Research paper (gov)
Published with Creative Commons licence: Attribution–Noncommercial–No Derivatives
Academia’s moral entanglements in the face of
a racist regime
Sarah Moser
McGill University
sarah.moser@mcgill.ca
Michael Hendricks
McGill University
michael.hendricks@mcgill.ca
Luna Vives
Université de Montréal
luna.vives@umontreal.ca
Keywords
Travel Ban, Migration, Academics, Borders, Trump
Academia’s moral entanglements in the face of a racist regime
176
Introduction
Many academic societies with large, international memberships are based in
the United States and host annual meetings that are focal points for their respective
fields. Changing rules and norms with respect to border control threaten to impact
large groups of scholars, many of them trainees, who will be effectively prevented
from full participation in their field and their scholarly community. Here, we call
on scholarly societies to defend the interests of all of their members and to ensure
that their events and operations do not reproduce or reinforce discriminatory
policies of the U.S. government.
Donald Trump’s January 2017 executive order banned all citizens of seven
Muslim-majority countries (Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, and Iraq,
which was subsequently removed in the revised ban) from entering the United
States. Hyperbolically called “Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign
Terrorist Entry into the United States,” it was the first line of an attack orchestrated
by the Trump administration on racialized migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees.
More commonly referred to as “the travel ban”, the order was hastily designed and
implemented, with flaws that led to uneven and inconsistent application largely left
up to the discretion of local Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers. When
the travel ban was active, a number of Canadian passport holders, some of whom
were born in Canada, were denied entry with no explanation (Banerjee 2017;
Montpetit 2017; Lowrie 2017; Rukavina 2017). These included a teenager traveling
with his team for a sports competition and various people visiting family and doing
cross-border shopping.
Additional changes to policy (both implemented and proposed by the
current administration) aim to seal the land border between the U.S. and Mexico,
dramatically increase immigrant detention, limit the presence of immigrants from
racialized groups in the country (both aspiring to settle in the U.S. as well as legal
permanent residents), deport those residing in U.S. territory without a proper visa,
and put the processing of refugee applications on hold indefinitely (Cook 2017;
Cruz-Torres 2017; Hiemstra 2016 and 2017). The executive order and related
measures are illegal (American Civil Liberties Union 2017) and constitute a
violation of international commitments assumed by the U.S. (such as the Geneva
Convention). By disproportionately targeting nationals of Arab and Latin American
countries, the order also has an unquestionable racist intent.
Moreover, there is a remarkable incongruence between the countries
targeted in the ban and those whose nationals have been involved in previous
terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, or which are known to be currently a source of
jihadist terrorism (Neier 2017). This begs the question of whether the travel ban is
misinformed, misguided, or supports a larger white supremacist agenda – or all of
the above.
ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 2017, 16(2): 175-184 177
Impeding academia, one travel ban at a time
The impact of these anti-immigration measures has been felt far and wide.
Vulnerable migrants continue to be affected by these policies and decades of
similar anti-immigration policies supported by previous administrations: Latino
mothers crossing the southern border with their children, who will likely be
separated and detained upon arrival, with parents charged with human smuggling
(Gordon 2017, Hiemstra 2016 and 2017); and refugees fleeing war, whose
selection process will be protracted and perhaps never completed (Harvard
Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program 2017). Those racialized and vulnerable
migrants were the original target of the executive order and the associated anti-
immigration measures that followed Trump’s inauguration. Due to its flaws and
lacking clarity, the “travel ban” has also affected people who clearly do not fall
under its scope, such as Canadian-born citizens who have been barred from entry
based on presumed religious affiliation. The nature of the ban and the rhetoric
leading up to it, combined with the wide latitude and lack of accountability enjoyed
by CBP officers, have legitimized already widespread racial profiling at the border,
and created an arbitrary mechanism for excluding individuals based not on
nationality but on ethnic and religious judgements made on the spot.
Academics could be considered a fairly privileged bunch in the current
global context of international human mobility: travel is not only expected, but
encouraged for the purposes of both data collection and knowledge dissemination.
Doing international fieldwork and attending international conferences is the bread
and butter of our profession. The relative privileges scholars enjoy mask the great
diversity of the international academic class, which includes tenured professors as
well as poorly salaried temporary teaching staff and students, and of course
scholars from different racial and religious backgrounds from all over the world.
The “travel ban” has sent shockwaves throughout this high-flying tribe of ours.
Academics from the listed countries who reside in the United States, no
matter their status (green card holders, those on work visas, or others), have had to
put all personal and professional travel outside the country on hold for fear of being
refused entry upon returning. Researchers in this group who were outside the
country when the executive order was passed found themselves stranded overseas –
unable to return to their offices, their homes, and their families (Redden 2017).
Moreover, while previous attempts to implement the ban were deemed illegal, on
June 26, 2017 the Supreme Court partially reinstated it, effectively barring most
travellers from the six Muslim majority countries included in the original order
from travelling to the U.S. (Shear and Liptak 2017). Scholars who are passport
holders from the blacklisted countries face insecurity about being banned suddenly
in the future with no recourse.
The implications of this far-reaching travel ban were clear at a number of
conferences held in the U.S. in early 2017, where an unknown number of
researchers decided to cancel their travel plans out of fear of being turned away at
Academia’s moral entanglements in the face of a racist regime
178
the border. The “travel ban” prompted others to reconsider their professional
commitments more broadly. The uncertainty and chaos caused by capricious
executive orders means that many people from countries beyond the six or seven
listed have increasingly been turned away at the border by CBP officers with no
explanation, and there is reason to fear that this will continue. For example, an MIT
professor originally from Niger scheduled to present his work at McGill University
in Montreal soon after the executive order was announced cancelled his trip due to
the uncertainty posed, despite not being from a listed country. Many geographers
decided not to attend this year’s American Association of Geographers (AAG)
conference not only out of solidarity with targeted scholars, but also out of
uncertainty about their or their trainees’ chances to successfully cross the border.
Geographers have documented the emergence of a new global border
regime and how it targets racialized migrants and those from Muslim countries
disproportionately (Burridge et al 2016, Dünnwald 2011, Johnson et al 2011,
Kaytaz 2016, Mainwaring and Brigden 2016, Minca and Rijke 2016, van Houtum
2010, Walters 2016, among others). However, anti-immigration policies as
impulsive, sweeping, inconsistent, and racially charged as Trump’s executive
orders are new terrain for residents of and visitors to the United States.
Perhaps more than other disciplines, critical geographers are uniquely
positioned to contribute to conversations advancing ideas about space, borders,
geographies of exclusion, bodies, and justice, among others, and to tease out the
implications of Trump’s anti-immigration efforts. As members of the international
academic community, we feel compelled to bring attention to the consequences
that these policy decisions have had and will continue to have on the future of
scientific knowledge. And, as members of the AAG and professionals whose work
is primarily funded through taxpayer money, we are outraged at finding ourselves
in a position in which we are compelled to choose between either not attending
conferences or leaving racialized students and colleagues behind, despite the
impact that will have on their careers.
Roles and responsibilities of professional societies
American academic institutions, associations, and conference organizers
have responded in a variety of ways that reflect the confusion surrounding the
executive order and the ethical questions it raises. Some scholarly societies have
made no statement at all on the executive order to date, while others have made
general statements promoting diversity, inclusion, and the international nature of
academic research. At the Society for Neuroscience (SfN) annual meeting held in
November 2016, a week after Trump was elected, one of the authors attended an
advocacy event where the audience was advised “not to get caught up in partisan
politics,” with the implication that it may jeopardize national research funding
under a new administration that has already proven itself to embrace pseudoscience
and science denialism.
ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 2017, 16(2): 175-184 179
The AAG’s initial response to the ban was, to some, inappropriately
lukewarm, given the gravity of the situation. In a public letter, the association’s
president argued that the discipline has a central role as a “fountainhead of
actionable and policy relevant knowledge” and that “[i]t is critical that the United
States continues to welcome geographers and others of all backgrounds and
nationalities” (MacDonald 2017). But the association failed to follow through with
actions to support this statement. The AAG’s commitment to materially assist
registrants for their annual conference in April who were affected by the executive
order was minimal, despite claims that they are “supporting” their members (AAG
Staff 2017). In response to the ban, or “travel restrictions” as the AAG calls it, the
organization’s leadership initially stated that it would fully reimburse without
penalty only conference attendees who are passport holders of the seven listed
countries, and only if they were based outside of the United States. This meant that
a boycott in solidarity by passport holders of the seven listed countries based at US
institutions would not be supported, nor would a boycott by any others. The AAG
offered to provide registrants from the seven countries with the option of
presenting via teleconference or through a surrogate presenter so they could remain
in the conference program. After the circulation of an online petition and over six
weeks of outcry among members, the AAG leadership agreed to reimburse without
penalty those affected on a case-by-case basis.
In contrast to the AAG, the International Studies Association (ISA) issued a
stronger statement within just a few days, also in response to criticism of their
bland initial response by their membership, stating that they would fully refund
registration fees and waive withdrawal penalties for their upcoming annual
conference to those “personally and morally affected” (Tweet from Jen Fontanella,
Director of Operations, January 31, 2017: https://twitter.com/isanet/status/
826510850131447808). The ISA also issued a statement that “scholars negatively
affected by this executive order are strongly encouraged to contact the committee
through its dedicated email address.” This response better reflects the vast network
of people affected by the ban, far beyond just nationals of the seven listed
countries.
An independent petition, signed by over 43,000 academics to date
(https://notoimmigrationban.com/ as of June 29, 2017) was less circumspect than
most society statements on these issues, declaring the executive order overtly
discriminatory. Other direct actions and statements from academics, such as the
March for Science or ACME’s first AAG annual protest (unequivocally named
“Geographers against Trump”), directly challenge the fascist and anti-intellectual
characteristics of the current administration in a way that our institutions –
universities and professional societies – are not.
Part of the reason that scholarly societies such as SfN and the AAG are
unable to respond more effectively to such executive orders and to Trump in
general is that they are financially dependent on large annual meetings or have
relinquished control of these conferences to event management companies. The
Academia’s moral entanglements in the face of a racist regime
180
question then becomes whether scholarly societies exist primarily to serve the
organizational interests of the societies themselves or the interests and values of a
diverse and international membership.
Professors who wish to bring their Muslim (or “Muslim-looking” or
otherwise deemed suspicious to a border agent emboldened by Trump rhetoric)
trainees to the United States to attend conferences and other training opportunities
are now faced with a dilemma. If they attempt to bring these students to
conferences, the students risk being denied entry and the stress of racially-
motivated harassment and questioning. The current language of grant bodies’
reimbursement policies is clear: funds spent on registration fees, hotels, and
transportation cannot be reimbursed if participation is cancelled. It is doubtful that
airlines and hotels would refund students in this position, and as noted above it is
unclear if conference organizers would reimburse registration fees. Groups
travelling together might all have to choose between turning back or stranding one
person at the border. One of the authors was faced with this prospect when she
realized that carpooling with her graduate students, one of whom is Yemeni-
Indonesian, from Montreal to the AAG in Boston put the entire group at risk. These
concerns can compel students (or their advisors) to avoid the financial risk of
attending U.S.-based conferences. However, this then puts professors in the
position of deciding whether to leave at-risk trainees behind while bringing other
students.
This means that, inadvertently, both professional associations such as the
AAG as well as supervisors are using public funds to effectively discriminate
against researchers based on the anticipated assessment of their national and
religious background by border agents. There may be no ill intent in these
decisions: the AAG may or may not be able to assume the financial impact of
reimbursing scholars affected by the ban, and supervisors and students alike are
simply making a rational decision in the context of existing institutional
reimbursement policies. But the result is the same. Segregation and allocation of
federal grant money based on race or religion is both deeply unfair and raises
serious ethical and legal concerns regarding the use of public funds. More explicit
policies are required to guide fair decision-making about funding and make explicit
what the shared responsibilities are when spending tax-payer-funded grants.
Universities and scholarly societies are accustomed to interacting with the
government based on a set of norms respecting the central role and value of higher
education, academic research, and the free movement of ideas and people in the
context of the global research and academic ecosystem1. The sooner we realize that
1 While a Trump presidency poses new challenges, we acknowledge that there are on-going and
systemic inequalities and obstacles for many in the scholarly community, particularly
undocumented students, a situation that illustrates that despite the novelty and chaos of the travel
ban, many experience a high degree of continuity across administrations (Muñoz and Espino 2017;
Person and Gutierrez Keeton 2017).
ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 2017, 16(2): 175-184 181
those norms no longer hold, the more effective our organizations will be in truly
promoting the public good in the long term.
Complexities and entanglements: Moving forward
We write this brief piece to spark a dialogue and in the hopes that
professional associations and granting agencies will recognize the complexities and
entanglements of scholars in the context of increasingly globalized higher
education, and the unprecedented and dangerous circumstances presented by the
Trump administration. We hope that members of professional associations will
demand and help to develop nuanced policies that truly protect and are sensitive to
the needs of their domestic and international members. Moving forward, each
professional association should hold sessions at annual meetings to discuss and
refine their stance and future responses regarding the new political reality and how
best to support members. It is not enough for scholarly societies to issue well-
meaning but vague statements in support of their members and their general
commitment to diversity; specific policies need to be clearly articulated, codified,
and enforced to make clear what is acceptable. For example, the California
Assembly Bill 1887, which became effective on January 1, 2017, officially
prohibits the use of state funds to travel to states with discriminatory laws.2 Other
countries, provinces, and states have similar laws and funding bodies and
professional societies need to be not only in closer alignment with these, but play a
more active leadership role in crafting and supporting them.
The prominence of U.S.-based scholarly societies and the role their annual
meetings play in many disciplines complicate outright boycotts or funding
restrictions on U.S. travel. However, the fact that these organizations are central to
their fields depends to a significant extent on having a lot of international, dues-
paying members. American scholarly societies should consider hosting annual
meetings outside the U.S. at least some of the time. For example, the Society for
Neuroscience has held its annual meeting in Toronto twice, though not in recent
years.
While this article was being revised, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling
that upheld some provisions of the travel ban while also imposing limits on its
enforcement. These limits include exempting those with a valid work, study, or
residency status in the U.S., which should mitigate some of the risk for those
currently in the U.S. when trying to re-enter after travelling abroad. That said, the
Court’s ruling is unlikely to clarify or harmonize how the ban is enforced by
individual border agents empowered to act at their own discretion and with little or
no accountability. This fuzzy enforcement means that, for the foreseeable future,
2 The travel restrictions originally applied to Kansas, Mississippi, and North Carolina, and Alabama,
Kentucky, South Dakota, and Texas have subsequently been added.
Academia’s moral entanglements in the face of a racist regime
182
those who are similar in terms of religious, ethnic, or regional origin to those
explicitly targeted by the ban are at risk when travelling to the United States.
The scholarly community needs to closely examine their ethical
responsibilities in supporting and advocating for their members, and for science
more broadly, and the varied ways in which Trump’s presidency affects us all.
Channels of communication between members and leadership of professional
societies should be open and should better represent graduate students, junior
faculty, minorities, and others most vulnerable to exclusionary policies such as the
travel ban. While Twitter and online petitions have shown efficacy in prompting
change within professional society leadership, ideally expanded representation of
the membership in decision-making will stem the need for such tactics. Finally, we
must ensure that our societies advocate for their academic mission and the long
term priorities of their membership and not just short-term organizational self-
interest.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers
for their constructive feedback on this paper. We would also like to thank Alyssa
Shamsa Wilbur, Laurence Côté-Roy, and Isabelle Simpson for their valuable input
during many stimulating discussions about issues covered in and related to this
paper.
References
AAG Staff. 2017. “AAG to Support Geographers from Countries Affected by
Trump Travel Restrictions.” AAG Newsletter, February 1.
http://news.aag.org/2017/02/aag-to-support-geographers-from-countries-
affected-by-trump-travel-ban/.
American Civil Liberties Union. 2017. “Groups Challenge Trump Immigration Ban
After Refugees Detained at Airports,” January 28.
https://www.aclu.org/news/groups-challenge-trump-immigration-ban-after-
refugees-detained-airports.
Banerjee, Sidhartha. 2017. “Canadian Citizen Denied Entry to U.S. Told She
Needed Visa to Get in.” Global and Mail, March 7.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-citizen-denied-entry-
to-united-states-told-she-needed-visa-to-get-in/article34228089/.
Burridge, Andrew, Nick Gill, Austin Kocher and Lauren Martin. 2017. Online.
Polymorphic Borders. Territory, Politics, Governance.
http://rsa.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21622671.2017.1297253
Cook, Jesselyn. 2017. “5 Ways the Trump Administration Has Threatened Refugee
Rights.” The Huffington Post, June 21.
ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 2017, 16(2): 175-184 183
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/06/20/5-ways-the-trump-
administration-has-threatened-refugee-rights_a_22494140/
Cruz-Torres, María L. 2017. The US-Mexican Border, Immigration, and
Resistance. Latin American Perspectives, 0094582X17699908.
Dünnwald, Stephan. 2011. On Migration and Security: Europe Managing
Migration from Sub-Saharan Africa. Cuadernos de Estudios Africanos 22.
https://cea.revues.org/430
Gordon, Ian. 2017. "Inside Trump's Border Crackdown on Women and Kids."
MotherJones, March 19. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/03/central-
america-asylum-seekers-trump-
deportation?utm_content=buffer16d4b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=fac
ebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program. 2017. "The Impact of
President Trump's Executive Orders on Asylum Seekers.
https://today.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Report-Impact-of-
Trump-Executive-Orders-on-Asylum-Seekers.pdf
Hiemstra, Nancy. 2016. "This is Fear: ICE Raids on Parents and Children." The
Huffington Post, January 8. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-
hiemstra/this-is-fear-ice-raids-on_b_8939568.html
Hiemstra, Nancy. 2017. "What Would You Do To Save Your Kids? The Outrage
of Separating Immigrant Families at the Border." The Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/58c32572e4b0c3276fb784d4
Johnson, Corey, Reece Jones, Anssi Paasi, Louise Amoore, Alison Mountz, Mark
Salter and Chris Rumford. 2011. Interventions on rethinking 'the border' in
border studies. Political Geography 30(2): 61-69.
Kaytaz, Esra S. 2016. Afghan Journeys to Turkey: Narratives of Immobility, Travel
and Transformation. Geopolitics 21(2): 284-302.
Lowrie, Morgan. 2017. “Quebec Student Athlete with Moroccan Roots Claims He
Was Denied U.S. Entry.” Toronto Sun, February 10.
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/02/10/quebec-student-athlete-with-moroccan-
roots-claims-he-was-denied-us-entry.
MacDonald, Glen M. 2017. “Creating and Preserving Actionable and Policy-
Relevant Geography.” AAG Newsletter, January 29.
http://news.aag.org/2017/02/aag-to-support-geographers-from-countries-
affected-by-trump-travel-ban/
Mainwaring, Ċetta and Noelle Brigden. 2016. Beyond the Border: Clandestine
Migration Journeys. Geopolitics 21(2): 243-262.
Academia’s moral entanglements in the face of a racist regime
184
Minca, Claudio and Alexandra Rijke. 2017. Walls! Walls! Walls! Society and
Space, April 18, 2017. http://societyandspace.org/2017/04/18/walls-walls-
walls/
Montpetit, Jonathan. 2017. “Ottawa Urged to Act on Canadian Citizens Being
Denied Entry to U.S.” CBC.ca, March 6.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/canadian-denied-entry-us-immigrant-
visa-liberal-response-1.4012218.
Muñoz, Susana M., & Espino, Michelle M. 2017. The Freedom to Learn:
Experiences of Students without Legal Status Attending Freedom
University. The Review of Higher Education, 40(4), 533-555.
Neier, Aryeh. 2017. “Saudi Arabia and Egypt Are Excluded from Trump’s Ban.
Why?” The Guardian, January 30.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/30/saudi-arabia-egypt-
excluded-from-trumps-ban.
Person, Dawn; Gutierrez Keeton, Rebecca; Medina, Noemy; Gonzalez, Jacquelyn;
and Minero, Linda P. 2017. Effectively Serving AB 540 and
Undocumented Students at a Hispanic Serving Institution. Journal of
Hispanic Higher Education, 16(3), 256-272.
Redden, Elizabeth. 2017. "Stranded and Stuck." Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/01/30/students-and-scholars-are-
stranded-after-trump-bars-travel-nationals-7-countries
Rukavina, Steve. 2017. “Canadian Woman Turned Away from U.S. Border after
Questions about Religion, Trump.” CBC.ca, February 8.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/canadian-woman-turned-away-from-
u-s-border-after-questions-about-religion-trump-1.3972019.
Shear, Michael D. and Liptak, Adam. 2017. “Supreme Court Takes Up Travel Ban
Case, and Allows Parts to Go Ahead.” The New York Times, June 26.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-travel-
ban-case.html
van Houtum, Henk. 2010. Human Blacklisting: the Global Apartheid of the EU's
External Border Regime. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space
28(6): 957-976.
Walters, William. 2016. The Flight of the Deported: Aircraft, Deportation, and
Politics. Geopolitics 21(2): 435-458.
Copyright of ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies is the property of Centre for Social, Spatial & Economic Justice and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.