Despite the significant growth in size and stature of Israeli universities, and their strong commitment to social justice and the betterment of humankind, some voices in academia persist in trying to isolate Israel’s educational and research institutions through an aggressive boycott campaign that is misguided, bigoted and harmful to the region’s progress.
A terrible example is manifest in a Jan. 8 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times by Saree Makdisi, a professor of English at UCLA who has long maintained an adversarial position toward Israel. Claiming that Israeli elementary and high schools systematically underserve Arab students, leaving them unprepared for college, Makdisi wants academic associations such as the Modern Language Association to refuse to co-sponsor events with Israeli universities.
Although a boycott of Israeli institutions would be unjust under any circumstances, the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement might have some credibility were they to show a shred of concern about institutions in countries with abysmal human rights records – perhaps China or just about any other Middle East nation. Instead these activists fixate on Israel, dismissing the status quo in those and many other countries where providing equal access to higher education is hardly a given and upholding the rule of law is barely considered.
Despite the misconceptions spread by the boycotters, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian students share academic freedom at all universities in Israel. While some disparities do exist—as they do elsewhere, including the U.S.—Makdisi ignores the fact that Israeli society recognizes its responsibilities to minorities and has made substantial commitments to improve their opportunities for advancement.
For example, Israel established a program to place 1,000 Arab graduates in the high-tech workforce, as noted in a recent New York Times article. Moreover, the Israeli government recently launched a $3.9 billion program designed to increase the number of Arab undergraduates at Israeli universities to 17 percent by the year 2021—in addition to improving infrastructure, health, and other services in Arab communities throughout Israel. The boycott’s supporters simply want to weaken Israel’s international stature and harm the Jewish state: thus, they ignore or diminish these fair-minded and progressive programs.
Israel’s leading universities all have Arab students enrolled in academic programs; they comprise approximately 14 percent of the undergraduate student population. That’s a sizable percentage of Israeli Arab students, and Israel’s collective college enrollment figures, about 50 percent, are higher than many of its Middle Eastern neighbors and about on par with the U.S. and U.K. Those Arab students who take advantage of Israel’s high quality education stand to suffer greatly if their universities are shut off and isolated from the global academic community.
Despite Israel’s inclusive education system, its adversaries have been trying to isolate its universities for years, with limited success. In 2014, an MLA boycott resolution was rejected with only 6 percent support by its membership. That resolution was criticized by Scholars for Peace in the Middle East because of its “lopsided” focus on Israel, adding that critiquing only Israel among all the nations is counterproductive and disingenuous.
Regarding a November 2015 anti-Israel resolution by the American Anthropological Association, the Anti-Defamation League declared that the vote was “a deeply misguided attack on academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas and that boycotts are antithetical to core notions of academic freedom—the free exchange of ideas among academics.”
As an engaged and knowledgeable supporter of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem who serves on its Board of Governors, and as a lay leader of American Friends of The Hebrew University, I’m proud that the Hebrew University community includes students and faculty of numerous nationalities, religions, and political perspectives. These talented individuals work side-by-side in classrooms and laboratories, producing research breakthroughs in vital fields, including medicine, agriculture, computer science and engineering, social sciences and the Humanities. This same inclusive approach is true of all major universities in Israel.
Proposed boycotts of Israeli academic institutions prevent the exchange of ideas that can lead to mutual understanding and conflict resolution — ideals that the boycotters should presumably favor. Academic boycotts have no place in a university setting, which is by definition inclusive and diverse. The accepted principles of the modern campus—academic freedom, open dialogue, robust yet respectful debate, and religious and political diversity—are all to be found at Israeli universities.
Like other democracies, Israel is not perfect, but candidly acknowledges its shortcomings. The nation’s education leaders have recognized and continually work to address disparities in academic and vocational opportunities; these efforts began long before boycott advocates took up their banner.
Reasoned dialogue and practical policies like those already under way will continue to bring about progress, unlike antagonistic and destructive boycotts against institutions at the forefront of social change.
Richard S. Ziman is chairman of the Western Region of The American Friends of The Hebrew University and a longstanding Governor of The Hebrew University’s Board of Governors.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.