This forum aims to begin a public conversation about the question of whether the American Political Science Association (APSA) should hold its 2012 Annual Meeting in New Orleans—a city governed by a Louisiana constitutional amendment legally defining marriage as "the union between one man and one woman." The consequences of this amendment for APSA scholars are discussed in the opinions below.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
January 2008: Special Forum
APSA Practice for Annual Meeting Sites and the 2012 Annual Meeting
American Political Science Association memorandum
[originally posted on http://www.apsanet.org]
Memorandum
TO: APSA Council and Members
FROM: Michael Brintnall, Executive Director
RE: APSA Practice for Annual Meeting Sites and the 2012 Annual Meeting
In response to questions about how APSA selects annual meeting sites, and about the decision to site the meeting in New Orleans in 2012, President Pinderhughes asked if I would prepare the following information and make it available to the Council and membership.
Some of the key background points are this:
- APSA has a signed contract with the Marriott and Sheraton Hotels to hold our meeting in New Orleans in 2012. New Orleans was selected as part of a Council-approved rotation to go to all regions of the country. This contract was signed in 2003, one year before Louisiana adopted a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.
- The contract includes language asserting long-standing APSA policy that if the city establishes or enforces laws that violate civil rights of APSA members we may terminate the contract, including with respect to sexual orientation and marital status. This language was adopted many years ago at the request of the Gay and Lesbian Caucus.
- The Committee on the Status of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and the Transgendered in the Profession has asked this year that this principle be extended to state policy – specifically to states with Constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Twenty-six states have such Constitutional provisions. The Committee’s documentation noted that 19 other states have statutory restrictions limiting marriage to one man and one woman, including many states in which APSA regular holds its meetings. (Only Massachusetts issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples and the remaining states allow different kinds of civil unions.) The LGBT committee themselves did not extend their petition to the states with statutory restrictions.
- The Annual Meeting Review Committee, considering the implications of a 26-state, and possibly a 45 to 49-state, limitation on meeting siting and other issues, recommended that the current city-level policy provision remain the policy.
- The Council accepted the Annual Meeting Review Committee position for the time being, while asking the Committee on the Status of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and the Transgendered in the Profession for further clarification of its recommendation and for continued discussion with the Annual Meeting Committee.
- APSA has deferred making any new annual meeting contracting decisions until the siting policy is resolved. Decisions about the Teaching and Learning Conference site are needed on an annual basis, and we will handle this on a case-by-case basis with wide consultation.
- With respect to the existing contract in New Orleans, if we terminated the contract, our understanding of the worst case is that we could face financial damages to the hotel that could be extreme (e.g. in the realm of the value of the sleeping room revenue the hotel would have expected had the meeting occurred).
Key Questions and Issues:
1) What is APSA policy about picking a meeting site? APSA chooses sites five or more years in advance, with an emphasis on circulating through the regions of the US, going to first-tier cities, and offering affordable hotels near to each other or linked to a convention center with adequate capacity. 1
2) What are provisions about anti-discrimination and civil rights matters? In response to a request from, and in conversation with, the Gay and Lesbian Caucus during Judith Shklar’s presidency in 1990, the Council voted that APSA should only meet in cities where all members are welcome. The contract language agreed upon focused on the behavior of the city, not the state, with particular focus on discrimination in employment, housing, and access to public accommodations. The language reads:
10.02 APSA has selected [name of city] as a site of its annual meeting in light of the city's anti-discrimination record. APSA reserves the right of termination of this agreement, without penalty or liability, if the government of the city in which the hotel is located establishes or enforces laws that, in the estimation of APSA, abridge the civil rights of any APSA member on the basis of gender, race, color, national origin, sexual orientation, marital status, physical handicap, disability, or religion.
3) What did the recent Annual Meeting Review Committee say about this policy? APSA undertook a review of all annual meeting policies this year, and the siting policy was included in this review at the request of the Committee on the Status of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and the Transgendered. The Annual Meeting Review Committee, chaired by Joan Tronto, recommended the existing, city-based, policy continue. Their report said:
1. Non-discriminatory siting. APSA should continue its current practice which permits us to terminate an agreement that abridges the civil rights of APSA members.
Rationale: The current language in the termination section of our standard contract reads: 10.02 APSA has selected [name of city] as a site of its annual meeting in light of the city's anti-discrimination record. APSA reserves the right of termination of this agreement, without penalty or liability, if the government of the city in which the hotel is located establishes or enforces laws that, in the estimation of APSA, abridge the civil rights of any APSA member on the basis of gender, race, color, national origin, sexual orientation, marital status, physical handicap, disability, or religion.
While some members and groups within APSA have asked us to go further in affirming particular policies, this language gives us sufficient latitude to protect the Association's interests and to safeguard the rights and dignity of members. Moreover, we felt any larger change in this policy was a matter for the Council, not for us.
4) What did the APSA Committee on the Status of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and the Transgendered in the Profession (LGBT Committee) propose? In a July 12, 2007 memorandum to the Council, the LGBT Committee proposed a new siting resolution that reads:
Whereas the American Political Science Association would never hold its annual meeting in a state that allocated marriage rights on the basis of race, religion or ethnicity, the APSA shall not hold its national meeting in any state that, in its constitution, allocated marriage rights on the basis of gender or sexual orientation.
The resolution included information indicating that this provision would prevent holding the APSA meeting in 26 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
The documentation included with the resolution showed also that at least another 19 states have similar statutory restrictions limiting marriage to one man and one woman, including many states in which APSA regular holds its meetings. (Only Massachusetts issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples – the remaining states do not allow marriage but do allow different kinds of civil unions.) The LGBT Committee did not extend its petition to the states with statutory restrictions – explaining separately that they felt these states had greater potential to change policy since the provision was not constitutionally grounded.
The Committee memo also indicated they wished the principle in the petition to apply to siting of other APSA meetings such as the Teaching and Learning Conference as well as the Annual Meeting.
5) What action did the APSA Council take at its Chicago meeting in Fall of 2007? The APSA Council discussed the report from the Annual Meeting Review Committee and the proposal from the LGBT Committee, and accepted its recommendation that there not be a “larger change” in the policy at this time. The Council asked the LGBT Committee to fine-tune their proposed language for changing this policy. Matters for further consideration include the timing of the impact of this policy, its implications for APSA’s smaller meetings as well as larger ones, further interpretation of its application to states with constitutional bans but not to those with statutory bans, and other issues.
6) When did APSA select New Orleans as a conference city for 2012? APSA signed its contract in 2003 to hold its annual meeting in New Orleans. The Louisiana constitutional prohibition on same sex marriage was not adopted by the voters until September 14, 2004 – a year after we had contracted to site the Annual Meeting in the State.
7) Why did APSA select New Orleans as a conference city for 2012? Few cities in the South have the characteristics and configuration of space appropriate for the APSA meeting – mainly just Atlanta and New Orleans. We had not selected a southern site in a long time and previous meetings in Atlanta had seen a 14% decline in attendance. In 2003 the only other option in the South that met our configuration and space requirements was New Orleans, a location that had been acceptable previously to the Lesbian and Gay Caucus.
8) What would happen if APSA sought to terminate its contract and to move the meeting? In terms of our contracting with meeting hotels, we would face three kinds of consequences. First is the risk of financial loss from breaking the New Orleans contract. Our anti-discrimination clause is untested and framed to refer to city actions not state actions. Most likely we would be sued and our claims would be tested in court. APSA will require legal counsel to advise us about the legal grounds for terminating the contract, and what our likely liability would be.
In the worst case, we could face extreme financial damages compensating the hotel for the sleeping room revenue the hotel would have expected had the meeting occurred. The legal claim that we could terminate the contract in a state with a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage because civil rights of our members are violated is untested. A further question is whether our legal position is weakened if we terminated a contract in a state with a constitutional ban and then moved to a state with a state statutory ban. APSA will continue to explore these issues.
Second, we would need to find another location. It would be difficult to move the meeting until the legal interpretation of our policy was settled, which could be some time. With a short lead time, it is likely we would face higher costs. And we’d have not had a meeting in the South for many years.
Third, our ability to sign good contracts in the future would be harmed, given a record of having moved two meetings in recent years. This would result in higher costs for members and less options for sites for many years.
9) What are the implications for APSA to adopt a provision about marriage rights? The APSA Constitution says the Association “will not commit its members on questions of public policy nor take positions not immediately concerned with its direct purpose [to encourage the study of Political Science…]” 2
As a rule, this prevents the Association from taking a position on most policy matters. However, if a public policy prevents a member from attending a conference safely, conveniently, and equally, the policy issue may become a legitimate Association concern. For instance, discriminatory lodging policies would certainly impede participation at the meeting, and would be a legitimate policy concern of the Association. A general reason that APSA has based its anti-discrimination policy for annual meeting sites at the level of policies in the city is that such policies can be expected to have an immediate, proximate influence on participation.
In evaluating the proposal that APSA consider state constitutional provisions about marriage rights, one set of questions then arises as to whether this reaches beyond the level of committing members on questions of public policy. One claim has been that gay partners, particularly with children, might find themselves at risk in a state that did not recognize their legal relationship, if it were necessary to make, for example, emergency medical decisions.
Louisiana jurists did attempt to speak to this, when the state constitutional amendment was reviewed and found constitutional by the state supreme court. T he Chief Justice of the Court, Pascal F. Calogero, Jr. wrote:
“I wish to reiterate the majority’s observations, at note 31, concerning the impact of this decision on property and contract rights of unmarried couples. Nothing in the majority opinion would prohibit an unmarried couple from contracting to be co-owners of property, from designating each other agents authorized to make critical end of life decisions, or from leaving property to each other through wills. The majority opinion does not disturb or impair the fundamental contract and property rights possessed by all individuals, be they homosexual or heterosexual, married or unmarried." 3
APSA then may wish to inquire as to the actual civil rights record of the city of New Orleans on LGBT issues, particularly since the amendment was passed.
The APSA constitution tempers the prohibition against our taking positions on matters of public policy by adding: But the Association nonetheless actively encourages in its membership and its journals, research in and concern for significant contemporary political and social problems and policies, however controversial and subject to partisan discourse in the community at large these may be.
10) What is the history of APSA’s moving its Annual Meeting? Site selection for the Annual Meeting has always been constrained, and freedom of choice more imagined than real. Following APSA’s cancellation of its Chicago meeting in protest over the ERA vote, the settlement between APSA and the Hilton Corporation contractually bound APSA for 10 years to meeting only in cities having a Hilton Hotel. For many members, the Annual Meeting has come to mean the Washington, New York, San Francisco, Atlanta, and New Orleans Hiltons.
As the size of the meeting grew, APSA stayed within the contractual commitment to Hilton Hotels in major cities by adding non-Hilton hotels that supplied meeting as well as sleeping rooms. In San Francisco, Washington, Atlanta, New Orleans, and New York, the Annual Meeting functionally became a co-headquarters meeting.
Once the Hilton contract expired, the Association was free to solicit bids and contract with other hotel chains. In the face of competitive bidding, the Marriott and Sheraton chains more often than not have offered more favorable terms than the Hilton chain. The opening up to other hotels expanded the number of cities that could be considered for conventions, though other forces worked to limit choice. Boston and Philadelphia were added to the list of potential sites because, though lacking in Hilton facilities, adequate space could be found at a Marriott or Sheraton or both.
In 2005, APSA exercised a provision in its contract relating to labor actions that might prevent the meeting from proceeding effectively, and moved from San Francisco to Philadelphia. This move did not incur legal or financial consequences because of the performance clause in the APSA contract designed to handle unexpected events that might jeopardize the meeting. The clause reads:
10.01 Performance
Neither party shall be responsible for any failure of performance due to acts of god, war, government regulation, disaster, labor disputes and strikes, civil disorder, curtailment of transportation facilities, shortage of commodities or supplies to be furnished by the {hotel name}, or other emergencies making it inadvisable, illegal or impossible to provide the facilities or to hold the meeting in the hotel or city as originally planned. It is provided that this agreement may be terminated for any one or more of such reasons by written notice from one party to the other.
[a] The Hotel shall provide APSA written notification of pending labor contract terminations or changes.
[b] The Hotel shall advise APSA of city-wide conditions that would affect the meeting, especially strikes of public transportation and safety workers and renovation of transportation services and routes.
The San Francisco hotel could very well have challenged the clause. It is impossible to document, but there was a built-up trust between the hotel and APSA due to reliability of the Association’s past performance that certainly worked in APSA’s favor.
11) What other steps is APSA taking now? APSA has deferred making any future annual meeting siting decisions while these issues raised are addressed. Decisions about the Teaching and Learning Conference are needed on an annual basis. We will make these decisions on a case-by-case basis with wide consultation .
The Council, at its August meeting, asked for further study and recommendations from the Committee on the Status of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and the Transgendered in the Profession and from the Annual Meeting Committee, and is itself framing a number of questions regarding whether lesbian and gay partners can have their civil rights to make emergency decisions respected the specific legal vulnerabilities in various cities where we meet.
1 a. Contracts for meetings are signed 4-5 years out, sometimes longer, to secure a particular site; and multiple-year contracts are sought to secure concessions and lower rates.
b. Selecting Region. There is a longstanding practice that the meeting should rotate through regions as well as return to Washington, D.C. every five years unless the cost of doing so are unreasonable. There is not a fixed rotation to the regional representation so that possible sites in different regions can compete for the meeting. The selection of the region also allows for movement between cities within a region if possible.
c. First-Tier Cities. The Council has affirmed that the meeting should be held in first-tier cities, i.e. major metropolitan areas such as Washington, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, etc. The cities also are also major air hubs to facilitate travel to and from the meeting. The cities offer variety of cultural experiences and broad range of restaurants.
(1). Cities we’ve customarily used are Washington, DC, Boston, Chicago, New Orleans, San Francisco, New York.
(2). Cities also used: Atlanta, Philadelphia, Denver (no longer big enough), Toronto.
(3). Capacity. A city must provide sufficient meeting rooms (75+) and exhibit halls, and sufficient sleeping rooms (in 2007 the room block on peak night committed for 3375 attendees for a total meeting attendance of 6925). The city must also be able to provide an all-space hold on space from Wednesday through Sunday unless the Association agrees to release the space. Hotel groups within a city are encouraged to compete with each other.
e. Cost. The hotels competing for the meeting must offer low rates. The meeting has remarkably low rates aided by its meeting history and the timing of the meeting.
2 The full language is:
1. It shall be the purpose of this association to encourage the study of Political Science, including Political Theory, Political Institutions, Politics, Public Law, Public Administration, and International Relations.
2. The Association as such is nonpartisan. It will not support political parties or candidates. It will not commit its members on questions of public policy nor take positions not immediately concerned with its direct purpose as stated above. But the Association nonetheless actively encourages in its membership and its journals, research in and concern for significant contemporary political and social problems and policies, however controversial and subject to partisan discourse in the community at large these may be. The Association shall not be barred from adopting resolutions or taking such other action as it deems appropriate in support of academic freedom and of freedom of expression by and within the Association, the political science profession, and the university, when in its judgment such freedom has been clearly and seriously violated or is clearly and seriously threatened.
3 The source is available at http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2005/04ca2477.opn.pdf
An Open Letter to the Political Science Community
by Daniel R. Pinello
In 2003, the American Political Science Association (APSA) selected New Orleans as the site for its 2012 annual meeting.
In 2004, 78 percent of Louisiana voters (including 54 percent in Orleans Parish) passed the following amendment to their state constitution:
Marriage in the state of Louisiana shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall construe this constitution or any state law to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any member of a union other than the union of one man and one woman. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized. No official or court of the state of Louisiana shall recognize any marriage contracted in any other jurisdiction which is not the union of one man and one woman.
This language both limits marriage to different-sex couples and denies to same-sex pairs all “legal incidents” of marriage that arise from civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other familial arrangements. In other words, as a matter of state constitutional law, coupled lesbians and gay men can be nothing other than legal strangers to one another in the Pelican State.
In 2005, the APSA’s Committee on the Status of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and the Transgendered in the Profession adopted a resolution calling for the Association not to hold conventions in states with constitutional prohibitions of same-sex marriage. During the next two and a half years, sundry APSA committees considered the LGBT Status Committee’s siting resolution. But the organization as a whole never acted on the request.
In late 2007, I circulated e-mail messages to APSA members calling for the Association to relocate the 2012 convention and otherwise to boycott New Orleans.
That APSA holds annual meetings in states with constitutional provisions, like that of Louisiana, impedes the ability of LGBT political scientists to participate in the Association and to progress in the profession.
For instance, the domestic partners and children of LGBT members travel with them to conventions. Lee, my own partner of 12 years, has gone with me to meetings in Chicago and San Francisco. Were I to be hospitalized or otherwise incapacitated while visiting New Orleans in 2012, I would want Lee to make medical and other decisions on my behalf. However, under the Louisiana amendment, we could not do that for each other, because health care proxies, hospital visitation authorizations, and other documents between same-sex couples are invalid incidents of marriage under the constitutional language.
This example is not hypothetical. I will be sixty-two years old in 2012. My mother died at that age, and my father passed a few years later. This year, I was diagnosed to have asthma. So Lees being legally stripped of any capacity to assist me medically in the Crescent City is a serious concern for me. I would not want him to face the question from medical staff in Louisiana, “Are you a member of Dan’s family?” In short, only heterosexual families would be welcome at a New Orleans annual meeting.
The APSA’s current refusal to relocate the 2012 convention hits LGBT graduate students and junior faculty with particular force. They will face the Hobson’s choice of, on the one hand, subjecting themselves and their families to an overtly hostile legal environment while in the Big Easy or, on the other hand, not attending the conference and missing its opportunities to interview for jobs and to present papers in order to advance careers.
What is more, the Association established a relevant precedent a generation ago when it refused to hold conventions in states that had not ratified the federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). That policy precluded meetings in Chicago, because Illinois never approved the ERA.
Hence, while the APSA was fully prepared twenty-five years ago to battle gender discrimination, the organization is not willing today to combat sexual-orientation discrimination with similar resolve. Instead, by confirming New Orleans for an annual meeting, the Association condones the condemnation of same-sex couples to the legal purgatory that Louisiana, and the Crescent City itself, authorized in 2004.
If the Pelican State Constitution in effect said, “People of color may not marry or enter into marriage-like unions,” or “Jews may not marry or enter into marriage-like unions,” or “Disabled people may not marry or enter into marriage-like unions,” the APSA would not be mired in the present debate. The organization would never regard New Orleans as a viable conference site under those circumstances. Yet for two and a half years, the Association has been—and continues to be—willing to overlook the Louisiana Constitution’s prohibition of marriage and civil unions for same-sex couples.
By far, the most frequent reproach to the embargo on the Crescent City stems from the heartfelt need to show solidarity with the Big Easy after the natural devastation and political debacle of Hurricane Katrina. Yet consider the practical reality of the APSA’s solidarity commitment: “Hold on, New Orleans! We’re coming to your rescue! Our help is on the way! Just give us five years to get down there.” If Association members truly want to demonstrate meaningful affinity with the plight of the Crescent City, they should make financial contributions to its rebuilding effort now, and not just attend a conference there seven years after the hurricane.
My partner Lee’s brother-in-law, Jeff, is a clinical psychologist and was among the first American Red Cross volunteers permitted to enter New Orleans after Katrina’s landfall. Balancing the demands of his own patients back home in Schenectady, NY, Jeff donated full-time counseling services to hurricane victims by means of three two-week trips to the Big Easy staggered over several months. Now that is solidarity, while three days of convention-going over Labor Day Weekend in 2012 is symbolic support at best.
And why should such purely symbolic aid be borne on the backs of LGBT colleagues? They would face in the Crescent City the real and enduring impact of the Pelican State’s inhospitable legal environment.
The Status Committee’s conference-siting resolution eliminates just Atlanta and New Orleans from the cities with convention facilities that have been sufficient in the past to accommodate the Association’s annual gatherings. Boston, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Toronto, and Washington are, and will remain, viable venues for conferences. Surely this list is adequate to suit the organization’s siting needs.
I have faith that the American Political Science Association has the capacity—and can summon the compassion—to ensure that all of its members are treated with dignity and respect at annual meetings. I hope that its leadership and members share my belief.
Daniel R. Pinello is Professor of Government at John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York and the author of America’s Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage (Cambridge University Press, 2006) and Gay Rights and American Law (Cambridge University Press, 2003).
Discrimination and Inclusivity: Why APSA Should Not Meet in New Orleans
by Martha Ackelsberg and Mary Lyndon Shanley
The American Political Science Association (APSA) should move the site of its 2012 Annual Meeting from New Orleans for two reasons: first, because the legal recognition and protection of same-sex unions is an issue of human rights and equal citizenship, and second to fulfill its own long-stated commitment not to go to localities with policies that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. As a professional organization, it has a responsibility to ensure that every member of the association enjoys the full benefits of membership and an inclusive environment at meetings
We raise the issue of human rights because these comments are appearing in a forum sponsored by Human Rights & Human Welfare, and it seems important, in this context, to state our view on that aspect of the discussion. We do not argue that same-sex marriage is a human right; marriage is a political status, a specific creation of the state. Its meanings vary widely around the globe. What is a human right is the ability to form intimate relationships of emotional support and interdependency, and to have those relationships receive the protection of civil society. The possibility of sustained intimacy is fundamental to human wellbeing. Where relationships that provide the possibility of such intimacy are called “marriage” and are recognized and protected by the state, then the availability of such relationships to all, regardless of the sexual orientation of the partners, is a matter of human and civil rights.
Given these views, we find Louisiana’s constitutional amendment declaring that “Marriage in the state of Louisiana shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman” wrong on both moral and political grounds. Further, in stipulating, additionally, that “a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized,” Louisiana refuses to recognize the actions of other states and jurisdictions where popular majorities or courts have extended benefits to same-sex couples. This provision constitutes a slap in the face to federalism as well as to queer citizens.
But, it seems to us, the more relevant issue in this case is the APSA’s own commitment to inclusivity, expressed in a variety of policies enjoining it from meeting in localities that discriminate against its members. In earlier decades, that commitment led to the Association’s not holding any meetings in Chicago until Illinois ratified the Equal Rights Amendment. More recently, the Council extended that protection to gays and lesbians, and decided not to meet in cities with anti-sodomy laws in effect. Current policy commits the Association not to meet in localities that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. At issue now, then, is what constitutes “discrimination” by a locality? We suggest that locating the line between discrimination and inclusivity entails answers to two questions: Do the policies of a particular state or locality deny the equal rights and dignity of APSA members? Do they limit or constrain the ability of LGBT members to attend the Association’s meetings with equal freedom?
The issues in New Orleans are not simply symbolic. It might be argued that a denial of the right to marry in a locality where the conference is happening is not of major significance: people do not normally expect to take time off in the midst of APSA meetings in order to get married. But the Louisiana amendment denies to same-sex couples any of the “incidents of marriage.” This goes beyond the right to marry. As Dan Pinello notes, any persons in same-sex relationships who were hospitalized and needed a partner to act on their behalf would have to have a legally-executed health care proxy, even if they were from a state in which they were married or partners in a civil union. Is illness requiring a partner to make medical decisions on one’s behalf likely? No. Is it possible that such a situation could arise? Yes. And if it were to arise, hospitals would be uncertain of their responsibilities and liabilities, delay and confusion would ensue, legal costs could be incurred by the person who was ill. In short, Louisiana does significantly limit the rights of LGBT people who are living or visiting there; and such limits constitute discrimination. Furthermore, meeting in a place with such limits would undermine what should be the APSA’s goal of creating an atmosphere in the organization and all its meetings that is genuinely inclusive.
It is not enough that APSA not itself discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; it has to make sure that every member feel equally welcome and included. No policy of APSA discriminated against women at the time that APSA refused to meet in Chicago. Women were not more in danger on the streets of Chicago than in other US cities. But the rejection by the Illinois legislature of the principle that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged on the basis of sex” struck the membership and Council as creating an environment that flew in the face of APSA’s commitment to its female members to provide them not just with formal rights within the organization, but with an inclusive and welcoming atmosphere. Despite our strong desire and our individual commitment to support the citizens of New Orleans in their effort to rebuild in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, we believe that APSA’s commitment to non-discrimination and to the equal dignity of all its members precludes holding the Annual Meeting in that city.
Martha Ackelsberg is William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of Government and of the Study of Women and Gender at Smith College. She is the author of Free Women of Spain: Anarchism and the Struggle for the Emancipation of Women and has published numerous articles and book chapters on democratic theory, citizenship, Spanish anarchism, women’s activism, and reconstructing families. She is currently at work on Resisting Citizenship: Feminist Essays on Politics, Community, and Democracy.
Mary Lyndon (Molly) Shanley is Professor of Political Science on the Margaret Stiles Halleck Chair at Vassar College. She is author of Feminism, Marriage and the Law in Victorian England (Princeton, 1989), Making Babies, Making Families: What Matters Most in an Age of Reproductive Technologies, Surrogacy, Adoption, and Same-Sex and Unwed Parents (Beacon, 2001), and Just Marriage, ed. Deborah Chasman and Joshua Cohen (Oxford University Press, 2004). Her current work is on feminist perspectives on social justice issues in family formation.
Choices Matter: Human Rights, Economic Solidarity, and the 2012 APSA Meeting
by Michael Goodhart
I believe that because Louisiana’s constitution violates the human rights of many of our colleagues, the American Political Science Association (APSA) should move its 2012 meeting from New Orleans. If it does not do so, I would urge members to boycott (the same applies to the Southern Political Science Association, which meets annually in New Orleans).
I do not find the contractual arguments outlined in the Association’s Memorandum on APSA Practice for Annual Meeting Sites and the 2012 Annual Meeting persuasive. The contractual language used by APSA states that “APSA reserves the right of termination of this agreement, without penalty or liability, if the government of the city in which the hotel is located establishes or enforces laws that, in the estimation of APSA, abridge the civil rights of any APSA member on the basis of…sexual orientation…” (emphasis added). That the city did not enact the law is irrelevant; presumably city officials will enforce the laws of their state. Moreover, the contract includes a clause specifying that “Neither party shall be responsible for any failure of performance due to acts of…government regulation…making it inadvisable, illegal or impossible to provide the facilities or to hold the meeting in the hotel or city as originally planned” (emphasis added). If a constitutional amendment is not an instance of government regulation, I do not know what would be. Finally, the issue of marriage rights is, as Ackelsberg and Shanley argue, a red herring. It is the reference to “incidents of marriage” that makes the Louisiana amendment particularly pernicious.
Probably the most persuasive arguments against moving the conference have to do with showing solidarity with the people of New Orleans. It is at least possible that the facilities for which APSA had contracted might remain empty or under-utilized, causing economic hardship to their owners, operators, and employees (who might anyway not support the statewide laws). Thus moving the meetings poses a problem familiar to human rights scholars and advocates: sanctions often end up hurting the wrong people. There is also the question of supporting the people of New Orleans, whose plight in the wake of Hurricane Katrina remains a national shame. While the city was chosen two years before the storm hit, keeping the meeting there registers a vote of confidence in its eventual recovery, both symbolically and financially. Once again, the issue is one with which students of human rights are familiar: what to do in cases where rights or goods come into conflict?
Such questions are most difficult in cases where two basic rights conflict. Here that does not seem to be the case. A simple illustration shows two reasons why not. If a store owner in my neighborhood refuses to serve Muslims, he cannot complain that my boycotting his shop violates his economic rights. While economic rights—including the right to a guaranteed subsistence—are fundamental, these rights do not include a right to another person’s or group’s custom. This principle is well-established: many human rights campaigns, from the civil rights movement in the United States to the global anti-Apartheid campaign, relied on boycotts to achieve their aims. Doing so is perfectly legitimate: there is no right to ill-gotten gains. The other point that the example of the shopkeeper makes clear is that choices make a difference. My boycott of his store is based on policies he has chosen. The people of Louisiana and of New Orleans have made a choice; it is perfectly legitimate—indeed, it is ethically imperative, in my view—that they be made to understand and bear the consequences of their choice. As political scientists, we should understand that politics matter.
As others have pointed out, if the Louisiana constitution singled out blacks or women or Jews or Hispanics or disabled people, this debate would probably not be occurring. The only explanation for this discrepancy that I can come up with is that somehow some of us regard the human rights of our LGBT colleagues as less important than those of other colleagues. Perhaps few people would admit this openly, yet it is hard to make sense of the debate otherwise. We seem to be saying that some (other) people’s human rights can legitimately be traded off or balanced against more pragmatic concerns. Perhaps this is simply a case of ignorance or thoughtlessness. Still, I am troubled by the possibility that this issue reflects a disturbing national trend toward treating torture, domestic spying, racial profiling, preventive detention, harassment of legal immigrants, and other human rights abuses as acceptable costs for others to bear for our (perceived) safety or convenience. A commitment to democracy and human rights requires vigorous opposition to such tendencies wherever they appear.
Michael Goodhart is Associate Professor of Political Science and Women’s Studies at the University of Pittsburgh. His research focuses on democratic theory and human rights, especially in the context of globalization. He has published on these subjects in Human Rights Quarterly, Perspectives on Politics, the Journal of Human Rights, Polity, and elsewhere. Goodhart’s first book, Democracy as Human Rights: Freedom and Equality in the Age of Globalization, was published by Routledge in 2005. He is book review editor at Polity and a past president of the APSA organized section on human rights. For more information visit www.pitt.edu/~goodhart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
