Don’t boycott U.S. academic conferences, U of T prof urges

5 Comments

I recently attended two international conferences for business school deans, first one in Slovenia and then one in the US. The travel ban was just being announced as I left Pearson and during the course of my flight I contemplated cancelling the US leg of my journey. In Europe, Trump was a constant topic of discussion by speakers and delegates alike. In Bled, signatories to the UN’s Principles of Responsible Management Education crafted a public response, renewed our commitment to principles of inclusion & the UN’s sustainable development goals, and made preliminary plans to alter the focus, format & location of future conferences (in support of a more inclusive agenda).

Ultimately, I did decide to travel to the US. Ironically, the pre-conference session I had agreed to help facilitate was “Deans as Agents of Change”, within the context of promoting sustainable and ethical business practices and leaders. Given this focus, I thought it more important than ever to be there. No doubt, US politics and the impact of Trump’s declarations were raised much less frequently and much less comfortably than they had been in Europe, and when they were, it was often Canadian deans and international delegates who voiced concern. I’m still processing the experience.

While I was away, I also watched with great interest as members of disciplinary communities within the Academy of Management communicated in no uncertain terms their objection to the public statement made by the Academy, believing it did not go nearly far enough in condemning recent events. It will be interesting to see to what extent management scholars boycott the annual conference this summer. Ultimately, I believe there is strength in both approaches. For those who opt to attend, hopefully they will add their voices to discussions on social justice, inclusion, politics, ethics, leadership and change – both within and outside formal sessions. For those who stay away, they send an important message of standing with others (colleagues and students alike) who may not have the choice to make.

I have to say the example in China is different from our current situation.

During that time, Chinese, or people who were physically in China, were those who were actually influenced by the political movement.

However, for today, those who are in the U.S., or in another word, who are able to go to U.S. for conferences, are not influenced by the ban at all. By going to conferences, we are not supporting those who are kept outside of U.S., we only show that there won’t be any changes in the academia even when there are people from these seven countries who are silenced. Unless the conferences have provided full support to ensure those who can’t be on site still have access to their sessions, like set up Skype etc. But to be honest, I haven’t see any of this until right now while I’m typing this.

It always make me sad that when we talk about boycotting U.S. conferences, the focus of our conversations is the rights of those who can travel to U.S. without any obstacle. We were talking about how not going to the U.S. reduces the learning opportunities of those who are at the conferences. The great irony is that as soon as it comes to ourselves, we forget about them.

This is a positive response to bad news, and I appreciate Dr. Hayhoe’s point of view. However, it ignores a few differences. The (currently suspended) travel ban did not come down hardest on American students, activists, or academics, and they do not need our help or assistance at the moment. It’s not like we would provide them with some kind of vital lifeline or contact to the outside world! Further, China did not, after Tiananmen, ban entry to specific groups. Many of our colleagues (and of my own students) would not be allowed into the United States under the terms of Trump’s ban. I will not visit, spend money, or in any way participate in normalizing a place from which some of my colleagues and students are banned. I think we should all cancel academic-professional travel to the United States until it is clear what the current administration plans to do (though in the ban’s abeyance at the current moment, it makes sense to fulfil existing commitments). There is also the issue of privacy rights, which the current administration has stripped from foreign nationals: I will not hand over passwords to electronic devices at any border.

With the greatest respect to Dr Hayhoe, the situation is not the same as post-Tiananmen China, as other commenters have noted. In the current moment, I choose to be in solidarity with those who cannot travel freely, and to reject my own privilege as a white Canadian woman. The fact that my current research involves the study of ancient Iran is just an added reason to look elsewhere for places to share my work.

Dr. Hayhoe’s view is deeply disappointing. As members of academia, at least those of us in social sciences and humanities, we are well familiar with power relations, inequalities, and ethical urges to resist and support civil rights.
First, it is interesting that Dr. Hayhoe is comparing China of four decades ago, a marginalized nation in global context, with the U.S. as the world’s “top dog”. While boycotting China excluded those residing inside China and contributed to their further marginalization from academia, world politics, and global markets, boycotting conferences in the U.S., and I emphasize “conferences” not the whole nation-state, does not contribute to marginalization of scholars residing in the U.S., except for those scholars from the 7 “doomed” countries who cannot leave the U.S., since most of American scholars have the freedom and ability (class, racial, nationality, etc.) to travel elsewhere and participate in academic activities.
Second, any decision in boycotting conferences held in the U.S. should be in context of solidarity with those banned from attending, and should be understood as a sign of resistance to global structural inequalities not as actions to marginalize certain groups. It would be interesting to see if Dr. Hayhoe, and those supporting her views, would hold same opinions on boycotting conferences once their rights to mobility and participation in academia is taken from them on any grounds including gender, nationality, ethnicity, etc?
Dr. Hayhoe’s inability in recognizing such visible differences in drawing on historical cases in presenting her argument, is indeed thought-provoking and should not be left unattended since such views are detrimental to future of our schools, students, and politics.