Skip to content Skip to footer

Boycotts, Academic Freedom, History

At the November 22 weekend’s annual meeting of the American Studies Association, a resolution for an academic boycott of Israel was presented for a vote in the National Council.

At the November 22 weekend’s annual meeting of the American Studies Association, a resolution for an academic boycott of Israel was presented for a vote in the National Council. I won’t repeat the information found in the reports that have already been published in Inside Higher Education and the Chronicle of Higher Education here, nor the fine rebuttal of the charge that such boycotts violate academic freedom, to be found in David Lloyd and Malini Johar Schueller’s “The Israeli State of Exception and the Case for Academic Boycott,” nor will I go over the points made in Joan Scott’s account of how she came to change her mind and support a boycott. My perceptions of what happened in Washington, DC this past weekend and especially its relevance to the passing of such a resolution by the Association for Asian American Studies in April 2013, an act mentioned by Angela Davis in her remarks at a panel on Friday, follow.

The notion of such a boycott has been circulating at the ASA for at least two years; this year it came forward formally. There were a number of sessions in which the issue of Palestine was central, and on Friday there was a large, ballroom-filling session featuring the panel at which Davis and others spoke. This set the stage for a nearly two-hour town hall meeting Saturday.

Those attending were invited to put their names into a box and the organizers drew out names at random, inviting people to the open mike. The overwhelming number of those in favor (a rough count was about 50 for the resolution and 7 against) did not break down neatly across generational lines or professional lines, but nearly so. Among the older, senior scholars, those who opposed the boycott represented the familiar liberal position of academic freedom as a transcendent value, a value to which the Association traditionally held. But many more of the same or nearly the same generation brought up the need to protest against the very imperialism we teach our students about in our classrooms, seeing imperialism as an indelible part of America’s presence in the world; others like myself said the resolution was a vote of no confidence that the existing political, legal, and academic protocols in an apartheid state could guarantee true academic freedom for all. But for me the most impressive speakers were the students and young assistant professors who spoke, people who have everything to risk by making themselves thus visible in the prevailing climate in the United States. It is no wonder that their comments were the most compelling because they spoke with the passion and commitment of activists at risk.

There is no doubt in my mind that the ASA is changing in response to the younger scholars coming into the profession, who are appreciably more diverse in many ways than in the past. It is also changing, not only in terms of the themes and topics around which conferences are organized (this year’s theme was Debt), but also in the spirit of civic engagement aroused, and the kinds of engagement that we are pressed into, given the times.

I am not sure at all what will happen with the resolution for the boycott – which leads me to wonder why and how it is that the ASA may not, as Angela Davis suggested, “catch up” with the Association for Asian American Studies, which is itself preparing for its annual meeting in April. Since our vote was made public, the Association has been hit with relentless attacks in the press and privately, from everyone including regular individuals to a member of Congress (for just one example of this backlash see the exchange I had with Jonathan Marks on the pages of Inside Higher Education). Preparing for our upcoming meeting, I was of a mind that we had no reason to revisit this issue – we had presented the case, held our vote, and taken our position. Yet because the AAAS resolution has now been reanimated by the ASA discussion, I believe that at our meeting we might well re-contextualize what happened last April. For it is clear to me now that the Association for Asian American Studies not only, as does the American Studies Association, research and teach about America, it also is deeply and emphatically devoted to studying the historical and contemporary relationship between America and Asia and Asians in America. And this has included a history of exclusionary laws, the disqualification of Asians to speak in court, their ineligibility for citizenship, anti-miscegenation laws, colonial wars fought on Asian Pacific soil from Hawai’i and the Philippines to Korea to Vietnam and Cambodia, and present-day hate crimes against Asians in America, to name just a few key issues. Maybe because of this knowledge and historical experience our association is particularly attuned to the situation of the Palestinians, and is willing to take this step, now, to speak up in support.

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.