McGill committee rules against BDS motions
The days of polarizing debates on the McGill University campus surrounding the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement may be over after a judicial committee of the student association unanimously decided that motions in support of BDS violate the student constitution.
In a reference on the legality of BDS motions and similar motions, the judicial board of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) came to the “inescapable conclusion” that “any motion that specifically targets one nation and compels SSMU to actively campaign against that country, such as the BDS motion, is unconstitutional.”
That will come as a great relief to many students and faculty who complained that the controversial motions — which called for boycotts, divestments and sanctions against Israel — had poisoned the atmosphere on campus with divisive and acrimonious campaigns on both sides of the issue.
The reference in no way questions the right of McGill’s BDS Action Network (BDSAN) to advocate for or debate the merits of BDS. But it said the motions created “palpable tension” on campus and were discriminatory.
The judicial board argued that democratic will cannot outweigh SSMU’s commitment to protecting minority rights.
With students attending McGill from around the globe, the reference notes that the PalestinianIsraeli conflict is but one between warring nations that may be represented on campus. By picking sides, SSMU “champions one’s cause over another” when it shouldn’t allow the realities of global politics to “taint” its capacity to represent all students equally.
Political science and history student Zev Macklin, who petitioned the judicial board with a question on the validity of BDS motions, welcomed the reference as a sign the university would maintain its progressive reputation and not become mired in “a war of attrition between two sides that will respectively never agree.”
He said it would be a mistake for the board to override the reference, and he urged BDS supporters not to fight it. In theory, said Robin Morgan, interim chief justice of the judicial board (serving with justices Lillian Fradin, Aly Háji and Munavvar Tojiboeva), the reference should end the cycle of BDS motions followed by referendums, heated debate and divisive votes that was repeated three times in just 18 months at McGill, the last in February.
In practise, however, it’s not known what the effect of the 13page decision will be. Morgan said the reference doesn’t require ratification from SSMU’s board of directors, although it would be customary. BDSAN could still bring forward similar motions, but they would be contested if they do not comply with the principles outlined in the reference.
However, should the SSMU board decide to ignore the reference and continue to allow votes on BDS, Morgan, a law student who is going on to do a master’s of law at Harvard University this fall, said there would be no real recourse for students but to go to Quebec Court.
“In our mind, a reference is final and doesn’t have to be ratified by the board,” Morgan said in an interview. “According to our reference, motions like these do not comply with SSMU’s constitution, internal regulations and policies.”
Having just taken office last week, SSMU’s new president, Ben Ger, said the new board hasn’t yet met to discuss the reference question so he couldn’t comment on it. Representatives of BDSAN didn’t respond to requests for interviews. Outgoing SSMU president Kareem Ibrahim also declined to comment, as did McGill officials.
BDSAN had tried to argue to the judicial board that it didn’t have the jurisdiction to answer the reference question and should exercise its discretion to refuse the reference. The justices rejected those arguments, especially given that “tensions ran high on campus following the BDS motions.”
The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (Quebec) welcomed the decision, saying in a statement it confirmed that “the BDS campaign is a form of discrimination on the basis of national origin and therefore directly contradicts SSMU’s own mandate to represent the entire student body.”
Macklin is hopeful that the reference will encourage other universities to study their own constitutions and come to similar decisions.
“The tension these motions create go completely against the values of a university,” he said, adding that he hoped it would put a stop to “an endless struggle” on university campuses.
“This ruling (ensures that McGill) will not be held hostage by vocal minorities and that its students’ society will represent and stand up for the rights of all students.”