Letter of Resignation from the American Sociological Association
by Bruce A. Phillips
Those interested in how this resolution came to a vote can read more here. Rather than go deeply into the moral arguments and the complexities of the Gaza war, I decided simply to point out that this resolution (endorsed by most of the living past presidents of the ASA) made sociology look foolish. This is not a growth strategy for an organization with a declining membership and a discipline having trouble attracting majors. A bare majority of the minority of members who participated in the ASA election approved the resolution over the objections of the ASA Council. Perhaps my letter of resignation might spur my pragmatic but complacent colleagues to more actively resist similar efforts in the future.
ASA President - Adia Harvey Wingfield
ASA President-Elect - Shelley J. Correll
ASA Vice President - Allison J. Pugh
ASA Vice President-Elect - Victor Ray
ASA Secretary-Treasurer - Monica McDermott
Dear ASA Colleagues,
I have decided not to renew my membership in the American Sociological Association. Now that the ASA has endorsed the S4P [Sociologists for Palestine] resolution, I am embarrassed to be associated with my professional organization.
My specific objections to this resolution are:
Because it does not mention the hostages, the ASA resolution on Palestine has implicitly endorsed hostage taking, murder, and rape as legitimate strategies for social change.
The rambling paragraph about indigenous nations implies that Jews are not indigenous to the Levant, ignoring decades of scholarship in history, biblical studies, archaeology, and even DNA-based population research. Evidence, apparently, is no longer a desideratum of our professional association.
The S4P resolution, with no skepticism or questions, accepts the fatality numbers reported by Hamas. Even the UN has acknowledged these are problematic at best. Apparently methodological rigor is no longer a pillar of the discipline.
The resolution dismisses antisemitism as a legitimate concern, despite extensive research documenting its resurgence. In his S4P teach-in, Michael Burawoy even warns Jews that they themselves are responsible are increasing antisemitism by supporting Israel. This is itself a classic strategy of Jew-hatred.
The S4P resolution has now committed ASA to opposing “the Zionist occupation” of Palestine. To what does this refer? To the West Bank? To Israel itself? Should this opposition be pursued “by any means necessary”? This vague language can easily be interpreted to imply that the ASA has joined Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis in calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state. Sociology has apparently turned its back on precision.
In retrospect the events following the ASA resolution show it to be embarrassingly simple-minded:
Both UNWRA and World Central Kitchen have admitted that some of their staff were Hamas members and even participated in the atrocities of October 7.
Hamas documents captured in Gaza explicitly spell out a strategy of manipulating individuals and organizations (e.g., the ASA) in the West to pressure Israel on their behalf. Anthony Blinken himself lamented that the lack of pressure on Hamas has made it all but impossible to implement a hostage release deal and ceasefire. The latter (though not the former, interestingly) were the explicit goals of the ASA resolution.
Hamas documents captured in Gaza explicitly spell out a strategy of sacrificing civilian lives to create anti-Israel sentiment.
The ASA has not addressed the actual genocide taking place in Sudan, nor has it ever addressed the brutality of the Assad regime in Syria that is finally on the front page. Apparently only conflicts involving Israel are of interest to American sociologists.
Violent antisemitism has increased exponentially over the past year. The ASA resolution dismisses concern about antisemitism, and this appears to be the ASA position now.
Finally, former ASA president Michael Burawoy, in his “teach-in” on the S4P website, declares that “[only] sociologists care what sociologists think and do.” Why support an organization that embraces its own irrelevance?
My own field, sociology of religion, is virtually non-existent in the ASA, and my academic homes are the SSSR, RRA, and ASR. Nonetheless, I have renewed my membership for the past 49 years to support my professional organization along with multiple sections at over $500/year. My support of ASA has been a charitable contribution, and I will be contributing my ASA dues to other causes.
If you got this far, thank you for hearing me out.
Bruce A. Phillips, PhD, Member #11169
Topics: Israel Initiative