Two Views on Anthropologists and Boycotts

Note from the editor: Anthropology News shares here two essays that discuss the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction movement (BDS) as it relates to current discussions among anthropologists. As a reminder, all essays appearing in AN reflect the views of the authors; their publication does not signify endorsement by AN or the AAA. Authors are expected to verify all factual information included in the text. We have published the two essays together here to help ensure a wider conversation. The two essays appear in the order they were received by the AN editor. 

We welcome comments below. AN policy does limit comments on the AN website to current AAA members as it is supported by member dues. Discussions are moderated to ensure that members only are posting comments. As with all AN content, comments reflect the views of the person who submitted the comment only. The approval of a comment does not signify endorsement by AN or the AAA.

 

Why I Support the Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions

 

By Thomas Blom Hansen (Stanford U)

I came of age politically as an anti-apartheid activist in my native Denmark during the late 1970s. We campaigned for a comprehensive boycott of South Africa. The UN General Assembly had recommended this since the 1960s but effective international sanctions were repeatedly blocked by the US, the UK and France in the Security Council as late as 1988—two years before Mandela was released from prison. Regardless, the campaign gathered force as many countries imposed sanctions and trade embargoes on South Africa. In 1986, the US Congress finally passed legislations that boycotted South Africa in a range of fields.

Many forget the odds we were up against at the time.  We were called radicals, unbalanced, one-sided, agents of Soviet style communism, and supporters of “terrorist organizations” like the ANC’s armed wing, Umkonte we Sizwe. We were told that there were two sides to this conflict; that we should go and see for ourselves (many of us had in fact been to South Africa which made us even more committed to our cause); and that people of color in South Africa lived better lives than the majority on the African continent.

We called for a boycott because we saw the systematic dispossession of an entire people—robbed of their land, history, livelihood, political rights, dignity, life and future—by a powerful and wealthy state, with the strongest military on the African continent, backed by major Western powers.

Did the boycott campaign work? Yes, it contributed to the gradual erosion of the apartheid regime’s legitimacy and standing in the world. It is hard to find anyone today that would admit to have ever supported apartheid, or to have opposed a boycott of South Africa.

Did it hurt and inconvenience people in South Africa? Yes, it did in many fields, including many of the South Africans of color whose interests and future we were vested in. However, most of the progressive civic, religious and political organizations in South Africa strongly supported the boycott. Most South Africans of color deeply appreciated these efforts. It made them feel less forgotten by the world.

The boycott movement included calls for boycott of academic institutions, scholars, book contracts, research collaborations, academic visits, conference participation and much else. These measures were applied to all institutions and scholars in South Africa. The history of this academic boycott has been summarized in a thoughtful study by Lancaster and Haricombe. They conclude that the boycott gradually, symbolically and indirectly isolated South African academics and undermined the credibility of the regime.  See a summary at http://www.monabaker.com/pMachine/more.php?id=A1105_0_1_0_M

I had grown up with the heroic story of the rescue of Danish Jews during the war, and the special relationship between Denmark and Israel was a part of our lives: visiting school classes, cultural events, lectures by eminent scientists, music performances, Israeli produce in our shops, and a steady flow of young Danes spending time in progressive kibbutz communities. In our worldview at the time, Israel and South Africa belonged to two very different categories. South Africa was the last bastion of colonialism, brutally dominated by a culturally unsophisticated and provincial white community. Israel, by contrast, appeared as a more cosmopolitan democracy full of vigorous debate and critiques of the consolidating occupation of Palestinian territories. Although the occupation clearly violated international law and the human rights of Palestinians, and although Palestinian organizations called for action against Israel, a full-scale boycott did not appear as an appropriate action at the time.

This perception of Israel and Israeli policies has not changed among many liberal minded people across the world. But events in the occupied territories in the last two decades have been so grave that this stance must be re-evaluated:  the systematic expansion of settlements and theft of land across the West Bank, the undermining of the Oslo Accord, the undermining of the Palestinian Authority, the building of the wall, the military destruction of life and infrastructure in Gaza in successive campaigns, the routinized harassment of Palestinians by the IDF, the demonization of Israeli Arabs as an enemy within . These are only some of the most glaring acts of state violence against an entire category of people.

Israel of today is different from the rosier picture I, and many others, grew up with. Its economy and society is more militarized and securitized than ever before. The political landscape is dominated by political formations that range from belligerent majoritarianism to the outright racist. An earlier rhetoric of co-existence and peace in the political mainstream has given way to a shrill rhetoric of danger and fear. Even moderate critics of Israeli state policies are shouted down as self-hating Jews, or, more commonly, as simply anti-semitic.

I cannot help but compare this with the shrillness and aggressiveness of the apartheid regime in the 1980s as it grew ever more isolated in the world. Dignified men of the cloth like Desmond Tutu and Alan Boesak were depicted as blood-thirsty agents of world communism! That was every bit as absurd as Netanyahu’s recent statement that that the BDS campaign in effect amounts to support of ISIS….!

Today, it is no longer just political organizations like the PLO that calls for boycott of Israel. The current BDS movement responds to calls from a range of Palestinian civil society organizations, professionals, and academics who after years of attempts at collaborating with Israeli counterparts have reached an impasse. Their inevitable conclusion is that only comprehensive global boycott, divestment and sanctions aimed  at the aggressive policies of the state of Israel can begin to change the desperate situation of millions of Palestinians.

I want to support this effort because what I see now, is so close to what I saw in the 1970s—to repeat my formulation:  “an entire people robbed of their land, history, livelihood, political rights, dignity, life and future—by a powerful and wealthy state, with the strongest military in the region, backed by the major Western powers.”

I want to support this effort from where I stand, think and work. I believe that an academic boycott of those Israeli institutions that are actively engaged in efforts that supports the continued occupation of Palestinian territory is the only way forward. It may not change Israeli policies, and yes, it may appear as merely ‘symbolic’ as the defenders of Israel’s policies never fail to tell us. However, as any anthropologist will know, symbols and symbolic action are at the heart of human life and can change things, albeit often slowly and indirectly—just as the academic boycott of South Africa worked slowly, symbolically and indirectly.

Joining an academic boycott of selected Israeli institutions is for me first and foremost an appropriate way of supporting our embattled Palestinian colleagues at their financially deprived and marginalized academic institutions. It is also a way of communicating to our Israeli colleagues in the academy that we are not afraid of taking a clear stand on this issue and that we would encourage them to do the same. In the 1980s South Africa, draconian emergency laws curtailed what academics and others could say and do in the public. No such strictures apply to Israeli academics. Yet, surprisingly few have come out in solidarity with their Palestinian colleagues, or in open protest against the systematic violation of Palestinian human rights by the Israeli state.

To all those who argue that ‘yes, BDS was appropriate in the case of South Africa, but not in the case of Israel’, please take a moment to consider what actually happened in South Africa in the apartheid years, and what is actually happening today in Gaza and on the West Bank. Rather than dismissing this comparison as intrinsically unfair and even anti-semitic, as is often alleged, it behooves us as scholars and academics to look at the facts, the death toll, the structures of deprivation, the daily humiliation, the theft of land, the legal frameworks and much else. Let us have a real conversation, and let us use our resources as anthropologists and scholars to develop a truly informed debate that enables us to understand and properly assess what has been happening in Israel and Palestine for many years.

I would also ask my colleagues who are in two minds about the issue to take a moment to study the facts of the actual academic boycott of South Africa. It was pretty sweeping and blunt, it did not discriminate between institutions and it was targeted at inconveniencing individual scholars as well as whole professions. The current proposal for boycott measures against Israeli institutions by Anthropologists for the Boycott of Israeli Institutions is much less blunt than what was ever applied to South Africa, much more precisely targeted, and much less aimed at individual scholars

As Sheldon Adelson in his Las Vegas hotel persuades Republican presidential hopefuls that BDS is the next big threat against Israel and Jews across the world, it may be a good time to take a fresh look at the facts on the ground.

It may also be a good time to listen to the fast growing and truly progressive organizations like Jewish Voices for Peace that actively supports BDS.

Thomas Blom Hansen is professor of anthropology and director of the Center for South Asia at Stanford University. His most recent book is Melancholia of Freedom. Social Life in an Indian Township in South Africa (2012).

 

Anthropologists against the BDS Boycott

 

By David M Rosen (Fairleigh Dickinson U) and Alex Weingrod (Ben Gurion U)

Anthropologists are adept at analyzing political symbols and deconstructing the rhetoric and tones crafted into political debates. We pride ourselves as experts in uncovering the “real meanings” planted deep within the give-and-take of political contests and thereby understanding what really is at stake.

But what happens when anthropologists themselves become activists in a political movement that aims to ostracize other anthropologists? How do some anthropologists frame their political actions as they seek to discredit others and advance their goals within the AAA, the world’s largest and leading anthropological association?

A revealing case in point is the BDS supporter’s political maneuvering now underway leading up to the forthcoming annual meeting of the AAA in November 2015. A move to boycott Israeli anthropologists will be on the November agenda, and the boycott activists recently issued a five page statement billed as “Advice for Anthropologists.”  This special directive for anthropologists is a version of the 2014 guidelines originally issued by the Palestine Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel.  Comparing the original PACBI Guidelines with the newer “Advice for Anthropologists” can help us to understand what is at stake in the current boycott debate.

The original PACBI Guidelines are written in austere dark tones; it is a detailed guide that directs boycott supporters to cut any and all ties with Israeli academics. Thus, while it begins by accepting the “universal right to academic freedom,” the Guidelines immediately go on to state that “an individual academic, Israeli or otherwise, cannot be exempt from being subject to ‘common sense’ boycotts.”  The Guidelines list 12 academic activities that are forbidden, ranging from taking part in “Academic events” convened by Israel or “complicit Israeli institutions” to “Publishing in or refereeing articles for academic journals based at Israeli universities.”  A central claim throughout is that the boycott is aimed at academic institutions, not at individual academics, but this attempt to distinguish between a university and its students and academic staff totally fails to convince. For example, in section 10, the explicit ban upon “serving as external reviewers for dissertations, writing recommendations … on hiring, promotion, tenure decisions” is followed by an exception for letters written on what is obscurely called “a personal basis.”  So the sentence that excepts letters written on a “personal basis” is designed to make it seem that the ban is targeted at institutions rather than at persons, but is a total smokescreen, in that it completely ignores the reality of academic life—letters of recommendation, reviews of dissertations, etc, reference the work and career prospects of individual academics, and their careers depend upon them.  In other words: in its most crucial section, the boycott is specifically aimed at Israeli students and academics, not Israeli academic institutions.

While the PACBI Guidelines are grim and austere, the new “Advice for Anthropologists” is presented in a friendly, folksy fashion. What were steely commandments in the previous version are here transformed into mere suggestions, just friendly advice to fellow anthropologists, “a useful framework to help scholars.” The boycott is depicted as a way of “signaling,” “an act of protest,” and the document once more insists that the boycott is directed at Israeli academic institutions and not at “Israeli scholars acting in their individual capacity.”  But again, this attempt to distinguish between institutions and individuals is a failure, or really, a sham, a shell game that supports the convenient lie that the boycott merely favors a good cause and hurts no one. Specifically, in the section called “Academic Service,” anthropologists are told that serving on PhD committees for Israeli anthropology students, or writing letters regarding promotion for Israeli anthropologists, are “generally covered by the boycott.”  Just like the earlier BDS statement, this version is also an attempt to ostracize Israeli anthropologists and their students.

Why is this so important?  Because letters of recommendation, serving on PhD committees, or reviewing journal articles, are integral elements in our profession, and boycotting these activities will adversely affect the careers of Israeli anthropologists—Jewish and Palestinian—as well as their Jewish and Palestinian students. The BDS movement, and the anthropologist activists who support it, would effectively be driving Israeli anthropologists out of the anthropological profession.

Unfortunately, discrediting Israeli academia is viewed by some as important in the struggle for Palestinian independence. Israeli universities are well-known as centers of social and political critique and liberal thought. Weakening them is really aimed at discrediting Israel generally. All this illustrates the fundamental dishonesty of BDS. The sly “Advice to Anthropologists” is not about anthropology or anthropologists, but part of the BDS attempt to re-write history and injure Israel by delegitimizing its more progressive groups.  This is central to the BDS anti-normalization campaign, whose primary goal is to shut-down debate and communication among anthropologists regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict, and to drive out the voices that favor dialogue and informed discussion. Is this a position that anthropologists can support?

David M Rosen is professor of anthropology at Fairleigh Dickinson University. His most recent book is Child Soldiers in the Western Imagination: From Patriots to Victims (2015)                                                          

Alex Weingrod is emeritus professor of anthropology at Ben Gurion University of the Negev. A collection of articles called Towards an Anthropology of the Building and Un-Building of Israeli Society (2015) was recently dedicated to him.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

The key is to distinguished the actions of an association from the actions of individuals. The adoption of the boycott by the AAA as an association leaves the individual members of AAA free to decide what their own individual actions will be in relation to the boycott. Similarly, boycotting Israeli institutions, needs to be distinguished from boycotting Israeli citizens. The proposed boycott targets Israeli institutions. Under this resolution, Israeli individuals remain free actors who may continue to participate in professional activities of their choosing. Those who support the boycott remain free actors who may engage with Israeli academics as individuals.

Boycotts are effective. The boycott makes complicity with the status quo burdensome for Israeli academic institutions. The boycott of Israeli institutions exerts pressure to motivate Israeli academics to demand policy change from their government. The extraordinary efforts to counteract the boycott are signs that it is effective. Israeli leaders and US officials are starting to recognize the pressure of BDS. Boycotts have been effective in similar justice struggles, as in South Africa and the grape boycott led by Cesar Chavez and migrant farm workers in the United States. Over 170 Palestinian civil society organizations have called for boycott and themselves assessed the costs and benefits of this action.

Because of my activity in the civil rights movement I was denied a visa to conduct my doctoral research in South Africa. Whereas I strongly supported the economic boycott of South Africa I opposed the boycott of academics. I accepted an invitation to give an endowed public lecture, teach part of undergraduate and graduate seminars in political anthropology, and give talks in several departments at Cape Town University in 1968. CTU was known as the “Kremlin on the hill” because of its fight against apartheid. My classes and my colleagues in the department of anthropology were integrated. One of my colleagues, the mother of a child of Steve Biko, later became Chancellor of CTU and a prominent ANC parliamentarian. All of my colleagues opposed the apartheid regime and were grateful for my participation as they felt so isolated from contact with scholars abroad. The analogy between apartheid South Africa and current Israel is a false one for too many reasons to even outline in such a brief comment. However, the effect of an academic boycott could result in further isolation of those Israelis who are in the forefront of the peace movements and supporters of Palestinian statehood. With the outrageous violations of human rights around the world why single out Israel for boycott? As a life member of the AAA and past-president of the APLA who succeeded in aligning it with the AAA, I would feel compelled to resign from both should this association pass the proposed boycott.
Aronoff is Professor Emeritus of Anthropology, Political Science, & Jewish Studies, Rutgers University
He was the first recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award of the Association for Israel Studies and the Israel Institute. His most recent book (with Jan Kubik) is “Anthropology & Political Science: A Convergent Approach.

Dear AAA members

I was born in Tel Aviv and undertook anthropology as my life long occupation. I intended to understand, not judge, the people I studied in Israel and the United States. I was thrilled when Israel pulled out of Sinai and later from the Gaza strip. During the first Intifada (1988-1993) together with close colleagues at Tel Aviv University campus I initiated and chaired AD KAN (No More), the University Peace Movement that organized conferences, protests, public demonstrations, advertised lists of many academics who advocated negotiations with the PLO– a punishable offence at that time, visited Mr. Arafat in Gaza and Ramallah. We believed we took part in the dynamics that finally led to the Oslo accord. No need to repeat the tragedy of the later developments that frustrated our hopes for a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

The BDS project pretends to boycott Israeli academic institutions. But you cannot boycott institutions without boycotting the individuals employed and funded by these organizations. The trip to the AAA meeting is funded by my Tel Aviv University salary. If anybody in good standing in the profession and a rational thinking individual believes that by boycotting Israeli members of the association he/she helps relieve the suffering of the Palestinians, I am ready to pay the price for the sins of my government and redeem also the Palestinians for the sins of their own leaders. However, in view of the many regimes of injustice and brutality around the globe (the US included), the signing in support of the BDS agenda seems a painless act of patronage and self-righteousness commanding the cheapest terms of personal engagement.

Moshe Shokeid is emeritus professor of anthropology at Tel Aviv University
His most recent book is Gay Voluntary Associations in New York: Public Sharing and Private Lives (2015)

Rosen and Weigrod are absolutely right: the real objective of the boycott supporters is not to penalize Israel’s academic institution but to isolate and ostracize our Israeli colleagues. The language of the “Advice for Anthropologists” is dishonest and deceptive and tries to sugarcoat a bitter pill that those members of the association that are prepared to vote for this misguided resolution are going to have to swallow. Moreover, in this day and age, when horrendous injustices are being committed against entire racial, ethnic and religious groups all around the world (Russia, Ukraine, Tibet, Syria, should I go on?), for the AAA to choose Israel as the subject of its only boycott in decades will send a clear signal about the association’s priorities. I, for one, continue to see the AAA being highjacked by a vocal, clever and well-organized minority. If the resolution passes I intend to view it as a boycott of individual (!) Israeli scholars as well as those members of the association who, like myself, strongly support and cooperate with them. If the AAA votes to boycott me, I do not see any reason to remain a member.

The boycott is not directed at individuals; it is directed at the institutions in which they work. It does not deny Israeli scholars the right to attend conferences (including the AAA meetings), speak at or visit U.S. universities, or publish their work in AAA publications. Nor does the boycott prevent U.S. scholars from traveling to Israel. If the AAA adopts the boycott as an Association, individual AAA members will remain free to decide whether and how to implement the boycott in their own scholarly practice.

I agree that there are many other boycottable parties, some of which I would support. There are many reasons why I feel the need to act on this call for a boycott. Among them is that my government supports an the on-going Israeli occupation and brutal siege of Gaza with billions of dollars each year.

The boycott basically calls for an end to archaeological research in Israel by American archaeologists, since one can hardly carry it out without some form of cooperation with an Israeli university and permit from Israeli government.

It also calls for AAA members refusing to submit letters of recommendation on behalf of Israeli anthropologists. If this is not a form of boycott of individuals, I don’t know what it is.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like, it is a duck.

@Dan Rabinowitz:

Reading your response here sent me back to something. Let me quote a few passages of a provocative work:

“Zionism has been as diligent as any colonizing movement in this project [environmental transformation & silencing of minority narratives], relentlessly producing a narrative which has no place for Palestinians.” p. 16 (really the whole section is incisive)

“Tolerated as nominal but marginal citizens, Palestinians [with citizenship, not in the Occupied Territories] are regarded by some Israelis as residents-by-mercy whose ambiguous status could make them subject to expulsion at (Israeli) will. While positions on this point naturally span a range of interim views, my impression is that most Israelis subscribe to the necessity of spatial segregation.” p. 57 (again, a very important section)

These are two passages from your own seminal work, _Overlooking Nazareth_, 1997. To me, in these passages and really throughout the whole book, it sounds like you described a society riven by Apartheid-like segregation, with legal restrictions and normative practices that marginalized Palestinians, as a result of what you call a “colonizing movement”. And here you were writing only about Palestinians with citizenship, not about the situation in the Occupied Territories (West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip), where millions of Palestinians have no (or little) political rights and the Apartheid-like segregation is far more evident.

Does the legitimacy of the Israeli state depend on maintaining this segregation among citizens, and on the occupation that maintains several million Palestinians without citizenship? And is it BDS that is to blame for the de-legitimizing of Israel, or is it the colonizing movement that continually produces this segregation and maintains it through ever-increasing military violence?

Finally, I wonder at the (no doubt hastily written) phrase: “delegitimize Israel out of existence.” This is a phrase that verges on how mainstream Israeli politicians speak. I think Rabinowitz 1997 would have done a very useful critique of such language.

The comment by Deeb and Rofel accuse Rosen and Weingrod of “misdirection,” but there is plenty of misdirection coming from those who advocate an academic boycott by the AAA. No single web comment can address all sides of the boycott issue, and it is correct that the pro-boycott literature has offered intricate and quasi-legalistic—but hardly realistic or convincing—explanations of why a boycott of institutions is “not really” going to harm individual anthropologists. Is this because the boycott supporters grasp that delegitimizing a whole category of colleagues based on their national identity is an unprecedented and hardly anthropological step?
One example of misdirection is that it is difficult to find pro-boycott discussions referring to Palestinians who inhabit Israeli institutions—both faculty members and students, as mentioned succinctly by Rosen and Weingrod. Does that mean that an anthropologist inclined to boycott would have to start have to figuring out whether an Israeli individual is “boycott-able” or not based on their ethnicity?
The call for support of a boycott by Hansen also implies a kind of misdirection. We learn about the boycott of South Africa, and of the turn to the right within Israeli politics—which very many anthropologists in Israel deplore as well—but very little about what anthropologists in Israel actually do and the range of projects in which they are engaged. Beyond that—and without being a specialist in the history of South Africa—it seems that the aim of the boycott there was to alter the nature of the political-legal structure that engendered apartheid, not to question the very existence of South Africa as a state. In the pro-boycott material I have seen, vague statements like “justice” for, or the “rights of” Palestinians are highlighted (ideas that I other Israel anthropologists support), but hardly any expression of concrete steps forward, even approval of the legitimate goal of two separate national states.
So who is doing the misdirecting? Shouldn’t the focus be on what anthropologists might due to alter current widespread thinking in the region that mostly leads to further conflict, rather than pursuing the dubious proposition that weakening academe in Israel will ameliorate the situation of Palestinians?

Rosen and Weingrod’s piece is a masterful example of misdirection. By focusing on the boycott movement’s Advice document, they turn this into a discussion about individual Israeli academics and their careers, deflecting all attention from Palestinian scholars and students and the conditions under which they try to research, teach, and learn.

Moreover, Rosen and Weingrod mischaracterize that Advice document in two ways that allow them to use it to reject the academic boycott entirely. First, they conflate the actions an individual scholar could take to implement the boycott in their own professional practice with the actions the AAA as an Association could take to implement the boycott. The AAA does not write letters of recommendation for scholars, for instance. The Advice document is not directly at the AAA; it is directed at individual scholars who are free to choose whether or not to adopt the academic boycott. If the AAA membership endorses a boycott resolution, its individual members will remain free to choose whether or not to adopt the boycott in their own professional lives.

Second, by only partially quoting the Advice document, Rosen and Weingrod ignore the flexibility built into it. For example, this flexibility allows individual scholars to write for colleagues and students applying for jobs at Israeli institutions by using Interfolio, which allow them to submit references without addressing them to Israeli institutions, so as not to legitimize those institutions. Furthermore, because the boycott is directed at institutions, it does not apply to reference letters for Israeli academics applying for jobs or fellowships at non-Israeli institutions. While this is irrelevant to the issue of an Associational boycott, it shows that – while there will be some cases where individual scholars are affected by a boycott of their institutions – the boycott movement has deliberately incorporated flexibility to ensure that those cases are minimized as much as possible. That said, it is also worth noting that the point of a boycott is to pressure institutions, which, practically, takes place by pressuring individuals working in those institutions. This returns us to our initial point: focusing discussion of the academic boycott on Israeli individuals shifts attention away from the reasons for that boycott in the first place. It is possible to conjure scenarios where an individual scholar may be negatively affected by this boycott, but that is not a reason to reject boycott as a strategy. The stakes are far more serious than whether an Israeli tenure committee receives letters directly from reviewers or via an intermediary portfolio service.

Lara Deeb and Lisa Rofel

Hansen rightly notes that sanctions were essential in bringing down the Apartehid regime in SA, but greatly overrates the role of the academic boycott in that struggle. It was governments applying economic sanctions, not academics ostrecizing others, that made the change. This oversight perhaps explains Hansen’s misrecognition of the true nature of PACBY and its supporters, including anthropologists. One type of boycott (call it type A) sets clear, realistic benchmarks for the boycotted entity to reach, stipulating that once they are met the boycott will be terminated. The second type of boycott (call it type B) strives to terminate the very existence of the boycotted entity. Deep down PACBY is type B: it seeks to boycott Israeli moderates, including academics, as part of a concerted effort to essentialize, demonize and deligitimize Israel out of existence. Its public face, meanwhile, is a clumsy attempt to pass as type A. Weingrod and Rosen successfully highlight some of the more embarrassing contradictions that stem from this duplicity.

The Advice to Anthropologists document referenced by Weingrod and Rosen in fact is a set of individual guidelines for boycott. The AAA boycott would not raise the same issues. On a broader point, the Weingrod & Rosen piece really minimizes the scope of this issue. As Hansen points out, this is about doing what we can, where we live and work, to speak out and take action regarding a massive set of injustices.

Post a Comment

Want to comment? Please be aware that only comments from current AAA members will be approved. AN is supported by member dues, so discussions on anthropology-news.org are moderated to ensure that current members are commenting. As with all AN content, comments reflect the views of the person who submitted the comment only. The approval of a comment to go live does not signify endorsement by AN or the AAA.

Commenting Disclaimer

Want to comment? Please be aware that only comments from current AAA members will be approve. AN is supported by member dues, so discussions on anthropology-news.org are moderated to ensure that current members are commenting. As with all AN content, comments reflect the views of the person who submitted the comment only. The approval of a comment to go live does not signify endorsement by AN or the AAA.