PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 9, 2006
Condemns the vote by the British National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) on May 29, 2006, to boycott Israeli academics and academic institutions that refuse to declare their opposition to the government and State of Israel. Finds NATFHE's criticism of Israeli policy particularly objectionable given the Israeli government's courageous and far-reaching contributions to peace. Urges the University and College Union (UCU) to nullify and void the NATFHE resolution and issue a statement deploring the campaign to boycott Israeli academia.
Commends the British government and leading academics for criticizing the NATFHE resolution. Deplores any comparison between Israel, where all citizens are equal before the law, and the former apartheid regime in South Africa. Urges governments and educators throughout the world to reaffirm the importance of academic freedom and open dialogue.
People & committees
Rep. Higgins, Brian [D-NY-27] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 2, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.Res.858 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.Res.858 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.Res.858 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.Res.858 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.