more on the boycott business, or, "no contest"

Music: Sad Lovers and Giants: Feeding the Flame (1983)

To follow-up on a recent Rosechron post, I've received a note in my inbox today from a conference coordinator from the office of the National Communication Association. As most readers of this blog know, the conference hotel for my profession's annual meeting is currently under a boycott request from the worker's union there. In response, NCA leaders have secured space three blocks away at San Francisco State University for meetings. Those NCA members who wish to honor the boycott can fill out a form to have their meeting moved to this alternative space. The directions state that all members of the meeting must sign the form, however, the national office told me today that each member of the meeting can print out the form and submit it independently (via fax, pdf, or snail mail). As long as all members of the meeting submit the form, their panel or meeting will be moved to the alternative space.

Of course, if you are on a panel for this year's NCA, it means you have, at minimum, five folks that need to consent to having the panel moved to the alternative space. Wonder of wonders, this is the first year at NCA in memory that I am not on the schedule multiple times---I'm only on ONE panel. Amazing! And to my disappointment, not all members on my single panel are comfortable with moving it to the official alternative space. What disappoints me, however, is not disagreement among my fellow panelists. What disappoints me is a general unwillingness to be upfront or earnest about one's views.

Some weeks ago I emailed the members of my panel to communicate that NCA had located off-site space, and that I would like to take advantage of the opportunity. I explained that NCA planned to return the panels to the conference hotel if the worker's boycott was resolved, and that the alternative site was only three blocks away.

Two folks responded immediately, saying that they were happy to go along with the move. Silence from the others.

Another panelist chimed in days later to say s/he would be fine with moving, but would prefer to stay in the conference hotel.

Eventually another chimed in to say that s/he was not comfortable with moving the panel, as s/he had a lot of business to attend to in the conference hotel and was not comfortable with a renegade conference.

I responded then that this was not a renegade conference, but an official move by NCA.

A final panelist was silent.

Days and days and days pass.

Another weighed in to report the panel was not actually scheduled in the Hilton (the conference hotel), but the Parc across the street, although the Parc is listed on the "danger" list of possibly being boycotted as well.

This goes on for days and days, so today I finally said to my panel I was giving up on "my desire." If the conference came and there was no boycott, I would be at the meeting. If the conference came and there is a boycott, I will not be at the meeting.

Now, it seems to me moving the panel is something of a no-brainer: NCA is willing to secure alternative space and move our panel if the boycott is still going by November. The space is three blocks away from the conference---walking distance. If there are time-constraint issues, certainly cabs are easy to hail in San Francisco. I know one of the panelists was concerned about having to go to three different places for the conference, which is apparently a hassle---but this concern was not expressed to all the panelists.

What really annoys me is not that people on my panel disagree with my "politics." I totally and completely respect and honor that disagreement. What annoys me is the unwillingness to be honest and earnestly disagree. In my view, the hemming and hawing and hand-wringing about my wish to move the panel is totally unnecessary. All anyone has to do is say, "Josh, while I respect your willingness to honor the boycott, I have no such willingness," or "I disagree with your politics." How hard is it to be disagreeable? Conflict is not always bad, and I'm not going to be mean to you if you disagree with my political views. If that was the case, I couldn't be a teacher! Hell, I can think of three people whom I consider best friends who will go into the conference hotel even if there is picketing---they don't share my political views, and that's ok!

So, I guess what I'm saying is that I'm frustrated by the general avoidance of folks and the fear of expressing their views on the labor issue. I was telling a friend tonight that it's taken me some time to come around to my position on the labor issue before---that I "get" not wanting to anger folks and that I appreciate the complexity of situation. Some folks simply have to go into the hotel---for jobs, for hiring, for all sorts of reasons. What baffles me is the silence, as if the resort to silence somehow is an apolitical stance. It's not. And it's frustrating to me that folks believe not expressing their views somehow makes the problem go away.

Everyone knows what pleading "no contest" means.

A convention is a meeting of people in one place. That one place need not be the "official" place. We'll all be in one city, in a limited set of city blocks. NCA is actively trying to accommodate those who wish to honor the boycott, bending over backwards given their constraints, and making non-convention hotel meeting spaces available. If folks don't want to move their panels, it's not because it's inconvenient. Rather, it's because it participates in a political gesture. I just wish folks could be honest about that, instead of hiding behind "no contest" or that they have to move three blocks away. It's ok to disagree! Just don't pretend silence or delay or concern for running among three spaces is "no contest."

I worry that the issue of the workers has sadly become conflated with the perception of a "clique" in the field, and that to honor the boycott means that one is part of this "clique." Well, I know this is probably the case. Somehow those of us who are down with progressive politics have to figure out how to make the issue less about us, and more about the striking workers at the conference hotel. I don't have any answers except to say this: the more voices we hear, the less likely this particular boycott will seem the project of a few seeking an identity. If you are reading this and agree that honoring the boycott is the right thing to do, speak out.