Dr. Ed Beck Yesterday, The Algemeiner published my article on “Legislating Against BDS.” In this article, I argue that Representatives Roskam and Lipinski have done creditable service in introducing legislation that would bar federal funding of universities that boycott Israel. Although their initial bill may not be perfect, it has provoked a healthy conversation about how legislatures can be address the misuse of taxpayer funds to support discriminatory boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) policies that arguably encroach upon academic freedom. To be fully effective, I argued, an anti-boycott bill would address not only boycotts but also divestment, and it should provide a tripartite enforcement scheme consistent with other areas of anti-discrimination law. Although the article has been generally well received, it has received one critical comment from Dr. Edward Beck that is sufficiently thoughtful and serious to require a full reply. Dr. Beck posted his reply in the comments to my article on the Algemeiner site. As Brandeis Center Blog readers may be aware, Beck is the Co-founder and Chairman emeritus of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, although he has subsequently left SPME for new ventures. Although he does not directly criticize my article, Beck posts a position paper that takes a contrary view of the legislation. “You and your readers might be interested in learning the position of some pretty thoughtful folks with whom I am now working,” he writes, “on the International Grass Roots Faculty Committee For Academic Freedom and Integrity.” Beck then posts what he calls the “IGRFCAFI Statement on Punitive Legislation For Academic Boycott Actions.” The statement is signed by twelve distinguished academics, several of whom I personally know and deeply respect. The “IGRFCAFI Statement” (yes, that is what he calls it) opposes legislation that, in its words, seeks “by law and threat of withdrawal of university financial support to address the discriminatory practice of boycotting Israeli academics and institutions purely on the basis of national origin.” Significantly, the IGRFCAFI agree that the BDS movement engages in invidious discrimination. Nevertheless, they oppose the use of legislation to address this discrimination: “[W]e oppose such efforts and firmly believe that such punitive legislation against our academic institutions constitutes unwise and harmful interference with academic freedom and open intellectual exchange.” Their opposition appears to be based on two arguments. One is an argument about academic freedom, while the other is an argument about the related idea of freedom of speech. Their freedom of speech argument is as follows: “We believe faculty, students and alumni must insist that colleges and universities be forums for free speech and difficult conversations (with exceptions only for some forms of “hate speech”).” This argument however proves too little (even if one ignores their caveat about hate speech, which may or may not include BDS activism). The pending legislation does not attempt to limit any “free speech” or “difficult conversations” about anti-Israel boycotts. Rather, it would address only the conduct of engaging in a boycott. This is one reason why Eugene Volokh has argued that the Roskam-Lipinski does not appear to violate the Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Their second argument is based on a version of the doctrine of academic freedom: “As stakeholders in academic institutions, we believe that faculties are ultimately responsible to establish and maintain excellence in academic standards and conduct…. “Our mission is also to promote the adoption by colleges and universities and academic associations, without outside interference, of codes and standards that emphatically reject campaigns to boycott and blacklist scholars based on national origin, which are antithetical to principles of academic freedom, integrity, and excellence.” Interestingly, the IGRFCAFI do not argue that the Roskam-Lipinski Bill violates the academic freedom of any single academic. Indeed, they concede that anti-Israel boycotts violate the freedom of individual academics, and Roskam-Lipinski would correct this. Their argument instead is that Roskam-Lipinski infringes on the collective freedom of academic faculties to engage in invidious discrimination through boycott activities. But this argument proves too much. Surely there is no right of academic faculties to engage in unlawful invidious discrimination. If there were, then IGRFCAFI would require the overturning of Brown v. Board of Education, as well as the invalidation of Title VI, Title IX, and the whole edifice of law established to protect civil rights in education. To reiterate, Dr. Beck’s IGRFCAFI committee is a distinguished and thoughtful group of scholars, and their views are entitled to some weight. They clearly grasp not only the threat that BDS poses to academic freedom but also its inherently discriminatory character. Their concerns about freedom of speech are well taken. No one should interfere with the right of academics to talk about BDS. The federal legislation would not do so. While the IGRFCAFI Statement may not be based on a defensible view of academic freedom, it certainly reflects an understandable preference among academics that they be permitted to keep their own houses in order. All else being equal, it certainly is preferable to allow academic faculties to make their own decisions about academic matters. But when they misuse that freedom to engage in invidious discrimination, Congress is not wrong to insist that they do so without federal subsidy.