A selection of letters from academics to the University of Southampton concerning cancellation of the conference
1. Joint letter by
15 academics from SOAS, Goldsmiths, and others.
We, the undersigned, write to urge you to rescind your
decision regarding the conference “International Law and The State of Israel:
Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism” that is to be held at
Southampton University, April 17-19th. In our view, the decision taken by
management, to withdraw its permission for the conference to go ahead as
planned, is a gross violation of the principle of academic freedom upon which
scholarly engagement and university life are premised.
The Conference brings together leading scholars in the
fields of political theory, history, cultural studies, and law, among others,
whose scholarship has shaped the study of Israel-Palestine. The notion that
such an academic event should be cancelled on the ostensible grounds of “health
and safety” appears like a fig leaf for what is actually an attempt to stifle
debate and critical discussion of the current state of Israel and the legality
of its occupation. As recently set out in an open letter by the Conference’s
organisers, the management decision ignores the sustained and successful effort
by the organisers to assure themselves that the conference could proceed
safely, thus painting as exceptional an event which, while perceived by some as
controversial, is well within the bounds of critical academic dialogue. Many
university events will potentially draw vocal dissent, and even interference,
but this cannot reasonably be a criterion to close academic space for debate.
The management refusal to engage the efforts made by the organisers to deal
with potential disruption lends force to our impression that the actual reason
for withdrawing permission is to avoid the challenges that are inherent in
preserving a university environment that privileges critical inquiry and open
debate over censorship.
We therefore ask you urgently to rescind your decision
and to work with the conference organisers to ensure that the event goes ahead
in a timely and safe manner.
Yours sincerely,
Brenna Bhandar, Senior Lecturer, SOAS School of Law
Alberto Toscano, Reader in Critical Theory, Goldsmiths,
Department of Sociology
Nadje Al-Ali, Professor of Gender Studies, SOAS
Laleh Khalili, Professor Middle East Politics, SOAS
Nimer Sultany, Lecturer, SOAS School of Law
Les Back, Professor of Sociology, Goldsmiths
Sanjay Seth, Professor of Politics, Goldsmiths
Mariam Motamedi-Fraser, Reader, Goldsmiths, Department of
Sociology
Marsha Rosengarten, Professor of Sociology, Goldsmiths
Elena Loizidou, Reader in Political Theory, Birkbeck
School of Law
Peter Hallward, Professor of Modern European Philosophy,
Kingston University
Lynn Welchman, Professor of Law, SOAS
Denise Ferreira da Silva, Professor of Ethics, Queen Mary
School of Business & Management
Adam Hanieh, Senior Lecturer, SOAS Department of
Development Studies
Rafeef Ziadah, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University
of London, SOAS
2. David Gurnham, Director
of Research for the University of Southampton School of Law
Dear Vice Chancellor,
I write as the Director of Research for the University of
Southampton School of Law in response to the sad news that you have decided to
cancel next month's conference on Israel and international law on grounds of
'health and safety'. It seems to me outrageous that you seem to have allowed
the bullying and threats of the Israeli lobby to prevent the perfectly lawful
and legitimate exercise of free speech and academic debate. I understand that
the police had reported that they would be perfectly able and willing to deal
with any security concerns at the event: this ought to be good enough.
Cancelling the event in this way makes the University
look weak, spineless and reactionary. I am proud to be a member of academic
staff here, but your decision to withdraw support for a conference in this
manner makes me, and I'm sure very many others like me, seriously question the
University's commitment to open and free debate.
I would strongly urge you to reconsider your decision.
Sincerely,
David Gurnham
Associate Professor of Law
Director of Research
School of Law
University of Southampton
3. Professor
Taylor Carman, Columbia University, USA
Dear Vice Chancellor Nutbeam & Dep Vice Chancellory
Wheeler,
I'm writing to express my extreme disappointment and
disapproval of your cancellation of the conference on International Law &
the State of Israel. I gather the decision to cancel the event was driven by
"health and safety considerations," i.e. that those protesting the
event convinced you that its going forward would pose risks to the safety of
the participation, students and staff.
It seems to me this implies either (1) that those
protesting the conference have effectively suppressed it by threats (stated or
implied) of violence, or (2) that the University is misrepresenting its real
motives in canceling the event. Can you clarify which it is?
In either case, the decision to cancel the conference
under such ideological pressure is a betrayal of the ideals of academic freedom
and open debate in a democratic society. You must redress this error by either
reinstating the conference or rescheduling it immediately.
Sincerely,
Taylor Carman
Professor of Philosophy
Barnard College
Columbia University
New York, NY 10027
4. James McDougall, Fellow of Trinity College,
Oxford
Dear Professor Nutbeam, Dear Professor Wheeler
I understand that the University of Southampton has
decided to cancel a forthcoming academic conference that was intended to
discuss the state of Israel and international law. Your reasons for doing so
are apparently 'health and safety' grounds.
I appreciate that risk assessments are necessary to the
functioning of universities as of every other public institution in these litigious
times. Doubtless your view is that this is the most responsible course of
action to take in the circumstances. But you seem to have forgotten what a
University is for, and what, and to whom, your responsibilities really are.
When a University finds itself, or rather when its leadership find themselves,
unable to provide a free and open forum for bona fide academic discussion,
whatever the topic, the University has ceased to fulfil its public function,
and its leaders have failed in their duty to their society, to their students,
to their faculty, and to themselves.
This decision, however well-intended, constitutes an
attack on freedom of speech in our country, and I deplore it. I urge you to
reconsider, and to assume your real responsibilities.
Yours
James McDougall
Associate Professor of modern history, Fellow of Trinity
College, Oxford
5. Dr. Sujala
Singh, School of Humanities, University of Southampton
Dear Professor Nutbeam,
I am writing because I am concerned with the recent
announcement that the University is considering cancelling the conference on
Israel and international law on health and safety grounds. My primary concerns are academic and
educational. A key strength of the
Discipline of English where I belong is the range and diversity of courses we
offer. Students welcome and gain a great
understanding of different literatures and cultures: a key means of enabling this is by educating
them to feel bold enough to question, challenge and critique beyond their
comfort zones. Courses on colonial,
postcolonial and Middle Eastern Literatures add great value to the curriculum
and are appreciated by students who participate enthusiastically and get
engaged with thinking about different genres, modes of writing and cultural and
global articulations. The politics of
various institutions/ideologies/nations are examined closely, and yes, debated
critically. I am sure you are well aware
of the research reasons why this is an important conference including the
freedom of academic speech/expression/thinking rationale; hence my focus in
this letter is on the teaching end of things.
As an aside: Elias
Khoury who is scheduled to give a keynote address is a very well-known literary
figure and his work is taught in our course on "Literature and Visual
Culture From the Middle East" which I co-teach with colleagues. Another speaker, Ilan Pappe delivered a
keynote address in a conference on "The Sacred and Secular" hosted by
English which was well-attended and generated some very stimulating
discussion. There were no health and
safety issues for either of the above. I
understand that the conference is a more sustained business, but the question
surely is that we as an institution must hold on to the right to protest, care
and debate. And let the police do their
job.
With best wishes,
Sujala
Dr. Sujala Singh
English, School of Humanities
6. Robert
Wintemute, Professor of Human Rights Law, King's College London
Dear Vice-Chancellor Nutbeam,
I'm shocked by the University of Southampton's decision
to cancel the conference on Israel-Palestine.
It reminds me of Alekseyev v. Russia (European Court of Human Rights, 21
Oct 2010, refusal to permit LGBT Pride events in Moscow).
57. ... the events
which the applicant had sought to hold had carried an obvious risk of
confrontation between the participants and their opponents. [The Russian
Government] claimed to have received numerous public petitions from various
political, religious, governmental and non-governmental organisations calling
for the ban, some of which included threats of violence should the events go
ahead. They were therefore concerned about the safety of the participants and
the difficulties in maintaining public order during the events.
The ECtHR rejected the "safety/security"
justification and found a violation of Article 11 EConHR on freedom of
assembly.
77. In the light
of the above findings, the Court concludes that the Government failed to carry
out an adequate assessment of the risk to the safety of the participants in the
events and to public order. It reiterates that if every probability of tension
and heated exchange between opposing groups during a demonstration were to
warrant its prohibition, society would be faced with being deprived of the
opportunity of hearing differing views on any question which offends the
sensitivity of the majority opinion (see Stankov and the United Macedonian
Organisation Ilinden, cited above, § 107). In the present case, the Court
cannot accept the Government's assertion that the threat was so great as to
require such a drastic measure as banning the event altogether, let alone doing
so repeatedly over a period of three years. ...
See also:
Stankov [v. Bulgaria, 2 Oct. 2001], para. 86:
86. Freedom of
expression ... is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are
favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference,
but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of
pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic
society” ...
Likewise, freedom of assembly as enshrined in Article 11
of the Convention protects a demonstration that may annoy or give offence to
persons opposed to the ideas or claims that it is seeking to promote ...
Stankov, para. 107:
The national authorities must display particular vigilance to ensure
that national public opinion is not protected at the expense of the assertion
of minority views, no matter how unpopular they may be.
I urge you to reverse the decision and allow the
conference to go ahead at the University of Southampton as planned, for the
sake of freedom of expression and your university's reputation.
Yours sincerely,
Prof. Robert Wintemute (Professor of Human Rights Law)
School of Law, King's College London, Strand
7. Academics for
Palestine, Ireland
According to a statement released by conference
organisers on 31 March, the University of Southampton is withdrawing its
consent to host the forthcoming conference ‘International Law and the State of
Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism’, due to take place on
17-19 April 2015, citing as reasons concerns about ‘health and safety’.
Academics for Palestine, a group of Irish academics –
from both the Republic of Ireland and the North of Ireland – set up to create
awareness and build the academic boycott of Israel campaign in Ireland, urges
the University of Southampton to allow the conference to proceed as planned.
We believe there is ample time for any concerns regarding
the safety and security of university staff, students, and conference
participants to be adequately addressed. We also believe that the University of
Southampton, which for several weeks has resisted pressure from the Zionist
lobby citing its full commitment to academic freedom, must now fulfil its legal
obligations to protect free speech and academic discussion, values to which the
conference organisers and all conference participants are committed.
To cancel the conference on the grounds of concerns about
‘health and safety’ shows weakness in the face of external pressure and
bullying, and calls into question the University of Southampton's genuine
commitment not only to academia and the professional activities of its own
scholars, but also to the precious tradition of free speech itself.
We join thousands of academics throughout the world who
have signed a petition in calling upon the University of Southampton to reverse
its decision and allow the conference to go ahead as planned.
Yours sincerely,
Jim Roche, Dublin Institute of Technology, Chair
Dr David Landy, Trinity College Dublin, Secretary
Dr Ronit Lentin, Trinity College Dublin, PRO
Academics for Palestine
8. Dr Ranka
Primorac, University of Southampton
Dear colleagues
I am deeply concerned about the withdrawal of permission
for next month's conference on Israel and international law, because I have
reason to think it is doing much to harm the University's overseas reputation.
I have just returned from participating in an
international conference in Nairobi, Kenya, organised by the British
Academy-funded British Institute in East Africa. The conference discussed a
fraught subject - the 1950s Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya - with sensitivity and
care. Since my return, I have received astonished emails from fellow
participants, wondering at the soundness of the intellectual and ethical
principles undergirding the Southampton event cancellation.
Freedom of speech has been challenged on European soil
lately. The rest of the world is watching. We want to show our students and our
international colleagues that we understand what is at stake.
Yours sincerely,
Ranka Primorac |English | Humanities | University of
Southampton
9. Dr. A.M. Viens,
Southampton Law School, University of Southampton
Dear Professors Nutbeam and Wheeler,
I was very disappointed to hear that the University has
withdrawn its support for the International Law and the State of Israel
Conference.
Universities are one of the last places where challenging
questions on controversial topics can be raised, debated and explored. Without staunch protection of academic
freedom, our universities will no longer be able to play their vital role in
democratic societies of stimulating debate and questioning beliefs. Opposition to this event appears predicated
on a misunderstanding of how academics seek to interrogate received wisdom and
subject our beliefs to criticism to see how well they stand up. Asking whether or not something is legitimate
is a perfectly standard and useful way to approach normative questions, such as
those raised in law.
Of course, we all want academic events at the University
to be safe for their participants and those who will also be on campus. The information from the police, however,
appears to indicate that they are perfectly able to adequately deal with these
risks if the University would ask them to do so. Withdrawing support for the conference on
health and safety grounds for these reasons at this stage will give the
impression that the University was merely looking for a post hoc
rationalisation for its decision.
I would respectfully and strongly encourage you to
reconsider your decision. Such a
research-intensive institution should take a strong stance of academic freedom
and protecting its researchers’ rights to hold academic events that are central
to advancing knowledge and debate.
Best wishes,
Dr. A.M. Viens
Associate Professor in Law
Director (Interim), Centre for Health Ethics and Law
(HEAL)
Southampton Law School
University of Southampton
10. Claire
Lougarre, Lecturer in Law, Southampton Law School, University of Southampton
My support is based on the fundamental aspect that
academic freedom plays in research excellence (and of course beyond, in
democratic societies). As a member of the Russell Group, the University of
Southampton sets an example of what compelling and high quality research is in
the UK.
Therefore, giving in to external pressures requesting
that the conference is cancelled sends a very strong signal. A signal that our
ability as academics to discuss and research freely stops: 1) when a sensitive
topic is at stake; and 2) when we are being requested to do so. The conference
aims to explore a topic, not to promote hate speech. It thus encapsulates
academic freedom and freedom of expression.
I understand there have also been requests for the 'other
side' to be represented in order for the debate to be 'fairer'. I am finding
these requests disturbing. Who is the other side?
If this involves inviting members of the public, then it
is not an academic conference anymore. Public engagement is essential in
research, but this is not the framework in which this event was created.
If this involves inviting researchers, does that mean
that we systematically need to invite academics in disagreement with our
research every time we organise a conference? If that is the case, I can hardly
see how any area of research can ever blossom if presenters are constantly
interrupted on the very premises of their research. However, if the requirement
to invite academics in disagreement with our research only applies in the
instance our research concerns a 'sensitive topic', then research becomes
subject to politics.
Academic freedom is at the core of research excellence
and at the core of everyone's right to education. I thus express my support to
the organisers of the conference on International Law and the State of Israel
by asking that the University of Southampton reverses its decision.
Claire Lougarre
Lecturer in Law
Southampton Law School
University of Southampton
11. Dr Stephanie
Jones, Associate Professor in English, University of Southampton
Dear Vice Chancellor and Pro-Vice Chancellor,
I was distressed
and surprised to receive the message last night that the University has
deemed itself not to have the practical capacity to protect free speech.
The conference on “International Law and The State of
Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism” pursues the University's
key mission to support "independence of thought, and the freedom to
challenge existing knowledge and beliefs through critical research and
scholarship".
This mission must entail a commitment to ensuring the
University as a space of open debate. I
urge the University to re-consider the decision to cancel the conference.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Stephanie Jones
Associate Professor in English
Faculty of Humanities
University of Southampton
