Jews from the international research community (this follows from (i) and (ii)).

(iv) Isolation from the international research community is a form of harm.
Boycotters will, of course, say that they do not intend to isolate Jews as Jews from the international research community, but only as Israelis. We do not, for now, dispute this point. But, given the understanding of boycotts as practically if not intentionally anti-Jewish contained in APR (paragraph 213), this response does not meet the criticism at all.

Mackney needs to say which of the claims above (i) to (iv) he disputes, and which are subjective. In doing so he ought not to avoid or obfuscate the issues. There are, of course, responses to the charge of effective discrimination which do not shy away from or obfuscate the issues. It is open to Mackney to argue in one of the following ways.
1) He could dispute that the anti-Jewish discrimination involved in proposals for an academic boycott of Israel is unjust. He could concede that mostly Jewish academics in Israel and the UK are singled out and discriminated against by the boycott. But he could argue that this is justified. Either by living in Israel, or by having connections with Israel, these academics, mostly Jews, are in a unique moral position, uniquely venal, and deserving of their isolation.

We do not recommend this defence to a union that claims that it is unremittingly opposed to antisemitism.

2) The second line of argument concedes that the academic boycott is anti-Jewish in effect, but asserts that this anti Jewish discrimination is justified by some weightier considerations. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, and the unjust discrimination involved in the isolation of academics, mostly Jews, from the international research community is a price worth paying. We know of two advocates of the boycott who appear to take this position. Professor Michael Neumann (2002) urges that "we have some fun with antisemitism". Anonymous advocates of the boycott, in an article cited in UCUR (Traubman & Joffe-Walt 2006):
"agreed that a boycott is discriminatory, but argued the boycott of South Africa was both discriminatory and necessary. For the most part, the boycott's advocates admitted it would infringe on academic freedom"
We ask here that the authors of UCUR understand this obvious concession. Boycotters will, for example, agree that the boycott proposals damage Jewish Studies in the UK, but will argue that this is a small price to pay.

Again, while this is a coherent position, it is not one we recommend to the Union if it is unremittingly opposed to antisemitism. It is, perhaps, the approach of a union that stands for remitting, not unremitting, opposition to policies that are anti-Jewish in practice.

3) The third line of argument again concedes that the academic boycott of Israel is anti-Jewish in effect, if not in intent, but assures us that this problematic situation will not last very long. The problem arises from the singling out of Israel, and perhaps we will be told that the union will rapidly turn its attention to the US (because of Iraq) China (because of Tibet) India (because of Kashmir)) Sudan because of Darfur, and so on. Because the authors of UCUR are appear unable to distinguish between criticising the government of a state and boycotting the academics of that state, we worry that this might, in fact, be their implicit position. Nevertheless, this policy of a generalised boycott of academics from unpleasant regimes around the world, would not be anti-Jewish in effect. It would simply end our aspiration to global academic and intellectual community.

4) The final possible response to the criticism that the academic boycotts entertained by the predecessor unions were anti-Jewish in effect, would be that the UCU acknowledges that this is a policy that is, in practice, anti-Jewish. This would mean the UCU developing a more serious and mature approach to the question of antisemitism than is shown by UCUR. This would also mean finding more meaningful and effective ways of supporting Palestinian academics under occupation and standing with those in both Israel and Palestine working for a just peace and against racism.
There are grounds for optimism that this last approach might be taken. UCU does show that it is capable of understanding the distinction between indirect and direct racism in its response to the inquiry. It attempts to burnish its credentials as an anti-racist organisation by pointing to the changes in the rules of Natfhe to allow for a shift of timings from the mandatory Saturday meetings. Saturday meetings clearly exclude observant Jews.

The structure of the problem here is strikingly similar to the problems involved in the proposals for an academic boycott of Israel. No one would suggest that the meetings arrangements for Natfhe were motivated by hatred for Jews; nonetheless, they excluded Jews unfairly and thus constituted a sort of indirect racism.

In fact, Saturday meetings are difficult for other sorts of members too - those with young children who are in childcare, football fans, and so on. But the way in which Saturday meetings impact on observant Jews is a particular problem because Jews are an ethnic and cultural minority, and we should be more concerned about collective ill effects on ethnic and cultural minorities than on football fans (Edmonds, 2006). For this reason, the fact that some Israeli citizens and academics are not Jews does not touch on the central point about the effectively anti-Jewish character of a boycott.

A rule that union meetings can only take place on a Saturday is in effect anti Jewish, even if nobody intended it to be, and even if nobody was motivate by hatred of Jews.
The penal system and death row in the Southern states of the US is effectively racist, because it disproportionately kills African-Americans. This is not reducible to the intentions of the judiciary.

We hope that the leadership of the UCU will be able to apply an understanding of effective discrimination to the issue of the academic boycott of Israel.

"Anti Jewish in practice": an Impact Analysis

In the consideration of policies that might be discriminatory in effect, standard good practice is to look at the effect of particular policies on ethnic, cultural and religious minorities. In order to bring out the issues and sharpen the minds of the UCU leadership, we sketch just one of the many aspects of any 'impact analysis' on the British academia, of the proposals for a boycott of Israel: the effect on Jewish studies. This fleshes out comments in APR 209, which UCUR ignores. The following institutions have Centres of Jewish Studies:
Belfast: Dept of German Studies, Queen's University Belfast
Sussex: Centre for German-Jewish Studies, University of Sussex
Cambridge: Centre for Jewish-Christian Relations at Cambridge
Cambridge: University of Cambridge
Lampeter: Dept of Theology, University of Wales
Leeds: Centre for Jewish Studies, University of Leeds
Leicester: Dept of History, University of Leicester
London: Centre for Jewish Studies, SOAS
London: Dept of Hebrew & Jewish Studies, University College London
London: Dept of Theology & Religious Studies, King's College London
London: Leo Baeck College - Centre for Jewish Education
Manchester: Centre for Jewish Studies, University of Manchester
Oxford: Oxford Centre for Hebrew & Jewish Studies
Oxford: University of Oxford
Southampton: Parkes Institute, University of Southampton
These institutions teach Hebrew, Jewish History, and Jewish Theology. Obviously, they make regular contact with Israeli scholars and institutions, and some have formal institutional links with Israeli Universities. In considering their response to the APR, we ask the leadership of the UCU to consider the impact of proposals for the UCU to organise the "isolation of Israeli scholars from the international research community" on these centres of scholarship in the UK.

Either the Centres for Jewish studies become impoverished in both research and teaching, because they make no contact with Israeli scholars, or their academics resign, or change their field.

Or these teachers and researchers break the boycott and leave the Union.

The proposals for the UCU to adopt an academic boycott of Israel are, in effect, proposals that Jewish Studies in the UK becomes non-union. In view of this sketch of an impact analysis, what part of "anti-Jewish in practice" does Mackney not understand?

We now turn to the four discrete evasions contained in UCUR

Evasion One: "Criticism of Israel is not in itself antisemitic"

Mackney claims that the section on boycotts raises the question of "whether it is legitimate to criticize the actions of the state of Israel." (UCUR p.3). He claims that this is a "serious issue" and chides the APR for distracting from this "serious debate". We are surprised, since this is not a question that appears anywhere in the APR. We are concerned that our Union leadership have been wasting their time. It is a ridiculous question, since everyone agrees on the answer: that it is legitimate to criticise the actions of the state of Israel.

Yet in their response to the report, UCU
"emphatically reject the suggestion that criticism of the Israeli government is itself antisemitic any more than criticism of the British government is 'anti-British'."
This emphatic rejection, made in UCUR, and on a large number of occasions by Paul Mackney, is an evasion. It denies - emphatically rejects, no less - the following possible claim:
"Criticism of the Israeli government is in itself Antisemitic" (Claim X)
Since this is a claim that Mackney takes the trouble emphatically to reject, it will be instructive to see who makes either Claim X, or the associated claim "it is not legitimate to criticise the actions of the state of Israel".

Perhaps it is in APR? Perhaps it is made by UCU members gathered around the Engage website? Perhaps it is made by individual members of the UCU? Perhaps it is made by international critics of the boycott such as the American Association of University Professors, or the Middle East Studies Association? Perhaps it is made by strong partisans of Israel such as Melanie Phillips? Perhaps the claim is made by the Board of Deputies of British Jews?

In fact, the absurd claim that "criticism of the Israeli government is in itself antisemitic" is not contained anywhere in APR. It is not made by members of the UCU who are critical of the boycott, or Engage, or the Board of Deputies, or by the Community Security Trust, or the Union of Jewish students, or the American Association of University Professors or by the Middle East Studies Association, or by any of the other people listed above. We suggest that the reason no one serious makes this claim is because it is absurd.

To deny Claim X is worthless, since it is not a claim made by anyone serious, or a claim that is a part of the debate. The claim is an obvious straw man.

If Mackney wishes to dispute this, he should provide evidence of someone serious, - or in fact anyone at all - who makes Claim X - the claim that he "emphatically rejects." He should say why he takes this person and this claim so seriously as to think it worth "emphatically rejecting." Or he should find someone who makes the claim that "it is not legitimate to criticise the actions of the Israeli state." It would help to identify this person, since, according to Mackney, they have raised an "important question" in the APR, and it seems they have managed to raise it without the knowledge of any members of the all party committee, or of the participants in the debates over proposals for an academic boycott.

Denying irrelevant and absurd claims contributes nothing to the debate, and rebuts no criticism of the UCU or its predecessor unions. To say that "criticism of Israel is not necessarily antisemitic" is a worthless evasion. To - let us suppose - emphatically assert the claim that "criticism of the actions of the state of Israel is legitimate", is again, worthless. Contrary to the claim of UCUR, these are not serious issues (p.3) and if the UCU has been addressing them in its debates, it has been wasting its time.

To be sure, if anyone made the absurd claim that criticism of Israel is necessarily antisemitic, then they would have met their match - emphatic rejection, no less - from UCUR. If someone else, perhaps a similar straw man, asserts that it is not legitimate to criticise actions of the state of Israel, it seems they will be treated as someone who raises a "serious issue" and presumably they would be rebutted (emphatically, no doubt). For this, Mackney would merit our thanks.

In the meantime we would ask that the UCU leadership address itself to a criticism that is raised both by us, and by the APR: that an academic boycott of Israel is anti-Jewish in practice.

Evasion Two: Dressing up an academic boycott up as "criticism"

The claim that "criticism of Israel is not antisemitic" is doubly evasive, because the chief concern of the All-Party Inquiry and of members of the UCU who raise serious concerns about antisemitism is not criticism of the Israeli government, but the proposed academic boycott of Israeli scholars. On many occasions in UCUR, the word "criticism" and its cognates are used to refer to what any reasonable reader of the APR would understand as a reference to proposals for an academic boycott of Israel.

In substituting "criticism" for "boycott", UCUR fails to attend to the substance of the criticism levelled by in APR. This substitution is particularly stark on page 5 UCUR. There, when commenting on APR's explicit criticism of the academic boycott, in paragraph 213 of APR, UCUR on three occasions sanitises and misdescribes the boycott proposals. First it describes boycott proposals as "particular policies" and then as "a policy which is critical of the actions of the Israeli government." (UCUR p.5, third paragraph). In the next paragraph, UCUR sanitises the boycott for a third time, - as a policy that is simply "critical of a foreign government" (UCUR p.5 fourth paragraph). In these paragraphs, there is no other possible referent of the term "criticism." The evasion here is blatant, and these paragraphs of UCUR are intellectually disgraceful.

If the issue was simply "criticism", the predecessor unions to the UCU would not have gone through tortured debates in 2005 and 2006. Criticism is not the issue: the issue is, as Rose and Rose (2002) put it, a policy designed to secure the "exclusion of Israeli academics from the international research community." It is well known and fully documented that this proposal has involved the sacking of Israeli academics from editorial boards, refusal of admission to Israeli postgraduates, political censorship of academic papers, and the corrosion of professional standards of peer review. It is also well known that advocates of the boycott now argue for similar actions to be undertaken covertly, in the name of taking "a quiet stand".

These actions do not simply constitute criticism and it is an obvious pretence to suggest that they do. So long as they engage in such a pretence, the authors of UCUR talk past their critics: they deny claims that their critics do not make.

Evasion Three: "The cry of antisemitism is a tactic"

UCUR makes a further charge against critics of the UCU and its predecessor unions. This is the third clear evasion in the response. Mackney argues that:
"unfortunately defenders of the Israeli government's actions have used a charge of antisemitism as a tactic in order to smother democratic debate, and in the context of Higher Education, to restrict academic freedom." UCUR (p2)
UCUR raises this concern again, where it suggests that tackling antisemitism on campus ought to be supported
"provided that charges of antisemitism are not used to stifle debate and inquiry, or academic freedom." UCUR (p. 6)
The charge is one of bad faith levelled at, amongst other things, criticism of the boycott campaign within the predecessor unions to the UCU. It is directed specifically at those critics for whom the antisemitic effect of the boycott is an important argument - there are, of course, other arguments against the boycott proposals. The charge rests on a distinction between the professed intent and the hidden intent of critics. The professed concern of these critics of the boycott policy is concern that the boycott was, in effect antisemitic. This worry is raised by many Jewish members of the UCU, by Jewish communal organisations and by other anti-racists, because they are concerned about indirect racism, or actions that are anti-Jewish in practice. But, suggests UCUR, their hidden intent is to stifle or delegitimise criticism of Israel. No evidence is provided for this charge - which is essentially unfalsifable. It is, however, a serious accusation made by the leadership of the union against a significant number of its members. Moreover the conflation of "defenders of the Israeli government's actions" with those who oppose the boycott is, needless to says, not one for which any evidence can be or has been adduced.

Suppose the writers were serious in their concern about antisemitism, but also concerned about the supposed use of the charge of antisemitism as a diversion. They would then work carefully to distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable charges: they would attend carefully to the precise charges that critics make, and only when they were clearly able to dismiss the professed motivation - concern with antisemitism - would they raise the charge that antisemitism is used as a diversion. UCUR does not do this. As we show above, it does not seriously attend to the criticisms raised, because it conflates distinctions, attack straw men, and change the subject. That it then goes on to charge critics with hypocrisy is deeply disappointing. At its very best, the charge of hypocrisy is obviously premature. Less charitably, the charge amounts to an empty and evasive ad hominem. The ad hominem is raised against a group that consists mainly of Jews and Jewish organisations: it alleges an attempt to shield Israel from justified criticism by dishonest means. Such an ad hominem has no place in a serious document.

Evasion Four: "What about Islamophobia?"

UCUR chides the All-Party Inquiry for the narrowness of its remit. It argues: "it seems inappropriate to have taken antisemitism as a topic in isolation at a time when Islamophobia is also on the increase and when the two issues surely need a joint balanced approach." We resist the attempt to UCUR here to change the subject. We do not understand what an approach that "balances" one form of discrimination against another amounts to.

We would argue for a serious approach to Islamophobia on the part of the UCU. In our view, this would involve amongst other things:
-- Listening to, and attending carefully to the views of its members who raise concerns about Islamophobia, and perhaps especially those who raise concerns about anti-Islamic indirect or 'in practice' discrimination.

-- Treating seriously external critics of its practices and policies, including practices and policies of its predecessor unions.

-- Refraining from constructing straw man arguments, or employing ad hominem, arguments, or conflating distinctions.

-- Avoiding, in its response to concern about Islamophobia saying; "hang on, what about antisemitism?"
The fourth evasion in UCUR is a token not only of unseriousness about antisemitism but also about Islamophobia. We urge that the UCU addresses this seriously, carefully, with regard to the specificities of its expression, and in consultation both with Muslim and anti-racist members of the union and with representative Islamic institutions beyond the union. We urge, then, that our union takes a wholly different approach to the one taken to antisemitism in UCUR. We decry the attempt to play off one form of unjust discrimination against another.

Democracy and the boycott

Finally, we comment briefly on an implied criticism made in APR. With a tone of moral outrage, the UCU responds to criticism of the decision making processes that led to boycotts briefly in place in its two predecessor unions. It finds this criticism:
"highly improper, constituting an interference in the democratic process of our union. The UCU and its predecessors are and were democratic organistions."
We hope that the UCU is a democratic organisation, properly representative of its members, and one which makes decisions and public statements after properly consulting with them. It does not appear to have done so in drafting UCUR.

In both of the predecessor unions, the quality of their democratic processes was questionable in relation to decisions to boycott Israeli universities and academics. As members of the predecessor unions, we found this highly embarrassing, and will not comment further. Rather, we refer to two judgements made about these specific decisions.

First, the view of AUT, collectively, determined at Special Council 2005:
"Council notes that at the last council AUT international policy on Israel and Palestine was resolved in the absence of defining principle and without debate or acceptable standards of democratic procedure."
Second, the view of Paul Mackney himself, expressed in his speech to Natfhe conference 2006:
"Any motion to boycott requires the highest level of legitimacy and collective member support.

This motion did not come from a branch. It came from the pen and the not insubstantial mind of Tom Hickey at the meeting of South East Regional Council. And it was the fourth motion from South East Region to be placed by Steering Committee on the general conference agenda when it is only allowed 3 under the rules.

An effective boycott requires member support. I've been asking around and so far as I can see 198C has not been discussed by more than a couple of branches.

In case I'm wrong, I'd like to check that view here: could anyone whose branch has discussed 198C please stand up ... or put up your hand.***

*** only one delegate (Tom Hickey) indicated their branch had discussed the motion.

To be fair the middle paragraph of motion 198C does suggest discussions of the issue in branches, but after the policy is adopted ...

You cannot build a boycott on conference rhetoric; you need to involve the members; you need collective action by the members. Without that such a policy is 'substitutionism' because ...

You cannot build boycott movements from statements and control from above. The NEC passed a sort of boycott motion about 3 years ago and we abandoned it a year later because it became a distraction from raising the main issue and no branch acted upon it. We were diverted into defending a policy on which no-one was acting.

I do not want our first year in UCU to be distracted by the policy in 198C.

In UCU I want policies carried which have resonance with and can involve members in the branches, not empty gestures - a mass rather than an oligarchic approach.

The process here lacks legitimacy. The AUT did something similar last year and were then overturned by a revolt from their membership."
Conclusion

The UCU response to the APR begins by saying that: "We are writing on behalf of the many members of UCU."

We are and will remain members of the UCU, but in its response to the All-Party Inquiry into antisemitism, the UCU does not speak or act in our name.

This document is signed by the following, all of whom are members of the University and College Union:

1. Adrian Hyde-Price, Leicester
2. Alan Fersht, Cambridge
3. Alan Johnson, Edge Hill
4. Alex Samely, Manchester
5. Alison Diduck, UCL
6. Amanda Loumansky, Middlesex
7. Andrea Rota, Goldsmiths
8. Annette Seidel Arpaci, Leeds
9. Avrom Sherr, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies
10. Ben Gidley, Goldsmiths
11. Bencie Woll, UCL
12. Bernard S. Jackson, Manchester
13. Bill Williams, Manchester
14. Brian Burrows , Staffordshire
15. Carol Wilson, Leeds
16. Colin Shindler, SOAS
17. Daniel Leiwy, Westminster
18. Daniel Weinbren, Open
19. David Cesarani, Royal Holloway
20. David Foster, Manchester
21. David Hirsh, Goldsmiths
22. David Katz, UCL
23. David Lass, The Maughan Library
24. David Miller, Leeds
25. David Seymour, Lancaster
26. David-Hillel Ruben, Birkbeck
27. Derek Meyer, Westminster
28. Eric Heinze, Queen Mary
29. Eva Frojmovic, Leeds
30. Eve Garrard, Keele
31. Fiona Fairweather, UEL
32. Gerry Leisman, Leeds Metropolitan
33. Gregory Gutin, Royal Holloway
34. Harriet R. Tenenbaum, Kingston
35. Harry Lesser, Manchester
36. Hemda Garelick, Middlesex
37. Helen West, Brent Adult & Community Education Service
38. Howard Fredrics, UCU unaffiliated
39. Istvan Pogany, Warwick
40. James Mendelsohn, Huddersfield
41. Jeanne Katz, Open
42. Jeffrey Ketland, Edinburgh
43. Jeanette Copperman, City University
44. Jenny Jacobs, Middlesex
45. Joanna Adler, Middlesex
46. John Strawson, UEL
47. Jon Pike, Open
48. Josh Cohen, Goldsmiths
49. Kirsten Campbell, Goldsmiths
50. Larry Ray, Kent
51. Leon Litvack, Queens, Belfast
52. Lesley Klaff, Sheffield Hallam
53. Margaret Harris, Aston
54. Maurice Glasman, London Metropolitan
55. Michael Short, West of England
56. Michael Yudkin, Oxford
57. Mira Vogel, Goldsmiths
58. Nina Collins, Leeds
59. Pauline Allen, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
60. Philip Spencer, Kingston
61. Robert Fine, Warwick
62. Ronnie Fraser, Barnet
63. Sandi Mann, Central Lancashire
64. Sandra Fredman, Oxford
65. Sasha Roseneil, Leeds
66. Shalom Lappin, Kings, London
67. Sonja Grussendorf, Goldsmiths
68. Stephen Soskin, Buckinghamshire Chilterns
69. Steve Shnyder, Bradford
70. Sue Gold, Barnet
71. Sue Jackson, Birkbeck
72. Sue Vice, Sheffield
73. Tessa Rajak, Reading
74. Wlodek Tych, Lancaster
75. Yaakov Wise, Manchester
76. Yochanan Altman, London Metropolitan

References
:

Edmonds, David (2006), Caste Wars: The Philosophy of Discrimination. Routledge Studies in Ethics & Moral Theory Routledge.

Neumann, Michael (2002) 'What is Antisemitism?' Counterpunch, 4 June 2002, http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann0604.html

Rose, Hilary & Rose, Steven, (2002) 'The choice is to do nothing or try to bring about change', The Guardian, 15 July 2002, http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,755433,00.html.

Traubman, Tamara & Joffe-Walt, Benjamin, (2006) 'Israeli University Boycott: How a Camnpaign Backfired', The Guardian, 20 June 2006, http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,1800987,00.html.


administration