Letters to the Editor
AUT Boycott
Dear Sir, Your article of 2nd June 2005 concerning the AUT’s repeal of their boycott of two Israeli universities seemed wilfully given over to contemptible insults and unsubstantiated accusations directed against the boycott campaign, without considering opposing arguments in similar detail.
Had you taken it upon yourself to research the issue before writing the piece, you might have noted that the boycott, rather than being an attack on ‘Israel and Israelis’, was a targeted censure of two universities: Haifa and Bar Ilan.
Haifa stands accused by its own professors of substantial violations of academic integrity, and has openly hosted conferences on ‘Encouraging Abortions Among Palestinian Women’ and ‘The Meaning and Objective of Transfer’ - ‘transfer’ being a euphemism for ethnic cleansing. Bar Ilan is in direct and knowing violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
In maintaining a campus inside a settlement in the Occupied West Bank of Palestine, it supports and perpetuates one of the most difficult barriers to peace in the Middle East. Those piously invoking the abstract value of ‘academic freedom’ would do better to consider the academic situation in Palestine, where the occupation, results in the wholesale closure and invasion of universities, the victimisation of professors and the murder of students.
It is against this background that the boycott should be evaluated. We all retrospectively support the boycotts against Apartheid South Africa.And if boycotts were justified then, they are justified now. This is not to say that there is an absolute identity between the two political situations. However there are similarities, and the Occupation is at least as pernicious as Apartheid.
There are people, both in Palestine and Israel, who bear the brunt of the iniquities of the occupation, of institutions such as Bar Ilan and Haifa, and have been moved to appeal for international solidarity. We should answer them.
Mark Wassouf
Oxford Students’ Palestine Society
Hooray Henrys
Dear Sir, Whatever we may think about some of the disgusting post-Finals activities, we should consider the effect upon those considering whether to apply to Oxford.
One of the biggest problems for Oxford is the stereotypical image of rich students and Hooray Henrys, which dissuades many clever people from inner-city backgrounds from even applying. These messy post-Finals activities only confirm this image, with the suggestion that we are all so rich and arrogant that we can afford to ruin suits at will. For this reason alone we should put a stop to them.
Craig Looker
Balliol College
Don't do Coke
Dear Sir, I was disappointed to see Balliol revoke the Coca-Cola ban in their college. Coca-Cola’s ethical record is appalling; draining water supplies in rural India, distributing waste product as ‘fertiliser’ to farmers and selling products that are near-poisonous in the developing world. I hope it will be enough to convince more colleges to ban it, or at least discuss alternatives.
This isn’t intended as a rant against Balliol, but rather a rant against a certain line of argument that is often used in boycott debates. The arguments used in Balliol were the same as I encountered in Somerville during the Nestlé boycott, and no doubt the same used in many boycott debates: individual choice should not be dictated by an institution. Indeed, a member of Balliol JCR refers to the ‘personal choice’ that should be exercised when buying from potentially unethical companies.
What such arguments fail to grasp is that institutional bans are not about limiting personal choice. Somerville’s boycott of Nestlé was not about stopping members of the JCR buying Smarties from the Co-Op, it was saying that as a collective body we were not willing to endorse that company. The anti-Coca-Cola movement is growing on an international, national and regional level. To see why and to find out what’s being done in Oxford, visit http://anticoke.obshost.co.uk/.
Emma Norris
OUSU President Condom Controversy
Dear Sir, I was suprised that St Hilda’s was the first college to install a condom machine in their JCR. That is not to say that I believe that St Hilda’s girls are all celibate. However, I am surprised that of all the colleges in Oxford, it is the one that is often seen as the least willing to accommodate change that has taken this progressive move. I am pleased to see St Hilda’s taking a lead in such an important issue.
Edward Blois-Brooke
St Edmund Hall.
5th Oct 2005