The Academic boycotts of South Africa were a series of boycotts of South African academic institutions and scholars initiated in the 1960s, at the request of the African National Congress, with the goal of using such international pressure to force the end South Africa's system of apartheid. The academic boycotts were part of a larger international campaign of "isolation" that eventually included political, economic, cultural and sports boycotts. The academic boycotts ended in 1990 when its stated goal of ending apartheid was achieved. ^[1] This page is about boycott as a form of protest. ... For political parties with similar names in other countries, see Northern Rhodesian African National Congress and Zambian African National Congress. ... For the legal definition of apartheid, see Crime of apartheid. ...

During apartheid era, the academic boycotts were debated within anti-apartheid circles as to whether they were ethically justified and appropriate.^[1] Other critics of the boycott were various conservative groups worldwide who "disliked such anti-apartheid initiatives", and campus libertarians who "perceived a loss of academic freedom".^[2]

Subsequent research in the post-apartheid area has claimed that the academic boycotts were more a "symbolic gesture of support" for anti-apartheid efforts rather than a direct influencer of the situation.^[1] Additionally, the academic boycott was perceived by the targets of the boycott, South Africa scholars, as unjust and discriminatory.^[1] This article is about discrimination in the social science context. ...

Motivation

The African National Congress first called for an academic boycott to protest South African apartheid in 1958 in Ghana. The call was repeated the following year in London.^[3] For political parties with similar names in other countries, see Northern Rhodesian African National Congress and Zambian African National Congress. ... This article is about the capital of England and the United Kingdom. ...

Formal Declarations

British Academics

In 1965, 496 university professors and lecturers from 34 British universities signed the following declaration in protest against apartheid and violations of academic freedom. They made special reference to the issuance of banning orders against Jack Simons and Eddie Roux, two well-known progressive academics.^[4]

United Nations

In 1980, the United Nations passed a resolution urging "all academic and cultural institutions to terminate all links with South Africa".^[2]

Apartheid-Era Debate

"The ethical and other issues surrounding the academic boycott deeply divided the academic community, both within and outside South Africa." ^[1]

Proponents

"Boycott proponents argued that academics should not be treated as an elite detached from the political and social environment in which it functions, especially since some of the South African universities seemed to be tools of the Nationalist government." ^[1] Image File history File links This is a lossless scalable vector image. ...

Desmond Tutu

Desmond Tutu, a prominent leader within the anti-apartheid, described his clear support for the academic boycott of South Africa. He wrote that it needed to be maintained for institutions which had a bad record in opposing apartheid, but could be lifted for others as the political situation eased. The boycott had "certainly made a number of people sit up and take notice, especially the so-called liberal universities." ^[5] Desmond Mpilo Tutu (born 7 October 1931) is a South African cleric and activist who rose to worldwide fame during the 1980s as an opponent of apartheid. ...

"They thought that just as a matter of right they would find acceptance because they were allowing blacks into their establishments. I mustn't belittle them too much, I think that they did stand up for academic freedom and so forth, but I don't think myself actually that they were sufficiently vigorous and the boycott helped to knock sense into their heads, to realise that they did have a role in seeking to undermine that vicious system [of apartheid]."

"I would, I think, now still say that we maintain [the academic boycott] insofar as, if for instance academics from here want to go to South Africa then you want to look at who is inviting them. Under whose auspices are they going? Are they going to institutions that have a good track record in their opposition to apartheid? But I would say that as things begin to ease up, this ought perhaps to be one of the first of the constraints that goes to give some of these people the reward."

"But I would myself say it is important for academics outside of South Africa also to say they want to reward places like UWC which stuck their necks out and then let these others get the crumbs that remain from the table."

Opponents

"Opposition to this boycott persisted throughout the 80s: conservatives around the world disliked such anti-apartheid initiatives; campus libertarians perceived a loss of academic freedom; and some liberal South Africans argued that their universities, as centres of resistance to apartheid, made precisely the wrong targets."^[2] This article deals with conservatism as a political philosophy. ... This article does not adequately cite its references. ... Academic freedom is the freedom of teachers, students, and academic institutions to pursue knowledge wherever it may lead, without undue or unreasonable interference. ...

From within anti-Apartheid circles

Opponents from within anti-Apartheid circles "argued that ideas and knowledge should be treated differently than tangible commodities, that obstacles to information access could actually hurt the victims of apartheid (for example, retard medical research and, ultimately, reduce the quality of health care), and that an academic boycott (in contrast to economic, trade, or political boycott) would not even be noticed by the South African government. Change is much more likely to occur by providing information than by withholding it." ^[1]

"Such a boycott would cut a university off from its life blood, the nurturing flow of ideas.... The campaign plays directly into the hands of the destructive right-wing in this country which would also dearly love to cut us off from the world and its influences." ^[6]

Solomon Benatar, a critic, wrote that "Academic boycott has been justified as an appropriate political strategy in the struggle against the oppression of apartheid. Moral outrage against racist policies has led to the claim that academic boycott is a morally imperative component of a broader sanctions policy. This claim has neither been substantiated by a reasoned ethical argument nor weighted against an ethically justifiable approach that is consistent with universal humanitarian aspirations and which allows rejection of apartheid to be coupled to constructive endeavours." ^[7] A moral imperative is an ethical responsibility. ... International sanctions are actions taken by countries against others for political reasons, either unilaterally or multilaterally. ...

"Selective" Alternatives

Solomon Benator^[8], a professor at University of Cape Town, and others advocated an alternative proposal: a "selective boycott"/"selective support" effort which would boycott South African organizations only if they were practitioners of apartheid and would extend support to organizations that did not practice apartheid. This alternative proposal was criticized because of both "the practical problems of implementation" and that "it implicitly endorsed the idea that political views are valid determinants of who should attend scholarly meetings, whose work should be published, and so on."^[1] The University of Cape Town, abbreviated as UCT, is a public university located on the Rhodes Estate on the slopes of Devils Peak, in Cape Town in the Western Cape province of South Africa. ...

Post-Apartheid Analysis

"That most of the scholars in our study judged the boycott to be an irritant or inconvenience, rather than a significant barrier to scholarly progress, suggests that it proved more a symbolic gesture than an effective agent of change." ^[1]

Easily circumvented

"The academic boycott was more of an irritation than a true obstacle to scholarly progress." ^[1]

"In most cases, scholars and libraries were able to circumvent the boycott one way or another-for example, by using "third parties" in less antagonistic countries although with delays and at greater expense." ^[1]

Perceived as unjust discrimination

"Many [South African] scholars felt left out, isolated, unjustly discriminated against." ^[1]

"Suspicions were created" ... "that a submission was really rejected for political reasons, not the reasons claimed", "that the high incidence of inactive research materials, such as biological agents and antibodies, received by South African institutions was not a mere coincidence" ^[1]

Comparisons to academic boycotts of Israel

Main article: Academic boycotts of Israel

The academic boycott of South Africa is frequently invoked as a model for more recent efforts to organize academic boycotts of Israel.^[2] The academic boycotts of Israel refer to a series of proposals to boycott Israeli universities and academics, which have been put forward first by a group of academics via an open letter in 2002, and later members of two teaching unions in the UK, one Irish group, and a Palestinian...

Some invoke the comparison to claim that an academic boycott of Israel should not be controversial based a misconception that the academic boycott of South Africa was uncontroversial and straightforward. The reality, at the time, was very different. The effort was the subject of significant criticism and contentious debate from diverse segments. Andrew Beckett writes, in the Guardian, on this frequent mistaken comparison:

"In truth, boycotts are blunt weapons. Even the most apparently straightforward and justified ones, on closer inspection, have their controversies and injustices."^[2]

Other, such as Hillary and Stephen Rose in Nature, make the comparison and argue for an academic boycott of Israel based on a belief that the academic boycott of South Africa was effective in ending apartheid. George Fink responds to this claim in a letter to Nature:

"The assertion [...] that the boycott of South Africa by the world's academic communities 'was instrumental in ending apartheid in South Africa' is a deception.

Apartheid was actually terminated by two pivotal and interrelated political events. First, the United States Congress, on 29 September 1986, overrode President Reagan's veto and imposed strict economic sanctions on South Africa. Second, F. W. de Klerk was elected president of South Africa on 14 September 1989. Two months later (16 November 1989), de Klerk announced the scrapping of the Separate Amenities Act, then, on 11 February 1990, freed Nelson Mandela from prison. The rest is historical detail."

The campaign gained prominence in the mid-1980s on university campuses in the US. The debate headlined the October 1985 issue (above) of Vassar Colleges student newspaper. ... Durban beach sign in English, Afrikaans and Zulu, declaring the beach Whites Only Whites only sign The Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, Act No 49 of 1953, formed part of the apartheid system of racial segregation in South Africa. ...

See also

• History of South Africa in the apartheid era
• Anti-Apartheid Movement
• Disinvestment from South Africa
• Sanctions against Iranian scientists

For the legal definition of apartheid, see Crime of apartheid. ... In response to an appeal by Albert Luthuli, the British Anti-Apartheid Movement (AAM) was founded in London on 26 June 1959 at a meeting of South African exiles and their supporters [1]. Julius Nyerere would summarize its purpose: [2]. Originally called the Boycott Movement, it would expand its focus... The campaign gained prominence in the mid-1980s on university campuses in the US. The debate headlined the October 1985 issue (above) of Vassar Colleges student newspaper. ... Scientific sanctions against Iranians include all actions taken to directly or indirectly suppress Iranian scientific community. ...

References