In recent weeks, the University of Arkansas has been at the center of a heated debate surrounding academic freedom and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This controversy was sparked by an incident involving Nathan Thrall, a Jewish American writer known for his support of Palestinian rights. Thrall, who was invited to speak about his new book, declined to participate after being informed that, under a 2017 Arkansas state law, he would have to pledge not to boycott Israel to receive payment for his visit.
The situation escalated when Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders publicly supported the university’s adherence to the state law. She condemned pro-Hamas protests on campuses across the U.S., asserting that they often led to anti-Semitic behavior and were not acceptable in Arkansas. This stance reflects a broader trend in the U.S., where many states, including Arkansas, have enacted laws to deter criticism of Israel, particularly in response to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
In Arkansas, the law is notably strict. It mandates that anyone contracting with the state, even for amounts as small as $1,000, must sign a pledge against boycotting Israel. This requirement has affected the university’s ability to host certain speakers and events. For instance, a panel discussion featuring Middle East experts was canceled after being labeled anti-Semitic. These developments have raised concerns among faculty and students about the extent of academic freedom regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and whether the university has taken a side.
State Senator Bart Hester, who sponsored the Arkansas legislation, stands firm in his support for Israel, citing it as a decision to “support Israel over terrorists.” He expressed satisfaction that the law prevents individuals like Thrall, whom he accuses of defending terrorists, from speaking on campuses. Hester’s view is that protecting Israel is integral to the stability of the Middle East and the safety of the United States.
Thrall’s intended discussion focused on his book “A Day in the Life of Abed Salama,” which narrates a Palestinian father’s ordeal following a tragic bus crash in Jerusalem. Thrall criticized Hester’s characterization of his work, emphasizing that it is a narrative nonfiction piece about a school bus accident, not a defense of terrorism.
The implications of the anti-boycott law extend beyond Thrall’s case. Shirin Saeidi, head of a Middle East Studies center at the university, noted difficulties in inviting knowledgeable speakers due to the pledge requirement. This has led to a quieter atmosphere regarding pro-Palestinian activism compared to other campuses, with many students and faculty choosing to discuss these issues privately rather than risk public backlash.
The issue also intersects with broader First Amendment concerns. In 2018, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the Arkansas anti-boycott law on behalf of The Arkansas Times, a newsmagazine that refused to sign the pledge. Although the publisher had no intention of boycotting Israel, he objected to the government dictating his political opinions. However, the Federal District Court upheld the law, a decision later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and left unchallenged by the U.S. Supreme Court.
This ongoing debate at the University of Arkansas serves as a microcosm of the complex and often contentious dialogue surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in American academia and politics. It raises crucial questions about the balance between supporting international allies and maintaining freedom of speech and academic inquiry.
