One of my most unpleasant tasks as president of the Graduate Student Senate at UMass was having to interact with university executives. It would be only a slight overgeneralization to call them a bunch of snakes who combine the cleverness of academics with the slipperiness and amorality of corporate executives. They profess high-minded principles like intellectual achievement, academic freedom and humanistic values, while their actual concern is primarily to manage universities to respond to the technological, personnel and even ideological needs of the corporate and military sectors.

In 2007, hundreds of presidents of American universities signed a statement opposing a proposed boycott of Israeli academic institutions for their role in Israeli war crimes. The list of signatories is here:

http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395-D25925B85EAF%7D/NYTimes_College_Presidents_Full.pdf

In 2008-09, zero American university presidents condemned the incomparably worse Israeli bombing of the Islamic University of Gaza and the headquarters of its faculty association.

Many of us have been desensitized to this kind of vile double standard, but publicly pointing them out can still be a powerful moral action.

If your university’s president was among those who signed the statement, you might like to hold them accountable by making a public statement. I have written the following open letter, which for various strategic reasons, we have decided not to publish on my campus. Feel free to adapt it and use it on your own university campus. Remember to add a salutation and signature.

In 2007, you signed an open letter condemning an effort by British academics to hold Israeli academic institutions accountable for their collusion with the criminal Israeli occupation of Palestine. The academics opted for a selective boycott, which aimed to target culpable institutions while exempting Israeli academics who oppose Israel’s crimes.

Because of your open letter’s patent silliness – it called on the British academics to boycott American colleges and universities for not engaging in discrimination – and because it trivialized opposition to Israel’s severe war crimes as “political disagreements of the moment,” we assumed, along with the rest of the justice community, that you and the other signatories were motivated not by “fundamental values of the academy” such as “intellectual exchange,” as you claimed, but by the cheap, cynical Zionist partisanship that we have come to expect from the American elite.

We are pleased to present you with an opportunity to prove us wrong, by condemning the recent Israeli bombing of Palestinian academic institutions.

Several weeks ago, the Israeli Air Force bombed several academic buildings of the Islamic University of Gaza in six air strikes, including the science laboratory building and the “Ladies’ Building,” where women attend classes. More recently, Israel bombed the headquarters of the University Teachers’ Association.

Media reports on the Israeli bombing of the Islamic University were in near unanimous agreement that the university was targeted because it is a cultural symbol of Hamas. Astute observers have noted that these bombings are consistent with Israel’s policy of scholasticide – the systematic destruction of Palestinian education institutions, including, in the last several weeks, the destruction of at least four schools run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

The Israeli government has made the unsubstantiated claim, disputed by Islamic University officials, that the university was used by Hamas for military purposes. In view of the Israeli government’s history of lying about its wartime actions, its extensive targeting of educational and other civilian institutions, and its refusal to permit independent observers into Gaza to verify its allegations, this claim cannot be taken seriously. The Israeli academic institutions targeted by the British boycott, in contrast, are known to made substantive contributions to Israel’s criminal aggression and occupation.

There can be no doubt that bombing universities and faculty buildings are a more severe form of interference with the “fundamental values of the academy” and with “intellectual exchange” than a nonviolent, targeted boycott, and therefore at least as worthy of condemnation. We invite you to publicly condemn these bombings.

Posted under Uncategorized

This post was written by Uri on February 9, 2009

Tags: , , , ,

Social Justice Lawyering as Counterculture

I recommend Bill Quigley’s “Letter to a Law Student Interested in Social Justice” to anybody considering a legal career and interested in justice.

Also recommended is the book “Against the Tide,” by Debbie Hagan,to those who want to understand the social role of lawyers. It is the story of Lawrence Velvel, Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law, who dreamed of running a law school in the public interest but met resistance at every step from the legal establishment.

Also recommended is a book I’m in the middle of reading, Unequal Justice, which explores the political interests behind the origins of many of the legal institutions we are familiar with, such as law schools, the big law firm, the bar exam, the American Bar Association, and the National Lawyers Guild. It’s dated (from the mid-1970s), but still very interesting and useful.

The comments section here might be a good place to compile recommended resources on this subject.

Posted under Culture, Politics

This post was written by Uri on January 26, 2009

Tags: , ,

Dr. Martin Luther King, Revolutionary

It may be a leftist cliche by now, but Dr. King’s radical legacy needs to be rescued from those who would paint him as a cuddly let’s-all-just-get-along figure.

So let’s remember Dr. King’s revolutionary spirit, in his own words.

The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality…and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing “clergy and laymen concerned” committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end, unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy.

Read More…

Posted under Uncategorized

This post was written by Uri on January 19, 2009

News from Gaza

I don’t normally report news, but since I haven’t seen this information elsewhere, I thought it was worth a blog post.  – Uri

Sent out by the Free Gaza Movement
Jennifer Loewenstein; Beirut, Hamra; 1.10.09. 2:30am

Here are some newsworthy items out of Gaza that are unlikely to be making it to the Western presses. I received this information directly from one of the staff of the Mezan Center for Human Rights about twenty minutes ago.
1. Israel has begun a new policy in Gaza in the past two days called the “roof knock”. This is when a “small” rocket is fired from Israeli military aircraft that is strong enough to blast open the roof of a targeted building. It is sent as a “warning message” to the building’s inhabitants giving them between 2 and 3 minutes to evacuate before the building is completely destroyed. A number of cases of this new technique have been reported recently.
2. While the UN continues to claim that “only” 25% of the casualties from the attacks on Gaza are civilian, the Mezan Center for Human Rights (known for the care it takes not to overstate the numbers and for its strict verification policies) estimates that the number of civilian casualties is approximately 85%. In particular, the number of children has increased to over 200, and the number of women has surpassed 75One reason for the lower civilian casualty figures used by the UN has to do with the reluctance to consider men -other than the elderly and sick- as non-combatants. In fact the overwhelming majority of men killed in “Operation Cast Lead” up to now have been non-combatants, including fathers, teachers, shopkeepers, construction workers, laborers, students, as well as the civil policemen. The vast majority are not “Hamas militants.” Note that the civil police are considered ‘non-combatants’ under international law and are therefore not ‘legitimate’ targets in any military confrontation any more than traffic cops or firemen.
3. The UN announced this evening that “almost everyone in the Gaza Strip” is now in need of humanitarian aid. Indeed, even those with adequate food supplies are a) handing out what they have to people in “shelters” (which have been targeted consistently by Israeli war machines in the past); Even those with adequate food supplies are b) unable to obtain bread anywhere. Many are using rice or spaghetti to substitute for carbohydrates — when these are availabe and when there is water and electricity to allow for cooking these items.
4. There are widespread reports now of forced evacuations of entire neighborhoods of people who go mainly to nearby schools or other public buildings not yet destroyed. These are considered no more secure than their homes but remain the only other places to go (other than to move into crowded dwellings with relatives; or places no more secure than their own homes). The congregation of so many people in these enclosed spaces increases the likelihood of major civilian casualties when airstrikes target the area.

Posted under News, Politics

This post was written by Uri on January 11, 2009

Tags: , ,

The Gaza massacre: Bits and pieces

1. The Magnes Zionist runs an unpublished op-ed by Joseph Levine, a UMass philosopher and an excellent commentator on the Israel/Palestine conflict. Levine suggests a thought experiment: imagine that in the targets that Israel is attacking, all civilians were Israelis and not Palestinian. Would you then support the attacks? If not, then you are immoral if you support the actual Israeli attacks.

Read More…

Posted under Uncategorized

This post was written by Uri on January 5, 2009

About these “union bosses”

“Union boss” is a common epithet used by people who despise unions, seek to weaken unions, or are involved in a particular anti-union campaign. Despite my having observed many campaigns against the leadership of a particular union, and once having participated in such a campaign, I have not heard the term “union boss” used by union members who acknowledge the value of unions, no matter how bitterly antagonistic their relationship with the union leadership.

This suggests that “union boss” is a term of abuse and/or propaganda, not of analysis. My question here: are there circumstances in which the term is legitimately used?

Read More…

Posted under Culture, Economy, Politics, Uncategorized

This post was written by Uri on December 22, 2008

Tags: , ,

The Failure of Zionism

I’m studying for exams and trying to finish a major paper all in the next few weeks. So instead of posting something original I’ll just post this letter I wrote to the editor of my school paper, and add a comment or two.

This past week was Palestine Awareness Week, when members of Students for Justice in Palestine worked to present facts and viewpoints that run counter to the traditional negative portrayals of Palestinians. As part of the effort, the organization created posters presenting facts about the Israel-Palestine conflict that would surprise most Americans, like facts illustrating the enormous disparities in military strength between the Israeli army and the Palestinian people, and between the magnitude of the crimes committed by Israel against the Palestinians and those committed by the Palestinians against Israelis.

Read More…

Posted under Culture, History, Politics

This post was written by Uri on December 1, 2008

Tags: , , , , ,

Two ponderables

1. Most opponents of legal gay marriage, at least those aiming at respectability, say their movement is not anti-gay, but rather aimed at preserving the sanctity of marriage.

But in all of the states that have legalized gay marriage, to the best of my knowledge, the legalization has been of civil marriage, with no impact on religious marriage.

But sanctity is a religious concept. Will the opponents of gay marriage who say it’s about the sanctity of marriage own up to imposing a religious value on a secular state institution? Is it fundamentally different from supporting a ban on stores opening on the weekend, to preserve the sanctity of the Sabbath?

2. Why are so many “libertarians” – that is, people who profess support of capitalism, opposition to government programs, and love of liberty and the free market – so hostile to immigration? I’m thinking of prominent people like Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin, who are way more immigrant-hating than even the Republican Party mainstream.

Isn’t free movement of people a fundamental liberty and an essential component of free markets?

Posted under Uncategorized

This post was written by Uri on November 15, 2008

Tags: , , , , , ,

The first Palestinian Prime Minister of Israel

Over at the Magnes Zionist, I posed the question (in the comments) of when we might expect to see the first Palestinian Prime Minister of Israel. My guess, rather generous to Israel, I think, is 2037. I view this as generous in light of the fact that Palestinians are politically marginalized as a matter of law and of practice to a degree far greater than that to which black people are politically marginalized in the US.

Those who are subjected to the Zionist propaganda that permeates Western culture, and don’t have or don’t use the requisite intellectual self-defense, could be forgiven for viewing the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians as analogous to the relationship between the US and black people. This analogy follows from the liberal Zionist script: Israel is a democracy, albeit an imperfect democracy that has a race problem, just like the United States; and just like the United States, things are getting better for Palestinians in Israel.

Read More…

Posted under Uncategorized

The Supreme Court Game

On the assumption the Presidential election isn’t stolen, here are some people President Obama might consider for a Supreme Court appointment.

1. Ralph Nader. This would help the Democrats strengthen the Republican-Democrat duopoly, and would get Obama credit for putting an American hero on the court who also happens to be immensely qualified. Downsides: he might get borked by petty Democrats; he would likely turn down the nomination; and as Jeff has pointed out, he’s a little on the old side.

2. Marjorie Cohn. The President of the National Lawyers Guild, she’s a criminal law specialist but is also well knwon as a defender of Constitutional rights.

3. Nadine Strossen. She’s stepping down as president of the ACLU, so she must be looking for another job.

4. Deval Patrick. Shouldn’t there be a slot on the Court for a sensible person of color? Downside: not liberal enough.

5. Alan Dershowitz. Just kidding, but he would make a good Supreme Court mascot. And he is slightly smarter than Sarah Palin.

6. John Ashcroft. Okay, he’d be a terrible justice, but he sure can sing!

7. Lani Guinier. She deserves another chance.

8. Brian Leiter. A University of Chicago professor who’s a good legal scholar and philosopher. Potential problem: he might be seen as partisan/divisive. In my opinion, there’s nothing wrong with partisanship on the Supreme Court, which is after all a political court, right-wing howling to the contrary notwithstanding. The Court might do better if it had a partisan leftist or two to counter the Scalia/Thomas partisanship on the right.

Posted under Uncategorized

This post was written by Uri on November 3, 2008