This pedagogy-centered paper, sponsored by MESA’s Committee for Undergraduate Middle East Studies (CUMES), will discuss my experience teaching an upper-level seminar on the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement (BDS). Founded by Palestinian NGOs in 2005, BDS aims to pressure Israel to comply with international law and end the occupation of Palestinian land. The paper’s first section will evaluate the rewards and challenges of teaching the BDS controversy. BDS raises hard questions regarding movement ethics, strategy, efficacy, etc. Detractors allege the movement is unfair, based on false analogies, and even anti-Semitic. While these debates may push faculty to avoid discussion of BDS entirely – especially with undergraduates – I argue the pedagogical potential for students and instructors alike is extraordinary; studying BDS calls into question our core political, academic, and ethical values. The paper’s second section will describe my seminar’s structure and methodology. Structurally, the seminar starts with a study of general questions of authority and dissent. I will list readings that have resonated most with students. The seminar then turns to case studies. First, students read and discuss the history of the Palestine-Israel conflict, and the United States’ role in it. Second, students study the domestic and international anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, the inspiration for today’s BDS. The seminar’s final case study, titled “Arguing BDS,” assesses the utility of historical analogy and the movement itself, including its tactics, potential, and fairness (one concern that really engages students is whether BDS harms those it intends to help). I am open about my own views; at the start, for example, I inform students that, despite initial misgivings, I support BDS, but do not share the reasons why. Methodologically, the class incorporates regular small-group discussions and one formal debate. Students often argue in favor of views contrary to their own. In sum, the seminar pushes students to think through two vital questions: When is public dissent the right thing to do? When is it the smart thing to do? The paper’s final section will raise persistent pedagogical concerns. Any seminar involving ethics and identity carries risk. Do students feel pressured to support certain positions? How might such pressures be minimized? How may an instructor’s “authority” be managed to ensure openness of mind, freedom to disagree, etc? How much historical context is enough for informed discussion? Might the seminar be better structured? I look forward to input from the audience.