Lawyers advised the UCU that any boycott would be illegal (it would violate discrimination law). So the UCU stopped discussion of the proposed boycott.
This, naturally, resulted in letters and an opinion piece in the Guardian squawking about how the UCU is shutting down free speech, and someone saying that it wasn't a boycott call, just a debate about one. (Which rather misses the point because a boycott was exactly what the campaigners wanted, and the debate was just the first step.) I'm as pro-free-speech as anyone, and the interpretation of the ruling does seem a little broad (although I've heard different versions of this). However, why should the UCU spend time and money organising discussions and debates when it's been made clear that its ability to take action is limited? As far as I know, members of the UCU have already debated the issue of Israel/Palestine many times, have issued statements, etc--what's been cancelled is debates regarding a boycott which can't take place.
It just demonstrates that the boycott itself is and was only part of the issue--what these campaigners really want to do is de-normalise Israel an they're using the boycott as a way to bring these views further into the mainstream. Why else have these debates if you don't want a forum for your hot air?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}