November 18, 2008

Scholars Boycott Annual Meeting of National Communication Association

More than 300 members of the National Communication Association are boycotting the Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel, in San Diego, where the association is scheduled to begin its annual meeting on Friday.

The group is staging the boycott to protest a $125,000 donation by the hotel’s owner, Douglas Manchester, to a group called ProtectMarriage.com, which backed Proposition 8, a ballot measure approved by California voters on November 4. Proposition 8, which was designed to reverse a California Supreme Court decision that allowed same-sex marriage, says that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid” in California.

The group of protesting scholars also says it is conducting the boycott in solidarity with workers and union organizers who have accused the Hyatt Hotel of unfair labor practices. Instead of attending the communication-association meeting, the protesters are holding an “UNconvention” with 120 panel presentations at other hotels, parks, and alternative sites in the city.

Betsy W. Bach, a professor of communication studies at the University of Montana who planned the annual meeting’s program, said the association signed a contract with the Hyatt in 2001 and would lose nearly $750,000 if it moved the meeting out of the hotel.

“It would just be too much of a hit on our organization,” she said. However, the association has moved to another hotel the sessions for its division and caucus on gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, and queer concerns. —Robin Wilson

Comments

1. What about Douglas Manchester’s right to free speech? These antics are childish. They did not get their way so now they stage a tantrum. If you don’t like the vote of the people, work to change minds in future. Don’t make yourselves and your ideas look foolish!

   — Sage Advice    Nov 18, 03:49 PM    #

2. Douglas Manchester’s free speech rights are in no way violated by a boycott. A boycott is a form of free speech as well.

   — Gary    Nov 18, 03:54 PM    #

3. Mr. Manchester has every right to free speech and to donate his money on whichever cause he chooses. However, that does not insulate him from the consequences of those choices (he’s not being imprisoned or silenced by his government or officials ). Nor does it mean that others do not ALSO have the right to disagree and speak with their “feet” or choosing where they spend THEIR dollars.

   — Just a thought    Nov 18, 03:56 PM    #

4. So much for the democracy values, and tolerance… The fact that a whole group of scholars hold the same opinion, the same beliefs, and chose the boycott as their way to express their disagreement, is not just a simple reaction toward a totally democratic law, but it is a demonstration of force against the majority, it is a rebellion against the democracy itself — it is really revolutionary… I don’t know why it reminds me the that song… Another brick in the Wall — yeah, I can even picture these “scholars” marching under the rhythm of the song… Line up boys… Revolution is calling you…

   — IC    Nov 18, 03:57 PM    #

5. Free speech has a price.

   — sol    Nov 18, 03:58 PM    #

6. The problem is that some members decided to do this in the name of NCA without any official support of the organization. Those members who have spoken out against the boycott — or even given legitimate reasons why they won’t be participating receive chiding emails in their personal accounts. The whole thing has been handled very, very poorly — and those in favor of the boycott are not willing to listen to compromise or other viewpoints.

   — Kathy    Nov 18, 04:00 PM    #

7. Good for the boycotters and also for the second post above. How in the world can anyone expect an LGBT scholar (or our allies) to spend money that enriches our political enemies?

   — Carol    Nov 18, 04:01 PM    #

8. This is exactly the right move. Nothing foolish about it. In fact, I hope and trust other professional organizations will follow the NCA’s lead. If you need help finding targets for your boycott—and many of these companies have a nationwide footprint and bungled badly by involving themselves in the Prop 8 idiocy—just google “boycott proposition 8” and go to town. As for the organization speaking on behalf of its members, that’s an internal matter and if the members object, then the leadership will be voted out. The APA (philosophy) faced this issue when it put out an anti-war resolution. If we don’t stand for these things in our professional organizations, where else can we stand?

   — bp    Nov 18, 04:07 PM    #

9. IC, the laws establishing Apartheid in South Africa and segregation in the United States were also democratic. They were still wrong.

   — Daisy    Nov 18, 04:08 PM    #

10. Probably most of us support free speech, although lately we’ve noticed that at many universities the concept has been seriously curtailed. What bothers me—and perhaps some others—is when our professional organizations are used to espouse political positions that many members may or may not agree with.

    — James D. Williams    Nov 18, 04:11 PM    #

11. Suppose a number of scholars who opposed same-sex marriage had boycotted a convention at a hotel whose owner had contributed to efforts in favor of same-sex marriage. How many of the opinions above would undergo immediate volte-face? Is free speech okay so long as it adheres to the proper line? Is protest okay so long as it’s on the right side?

    — Dan    Nov 18, 04:20 PM    #

12. bp—
    You’re all missing the point. NCA’s conference is about sharing scholarship. There were ways that this could have been done appropriately. This isn’t hurting Mr. Manchester one way or the other. But it is sure hurting the organization. I am in support of gay rights, so don’t draw conclusions. I, however, stand by my statement that this has been handled horribly and the organizers of the boycott have been insensitive to people’s concerns.

    — Kathy    Nov 18, 04:22 PM    #

13. IC #4 – The secession of Southern states in 1861 to (among other things) hold on to the institution of slavery was also a “rebellion against the majority” and a “revolution.” Luckily for the slaves, it was defeated and the seceding states were gradually reunited into our great country with (very gradually and not entirely completely) civil rights restored to all its citizens. Peaceful, organized protests and boycotts like this one by a subset of NCA members are always necessary to expand and defend civil rights, along with the one-on-one mind-changing that you advocate. As a San Diegan who married my longtime partner this summer, I and those who support me have every right to protect my marriage and restore the right to marriage to all other GLBT Californians. Peaceful organized protests are as much a part of the way a democracy works as mind-changing, voting, and of course supporting causes and candidates with financial contributions (which Mr. Manchester did, and which I do not dispute his right to do). I also do not disagree with #10 and #11. You would have every right not to attend a conference in Mass. or Conn. if you are offended by its inclusive marriage laws; you have every right to drop out of an organization and form another one or to organize like-minded people within it to overturn a decision.

    — Rob    Nov 18, 04:27 PM    #

14. Unfortunately, these boycotts tend not to do anything. The signed contract between the hotel and the scholarly association is binding, and the hotel gets paid no matter what, meaning that they get money for providing no service. It’s precisely the wrong thing to do, as it financially benefits the target of the protest and harms the protesters. The American Anthropological Association found that out four years ago.

    — Gregory Starrett    Nov 18, 04:58 PM    #

15. The publicity, however, helps in discouraging other organizations from signing contracts with the hotel or other business for future conferences. The action by the sub-group also makes the group’s members as a whole more conscious of their collective actions. And, although the basic meeting rooms have been paid in advance, attendees can and do choose to spend less money in the restaurants and bars within the hotel and may cancel some of their own room reservations.

    — Rob    Nov 18, 05:59 PM    #

16. It’s so simple: gay marriage supporters also have the right of free speech,including boycott.

    Well done!

    — InChina    Nov 18, 06:21 PM    #

17. Hmm…it’s OK for Manchester to exercise his free speech by donating $125,000 to end the legal marriages of homosexual couples, but it’s not OK for 300 members of a communication organization to exercise their free speech (action is speech, not so?) by refusing to have their money benefit Manchester’s business?

    Oh, yes, on the matter of totally democratic laws…for centuries many states had totally democratic laws against “miscegenation” (1661, Virginia, was just the beginning.) How delightful that today we have a president-elect who represents the richness of that reviled blending. IC, put your cultural relativism on ice! Because a majority says it’s so does not make it right.

    — BE!    Nov 18, 06:31 PM    #

18. I’m all for freedom to speak one’s mind, as well as how one spends one’s money.

    On the other hand, members of a group of Americans who just happen not to fit the majority’s mindset concerning sexual orientation have consistently been denied their constitutional rights as equals to any an all of their fellow citizens. Unlike other Americans gay men and women are denied the right to marry each other legally in all but 2 of the 48 states in the union. Indeed, the current Vice President of the United States of America’s daughter Mary and her partner would not be able to adopt a child in the state of Arkansas.

    Mr. Manchester has every right to speak his mind via how he contributes his money; however, it would have been better for the NCA to forgo holding the annual meeting in his facility. Money is easy enough to replace, whereas civil rights are often times won only through much hardship and even military conflict. Ms. Bach acted in a small minded way, with absolutely no regard for the gay and Lesbian members of the Association. For example, by sticking with Mr. Manchester’s hotel, he gains even more money, whereas if the group had gone elsewhere he might not have been able to break even for the week.

    It is difficult to imagine any liberally educated professor being in agreement with Mr. Manchester’s views. He may well have personally donated the money as a means to avoid his religious afilitation from being accused of political action, which could put the religious group in line for having tax exampt status revoked.

    The NCA owes members who are gay or Lesbian an apology.

    — JR    Nov 18, 06:52 PM    #

19. Well what are Lesbian and Gay comic book fans going to do come San Diego Comic Con time when the whole town is booked out?

    — Comics Guy    Nov 18, 07:13 PM    #

20. Two sociology conferences are scheduled for California this year, including the American Sociological Association. I’d be in favor of moving the entire ASA meeting away from California this year to protest the passage of Prop 8.

    — SA    Nov 18, 07:16 PM    #

21. JR “ The NCA owes members who are gay or Lesbian an apology.” For what? Holding their convention in a hotel that belongs to a chain that consistently ranks as one of the BEST employers for gays/lesbians and bisexuals? Because the Hyatt is on that list. This is the part that is somehow lost in this conversation. NCA is NOT a political organization. At least it isn’t supposed to be. And this boycott should have either come up for a vote by the membership — or simply not happened at all.

    — Kathy    Nov 18, 07:23 PM    #

22. Although 52% of California voters passed Prop 8, California is still way ahead of most of the rest of the country (including NY State) in recognizing LGBT relationships and being in general an excellent place for LGBT folks to live and work. Unless you moved your sociology conference to Mass. or Conn., why punish California as a whole, #20?

    — Rob    Nov 18, 07:42 PM    #

23. Kathy, the NCA surely knows communication, and should know that money talks! Spending money which gives money to Manchester TALKS…a loud action of approval with political consequences.

    Spending money in California with groups that support federal constitutional rights for equal treatment would seem more appropriate than boycotting California as a whole. Nevertheless I would advocate giving preference to Mass. and CT for any group that understands the critical constitutional issues…and avoiding Arkansas entirely for its depriving some children of any opportunity to be raised with loving parental support.

    — BE!    Nov 18, 08:11 PM    #

24. Good for them. They have every right to disdain this bigot—this wealthy, absolutist and ignorant bigot.

    — William L. Graham    Nov 18, 08:30 PM    #

25. Before evaluating/judging the rights and wrongs of the situation, one should read the Hyatt Corporation’s information about the Manchester Grand Hyatt.

    (http://www.nsba.org/Conference/hotel/hyatt_update.cfm)

    Mr. Manchester’s personal statements and actions are not reflective of the inclusive, collaborative and diverse culture enjoyed by Hyatt employees. The Manchester Grand Hyatt has an employee base of more than 1,200 people representing 52 countries, not to mention an unmatched record of treating its employees fairly and protecting their employment rights.
    The Hyatt Corporation has been given a 100 percent rating on the Human Rights Campaign’s 2009 Corporate Equality Index. HRC is the largest national advocacy organization in the United States for the LGBT community.
    Employees at the Manchester Grand Hyatt, as with other Hyatt properties, are offered domestic partner benefits and Hyatt has a strong record of non-discriminatory policies in all Hyatt Hotels, including the Manchester Grand Hyatt.

    “The group of protesting scholars also says it is conducting the boycott in solidarity with workers and union organizers who have accused the Hyatt Hotel of unfair labor practices.”
    There is no official labor dispute at this hotel because the Manchester Grand Hyatt is a non-union hotel. In addition, hotel employees have elected not to join the union.

    Now, these statements might be challenged, but they should at least be considered in any response.

    ps: The NCA has 7700 members (How many are attending?). 300 is a small number. Why not an article about the thousand(s?) who feel, perhaps, that the boycott imperils the income of the hotel’s 1200 employees, not its owner’s?

    — richard    Nov 18, 08:50 PM    #

26. Rob—why boycott California? It’s a good question, and I’m still grappling with it. Alaska was the target of a successful tourism boycott a few years ago, when the state’s practice of exterminating wolf packs by helicopter stirred the nation’s conscience. State officials responded to the tourism boycott with alarm, as tourism is the state’s second most important industry. And they changed state policies to save the tourism industry. Both the American Sociological Association (ASA) and the Pacific Sociological Association (PSA) have official statements requiring sociologists to act in ethical and non-discriminatory ways. Prop 8 revised CA’s constitution to deny a certain class of its citizens equality under the law. And this demands some action from sociologists. Withholding our dollars is one strategy.

    — SA    Nov 18, 10:46 PM    #

27. Those outside California may not realize that the proposition was failing in the polls until a last minute influx of Utah money – millions of dollars – and Utah people, led by the Mormon Church, worked to spread lies and fear-mongering among mainstream California voters… I’m boycotting Utah at this point. Californians should be angry that out-of-state interests are setting our state’s laws.

    — Fed up with intolerance    Nov 19, 12:35 AM    #

28. NCA is not the only one protesting. Since AERA 2009 meets in San Diego and had designated the Manchester Hyatt as a headquarters hotel, AERA’s president recently sent out a lengthy message to members about this. It detailed how the organization will re-organize its events to move as much of its business as possible from that site. She said they would have canceled their contract with them entirely, but that would only benefit them and penalize AERA.

    — MDR    Nov 19, 06:51 AM    #

29. BE-
    “Kathy, the NCA surely knows communication, and should know that money talks!” That would be great logic if NCA as an organization had decided to do this. NO— instead it was a group of members who ON THEIR OWN decided there needed to be a boycott. This is a once a year convention, in which people are supposed to present their research. THAT has been what is lost in the mix. At this point, I’m not even sure what the point of the convention is. I just know that for many scholars, our departments expect participation and we have no choice. I wonder who will try to ruin the conference in Chicago next year. There’s a running start, everyone. What can you dig up there?

    — Kathy    Nov 19, 07:02 AM    #

30. Some information for those who are interested:

    The 300 boycotters (and that’s probably not accurate) is in any event a small fraction of the membership (<4%) and of the expected attendees (<6%).

    The 120 panels that were relocated to the Embassy Suites next door are a similarly small fraction of panels.

    The hotel would due payment even if the convention were moved, but fear not, they are providing their services, the block of sleeping rooms is full, and 90%+ of the programs will be held there.

    — k    Nov 19, 07:52 AM    #

31. #11:

    A common, and completely invalid, form of argument is “If the shoe were on the other foot, it’d be the people on other side of the issue who’d be howling.”

    It would take a clairvoyant, wouldn’t it, to know this for sure? (That’s why the Supreme Court, for instance, won’t rule on hypothetical cases. Or, as that great philosopher Dan Meredith used to say on Monday Night Football, “If if’s and but’s were candy and nuts, what a Christmas this would be!”)

    — Just Passing Through    Nov 19, 08:16 AM    #

32. One assumption of some opponents of the boycott is that gay oppression is not as significant as other oppressions. If Manchester had given money to the Klan or to another group organizing against interracial relationships, would NCA have hesitated one minute to pull the conference from the hotel? If not, how can this be different in anyone’s mind? My partner is away from me in Boston for a year so that she can have necessary health insurance. In Texas, we cannot marry; UT does not honor glbt relationships and hence offers no domestic partner benefits. We went into serious debt paying medical bills until she took the only job with good benefits she could find. Thousands of miles away from her family. Those who see bigotry as bigotry, and not as unimpeachable “free speech” in a ridiculous stretch of that term, see the rationale for the boycott much more clearly. I could not personally stomach entering a facility where union organizers have called on me not to, and especially where the events benefit someone who thinks I am less than human. The tacit acceptance of this sort of bigotry as a case of “well he has a right to whatever” upsets me deeply.

    And I repeat: a boycott is not censorship. What happened to the comprehension of social movements in the field?

    — Dana    Nov 19, 09:16 AM    #

33. Don’t you all think that those wiley NCA members have gotten what they wanted? People are talking and debating an important issue. This discussion may be among a fairly unrepresentative crowd, but it is lively, largely civil and most important, it keeps this issue of Prop 8’s unfairness in people’s minds. So, whether it was intended or not, fair or not, the NCA protesters have succeeded in their effort to gain attention for their issue.

    — Sister    Nov 19, 09:40 AM    #

34. As some have pointed out, NCA is not alone in dealing with this kind of controversy: APSA, AAA, MLA, ASA (both AMST & Sociol.), OAH, & more have policies about the ethics of where to locate a convention (or not). This is an important trend. We all work at places that have nondiscrimination policies because discrimination is a professional issue. I hope controversies like this will help raise awareness about what’s at stake in siting a convention beyond $—for both academic professionals and people working in convention industries. The answers for more ethical choices are not easy, but—as the saying goes—the most important things in life rarely are.

    — Phaedra    Nov 19, 09:56 AM    #

35. Of course, people have every right to protest against Mr. Manchester at his hotel. But I also notice that these folks did not fly to San Diego on their own to protest when Mr. Manchester made his donation, and when the protests could have actually made a difference in the election. Instead, they are hijacking a conference and protesting against their professional association for a decision it made seven years ago, well before this was even an issue.

    Let’s also note that these protesters will be traveling the to conference at the expense of taxpayers, students, and/or donors who support their home universities. Many (perhaps most) of them wouldn’t support financing such a protest if they had a voice.

    I’m sorry but this is half hearted activism-of-convenience, paid for by someone else. I can’t feel a lot of solidarity with an enterprise like that.

    — Dutch    Nov 19, 10:07 AM    #

36. This issue is far more complicated than outlined in this aritcle. I am a very active member in the NCA and these 300 are a small number of strident, overbearing people who wanted to force a boycott down the collective throat of an organization that has about 4,000- 5,000 people who attend its conferences each year. What these noble people forgot to tell you is that they set up this boycott without regards to how it would affect our students and young faculty who come to interview for jobs, without considering how to move our disabled scholars back and forth to the few new sites they set up for alternative sites. Most of them are tenured professors in well established jobs with nothing to lose. NCA membership supports gay rights, and supports the right for a labor force to get more money. Originally the debate regarding should we boycott or not as a membership was not civil because these 300 scholars accused the rest of the membership of not supporting social justice and promoting tolerance. However they displayed a great deal of nontolerance and extremism which turned off most people and made them sick of the whole issue. Don’t paint the NCA by the words of these 300 scholars. They had an agenda they wanted to ram down everyone’s throats and lost out in the process. Most of the conference is still going on in the Manchester by the way. Also the boycotters did not contact many of the different caucuses and divisions in NCA which represent scholars of color and the disabled. I, a member of the African American Division and the Black Caucus found that offensive that these boycotters, people of academic provilege would make this type of decision without discussing it with these groups of scholars. What I really found brazen was that the boycotters started their boycott dirve to move to alternative site and then had the gall to turn to the NCA membership and ask them to pay for their boycott efforts. One of the primary boycott leaders (who does a lot of research on union issues and is part of the GBLT NCA faction) has posted in here, so I came in here to tell the rest of the story. I know what it is like to be discrminated against as a scholar of color and have had to go to places not friendly to minorities to conduct my scholarship. My mother was a maid and worked hard so I would not have to, so I felt for the labor issue. But for many NCA members, the decision to boycott or not to was a personal decision and not one that should be made be a “minority” who did not want to consider the needs of others in the membership. On our listserv, many pored our their hearts discussing this issue and it was agonizing in some instances. Yet I was proud to see that many in the NCA were able to make their stands and be supported by others. For example some colleges and divisions DID move their panels and interview sites and parties to other sites. But mercifully they did decide to put funding together to make sure students and others who did not have the economic means to get to these alternative sites. I am proud to say the boycotting group was pushed to consider making this concession by the discussion of others in NCA. Other divisions did not have the funding to move but are committedd to honoring the laborers (takling to them, cleaning their own rooms, leaving good tips etc) and making formal statements to the Manchester via emails and letters to let them know they did not approve of the owners stance on both issues. #35 you are right. But the issue with Prop 8 and the laborers will go on long after our conference is over. It will be interesting to see how many of these 300 scholars will remain “active” in the protest or will their efforts just end up as chapters in their books, new papers or a seminar for a course? How much of their monies will they give to the furthering of the causes?

    — Liz C    Nov 19, 10:26 AM    #

37. I’m one of the 300, but it never occurred to me that I was strident and overbearing. I just wanted to do the right thing. Sometimes the right thing (for instance, labor going on strike) means some inconvenience to others. I’ve thought about the needs of others, and I understand that most of the conference people had already bought airfare, paid conference fees, and other commitments that are hard to break. I know of several people who aren’t coming at all and are losing money. So, if you aren’t able to join the boycott group, thanks for at least considering the issues of fair labor practices and gender equality. That was the whole point! And, I can bet you that the Manchester won’t be getting any NCA business in the future. So, justice prevails, eventually.

    — Chris    Nov 19, 11:02 AM    #

38. The real story is larger than this one incident, and it involves the escalation in tactics being used by Unite Here!, the group that seeks to organize hotel workers. No longer content with pressuring hotel managements, this AFL-CIO organization seeks also to pressure organizations who book convention hotels, stirring discord within the associations’ memberships in an attempt to harm scholarly societies financially for booking properties that are targets of organizing activity. These tactics, which include applying pressure to both individual members via email messages and public demonstrations at the organizations’ headquarters, are probably completely legal. But, many of our scholarly associations, often homegrown and managed by scholars, are not equipped to cope with such an onslaught.

    I worry about the danger to the health of our scholarly societies that is posed by these moves. The finances of these groups are heavily dependent on revenue from their annual meetings, and even minor losses can put the existence of some of these societies into jeopardy.

    — Concerned    Nov 19, 12:49 PM    #

39. 1. The UNconvention is affordable and accessible. In fact, it is free, and so is transportation to it.
    2. The UNconvention is hosting graduate student fairs, job interviews, and other events to make sure students are served well. We do not begrudge students who go into the Hyatt to protect their careers.
    3. The goals of this movement go way beyond NCA. Since the passage of Prop. 8, lovers of democracy and lovers in general have risen up to protest and this boycott is part of this swelling movement. Which is now starting to sound rather naughty.

    4. We are not jeopardizing the health of the field. The association has cooperated with interests that have jeopardized the health of its members.

    5. Boycotts are historically tried and true tactics of social movements. Yes they put pressure on the powerful and tax their financial well being. Of course. I plead with my colleagues to see in front of them what they teach to students about campaigns and movements. Oh, I hope you aren’t teaching young people that the Montgomery Bus Boycott was rude and inconvenient and therefore wrong.

    6. Basic principle of organization. Struggle alongside those who struggle justly. My flying out to bother Mr. Manchester alone would do nothing. Standing with sleepwiththerightpeople.org and UNITE-HERE addresses not just this hotel, not just NCA, but the multiple mediated publics with stakes in this issue.

    7. Stop bashing people for trying to do the right thing. If you think you are doing the right thing, and what we do doesn’t harm you, why the big fuss? Oh, wait, I think I’ve had this argument with homophobes. Sound familiar?

    — Dana    Nov 19, 01:26 PM    #

40. Dana (#40) — The reason for the fuss? The NASTY emails that I got in my box — rather than posted on the message board where everyone could see. The basic message was “Either you are for the boycott or you are a total homophobe.” Not true. The tone was snide— and quite frankly, made me consider whether it was even safe for me to go. That is the tone that these 300 or so people — or the most strident of those 300— have chosen to take. If I don’t get hit in the head with something as I enter the Manchester, I will consider it a good weekend— that’s a really, really sad way to have to judge a convention. So, please understand that the tone of the rhetoric has been escalated to a point that it is so not about gay rights. ‘Cause I was in favor of those all along.

    — Kathy    Nov 19, 02:36 PM    #

41. I have a question for LizC: Does the NCA have a position on breaking up writing in paragraphs? It’s a real assist in communication.

    Having said that, I’m afraid I cannot see how the 300 boycotters hurt the organization. Admittedly, they lost the previously perfervid support of Dutch, but they didn’t really wound the NCA.

    — BertW    Nov 19, 03:46 PM    #

42. Lighten up # 42. Obviously you took time to read what I wrote so what is the big deal?

    Dana, labelling people homophobes because they did not agree with the Union or you is a tired old tactic. Tolerance of people’s viewpoints only seems to work if you are gay I guess. Heteros are not allowed to disagree with your methods of protests.

    No, as a black woman communication scholar who also teaches the introductory African American history course on my campus, I teach my students that boycotts can be effective at times, using the year long Montgomery boycott as an example. They learned that thes boycotters risked losing jobs and jobs, being killed by the Klan. They weren’t privileged faculty members who are flying in for a few days to lend their hand to protest in a a cause celebre fashion ( all splash and no cash) and gather research material for their next published article, seminar or book. My father’s family is from Alabama and so I have heard family stories first hand of the struggle these poor people had to go through to get to ride in the front of the bus and not give their seats to a white person. So don’t try to tell me how to teach it or live it.

    I have always been a strong proponent of Gay rights; several of my close friends and colleagues are part of the NCA GBLT leadership or are very active in it. Obviously I cannot name names here. But what I didn’t like and STILL don’t is the inference that the 300 are the only wise progressive ones on this issue and the rest of us have no clue.

    As to your swelling movement: if those in the movement continue to be rude, cruel and vindictive as they have been they will lose the suport of the moderates and suffer a backlash. One thing you need to learn from the Civil Rights movement: it was nonviolent, not just boycott centered and sometimes they took the fight directly into the arena of the oppressors. They prayed, they turned the other cheek. They were beaten. John Lewis is from the state I work in. Our children were killed, our homes were bombed ( four little girls in Birmingham) Those in the Civil Rights movement weren’t afraid to let their opponents use their funds to fight their sick battles. The movement relied on others to give more funds to them so they could fight harder and smarter.

    I believe in fighting for what is right and fighting right to win that right. So we will agree to disagree. # 39 you are abolsutely right. Teh Union Unite spent so much time on our listserv I was wondering if I was in the right place sometimes. I got several nasty emails from them until I told them to cease and desist or I would file a complaint against them. finall boycotts do not alwas work.

    The NAACP has for several years been staging a boycott against the state of South Carolina for flying the stars and bars over its capital. the flag still flies.

    — Liz C    Nov 19, 04:39 PM    #

43. #41 & #42 (Kathy and Liz):
    I am confused where the accusations of violence are coming from—I am the webmaster for a group on this topic and have not seen one comment promoting violence.

    In addition, I’m not sure who this “300” is? The NCA Boycott Facebook Group has 354 members as of today. We represent a range of political perspectives and choices about how to respond to the boycott. I’d imagine if you don’t like be clumped together with all homophobes/union-baiters, you can see why I’d prefer you not clump all of “the 300” together as if we have no diversity or range of opinions.

    Third, NCA members did not invent a boycott campaign—it’s been launched by local activists. Our choice is whether or not we respect their campaign.

    Finally, I hope these disagreements on this blog illustrate why it’s so important to have a long term convention location and siting plan for any professional association—the stakes clearly feel significant.

    — Phaedra    Nov 19, 04:51 PM    #

44. I did not say that the NCA boycott was violent; I was referring to the statewide aftermath of the Prop 8 California response shortly after election. I did not lump you together as the 300, the Chronicle article and Dana did. And NCA members tried to get NCA to boycott by pulling out of our hotel agreement in solidairty with the local campaign. And Kathy was viciously attacked on the NCA listserv for her views and received threatening emails from union reps. so I think our assessment was correct. I have been following this issue on NCA’s listserv since it started. I am well aware of how it transpired and what is happening. I helped to draft a leadership response for one of the divsions I am a part of.

    — Liz C    Nov 19, 05:05 PM    #

45. Liz—thanks for clarifying that no NCA member promoted violence; I don’t know anything about private emails, of course. And thank you for clarifying there’s a diversity of opinions on the many sides of this controversy. Dana has been viciously attacked on the NCA list serv too; I agree that vicious attacks are not the most constructive response to all of this. I hope you agree with me that we do need a long term convention location and siting plan so we can try to avoid some of the uglier parts of this controversy in our future.

    — Phaedra    Nov 19, 05:18 PM    #

46. This communication scholar is boycotting NCA and unCon.
    This whole question has gotten way out of hand.

    You don’t want to accept it; then don’t go.

    BTW- This comments comes from non tenured jr professor- I’m not making it hard to you to get your status. Just leave mine alone.

    The whole thing is a true example of a failure in communication and the failure of one group’s desire to make politics out of all things.

    It will be a perfect teaching example in my classes in future years.

    — Professor Communication    Nov 19, 06:35 PM    #

47. I too am boycotting NCA this year. While my sympathies are wholeheartedly with the labor and gay rights activists who called the boycott, and with the organizers of the UNconvention, I simply can’t afford to fly out to participate in the protests this week. But I wanted to pick up on one of Dana’s points. As she says, the NCA leadership “has cooperated with interests that have jeopardized the health of its members.” Not only that, but for a very long time they acted as if the boycott and ensuing controversy didn’t exist. Four months after the boycott was first called, there has still not been any mention of it in the NCA’s official newsletter, Spectra, or on the association’s website. And when the executive director, Roger Smitter, finally posted a statement about the matter on the association’s listserv sometime in mid-September, it was full of disinformation and anti-union smears. As far as I know, neither he nor anyone else at NCA have reponded publicly to the many angry rebuttals that his statement provoked. You’d think an organization dedicated to the study of communication would do a better job of, you know, communicating. The NCA owes its entire membership an apology and perhaps also a change in leadership.

    — Boycotting NCA for the foreseeable future    Nov 19, 07:56 PM    #

48. So it is not PC for straights and heterosexual on campuses to protest against LGBT? Or for a right-to-work supporter to be anti-union? Since there are no intellectual diversity on campuses, this is the norms.

    — Michael    Nov 20, 09:43 AM    #

49. Idiots. These pc imbeciles are the lunatic fringe of American society. They have no self-perspective, though, believing that they are SO right that it can only be an outrage when people don’t agree with them. let them boycott. It won’t make a difference.

    HOORAY FOR PROP 8!!

    — Huh    Nov 20, 11:41 AM    #

50. To Comm. Professor: You point was well taken. And may I add, don’t try to ram the ideas that all must support the boycott down the throats of those who are going. I too have sympathies with gay movement and the labor force but one does not have to support the boycott to show it. #48, whle the official newsletters did not have the discussion in it, the talk was very much alive on CRTNE throughout the controversy. Meanwhie we had elections of leadership, all of whom you could have voted against if you felt like it. Dr Smitter did not smear the union, nor did he use misinformation to frame the issue. Dr. Bochner our current president also laid out the issue as well. We were well informed, those who chose to be that is. #46 I do agree we need dialogue about these things and several schools have drafted resolutions to bring the agreements about during the legislative meetings n a couple of days. I will see how it goes. Finally someone here mentioned does PC speech rule? Only if one allows it to and does not stand up for what you believe even if it does not line up with the status quo.

    — Liz C    Nov 20, 02:00 PM    #

51. To #49,

    Michael, I don’t believe that the issue should be about disagreement, but rather the tactics that are used. For example, as an undergraduate the Office of Multicultural Life had Angela Davis booked to come speak on campus about her recent work inregards to racism etc. That seems perfectly reasonable right? Well three days before she was supposed to come to campus, a group plastered fliers everywhere saying that she was a racist against whites and that she was a threat to university safety. The flier also stated that she believed whites to be “the devil” and that they should all die.

    Now, although she was a radical in the 60s, this was not true and they completely took her actions and past words out of context. We also found out that they used an old multicultural life fier which had been stamped to make it seem as though these fliers had been approved. It came out later that it was the College Republicans.

    So the problem isn’t that they disagreed but how they went about it. They knew what they were doing was wrong, which is why they didn’t get approval and didn’t put their name on the flier. Why not come speak to the director if you had objections? Why not come and listen to her speak and ask questions at the lecture? There were a myriad of options that they chose not to take, that’s the problem. Or the problem as I see it. So if individuals want to boycott, they are within their rights. Sending silly nasty emails, not so much.

    — Marjorie    Nov 20, 04:46 PM    #

52. To 51. Yes, the controversy over the boycott has raged on CRTNET but many of us don’t read it regularly because of the sheer volume of the posts. Instead we just delete everything except the CFPs and job announcements. Moreover, many NCA members are not on the listserv at all. Regarding Smitter’s letter, he absolutely did smear and lie about Unite-HERE by suggesting that the union had no legitimate stake in the fight against Manchester’s hateful homophobic politics, by hinting that their concerns about the treatment of the housekeeping staff at the hotel were trumped up and by casting them as “outside meddlers” bent on causing trouble. As for the elections, I certainly hope that someone somewhere is putting together a slate of candidates to oust NCA’s inept old guard. But even if someone does assemble such a slate, their electoral chances will likely be fairly slim given the rules governing NCA elections. Personally, I am going to be casting around for another professional organization to join.

    — Boycotting NCA    Nov 20, 09:48 PM    #

53. One of the posts in this thread makes reference to departments expecting their faculty will attend the NCA convention. As the chair of a large communication department, I ordinarily would encourage my junior and senior colleagues to attend the national meeting of our learned society. However, in this case I gladly will defer to their individual judgments about whether or not to attend the San Diego convention.

    Personally, I have decided not to attend the convention and will eat the registration fee. I have the luxury of a co-author who is attending and will present our paper. I also, admittedly, have the luxury of tenure, the necessary professional connections, and a good job, so avoiding this most controversial of conventions is relatively easy for me. I wish those who go to NCA a productive and rewarding experience, in whatever programs or sessions they choose to attend.

    — Brian    Nov 20, 10:30 PM    #

54. I am a member of NCA and chose not to attend this year when Prop 8 passed. My same sex partner of 14 years (also an NCA member) was due to receive an organizational award, but we decided now was not the time to be in California, participating in a conference that takes place in a hotel that participated in funding a referendum based on hate and prejudice targeted specifically at people like us.

    We “ate” the registration fees as well as the other costs of not networking nor sharing scholarship. And while I support the local unConvention shadow conference (both financially and in spirit), we are conflicted about participating in such an event on site.

    I respect Doug Manchester’s right to spend his money as he sees fit — this is not about trying to silence him or his right to free speech. But there are consequences to what any of us say, and I have a right to choose not to stay in “his” hotel or attend a conference there if his words and other actions offend me — indeed, especially if they are targeted at oppressing me.

    I am not only a scholar or a teacher, but also a citizen of this country, and I make my decisions as a citizen, fighting for my human rights and equal recognition and protection under the law. My partner and I have been in a deep and committed relationship for 14 years, one that is unrecognized by the state. This would have been my 22 consecutive NCA, never having missed one in over two decades. I do not make this decision not to go to NCA lightly, but in the end if breaking my commitment to the organization will signal to my colleagues and friends that my commitment to my partner matters and should be recognized by the state, then the decision not to attend NCA is an easy one to make.

    I have donated the cost of my travel and lodging to the CA Lambda Legal Defense Fund and the ACLU as they fight to challenge the legality of Prop 8 in court.

    — Jonathan Gray    Nov 23, 10:34 AM    #

Previous: European Universities Must Do More to Meet Economic Demands, Report Says
Next: Top Canadian University Drops Homecoming to Forestall Drunken Mayhem