Dozens of Universities Reject ASA Boycott of Israeli Academics; None Known to Support It
by Joshua Levitt
Dozens of universities have rejected a decision by the American Studies Association last week to boycott Israeli academics, according to William Jacobson, a legal scholar who authors the Legal Insurrection blog.
In fact, not one university or American studies department is known to support the ASA boycott. The ASA did not respond to The Algemeiner’s request for further comment on Monday.
Last Wednesday, Brandeis University and Penn State Harrisburg were the first to reject the boycott, going as far as withdrawing their ASA memberships.
Since then, the Association of American Universities, the umbrella organization for 62 major universities and university-systems, rejected the boycott, along with the presidents of the following major universities:
Boston University, Brown University, Cornell University, Dickinson College, Duke University, George Washington University, Harvard University, Indiana University, Michigan State, New York University, Northwestern University, Princeton University, Tulane University, University of California-Irvine, University of California-San Diego, University of Kansas, University of Maryland, University of Pennsylvania, University of Pittsburgh, University of Texas-Austin, Washington University in St. Louis, Wesleyan University, Willamette University and Yale University.
Last week, the ASA said its members voted to endorse the association’s participation in a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.
The ASA said 66.05% voted in favor, 30.5% voted against and 3.43% abstained. While the ASA said the vote signified the largest turnout in its association history, at only about 25% of its 5,000 members, it would mean that only 16% actually voted in favor of the resolution.
In the days following, Jewish organizations and political pundits argued that the move is anti-Semitic, as it covers for Jew hatred, intellectually dishonest, by singling out Israel in a world of human rights abusers, and potentially illegal, because it forces a 501 (c)(3) non-profit to make a political statement.