Universities must maintain the principle of neutrality

UBC-Okanagan resolution fails in that, Erez Aloni says.

Universities worldwide are grappling with the challenge of balancing academic freedom with the right to protest. A recent resolution passed by the UBC-Okanagan Senate on April 25 serves as a stark example of how not to approach this delicate balance. The resolution, addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the situation in Gaza, condemns the perpetration of genocide and the violation of international human rights laws by Israel, supports peaceful opposition to the war, and asks the UBC community to strengthen ties with those affected by the crisis. However, this resolution misrepresents a decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), jeopardizes core principles of academic freedom and university neutrality, and contributes to the rise of antisemitism.

The resolution begins with the statement, “Whereas the International Court of Justice ruled on 26 January 2024 that the case made by the state of South Africa that Israeli military actions in Gaza plausibly constitute genocide ...” This claim, while circulated on social media, is a gross misrepresentation of the ICJ's decision. The recently retired ICJ president who issued the interim ruling explicitly stated that the court “did not decide that the claim was plausible,” clarifying that, “The shorthand that often appears — that there's a plausible case of genocide — is not what the court decided.”

Universities must be accurate and refer correctly to facts, a fundamental responsibility of institutions of higher learning and research.

As a law professor, I emphasize the importance of accuracy and nuance in language to my students. How can we expect them to be precise and thoughtful when an official governing body resorts to discourse found on social media?

More importantly, universities should not pass judgment on matters currently in public discourse and still being actively investigated by researchers. Such actions interfere with academic freedom and violate the principle of neutrality. The UBC-Okanagan Senate lacks expertise on these issues and oversteps its authority. Imagine being a scholar seeking a grant or tenure in the field of genocide studies, faced with an institution that takes a biased stance. Or consider a prospective student interested in researching the conflict — how can they feel welcome at UBC-Okanagan after this statement?

The senate's statement about demonstrations in Israel further illustrates its overreach: “Supports all those who peacefully oppose this war, including those in Israel who have gone to the streets at great personal risk to protest the invasion.” While I passionately agree with this sentiment, and even hope to join demonstrations that are antiwar and demand the return of hostages during my forthcoming visit to Israel, my position is irrelevant, just like the senate's position. Some argue that these demonstrations weaken Israel's bargaining power against Hamas in negotiating a ceasefire and hostage release deal. It is not the job of the university to serve as the arbiter of such debates.

Finally, the use of the term “genocide” in this context is not only inaccurate but fuels antisemitic sentiments. Harvard professor Noah Feldman rightly asserts that the use of this term is part of what he calls the “new antisemitism.” Feldman argues that accusing Israel of genocide can function, intentionally or otherwise, as a way of erasing the memory of the Holocaust and transforming Jews from victims into oppressors. While it is logically possible for an oppressed group to become oppressors over time, the senate could have used other terms like “atrocities” or “war crimes” that would have been less controversial and more accurate.

The use of “genocide” perpetuates antisemitic stereotypes. Moreover, while the famine in Gaza is deeply concerning and Israel deserves strong condemnation for restricting humanitarian aid, the resolution's failure to acknowledge Hamas's actions in exacerbating this tragedy reveals a troubling bias and a complete lack of judgment.

The UBC-Okanagan Senate's resolution not only misrepresents facts and undermines academic freedom but also contributes to the spread of antisemitism. Universities must foster an environment where individuals can engage in dissent and criticism without the institution itself becoming a critic.

Only by upholding these principles can universities serve as communities of scholars and positively contribute to public discourse.