NY Times On the Academic Boycott of Israel
Stanley Fish's column in the NY Times often irritates me, and here too he got my goat. Why does he deem it irrelevant to figure out how "bad" Israel's actions are before determing if the academic boycott of Israel is a good idea? Even if political action by the academy is a good idea - Fish thinks its not - presumably you still have to figure out what action is worth persuing, and for that you need moral and practical reason - which seems to be in short supply among the pro-boycott crowd.
In any case, the post should have us worried, because simply discussing the idea "impassionately" gives it legitimacy.