How the Israel Boycott Can Compromise Faculty and Harm Students -- University of Michigan Edition [UPDATED]

As some readers may know, an American Studies professor at the University of Michigan recently rescinded his agreement to provide a study-abroad reference letter for a student, once he realized that she was planning to go to Tel Aviv University.  There was no question about the student's academic qualifications -- he specifically offered to write her a letter for any other destination -- but he explained that his commitment to the BDS movement precluded any support for study in Israel. This action was wrong in many ways, but it does expose the hypocrisy of the American Studies Association and others who claim that the Israel boycott is aimed at institutions and not individuals.

[UPDATE: the professor's email rescinding reference offer is now at the end of this post]

The Alliance for Academic Freedom (of which I am a member) has issued the following statement, which has also been published in the Chronicle of Higher Education:

In July 2014, the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel published guidelines, including one instructing professors to refuse to write recommendations for students applying to study in Israel. The guidelines were immediately adopted by the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. Ever since, BDS members have said that this would affect institutions, not individuals. However, the case this month of a professor refusing to write a letter of recommendation for a student wishing to study in Israel exemplifies the personal consequences of such actions.

John Cheney-Lippold, an associate professor in the department of American culture at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, emailed an undergraduate student to say he had just realized she was applying to study abroad at Tel Aviv University, and therefore, in compliance with the boycott movement, he was withdrawing his offer to write a recommendation on her behalf to that university. He added that he was happy to write other recommendations for her, thus confirming that he had no doubts about her academic record, which would be a valid justification for refusing to write a recommendation.

Faculty members are free to decline requests to write recommendation letters for many reasons. They may feel they don’t know the student well enough, or they may not consider a student strong enough to earn a letter that is both honest and favorable. A faculty member is also entitled to share with a student ethical or political objections to study in a given country. Although institutions have a responsibility to warn students traveling to foreign countries about risks and to determine which institutions they will and will not establish formal relations with, individual faculty members don’t bear such responsibility. In any case, it is students who must ultimately decide what’s in their best interest.

For a faculty member to impose a political litmus test on recommendations and refuse to write to a program because it is based in a particular country violates a student’s right to apply for admission to his or her program of choice. That is what happened here.

 

Eleven faculty members who are leaders in or supporters of the BDS movement have posted a statement endorsing Cheney-Lippold’s decision, and BDS-affiliated faculty have also organized an online petition supporting him and a pledge for faculty, administrators, students, and staff to refuse to participate in study-abroad programs in Israel. Although the pledge does not say explicitly that they should refuse to write letters of recommendation, by urging signers to endorse the boycott and discouraging participation in study-abroad programs, it implicitly does so. For boycott endorsers, opposition to Israel has a moral status that outweighs academic freedom and even a student’s right to learn.

The statement by 11 faculty members elevates political conviction to the level of religious belief: "Professors, like any other individual, are entitled to hold political positions and act in a manner that conforms to their stated positions. … Cheney-Lippold endorses the academic boycott of Israel and, in declining to write a letter of recommendation for a study abroad program in Israel, he is aligning his actions with his stated views."
Advertisement

This alarming claim would create a new faculty "right" in which individual political belief can override university policies and professional standards. If this principle were actually applied, great harm would result. Imagine Democratic law professors refusing to write recommendations for a worthy student eager for an internship with a conservative Republican judge.

Further, the online statement gives another reason to support Cheney-Lippold: "Some students, specifically students of Palestinian, Middle Eastern, and Muslim background, who attempt to travel to Israel and the Palestinian territories may be denied visas to Israel or would be denied entry into the country." Would professors then be within their rights to refuse a Muslim student wanting to study in Qatar or Saudi Arabia because it would be difficult for Jewish students to travel there? Could they refuse a recommendation for any student wanting to study in the United States, because of President Trump’s anti-Muslim travel ban?

Professional ethics and AAUP policy specifically oppose politically based actions. The AAUP’s "Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students" states: "The professor in the classroom and in conference should encourage free discussion, inquiry, and expression. Student performance should be evaluated solely on an academic basis, not on opinions or conduct in matters unrelated to academic standards." While not specifically referring to letter-of-recommendation policies, the AAUP clearly objects to the curtailment of student free expression, political opinion, and academic choice, which would include efforts to block study in Israel.

In addition, most students who apply to study in Israel are Jewish, and Israel is a Jewish state. Thus, there is arguably an element of discrimination based on religion and national status in this refusing to support specifically those students who seek to study in Israel.

We condemn those who have responded to Cheney-Lippold’s words with harassment (including, reportedly, death threats), responses that are increasingly a part of American political life and dangerously enhanced by social media. Such vitriol can have a chilling effect on the free speech that is crucial to academic freedom. We also vehemently disagree with a petition calling for his firing. Refusing a professional obligation is not grounds for dismissal and, needless to say, nothing justifies threats against a person’s life.

But some official response to Cheney-Lippold’s breach of professional ethics is necessary; we urge the University of Michigan administration to respond more forcefully than it has. It should indicate that faculty who discriminate against students based on their political positions, religious backgrounds, or ethnic identification will face consequences.

Because professors at other institutions might similarly discriminate against students, particularly in light of the recent pledge, it is vital that colleges and professional associations reiterate their commitment to study-abroad programs in Israel, and clarify and then publicize policies articulating faculty members’ professional responsibilities and the consequences of their failure to perform those duties.

Faculty should understand what will happen if they deprive deserving students of recommendations based on politics. Cheney-Lippold’s action may be the first explicit case of its kind, but it almost certainly won’t be the last.

UPDATE: Here is Prof. Cheney-Lippold's email rescinding the reference letter:

Comments

[Too scared of you, Canary Mission, AMCHA, and the Israel Project to identify]

A professor engages in a boycott of academic institutions that discriminate against people because of their religions and ethnic backgrounds while the same institutions give preferences to others because of their religious background. And then you accuse the same professor of being bigoted for not enabling that ethnoreligious hierarchy. Hmm...

Did you think professors refusing to write letters of recommendation for Kozinski clerkships were being bigoted against male students?

Were law schools banning military recruiting in defiance of the Solomon Amendment being anti-straight?

[Steve L.]

To: Too scared of you, Canary Mission, AMCHA, and the Israel Project to identify

Canary Mission is indeed reprehensible, as I have written before on this blog, but there is no actual reason to be afraid. Even they do not monitor random blog posts, nor do they ever do anything other than insult people.

And of course, there is no reason at all to be afraid of me, as you surely know -- so your rhetorical point is just silly.

In any case, Tel Aviv University doesn't engage in ethnoreligious discrimination against students. It is probably the most open, inclusive, and progressive institution in Israel.

Finally, the Tel Aviv study-abroad opportunity is an approved program at the University of Michigan. Prof. Cheney-Lippold is well within his rights to boycott Israel, but he cannot compel his students to join the boycott by selectively refusing to provide references (which is part of his job).

[Too scared of you, Canary Mission, AMCHA, and the Israel Project to identify]

I don't understand how one compels a student to join in a boycott by not writing a letter of recommendation. How does it differ from refusing to write letters of recommendation for students wanting to clerk for racist or sexist judge? Would a professor be compelled to write a letter of recommendation for an externship with Raytheon if that professor is opposed to weapon manufacturing?

You're welcome to believe that Tel Aviv University doesn't engage in discrimination, but that's your opinion.

American students of Arab and Muslims origin are regularly denied the opportunity to enter Israel to study, and even Trump's State Department agrees with that.

An Arab student from Hebron may not study in Tel Aviv University, while a Jewish student from Hebron may study in Tel Aviv University.

An Arab student from Gaza may not study at Tel Aviv University, or even Beir Zeit university.

Regardless, it's not your role or a university's to tell a professor that the professor must accept your opinion on the matter.

The fact you think there is no reason to fear Canary Mission displays a particular privilege. They will contact employers, deans, student groups, etc... and launch a campaign of harassment. Its sister organizations will launch litigation to harass professors through years long FOIA requests and harass students will with Facebook ads and posters around campus.

[For to buy a firelock]

To: Too scared of you, Canary Mission, AMCHA, and the Israel Project to identify

Question 1: do you not know what a category mistake is?

Question 2: since Sharia is a paradigm case of an apartheid legal system, what do you think of a boycott of all institutions and regimes that are organized, even in part, under it?