Academic Neutrality and Scholasticide in Gaza

BY DAVID MOSHMANA person's hand holding a bullhorn against a yellow background

On January 6, at the annual meeting of the American Historical Association (AHA), members voted 428 to 88 in support of a “Resolution to Oppose Scholasticide in Gaza.” The resolution noted that Israel has killed hundreds of teachers and professors and has destroyed eighty percent of Gaza’s schools, all its university campuses, and hundreds of archives, libraries, cultural centers, museums, and bookstores, including “the al-Aqsa University library, which preserved crucial documents and other materials related to the history and culture of Gaza.”

The resolution concluded, “Be it resolved that the AHA, which supports the right of all peoples to freely teach and learn about their past, condemns the Israeli violence in Gaza that undermines that right; … that the AHA calls for a permanent ceasefire to halt the scholasticide documented above; [and] that the AHA form a committee to assist in rebuilding Gaza’s educational infrastructure.”

This left it up to the AHA Council to approve the resolution, veto it, or send it to a vote of the membership. The council vetoed the resolution as “outside the scope of the Association’s mission and purpose.” Many other organizations have considered, and some have adopted, similar resolutions.

Such resolutions have been sharply criticized by many as political statements that undermine the scholarly integrity of organizations that adopt them. Scholarly organizations, many have argued, should be politically neutral. (For critiques of the AHA resolution, see here, here, and here; for a response to the veto, see here; for articles about the controversy, see here, here, and here.)

Before considering the specific questions raised in the present case, let’s step back and look more generally at the issue of political neutrality in academia. Scholarship is often contrasted with politics. Politics is about action, about changing the world, not just understanding and explaining it. Should scholarly work be politically neutral?

The answer, I suggest, is yes and no. Scholarly work requires making academic judgments of truth based on evidence and argument without regard to political aims or commitments, but it does not require scholars to avoid studying or teaching about politically controversial topics, nor does it require them to remain neutral about ideas simply because they are politically controversial.

The question of political neutrality often comes up regarding institutional statements such as announcements from presidents speaking on behalf of their universities or resolutions adopted by academic departments, or, as in this case, scholarly groups. Should schools, colleges, departments, and scholarly groups be politically neutral?

Here, too, I think the best answer is yes and no. Academic entities should not endorse particular political candidates or parties, but they may reasonably decide in some cases to make public statements consistent with their missions, especially if they have special expertise on the topic, even if those statements may be politically controversial.

With these considerations in mind, we should ask three questions regarding the resolution to oppose scholasticide in Gaza: (1) Is it true that Israel has committed scholasticide in Gaza? (2) Is it within the mission of the AHA to oppose scholasticide? (3) Is it helpful for the AHA to take an official stance on this issue?

Regarding the first question, I think the facts clearly justify the charge of scholasticide. Israel did not just disrupt the teaching of history in Gaza, which by itself would have been good reason for historians to be concerned. It essentially terminated formal education in all subjects at all levels of education by systematically destroying Gaza’s academic institutions.

Regarding the second question, I think scholarly organizations should support academic freedom and oppose threats to academic freedom. Scholasticide is the ultimate violation of academic freedom in that it destroys entire educational systems and associated academic resources. The AHA Council deemed opposition to scholasticide not to be within the mission established by the AHA Constitution, but this seems to me a questionable interpretation of the constitutional language quoted in their own statement. If support for academic freedom in research and teaching about history is not within the mission of the AHA, moreover, I think it should revise its mission.

Finally, the AHA could reasonably decide that passing this resolution will serve a useful purpose, or even that it is a moral and scholarly obligation, but that is a decision for it to make with due consideration of what sorts of actions it has taken in the past and what sorts of issues may come up in the future. Under the circumstances, especially given the strong support for the resolution among those voting at the annual meeting, I think the AHA Council should either have accepted the decision or left it to a vote of the full membership.

Should scholarly organizations respond to scholasticide? Not every organization in all cases, perhaps, but it is certainly reasonable to consider doing so, and is arguably, in some cases, a moral and academic obligation.

David Moshman is a professor emeritus of educational psychology at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and the author of seven books including Reasoning, Argumentation, and Deliberative Democracy. A version of this article will appear his forthcoming book, Gaza, Genocide, and Academic Freedom, which expands on this earlier post.

0

5 thoughts on “Academic Neutrality and Scholasticide in Gaza

  1. Scholasticide is a made up crime with just one target , Israel, one which ignores the nature of the real war in Gaza where educational institutions have been widely used for military purposes. That’s what made them targets, and there’s no evidence that it was their original educational purposes that led the Israelis to target them. The AHA and others are right to refuse to engage in this anti Israel war propaganda.

  2. It’s notable that the monument to neutrality, the Kalven Report, includes a clear statement that academic freedom is a core value in academia, and not subject to any limits on neutrality. And the AHA did issue a statement in 2016 supporting academic freedom (https://www.historians.org/resource/statement-of-support-for-academic-freedom), so there should be no reason why the AHA should suddenly stop regarding academic freedom as part of its core mission or relevant to its statements, except for the political intimidation surrounding this issue.

  3. powerful political forces have been pushing the idea that any criticism of Israel is antisemitic in intent; universities and other institutions have become afraid of a political backlash if they don’t accept that definition of antisemitism. Big donors may boycott their institutions; agencies may cut grants. Caution in the current political climate is not necessarily unwarranted, but given the overwhelming vote in favor of the resolution the board should let the membership decide the question.

Your comments are welcome, but please be considerate about the tone, length, and frequency of your comments in order to avoid dominating the conversation on the blog or discouraging others from joining the conversation. They must be relevant to the topic at hand and must not contain advertisements, degrade others, use ad hominem attacks, or violate laws or considerations of privacy. We encourage the use of your real name but do not prohibit pseudonyms as long as you don’t impersonate a real person. Repeat violators of the commenting policy may be blocked from further commenting.