Antiboycott laws are common in many states. Student activists are not afraid they will get into trouble for the divestment movement, but some attorneys think otherwise.
Pro-Palestine activists set to encounter new foes from the camp of the state Republicans as they return to campus this fall.
Brown University received a harsh letter from a dozen Republican attorneys last month ahead of the Ivy League school’s planned vote to cut its investments in companies with ties to the Israeli military. The officials cautioned that if the proposal is adopted, it will have “immediate and profound legal consequences” for students and staff.
They wrote: “Adopting that proposal may require our States – and others – to terminate any existing relationships with Brown and those associated with it,” citing the antiboycott laws in their states.
The attorneys didn’t reveal exactly what would happen, but the threat suggests that the school might lose money if the state stops doing business with them. The attorney general for Alabama told the media that the repercussions could come in the form of severed contracts and investments; however, he didn’t provide further details.
The actual impact of antiboycott laws on institutions like Brown University is arguable. The Muslim Legal Fund of America shrugged off the cautions, claiming that the letter is a fruitless attempt to force Rhode Island schools to comply with rules outside their jurisdiction. In a separate letter to Brown’s administrators, the attorneys for the fund urged the institution to reject the “baseless threats of legal repercussions.”
The argument marks a new phase in the campus divestment movement as new college leaders considered demonstrators’ requests to start a new academic year. Most institutions dismissed the demands to disentangle their investment portfolios from the companies with their ties to Israel.
San Francisco State University stated that its foundations would cut ties with companies that make money from weapons manufacturing. Some schools also took steps to appease students’ activists.
Kent Bravo, the spokesperson for SFSU, stated that the university hasn’t received any caution about antiboycott laws. Bravo also noted that the institution’s divestment policy is not based on the geography of these companies but on the amount of money coming from the weapons manufacturers.
The letter sent to Brown also emphasizes the degree to which politicians, including those at the state level, continue to see political opportunities in walking in the dynamics of campus protestors about the Israel-Hamas war.
Carmen Twillie Ambar, the president of Oberlin in Ohio, urged students on her campus to think about alternate ways to push for change in the Middle East. She added that some of their demands about the divestment are “like trying to take cheese out of baked lasagna.”
