I am regretting not going to NCA now—or rather, I’m regretting not going to the shadow conference. I’m so very proud to be in this field, with y’all; we may be a small field in the academy, but dammit, the people with whom I work on a day-to-day basis, the lot of them, are good folks with the right values. I know this reads all pollyanna and mushy, but still, Speech Communication—or the icky “Communication Studies”—has attracted the kinds of people I want to be earning a living with. A chicken in every pot, indeed.

Alright, I now detach from my CBS/Hallmark moment. The shadow conference needs some funding. Scoring the alternative rooms costs some bucks, folks. I’ve donated $50, and will cough up more when I get my NCA registration refund. Won’t you contribute $20?

Damn the man, power to the people, and a chicken in every pot (or vice versa).

I will take up the suggestion to spend some time in the picket line and some time in the hotel (if another option is not available). Beyond that, I imagine after a long day of picketing and shooting the bull with potential employers I’ll be spending a lot of time with vodka.

Importantly, I will also say that the support I’ve gotten from senior scholars and my academic role models (through group emails, blogs like this, and personal emails) has been stellar.

So, although I’m frustrated and a little uncertain, I feel supported, and, at this point, that support is very meaningful!

If Villanova’s wonderful stance on this has any influence at all, hiring departments will likely make arrangements as needed to make interviews happen. Applicants should call ahead to set something up.

Meanwhile, the discourse about disability on CRTNET has become a moral panic. For the record, the alternative venue is the eminently accessible Embassy Suites, where most principled departments are moving their events. In addition, organizers always were ready to organize shuttles or do what it took to help anyone who wanted to attend the UNconvention.

I think Bormann’s fantasy theme idea may apply here–charge someone with discrimination against the mobility impaired and it catches on like wildfire as a rationale for opposing the boycott.

I do, however, honor the causes of persons with disabilities and would boycott on this issue if asked to do so.

BTW: Rosa, where are you? I have not heard peep from you since this mess got started. Join us on the barricades, sweetheart?

Hi, all–

Numbers of people have raised concerns and questions about the conduct of what we are calling the UNconvention in San Diego. I offer the following answers and arguments not as indictments of anyone who disagrees but as something to think about.

1) Graduate students need to attend the job fair and interviews; encouraging them to boycott will hurt their prospects.

I and numbers of others among the boycott organizers understand this concern and support our graduate students. Previously I had suggested that interviewees attempt to arrange alternative spots for conversations with search committees. Where that is not possible, we believe that no one would begrudge a student on the job market who feels s/he absolutely must attend the job fair and interviews in the hotel. At the same time, I ask interviewers and search committees not to hold sympathy with the boycott against interviewees and to be open to relocating conversations. Courage in one’s principles is a good feature in a future colleague.

2) Re-locating panels is infeasible and costly.

Numbers of departments have already relocated their parties and other events. Many panels are relocating using the calendar at http://www.my.calendars.net/nca_2008/ . Alternative space is available and we are raising funds to secure it. Among departments relocating parties and other events are Syracuse, Indiana, Texas, Loyola Marymount (boycott by entire faculty), among others. Frankly, it is getting difficult to keep track; in other words, people seem to be able to make this shift.

Furthermore, I strongly believe that folks should consider principle first and logistics second. We can take care of space at least for panels—departments seem to be taking responsibility for moving parties.

3) Alternative sites will be inaccessible to persons with disabilities and inconvenient for everyone else.

We don’t like the fact that there will be access barriers, and apologize in advance. Please contact me if you want to help organize shuttle transportation to alternative sites. As far as inconvenience goes, I can only say that it pretty much the point of a boycott to make business as usual inconvenient. Throughout history, people have been putting themselves out for social change.

4) Prop 8 will have been defeated (or, any deity forefend, passed) by the time NCA rolls around.

The fate of the proposition will not negate the need for ongoing visibility for LGBTQ and labor movements. This is about these movements in the long term, not just about one proposition and one hotel.

5) Organizers are rude.

Well, we’ve been called worse.

I can’t say much to folks who think being argued with is patently offensive. For any gaffes or insensitivities, we apologize. I hope folks can look beyond the particular personalities and missteps to the principle of the thing. (And I am not dismissing those who don’t agree as unprincipled so please let’s not have that conversation again.)

6) Fill in the blank.

You get the picture: relocating—do-able; principle before pragmatics; seeing the long-term view in terms of social movement struggles; etc.

FACEBOOK URL Please donate. Please join. If you want to.

I’ve tried to find ways to express myself generously to colleagues who are in fact quite torn about the desire to have their work heard (particularly in underrepresented areas, such as prison scholarship) and to honor what they actually think is an important and meaningful cause. I’ve often erred, I’m afraid, on the side of softness, that is, refraining from making a hard and principled argument for honoring the boycott.

That your department is conducting business off-site is encouraging, particularly for a grad student on the market (c’est moi) who can’t bring herself to enter the hotel. I hope it’s one of the jobs to which I’m applying and – more hope beyond hope – interviewing for, for I’d be glad to be in such company.

I look forward to seeing you and other such on the picket line. I’ll post information on scheduling events (meetings/panels/other) off-site. For those of you on the facebook group devoted to the boycott, I’ve already posted the information.

To blazes with the forced choice.

Just offering a counterpoint because, from the standpoint of ideological praxis rather than belief, crossing picket lines is a political act regardless of intentions or beliefs. Whether a prospective employer (or potential employee for that matter) chooses to cross the picket line or not is, methinks, a revealing act in itself. Besides, would you really want to work in a department where such concerns do not matter? My department is likewise conducting business off-site for these very reasons. I suspect the “forced choice” for job-hunting grads will be telling exceptions rather than the rule.

How’d that line go in Batman Begins? Its not who you are underneath, but what you DO that defines you.