Lawsuit: ASA’s Boycott of Israel Violates Law, Professors sue American Studies Association

Washington, D.C – A group of distinguished professors and longtime members of the American Studies Association (ASA) today announced that they are suing ASA for its boycott of Israel. The lawsuit charges that ASA’s blatant politicization of an academic association violates District of Columbia (D.C.) law governing nonprofit organizations.

“Until a handful of zealots appropriated our learned society, the ASA was the leading organization for the study of American culture,” stated Professor Simon Bronner, one of the plaintiffs. “Yet in 2013, a handful of anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) activists aggressively steered the ASA to an organization of social change pushing a narrow political agenda.”

According to the plaintiffs, the boycott adopted by ASA in December 2013 was a concerted effort by a small number of BDS activists, including founding members of the U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI), who used their leadership positions in ASA to make anti-Israel activism the central focus of the Association. ASA’s stated mission has nothing to do with boycotting a foreign nation and thus the suit alleges its adoption violates the law that governs nonprofit corporations.

At the time the boycott was initiated, ASA’s constitution stated that “[t]he object of the association [is] the promotion of the study of American culture through the encouragement of research, teaching, publication…about American culture in all its diversity and complexity.” The suit charges that a boycott of another country is outside the scope of ASA’s charter and is the antithesis of promoting knowledge. ASA’s constitution goes on to say that ASA’s goal is “the strengthening of relations among persons and institutions in this country and abroad devoted to such studies.” According to the complaint, the boycott does the exact opposite since it separates an entire country and its academics.

In addition, as a tax-exempt nonprofit, ASA reports annually to the IRS. In its IRS documents, the Association continues to describe its mission as “the nation’s oldest and largest association devoted to the interdisciplinary study of American culture and history,” with its “exempt purpose - advancing the Study of American Culture.” Plaintiffs allege that the academic boycott of Israel is clearly outside of this stated mission and purpose.

The four plaintiffs are American studies professors Simon Bronner, Michael Rockland, Michael Barton, and Charles Kupfer. Two are recipients of the ASA award for outstanding abilities and achievement. One is a founding member of a respected American Studies department and another is a member of ASA’s governing council and the editor of the Encyclopedia of American Studies. After numerous unsuccessful attempts since 2013 to address the matter within the Association, the professors filed this suit as a last resort to return the ASA to the academically-focused organization it has been for 60 years.

The lawsuit alleges ASA is in violation of the D.C. Non-Profit Corporation Act, which requires that an organization operate only within the provisions of its charter. Under D.C. law, the charter is a contract intended to protect members from those who seek to coopt a nonprofit for purposes outside the boundaries of its charter.

“This appears to be a clear example of a small group misappropriating assets raised for an agreed upon purpose and illegally using the organization to advance a completely separate and personal agenda,” stated University of California Berkeley Law School Professor Steven Davidoff Solomon, a renowned corporate law expert who served as an expert adviser to the litigation group representing the plaintiffs.

Northwestern Pritzker Law School Professor Eugene Kontorovich, a recognized expert in constitutional and international law who also served as an expert adviser to the litigation group added, “To be clear, this is not about silencing or stopping criticism of Israel, or in any way discouraging it. It is about non-profit corporations abiding by their own rules.”

In addition to violating DC law, the lawsuit reveals the defendants attempted to prevent informed discourse. In fact, no research performed with scholarly vigor was presented and the ASA refused to circulate or post to the ASA’s website several letters opposing the resolution, including one signed by approximately 70 ASA members and another opposing the resolution from eight former ASA presidents.

The plaintiffs and many ASA members, including 12 winners of the outstanding ASA Mary C. Turpie Award, raised objections to ASA’s leadership but were ignored. At least two ASA chapters refused to honor the boycott and many ASA members resigned and stopped donating. In addition, the esteemed American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and 134 members of Congress condemned ASA for its boycott. As the New York Times reported, ASA “has gone from relative obscurity to prominence as a pariah…its experience serving as a cautionary tale for other scholarly groups….”

In 2014, the Royal Institute of British Architects endorsed an anti-Israel boycott. However, after lawyers warned the Institute’s action was outside its mission and therefore illegal, the policy was rescinded. Institute leaders acknowledged the “motion was beyond the powers of council” and the Institute’s president admitted, “We got it wrong.”

“Academic associations should think twice before abusing their missions and betraying the lawful purposes for which they were established in favor of the personal political agendas of their noisiest and most politicized activist members,” stated Kenneth L. Marcus, president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and one of the attorneys on the case. “This case stands for the simple proposition that nonprofit corporations must pursue the lawful purposes for which they are established, for which they receive nonprofit status, and for which they raise charitable contributions” added Jerome Marcus of Marcus & Auerbach LLC, lead counsel to the plaintiffs.


http://brandeiscenter.com/news/news_full/lawsuit_asas_boycott_of_israel_violates_law_professors_sue_american_studies


How to fight the racists and win.

The reading plaintiffs put upon this organization would violate the US Constitution inasmuch as it precludes freedom of association (First Amendment) and due process of law (Fifth Amendment).

I have not seen the corporate papers, but the mission statement offered by the article is would seem to be sufficiently abstract to make plaintiff's interpretation completely arbitrary.

Verdict: waste of money.

Original Quill wrote:The reading plaintiffs put upon this organization would violate the US Constitution inasmuch as it precludes freedom of association (First Amendment) and due process of law (Fifth Amendment).

I have not seen the corporate papers, but the mission statement offered by the article is would seem to be sufficiently abstract to make plaintiff's interpretation completely arbitrary.

Verdict: waste of money.

Your view is not only insignificant but not based from any knowledge of the law

So again you back racists, which is no surprise.

Your brain only functions when it sees the words "Black" and "racism", in the same sentence

Thankfully some of us are not regressives like you and are against all racism

didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:The reading plaintiffs put upon this organization would violate the US Constitution inasmuch as it precludes freedom of association (First Amendment) and due process of law (Fifth Amendment).

I have not seen the corporate papers, but the mission statement offered by the article is would seem to be sufficiently abstract to make plaintiff's interpretation completely arbitrary.

Verdict: waste of money.

Your view is not only insignificant but not based from any knowledge of the law

So again you back racists, which is no surprise.

Your brain only functions when it sees the words "Black" and "racism", in the same sentence

Thankfully some of us are not regressives like you and are against all racism

In other words, I upset you with my legal analysis. Lol.

Nice to see you are in fine form this day!

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:

Your view is not only insignificant but not based from any knowledge of the law

So again you back racists, which is no surprise.

Your brain only functions when it sees the words "Black" and "racism", in the same sentence

Thankfully some of us are not regressives like you and are against all racism

In other words, I upset you with my legal analysis.  Lol.  

Nice to see you are in fine form this day!  

Well as you just again invented a belief around me, I find that even further amusing.

Regressives never upset me, they just make me pity how on earth they even function daily..

They must be in conflict from brushing their teeth to simply combing their hair in case they feel its racist

didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

In other words, I upset you with my legal analysis.  Lol.  

Nice to see you are in fine form this day!  

Well as you just again invented a belief around me, I find that even further amusing.

Regressives never upset me, they just make me pity how on earth they even function daily..

They must be in conflict from brushing their teeth to simply combing their hair in case they feel its racist

You are upset. It's obvious.

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:

Well as you just again invented a belief around me, I find that even further amusing.

Regressives never upset me, they just make me pity how on earth they even function daily..

They must be in conflict from brushing their teeth to simply combing their hair in case they feel its racist

You are upset.  It's obvious.  

Only within your delusional head lol

didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are upset.  It's obvious.  

Only within your delusional head lol

What has all this to do with the ASA?

They violated the law

Can you not read little one?

didge wrote:They violated the law

Can you not read little one?

It doesn't look like it, does it.

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:They violated the law

Can you not read little one?

It doesn't look like it, does it.

Like I say, only in your deluded mind Quill  

didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It doesn't look like it, does it.

Like I say, only in your deluded mind Quill  

Has nothing to do with me, didge. I'm just the bearer of bad news for your article.

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:


Like I say, only in your deluded mind Quill  

Has nothing to do with me, didge.  I'm just the bearer of bad news for your article.

Really by not proving anything?

That is a new one quill.

I suggest you continue listening to Daffy duck inside your head  

didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Has nothing to do with me, didge.  I'm just the bearer of bad news for your article.

Really by not proving anything?

The Constitution is not a matter of proof.  It invalidates the charges before they are even contemplated.  Without charges, there is no need of proof.

The case will be disposed of by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion [failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted], or on a Rule 56, Motion for Summary Judgment.

The case will never see the light of day.

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:


Really by not proving anything?

The Constitution is not a matter of proof.  It invalidates the charges before they are even contemplated.  Without charges, there is no need of proof.

The case will be disposed of by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion [failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted] or on a Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment.

The case will never see the light of day.

Gibberish yet again

Failure to state a claim?

The lawsuit alleges ASA is in violation of the D.C. Non-Profit Corporation Act, which requires that an organization operate only within the provisions of its charter. Under D.C. law, the charter is a contract intended to protect members from those who seek to coopt a nonprofit for purposes outside the boundaries of its charter.

“This appears to be a clear example of a small group misappropriating assets raised for an agreed upon purpose and illegally using the organization to advance a completely separate and personal agenda,” stated University of California Berkeley Law School Professor Steven Davidoff Solomon, a renowned corporate law expert who served as an expert adviser to the litigation group representing the plaintiffs. 






Seems clear enough to me, except the fake Judge of course

didge wrote:The lawsuit alleges ASA is in violation of the D.C. Non-Profit Corporation Act, which requires that an organization operate only within the provisions of its charter. Under D.C. law, the charter is a contract intended to protect members from those who seek to coopt a nonprofit for purposes outside the boundaries of its charter.

“This appears to be a clear example of a small group misappropriating assets raised for an agreed upon purpose and illegally using the organization to advance a completely separate and personal agenda,” stated University of California Berkeley Law School Professor Steven Davidoff Solomon, a renowned corporate law expert who served as an expert adviser to the litigation group representing the plaintiffs. 

Seems clear enough to me, except the fake Judge of course

Yes, that's always a convenient excuse.

The allegations of the Complaint raise clear Constitutional questions, which must be addressed first. Does the D.C. Non-Profit Corporation Act even have the power to enforce the Charter? Is the Charter exclusive? Can the D.C. Non-Profit Corporation Act suspend due process of law? Can the D.C. Non-Profit Corporation Act violate freedom of association?

Under our system of government, all deference must be given to private parties or associations to do what they wish...a Court may not substitute it's own opinions as to the purpose of the organization or the means by which it achieves it. Interpretation of the charter is open to interpretation. Freedom to associate is a Constitutionally mandated right to associate for any purpose.

The Complaint will be dismissed.

Excuse lol

Your view it will be dismissed is just making me laugh now

They broke the law and its evident that they did so.
The fact you defend racist idiots speaks for itself Quill, as why do they single out only one country and one people, the Israeli's, when there are vastly many nations who are actually human rights abusers?

Simple reason they are racist against Israeli's

Even America itself has an appalling human rights record, why are they not boycotting America?

The whole case is a Toom Tabard (ask a Scottish friend). It's filed for publicity purposes, as anyone can see.

Original Quill wrote:The whole case is a Toom Tabard (ask a Scottish friend).  It's filed for publicity purposes, as anyone can see.

So you claim, but then I dont take a word you say seriously anyway, its normally based on pseudo nonsense

If they never thought they had a chance, they would not have filed a case, showing your are being desperate Quill

didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:The whole case is a Toom Tabard (ask a Scottish friend).  It's filed for publicity purposes, as anyone can see.

So you claim, but then I dont take a word you say seriously anyway, its normally based on pseudo nonsense

If they never thought they had a chance, they would not have filed a case, showing your are being desperate Quill

I think the plaintiffs are desperate, as your own logic indicates.