Call for Signatures: Letter of Concern to MAA

by SUZANNE CONKLIN AKBARI, JONATHAN HSY, EILEEN JOY, ALEX MUELLER

[UPDATED February 2016: In a swift response to this widely-circulated open letter, the Medieval Academy of America has announced and followed through on its decision to produce a statement on inclusion, diversity, and academic freedom (now on the top of its policies page). Since the MAA has taken initial action, the italicized passages no longer apply (i.e., no additional signatures are required). We hope this is just the beginning for renewed efforts to make medieval studies fully ethical and inclusive.]

Original posting dated January 29, 2016:

ITM readers and any other medievalists brought to this link through other means:

Please read this Open Letter of Concern addressed to the Medieval Academy of America (click to this link to access the PDF with full updated list of signatories) discussing the "Allen Frantzen Affair" and its wider implications. This letter was authored by Suzanne Conklin Akbari, Jonathan Hsy, Eileen Joy, and Alex Mueller (listed in alphabetical order by surname).

If you wish to add your name to the growing list of people signing this letter, please click through to the public Facebook page and add your name in the comments section.  Please let us know if you are an MAA member, lapsed member, or potential member (and your institutional affiliation, if any). You can even identify yourself as a FOM (Friend of Medievalists). All these signatories will be added to the letter and the full list will be conveyed to the MAA.

If for whatever reason you're not on social media or otherwise cannot access the Facebook comments page, you can add your name in the comments section below (please note the comments are moderated on this blog and it may take some time for each comment to appear). Alternatively, you can contact Eileen Joy with the subject heading "MAA Open Letter" to be added to the list.

We hope that by acting together in and across our various communities we can create a better future.

MEARCSTAPA: An Open Letter to MAA

(reprinted from here)

As the executive committee of MEARCSTAPA, an organization with more than fifty members, focused on the study of monstrosity in the Middle Ages, we wish to speak out both against the recent group of laws passed in Arizona (primarily the now-infamous SB SB1070, but also HB HB2281 banning the teaching of ethnic studies and also the AZ Department of Education's new move to bar teachers with "heavy accents" from teaching English). We also wish to voice our opposition to the Medieval Academy's refusal to relocate the conference from Tempe, despite these offensive laws. We draw the name for our organization from the Old English for "Border-Walker," a term used to confer monstrosity on Grendel and his mother. We are troubled by the intensification of the rhetoric that is applied to the peoples living on both sides of our own borders, and on the rampant use of terms to dehumanize these people ("illegals," "aliens," "anchor-babies," etc.).

We specialize, as a group, in the study of the construction of otherness, and our collective examination of history shows all too clearly the tangible, bodily effects that this process inevitably has. Once a group of people has been repeatedly depicted as not quite human, their mistreatment is to be expected. We cannot stand silently while these acts occur, as to do so would be, through our silence, to voice our implicit consent. The history of assaults on Jews, Muslims, Africans, Indians, women, and on, throughout the Middle Ages and beyond, begins in each case with dehumanizing language and laws.

Despite an understanding of the financial ramifications that a full boycott might have had on MAA, we feel that matters of conscience are of greater significance. We also feel that the numbers of the recent poll have been misinterpreted, and their presentation misleading. That 32.7% of poor academics were willing to to give money to NOT attend a conference, in order to voice their solidarity in opposition to the blatant racism of these laws, speaks to the depth of their conviction. This is quite a high number, and probably overlaps with the 42% who voted to cancel the meeting altogether. Three-quarters of those who voted to cancel are willing to put their money where their mouths are, and that certainly should count for something. We are in a very homogenous field, and this collective action taken by MAA reinforces this. MAA had an opportunity to send a message to students interested in the field that the medievalist community is inclusive and welcoming. Instead, it has sent the opposite message. For a strong letter on this, see "The General's" guest post on Quod She.

What is at issue both in these laws and in the responses to them is perception. Otherness -- monstrosity, even -- is, of course, entirely a matter of perception: The idea that anyone "looks like an immigrant," or than there is anyone who does not speak with "a heavy accent" is rooted in the idea that the perspective (or appearance or accent) of the dominant group is not a perspective, at all. But so, too, all of the good intentions of those who argue that attendance of the meeting in AZ is the more helpful, ethical choice does not impact the perception of those who see this as an expression of unconcern with the rights of minorities.

If the Medieval Academy of America persist in holding the conference in Arizona, we the executive committee will boycott the meeting, and those of us currently members will withdraw our membership in the Academy, though we shall do so with regret, as we find the Academy's meetings to be excellent venues for the discussion of scholarship. With this letter, we voice our solidarity with those members of medievalist community in Arizona who have spoken out so eloquently about the need for this boycott. We will encourage our membership to do the same.

Sincerely,

Asa Simon Mittman, Chico State

Jeff Massey, Molloy College

Larissa Tracy, Longwood University

Derek Newman-Stille, Trent University

Renee Ward, Wilfrid Laurier University

The following MEARCSTAPA members also asked to be added as signatory:

Frances Auld, University of Wisconsin-Baraboo/Sauk Co.

Robyn Cadwallader, Flinders University

Jeffrey J Cohen, George Washington University

Spyridon Gkounis, Ionian University, Corfu

Ana Grinberg, University of California, San Diego

Diane Heath, University of Kent

Marcus Hensel, University of Oregon

Norman Hinton, University of Illinois-Springfield

Eileen A. Joy, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville

Lisa LeBlanc, Anna Maria College

Dana M. Oswald, University of Wisconsin-Parkside

Karl Steel, Brooklyn College, CUNY

Debra Higgs Strickland, University of Glasgow

Kevin Teo, University of Calgary

Rodger Wilkie, St. Thomas University

Mary Williams, San Jose State University

Diane Wolfthal, Rice University

Aimeric Vacher, International School of Geneva

[Note: This letter has been forwarded to the Councillors of the Medieval Academy of America.]

Dreaming a Future for the MAA

by J J Cohen

In the comments here, Aunt Pansy observes:

There will be exciting things upcoming [for the MAA]. A new Executive Director in a little less than a year, a new set of by-laws, perhaps some insurance for directors and councilors and officers to prevent them being threatened with the individual financial costs of law-suits for failing to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities? more supportive attitudes towards grad students? better turn-around for submissions to Speculum?

In the comments to this post, Karl writes:

Things might settle back into the status quo ante, but perhaps not? Not to be too cutesy, but in this confusion and uncertainty, we might be seeing the rumblings of an actual future, an opening into who knows what.

ADM adds:

I'm not sure what it is that the MAA wants to be, or that its members want it to be. It may be a time for redefinition -- or definition? Another thought: the MAA is old. It used to be *the* medievalists' society in America. But so many other societies have grown up in the last 15-20 (or fewer) years, and my impression is that these societies, e.g., those that focus on the Early Middle Ages, were created by people who felt that the MAA meetings and Speculum did not really represent their scholarly interests ... Basically, MAA isn't the 800-lb gorilla anymore, but I think it still sees itself that way. The reality is that people have broader options and less money for memberships and subscriptions. This may be the time for a re-think on how to make the organization more relevant to all of us, or perhaps to specialize to a couple of core groups.

To keep the conversation productive, and future focused, let me piggyback on these important queries and ask: what do you want to see from the MAA in the years ahead? How can the organization remain vital, and where should its communal energies be focused?

Green, Newhauser and Voaden: An Open Letter to the Medieval Academy of America

[reprinted with permission of the authors, who have resigned from the Tempe program committee]

An Open Letter to the Medieval Academy of America

On July 26 and 27 the three of us, faculty members of Arizona State University, resigned from the program committee planning the 2011 conference of the Medieval Academy of America in Arizona.  We did so because we could not in good conscience be involved in planning a conference in our own state when our commitment to human rights demands that we support the boycott of Arizona, in protest against its recent immigration law, SB 1070.  There are clear financial, political, but above all ethical reasons for the Medieval Academy to join this protest by moving the venue of the 2011 conference to another state or cancelling the meeting next year, but still we struggled with our decision to resign from the program committee, not wishing to desert our colleagues.  While some provisions of the legislation were struck down by a federal judge on July 28, the governor of the state is appealing that decision, and all indications are that this will be a long court battle that may not be resolved before the time of the Academy's meeting in 2011.  We therefore urge the executive committee of the Academy to reconsider its decision to continue planning the 2011 conference for Arizona and we urge the members of the Medieval Academy of America to support the boycott of Arizona until SB 1070 is repealed or confirmed to be unconstitutional.

The most effective way to influence unjust legislation is to exert economic pressure.  This was demonstrated in 1992, when after a number of years of a boycott that resulted in millions of dollars of lost revenue, voters in Arizona finally approved the designation of Martin Luther King Day as a public holiday.  In the case of SB 1070 many events, including academic conferences, have moved to other locations to protest this legislation.  The National Urban League cancelled its 2012 conference in Phoenix, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity moved its meeting from Phoenix to Las Vegas this year, and the groups who have called for a travel boycott of Arizona include the American Educational Research Association, the Society for Applied Anthropology, and the Presbyterian Church (see for more:  http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2010/05/13/20100513immigration-boycotts-list.html).  Boycotts have been proven to be effective, but they take time to work and some sacrifice.  It is understandable that the Academy wishes to avoid the costs involved in cancelling its hotel reservation, especially given that a mere 33% of those responding to a recent poll of the membership were willing to help defray the cost of canceling the meeting in Arizona, whereas 65% said they were unwilling to do so.  But that 33%, to which the three signees of this letter belong, also includes at least one person who has pledged up to $1000 to help the Academy avoid financial loss.  Others are sure to help as well.  If the Academy stands to lose little or nothing by moving the conference to a different state or cancelling this year's conference, and may in fact experience a loss of revenue if the conference is held in Arizona anyway because of those members who will not want to attend a conference here, what compelling reason is there for the Academy not to do what it can to resist injustice?

The appropriateness of making collective political statements might be raised as an objection to having the Academy take at stand on the issue of SB 1070, but the passage of the law itself erases that argument.  Having made the debate on immigration so polemical, the law forces everyone to chose sides:  in such an atmosphere, not opposing the injustice of SB 1070 is almost equivalent to supporting it.  Nor is the issue only a matter of immigration policy, but one more in a series of attempts to use border security as a wedge issue to motivate partisan politics.  As Roll Call reported on July 29, 2010, there are plans to force votes on border security issues this fall at every opportunity (p. 13).  By not supporting the boycott, the Academy has not avoided making a collective political statement; it has tacitly approved one that others have made for it.

And that statement is clearly one of intolerance and injustice.  If all parts of the law are upheld in the appeals process, it will lead to widespread civil rights violations.  It stigmatizes an entire community.  The fact that plans for the Academy's conference now feature keynote speakers and special sessions on immigration and displaced persons is some indication that the membership of the Academy does not support the legislation and is aware of the injustice it will perpetrate.  Yet writing and speaking about injustice in the academic world are no substitutes for acting in the real world.  We feel this all the more intensely because it is in our names, as citizens of Arizona, that the state legislature has said it acted.  Ultimately, our conscience would not allow us to participate in the planning for a conference in Arizona.  We feel that we have no choice but to use every opportunity to protest legislation which violates both civil and human rights.  To this end, not only have we resigned from the program committee, but as long as SB 1070 is the law in Arizona or is in the appeals process we will also find it impossible to attend the meeting of the Medieval Academy in our own backyard.

There are moments when we are all called upon to make moral decisions, no matter how uncomfortable they might be, no matter how much they force us to chose between supporting the groups we work with or supporting our allegiance to the greater community of humankind.  For us, the question of the Academy's unwillingness to oppose the injustice of SB 1070 is just such a moment.  We hope it will prove to be one for you as well.

Respectfully,

Monica Green, Professor, School of Historical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies, Arizona State University (mhgreen2@cox.net)

Richard Newhauser, Professor, Department of English, Arizona State University (Richard.G.Newhauser@gmail.com)

Rosalynn Voaden, Associate Professor, Department of English, Arizona State University (rosalynn.voaden@gmail.com)

Joan Cadden on the MAA in AZ

by J J Cohen

Professor Joan Cadden was kind enough to grant me permission to reproduce here an email she has been circulating about the Medieval Academy of America annual meeting for 2011, as well as the letter she sent to the MAA. It is eloquent, and I thank her for allowing me to reproduce it here.

---------------
Dear Medieval Friends and Colleagues,

As some of you are aware, many members of the Medieval Academy of America are calling on its officers to change the venue of the 2011 meeting, in order to support the protests against Arizona's new "immigration" law.

I support the boycott and am attaching (and copying out below) a letter I have sent to the MAA leadership stating my reasons.  If you are in agreement, I urge you to do the following:

1) Let the Medieval Academy know your position: speculum@medievalacademy.orgor by other means (see http://www.medievalacademy.org/ ).

2) Make clear that you will not attend the 2011 meeting if it is held in Arizona--even if you have submitted a proposal for a paper or session.

3) Pledge to make a donation to the Academy, if the venue is changed, to compensate for the cost of canceling contracts, etc.

Best wishes,
Joan
************************

June 10, 2010

Officers of the Medieval Academy
Medieval Academy of America
104 Mount Auburn Street
5th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02138

Dear Colleagues:

I urge you to change the venue of the 2011 annual meeting of the Medieval Academy in order to support the boycott of Arizona because of its recently passed "immigration" law.  The law not only treats individuals without full and proper documents as criminals, it also stigmatizes and frightens an entire community.  While many of us have broad and deep concerns about current U.S. immigration policy, we have a responsibility, as individuals and through our organizations, to stand up against arbitrary and punitive measures inconsistent with human rights and humane values.

   That obligation arises first from our individual duty to do what is in our power to oppose injustice.  Few of us vote or pay taxes in Arizona, few of us have the ability to bring suit against the state.  But all of us have the right to withhold the benefit of our personal and professional expenditures.  And each of us should be exercising whatever influence we have within institutions, whether our pension funds or our professional societies, to bring meaningful pressure to bear.

   The Medieval Academy as an organization also has a collective obligation to join the opposition to this particular legislation.  Although it mainly targets poor, unskilled laborers, it is of a piece with policies that have impeded the free movement of scholars and thus the free exchange of ideas. In recent years, for example, academics have been refused entry to the United States to attend a conference of the Latin American Studies Association, which changed the venue of its annual meeting in response. And the Religious Studies Association, along with a group of other scholarly and professional organizations, joined a law suit to secure a visa for a scholar of Islam who was denied admission to the U.S. to take up an academic position.  The same toxic combination of xenophobia, religious intolerance, and prejudice that is embodied in the Arizona law is integrally related to these impediments to the free exchange of ideas, in which the Medieval Academy has an unquestionable and urgent interest.

   Undoubtedly the very community adversely affected by the law will also suffer consequences of the boycott.  But responsible members of that community, as well as individuals and groups concerned with human rights and law enforcement, both in this country and abroad, have called for a suspension of economic exchange with Arizona to protest the law.  The Medieval Academy has a choice between supporting and ignoring the principles and the people involved.

   I am aware that a change of venue will place considerable burden on staff and cause inconvenience for some members.  I hope that a sense of purpose and the satisfaction of doing the right thing will provide some compensation.  There will no doubt be monetary costs to the Academy as well, and I am pleased to make an initial pledge of a thousand dollars toward offsetting these, in the hope that others will also be willing to support participation in the boycott in this way. Anyone concerned with the fiscal implications of a change of venue should also consider that attendance at a meeting in Arizona may be affected by the decisions of individual members not to come.

   As officers of the Medieval Academy you will undoubtedly be engaging in a serious discussion of all aspects of the call to abandon the Arizona site.  I urge you to act on the broad principles involved and to seek pragmatic solutions to whatever practical consequences may result from the change.

                   Sincerely,

                   Joan Cadden
                   Professor Emerita of History
                   University of California, Davis

Important Update RE: MAA in AZ

by J J Cohen

Constance Berman, a councillor of the Medieval Academy of America, has left the following comment on this post, our open letter to the MAA (147 signatures).

I front page her comment now because of its importance:

---------------

I would like you all to know that enough Councilors of the Medieval Academy of America have indicated that we will not attend a meeting in Arizona to have called a virtual meeting of the Academy which will, I hope, take place within the next two weeks. One of the arguments being used to have the meeting continue in AZ is that there are 120 abstracts. While I'm morally opposed to having a meeting in Tempe, I'm trying to use the more easily made "practical" argument, that if we hold a meeting, no one will come. So, if you have submitted an abstract, but will not attend if it's still in AZ, then it would be good if you so indicate to medieval academy officers and council -- whose names have recently been sent out on the MAA list-serv

It'll make it easier for those who oppose it from inside the Council without having your abstract used against us. Thanks and hang in there,

Connie Berman, Prof. of History, University of Iowa,
Iowa City, IA 52245 -- and my email is
constance-berman@uiowa.edu

---------------
If you submitted an abstract, and if you do not wish that submission to seem a vote for keeping the annual meeting in Arizona, you should contact the councillors now. A complete list of the councillors and officers of the MAA may be found here.

Letter to the MAA

by J J Cohen



I have emailed the following letter and link to the officers and councillors of the Medieval Academy of America. You may find a complete list of the MAA governance structure here.

You may be interested to know that the bylaws of the Academy state that the annual meeting "shall be held at a time and place to be fixed by the Executive Committee of the Council." The Executive Committee currently consists of Peggy Brown, Alice-Mary Talbot, Maryanne Kowaleski, Connie Berman, Peggy McCracken, Brian Patrick McGuire, and Danuta Shanzer.


Thank you, everyone, who assisted with this effort. I know that not everyone agrees with the idea of potentially moving the meeting. The discussion post has had several comments about holding protests while convening in Arizona, and I've received a few emails on that subject as well. I realize that the issue is not without complexity. For me, though, discussing the Middle Ages in the air conditioned comfort of an Arizona hotel, even with a protest, is insupportable. I am a believer in protests, but would prefer to see ours unfold via relocation, and in a situation where it doesn't otherwise appear that we are conducting business as usual.


The letter, of course, does not say this; and I don't know that every signatory would go so far as me. The letter simply urges that the location of the meeting be given serious scrutiny. I have faith in our elected MAA leadership; I trust that this scrutiny will happen.


-----------------
Dear President Elizabeth A. R. Brown, First Vice-President Alice-Mary Talbot, Second Vice-President Maryanne Kowaleski, and Councillors Constance Berman, Rita Copeland, William Diebold, Robin Fleming, Bruce Holsinger, Peggy McCracken, Brian Patrick McGuire, Mark Meyerson, Danuta Shanzer, Carol Symes, Nancy L. Wicker and Nancy Wu,


I am writing on behalf of the 142 medievalists who have, to date, signed an open letter to the Medieval Academy of America. In light of Arizona's SB 1070, we urge the MAA leadership to consider moving the April 2011 annual meeting from the state, and to make this decision (which many of us consider ethical) without regard to financial loss. Our letter reads:

We the undersigned condemn the immigration bill signed into law by Arizona governor Jan Brewer as racist and inhumane. We urge its immediate repeal. To demonstrate our support to those in Arizona whom the law targets, we request that the Medieval Academy of America seriously consider not holding its planned annual meeting of April 2011 in the state if the law remains in place, even if this means canceling the meeting and incurring a financial loss. We further urge that a theme on "Immigration and Tolerance" be added to the meeting's program no matter where it is held in order to place these recent events in a longer historical perspective.

You may find the complete text and the signatures here:
http://www.inthemedievalmiddle.com/2010/05/open-letter-to-medieval-academy-of.html

We thank you for your attention to this issue, which is of great importance to us.

Arizona and the MAA

by J J Cohen

There's been some Facebook discussion about the fact that the Medieval Academy of America is holding its annual meeting next April in Arizona. Members of the Academy were notified of this long ago, of course, but the recent dissemination of a CFP reminded us of the location at a time when many of us are none too pleased with the terrible choices the state government has been making regarding social issues we care about. Governor Jan Brewer's signing into law an immigration bill that seems almost carte blanche for police intimidation and harassment is, to my mind, racist and just wrong. Now comes the possibility of banning ethnic studies.

So when the MAA CFP arrived in my inbox I wrote back asking "Given the recent and reprehensible choices that the Arizona state government has made, will the Medieval Academy consider moving its annual meeting to another state?" Today I received a reply from Elizabeth Brown, the Academy President. I am sharing the letter because it brings up several points that deserve a wider (public) audience:

        Thank you for your eloquent message, which Paul Szarmach, our Executive Director, has just forwarded to me.  On behalf of our Vice-Presidents and Treasurer, and Robert Bjork, who is organizing the meeting, I want to express our gratitude to you for writing to us. 

    The situation is very complicated indeed, and we are monitoring it carefully. We have been concerned about this problem from the moment the governor of Arizona signed the bill concerning immigrants.  We are all following developments closely and are keenly aware of the importance of the issues that are at stake.  I have responded to inquiries from many colleagues, and have followed up with Bob Bjork, who has established that cancelling the meeting now would cost something in the neighborhood of $30,000. 

    We at the Academy are attempting to monitor the situation attentively and are fervently hoping that the offending legislation will be nullified or radically changed -- which we understand is a very real possibility. Like you, we are concerned about the legislation's implications, which go beyond the federal requirement that identity papers be carried (as is true in many countries). In short, we are adopting a policy of watchful waiting.

    We will do our best to keep you informed about developments and would appreciate any further counsel you can give us as we attempt to deal with these problems.

    With every good wish,

     Elizabeth A.R. Brown (Peggy)

     Professor emeritus of History, CUNY; President, The Medieval Academy of America

I understand very well that the situation is complicated; that's why I wrote asking if moving the meeting was on the table, rather than insisting (with whatever insistence a member can voice) that the meeting must be relocated. And you know, maybe it is completely hypocritical of me to have ever written, because I am not attending the meeting in April for reasons having nothing to do with its location (though if I had been intending to go, I doubt I would as things currently stand). Still I'd like to think that I have an investment in this professional organization that represents me, and indeed I'm heartened that the political context is being taken seriously. I can hope -- as I think many of us do -- that the law will be modified or nullified soon. Robert Bjork has done a great deal of planning for the meeting, planning that I know can often seem thankless; I am truly grateful for the labor that Professor Bjork has undertaken. Yet I also can't help wondering: would it be the worst thing in the world for the MAA to be out $30K and skip a year of meeting if that sends a message to the state that the law it has enacted is so unjust that as a measure of support we medievalists will not convene in Tempe?

I ask that as an open question. I wonder what our readers think.

[EDIT 1:30PM More on the letter from President Brown at xoom]