When they pretend to be victims:
If the ASA boycotters are receiving unlawful “threats,” they should file criminal complaints or commence legal action under anti-stalking or similar laws. Or they could call out those making the threats by name.
But unlawful threats do not appear to be what is at issue.
Rather, it appears the boycotters cannot withstand the withering criticism from American civil and political society.
The academic boycotters have lived for too long in a bubble in which their views predominated because students were too intimidated to speak up, other professors didn’t want to take on single-issue fanatics, and administrators were intimidated.
But we are not intimidated. As I stated before, this is the hill we will fight on. Lawfully. Intellectually honestly. And without allowing the academic boycotters to play victim.
Good for Professor Jacobson.
Take away their non-profit tax status.
I don’t believe tax status is granted on the basis of political popularity of viewpoint.
You must be new.
Really? Then what do you call the IRS harassment of tea party groups?
http://nonprofit.about.com/od/nonprofitbasics/a/loseexempt.htm
Political campaigning is a pretty stringent one.
“501(c)(3) organizations cannot endorse or oppose any candidate for public office. This includes contributions to a political campaign and even public statements for or against a candidate. This prohibition is “absolute,” meaning that any violation can be cause for the IRS to strip the 501(c)(3) of its tax-exempt status.’
Which is completely irrelevant to the discussion, you moron.
Via InstaPundit, Employment Law Firm: Drop American Studies Assn membership or risk Title VII liability.
Do the anti-Israel boycotters boycott Title VII?
In the United States, the major boycotts to date are largely directed against institutions, and affect just a few individuals. The ASA’s boycott, for instance, singles out only “Israeli academic institutions” and “scholars who are expressly serving as representatives or ambassadors from those resolutions.” It purports to exempt “individual Israeli scholars engaged in ordinary forms of academic exchange.” [WAJ Note – the boycott actually is broader, see my IRS filing.] Additionally, compliance with the boycott is voluntary, because the ASA cannot require its members to do anything.
But even these kinds of boycotts pose risks to employers. For example, would a proposed visiting professor from Tel Aviv University be a “representative” of his institution, or just an individual scholar “engaged in ordinary forms of academic exchange?” And would a boycott proponent fight against hiring such a person, based on the boycott? The ASA does not say. At most, it merely asks its members to “act according to their convictions” when dealing with “complex matters.” Those “convictions,” to the extent that they lead to a decision-maker at a university reaching an employment decision about an Israeli candidate, can quickly lead to the university’s own liability for national origin discrimination.