Andrew Wilkie must be fired.
If the facts presented so far are accurate, Andrew Wilkie knew exactly what he was doing when he rejected Amit Duvshani?s application for a job because he served as a soldier in the Israeli military.
Put more plainly, Wilkie discriminated against Duvshani because he is Jewish.
This sort of garbage needs to be challenged. Taking a stand could stop pro-Palestinian advocates in their tracks. Not to mention that putting up a fight might stem any anti-Semitic conduct and bigotry in general.
Wilkie blatantly abused his authority. If he did not know better, he lacks the judgement to hold his job in the first place.
Andrew Wilkie is a geneticist at Oxford University, where he holds an endowed chair. Amit Duvshani, 26, is completing his master?s degree in molecular biology at the University of Tel Aviv. Duvshani applied to work in Wilkie?s laboratory, and Wilkie turned him down because of his role in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Laying out the details of the incident, the New York Times related this message from Wilkie to Duvshani in its July 2 edition:
?I have a huge problem with the way that the Israelis take the high ground from their appalling treatment in the Holocaust and then inflict gross human rights abuses on the Palestinians because they (the Palestinians) wish to live in their own country. I am sure that you are perfectly nice at a personal level, but no way would I take on somebody who had served in the Israeli Army. As you may be aware, I am not the only U.K. scientist with these views, but I?m sure you will find another suitable lab if you look around.?
Wilkie subsequently apologized, but that?s not enough. The university is investigating if Wilkie violated the university?s anti-discrimination rules; if Oxford establishes the facts related in the Times article, they must dump him, so long as they are not restricted by any legalities.
By no means does this have anything to do with Wilkie?s political views. There are many Jews, including Israeli soldiers, who would probably find some measure of common ground ? however slight ? with Wilkie. As an Israeli citizen, Duvshani had no viable choice but to serve in the Israeli military, but that is not the issue, either.
A Jewish friend who takes a hard line in support of Israel framed this episode as another example of anti-Semitism. It is far more important than that. It is abuse of power. It is job discrimination. It would be just as reprehensible if an ardent supporter of Israel discriminated against an Arab or Muslim at the workplace. This can happen to anyone, and in fact it does.
Because of the supervisory responsibilities of his job, Wilkie should know from the outset that it is grossly unprofessional to deny work to an applicant on the basis of his heritage. If Wilkie is allowed to keep his job, the message will be sent that any supervisor can conduct any action just as severe and get away with it. It will also tell Israel-bashers that they can keep up the drumbeat against Israel. Not all anti-Semitic conduct at work needs to result in dismissal, but the Wilkie case is that severe.
In a situation that involves me personally, a senior manager accused of posting two anti-Israel signs got away with a written reprimand, which tells her what she already should have known. In complaints to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, mostly Jewish employees sought disciplinary action against the manager, who holds a high-level position with a Philadelphia child-welfare agency. Two non-Jewish supervisors told me that they would have never posted the signs, because such conduct would be offensive. In other words, they knew better and did not need to be told that it was wrong.
Both signs featured a small Palestinian flag, and scrawled on the first sign were the words, ?There will be no peace until there is justice.? When you get past the Palestinian code words, this means that it is open season on Jews. The words on the second sign were, ?Does Palestine today remind you of Alabama 30 years ago??
Union leaders and other colleagues subsequently informed me that the senior manager herself hung up the signs. The city would not even tell us what they did about it, so we filed the EEOC complaints, which upheld the city?s actions ? namely, a ?written censure?, a.k.a. a slap on the wrist. The EEOC gave us the right to sue, but I?m not optimistic. But at least a stand was taken and I know that neither the culprit nor city officials were happy about it.
I hope that Jews around the world will confront pro-Palestinian advocates who take advantage of their power at work.
It will be a good start to send this message to Oxford: Fire Andrew Wilkie.
--------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Ticker is a freelance writer and former journalist living in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He can be reached at brucetic@aol.com.
If the facts presented so far are accurate, Andrew Wilkie knew exactly what he was doing when he rejected Amit Duvshani?s application for a job because he served as a soldier in the Israeli military.
Put more plainly, Wilkie discriminated against Duvshani because he is Jewish.
This sort of garbage needs to be challenged. Taking a stand could stop pro-Palestinian advocates in their tracks. Not to mention that putting up a fight might stem any anti-Semitic conduct and bigotry in general.
Wilkie blatantly abused his authority. If he did not know better, he lacks the judgement to hold his job in the first place.
Andrew Wilkie is a geneticist at Oxford University, where he holds an endowed chair. Amit Duvshani, 26, is completing his master?s degree in molecular biology at the University of Tel Aviv. Duvshani applied to work in Wilkie?s laboratory, and Wilkie turned him down because of his role in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Laying out the details of the incident, the New York Times related this message from Wilkie to Duvshani in its July 2 edition:
?I have a huge problem with the way that the Israelis take the high ground from their appalling treatment in the Holocaust and then inflict gross human rights abuses on the Palestinians because they (the Palestinians) wish to live in their own country. I am sure that you are perfectly nice at a personal level, but no way would I take on somebody who had served in the Israeli Army. As you may be aware, I am not the only U.K. scientist with these views, but I?m sure you will find another suitable lab if you look around.?
Wilkie subsequently apologized, but that?s not enough. The university is investigating if Wilkie violated the university?s anti-discrimination rules; if Oxford establishes the facts related in the Times article, they must dump him, so long as they are not restricted by any legalities.
By no means does this have anything to do with Wilkie?s political views. There are many Jews, including Israeli soldiers, who would probably find some measure of common ground ? however slight ? with Wilkie. As an Israeli citizen, Duvshani had no viable choice but to serve in the Israeli military, but that is not the issue, either.
A Jewish friend who takes a hard line in support of Israel framed this episode as another example of anti-Semitism. It is far more important than that. It is abuse of power. It is job discrimination. It would be just as reprehensible if an ardent supporter of Israel discriminated against an Arab or Muslim at the workplace. This can happen to anyone, and in fact it does.
Because of the supervisory responsibilities of his job, Wilkie should know from the outset that it is grossly unprofessional to deny work to an applicant on the basis of his heritage. If Wilkie is allowed to keep his job, the message will be sent that any supervisor can conduct any action just as severe and get away with it. It will also tell Israel-bashers that they can keep up the drumbeat against Israel. Not all anti-Semitic conduct at work needs to result in dismissal, but the Wilkie case is that severe.
In a situation that involves me personally, a senior manager accused of posting two anti-Israel signs got away with a written reprimand, which tells her what she already should have known. In complaints to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, mostly Jewish employees sought disciplinary action against the manager, who holds a high-level position with a Philadelphia child-welfare agency. Two non-Jewish supervisors told me that they would have never posted the signs, because such conduct would be offensive. In other words, they knew better and did not need to be told that it was wrong.
Both signs featured a small Palestinian flag, and scrawled on the first sign were the words, ?There will be no peace until there is justice.? When you get past the Palestinian code words, this means that it is open season on Jews. The words on the second sign were, ?Does Palestine today remind you of Alabama 30 years ago??
Union leaders and other colleagues subsequently informed me that the senior manager herself hung up the signs. The city would not even tell us what they did about it, so we filed the EEOC complaints, which upheld the city?s actions ? namely, a ?written censure?, a.k.a. a slap on the wrist. The EEOC gave us the right to sue, but I?m not optimistic. But at least a stand was taken and I know that neither the culprit nor city officials were happy about it.
I hope that Jews around the world will confront pro-Palestinian advocates who take advantage of their power at work.
It will be a good start to send this message to Oxford: Fire Andrew Wilkie.
--------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Ticker is a freelance writer and former journalist living in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He can be reached at brucetic@aol.com.