Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
Support independent student journalism. Support independent student journalism. Support independent student journalism.
The Dartmouth
July 10, 2025 | Latest Issue
The Dartmouth

Coffey: In Hawking's Defense

When Stephen Hawking, the Cambridge University cosmologist, withdrew from the Israeli presidential conference last week to protest the country's policies toward Palestinians, he provoked a firestorm of angry responses. Hawking was slotted as a key speaker, but has since boycotted the event at the urging of activists including Noam Chomsky and the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement. The media has criticized Hawking for being too credulous of these sponsors, warning that his boycott could be interpreted as anti-Semitic. Hawking has also received direct criticism for being hypocritical and incompatible with the mission of academia. Neither of these accusations is justified.

Branding his actions as hypocritical employs embarrassingly faulty logic and displays blatant disrespect. Critics point out that Hawking has no tradition of boycotting events for political reasons. As if to suggest that Hawking in fact has little commitment to political freedom and justice, commentators note that Hawking visited Iran in 2007, China in 2006 and the Soviet Union in 1973. They have also enjoyed reminding Hawking that the Palestinian Authority is far from perfect, having itself committed various human rights violations.

Contrary to critics' suggestions, Hawking does not exonerate Palestinian policies by boycotting Israel. Those who overgeneralize fall prey to a false dichotomy. In this black and white thinking, rejecting choice A is equivalent to selecting choice B. In reality, denouncing Israel is by no means equivalent to glorifying the Palestinian treatment of the conflict, nor is it anti-Semitic. Failing to make this distinction is tantamount to the same sort of blind generalization that buoys racist attitudes themselves. It is easy to accuse Hawking of being hypocritical, but taking cheap shots while ignoring the larger perspective is a dangerous road to follow.

Hawking's boycott has also been described as "contrary to the nature of academia." Certainly Hawking leveraged his position in the scientific community to make a point about political events, but this action neither subverts the scientific pursuit of truth nor undermines the objective integrity academics enjoy. The conference in question is not dedicated to discussing theories on the frontier of physics. In fact, it is not strictly scientific in any sense. Presenting an impressive list of speakers, the conference is to be held in honor of President Shimon Peres, and it aims to explore the future of Israel and the Jewish people. From a cynic's perspective, this conference is a convenient excuse to showcase Israel's prestige.

The conference topic will focus on how relationships between people and leaders affect change, an appropriate subject given Peres' special role in the conference. Hawking is certainly a leader as well, so considering the topic of the conference, he remains committed to its mission even while boycotting it. It seems that Hawking took the message of the conference to heart and correctly saw that he could more effectively lead through silence.

But was Hawking right to boycott the conference? The dilemma at hand does not involve discussions of historical struggles between Palestinians and Israelis. It is a question of activism. Our society has a long history of valuing activism as a path to justice, but the prickly ingredient here is Hawking's status as an academic. Undoubtedly, not everyone can be an activist, nor should we all be. But academics, too, are agents of change whose opinions hold weight, and their wisdom should not be relegated to exclusive circles of scholars. Hawking has long been a supporter of the British Labour Party, and his support of Palestinian liberty should be similarly viewed as a reasonable endorsement.

Regardless of our diverse opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we should be able to, as intellectuals, recognize Hawking's symbolic speech. Criticizing Israel's treatment of Palestinians at the conference would have been less effective than boycotting. Israel Maimon, chairman of the conference, has argued Hawking's boycott is "incompatible" with open discourse, democracy's lifeblood. This perspective is misguided because Maimon fails to understand that Hawking's protest speaks volumes.

Hawking is entitled to his opinions, and construing his actions as hypocritical and anti-Semitic derails progress, regardless of one's allegiances. Hawking's boycott ought to be respected for what it is: a powerful statement of belief. Critics are free to agree or disagree with the content of Hawking's statement, but we should not poison his activism.