Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumThose Israel Boycotts Are Illegal
The American Anthropological Association (AAA) voted on Nov. 20 to boycott Israel, though the resolutionwhich would prohibit Israeli academic institutions from any involvement in the organization, such as participation in conferences and hiring eventsmust still be approved by the groups full membership in coming months. Ten days later the National Womens Studies Association voted to call for a boycott of entities and projects sponsored by the state of Israel. Boycott votes are also scheduled at the annual meetings of the American Historical Association (AHA) and the Modern Language Association.
The moral myopia and academic perversity of these boycotts have been widely discussed. Less well understood is that in many cases they also are illegal. Under corporate law, an organization, including a nonprofit, can do only what is permitted under the purposes specified in its charter. Boycott resolutions that are beyond the powers of an organization are void, and individual members can sue to have a court declare them invalid. The individuals serving on the boards of these organizations may be liable for damages.
Consider the American Historical Association. Its constitutiona corporate charterstates that its purpose shall be the promotion of historical studies and the broadening of historical knowledge among the general public. Theres nothing in this charter that would authorize a boycott. And an anti-Israel boycott will do nothing to promote historical studies or broaden historical knowledge. One can go through similar exercises with the charters of other academic associations.
(snip)
Although some major academic organizations have thousands of members, they are generally run by a small staff and a board that effectively controls the agenda. The purposes named in their charters are meant to protect the overwhelming mass of members who cannot get involved in the minutiae of the organizations affairs, to ensure that the organization cannot be hijacked for a fundamentally foreign purpose, and to protect minority members. The charter is the minimal assurance that while an organization may act unwisely, it will be at least in the category of fieldwork, education and research, not beekeeping or boycotts.
(snip)
The American Studies Association voted to boycott Israel in December 2013, and the ASA now touts itself on its website as one of the leading scholarly communities supporting social change. But the associations charter says nothing about social change. The ASA is dedicated to broadening knowledge about American culture, not boycotting a foreign nation.
Recognition of this problem may grow. In March 2014, the Royal Institute of British Architects voted to boycott its Israeli counterpart. Lawyers advised the group about the legal dangers of exceeding its mandate. Later that year the institute rescinded its boycott resolution.
(snip)
Messrs. Solomon and Kontorovich are professors in the law schools, respectively, of the University of California, Berkeley, and Northwestern University.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/those-israel-boycotts-are-illegal-1449013865
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 3, 2015, 01:58 AM - Edit history (1)
how governance of academic associations works.
But don't let that interfere with your propaganda.
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)Just wondering.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Two different countries. Two different systems.
I've been a board member for a major academic association.
Again you have no clue.
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)Do you provide any evidence for the difference? Or even a claim to what difference is relevant? Of course not. It's just "I've been a board member... so I know".
The authors are both law professors - do you provide anything beyond bluster for why we should believe they're wrong? Of course not.
I've been a board member for a major academic association.
And I've trained board members for decades on what their responsibilities entail. My experience is that most people in your position are the ones who "don't have a clue" re: those responsibilities.
The one you're looking for here is called "Duty of Obedience". Try looking it up - or at least try to provide a legal analysis refuting the article.
Bluster just makes you look foolish.
Response to FBaggins (Reply #16)
Post removed
6chars
(3,967 posts)do they owe it to their members to operate consistently with their constitutions, or because they are academics can the officers just do what they feel like?
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)very well.
Officers are elected by members.
6chars
(3,967 posts)Since academic organizations are academic and not just usual organizations, most of us would never have realized that officers are elected by members. That was an amazingly insightful analysis, which leads to further questions.
In the US, which, admittedly, is not an academic organization, the President of the US is elected by the people, he still has to follow the constitution of the US. The constitution can be amended by its members, not by the president. And failing to follow the constitution violates the trust of the people who built the organization and fought for it and vote, and therefore would (in theory) lead to accountability. If an academic organization elects officers, do they not have to follow the organization's constitution? In that case, why have a constitution? But if they have one and then don't follow it, isn't that common fraud as well as, since these are non-profit, tax fraud?
Response to 6chars (Reply #8)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to rjsquirrel (Reply #25)
6chars This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to 6chars (Reply #28)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
question everything
(47,530 posts)So far you are just telling the rest of us that we don't know what we are talking about. Then, if you are oh so knowledgeable why not enlighten us?
This is, in case you are not aware of, a discussion board. Where people come to express their opinion, to debate and rebut and to learn from others.
You might as well claim that Ted Cruz will be the most wonderful president because... you say so.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Yes, DU is full of high level discussion of policy and no snark.
You can't discuss anything with radical Zionists.
Freedom of speech is an American institution. Academic associations enjoy it too. You make a false analogy to for profit business governance.
I'm proud to support BDS, as a Jew.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Who gives a toss if you support BDS as a Jew or otherwise... It doesn't add any credence to your claims , or give you any extra street cred or any special status.
There's about another 100 other Jews who support BDS including Marsha Levine , think that it's gonna impress anyone that you are too?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134120604
Response to King_David (Reply #34)
6chars This message was self-deleted by its author.
King_David
(14,851 posts)But he's trying to use it as if it gives him extra cred.
Same as Marsha Levine or Richard Falk.
King_David
(14,851 posts)You're not the only academic here you know?
I understood the post perfectly.
Response to King_David (Reply #15)
6chars This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to King_David (Reply #15)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
King_David
(14,851 posts)And as for your self professed credentials, don't really believe that either...
Sounds like puffery to me.
Response to rjsquirrel (Reply #32)
6chars This message was self-deleted by its author.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)question everything
(47,530 posts)Instead of responding and rebutting you resort to an acronym. Perhaps you really don't have nothing to comment.
King_David
(14,851 posts)What part is being laughed at?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)when charges are brought mm-kay
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)You've confused "illegal" with "criminal".
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and some lawsuit or whatever could result is not evidence of illegality
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Lol.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Any organization has the right to vote through resolutions that reflects the moral values of its membership. If that membership wishes to avoid supporting what they consider morally wrong, it should be up to them to do so, as long as it isn't discriminatory.
Response to Little Tich (Reply #7)
6chars This message was self-deleted by its author.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)the environment, child labor, same-sex relations et cetera, but I've never heard it would be against their constitutions to do so. I refuse to believe that Israel is a special issue here, and I've never heard about organizations like the ones in the OP being forbidden to take a moral stand on issues that their members feel strongly about.
Response to Little Tich (Reply #10)
6chars This message was self-deleted by its author.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)The reason why these organizations are putting forward BDS resolutions is because it's perceived as a human rights issue. If a BDS resolution is successfully framed as a human rights issue, it's very difficult to accept the arguments in the OP. That must be a hell of a constitution if it would forbid action against human rights violators.
Response to Little Tich (Reply #20)
6chars This message was self-deleted by its author.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)against perceived human rights violators.
Israel isn't the only human rights issue, and if organizations like those in the OP have run into trouble for taking action against perceived human rights violators before it would be good to use it for an Israel analogy. Right now, you have no examples to back up your argument, nor does the OP.
Response to Little Tich (Reply #22)
6chars This message was self-deleted by its author.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)The problem here is Zionists having no respect for democracy, but hey , what else is new?