In December 2013, immediately after members of the American Studies Association (ASA) voted overwhelmingly to endorse the academic boycott of Israeli institutions as set forth by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, the organization was targeted for criticism by hundreds of college administrators, politicians of both political parties and many others with an interest in Israel. Eventually, ASA was also slapped with a lawsuit that, among other things, claimed that the organization had acted beyond its charter and was therefore liable under what is called ultra vires law — which was designed to keep corporations operating according to their original purposes.
And it’s not just the American Studies Association that has faced this kind of argument. On April 17 the Modern Language Association will begin a vote on a resolution stipulating that the “MLA refrain from participating in a boycott of Israeli universities.” One of the reasons given is that “boycotting Israeli universities contradicts MLA’s purpose to promote teaching and research on language and literature.” The supposition being that endorsing a boycott so as to secure equal rights and academic freedom for Palestinians is unacceptable if it means posing a possible hindrance to normal academic business with Israeli state institutions. In the fight against BDS, opponents have exhumed this vestige of twentieth-century corporate law. Here is how Radhika Sainath, staff attorney for Palestine Legal, described these kinds of suits in a Mondoweiss piece:
As any law student who’s taken a Corporations 101 course can tell you: modern statutes impose almost no limits on corporate purpose or powers. Such “ultra vires” suits went into decline along with jello salad and hot rods.
In a 2015 piece in The Wall Street Journal, Eugene Kontorovich and Steven Davidoff Solomon argued:
Under corporate law, an organization, including a nonprofit, can do only what is permitted under the purposes specified in its charter. Boycott resolutions that are beyond the powers of an organization are void, and individual members can sue to have a court declare them invalid. The individuals serving on the boards of these organizations may be liable for damages.
In that opinion piece, the authors name several organizations, including the American Anthropological Association, the American Historical Association and the Modern Languages Association (MLA). Indeed, just before its 2017 convention, where the MLA deliberated a boycott resolution, the Brandeis Center warned the organization of possible legal action, precisely based on an ultra vires argument.
While this issue is clearly about criticism of Israeli state policies and equal rights for Palestinians, this controversy raises a larger question: What roles can academic organizations play with regard to activism and advocacy? How narrow are their professional charters? Where is the bright line between the “profession” and the world that academics study, create knowledge about and teach in?
Responding to Kontorovich and Solomon in a piece published in the Academe Blog, Peter N. Kirstein, a professor of history, wrote:
I would argue that any resolution, whether supporting a boycott or a plea for greater academic freedom in Palestine, is consistent with the AHA [American Historical Association] charter. The 126-year old charter emphasises “the promotion of historical studies” and the “broadening of historical knowledge among the general public.” Such a resolution stimulates, whether one disagrees with it or not, discussion and analysis of the historical issues in the region.
What I found particularly troubling was the law professors’ hostility to academic freedom. Whether one is acting as an individual or through an organisation, in this country it must be an unfettered right to articulate a position on a matter of public concern.
Those arguing against this resolution point to the fact that in the past, the MLA has passed several resolutions defending the academic freedom and free speech rights of various groups, including Soviet Jews and most recently Turkish academics. So it is not all political advocacy that is to be condemned; according to this resolution, it is advocacy that has to do with Palestinian rights.
Opponents of this anti-boycott resolution also say it deprives MLA members of what Kirstein mentions above — their academic freedom and free speech rights to act as a group. In effect, if this resolution passes, it will place a gag order on MLA members. This is of great concern to not only those advocating for Palestinian rights, but to all those who envision academic organizations on the whole as having responsibilities beyond these very narrow interpretations of their charters.
Recently, members of the Middle East Studies Association [MESA] voted overwhelmingly to remove “nonpolitical” as a descriptor of their organization as found in its charter, thereby giving it latitude to openly debate whether or not to take certain actions, unimpeded by threats of ultra vires lawsuits. Professor Joshua Stacher, a longtime member of MESA and on the Committee for Academic Freedom, told Truthout:
Voters in MESA believed that removing “nonpolitical” better reflects that the knowledge everyone produces is political, and that open and democratic debates served the association best. The “nonpolitical” clause did not reflect the sorts of daily practices that MESA members experience. Removing nonpolitical didn’t make us a political organization. MESA has been political everyday for the past 51 years. Instead, 81 percent of voters decided to resolve this contradictory cold-war era logic and bring MESA’s daily practices into line with its bylaws. Those that argue that MESA chose to be an activist organization over an academic one are just perpetrating a lie that these are separate spheres. They just aren’t. Academic research is at its core a political commitment.
In a recent critical legal decision, a federal court threw out the ultra vires claim in the suit against the American Studies Association.
Meanwhile, in a recent critical legal decision, a federal court threw out the ultra vires claim in the suit against the American Studies Association: “[B]ecause Plaintiffs do not allege facts suggesting that Defendants acted in violation of an express prohibition in the bylaws, they fail to state cognizable ultra vires claims. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ … ultra vires claim [emphasis added].”
Most importantly, the court held:
The boycott resolution was, therefore, enacted for “academic purposes”…. It also was reasonably in furtherance of the ASA’s purpose of advancing education and the promotion of the study of American culture through encouraging research, teaching, and strengthening relations among persons and institutions in the United States and abroad. The boycott resolution was aimed both at encouraging academic freedom for Palestinians and strengthening relations between American institutions and Palestinians. At the very least, it was “reasonably in furtherance of the objects” of the ASA. Thus, it was not contrary to the ASA’s express purposes.
In other words, the court rejected the notion that advocating for academic freedom is somehow beyond the charter of academic organizations.
Robert Warrior, president of the ASA, told Truthout: “We are pleased that significant aspects of the case against the American Studies Association have not survived the court’s consideration, with the failure of the ultra vires claim being especially important. Our motion, it’s important to note, was part of the pretrial proceedings of the court in this case, and the court’s decision assumes for the purposes of the dismissal motion that the allegations of those who are suing the ASA have made are accurate; we have not yet presented our side of the case.”
At a moment when the Trump White House is openly hostile to BDS, academic organizations need more than ever to exercise their academic freedom.
This is a huge victory not only for the ASA, but also for any academic organization even contemplating advocacy or activism. “Lawfare” is a common weapon used by the powerful to drain financial and other resources from organizations which they can out-lawyer and out-resource. Ultra vires suits in particular are used to leverage fear and extreme caution. This case has challenged academic groups on their broader commitments to academic freedom, free speech and public engagement, and in this instance, the challenge has been met, and met in ways that free others organizations to think of taking more assertive positions, especially when it comes to Palestinian rights. At a moment when the Trump White House is openly hostile to BDS (in addition to many forms of political protest), and hostile to education as well, academic organizations need more than ever to exercise their academic freedom, and put to use their critical, intellectual and persuasive powers to educate.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.