 |
 |
yes thanks also Javier for this. you really break it down. the whole matter is worth a forum in a journal i think. i've been (mis)directing my energies toward making a global map of signatories. to get a picture of the global context and as a tool for those of us who would do outreach to under-signed institutions. the link to the map is below. i haven't yet learned postgis or operating a vps, so its a (slippy) static map. any feedback would be sincerely appreciated. https://github.com/echoesinthestairwell/boycottmap3.8.2 in solidarity, mahmood Mahmood N. Khan, MA PhD Candidate, UCLA On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Deborah Cowen <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Thank you for sharing this brave and inspiring response Javier. To me, > this is a model of responsible geographic engagement. In contrast to what > the AAG statement on 'The Unintended Consequences of Boycotting Academic > Association Meetings' suggests, I have not seen or participated in as much > committed dialogue about our collective and individual responsibilities > with AAG members and conference attendees as the debate about the boycott > has provoked. I look forward to seeing - and working towards - more fulsome > AAG action on the political crisis of detention, deportation, racial > violence, indigenous dispossession, reproductive rights, transphobia, and > workers' rights, among others. > > Deb > > Deborah Cowen > Department of Geography & Planning > University of Toronto > > Lauréate de la Fondation Pierre Elliott Trudeau 2016 Pierre Elliott > Trudeau Foundation Fellow > > Groundswell Community Justice Trust Fund > > > > ________________________________________ > From: A forum for critical and radical geographers [ > [log in to unmask]] on behalf of Javier Arbona [ > [log in to unmask]] > Sent: March-06-17 11:32 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: letter to the AAG on academic boycott > > 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 >