BY JOHN K. WILSON
When Ilana Feldman was appointed interim dean of the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University (GWU) last month, it was an obvious choice. Feldman is a highly respected scholar who was already serving as vice-dean with no complaints about her work. But quickly this became what is probably the most widely attacked appointment of an interim dean in the history of higher education, and there was only one reason: Feldman supports the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) movement against the Israeli government.
A petition from GW for Israel signed by nearly 3,000 people called upon GWU to remove Feldman. Pro-Israel student groups and national organizations mobilized to denounce Feldman’s appointment, and conservative thinkers well known for decrying the loss of free thought on campus were doing intellectual somersaults trying to explain why Feldman should go. Ultimately, GWU felt forced to issue a denunciation of its interim dean’s political opinions.
The GW for Israel petition concluded with a demand for GWU to “select a better-suited candidate for the permanent dean of ESIA.” That was the true goal of this campaign, to prevent Feldman from being considered for the position of dean. And it succeeded.
M. Brian Blake, Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, announced in an email to the campus community in May that “Dr. Feldman will not be a candidate for the permanent position.” This prompted opponents of Feldman to celebrate their success in blacklisting her.
The right-wing Middle East Forum declared that the decision was “thanks to pressure from outraged donors and, perhaps, fear of repercussions from possible violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act….”
This was not an idle threat. The Trump Administration in December 2019 announced via an executive order that harsh criticism of Israel was officially a form of anti-Semitism that colleges must censor in order to avoid violating Title VI.
This shows the great danger in defining political views as discriminatory harassment.
This was the argument of conservative students who demanded Feldman’s ouster. The President of GW’s Young Americans for Liberty, Zev Siegfeld, said that hiring a BDS supporter as the dean shows “how little GW cares about Jewish students.” According to Siegfeld, “To elevate someone who champions a movement vilifying the Jewish homeland and boycotting academic institutions shows GW’s apathy toward its Jewish population.”
But if you must show you “care” about Jewish students by banning critics of the Israeli government, does that mean colleges must show they “care” about Black students by banning critics of Barack Obama’s administration? Or by banning anyone who supports the white supremacist Donald Trump? It’s a strange world when the firing of a Jewish person is demanded as a sign of support for Jewish students.
Feldman’s appointment even had conservatives who normally decry the campus “thought police” practicing intellectual gymnastics to justify attacking a dean for her political views.
David Bernstein, Executive Director of George Mason University’s right-wing Liberty and Law Center called for Feldman’s removal in Reason, making a really shocking attack on academic freedom. Bernstein asked, “is being a supporter of academic boycotts of Israel consistent with holding an administrative position such as being a dean?”
Does that mean Bernstein should be fired from his administrative position? By his logic, yes, since his support for repression of academic freedom in this case is incompatible with being a top administrator of a program devoted to intellectual freedom.
Fortunately, his logic is completely wrong. According to Bernstein, “almost all universities oppose academic boycotts of Israel. I am pretty sure that GW is among the institutions that have publicly taken that official position. If so, it should not be hiring faculty for administrative positions who have publicly dedicated themselves to the opposite position.”
According to William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection, “There is no way Feldman could be expected to abide by GWU’s anti-BDS policies. It would be asking Feldman to deny who she is, to be a fake in the position. For Feldman to accept such restrictions would be for her to admit her life work was a fraud, that she didn’t really mean all the things she said about the necessity of boycotting.”
Oh, what nonsense. By that logic, anyone who believes in anything controversial cannot be allowed to be an administrator. It’s plainly false and morally indefensible.
Jacobson wrote, “There’s a lesson GWU and other universities need to take away from this episode. You can have academic freedom, or you can have a pro-BDS Dean, but you can’t have both.” This Orwellian attack on academic freedom in the name of academic freedom is a sign of how far the attack on BDS has gone.
Ironically, Jacobson himself faced calls for Cornell University to punish him for his views. When Cornell defended his academic freedom but its dean criticized Jacobson’s views, Bernstein was quick to denounce this opinion because “A non-religiously-affiliated law school is not supposed to have a ‘point of view’ on any matter of public concern not directly related to the operation of the law school.”
In Bernstein’s view, colleges should have no political point of view, but BDS supporters should be banned because they violate the college’s political point of view.
When I commented on Bernstein’s article, he responded with this: “Which part of the pledge that she not only signed, but co-sponsored, did you miss: ‘We pledge not to collaborate on projects and events involving Israeli academic institutions, not to teach at or to attend conferences and other events at such institutions, and not to publish in academic journals based in Israel.’”
That’s a very disturbing argument, since Bernstein is assuming that anyone who makes a personal pledge or commitment will therefore impose that pledge on the institution they work for. If a religious person made a pledge to promote their religious values, should they be banned from all administrative positions on the assumption that a dean would use their role to impose their religion on everyone?
What’s also disturbing is the assumption that only faculty should have academic freedom, and administrative positions should be accompanied by an ideological straitjacket that prevents anyone with controversial views from being hired. Sometimes this is justified on the “power” that administrators have to impose their views. But administrators rarely have unilateral power to impose their ideas, and faculty have a lot of power, too–power over students in the classroom, power to influence faculty hiring and promotion, and in many other ways. Once you assume that having power makes you too dangerous to hold controversial ideas, all academic freedom is endangered.
Do conservatives really want this to be the standard for hiring administrators, where any personal deviation from campus orthodoxy is justification for being banned from any administrative position? After all, colleges often have policies supporting diversity, affirmative action, DACA students, studies programs, and many other positions contrary to the beliefs of many conservatives. Do conservatives support having conservatives banned from administrative positions on the same grounds they call for BDS supporters to be banished?
Jonathan Marks in Commentary joined in the efforts to banish Feldman, but he admitted to the worrisome logical conclusion of his position: “I would not like to see it become a general principle that individuals whose published views contradict a college’s mission must formally disavow those views before assuming an administrative position. Nor would I like to see supporters of BDS formally excluded from academic leadership positions.” Of course, that’s exactly what has happened at GWU, and what the critics of Feldman demanded. According to Marks, “Especially in light of recent worries about anti-Semitism at George Washington University, that’s just not good enough. To the Jewish students who have stepped forward to identify the problem, it is a slap in the face.”
If hiring someone who criticizes Israel is a “slap in the face” to Jewish students, then how exactly would merely denouncing BDS yet again unslap that face?
Marks knows that requiring administrators to agree with all the policies of their institutions is a terrible idea that would be antithetical to both academic freedom and the future of conservative administrators. But because he hates BDS, he thinks that a little hypocrisy can’t hurt in just this one instance.
I’m reminded of Sidney Hook’s defense of McCarthyism, Heresy Yes, Conspiracy No, which called for firing all Communists on the grounds of academic freedom–that Communists could not think for themselves and had to obey the Communist Party, and therefore had sacrificed their own academic freedom that was essential to being a scholar. The critics of BDS imagine the same of all BDS supporters, that by endorsing an idea they are obligated to impose some kind of BDS dogma on their campus.
The attacks on BDS are the new McCarthyism on campus. University of Southern California student Gabi Golenberg even wrote a column for the Jewish News Syndicate about Feldman titled, “The need to boot BDS off college campuses.”
I completely disagree with the BDS movement, but I defend the right of people to think for themselves. The proper response when you disagree with someone is to argue with them, not to ban them. I agree with the AAUP in opposing all academic boycotts but defending the rights of BDS supporters.
What happened to Feldman is part of a worrisome trend that spans all of academia, from the blacklist against top administrators who support BDS to the powerful efforts to use government action to ban dissenting ideas.
My old friend John K. Wilson says I “joined in the efforts to banish Feldman” But I joined in no effort to banish anybody. Here is the full quotation, of which Wilson gives part.
“If, however, the university really considers Feldman indispensable, it ought to provide some reassurance that it will hold the line against BDS. Instead, the university has lauded Feldman’s work in Middle East Studies and brushed off complaints.
Especially in light of recent worries about anti-Semitism at George Washington University, that’s just not good enough.”
There’s no call here to dump Feldman, though, for reasons I’ll explain below, I’m not sorry she’s not being considered for the non-interim deanship. I get that Wilson thinks that everyone who objected to Feldman would settle for nothing less than her head. But in my experience, lots of people like to be heard, even when they don’t get their way. Wilson seems to think that GW statements and actions are properly directed solely to unmovable and vindictive activists. That would be strange.
Speaking of being heard, Wilson, though opposed to BDS, shows he hasn’t heard a word of what critics of BDS are saying, or for that matter what some of its foremost advocates say in their own names, when he says that the issue here is “hiring someone who criticizes Israel.”
Though I agree that it shouldn’t be open season on administrators when it comes to academic freedom, colleges and universities do and should consider whether the views of their leaders align with their missions. So I wouldn’t rule out hiring as the dean of my liberal arts college someone who despises the liberal arts and thinks the college should be a dental school–maybe he knows how to use the espresso machine or has other virtues that we need. And, as Wilson and I both suggested, we may have reason to believe that he won’t, out of professionalism or deference, enact his dentophilic views. But of course I ought to consider what his views are, and of course the hire could be a terrible mistake, and of course people might be right to complain and vigorously criticize my judgment if I make the hire. As for Feldman’s “personal” commitments, well, advocates of academic BDS are personally committed to do institutional things at colleges and universities. I tend to believe what people say about what they want to do, My belief might be outweighed by other things Feldman said or did. As I said and Wilson agrees, “professionals are often capable of setting aside strongly held views to do their work,” as teachers or administrators. But while I can and should let faculty drink the sherry as they plot to overthrow the university–such faculty members can be useful in challenging ideas that have hardened into dogma–I’m not obligated to disregard, you know, what they think about how colleges should be run when I think about whether they should run a college.
I’ll add, finally, that I think GW did some damage by making the interim appointment, then caving or appearing to cave to pressure not to consider Feldman to fill the position long-term. Whatever their reasoning may have been, that made it seem less as if they considered substantive matters and more as if they considered which way the wind was blowing. And that can be, whether it concerns faculty or administrators, harmful to academic freedom..
I think that Marks’ tale of the dentophilic dean seems about as real as the tooth fairy. He is comparing someone with BDS attitudes to a fanciful figure whose goal is to destroy the whole purpose of the institution he is assigned to run. That’s the key problem with his argument, believing that holding a particular political view means you are a traitor to the institution, destroying it from within. Advocates of BDS may, indeed, want institutions to change their policies. That is radically different from imposing their own views. I believe we should judge people for positions based on their record and their qualifications, not their political opinions. Marks believes that faculty should be allowed to have opinions, but administrators must obey. I think that’s a dangerous approach for intellectual freedom, particularly as universities become increasingly dominated by administrators.
I think Jonathan Marks doesn’t understand academic freedom, but he does know how to be passive aggressive.
Despite clear differences in our political perspectives I often find myself in agreement with Jonathan Marks; at minimum his writing provokes constructive thought. Here, however, I disagree. The triviality of the dental school example aside, it stands for a position that should make Jonathan uncomfortable at the least. For it is based on the entirely reasonable position that candidates for a deanship, like candidates for a faculty appointment, must be judged only by their fitness for the position, their qualifications. A dentist is probably not qualified to run a liberal arts college. Jonathan here suggests that advocacy of a position that many, myself included, believe runs counter to principles of academic freedom might also be treated as such a disqualification. Perhaps, although hardly as disqualifying as many others. But Feldman stands accused of supporting an academic boycott. That would be disqualifying only if she were to use her administrative position to enforce that boycott. But is there any indication to suggest that as dean she would take such measures? Has she done so as vice-dean? I suspect not. Therefore her endorsement of a boycott is entirely a matter of her personal conviction.
Marks calls on the university “to provide some reassurance that it will hold the line against BDS.” I’m not sure what that means, what “line” must be held. The line I would privilege would be the line against efforts to deny academic freedom to BOTH BDS opponents and advocates. But in this case the reassurance can only take the form of assuring that Feldman will not abuse her position by inappropriately nixing collaborations with Israeli scholars or by punishing BDS opponents. But, again, not only is there no evidence that she has taken such actions there is no suggestion that a dean has or should have even the authority to take them. Deans implement policies determined by the faculty; they should not be autocrats, irrespective of their views of BDS or any other controversial issue.
It’s not much different from a devoutly Orthodox Jew who declines to work on shabbot. That’s his right; but he can’t demand that the entire faculty also observe that custom. Let’s imagine the shoe is on the other foot. An opponent of the boycott is named dean. Should BDS supporters fear they might be disciplined for their advocacy of a position that runs counter to the stance of the university (why GWU needs to take a stance on this is beyond me) and the personal views of the new dean?
Feldman is charged with signing the pledge to support the academic boycott. But signing a pledge is not itself a violation of academic freedom. And the notion that signing such a pledge will somehow “harm” Jewish students is, of course, absurd, and not only because Feldman happens to be Jewish. Imagine a faculty member or dean pledging not to have anything to do with Chinese universities until that government closes the concentration camps in which it has confined up to a million Muslim Uighurs. Should the faculty member be disciplined or denied advancement because that stance might make Chinese students uncomfortable? If a faculty member or dean pledged to boycott Iranian universities in protest of that government’s support of terrorism and its antisemitism, would that make Muslim students uncomfortable? The list could go on.
Lastly, this case and John’s post both raise the question, “are academic administrators entitled to academic freedom.” Our Canadian colleagues not long ago dealt with this issue well. I reported on it here: https://academeblog.org/2018/11/28/are-academic-administrators-entitled-to-academic-freedom/
Thanks Hank, as ever, for your thoughtful and challenging comments. Replying a bit selectively, first, there is no higher position at the Elliott School than dean of the Elliott School. So it’s not unreasonable for people to be concerned that a leader in the academic boycott movement might have an influence over policy there. You know universities and so you know that the model of academic governance you describe is aspirational-deans “should not be autocrats, irrespective of their views of BDS or any other controversial issue.” You also know that even a dean who is not an autocrat has an influence over what faculty faction gains power and influence. Second, yes, my dental school example was tongue in cheek, but it isn’t trivial (and didn’t concern an actual dentist–there are many people working at liberal arts institutions who would like to see them become much more vocational who have impeccable academic and leadership credentials): I deliberately chose a non-political example–but an example of a quite common dispute at liberal education institutions–to suggest that there are reasons to take the views of administrators seriously when those views bear on how universities should operate and what their goals should be. I wonder what you think of potential (not to mention actual) administrative candidates whose public statements and activism are anti-academic-labor, whether that person would have sole authority over decision-making or not, and whether or not there is evidence available that the faculty member will seek to implement the views his public statements and actions suggest he think ought to be implemented, I wouldn’t be surprised if some assurances weren’t expected from the administration, and if hackles would be raised if the initial admin response were to praise the interim appointment’s work in labor economics and otherwise ignore the criticism. There is an odd character to this conversation–both as to how John opened it and how you, Hank continue it–because it abstracts from the fact that internally, during administrative searches, faculty and staff are obsessed with what potential administrators think about this or that, along with whatever policy track record they may have–often thin and hard to know in detail. I agree 100% that, as in First Amendment jurisprudence, we should worry particularly when that obsession takes the form of what candidates think about matters of public concern and we should–as I believe I did–oppose an anti-BDS rule. And I agree that external pressure is different from internal pressure, though I believe there were both present in the GW case. John captures my discomfort with what I consider the worrying direction in which this can go. But I don’t think we should pretend that what a would-be administrator thinks about what colleges should do and be is off-limits for consideration just because those thoughts happen to dovetail with a matter of public concern. In this sense, by the way, your example of the Orthodox Jew is out of place unless that Orthodox Jew is on record as leading a movement to drive academic institutions and associations worldwide to observe the Sabbath. When such a movement achieves some prominence in our land, and when a leader within that movement is up to lead the Elliot School, and when the GWU adminstration responds in a dismissive way to concerns about that, you can count on me to adopt the same position I have here. A final point: like John, you adopt the position that BDS is basically about the criticism of the actions of particular Israeli governments. I don’t think the BDS movement sees it that way, and I don’t think the concerns of Jewish people about BDS and anti-Semitism should be high-handedly dismissed merely because there are Jewish people you can line up to suppprt BDS. I doubt you would write the sentence “And the notion that signing such a pledge will somehow “harm” black students is, of course, absurd, and not only because Candace Owens [or Larry Elder or Terrence Williams or whoever] happens to be black.” I don’t think the sentence is any better for Jews and of course you don’t seriously entertain the proposition that thing x can’t harm group y because someone from group y supports it. Rather you think that Jews–I’d include many I know–who think that BDS presents a problem to them as Jews are wrong or deluded. One can think that. But it was this hand-waving dismissal (“absurd,” “of course”) of what I consider legitimate concerns held by a lot of Jewish people that I found wanting in GW’s initial response (and no, I did not say dismissing her or denying her consideration for a full-time position was what GW should have done instead).
Let me modify the end of the comment–I don’t know what you think about whether the concern Jews have about BDS harming them as Jews are mistaken or delusional. You only spoke of whether someone signing such a pledge was or was not harmful.
I was late to see this reply to my response and I fear no one is paying attention any more, but hopefully at least Jonathan is. So here’s my reply: Let’s for the sake of argument assume that this dean has absolute power and can make decisions to reward or punish faculty members depending on their agreement with her views, and that the faculty is both enfeebled and terrified. Still, even in such a dystopian picture, don’t you think that the forces who were able to get Dean Feldman eliminated in advance even from consideration as permanent dean merely because they FEARED what she might do couldn’t accomplish the same if she actually DID what they fear? I would have thought that you would at least be sensitive to the principle that we hold people accountable for what they do, not what we fear they might do. And as yet I have heard nothing, zilch, to the effect that Feldman has actually, in her term as vice-dean or anywhere else, done anything improper beyond advocating an academic boycott, which is her First Amendment and academic freedom right.
Of course people take all sorts of considerations into account when determining who to appoint to a leadership position. That is as it should be, and Feldman’s position on this academic freedom issue is certainly a legitimate issue to bring up in a search. IN A SEARCH. But now, owing to, as you acknowledge, EXTERNAL INTERFERENCE, Feldman has been eliminated from consideration even before the search has begun. Do you really support that?
Moreover, there are always multiple criteria by which faculty members judge potential candidates, both for administrative and faculty positions. I don’t know about you but I’ve never seen a perfect candidate who met every criterion I value, except, of course, for myself — and I never got the positions. You have every right to believe that Feldman’s position on BDS is an important, even the MOST important criterion, one which should exclude her. But not everyone will agree. That’s why we have search committees. That’s why, in good searches, candidates are asked to respond to questions, sometimes hard ones, from various constituencies. And those are opportunities to explain herself that this silencing effort, conducted falsely under the banner of academic freedom, denied to one plausible candidate. I wonder how you would react if that candidate were an active supporter of Israel and her tormentors were BDS supporters.
Finally, I for one do not highhandedly dismiss the concerns of some Jews with BDS. I’m Jewish. I care. However, I also do not dismiss the concerns of the many BDS supporters — a significant number of them Jews — who find deeply problematic the continued external interference by organized zionist groups into matters that should rightly be in the purview of faculty and others within higher education, including repeated efforts to silence them. As Ken Stern has pointed out, violations of academic freedom from the BDS side most often come from students and a minority of faculty. Violations from the anti-BDS side most often come from trustees, external donors, top-level administrators, and organized lobbying groups. Which side is more powerful? Which is more threatening to academic freedom and the autonomy of the university?”
As usual, I nitpick the potentially misleading wording. I may be wrong but is it accurate to say “Feldman supports the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) movement against the Israeli GOVERNMENT”?
Isn’t BDS focused on divestment in Israeli BUSINESSES, which may agree or disagree with the government’s policies?
Please enlighten me if I’m wrong.
Divestment in Israeil businesses is only one aspect of the movement (which is one reason why “sanctions” is in the name.In their own words: “SANCTIONS campaigns pressure governments to fulfill their legal obligations to end Israeli apartheid, and not aid or assist its maintenance, by banning business with illegal Israeli settlements, ending military trade and free-trade agreements, as well as suspending Israel’s membership in international forums such as UN bodies and FIFA.” From https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds). But see also the academic and cultural wing of the boycott.
In addition, the 2005 call makes it clear that the action is “against Israel” not against businesses in particular: “We, representatives of Palestinian civil society, call upon international civil society organizations and people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era. We appeal to you to pressure your respective states to impose embargoes and sanctions against Israel.”
The goal of the BDS movement (https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds) is to change policies of the Israeli government (and I agree with many of those goals). The method used to do that, as in South Africa, is to call for an economic, cultural, and academic boycott of Israeli institutions and companies to pressure them to push for changes in government policy.
Thanks for that clarification, John K. As a stickler for language, I believe I was correct to call attention to the inaccuracy contained in the original statement.
It;s good to know that BDS does not DIRECTLY boycott the GOVERNMENT of Israel but, instead, uses “economic, cultural, and academic” means against potentially innocent ” institutions and companies” who may even be opposed to their government’s policies — not to mention working-class employees of those entities.
In supplement to my reply to Jonathan Marks above, I would like to add that while John and I sometimes disagree, this is not one of those times. Bravo, John, for an excellent exposure of increasingly and disturbingly common attacks on academic freedom masquerading as supposed defenses of academic freedom, and not only with respect to BDS.
I also appreciated the analogy to Sidney Hook. An apt analogy.
A culture that is at once moralistic, self-righteous, alienated and in a minority will constantly be tempted to break the rules of political discourse—indeed to conduct its struggles in ways that preclude the use of the word “discourse” —and to gain its ends by deception or outright falsehood…If they do not fully understand the extent to which the “life of the intellect” has become political rather than intellectual, many Americans do have a sense that something has gone very wrong in education.
—Judge Robert Bork (University of Chicago AB ’48, JD ’53), The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law
An outsider reading this “inside baseball” discussion might think that the central issue is being overlooked: labor or employment law. Does the AAUP not have a legal defense fund? Isn’t its academic freedom of expression policy, a protection of the mind? That is, federal employment law prohibits discrimination based on every conceivable personal attribute–age, race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, disability, ethnicity, national origin–and even protects against the content of your sex organs, real or declared. It addresses every organ in your body, even if you surgically and chemically alter those organs. But it does not protect the most vital organ of all: the brain and mind. You can be discriminated against based on your thoughts.
Or can you? It depends on your thoughts.
Should “thoughts” and the mind, be included in Title VI? If not, why not? There is one catch though: the Israel lobby, through the December presidential Executive Order, equated anti-zionsim with anti-semitism by making Israel a person, and arming such fungible language as personally injurious and discriminatory, and thereby a violation of Title VI. It also withholds federal funding as a behavioral incentive, or punishment.
This EO, however, only applies to the university and college campus. Why is that? How could a university employee be fired for a political belief vis-a-vis one state, and only one state–Israel–but nowhere else, on behalf of 100 other countries and identities, is this codified and pursued. Nor it is, or can it, be pursued successfully outside academia.
This must bring one back to the special interest carve-outs on campuses. Why are they special? What makes the university campus both an exclusion of normal labor law, and an effective protectorate of a single foreign country?
The presidential EO makes the modern university is an Israel suzerainty, which is illegal; therefore, ultimately the individual in this case has a potent defense. I’m sure the AAUP legal department would concur, although it appears to be either a related movant entity in the December EO, or a phenomenon of Milgram’s “cyranic Illusion,” or covert speech shadowing. That is, the AAUP and university construct speaks, but not of its own voice.
Regards, ’96, The University if Chicago
Pingback: The Dean of BDS? - The Bulwark
I wanted to make a response to an article that Steven Lubet has written critiquing my post here, https://thebulwark.com/the-dean-of-bds/
Lubet puts enormous emphasis on a pledge. Legally speaking, a personal pledge is unenforceable and has no meaning. Under the law, it is no different from any other strong political expression. Lubet assumes a distinction between faculty who merely hold views and administrators who have the power to impose them. But the truth is that faculty have power, too. They have power in faculty committees (in theory), and they certainly have power over students in their classes, and many faculty (such as Steven Salaita) have been fired based on the assumption that students might feel afraid of disagreeing with their viewpoints.
Consider an example that Lubet says proves his point. Can a doctor who pledges “never to facilitate the termination of a pregnancy” serve as the dean of a secular medical school that teaches abortion? Can a doctor who pledges to protect abortion rights serve as the dean of a religious medical school that bans abortion? The answer in both cases is: Yes. Not everyone who makes a personal pledge imposes that pledge on others. An evangelical Christian who signs a pledge to spread the Gospel should never be banned from serving as an administrator simply because it would be inappropriate for a public college administrator to use their position to impose their religious beliefs on others. Controversial political views should never be used to ban people from universities.
I know this is off the thread, but here is a nice conspiracy theory: I feel the whole BDS movement was created to incite that could lead to military action, In the fifteen years that the BDS has been active it has only espoused negative actions such as boycotts etc. against Israel, As far as I can tell no positive results have been achieved for the needy Palestinians. Has a single dollar of the funding gone toward any truly worthy causes in Gaza, Jordan or Lebanon???
As a Jew I have been taught or perhaps it is genetically inherited, that I have to question any claim made and have confirmed sources as to the veracity of the claim, I believe that the BDS and other actions are instigated by the Arms Industry so that they have a market, The five permanent members of the UN Security Council are in the ten top manufacturers of arms in the World and Israel is eighth,