From someone who was present at the last AUC Senate meeting…

auc senate is considering a statement discouraging the invitation of israeli academics
they are weighing risks of losing accreditation vs the obvious moral choice
58-42 in favor of boycott.

Anyone has more details?

UPDATE: Some updates from the AUC Senate meeting…

“Revised AUC Senate Resolution in Support of Palestinian Academics Presented via the Senate Administration Affairs Committee
Preamble:
Whereas: Given the role of the Senate as a collective conscience of AUC, expressed in the many resolutions adopted over the years denouncing Israeli brutality and systematic racist policies against Palestinians and their basic rights, we propose the following resolution in support of Palestinian academics and institutions of learning:
Resolution:
The AUC Senate condemns Israel’s systematic measures that strangle Palestinian academic development– from curfews, checkpoints, severe control of research laboratories, to not allowing Palestinian academics with dual citizenship and international academics from resuming their work at Palestinian universities;
Supports the growing voices of global civil society organizations, and prominent individuals, calling for various forms of boycott of Israel.
Calls for AUC faculty, staff, and students to refrain from dealings with Israeli Academia within the AUC environment, and consider divestment of the AUC endowment from all companies investing in Israel.”

UPDATE: A message from Atle in Cairo…

AUC’s senate has just passed a resolution (by a 58-42% vote) in support of Palestinian academics which calls for a divestment from all Israeli businesses and discourages members of the university from collaborating with or supporting Israeli academics.
The resolution, which is non-binding and still needs to be signed by AUC President David Arnold, was the subject of a long controversy and several outbursts in the senate chambers over the past months. In October 2007, the last time it was addressed, the meeting was adjourned early after several passionate interjections by student activists.
This time, debate was civil but no less passionate, as those in favor of the resolution voiced support for the Palestinian cause, and those opposed mentioned the detrimental effects such a statement could have on the university. The discussion was made slightly more interesting by the fact that the university’s senior administration (generally a champion of keeping quiet about political matters so as not to anger wealthy donors or governments on either side) is currently in the United States drumming up funding and support. The school’s Vice Provost was left to attempt to argue the resolution down as acting president of the university.
“If we vote yes, or even vote at all, the President will be left in a terrible situation in which he is damned if he signs and damned if he does not sign,” he said, presumably in reference to AUC’s precarious position between a neo-con-filled board of trustees and physical presence in Tahrir Square. In addition, those opposing the measure claimed that it would produce no practical benefit for actual Palestinians, would endanger open dialogue between the two sides, and could be extremely damaging politically and financially for the university. Specifically, fears were raised that a resolution seen in the United States as politically radical or even anti-semitic could endanger AUC’s accreditation.
However, these concerns were outweighed by voices in favor of the resolution who pointed out that the statement reflected the collective conscience of AUC and that it was a statement in favor of AUC students trapped in Gaza and Palestinian students and scholars who could not leave Palestine to accept grants and scholarships at AUC. One supporter noted the fact that several universities in the UK had already adopted similar resolutions and called this “a growing global consensus on the apartheid situation in Palestine.” This position was also supported by about 30 students who wore kufieyas to the meeting and stood silently around the table throughout the debate.
It remains to be seen what will happen upon the President’s return from the States, but the vote couldn’t have come at a more inconvenient time for him, as he is seeking the support of American legislators and his own board of trustees. My own guess is that he will table it or allow it to be forgotten. In addition, while it does state the university’s collective view on the matter, it doesn’t have any real teeth in terms of stopping individuals from inviting Israeli academics to Cairo.