Depending on which side one stands, the "Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions" movement is either a way to punish Israel for its treatment of Palestinians through economic and political pressure, or it's an anti-Semitic campaign to demonize America's only democratic ally in the Middle East.

Depending on which side one stands, the �Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions� movement is either a way to punish Israel for its treatment of Palestinians through economic and political pressure, or it�s an anti-Semitic campaign to demonize America�s only democratic ally in the Middle East.

But one thing the BDS movement is not: a legitimate vehicle for deciding how a public university should spend tax dollars. Universities should not get involved in political battles over how their dollars should be invested and spent. It�s not their money: A sizeable amount of public-university funding comes from taxpayers, either through direct state support or through federal student loans, tuition grants and research dollars.

Yet, Ohio campuses have become awash in the national debate over BDS. Student governments at Ohio State and Capital universities in March considered resolutions on opposite sides of the issue. The pro-Israel side prevailed in both votes.

The decision on whether university dollars should be used to isolate and punish an international ally does not belong on the Oval at Ohio State University. It belongs in the halls of the Congress or state legislature, where elected officials who represent people who pay the taxes that support higher education can hold hearings, consider expert testimony and weigh the financial, economic, political and social consequences.

This is very different from the past fight over whether the legislature should be able to exert its influence on where Ohio�s pension systems may invest. In that case, the dollars involved � and the risk and the profits � didn�t belong to Ohio taxpayers. The investments belong to the retirees of the pension systems. It�s not the state�s money, and the legislature should keep its nose out of how it�s invested.

While kids pay tuition (or their parents do), they would be most effective in conveying their support or opposition to a university�s investment portfolio and business relationships by voting with their own wallets. They are free to apply to and study at a college whose financial connections they endorse.

Further, while it is encouraging that today�s college students are passionate about justice, determined to better the world and are engaged in intellectual debate, they aren�t (yet) experts in the nuances of a geopolitical knot that has stymied presidents and the people who work for them � people who hold advanced degrees, have real-life experience in Mideast politics and are privy to intelligence briefings.

Nor is it likely the students yet possess the Wall Street acumen to weigh the financial consequences of divestment, let alone the collateral damage such divestment could cause.

As the British newspaper, The Guardian, reported in late February, pressure from a BDS campaign resulted in the following: �Hundreds of Palestinian workers have been left unemployed after the SodaStream factory where they worked moved out of the occupied West Bank and back into Israel following an international boycott campaign.�

The 500 workers, whose job prospects are now dim, tearfully said goodbye to the Israelis whom they�d worked beside and who became friends.

Likewise, a university boycott of Israeli products might be difficult. According to the website MethodistFriendsofIsrael.com, �To boycott Israel means not using mobile phones, computers, many medicines and medical procedures.� It notes that Israel developed the first cellphone, and most of the components of the Windows XP operating system.

In a global economy, it can be tough to isolate one's intended economic target.