Among diverse affiliations, I am a member of the American Political Science Association. This year, I will speak to their national conference on issues related to gender studies. APSA is a highly respectable and well organized — organized the American way — association, which I enjoy being a member of. To be honest, I have more interest in APSA endeavours in favour of political science than in my own country association, a member of which I am nevertheless. I have never really understood how it works, if it works at all (well most of my colleagues seem to be happy with the French association of political science, but I cannot decide whether it is because it is actually an interesting professional association or because my colleagues are as French as the association — at least it is quite objective a statement that the website of the French association, if not the whole association itself, is by no way very organized).

For a reason still unknown to me, APSA took fire on an unpredictable issue: the meeting site of 2012 in New Orleans. It happens that the state of Louisiana bans same sex unions in its constitution, which does not even recognize the validity of same sex unions contracted in other states. So, some members, considering that such a law is discriminatory decided to ask for a boycott of all places that would have anti-same-sex unions laws. APSA should not meet in such places.

I gave some thought to the issue, and I finally felt compelled to contribute to the debate though actions taken or not by APSA would have no impact of any sort in my own country — which is blessed with same sex CPU laws. I also felt all the restrictions with which a non-American should express himself regarding issues that primarily concern US citizens’ interests. But homophobia is not solely an American problem, and moreover, using constitutions to abridge human rights instead of extending them, especially in a country that was the birth place of modern constitutionalism is not only a problem for the Americans. It is a bad signal sent to the rest of the world.

This being said, I also think that academic ethics involves being suspicious of the use of academia for political ends.

My uncertainty increased when I considered issues of consistency. Some of them regard the positions of APSA as a whole, since APSA criticized in 2005 the principle of academic boycotts (in that case, of Israel). There were also issues of consistency at individual levels. A non-American member like me, well aware of many human rights violations committed by the US in the context of the war in Iraq, would find it hardly coherent to favour a boycott principle over the more nuanced position of the APSA in 2005, since in this case, I should choose to apply the same standard to my collaborating with US institutions or organizations. No country, no place, is immune from being contaminated by illiberal ideas and being tempted to cut on human and citizens’ rights. We should boycott the universe if we had to be coherent with a boycott policy…

Such considerations cannot lead to indifference to situations which harm people’s rights at a fundamental level — and I consider it the case in the matter we discuss. But it is as well true that more basic violations exist in the US such as the death penalty, which ignores the decent respect due to the opinions of mankind on a topic far less controversial in the rest of the world than gay rights. APSA has never addressed specifically this issue and so, the proposal for a boycott simply means that we are being selective on human rights related issues.

Taking the opportunity of meeting in such places as New Orleans or other places to voice dissent will probably be more coherent and efficient than ruling in favour of a boycott.

This being said, I did not want to counteract efforts to make the world a gay-friendlier place, and though advocating for not starting the boycott process, I let any concerned party know that I would nevertheless endorse the decision of a boycott should it be taken. I did so as a warm supporter of gay rights, and I am well aware that this position reflects more my partisan partial opinions than it is grounded on the objective view that an academic has to retain on any matter. When right is not available, the next smart move is to go for less bad.