Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen
linguistlist.org>
I wonder if LSA and other academic organizations have considered the "other side of boycott", where organizations and individuals refuse to accept any form of partronage from oppressive governments. Travel or research grants,and project funds should not be sought or received. Yes, such denial will hurt our research, but we are protesting against policies and practices that not only hurt, but kill innocents by the thousands. Thomas ChackoMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
In order to evaluate a resolution against academic boycotts, it's necessary to consider what they consist of. My guess, judging from what I've heard about the current boycott against Israeli scholars (which of course forms the background to the resolution), there is a refusal to consider or publish papers or admit Israelis to conferences, as Shalom Lappin pointed out. Haspelmath argues that this option should not be closed because of the success of the general embargo against South Africa at ending the apartheid regime. Just considering comparison leads to two questions: Was this embargo ever extended to work by South African scholars? and Should it have been? I don't know the answer to the first question, but my answer to the second would be no. There something just so scary in discounting the expression of the individual, be it for artistic or intellectual purposes, because of that individual's group membership. It is just too close to the loss of that individual's identity to their group identity, which is the best definition of bigotry that I've found. What you do doesn't matter because you are a member of bad group. Does anyone really want to go down that path? Consider who does and who did in the past. Do you want to join that ugliest of crowds? -- Michael Newman Associate Professor of Linguistics Dept. of Linguistics and Communication Disorders Queens College/CUNY Flushing, NY 11367Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Academic boycotts oppose the very idea of UNIVERSity, supplanting it with the notion of VILLAGity or CAMPANILity. They infect academia with discrimination, weakening its ability to serve as a global model for independent thought. We should not allow the boycotters to ban us from inviting an Iranian colleague for a High Table dinner, or from quoting a Damascus-based scholar. We shall continue to write academic articles with Shanghai professors and participate in conferences in Moscow, Alaska or a law school near Al-aqsa. Whether or not Mona Baker, Martin Haspelmath or Steven and Hilary Rose permit it, we shall not allow censorship and racism to destroy our academia. Yours respectfully, Ghil`ad Zuckermann Churchill College University of Cambridge www.zuckermann.org gz208Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuecam.ac.uk (currently in Israel, cooperating with in situ scholars)