President Trump's recent Executive Order — prohibiting U.S. entry to citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries and suspending all fugitive visas — has been broadly protested around the world. At last count, more than 2000 academics and scholars have signed a petition calling for an "academic boycott of International Conferences held in the U.S." The petition challenges the "intellectual integrity" of meetings and conferences when so many "Muslim colleagues are explicitly excluded from them."
The petition signatories are certainly right that the travel ban imposes unjustified limits on academic freedom, first by prohibiting the attendance of professors and students from the targeted countries, and also by preventing Americans from hearing from attendees who may have unique and important perspectives and viewpoints. Nonetheless, an academic boycott is the wrong way to oppose the EO.
Cary Nelson, past president of the AAUP has an excellent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education explaining the reasons to reject an academic boycott, It is behind a paywall (though I believe it is accessible from most university libraries or networks), so here is the gist:
On the practical level, the proposal to boycott U.S. academic conferences, as with earlier academic-boycott efforts, effectively punishes some of the most vocal critics of government policy. Indeed, many university presidents have already released letters opposing Trump’s executive order. The enemy is elsewhere. Furthermore, it is hard to believe that the Trump administration, which has shown nothing but contempt for academics and their work, would even register the boycott, much less be moved by it. The only ones who would be hurt are academics.
It would be far better for U.S. faculty and administrators to cancel classes for a day and hold a teach-in about the implications of the executive order. Such teach-ins could help all members of the community learn how to pressure their elected representatives in Congress to overturn Trump’s action.
It might also be possible for scholarly meetings to be moved to Canada, especially if the temporary travel ban is extended or becomes permanent.
Of course, the travel ban imposes many burdens far worse than restricting scholars. It divides families and endangers refugees. Everything possible should be done to terminate it, but, as Prof. Nelson makes clear, an academic boycott will not help.
Hopefully, someone at the AALS will take notice of this and move our next annual meeting to Toronto or better yet … Mexico City!
The order in question states:
"I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order.
… Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked"
In other words, red tape for residents of ""countr[ies] or area[s] of concern" first identified in the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (expanded to all seven countries "of concern" in February 2016).
As stated by the U.S. Customs & Border Protection in November 2016:
"[O]n December 18, 2015, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2016, which includes the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (the Act). The Act, among other things, establishes new eligibility requirements for travel under the VWP. These new eligibility requirements do not bar travel to the United States. Instead, a traveler who does not meet the requirements must obtain a visa for travel to the United States, which generally includes an in-person interview at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate."
Funny, I don't remember the outrage machine going into spasms at that time. Please explain the earth shattering difference now, and, please acknowledge that the order that is so controversial now DOES NOT NAME ANY COUNTRY (contrary to the entire meme promulgated by the Party and its representatives); the order simply incorporates by reference the prior administration's designation of certain countries for special "concern" and extra evaluation.
all the hysterics also need to read the GAO January 17 report entitled:
"BORDER SECURITY
CBP Aims to Prevent High-Risk Travelers from Boarding U.S.-Bound Flights, but Needs to Evaluate Program Performance"
The level of extra scrutiny has amounted to a prescreening process, and the level of extra scrutiny to obtain a waiver would seem to be at most a difference in degree, not kind.
Really, the more the outrage machine exhausts itself the less credibility it will have when the time comes for more justified outrage about something that is truly different from past practices. The constant claim of "unprecedented" conduct (as to policy, not style) is really obnoxious.
Which Executive Order? How about the "two regulation" order. So, if NHTSA mandates better seat belts, they have to remove airbags and wipers? Seriously, an academic boycott would legitimize the leader. Just ignore him and not give him a platform. It would actually backfire if the leader was boycotted. Look at what those ELITEIST are doing.