As a member of the MAA, I am extremely disappointed in the decision of the Executive Committee. The sad part about the matter is that due to contractual obligations there was no other way to be fiscally responsible to the Academy and punish the State of Arizona for it's, frankly, reactionist approach to the issue of immigration on the southern US border.

However, once this meeting is over I expect the Executive Committee to cease holding events in the State of Arizona. This is reminiscent of the AHA holding its events in the Manchester Grand Hyatt in San Diego.

I would gladly pay extra annual dues to provide a financial cushion so both the AHA and the MAA could make such decisions (to withdraw) without worrying about penalty fees that could hurt the financial stability of the organization.

Make no mistake, this bothers me a lot.

I expect, as a dues paying member, that our professional organizations live up to the charters and rules we vote on. If we say that as an organization we don't do business with those who discriminate, we should not violate that agreement with members of the Academy.

Discrimination is horrific and ugly, and I am going to have carefully weigh my options as whether to attend the Tempe meeting.

~JC

May you continue to have many such occasions and causes to be "bothered a lot".

I will take your "good" wishes under advisement.

Sometimes, it's not about money.

How utterly precious and so typical of the hermatically-sealed world of the self-absorbed "academics",and not surprisingly, in of all things, "Medieval Studies"

A couple of suggestions to you and your "colleagues":

1. When you take the time to pull your head out of that rusting suit of armor or any other place into which you have inserted it, remember that the PEOPLE of Arizona (TODAY) have much more say in the future of THEIR state than your collection of "scholars" with their view of the world which by its very nature looks BACKWARD to 15 centuries, than forward.

2. Let me remind you that since the AZ law is a REAFFIRMATION of FEDERAL law, I suggest that the MAA take its future conferences to more appropriate sites OUTSIDE of the U.S., such as a rancid bog in England or perhaps dry moat surrounding a crumbling castle in France or a moldy dungeon in Spain or some other setting that supports your antiquated and provincial politics or perhaps a jungle in Pre-Colubian Mexico where I am certain all of your "civic rights" will be upheld even more than in YOUR country today.

Yours is the typical, politically-correct ramblings of mediocrity and arrogance and ignorance. Go back to reading your dusty, old books or sitting in European museums as you study thread-bare tapestries in your leisure.

It is very apparent the modern world as we live it, is too much of a challenge for your "intelligence" and "foresight".

<Comment removed by moderator>

..."What I study and why I study it is irrelevant"
no argument from me.

Now go start another doctorate in something equally as relevant like..."Chicano studies". Don't worry, you will never have to leave your medieval pandering post.

I am not worried, jagoff. You still haven't answered my question. If SB 1070 is a restatement of federal law, what is its purpose?

Goodness me, honore is all masculine and conservative...and bloody ignorant. However shall I live if he thinks my life and my work are irrelevant?

I have a suggestion. Retire.

dear "j",
SB1070 is the "enforcement" of already existing federal policy, which our political clowns are too busy pandering to corporate interests, to enforce.

"jagoff"? what medieval context is that illustrious word from?
"bloody"? a bit "British" are we?

I see many renaissance fairs in your future and the southern end of northbound jackass costume over your foul mouth.

Coje verguenza ya chancleta.

My family recently traveled across the Southwest, again. This time however our car took a different path. It veered sharply to the North, missing the motels and gas stations and restaurants by just enough to not have to spend ($300) any money there. (My Civil Right not to spend money in Arizona).
Medieval studies is an honorable discipline, just like Chicano Studies. Please don't defame the interests of those who founded them and those who wish to research them. I for one, have an interest in both.

Those who govern these groups have a right to make ethical decisions about where they choose to have their annual meetings. Usually such decisions are based on hotel/convention costs. Today and into the future, such costs may begin to creep up as hotel managers find that housecleaning, dishwashing, and late-night- SLAVE wages begin to tick up and docile maids and maintenance slaves become rarer.

On the other hand, Medieval Studies (if the convention includes papers on Medieval Thought) seems like an appropriate convention for Arizona. Where else would you find such backward thought?

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what Medieval Studies chooses to do. Arizona's tourist, housing, and light-industrial sectors are already suffering wage inflation and other small-business declines.

I don't think Chicano Studies would meet in Arizona. Medieval Studies is deliberating over making a moral decision. I hope the decision is just.

Enforcement? Is that the excuse? So SB 1070 is precisely what it appears to be. A usurpation of federal immigration law with a nice touch of racism thrown in.

If the person "appears" to be an illegal immigrant ask for proof of the person's legal residency. So tell me honore, just what does an illegal immigrant look like? Just how qualified are Arizona police officers and sheriff's deputies? Are they trained to recognize illegal immigrants from Europe? Or is it all a brown skinned, Mexico thing?

You started out being nasty and you never are anything less than nasty anywhere you post on this site. I have not seen you post a single message that presented your point of view without some sort of insult in it. So I returned the favor.

I do hope this is not your modus operandi in your real job.

You really present yourself nicely.

Unwissend dummkopf.

As someone with long-time ties with Arizona, I know first-hand that the hatefulness coming from Arizona is the product of the immigrants from the east coast and the midwest that have invaded the beuatiful place over the last couple of decades. Especially in the Phoenix metro area, the east coast and midwest immigrants have had a most nasty effect, and now we see the effect in new state law. I know that the east coast and midwest are better places, for losing the hatemongers who have drained themselves down to Arizona, but Arizona and all of us suffer terribly, from their congregation.

The Medieval scholars should meet by electronic means, when the meeting is held in Arizona. This is too bad for the decent people sponsoring the meeting, since they, of course, desperately want to bring more decent people to the beautiful state, but we really do need to withold and only extract resources from Arizona, as long as it, collectively, makes, affirms, and executes such hateful, inhumane laws.

This is an extremely unpleasant conversation, with name-calling on both sides. Please calm down, everyone. The issue is important, and for that very reason we should avoid raging and ranting.

P.S. And please don't use German words if you don't know German grammar (adjective endings, hint, hint).

Arizona is 30% Hispanic. Boycotts have always had adverse impact on the boycotters as well as the target. So by driving around the state or withholding your dollars from their commerce, you are perpetuating economic disadvantages for Hispanics in Arizona. Fair enough, that's your choice. But we need a better reason than SB 1070 "usurps" the role of the federal government. Under scrutiny there seems to be a bit of a hole in that bucket because..."There are 67 formal agreements between the federal government and state and local criminal justice agencies empowering local officials to enforce immigration laws." But I like the grounds of the argument, if it were true, because it is all we need to say to get rid of the Department of Education...the federal government is usurping the rights of the states to administer education. The racism charge is a bit hard to swallow because, if it were true, it would clearly be unconstitutional. The real question is, how would you know? If 95% of the people crossing the southern border were, say, Hersongovinians and only Mexicans, Guatemalans and El Salvadorians were the only ones being arrested, one would have a case. Unfortunately, when 98% of the illegals crossing the Mexican border are Hispanic, you can not charge it is racist because the majority of people crossing the border who are arrested are Hispanic. Now if you could demonstrate, instead of emote, that Muhammad al Awalki and Franz Whiffenpoofer and Kumar Fangopoopalot were detained and released while every Hispanic was arrested, you'd have a case. My guess is you can't demonstrate any such thing so put that card back in the deck Saul.

JC, (no doubt named after our creator)

Here we go again..., you wrote:

"If the person "appears" to be an illegal immigrant ask for proof of the person's legal residency. So tell me honore, just what does an illegal immigrant look like?
ANSWER: NONE of us can say what an illegal meso-American "looks like", but I can tell you, they DON'T look like the former WHITE president of Mexico, Vicente Fox or the former JAPANESE-descended president of Peru, Alberto Fujimori. And they also don't look like Cameron Diaz or Ricky Martin...get it yet? So play your "racial profiling" charade til you get dizzy doing pirouettes for your like-minded political "allies", nothing will stop charlatans like you except gravity.

You also ask...
"Just how qualified are Arizona police officers and sheriff's deputies? Are they trained to recognize illegal immigrants from Europe? Or is it all a brown skinned, Mexico thing?"
ANSWER: Since MANY of these officers are THEMSELVES are "hispanics" FROM ARIZONA, I would say that is about as informed and insightful a police force as you can find. NO BLIND, Ashkenzy Jewish hermaphrodites on that police force you can be sure.

Seriously, are you really going to continue to argue that NO controls should be applied to the 10s of MILLIONS of illegals that enter this country from ANYWHERE on this planet? That's absurd and I would think that as a professed "scholar" in Medieval Studies you would be more than aware of what happens to ANY society/culture when it loses its autonomy over its borders. I think it's time to do a refresher course in "Medieval" history covering 500AD to the 1500s. Or are you waiting for Minneapolis to be invaded by the legions of MECHA idiots (check that website) who actually profess to include MINNESOTA as part of the Aztec empire?

Really now, defending differing perspectives is one thing, but defending stupidity, counter-productive civic policy, and racist ethno-centric fantasies is quite another.

I have to run now my illegal Mennonite Mexican workers are here to milk the cows. (google or YouTube those "illegals").

It's very disheartening to hear the low-level of "discussion" about this topic, replete with name calling. And you call yourselves adults?!
Calls to cancel the meeting in Arizona were definitely reactionary and emotional, not logical at all. The people who would have been hit hardest by canceling the meeting would have been the workers in Arizona's hospitality industry. And yes, many of them are Hispanic. So, the people you supposedly care so deeply about would have felt a serious economic blow.
And for the record, I'm a medieval historian who finds that the issues we face today are not so different than what the people faced in the Middle Ages (a not-so-backward period after all).

I find your statement “The racism charge is a bit hard to swallow ...” and the rationalizations that follow that statement, and which seem to be intended to negate the racism behind recent events in Arizona, to be rather mendaciously self-serving. You seem to have left out a great many representations and events that have informed the situation that you selectively describe. Why, for instance, would it be appropriate that a hate-group like FAIR should compose a bill like 1070 if the supporters of that bill wished to distance themselves from the charge of racism? Why would sponsorship of such a bill fall to two representatives with long histories of racist associations? Why would it be necessary to call upon neo-Nazis and other hate groups to organize rallies is support of 1070 and these other bills/laws that have attracted the same support and the same criticism? I would suggest that it is unlikely that any care was taken to distance these bills/laws from the charge of racism. Rather, I would suspect that racism is the point, and one need only speak shortly with the racists and hear them boast about their newest Apartheid state, Arizona, in order to seize upon the possibility of that reality. It seems more apparent that Arpaio and Pierce and the rest of those border bigots do not think that Arizona is white enough. I would further suggest that the denials of racist intentions amount to little more than a code intended to grant its practitioners a more public stage for their sales pitch, thereby pretending that racism is not first and foremost in their motivations while speaking words of racism and xenophobia and scapegoating, et cetera, et cetera et cetera, ... I believe it to be the same old story about hate mongers playing politics with the lives of innocent people, about the powerful bullying the powerless, giving thugs an excuse to destroy families in the name of patriotism, and so on. I suspect that, if it were about anything remotely connected to a just cause, this would all be going down in a very, very different way.

Jcisneros, please.

Punishing ". . . the State of Arizona for it's, frankly, reactionist approach" might make some sense, but get your possessive pronouns straight, if you don't mind, or give up pretense to being an academic. Also, please explain the difference between "reactionist" and "reactionary"; surely one such adjective is enough.

Judithryan43 already mentioned German grammar, including adjective endings, so let me just mention that "unwissender Dummkopf," while grammatically correct, still reflects poor vocabulary. "Unknowing" isn't quite right.

Aside from such trivialities, may I suggest that you and all other critics and complainers about the Arizona law actually read it first? It's pretty straightforward, and I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it reactionary or barbaric or whatever. But people let themselves get stampeded, and they forget to think, and the next thing you know, we've got a lynch mob. It's interesting that the left forgets that nobody's immune to lynch mentality; refusing to consider evidence is the first symptom.

"Self-fornicate," indeed. Not much imagination there. Personally, I've had enough of uninformed, demibuttocked yammering about the Arizona law by people who couldn't tell you what the law says if their carbon footprint depended on it.

I have read all sixteen pages of the law a number of times. I think that the words “barbaric” and “reactionary” prove quite insufficient. I would favor some more draconian characterizations but, above all, the words “opportunistic,” “micro-managing,” and “manipulative” come most often to mind. The law seeks to empower private entities or citizens to sue law enforcement officers whenever they do not feel that those officers are acting in a sufficiently exigent fashion. How many lawsuits do you think will be forthcoming from racists and hate groups? The law amounts to a welfare program for racist lawyers. What could possibly go wrong?

Academic children in a sandbox throwing sand and venomous insults in each other's faces. What a pathetic commentary on "academics." With all the political idiocy going on, perhaps we will soon run out of states in which to hold meetings. Is Illinois still on the boycott list for not passing the equal rights amendment several decades ago? Perhaps Venezuela would be a good venue for an academic conference- the political atmosphere there is far more in tune with the views of most academics than is the atmosphere in most states in the US.

Davi2665, I have to agree. Ready to consider everything but the evidence. Why bother with facts when emotion is such fun?

@davi2665,
To my knowledge, nobody is insisting that you play in the same sandbox with us. You are free to pick and choose, as do so many of us. Since you have chosen this particular sandbox to insert yourself, I am curious as to the mechanism that you use in order to link the style of some individual scholars to the whole of academia? Also, how is it that you know the "views of most academics"? Most academics? Not even most medievalists... Perhaps it is a team activity? How many languages are required in order to know the minds of most academics? Is this published somewhere? That would be a great read. Without it, however, some academics might suspect that this link to "most academics" exists nowhere but your own mind, independent of any discernable knowledge, much like the self serving myths passed on by the border bigots concerning the undocumented.

Way back at #1, before the bilateral vitriol fest:

"I expect, as a dues paying member, that our professional organizations live up to the charters and rules we vote on. If we say that as an organization we don't do business with those who discriminate, we should not violate that agreement with members of the Academy."

I am also a dues-paying member of the Medieval Academy, and I'm not sure it's anywhere in our bylaws that "we don't do business with those who discriminate." I'm happy to be corrected, but my understanding is that this is what the MAA promises to do: "to conduct, encourage, promote and support research, publication and instruction in mediaeval records, literature, languages, arts, archaeology, history, philosophy, science, life and all other aspects of mediaeval civilization, by publications, by research and by such other means as may be desirable, and to hold property for such purpose."

jcisneros is free not to attend the Tempe meeting, and also to offer voluntary donations to the MAA to allow it to pull out of confirmed meetings at will. (Unfortunately, s/he is in the minority here, as only 32.7% of the respondents in the MAA's poll on the meeting were willing to help offset the costs of moving it.)

But the issue, rather, (as it was with the AHA) is whether the MAA has the authority or right to make a political choice or voice a political opinion regarding a matter on which its membership may very well be divided. Put simply, some members of the MAA may welcome the AZ law, just as others decry it. (Jcisneros and honore might be shockingly agreed in thinking this is possible, but it is.) For the MAA to commit itself to one side of this debate -- to spend the dues of those who favor the law in order to oppose it -- strikes me not only as setting a complicated and troublesome precedent, but also as indefensible as our current bylaws read. (NB this was one of the reservations expressed by the ExComm in keeping the meeting in Tempe: "the appropriateness of making collective political statements.")

Again, I'm happy to be corrected if jcisneros is aware of something in our bylaws regarding our policy on not doing business with discriminators that I am not. But in the absence of such a policy -- and considering that many medievalists might say that their expertise has taught them the complexity of issues of frontiers, law, and national identity just as it has about otherness -- the MAA's decision strikes this dues-paying member as a sensible one.

nota bene
If the shoe fits, wear it.

The only reason that Arizona (and Southern California) has the population it has is because it has taken most of the Colorado River's water for itself. Arizona belongs to the Uto-Aztecas, not the immigrants to have come to their AiryZona and lived inflated lifestyles on native lands and water. Arizona was the booty from just another immoral war provoked by yankee troops (read Thoreau on your criminal American history). We indigenous people can NEVER be illegal on our own continent. We are the victims, not you. Mexicans are indigenous. All of this continent is their home. They(we) are Indians. Deal with it (or don't).

The fascist mind believes it can control and hide the Frankensteinian world it creates daily. You know the end. It will turn on you because your thinking is flawed. We've got all the time in the World.

Boycotting Arizona in every instance is the only way to make business interests shut the mouths of their petty politicians who live on a desert island of sorts. Getting rid of its "Friday"(border crossers) will bring their power holders to their senses.

Ajua!

May I suggest that, to avoid the vitriol, name-calling, etc., that all future posts be in Anglo-Saxon (or at least solid Chaucerean Middle English)?