The ASA’s Official Stance: Targeting Institutions, Protecting Individuals

The core meaning of the boycott for the ASA lies in its limitation to official organizational capacity. The ASA’s National Council has adopted the resolution as an ethical stance and a form of material and symbolic action that upholds the principle of solidarity.

What the Boycott Means for the ASA (Official Restrictions):

The ASA, in its official capacity, refuses to engage in formal collaborations with:

• Israeli academic institutions (e.g., universities and colleges).
• Scholars expressly serving as representatives or ambassadors of those institutions (such as deans, rectors, presidents) or on behalf of the Israeli government.

This means the ASA will not enter into formal partnerships, sign official agreements, or co-sponsor events with Israeli universities until they meet the conditions set by the BDS movement—namely, taking an active role in ending the Israeli occupation and extending equal rights to Palestinians.

What the Boycott Does Not Mean for ASA Members (Protected Exchange):

Crucially, the ASA expressly does not endorse a boycott of individual-level contacts. The academic boycott is not designed to curtail dialogue and has these clear exemptions for its members:

1. Individual Scholars: ASA members are not discouraged from engaging in contacts with individual Israeli scholars, including collaboration on research and publication.
2. ASA Conference Participation: Israeli scholars, students, or cultural workers are permitted to participate in ASA conferences or be invited to campus to speak, even if they rely on Israeli university funding, provided they are not serving as official representatives or ambassadors of the targeted institutions or the Israeli government. The ASA will not prohibit anyone from registering or participating.
3. Travel: U.S. scholars are not discouraged from traveling to Israel for academic purposes, provided they do not engage in formal partnership or sponsorship by Israeli academic institutions.
4. Routine Funding: Routine university funding for individual collaborations or academic exchanges is generally permitted.

The ASA acknowledges that, as a large organization with divergent opinions, individual members retain the right to disagree with the resolution and are encouraged to act according to their conscience and convictions, as the ASA exercises no legislative authority over its members.

---

The Ethical and Political Rationale

Why the ASA Responded to the Call

The ASA’s decision to endorse the boycott is deeply rooted in its organizational history and self-identity. The association has a long track record of critiquing inequality and condemning apartheid, including:

• Condemnation of apartheid in South Africa and urging divestment from complicit U.S. corporations.
• Condemnation of racial, sexual, and gender inequality within the United States.
• Speaking out against anti-immigrant discrimination (e.g., in Arizona) and in support of the Occupy movement.

Furthermore, the ASA, as a U.S.-based organization, highlights the United States’ significant role as the world’s strongest supporter of Israel, providing the majority of its military and foreign aid and political support (including the use of the veto in the UN Security Council). By joining the boycott, the ASA condemns its own country’s “aiding and abetting” of human rights violations.

Academic Freedom: Extension, Not Violation

The ASA rejects the notion that the boycott is a violation of academic freedom, arguing instead that it is an action that helps to extend it. The central argument is that:

• Academic freedom is effectively denied to Palestinians under the current occupation, citing instances where Palestinian universities have been bombed, schools closed, and scholars/students deported or severely constrained by movement restrictions and discriminatory permit systems.
• The boycott is a tool to contribute to a movement that seeks to expand the rights to education and free inquiry for all, including Palestinians.

The association notes the disparity that while ASA members are free to disagree with and ignore the resolution, it is a civil offense for scholars within Israel to endorse this boycott, underscoring the constrained conditions for critical scholars within the Israeli system.

---

The Broader Context and Goals

The academic boycott is part of the larger, non-violent BDS movement, which was initiated in 2005 by Palestinian civil society groups in protest against human rights violations and following the International Court of Justice’s 2004 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s separation barrier on Palestinian territory illegal.

The primary goal of the boycott is to place real and symbolic pressure on Israeli academic institutions to compel them to take an active role in achieving specific conditions:

1. Ending the Israeli occupation.
2. Extending equal rights to Palestinians.

By strategically limiting its boycott to institutions, the ASA seeks to challenge the structures of power and complicity, aligning itself with a historical tradition of utilizing non-violent economic and cultural pressure to combat systems of discrimination recognized under international law as apartheid.