Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Balkinization

Legal Commentary

: Balkinization

On Moving the APSA Meeting

By Jack M. Balkin

The American Political Science Association (APSA) is presently debating whether to move the 2012 Annual Meeting from New Orleans. Louisiana has passed a series of laws severely limiting the rights of persons in lesbian and gay relationships. For all the reasons better articulated by other bloggers on Balkinization, I think persons have a constitutional and a human right to marry the consenting adult of their choice. As important, policy makers should probably spend their time worrying about people who hate each other, and not bother with obsessing over who loves who. Nevertheless, the case for keeping the APSA meeting in New Orleans strikes me as stronger than the case for moving.

One argument for moving emphasizes the potentially harmful extraterritorial influence of Louisiana policy. The APSA or any other organization should not meet in places where existing law might affect the capacity of members to attend the meeting or present their ideas. Local laws forbidding persons from criticizing the president or persons of color from staying in the conference hotel are clear examples of policies that would justify moving a conference. Reasonable arguments have been made that gay and lesbian members of the APSA will run certain health risks attending a convention in a state that refuses to acknowledge in any way that such loving relationships exist. Whether New Orleans would allow a gay spouse to make a crucial medical decision, for example, is not entirely clear. I confess to thinking that this connection between the offensive policy and the deterrent effect a bit too attenuated for my taste. An incident could take place, but the possibility also exists that persons of color might be harmed by a racist police officer or the level of pollution could aggravate a lung condition. Still, people I respect think the probability of harm sufficient to move the meeting and these claims do not strike me as unreasonable.

The other argument for moving emphasizes the potentially beneficent extraterritorial influence of APSA policy. The APSA or any other organization should not meet in states that violate fundamental human rights. The economic boycott may bring about a more just policy. Besides, there is much merit in the Biblical principle, "keep thee away from evil." This claim strikes me as more troubling. APSA members sharply dispute the fundamental rights of human beings. In some cases, policies that many believe vindicate fundamental rights are thought by others to violate those rights. Pro-life advocates believe that legal abortion slaughters unborn humans. Pro-choice advocates believe that persons have a fundamental right to choose whether to become parents and that women will enjoy equal citizenship only if they can control their fertility. If we are to meet where all fundamental rights are respected, many of us will not be able be able to go to meetings anywhere and there will always be plausible and contested grounds for boycotting.

For better or worse, when a state policy infringes on the capacity of APSA members to attend a meeting and present their ideas, the organization must take a stand, one way or the other, as to whether the restriction is consistent with professional standards. But the only stand I would take on what fundamental rights human beings have is that such considerations are for APSA members to debate vigorously and no business of the APSA to determine.

Full post as published by Balkinization on May 21, 2008 (boomark / email).