By Ashley Thorne

Virtue-signaling academics are rushing to side with the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement (BDS) against Israel. At the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, the graduate student union Graduate Employee Organization (GEO) recently voted to adopt a resolution in favor of BDS. This means that the union calls on UMass to divest from Israeli institutions and to boycott Israeli businesses, and it calls on the U.S. government to cease aiding Israel militarily.

Six faculty members opposed the proposal, saying that taking an official position on this will impose an ideological “loyalty oath” on all of the union’s members, effectively overruling individuals’ rights to their own opinions on political matters.

Of the union’s 2,000 members, only 203 voted — 195 for and 8 against BDS. Since then, 27 faculty members from 10 departments endorsed the decision, saying that “As evidenced by the 95 percent vote in favor of the resolution, the graduate students were not intimidated.”

It would appear from the lopsided vote that at least some students were intimidated, but according to Levi Adelman, a Ph.D. student in social psychology, it is rare for GEO votes to ever have more than 10 percent participation. Furthermore, the International Executive Board (IEB) overseeing UAW, of which GEO is part, has already ruled that BDS resolutions violate the ethical practices code of the UAW constitution.

At a GEO general membership meeting, another measure was put to the members: a resolution to condemn “antisemitism and antisemitic forms of antizionism.” This was voted down, according to Adelman, “on the grounds that it would inhibit BDS and other criticism of Israel, which I take to be a tacit acknowledgement that BDS is fundamentally discriminatory.”

So far, UMass President Marty Meehan has not weighed in, and UMass Chancellor Kumble Subbaswamy, when asked, said nothing new but referred journalists to a statement he made in January 2014. There, the chancellor had confirmed the university’s opposition to all academic boycotts, including BDS, and said that such boycotts “undermine the fundamental principles of free expression and inquiry that are central to our mission of teaching, research and service.” By merely referring to his old statement, while the champions of the resolution are touting a misleading “95 percent” majority, the Chancellor dodges his responsibility to exercise leadership on this issue. Could he be intimidated?

Meanwhile, two weeks ago, New York University’s (NYU) graduate union voted along similar lines (66.5% in favor) to call on the university to divest from and boycott Israeli institutions, as well as to shut down its Tel Aviv program.

NYU President Andrew Hamilton’s response was firm:

“A boycott of Israeli academics and institutions is contrary to our core principles of academic freedom, antithetical to the free exchange of ideas, and at odds with the University’s position on this matter, as well as the position of GSOC’s parent union. NYU will not be closing its academic program in Tel Aviv, and divestment from Israeli-related investments is not under consideration. And to be clear: whatever ‘pledges’ union members may or may not have taken does not free them from their responsibilities as employees of NYU, which rejects this boycott.”

It is heartening that President Hamilton and Chancellor Subbaswamy are resisting the political fads of the day — Hamilton stoutly, and Subbaswamy at least in principle. Adhering to the ideals of intellectual freedom ought to be the first job of a college leader. The University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven Committee report puts it well:

“[The university] cannot insist that all of its members favor a given view of social policy; if it takes collective action, therefore, it does so at the price of censuring any minority who does not agree with the view adopted. In brief, it is a community which cannot resort to majority vote to reach positions on public issues.”

It is inappropriate for a university to play an activist role precisely because doing so takes away individuals’ freedom to advocate for beliefs they personally hold. Again, the Kalven Committee report says this eloquently:

“The neutrality of the university as an institution arises then not from a lack of courage nor out of indifference and insensitivity. It arises out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints.”

The graduate students and faculty members supporting BDS need to understand this. But understanding is not enough. Many of these academics do not care whether minority views are censured. They care only about enforcing top-down groupthink in accordance with their own views. Certainly, if the ideology was on the other side of the political spectrum (a resolution in favor of, say, boycotting gay weddings), faculty would begin to worry about minority views.

When it comes to compelling their institutions to take up causes such as BDS, graduate student unions have little leverage. They do have the power of persistent pressure, to which we’ve seen college presidents bow over and over again when faced with other illiberal demands, such as those of the student protesters at the University of Missouri, Brown and Georgetown, or the fossil fuel sitters-in at UMass and Yale. The immediate effect of the UMass Graduate Employee Organization BDS resolution was to embolden UMass faculty members eager to join the bashing of Israel.

For now, NYU and UMass administrators aren’t caving to the pressure on the BDS front. But college presidents everywhere will need a solid foundation of core principles if they are to resist the hurricane winds of self-righteous outrage presented as doing the right thing.

Ashley Thorne is executive director of the National Association of Scholars.