Apart from that, the FT piece exemplifies the typical fuzzy thinking that makes the FT such a pain to read even if it weren't for the eyestrain induced by its ridiculous pink paper. Consider just the first of the FT's objections to the UCU's initiative:
>First, the very notion of an academic boycott is intrinsically
>absurd. The academy is, by definition, the arena for debate and
>enquiry, indeed for controversy. The sharper that is, the more likely
>that truth is what will emerge.
This is a fatuous objection because the UK academics' anti-Israel stance has *promoted* the prospects for controversial debate and enquiry that the FT identifies as the raison d'être of academe.
I'm pleased to see the UCU's action is indeed proving widely influential:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- June 1, 2007 Largest Labor Union in Britain May Consider a Boycott of Israel By ALAN COWELL
LONDON, May 31 — A movement in Britain to boycott Israel economically and culturally gathered speed on Thursday as the country’s biggest labor union said it would follow the union of university instructors in weighing punitive measures against Israel.
Mary McGuire, a spokeswoman for Unison, a union of public service employees with 1.3 million members, said a resolution calling for a boycott had been placed on the agenda for the group’s annual national conference starting June 19. Word of the proposal emerged one day after the University and College Union, representing 120,000 instructors, voted to urge its members to consider their future relationships and exchanges with Israeli academics.
The instructors’ vote — which did not impose an immediate boycott — drew protests from academics in the United States and Israel. ...
Carl
_________________________________________________________________ Get a preview of Live Earth, the hottest event this summer - only on MSN http://liveearth.msn.com?source=msntaglineliveearthhm