Dear Colleagues,
For the purposes of discussions going on here, I'm sharing an email I sent to the AAG last night. The links in the text won't show up, so I'm adding those references at the end. Thank you! – Javier


Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 7:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]

To Whom It May Concern,

I've made the difficult decision to not attend the AAG conference this year. After much consideration, I made this decision for several reasons. After the "travel ban," I felt fairly certain about the need for boycotting as a way to illustrate the impacts of the White House executive orders that we are all more than familiar with. I wanted to demand that the AAG do more for peace and justice than the concessions it announced, laudable as those may be.

Furthermore, I felt strongly that, while thankful for the social justice work that many AAG members do (including members of the executive committee), given the unfortunate path traced by Steve Bannon and the president of the US, we must lay the groundwork for a possible international boycott that may become necessary in the months or years to come. Academic conferences are viable venues to illustrate—indeed, through collective absences—the grave harms caused by the neo-fascist shift in American politics. Obviously, I should mention, many of us are very cognizant (I am a product of a US colony–Puerto Rico–myself) that the US has always been a settler colonial nation built on oppression. 

None of this is unprecedented, but boycotts help generate the political memory needed to renew collective action. In addition, it struck me that academic organizations like the AAG were merely responding with opposition to the executive orders, and in this way compartmentalizing the effects of a resurgent white nationalism into simple policy planks, while overlooking widespread vigilante violence encouraged by the White House, which must also be strongly condemned. 

All things considered, despite these reasons, I had more or less assumed I would still attend the conference and see what could happen there.

But I felt much more compelled to boycott after I happened upon a document called "The Unintended Consequences of Boycotting Academic Association Meetings" (PDF) posted with little fanfare on the AAG website under the Policy Action section a little over a week ago. I wish to respond to the points made in the document, since it mischaracterizes the nature and goals of protests, including boycotts, and the efforts to resist the ongoing violence of this US administration. It worries me that the document accidentally reveals a disconnect from the challenges that lie ahead.

First, the AAG claims that boycotts harm "academic associations, not the Trump administration." It is odd that the AAG comes out of the gate so forcefully with this accusation, when the truth of the matter is that the harm to the AAG is already being done from elsewhere. The border wall and its security apparatus is a multivalent threat to indigenous groups, urban communities, and international mobility, including for academics. Anti-trans bathroom directives also harm the AAG. The appointment of Betsy DeVos is a threat to the academic freedom of members of the AAG. And etcetera, etcetera. In short, the AAG could direct its efforts where the harms are coming from, rather than toward protesters. One could argue, in fact, that the AAG indirectly helps the administration by discouraging diverse modes of dissent.

Granted, I acknowledge that the AAG has worked hard to advocate for the preservation of scientific and social data, for example. And along with many other academic organizations and universities, the AAG did come out against the travel ban. (But note that the AAG and partners opposed the ban using a disappointing exceptionalist language that reasserts illegitimate and violent borders: "(...) we urge the Administration to rescind the Executive Order and we stand ready to assist you in crafting an immigration and visa policy that advances U.S. prosperity and ensures strong borders while staying true to foundational American principles as a nation of immigrants." -PDF). The point I am getting at is that, due to the response of the AAG, the boycott then becomes, in itself, a defense of the very option to boycott, which has pre-emptively come under attack. Put differently, the AAG should punch upward, not downward. 

Second, the AAG draws a hard line in the sand and says that boycotts limit "intellectual discourse and collaborative activity needed to respond effectively to growing threats to higher education, academic freedom, and inclusion." Let me be as clear as I can about this. Boycotting the AAG does not preclude someone from engaging in other spaces of activism, education, research, and movement-building. I applaud all of the work taking place at the AAG to build community and discuss the policies of the current US regime. Many of us who worked very hard to organize panels have looked for ways to multiply—not restrict—the myriad ways of educating ourselves in these trying times. Contrary to the quote by former AAG President Audrey Kobayashi, a boycott is NOT tantamount to silence. In fact, the kind of discussions on listservs, in letters, in person, and in the AAG's own internal documents is clear empirical evidence that the mere threat of a boycott has had the effect of increasing discourse and debate. Besides, being present at conferences does not instantly translate into political pressure, and the AAG should be more cautious in implying as such.

Third, while the AAG encourages us to attend the conference as a way to represent those who cannot go (laudable idea), some of us might prefer to meet those who can't attend where they are, including students, scholars, and community members who cannot come close to transit points full of national security patrols, whose families are in danger of separation, or cannot afford to be at the AAG for other reasons. Is such an activity incompatible with the goals of the AAG? I think it is actually quite compatible, and one would hope for more open-mindedness.

Fourth, the claim that Boston is a sanctuary city that deserves support requires additional careful analysis. Sanctuary city bills are a hazy, if not perhaps deceptive, legal category that in some cases place immigrants and people of color under more intense police surveillance, given the premise that the police are augmenting "trust" with communities (read: added policing) by refusing to report to ICE. Furthermore, any illusions of sanctuary city protections in a city like Boston can be called into question if one pays attention to what the BPD commissioner himself actually has to say: "(...)if we lock someone up, we fingerprint them, and the fingerprints get sent to the state police, FBI, Homeland Security and ICE." (link)

Fifth, as an early career academic myself, I ask that you please not make assumptions about what is best for me. The AAG memo states that, "Boycotting the AAG Annual Meeting in Boston would also negatively impact two struggling groups, early-career scholars and low-income workers who depend on meetings such as ours." Anyone who has attended a conference at a corporate chain hotel should know very well that those spaces are not created for hotel workers or adjuncts, graduate students, and untenured academics. Those are spaces of uneven accumulation, and geographers very much have studied this. Let's also recall that the new US president is himself a hotel magnate, a key detail that too often gets left out when discussing the business alliances of corporate hotels that host large conferences like the AAG. 

Sixth, to the point about how the AAG has made a theme of International Human Rights: it's too simple to signal toward human rights, as if to imply that by boycotting, one were not in favor of human rights. Let me point out that throughout history, boycotts have secured human rights, even if inconveniencing academics slightly. The conceptualisation of 'humanity' within the regime of rights —and who belongs in that international framework— is not only what is at least partially at stake under the current administration, but has also always historically been fraught with western-centric ontologies and bordering logics. In other words, a simple inclusion of it as a category does not imply an automatic defense of the rights it proclaims to honor.

Finally, I want to mention that everything has consequences, intended or unintended. The simplistic framing of protest as having "unintended consequences," as if we couldn't think through all the consequences of our actions, is an unfortunate condescension and a kind of paternalism. Attending conferences in expensive hotels, erecting institutional authority, traveling in high-carbon modes of transport... All of these have different and complex consequences, including detrimental ones to workers and the planet. Let us not dilute the issues and point blame for consequences. Hopefully we have the same goals in mind. I call on the AAG to bring on more discourse rather than stifling dissent. 

I look forward to further discussion of these complicated issues and thank you for your time reading this message. 

Sincerely,
Javier Arbona
Assistant Professor
University of California, Davis


Links:
• The Unintended Consequences of Boycotting Academic Association Meetings http://www.aag.org/galleries/default-file/Unintended_Consequences_of_Boycotting_Academic_Association_Meetings.pdf

• Multisociety letter on Immigration http://www.aag.org/galleries/default-file/Multisociety_Letter_on_Immigration_1312017.pdf

• Boston Police Commissioner interview on WGBH http://news.wgbh.org/2017/02/28/local-news/police-commissioner-evans-local-police-cant-prevent-ice-immigration-raids