Download Response To Dartmouth Letter on Duthu

The Statement by President Hanlon’s Office Does Not Address the Many Issues Raised by The
Appointment of a BDS Advocate As Dean of the Faculty of Dartmouth College.
1.
The College’s statement is not responsive to the questions raised by promoting
Professor Duthu to Dean of the Faculty. The President has chosen to ignore
Professor Duthu’s public advocacy of BDS as posted in his statement of advocacy of
BDS on the NAISA website (http://www.naisa.org/). Indeed, BDS or reference to the
BDS movement or his advocacy of that movement does not appear anywhere in the
College’s statement. By not renouncing BDS, Professor Duthu will assume the mantle of
Dean with a public statement pronouncing his support for the boycott of Israeli academic
institutions. He really has three choices; 1) renounce publicly his past support of the
BDS movement, 2) give up his position as Dean and stay on the faculty or 3) deal with
the anger that having a Dean who represents the faculty of Dartmouth keeping this openly
anti-academic and anti-Semitic position.
2.
The College’s statement ignores the fact that the BDS movement is inherently
anti-Semitic. It is a blot on Dartmouth and is consistent with Dartmouth’s unfortunate
anti-Semitic history that the President and the Board do not think these issues are
important enough even to mention them in response to my letter to the Faculty, even
though concerns about his advocacy of BDS were at the heart of that letter.
3.
The College’s statement does not mention anywhere the contradictions created
because Professor Duthu is an active advocate and promoter of the movement to boycott,
sanction and divest in Israeli academic institutions. On the one hand he publicly
advocates boycotting Israeli academic institutions, on the other he, the College and the
Jewish Studies Program say he will not. These contradictions evidently do not trouble the
President and the Board.
4.
The College’s statement ignores the importance and unique status given to the
BDS movement by appointing an advocate of BDS as Dean of the Faculty. They are
apparently willing to provide the BDS movement with a foothold at the highest levels of
Dartmouth’s administration. They seemingly fail to appreciate, or even comment on the
broader symbolism of appointing an active BDS advocate to the leadership of the faculty
of an Ivy League Institution.
5.
I refused to meet with Professor Duthu because the only adequate response to his
public support for the BDS movement is that he publicly renounce his support for BDS,
or that he resign. I made that clear Professor Duthu in a letter I wrote to him in response
to his invitation to meet. It would not matter if he pledged to ignore the conflict between
his public position supporting BDS and his responsibilities as Dean. Any assurances I
would receive in a private meeting that he will not boycott Israeli academic institutions in
contradiction to his public position are not an adequate response to the contradictions
created by his advocacy of the BDS movement.
6.
The statement from the President’s office promotes the fact that he has facilitated
appointments of Israelis in the past. But the past is not a firm determinant of his future
behavior, especially given the additional power and responsibilities he would have as
Dean.
7.
As I stated in the conclusion to my letter to the Faculty, in view of Dartmouth’s
anti-Semitic history and Professor Duthu’s endorsement of the anti-Semitic BDS
document, Dartmouth must not simply appoint Duthu to the position of Dean of the
Faculty and ignore the implications of that appointment. Professor Duthu should either
publicly disavow the full ramifications of the BDS positions he has publicly endorsed, or
resign his position as Dean and return to his faculty position where expression of these
views is sanctioned as academic freedom, but is not representative of Dartmouth College
or its faculty. He cannot, without contradiction, 1) assure council signers of the NAISA
document and holders of their position of his support for action to boycott Israeli
academic institutions, and at the same time 2) administer his job as Dean of the Faculty,
while assuring Dartmouth that he will not take such action.
8.
The Dartmouth administration has chosen to simply stonewall and ignore the
issues that are raised by Professor Duthu’s public advocacy of BDS. It is turning a blind
eye to the contradictions and negative aspects of the appointment of a BDS advocate as
Dean of the Faculty. In doing so the College is vacating its public responsibilities. It is
also vacating its responsibilities to many concerned faculty, students and alumni, Jewish
and non-Jewish alike.
Alan Gustman
Loren Berry Professor of Economics
Dartmouth College