More on AZ, the MAA, and conferences on women & music

Tags

academia, conferences, feminism, theory

Over at  Blogenspiel, Another Damned Medievalist comments on the MAA-in-Arizona issue. She says it so well, I’m going to quote it here:

I’m NOT surprised that the meeting is going on. A big chunk of money had been spent already, and I can see that the organization’s leadership might have felt that they could not simply write off that kind of investment. I can even see that they would think that it was important to some of the putative presenters’ careers to give papers at the meeting, although at this point, I doubt it would have affected anyone’s funding for travel.

What I AM surprised at, and what really guts me, is that the letter, written by committee or not, expressed absolutely no reference to the laws that those of us who opposed holding the meeting in Tempe objected to, except as some sort of bullshit “collective political action.” This upsets me, I think, because to me, the laws are clearly wrong in a moral sense (and in a constitutional one), and are not at all “political.” And to a certain extent, because I am acquainted with a couple of the members of the Executive Committee, I feel a little sick at not knowing if they willingly characterized racial discrimination as ‘political’ or if they were somehow argued down. It’s not a good feeling.

I’m also upset and, perhaps naively, surprised at how this entire thing has been characterized by some, especially in the Inside Higher Ed comments, as being a ‘leftist’ issue, or a case of ‘political correctness.’ I don’t know how people who have read the US Constitution and know anything about US history can see a support of equal rights and equal protections as being ‘leftist’. Admittedly, I have a dog in this fight — my family includes people of color who are Southeast Asian, African-American, Afro-Caribbean, and Latino. Some of my family members are also gay. But of all of those people, only the Latinos are likely to be personally affected by SB1070. This is a big country, though, and it’s not all about my family — it’s about anybody. I don’t see that this is any different morally than making ethnic minorities wear identifying clothing or denying people of a certain skin color the right to eat with Anglos. Shouldn’t we have reached a point where civil rights are seen as patriotic, rather than partisan?

So that’s why I’m saddened. Not so much about the decision to go on, but about the apparent unwillingness of the leaders of an organization to which I belong to publicly recognize that this is a moral issue at all, or even, at the very least, to publicly recognize that this is a moral and ethical issue for a fair number of the membership. This lack of acknowledgment of something clearly very meaningful to at the least a sizable and vocal majority minority comes across as a lack of respect and a dismissal that is entirely unwarranted and at best, very uncollegial.

I just emailed Sabine Feisst about this, saying that I was sorry that I could neither submit to nor attend Feminist Theory and Music 2011 because of the conference location. Sabine works at Arizona State University, as does her co-organizer of the 2011 meeting, Jill Sullivan. I know that their employer is opposed to the legislation, and I know that both women want to have a good, meaningful conference. So on one hand I’m a little sorry to say no to her about coming to her conference, because running a conference on your campus does often count as service and can be a good thing for tenure and general departmental kudos. On the other hand, with a year to spare, perhaps she and Jill could still work with a colleague elsewhere to relocate the conference and still been in charge of the vast majority of arrangements.

Sabine raised the point that if we boycott Arizona, we should also not go to California (Prop 8 ) or Oklahoma? Nope, we shouldn’t. States where members of the organization holding the conference or presenters at the conference are not welcome shouldn’t get to host academic events. But part of the problem, too, is that while some states have odious laws on the books, they aren’t enforcing those laws. When the AMS met in Texas, the state still had anti-sodomy laws  in place, but they weren’t arresting anyone on them. In Arizona, that’s not quite the case: just look at Arpaio in Maricopa County.

If the FTM and IAWM would issue statements about their decision, and condemning the laws in Arizona, it might make a difference to those of us who would normally like to attend. But with no reassurances and nothing addressing the issue on the conference websites, there’s no way to know what their stances are. As ADM writes, it’s sad. Very, very sad.

Cross-posted at http://academicronin.wordpress.com/2010/08/18/more-on-az-the-maa-and-conferences-on-women-music/.

FTM 11, move your conference!

Tags

academia, conferences, feminism, musicology, theory

I saw a CFP recently for the Feminist Theory and Music 11: Looking Backward and Forward conference. FTM is an annual conference bringing together scholars from many areas to share their research and ideas. I’d love to go. However, the 2011 meeting is being held at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona. This is a major problem. Arizona’s recent racist and unconstitutional laws on immigration and the treatment of its citizens make it impossible for me to support any events held in the state, as well as any groups that sponsor those events.

The Medieval Academy of America is meeting in Arizona this year. In an eloquent open letter posted by Quod She, QS’s friend The General explains why not only will she not be attending, but also why she’s boycotting the MA. It sums up my feelings exactly, so I’m going to repost it here in its entirety.

Dear Medieval Academy,

I just read your recent announcement about your decision to proceed with the 2011 meeting in Arizona. I am deeply disappointed and rather stunned at your decision. As one of the few medievalists of color in the profession and on your membership roster, your decision means that anyone of color (or any shade other than white) will be under surveillance, put in the category of second-class citizen, and generally thought of as a person of suspicion if they even attend the Arizona meeting. As someone who has served for several years on a board of directors that managed a revenue stream of 70 million dollars, I understand the directive of fiduciary responsibility quite well. But I also would like to point out that your choice means that you have chosen monetary gain over human value for your organization. You have decided that diversity and encouraging students and faculty of color to go into Medieval Studies is not a core value of the Academy. Rather, the fiduciary bottom line of the endowment is more important.

Your letter states that you feel that you were not in a position to make a “collective political statement” for the entire group, but yet you have. Your decision means that a minority of your membership will be excluded, treated as alien others, and asked to constantly carry “papers” during their trip. You are asking me and every other member with a skin shade not deemed “American” or an accent not considered “standard” to accept this treatment and see it as just another political issue. When were basic civil rights a partisan political issue rather than an ethical and moral one? It would be one thing if you wanted not to hold a meeting in a state or location because it had voted Democrat or Republican; that would be a partisan “collective political statement.” But you are asking me and any person of color to walk into a state and pretend that being a second-class citizen is fine. When did basic civil rights become a partisan political statement? I was under the impression that all the members of the Medieval Academy believed in civil rights. Or had I and other members been wrong? Is the Medieval Academy still an ivory tower institution that excludes, women, people of color, and the disabled? Is the Academy not interested in supporting their members and equity? For me, these were the issues at stake in your decision. And your answer to these questions were shattering.

Your decision and letter tells me that I should find it acceptable to come to a professional academic meeting and wear a figurative star on my lapel and have my papers potentially checked at every turn. What you are saying to me and every scholar (domestic and international) of color is that discrimination is fine, that equitable treatment in our field is not a priority or an inalienable right. This is the very opposite of community building. You say in your letter that it is about the work that people have done, yet the meeting’s presence in Arizona is going to overshadow the work. I would be queasy discussing Lateran IV’s restrictions and injunctions against Jews and Saracens in a state that is enacting their own version of these laws. The conference will not be an exercise in political free speech; rather it will condone the behaviors that put members of the academy under scrutiny.

Several blog comments discussing this decision have said it would be OK to have the meeting and just organize for political action. I completely disagree because this is not “just” a political issue; you are asking people to be comfortable with other members of the Academy being stopped, asked for papers, possibly arrested, and held for questioning. You are asking that our personal rights be assaulted, abused, and trampled on all to attend a professional meeting.

You are asking too much and therefore I plan to boycott the Medieval Academy and encourage anyone else to do likewise. I do not want to be part of an organization that feels it is acceptable for me to be discriminated against.

Sincerely,
The General

At Unlocked Wordhoard, Richard Scott Noakes writes that no one “imagines that the citizens of Arizona will hear of the dozens of medievalists clamoring for a boycott of their state and say to themselves, “You know what? Now that I know these medieval scholars are unhappy, I think I’ll vote for completely open borders.”” He also thinks that by creating a petition to send to the MAA, scholars are unjustly jeopardizing the professional futures of those who don’t sign the petition. I think Noakes missed the point here. The point isn’t whether anyone signs a petition to the MAA. The point is that no organization, particularly a scholarly one, with real or assumed purposes of education and free thought for all, should be supporting  the economy of a state with unjust laws.

As a delegate to the ACLS, I completely understand what it means to make a committment to a location for a conference. Moving a conference after hotels and other spaces have been booked can mean an enormous loss of money for the hosting organization. However, FTM, unlike larger groups like the AMS or SMT, usually do not commit to blocks of hotel rooms or have to put up large amounts of cash up front for their meetings. Even the AMS moved its annual meeting out of Cincinnati in 1990 when the city indicted the Contemporary Arts Center and its curator, Dennis Barrie, for obscenity for putting on an exhibition of Robert Mapplethorpe’s photography.

FTM 11 , I urge you to reconsider holding your next conference in a city where a significant portion of attendees risk discrimination and, as the General says, second-class treatment. Feminist theory has long grappled with race, class, status, and justice. Would you really discount all of that work to hold a meeting in Arizona?

Cross-posted at http://academicronin.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/no-az-for-me/.