|
have maintained in these exchanges, and look forward to hearing from you at
your earliest convenience.
yours sincerely
Dr. Sudhir Hazareesingh
Balliol College, University of Oxford.
The first thing that strikes me about the material circularised by Professor
Ben-Ze'ev (Rector) and Yossi Ben-Artzi (Dean of Humanities) is that it
simply asserts that Dr Pappe's case has "nothing to do with issues such as
academic freedom, the freedom of speech and expression, the freedom of
political positions". Ben-Artzi tells us that he has credentials as a
progressive, but no one who had been involved in any conflicts over freedom
of speech would expect such an assertion to be believed, since it is
precisely what the authorities always say, even in the grossest cases. Of
course, the fact that they say it's got nothing to do with academic freedom
doesn't infallibly demonstrate that it has; but anyone with experience in
the field will certainly regard this as more than likely.
The second thing that strikes me is the emphasis placed on the allegedly
"unethical" character of Dr Pappe's behaviour. This is puzzling in the first
place because, in British universities at any rate, the regulations
concerning disciplinary offences do not mention "ethics" at all. Although
the possible offences for which an academic could be disciplined are no
doubt ones which someone or other might consider "unethical", behaving
"unethically" is not itself an offence. The regulations are in this respect
just like the laws of the land, which prohibit a variety of specific acts:
some of these are disapproved of by almost everyone; others are disapproved
of by some, approved of by others. Disagreements of this sort are
commonplace, and opinions change.
This leads to the second puzzle about the charge that Dr Pappe is a man who
behaves "unethically". People have differing opinions on what is and is not
"ethical". But academic freedom is about rival opinions: it is defined in
British law as the freedom "to question and test received opinion and to put
forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions". Suggesting as
Ben-Ze'ev and Ben-Artzi do that Pappe's case can't be about academic freedom
because it's about ethics isn't at all convincing, and it's made even less
convincing by the fact that these two academics don't seem to have given any
thought to the obvious problems about the contrast been freedom and ethics
upon which they rely.
The third thing that strikes me is the way in which the Haifa authorities
deny that the charges against Pappe have anything to do with his "joining of
international boycott initiatives leveled against Israeli academic
institutions". It is profoundly revealing that they cannot resist adding
that "This particular action deserves not only severe condemnation but
another discipline [sic]prosecution".
I don't see how a rational person could conclude that from this declaration
that the Haifa authorities have any grasp of the concept of academic
freedom, let alone trust them to deal with Pappe impartially.
I have seen it said that the majority of Israeli academics have become
collaborators, that they endorse what the rest of the world regard as war
crimes. I hope this is not true, but such declarations do nothing to put my
mind at rest. Can Ben-Ze'ev and Ben-Artzi really be so blind to the fact
that, if Ilan Pappe is guilty of the offence of opposing the Sharon regime,
millions of people around the world will see him - like Mordechai Vanunu
before him - as the conscience of Israel?
Colwyn Williamson
President,
Swansea University AUT
|
|
