SUBJECT: Past Presidents ' Politics Dear &NAME , While I have great respect , both personal and professional , for all our past presidents , I regret that they have chosen to involve us , as &NAME , in this matter . Although the Presidents state further down in their letter that they are actually divided over the boycott issue and over &NAME &NAME 's actions , the first line of their letter reads : ' We are writing in support of &NAME &NAME ' . There is no doubt that this line will now receive wide citation in the campaign that supports &NAME &NAME , both in her dispute with &NAME and in her so-called ' personal ' boycott of &NAME nationals . It may not have been their intention , but with this choice of emphasis the Presidents have given their name , and ours -- for they say : ' We may speak for many in our field because we are the recent past presidents of the Linguistics Association of &NAME &NAME ' -- to a campaign that says that it is right to limit individuals ' academic freedom if they have a particular nationality , that it is correct to ban fellow scholars not due to their poor professional ethics or even on the basis of their political views but simply because of their place of work ( for those of you who do n't know : both of &NAME 's boycottees are prominent pro-Palestinian human rights activists ) , and that it is legitimate to put political blame for the actions taken by a government on individual fellow academics , although this clearly only holds for &NAME working in &NAME ( I assume that none of us would dream of boycotting , say , Russian colleagues in protest against the flattening of &NAME , or American colleagues in protest against civilian casualties in &NAME , or Turkish colleagues in protest against the -- still existing -- ban on using &NAME in public , etc etc ) . The Presidents even go on to say that ' we all agree that the discrimination by &NAME against the &NAME raises issues that are far more serious than the academic boycott , and we regret the way that this issue is serving to divert attention . ' I do not find that acting or arguing against boycotting individuals on the basis of their nationality ( rather than point of view or actions ) diverts either my attention or my energy away from engaging actively for peace in the Middle East . Quite to the contrary : as an &NAME who has been activley engaged in dialogue with Palestinian friends and colleagues for over &NUM decades now , I feel that the only hope we have is to continue to make use of the freedoms we have as academics to meet and draft ideas for a better future , and for life in peace and collaboration in a country which we must share . Recall that the talks that had led to the &NAME accords of the early &NUM ( which &NAME appears to oppose , but which brought the only prospect of peace for over a century ) , had been initiated by Palestinian and &NAME academics , meeting abroad , defying a ban on contacts issued by hardliners on both sides . If we restrict our own freedoms by banning contacts , as &NAME wants , we are doing a service only to those whose aim is to separate our &NUM peoples and to prevent them from ever reaching any common ground . The Presidents raise concern over ' the potential infringement of &NAME 's liberty ' , and say that ' Whether or not an individual academic wishes to engage outside the university in a political action , such as the boycott of the &NAME academic community , is not an issue for the employing organisation . ' . I strongly disagree . &NUM cannot pretend that we are talking about what an individual acdemic is doing in her free time . The issue is rather , which standards of academic practice are being set in the public life of our own academic community . &NAME 's actions were not personal ; they were public gestures by a senior colleague , aimed at changing the standards by which most of us operate . As members of an academic association in this country , it is our right and our duty to engage in a debate on where and how to set the standards of academic practice and behaviour . It is also the right and duty of the leadership of any academic institution to engage in this debate . The issue of whether or not it is acceptable to ban fellow academics based on their nationality or country of residence or place of work belongs to the code of practice of this academic community . The issue of whether or not &NAME discriminates the &NAME ( or &NAME the &NAME , or &NAME the Catholics in &NAME &NAME ) , or how to react to such discrimination , does not belong to that code of practice , and is beyond the remit of either the &NAME or an academic institution like &NAME . In this last respect , I very much regret the double standards that we seem to have in the &NAME : Last autumn , at the &NAME business meeting , I proposed that we should react to the press reports concerning the &NAME Secretary 's statements on the use of mother tongue by immigrants in their homes . Instead of deciding to act , the assembly accepted a proposal that I should first establish what exactly had been said , that I should then put together a report summarising current research on bilingualism in the family , that I should then draft a reaction citing this research , and then go on to poll the membership via this list , and hope to come up with an agreed statement still to be issued before public opinion completely lost interest in the matter . It turned out that &NAME had not said what some of the press attributed to him . Nonetheless , his statement was ambiguous enough to deserve , in my opinion , a reaction clarifying that it is incorrect and improper to suggest a link between linguistic diversity and lack of modernity ( &NAME 's text suggested a link between acquiring English and modernity , while addressing the alleged monolingualism of a large proportion of immigrants ) . But it took many days to negotiate a text to present on this list , and even the text that was agreed on was not , for some reason , passed on to the list , but was substituted by a notice stripped of any evaluative content . The &NAME was not , it seemed , as interested in reacting to an issue situated on its own doorstep and which demanded its profesional expertise , as much as it enjoys the inspiration of &NAME &NAME 's ' ban them ! ' campaign . Perhaps it 's pity that the powers that determine events in &NAME / &NAME are even less affected by what the &NAME says than the British &NAME Secretary . &NAME &NAME <QUOTE> &NAME : &EMAIL &NAME : &NAME , &NUM &NAME &NUM &NUM : &NUM : &NUM &NUM To : &EMAIL From : &NAME &NAME ( &EMAIL ) Subject : for information &NAME : &NUM &NAME : Found to be clean Sender : &EMAIL &NAME : bulk &NAME : &NAME &NAME ( &EMAIL ) &NAME : exiscan for exim4 ( &WEBSITE * 18Mp9X-0007Tq-00 * m4B2QXta5aQ * Status : Dear &NAME colleague , This is to report that the recent past presidents of the &NAME have written a letter to the press in support of a fellow linguist . The letter was published in today 's edition of the &ORG . The wording makes it clear that we wrote as individuals , not on behalf of the &NAME , but we felt that &NAME members should know about it because we mention the &NAME . The text of the letter , as published , follows . &NAME &NAME We are writing in support of &NAME &NAME , who is under investigation by the University of &NAME Institute for Science and Technology for removing &NUM &NAME members from the editorial board of a journal she privately owns and publishes . We may speak for many in our field because we are the recent past presidents of the Linguistics Association of &NAME &NAME . We believe that &NAME 's treatment of &NAME and subsequent publicity are disproportionate . Although &NAME denies considering dismissal , &NAME has been publicly reprimanded on the &NAME website and an inquiry set in motion . Like the rest of the academic community , we are divided over whether or not the boycott of &NAME institutions is justified , and even more so over whether &NAME was right to extend it to individual &NAME scholars . However , we all agree that the discrimination by &NAME against the &NAME raises issues that are far more serious than the academic boycott , and we regret the way that this issue is serving to divert attention . We are also concerned at the potential infringement of &NAME 's liberty by &NAME and at the precedent this would set . Whether or not an individual academic wishes to engage outside the university in a political action , such as the boycott of the &NAME academic community , is not an issue for the employing organisation . &NAME &NAME &NAME University &NAME &NAME University of &NAME &NAME &NAME and &NAME &NAME University College &NAME &NAME &NAME &NAME College &NAME &NAME &NAME University of &NAME If you want more information about the background , a good source is an article in Thursday 's &NAME ( &NAME ) , which you can find at &WEBSITE &NAME ( &NAME ) &NAME <END_QUOTE> &NAME &NAME Department of &NAME University of &NAME &NAME Road &NAME &NAME &NAME , &NAME Phone &NUM &NUM &NUM &NAME &NUM &NUM &NUM e-mail &EMAIL &NAME &NAME : &WEBSITE