There is a bit of a tempest in a teapot now taking place in academia. Well, scratch there. It is more than a molehill; it is a mountain, given how what occurs on campus—wokeism, Marxism, feminism, black studies, queer studies—all too soon percolates into the general society.
What is the present controversy? Academic freedom and boycotts of professors are at odds with one another. The latter undermines the former. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has rescinded its previous policy of supporting academic freedom when it conflicts with a boycott. The AAUP now states that boycotts “can instead be legitimate tactical responses to conditions that are fundamentally incompatible with the mission of higher education.”
Almost everyone and his uncle has weighed in on this one. Let us consider the view of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE): “Our position has not changed, nor will it. FIRE stands ready to defend freedom of expression and conscience for students and faculty nationwide, just as we have always done. But while we defend the rights of individual students and faculty, we oppose academic boycotts as a threat to academic freedom.”
Although my views are ordinarily aligned much more with FIRE than with the AAUP, on this occasion, I take the latter’s side: if there is any clash between the right to boycott and the right to academic freedom, the nod, by a country mile, goes to the former.
I am now contemplating opening up a university of my own. I shall call it the Walter Block University. I shall not allow in it a scintilla of academic freedom. I will fire anyone for criticizing any of my publications or public speeches. I shall require that all students, faculty, and staff sign on to a loyalty oath, with yours truly being the recipient of allegiance. But there will be no fraud going on here. Everything will be completely open and above board. All participants at WBU will only join with fully open eyes. You say I won’t get anyone to join me in this venture? Not so. I am a trillionaire and very generous with salaries. Tuition? It will cost one dollar per year. Student housing will be free. Meals too.
Have I so far violated any human rights? Of course not. In the felicitous phrase of Robert Nozick, I will have engaged only in a “capitalist act between consenting adults.”
Now consider the boycott. It is among the most basic of all human rights. It is part and parcel of the right of free association. No civilized order that respects liberty can outlaw the boycott. Consider the following. Homosexual men boycott half the human race when it comes to choosing a love interest or bed partner. The same applies to lesbians. Heterosexual men are not free of this characteristic. They, too, boycott, that is, refuse to have anything to do with, some 50 percent of all human beings when it comes to choices of this sort; ditto for heterosexual women. It is only bisexuals who do not boycott anyone on this basis. However, they, along with all the aforementioned, shun individuals who are not attractive, do not have a sense of humor, do not share interests with them, etc. To prohibit a boycott is to outlaw divorce, parting with friends, refusing to patronize restaurants that serve food you are allergic to, etc. In summary, we are all boycotters, and we have a right to do so. Anyone who interferes with this right is engaging in criminal behavior.
The economics of boycotts are of interest. Many people fear them since they think they are largely successful in hurting the weak. Not so, not so. Let us suppose that all right-handed people engage in a boycott against all southpaws. We righties vastly outnumber our leftie colleagues, about ten to one. In a moderate boycott, we will still deal with them: buy from them, sell to them, employ them, be employed by them, lend to them, borrow from them, etc. In extreme cases, we have nothing to do with them. What will be the effect of all of this?
In the immediate term, their salaries will decrease, and they will have to pay higher rents, food prices, interest rates, etc. However, and this is the key point, we all, lefties and righties both, will now be able to earn profits by breaking the boycott. Consider only employment in this regard. Before the boycott, the average salary of both groups was, say, $40 per hour. The lefties are now being paid only $30, hypothetically. But their productivity has not changed by one iota. Thus, if a righty hires a fellow righty, he earns zero profit, at least in equilibrium. But he profits by a cool $10 if he employs a leftie. It is way beyond obvious to anyone with even the slightest appreciation of economic theory that any boycott of this sort cannot succeed.
Thus, the case for boycotts is not only deontological but also utilitarian. The argument in favor of academic freedom is merely pragmatic and not very strong.
There is an elephant in the room, and, in closing, we should address it. Against whom are academic boycotts aimed in the present context? Go to the head of the class if you mentioned Israel. This is more than passing curiosity, of course. The only Jewish state in the world is the victim of the atrocities of October 7, 2023, not the perpetrator. One would think, if one were rational, that any boycotts would be aimed at Hamas, Houthis, Hezbollah, Iran, Turkey, and other supporters of this massive murder of civilians, which can only be considered genocide. Instead, the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions Movement (BDSM) is aimed in the exact opposite direction: at Israel, not its many enemies. “Queers for Palestine” is perhaps the most famous (infamous?) of these efforts.
Be that as it may, this issue is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand: whether boycotts and/or academic freedom come under the heading of human rights. The specifics matter not one bit. I write as a strong supporter of the Hebrew nation. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that third parties have an entire right to choose with whom they will associate. If they want to engage with the modern Hitlers of the world, people who think the Fuhrer did a good job on the Jews but did not go far enough, that is entirely within their right. And if they wish to disassociate from Israel since they think this country, among all others, has no right to defend itself against its enemies, this, too, is their right. I am making a general point about boycotts, academic freedom, and freedom of association. It applies to all cases without exception.
Image by Ted Eytan — Anti-Israel protesters and Pro-Israel counter-protesters confront each other. (The Abuse of Scholar Activism – Anti-Israelism – SPME Scholars for Peace in the Middle East/Ted Eytan/SPME/CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED) — Cretaive Commons
Certainly everyone has the right to boycott on a personal basis but not if it affects the status of others. The college student boycotts of Israel are part of free speech and students could have boycotted the college by refusing to attend. Instead they invaded the campuses with the intention of shutting down the educational system. Boycotting does not infer anything more physical than “staying away”. The students involved with the activist incidents on campus should have been sent home with no more involvement with the intitution. The educational process on these campuses was thwarted. Boycotts do not have that right.
There are three problems.
First, will Walter Block University be paying local property taxes, state sales taxes, and Federal Income tax on the money its endowment earns?
Second, will Walter Block University accept any Federal funds, or permit its students to accept any? (See why Hillsdale prohibits the latter.)
Third, how is Walter Block University going to get around those pesky nondiscrimination laws?