- “terminate all partnerships with Israeli academic institutions that operate in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, or sustain the apartheid policies, occupation and illegal settlement of these territories.”
- “divest its endowment, pension fund, and other financial holdings from all companies that provide Israel with military goods or services which sustain the Israeli apartheid, occupation and illegal settlement of the Palestinian Territories, as well as the ongoing attacks on Gaza.”
The President of the University of Toronto, Meric Gertler, has responded to these demands with a letter sent to the members of Occupy for Palestine [President Meric Gertler’s response to members of Occupy for Palestine].
With respect to the first demand, President Gertler points out that the university has a history of opposition to academic boycotts.
Such demands are antithetical to the University’s firm conviction that the best way to protect human rights is by staunchly defending and promoting academic freedom, freedom of expression, and the unfettered circulation of ideas within the global scholarly community. We have consistently emphasized that it is both inappropriate and, ultimately, counterproductive to single out academics working or studying in a particular country, and to hold them accountable for the actions or policies of their country’s government. Faculty and students are often among the most trenchant critics of their own government’s policies or actions. Events over the past year confirm that Israeli academics – as well as university leaders – have been amongst the most vociferous critics of the current government and its policies.
For this reason, the university rejects the Occupy for Palestine's first demand.
The second demand is unreasonable because the University does not directly control the pension fund; those investments are controlled by a Board of Trustees, some of whom are appointed by staff and faculty because a large percentage of the pension fund is their money. Also, the pension fund is a joint fund with the University of Guelph and Queen's University. Similarly, with respect to the endowment fund, the University does not directly control direct investments in companies so it cannot comply with the demand even if it wished to.
However, notwithstanding those practicalities, there are fundamental principles at stake that need to be addressed.
... the University’s Policy on Social and Political Issues with Respect to University Divestment notes in its opening Preamble that “As a general matter, the University does not take positions on social or political issues apart from those directly pertinent to higher education and academic research.” Accordingly, “the University will not consider proposals for restrictions on its investments that require the institution to take sides in matters that are properly the subject of ongoing academic inquiry and debate.” It further notes, as a corollary, that the University’s response to any requests for divestment “must be governed by the fundamental place of diversity of opinion within its community. Except in those situations in which the University must settle on an answer to controversial questions about how best to achieve its academic mission, the University risks abandoning its core values if it takes sides in ongoing debates and is perceived to be advancing a specific political or social position.”
This is consistent with the Chicago Principles on free expression and the Kalven Report on the University's role in political and social action. Meric Gertler does not specifically mention the Kalven Report from the University of Chicago but it's clear that it forms the basis of the University of Toronto's position. For that reason, and because that position is not widely understood, I quote from the report.
A university has a great and unique role to play in fostering the development of social and political values in a society. The role is defined by the distinctive mission of the university and defined too by the distinctive characteristics of the university as a community. It is a role for the long term.
The mission of the university is the discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge. Its domain of inquiry and scrutiny includes all aspects and all values of society. A university faithful to its mission will provide enduring challenges to social values, policies, practices, and institutions. By design and by effect, it is the institution which creates discontent with the existing social arrangements and proposes new ones. In brief, a good university, like Socrates, will be upsetting.
The instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual student. The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic. It is, to go back once again to the classic phrase, a community of scholars. To perform its mission in the society, a university must sustain an extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry and maintain an independence from political fashions, passions, and pressures. A university, if it is to be true to its faith in intellectual inquiry, must embrace, be hospitable to, and encourage the widest diversity of views within its own community. It is a community but only for the limited, albeit great, purposes of teaching and research. It is not a club, it is not a trade association, it is not a lobby.
Since the university is a community only for these limited and distinctive purposes, it is a community which cannot take collective action on the issues of the day without endangering the conditions for its existence and effectiveness. There is no mechanism by which it can reach a collective position without inhibiting that full freedom of dissent on which it thrives. It 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 do not agree with the view adopted. In brief, it is a community which cannot resort to majority vote to reach positions on public issues.
I am a University of Toronto retired professor and I fully support the position of the University President. The university cannot and should not take a position on social issues. I fully support the rights of students and faculty to express their personal views on such issues. For example, we may protest the behavior of the Israel government, of Hamas, the governments of Russia or Ukraine, and even, especially, our own government. Those are all legitimate targets of protest. The university is not a legitimate target. The university is not our enemy.
16 comments :
Didn't the U of T take a position on South African apartheid with regard to their pension funds?
Bingo!
@Anonymous: I don't know whether the University of Toronto announced a stance on apartheid but I suspect it did just as it has taken other positions on social issues in the past.
It's only been in the past few years that universities have come to realize that they shouldn't do this. They are also beginning to realize that their DEI policies have also been mistaken.
In brief:
1- "Terminate partnerships in Occupied Palestinian Territories... and illegal settlement(s)” is not endorsed because "faculty and students are often among the most trenchant critics of their own government", and
2- "Divest... financial holdings from companies that provide military goods or services on OCTs" is dismissed because the "fundamental principle" that “the University (does not) take sides in matters that are properly the subject of ongoing academic inquiry and debate" or as the UoC Principles say "overarching commitment to free, robust and unhibited debate".
Some time ago, one of my academic mentors shared with me a valuable insight: he found that if he couldn't grasp something, it often meant there wasn't anything substantial to understand in the first place.
The critique on DEI policies may well be valid but requires expanding upon to see its relation with the post subject
The university cannot and should not take a position on social issues
To describe what the International Court of Justice terms a "plausible case of genocide" does not seem like a normal "social issue".
"To describe what the International Court of Justice terms a "plausible case of genocide" does not seem like a normal "social issue"."
1. The court didn't rule that the case for genocide was plausible, this has been a widespread misapprehension.
2. Even supposing it did rule that (again, it didn't) Plausible doesn't mean actual. It basically just means it is believable, or that it can't be dismissed out of hand. But that's a far cry from it being substantiated. The butler plausibly could have committed the murder, but did he?
In the case at hand, the butler was clearly seen by all witnesses to shoot Sir Edward, but the question is whether that counts as murder.
Last year, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant against Vladimir Putin "... for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children) and that of unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation." If that's the standard for war crimes then it seems likely that arrest warrants for other world leaders are pending.
So true, why would you need to Google the ruling if no matter what it says it comes from a discredited source?
International law, bah! that's for wimps!
@ John,
While the term "butler" might evoke a sense of detachment or formality, the reality is far more distressing and profound. The ongoing conflict in the region, is indeed a tragic and protracted ordeal that has deeply impacted countless lives.
It's crucial to approach such issues with empathy and understanding, acknowledging the immense suffering and loss experienced by those involved.
@ Mikkel
Certainly, let's delve into this with due care and precision.
Firstly, regarding the legislation under which South Africa applied to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), South Africa invoked the Genocide Convention of 1948. This convention, formally known as the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 9, 1948, and came into effect on January 12, 1951. South Africa's application to the ICJ under this convention likely concerns allegations of genocide or actions amounting to genocide.
Regarding the judge's statement about the Palestinian people having a "plausible right to be protected against genocide," it's important to understand the context. The judge is likely referring to the fact that under international law, all peoples have a right to be protected against genocide, as outlined in the Genocide Convention. The judge's use of the term "plausible" suggests that there are credible arguments or evidence indicating that the Palestinian people may be at risk of genocide or actions tantamount to genocide. This is significant because it suggests that the situation warrants consideration and investigation by the ICJ.
Now, let's discuss the recent ruling and its mention of the risk of "physical destruction" of the Palestinian people. In international law, the term "physical destruction" carries significant weight and is often associated with the crime of genocide. Genocide, as defined by the Genocide Convention, includes acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. "Physical destruction" in this context refers to actions aimed at annihilating or significantly harming the targeted group's physical existence.
The recent ruling's mention of the risk of "physical destruction" of the Palestinian people suggests that the court acknowledges the possibility that actions being taken or contemplated in relation to the Palestinian people could constitute genocide or could lead to significant harm or destruction of the Palestinian population. This underscores the seriousness of the situation and the need for robust legal scrutiny and intervention.
In summary, South Africa invoked the Genocide Convention in its application to the ICJ, alleging potential genocide or actions tantamount to genocide against the Palestinian people. The judge's statement about the Palestinian people having a "plausible right to be protected against genocide" indicates the credible nature of the allegations. The mention of the risk of "physical destruction" in the recent ruling underscores the severity of the situation and the importance of legal scrutiny in ensuring the protection of the Palestinian people under international law.
Anonymous: Let me be clear. In the analogy here, the butler is the IDF or, more generally, the Israeli government. Sir Edward is thousands of Palestinian civilians, and "shot" is "shot, bombed, and killed by various means". Whether that amounts to genocide is not clear, but it's clear that it should be considered a crime of some description. The usual defense is that Hamas is using them as human shields, but the proper response to that is that you're not allowed to shoot through the human shields in order to get the bad guys.
https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203454
The Court considers that, by their very nature, at least some of the provisional measures sought by South Africa are aimed at preserving the plausible rights it asserts on the basis of the Genocide Convention in the present case, namely the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts mentioned in Article III, and the right of South Africa to seek Israel’s compliance with the latter’s obligations under the Convention. Therefore, a link exists between the rights claimed by South Africa that the Court has found to be plausible, and at least some of the provisional measures requested.
Sorry, only a news ref here
“Israel must immediately halt its military offensive and any other action in Rafah which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” Judge Nawaf Salam, president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), said on Friday.
@ Larry Moran
"Last year, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant against Vladimir Putin "... for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children) and that of unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation." If that's the standard for war crimes then it seems likely that arrest warrants for other world leaders are pending."
As opposed to the ICJ, a duly constituted UN court, the ICC has always looked a bit dodgy The simple fact that it has sought orders against Israeli and Hamas is more likely indicate that it it desperately trying to convince the world it REALLY, REALLY is a court.
@John Harshman
"The usual defense is that Hamas is using them as human shields, but the proper response to that is that you're not allowed to shoot through the human shields in order to get the bad guys."
To my knowledge that statement isn't actually true. The law of armed conflict allows attacks on military targets even if this is known to result in civilian casualties. There just has to be something called "proportionality." You just can't deliberately target civilians with no military objective.
From https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/proportionality (my bold):
"The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”."
APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE IN THE GAZA STRIP (SOUTH AFRICA v. ISRAEL)
___________
APPLICATION DE LA CONVENTION POUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA RÉPRESSION DU CRIME DE GÉNOCIDE DANS LA BANDE DE GAZA (AFRIQUE DU SUD c. ISRAËL)
26 JANVIER 2024 ORDONNANCE
Page 20
54. In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible. This is the case with respect to the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in Article III, and the right of South Africa to seek Israel’s compliance with the latter’s obligations under the Convention.
Page21
58. The Court has already found (see paragraph 54 above) that at least some of the rights asserted by South Africa under the Genocide Convention are plausible.
59. The Court considers that, by their very nature, at least some of the provisional measures sought by South Africa are aimed at preserving the plausible rights it asserts on the basis of the Genocide Convention in the present case, namely the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts mentioned in Article III, and the right of South Africa to seek Israel’s compliance with the latter’s obligations under the Convention. Therefore, a link exists between the rights claimed by South Africa that the Court has found to be plausible, and at least some of the provisional measures requested.
Do universities take positions on the destruction of other universities? It would be odd if they didn’t and yet they don’t seem to do so.
And the fact is that universities, not just in Israel, often are complicit in the oppressive practices of their government.
I am not sure where I stand on boycotts of universities, but they are not innocent, isolated places devoted to disinterested scholarship. Maybe they should be, but they aren’t. And everyone is responsible for what they invest in. That makes me uncomfortable. It should make anyone with investments uncomfortable.
Donald
Post a Comment