Unfortunately, most American academics and academic institutions are remaining silent on the issue of our academic relations with Israeli scholars and institutions. Even among concerned academics, apparently, there is an absence of transparent, accountable statements — including from those who are reportedly “quiet boycotting” Israel by shelving projects, removing author’s names, declining anonymous reviews, and canceling events without explanation with increasing frequency. (Even the activists who pushed through a statement in support of an Israeli ceasefire by the American Sociological Association have not proposed a policy on what and when to boycott in our work, which is a missed opportunity.)
This silence must be why my little blog post, announcing one action by one individual not to review one proposal for the Israel Science Foundation has been referenced in the Financial Times, Bloomberg news, and Haaretz. I have no claim to having this best practice or explanation for my choices. But I do know that it would be even less effectual if it were done privately and quietly — and there would be no opportunity to hold me accountable for it. So what’s the point in that? To review, this is what I wrote to the Israel Science Foundation in March:
I have decided to decline your invitation to review this proposal, because I believe the international community cannot permit the normalization of relations with the State of Israel in light of its actions in Gaza and the West Bank since October 7. If the researchers had approached me personally to talk about their research, I would be happy to do so. However, I will not contribute directly to the operations of the state through the review process for the ISF. I have dear family and numerous colleagues in Israel, and I hope I will be able to visit again and renew our bonds. But in the absence of responsible state action by your government (or ours), I must instead do what I can to contribute to the diplomatic, political, and even scientific isolation of the state. It is on the wrong side of history, and that behavior must have consequences.
One question I have heard from a few people, unfortunately rhetorical rather than serious, is: what about boycotting America? I got this email today:
Hi Professor Cohen, I just read a Bloomberg Businessweek article dated 6/13 that quotes you regarding your refusal to review an Israel Science Foundation proposal. Am I wrong to think that, by your logic, foreign scholars should shun academic cooperation with you during a Trump presidency? His policies are undeniably “on the wrong side of history,” with climate change denial just one example of untold damage and human suffering caused by a national government under which you perform research. Israeli scholars deserve the same grace as you.
I have a few unordered thoughts in reply. First, to clarify for this reader, who probably hasn’t seen my full statement, I made it clear I am not refusing to work with Israeli scholars individually, just refusing to work for their state institutions directly. In other words, I’m a middle-ground boycotter, not a full-on cultural boycotter. As I have said before, I do not endorse the maximalist demands of the Boycott Divest Sanctions movement, which is a shame because I would rather sign on to a larger statement and practice than just make my own, but I don’t see one I agree with to endorse. Thus, I am open to criticism on this point from both directions, obviously.
With regard to boycotting America under Trump: I’m all ears if you’re more than talk. Why wait for Trump, isn’t America bad enough for you already? Those are American bombs killing the children of Gaza, despite the mealy-mouthed pseudo-objections of our feckless president. I know what some people are thinking: Where does it end? Are we academics to politically evaluate every professional decision we make and choose our actions based on some ideological purity test? The short answer is yes, of course, we do this all the time, because we are thoughtfully engaged citizens in addition to being dedicated scientists. But it doesn’t have to be a ridiculous or arbitrary virtue-signaling purity test death spiral. Just make a policy, state it clearly, and apply it (with an open ear for constructive feedback).
Does this ruin science, which is supposed to be above politics? No. Science has never been above politics, for better and for worse. You can pretend it’s not and just let other people make the political decisions for you. You can impose purity politics to such a high standard of perfection that nothing can get done. Or you can state your principles, own your compromises, and engage with the world in a meaningful way to try to strike the right balances. (Also, you’ll probably want to bookmark this page to remember to buy copies of my book, Citizen Scholar, for all your friends when it comes out in a few months.)
I could devise a principle by which I would support a boycott of U.S. academics. But instead I chose to put the effort into this little statement and blog post with regard to Israel because I considered it an emergency, with a clear set of violations by the Israeli government as articulated by an overwhelming international majority through its political and legal bodies. Your values may differ.
I also thought it had a chance of influencing events, partly by motivating Israeli academics to speak up themselves. There are anti-government protests in Israel, but I strain to find even a stray mention of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the agenda or demands of these activists, at least as represented by the news media. (The very small number of Israelis who publicly protest killing Gazans also tend to get brutally beaten and arrested, because Israel is definitely a democracy.) I would love to hear progressive Israeli academics say, “We protest this war, because it is morally indefensible, and because we are isolated internationally due to our government’s massive violation of human rights and disregard for international law.” Maybe statements and actions by international colleagues can help motivate them.
We do see that Israeli academics are worry about boycotts, as evidenced by a number of leaders speaking out against a proposed law that would require immediate firing university employees who speak out against the state — which university leaders point out only would add fuel to the fire of international boycotts. Maybe the opposition to this law is a good sign that pressure is having an effect (I’m no expert on Israeli domestic politics).
In the case of Trump, many American academics were protesting him and his administration vociferously. Our institutions made statements against him. We published books and articles denouncing him as an authoritarian — and, crucially, also protested his treatment of people who aren’t even Americans. I personally sued him in federal court for blocking me on Twitter. And so on. Would an international boycott help? I don’t know. I don’t think refusing to publish my work, for example, would help isolate America internationally and get rid of Trump. However, if — for example — he wins and then implements his evil plans for the federal bureaucracy and savages institutions like NIH and NSF, I might join a boycott of those institutions.
So, make a case for it. If you wouldn’t work for Hitler’s sociology department, that means you are applying political principles to your professional choices. What are your criteria, and will you state them out loud?
Family Inequality 