The Paper | Academic freedom and academic boycott in the United States; the two sides of Alain Delon
2024-08-26
한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina
Academic Freedom and Academic Boycott in American Universities
In August 2024, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) issued a statement that changed its clear opposition to academic boycotts for nearly two decades and instead acknowledged that “academic boycotts themselves do not infringe on academic freedom, but are legitimate tactical responses to situations that are fundamentally incompatible with the mission of higher education.”
Since the outbreak of a new round of Israeli-Palestinian conflict on October 7 last year, pro-Palestinian protests have occurred one after another in American universities. An important tactic of the protesters is to launch an academic boycott of Israel, including severing cooperation with Israeli public research institutions and stopping academic projects supported by Israel.
In 2005, at the end of the second Palestinian uprising, the AAUP condemned the boycott. The following year, it said the boycott was "a direct blow to the free exchange of ideas." In December 2013, the American Institutes for Research (AIR), the largest academic group in the United States, launched a joint boycott of Israeli academic institutions, calling on academics not to cooperate with or accept sponsorship from Israeli academic groups. At the time, the AAUP condemned AIR's boycott as a violation of academic freedom.
On July 15, 2024 local time, people in Milwaukee, the United States, held a rally in support of Palestine.
The storm in the heart of the Western world is far from over. The movements and debates surrounding the Palestinian-Israeli issue have dragged the American academic and intellectual circles into a protracted confrontation, and the recent major policy revisions by the AAUP reflect the deepening divisions within American universities.
On August 13, Cary Nelson, who served as president of the AAUP from 2006 to 2012, published a blistering critique in the Chronicle of Higher Education. He argued that the AAUP had set aside its century-long defense of academic freedom and opened the door to academic boycotts by any number of individuals. It would be dishonest to deny that individual students and faculty have always had the right to advocate for academic boycotts. However, the unconditional right to "make your own choices about participation" without being disciplined for doing so did not exist before.
Nelson predicts that in the 2024-2025 academic year, there will be hundreds of micro-boycotts against Jewish and Israeli students and faculty as a result of the AAUP’s policy changes. There will also be panels dedicated to criminalizing collaborative research projects between American and Israeli faculty.
Nelson quoted the AAUP's statement: "Academic boycotts should not involve any political or religious litmus tests, nor should they target individual scholars and teachers engaged in ordinary academic practices, such as publishing academic papers, giving speeches and conference reports, or participating in research collaborations." He believes that the AAUP's actions violate this principle, making it even more valuable. This principle is inconsistent with the organization's unconditional freedom to boycott or not. It can be expected that there will be organized demonstrations against joint research projects between the United States and Israel. It can also be expected that there will be more efforts to block study abroad programs, which will undermine students' academic freedom.
Nelson criticized the AAUP for summarizing its new policy by parroting the long-standing and discredited rhetoric of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign (BDS), a global movement launched by Palestinian civil society in 2005, that it only boycotts institutions, not individuals. In 2014, the West Coast-based BDS movement at least acknowledged that common sense dictates that individuals will inevitably be harmed by such “institutional” boycotts. But the AAUP does not. Moreover, despite its final wishful claim that “academic boycotts should only be directed against institutions of higher education that themselves violate academic freedom or the fundamental rights on which academic freedom depends,” thousands of faculty members around the Western world have no qualms about claiming, without evidence, that Israeli universities have been violating academic freedom for decades.
Throughout the Middle East and elsewhere—in Egypt, Iran, Russia, Syria, Turkey, and many other countries—there are institutions where academic freedom is virtually nonexistent. Despite this, they were long considered harmless. But in 2005, the AAUP recognized that unless opposition to academic boycotts was viewed as a universal principle, there would be countless debates about boycotting universities and academic boycotts would become commonplace. The AAUP was now an accomplice to the growing anti-Zionism. It made a fundamental concession to anti-Zionism, declaring that "academic boycotts are not in themselves an infringement of academic freedom; rather, they can be viewed as a reasonable tactical response to situations that are fundamentally incompatible with the mission of higher education." In academic boycotts, principles are no longer at stake; they are simply a matter of tactics.
Nelson said the AAUP focuses in its statement on individual choices and decisions, though it also knows that the most influential boycott decisions and debates are made by and within groups, including academic associations. Calls for boycotts or divestments on campus have escalated with the emergence of the Gaza Solidarity Camp this spring, a tent encampment set up on campus by pro-Palestinian student protesters. The AAUP's new policy will encourage more divisive boycott struggles.
In Nelson's view, the AAUP claims in a sloppy, seemingly fair manner that even in the United States, students and teachers are generally deprived of freedom of thought and religion, freedom of association and freedom of movement, and other basic rights. One would ask, what on earth is the AAUP thinking?
The AAUP baselessly attacks that its nearly two-decade-long stand against academic boycotts has been misused. The AAUP contradicts itself by arguing that its opposition to academic boycotts has been used to “undermine academic freedom” because its categorical stance “ignores nuance and pays no attention to context.” These baseless, disparaging generalizations are made in the face of a subtle movement committed to the Manichean binary of Palestinians as a force for good and Israelis as evil.
Nelson concluded by emphasizing that Germany's Friedrich-Alexander University compiled an academic freedom index that ranks 179 countries around the world. The latest ranking for 2024 places Israeli universities in the top 20% to 30%, significantly higher than the United States. The political decisions made by AAUP are not based on facts, but on prejudice. Jewish students and faculty will suffer unfair treatment as a result, and their personal academic freedom and right to be free from a hostile educational environment will be undermined. AAUP policies can no longer be used as the gold standard for academic freedom.
On August 19, Julian J. Giordano, co-chair of Harvard University's Council on Academic Freedom and professor of physiology and medicine, published an article in the Harvard Crimson, offering a relatively mild criticism.
He questioned whether AAUP supports boycotting institutions in countries where academics lack the basic freedoms necessary for the effective pursuit of knowledge. The BDS movement is actually only targeting one country, Israel. While the mistakes of the Israeli government can and should be debated, it does not justify depriving Israeli higher education institutions of the fundamental freedoms they provide.
Giordano wrote that, thankfully, the AAUP's new policy does not advocate a boycott of Israeli institutions of higher education, nor does it support the targeting of individual scholars for their scholarly work. Both of these practices are blatant disregards of academic freedom. But when the AAUP says it is open to a boycott, it must be noted that previous boycott efforts did involve such goals.
The AAUP appropriately affirms the rights of individual faculty and students to make their own assessments of calls for a systemic academic boycott. Such freedoms are indeed essential, and faculty who express such views certainly should not face retaliation for doing so. While there are welcome aspects to the new policy, the AAUP cannot continue to ignore the “elephant in the room.” Just as the 2005 AAUP policy was spurred by ongoing efforts to boycott Israel, its revised policy resonates with the growing calls on many college campuses to divest from and boycott Israeli institutions. The timing of the new policy’s release seems to make it clear that its drafters have some support for such demands that may emerge in the upcoming fall semester.
Giordano's position is that we need a serious scholarly inquiry into the relationship between various kinds of academic boycotts and the principles of academic freedom in order to improve the quality of discussion on campuses around the world. Sadly, the AAUP's recent policy revision fails to achieve that goal and creates far more questions than it answers. Rather than addressing real issues through balanced and critical inquiry, the new policy reflects a pervasive and superficial academic political activism that only exacerbates the problem. We deserve better from an organization called the American Association of University Professors.
On August 21, AAUP current president Todd Wolfson and AAUP Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee Chair Rana Jaleel published a rebuttal article on the website of the Annals of American Higher Education. They emphasized that AAUP has always defended academic freedom and it still does so now, and the new boycott policy will not change that.
The article states at the outset that since its founding in 1915, AAUP has been the most prominent defender of academic freedom for faculty, staff and students, defending this freedom from various threats, including political interference in higher education and the exploitation of temporary academic labor. However, former AAUP President Cary Nelson claims that the academic boycott statement recently adopted by AAUP has, to some extent, destroyed its "century-long defense of academic freedom." The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression reiterated its opposition to academic boycotts, believing that this is a "threat to academic freedom."
Critics of the AAUP and its new statement premise their 2006 report on academic boycotts, which reaffirmed their brief 2005 statement against academic boycotts, as uncontroversial, unambiguous, and fully committed to the task of ensuring academic freedom for all faculty, staff, and students. This is not the case.
The new statement was written and approved by the AAUP Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure and adopted by the National Council. The statement does not advocate for a general boycott of academic activity, nor does it specifically endorse any existing academic boycotts. Instead, it argues that "individual faculty and students should be free to weigh, evaluate, and debate the specific circumstances that give rise to systemic academic boycotts and make their own choices about participating in those boycotts." The statement also emphasizes that while "faculty members' choices to support or oppose academic boycotts...may be criticized and debated, faculty members and students should not face institutional or governmental scrutiny or discipline for choosing to participate in an academic boycott, to refuse to do so, or to criticize and question those with whom they disagree." The new statement does not mention boycotts against anything other than "institutions of higher education that themselves violate academic freedom or the fundamental rights on which academic freedom depends."
The new statement replaces Committee A’s 2005 statement and 2006 report. That report explicitly opposed so-called “systemic academic boycotts” as a violation of academic freedom. Committee A began reviewing its previous policy because it contained a contradiction at its core. The 2006 report recognized “the right of individual faculty or academic groups not to cooperate with other faculty or academic institutions with whom they disagree” but explicitly opposed “non-cooperation in the form of systemic academic boycotts” as a threat to “the principles of free expression and communication on which we collectively depend.”
The article argues that criticism of the new policy is often related to two fundamental confusions about academic freedom. The first is a failure to recognize the relationship between the individual and collective dimensions of academic freedom. The second can be reduced to the following question: Who are the subjects of academic freedom?
Academic freedom protects the rights of faculty and staff to explore and discuss all relevant issues in the classroom; to explore all avenues of scholarship, research, and creative expression; and to publish or write on issues of public concern and on matters relating to professional responsibilities and university administration. Central to this understanding of academic freedom is the ability of faculty and staff to participate in collective decision-making through appropriate democratic processes.
Academic freedom is reserved for both individual faculty and collective decision-making bodies. The AAUP statement recognizes the collective and individual rights of faculty to democratically decide whether to support a systematic academic boycott, and individuals should retain the right to participate or not participate in collective decision-making without penalty. The academic boycott police does not exist, nor should it exist.
The article counters that Nelson said that in the history of the AAUP, no other form of collective action has been so closely scrutinized and rejected as academic boycotts. Academic boycotts cannot seem to be considered in isolation from the polarized geopolitics of Palestine and Israel - a context that prompted the AAUP to issue a report in 2006. Committee A reconsidered the issue of academic boycotts to ensure that academic boycotts as a strategy would not be overwhelmed by politics.
The 2006 report has fueled the extreme politicization of academic boycotts and the temptation to preach absolute opposition to academic boycotts as a counter to what Nelson calls a Manichean conception. This has led to serious violations of academic freedom, for example, when policies democratically decided by faculty and student councils are summarily dismissed rather than respected or debated. Absolute opposition to academic boycotts by Nelson and others replicates polarized thinking that pits people against each other and pulls our attention away from where it should be focused — on “conditions that are fundamentally incompatible with the mission of higher education.”
How, the article asks, can academic freedom not be compromised and intellectual progress not stagnate when scholars are imprisoned or killed for their beliefs and communities, or when universities are razed to the ground? What is the meaning of a commitment to the free exchange of knowledge and ideas in this context?
Previous AAUP policy has largely ignored these issues, or even actively suppressed them. It has reverently emphasized an abstract concept—the "free exchange of knowledge"—that means nothing. The A Committee revisited its 2006 report to expand options and invite more debate and dialogue in scholarly discussions, unions, chapter meetings, and organizing events about which strategies might best address the multiple, global repressions that exist today. The AAUP aims to further enhance its members' ability to engage in reasoned debate and, ultimately, to advance academic freedom for all. Debate and discussion are appropriate and necessary components of shared governance, including debate and voting on proposals to support academic boycotts.
As Nelson Mandela said at the African National Congress: "In some cases... a boycott may be right, but in other cases it may be unwise and dangerous. In still other cases another weapon of political struggle may be preferred. Demonstrations, protest marches, strikes or civil disobedience may be resorted to, all depending on the circumstances of the situation at the time."
The article concludes that both the 2006 report and the 2024 statement cited the quote approvingly. However, Cary Nelson disagreed. Of the two Nelsons, the AAUP sided with Mandela.
The Two Faces of Alain Delon
On August 18, French film star Alain Delon died at home at the age of 88. As the BBC obituary said, Alain Delon was a representative of the "golden age" of French films and had a recognized beauty in the film industry. Alain Delon began to emerge on the screen in the early 1960s and gradually established his position in the film industry and even in film history. He worked with two Italian master directors, Visconti and Antonioni, in the early 1960s, and left a good performance in the former's "The Leopard" (Il gattopardo, 1963) and "Rocco ei suoi fratelli" (Rocco ei suoi fratelli, 1960) and the latter's "Eclipse" (L'eclisse, 1962); in the film "Le samouraï" (Le samouraï, 1967) directed by the great French director Jean-Pierre Melville, Alain Delon played the taciturn killer Jeff, which became a classic role in film history. For many Chinese audiences, Alain Delon is the eternal hero Zorro in their hearts. When the movie "Zorro" (1975) starring him was introduced to China after the reform and opening up, it successfully caused a "Zorro fever".
On August 21, 2024, local time, in France, Paris Match published a photo of the late French actor Alain Delon.
Alain Delon's acting career lasted until 2017, and he was awarded the Honorary Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival in 2019 in recognition of his contributions to the film industry over the years. But since then, he has been suffering from illness. He was treated for a stroke in 2019, and his cognitive function was impaired, which later caused his family disputes and even went to court. This is not the first time that the superstar has been involved in a lawsuit or scandal. He has been involved in the bizarre death of his bodyguard Malkovich, intentional wounding and gun problems; his romantic past and multiple marriages can hardly withstand the scrutiny of high moral standards.
However, although it is no longer news that Alain Delon is in poor health, the news of his death still shocked many people, especially movie fans. His former screen partner Brigitte Bardot mourned the "departure of a close friend" and said that Alain Delon's death left "a huge void that nothing and no one can fill." French President Macron also praised Alain Delon for leaving behind legendary film roles in his eulogy, saying that he is not only a star, but also a monument of French culture. Many media, including the French newspaper Liberation, also affirmed Alain Delon's achievements on the screen as an actor. It can be said that Alain Delon on the screen is an undoubted idol with his excellent acting skills, handsome face and charming temperament.
But as mentioned above, Alain Delon is not without his critics outside the screen world. Even if we try to make a final judgment on his life with a "death is greater" mentality, Alain Delon has a lot of negative influence. Putting aside the private matters such as family disputes and marital relations mentioned above, Alain Delon's public political statements and some of his behaviors have always been controversial. It is well known that Alain Delon's political stance is typical of the right wing. He once called himself a "de Gaullist" and even wrote a letter to encourage the French hero and former president after he left office in his later years. But if de Gaullistism is still a relatively mild statement, Alain Delon's close relationship with Marine Le Pen and the far-right party National Front in his later years has made him more questionable.
But like the cold and lone ranger character he plays, Alain Delon does not care about the accusations of his "friendship" with right-wing politicians. And Alain Delon's double life is not just the difference between on and off the screen - even with Le Pen's publicly declared friendship, the two have different positions on the Russian-Ukrainian war. Le Pen's position is more inclined to support Russia, and even called on France to cooperate more with Russia, but Alain Delon is closer to Ukraine. He is also very popular with Ukrainian audiences. He even accepted the third-class medal of merit awarded by Ukrainian President Zelensky in 2023.
Even at the highlight of being awarded the Honorary Palme d'Or by the Cannes Film Festival, Alain Delon was accompanied by a lot of controversy, accusations and even boycotts. On April 17, 2019, after the Cannes Film Festival announced that it would award Delon the Honorary Palme d'Or that year, Melissa Silverstein, founder of the Women and Hollywood organization, criticized the Cannes Film Festival for its decision and was "extremely disappointed." She said in a social media post that Alain Delon had publicly admitted to violence against women and had close ties with the National Front, which was characterized by racism and anti-Semitism; in addition, Alain Delon had also publicly made statements against homosexuality, claiming that homosexuality was "against nature." It can be seen that a Cannes Film Festival that claims to be committed to diversity and inclusion has awarded Delon such high honors and praises, which makes people have to question whether the festival officials are paying tribute to these abominable values.
In response, the Cannes Film Festival told Variety magazine that paying tribute to Alain Delon was simply because he was a legendary actor and part of the history of the Cannes Film Festival, which was no different from paying tribute to Clint Eastwood, Woody Allen and Agnès Varda; and said that after Jean-Paul Belmondo and Jean-Pierre Léaud, Alain Delon was another representative actor worthy of Cannes' public tribute. However, the Cannes Film Festival refused to respond to the various political and moral accusations against Alain Delon. Similarly, the actor himself did not make a more specific response to the accusations from the outside world. On the other hand, Delon himself once expressed that one of the biggest regrets in his acting career was that he had never worked with a female director.
In addition, as part of the Honorary Palme d'Or ceremony, Alain Delon chose to screen the film Mr. Klein (1976), which he invested in, produced and starred in. In the film, Delon played an art dealer who was mistaken for a Jew. The film tells the story of the Vichy government's oppression of Jews during World War II and the historical events of the expulsion of Jews from France, and implies discrimination against Jews. In fact, another accusation against Alain Delon, that is, criticism of his anti-Semitic stance, has been endless.
Even after his death, the controversy surrounding Alain Delon still exists - he once said before his death that he hoped that his family would euthanize his beloved Belgian shepherd dog Loubo and bury him with him after his death. In an interview a few years before his death, Alain Delon once publicly expressed his love for Loubo, calling it part of his "hospice care" and even comparing the dog to his own child. But his last wish was unsurprisingly criticized and boycotted by the outside world. The famous satirical cartoon magazine "Charlie Hebdo" even published a cartoon specifically making fun of Delon's last wish, and many animal protection organizations also came forward to protest this move. In the end, Alain Delon's family did not fulfill the deceased's last wish, and announced to the public that Loubo would have his own new family and would not be euthanized.
To some extent, Alain Delon's double-sided or even multifaceted life can be regarded as an alternative epitome of the so-called "golden age", and is also a typical example of the complex human nature of a successful idol superstar. His conservative values and tough way of expressing his views may be considered "old-fashioned" by some people, but his political stance and even personal morality are incompatible with the common sense and bottom line of the new generation. In any case, he left behind an indelible handsome face in film history, engraving a kind of violent beauty on the screen; and outside the screen, the many words and deeds that made him bear the infamy are bound to be accompanied by repeated scrutiny by history and later generations.
References:
French film giant Alain Delon dies aged 88: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2n6y4g700o
In Honor of Alain Delon: A Star So Handsome, He Was Obliged to Underplay His Looks: https://variety.com/2024/film/columns/alain-delon-remembered-tribute-french-star-1236111078/
Cannes to Go Ahead With Award for Alain Delon Despite His Controversial Statements: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/21/europe/alain-delon-family-refuse-dog-burial-scli-intl/index.html
Alain Delon’s family refuse to put down pet dog the actor wanted to be buried with: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/21/europe/alain-delon-family-refuse-dog-burial-scli-intl/index.html
Lu Nanfeng, Zhuang Muyang
(This article is from The Paper. For more original information, please download the "The Paper" APP)
