Suchergebnisse

An academic boycott consists in the systematic withholding of normal professional relations from academics as a means to achieving some goal, typically either punishment or the bringing about some change in behavior or policy. Our purpose in this paper is to assess the moral permissibility of academic boycotts. Our conclusion will be that there is a strong presumption against such boycotts. However, this presumption is ultimately defeasible, and we shall provide an explicit discussion of its defeasibility conditions. Adapted from the source document.

Argues against boycotts of academic institutions & individuals by scholars or others, in particular against Israeli entities, presenting some general principles, but also referring occasionally to the case of the Gujarat genocide in India. Five alternatives to boycotts are outlined: censure, organized public condemnation, failure to reward, helping the harmed, & vigilance on behalf of truth. Boycotts are next discussed, distinguishing two, economic & symbolic, finding the latter lacking value, & arguing that in most cases one of the five alternatives are more appropriate means of protest. Attention is then given to problems with the case for boycotting Israeli academic institutions & individuals, citing issues of academic freedom. It is contended that boycotts of academic individuals compromises the core values of universities. Some suggestions other boycotts are offered to those scholars who wish to protest Israeli government actions or actions of an Israeli academic institution or individual. D. Edelman

Pamphlet designed to elicit support from white residents in Grahamstown, in supporting the boycott of white-owned businesses as called by the residents of the "Grahamstown's African townships". The boycott was the third in 1985, and was intended to achieve specific outcomes, such as the end to the State of Emergency, the release of political detainees, and the lifting of the ban on public meetings.

Part I of the Comment examines the Russian trade boycott, and compares the boycott to ILA protest activity over the past three decades. The survey of protest boycotts demonstrates the wide range of business interests disrupted by union conduct and the extent to which such activities may undermine American foreign policy. Part II analyzes whether the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) may assert jurisdiction over protest boycotts. The jurisdictional reach of the NLRA will be explored with emphasis upon a line of Supreme Court decisions involving foreign-flag vessels. Particular criticism will also focus upon the Fifth Circuit's recent decision concerning the Board's assertion of jurisdiction over the ILA's boycott in Badovin v. International Longshoremen's Association.4 Part III examines whether a protest boycott constitutes a secondary boycott proscribed by the NLRA's. A theory construing section 8(b)(4) of the Act16 to prohibit protest boycotts will be presented. The theory is then compared to the analyses of the First Circuit in Allied International, Inc. v. International Longshoremen's Association, and the NLRB in International Longshoremen's Association, Local 799 (Allied International, Inc.),'8 two cases dealing with the application of section 8(b)(4) to the Russian trade boycott. Finally, Part IV discusses foreign policy considerations implicated by protest boycotts directed at foreign governments. Recognizing the constitutional power of the federal government to restrain protest boycotts, this Comment concludes that federal authority should exist to quell union activities that threaten foreign policy objectives and the conduct of international relations.

It is difficult to see what is accomplished by a symbolic boycott that cannot be more effectively accomplished by one of the alternatives, such as censure or organized public protest. Censure makes a clear statement of exactly who has done what wrong to whom, and it is also voted on by a group, in the typical case, so it is also very clear who supports it. Boycotts have neither type of clarity. It is not clear what the reason for the boycott is, and indeed each individual may join the boycott for different reasons. I suspect in the case of Israel it would not be easy to find a single account of the reasons behind the boycott that would command the agreement of its participants. Nor is it clear who is doing it: in this case there are journals, professional associations, and individuals, all forming a loosely linked movement, and nothing as crisp as a voted-on resolution of censure. Organized public protest also has a superior clarity, because each group involved issues its own public statements, signed by its own officers or representatives, and so we know both who is speaking and what they are saying.