Regards,

Inna

Vanessa Freedman
Hebrew & Jewish Studies Librarian
UCL

RESOLUTION: DEFEND UCU BRANCH SECRETARY SEAN WALLIS
UCL UCU notes
1. That a report has appeared in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz alleging anti-semitism in comments made by UCL UCU branch secretary, Sean Wallis, in a personal capacity, at a fringe meeting at UCU Congress 2009.

2. That UCU delegates voted en bloc in line with branch policy at UCU Congress, including in relation to our position on any putative Academic Boycott of Israeli Institutions.

3. That unfounded allegations have the potential to intimidate and damage this union and its members.

UCL UCU believes
1. That anti-semitism, clearly defined as racism against Jews, must be opposed in exactly the same terms as any other racist ideology, namely, on the basis that an injury to one is an injury to all.

2. That trade union and academic freedom entails the right of members to adopt contrary positions, and to debate international issues on their merits, free from threat of legal action or libel.

3. That this particular allegation of anti-semitism is without foundation.

UCL UCU affirms that Sean Wallis has an impeccable reputation not just as a trade union activist and democrat but also as a consistent opponent of racism in all of its forms, including opposition to anti-semitism.

UCL UCU resolves
1. To stand by our branch secretary and against any witch-hunt of him.

2. To call on the National Executive Committee of UCU publicly to register its support for this union officer in all relevant publications, and to condemn the unfounded campaign being waged against him.

No… I love the profession, but it’s a hell of a lot of work. That’s why I hate it when people suggest that academics lie around all day drinking sherry. Would that it were so (except that I don’t like sherry).

Very, very nasty. Had it been of any other minority, he’d be out on his ear. As it is, I’m not surprised he wants it forgotten.

If TheIrie is still online, can I have please a reaction to the following?

1. There is no dispute that Sean Wallis said at an UCU fringe meeting that “the campaign to boycott Israeli academics had been threatened by lawyers backed by those with bank balances from Lehman Brothers that can’t be tracked down”. He doesn’t dispute this, nobody disputes this. Now, let us suppose that, in spirit of universal charity, we accept that he didn’t lift it from a neo-Nazi blog. Can you, please, TheIrie, explain what he has meant and whether there exists an interpretation, any interpretation, which makes it a benign statement?

2. I understand, TheIrie, that you apply very high evidential standards to accusations of anti-Semitism originating in self-professed “Left wingers”, that you will not accept anything unless the accuser was there, presumably recorded everything, subjected it to voice analysis and has at least ten witnesses, all of them over 18 and of sound mind, to verify the accusation. Now, honestly, TheIrie, are you applying the same standards of evidence to other alleged statements of racism? Are you expressing equal worry that perchance Nick Griffin or Pat Buchanan or Geert Wielders or Avigdor Lieberman might be misquoted?

3. Given that Sean Wallis said in public something that, in its obvious interpretation, appears to be anti-Semitic, would you agree that the burden of proof is on him to explain what he has meant and why it wasn’t anti-Semitic? Rolling the eyes innocently and self-proclaiming his immaculate anti-racist credentials is neither here nor there. If he really claim that there is an innocent interpretation, why didn’t he provide it? After all, it isn’t as if he never responded to the accusation!

4. And finally, TheIrie… Would you agree (or perhaps not) that the only possible reaction to racism, no matter what its origin and its target, is zero tolerance?

Really!!!! well unlike you, apparently, i judge Gert — and anyone else — by what they do and say, not who they are. In this case, Gert did exactly what JTA did, and although i think Gert is a foul pseudo-leftie anti-semite, I don’t think he should be vilified for this particular action, seeing as he simply reported what he read as soon as he read it. I feel that way particularly because i did the same thing: I emailed harry’s place with the same story, hoping they would run it. apparently the powers that be here decided not to, which is cool, but if they had, they would be in the same company as Gert and me i guess.

You, however, seem to act on the premise that “Gert did/said it, therefore it must anti-semitic.” There’s no other way to put it: That’s dumb. Well maybe there’s another way to put it, namely, ideologically blinkered, in which case, you have more in common with Gert than I ever will.
Have a nice day.