Response on Assembly Action
The letter to the editor in the June 1 issue by Dr. Michael Cleary, titled“ Politics Detract From Position Statements,” criticizes an Assembly action (subsequently approved by the Board of Trustees and announced in a statement issued in a press release by APA's Office of Communications and Public Affairs). Dr. Cleary complains about recent Assembly actions, commenting that the Assembly's “condemnation of the action of a group of British teachers [calling for a boycott of persons and organizations that do not disassociate themselves from Israel's Palestinian policies] is the most troubling..... [I]t would seem that the Assembly reacted in a knee-jerk fashion to criticism of Israel. The teachers' action was eventually withdrawn, but the Assembly went ahead with its condemnation.” He goes on to urge the Assembly and APA to “steer clear of pronouncements on foreign conflicts.... and to avoid the perception that APA favors one side or the other.”
We call Dr. Cleary's attention to the actual language of the action item and the press release and also call his attention to the following facts:
This was not carried out in a “knee-jerk fashion.” There was much careful discussion and consideration at the Reference Committee and the Area Councils and on the floor of the Assembly. Matters having to do with the question of a professional organization engaging in politics, APA's tradition and history of such engagements in other situations, etc., were all laid out and discussed, and the necessity for freedom of academic exchange affirmed. | |||||
If the action and the press release are reviewed, one will see the emphasis on academic freedom, no trivial matter these days. This was the basis for opposition to the British teachers' union proposal by the Royal Society there, the American Association for the Advancement of Science here, and the many scientists and Nobelists around the world. APA joined this distinguished group. And the Assembly did indeed favor one side over another; the side of academic freedom over those who would vitiate it. | |||||
As for the matter of the British teachers' union proposal having been withdrawn and APA going ahead with its concerns anyway, that British teachers' union had withdrawn the proposal and put it on hold for it anticipated merging with a larger group, which is what it did, and it was not clear what was to happen with the proposal. But the issue of academic freedom remained, and when the merger occurred the boycott proposal came up again from the new organization. The APA policy had been passed and now is official policy, timely, relevant, and necessary. | |||||
