Two small clarifications of fact:
1) The ASA held panels, discussions and meeting on the subject of the academic boycott at conferences over a period of 6 years before the issue came to vote, following an open mike meeting of the membership. At the open mike, speakers names were drawn from a hat, speakers were randomly chosen. Yet the vast majority supported the boycott. This was a result of *years* of discussion in the ASA, nothing sudden about it. Many critics of the "process" were tuned out. Either they didn't go to conference, didn't read newsletters, or in fact had not been members for years. One critic of the ASA quoted in CHE has not been a member for more than 20 years.
2) We decided to post only our own ASA "official" documents ourselves on our website and fb page during the vote, in order not to be besieged by members with all views asking us to post their letters, petitions, documents, press reports, etc. BUT, we opened the Caucus for Academic and Community Activism page for open posting of all documents by all, and we created a dedicated thread on our FB page. The letter from past presidents, the opposition petition, ALL opposition documents were freely posted in those places. Our posting restrictions were equal opportunity. We would not post documents, letters or supportive press from pro boycott organizers either. The reason the (false) impression was created that we posted for one side and not the other is the simple fact that our National Council unanimously supported the boycott., reflecting the overwhelming member support at the open mike at our conference. Then the largest percentage of members every voting passed the boycott resolution by 2 to 1. Those who lost this vote then claimed that there had been insufficient discussion (after 6 years), or that the voting had somehow been unfair (it hadn't, all conference discussions had been completely open for years, all opposition docs were posted on our website and fb page). The attempt has been made to somehow discredit the vote. But the claims about our rush to judgement, or about discriminatory posting are simply untrue.
Two small clarifications of fact:
1) The ASA held panels, discussions and meeting on the subject of the academic boycott at conferences over a period of 6 years before the issue came to vote, following an open mike meeting of the membership. At the open mike, speakers names were drawn from a hat, speakers were randomly chosen. Yet the vast majority supported the boycott. This was a result of *years* of discussion in the ASA, nothing sudden about it. Many critics of the "process" were tuned out. Either they didn't go to conference, didn't read newsletters, or in fact had not been members for years. One critic of the ASA quoted in CHE has not been a member for more than 20 years.
2) We decided to post only our own ASA "official" documents ourselves on our website and fb page during the vote, in order not to be besieged by members with all views asking us to post their letters, petitions, documents, press reports, etc. BUT, we opened the Caucus for Academic and Community Activism page for open posting of all documents by all, and we created a dedicated thread on our FB page. The letter from past presidents, the opposition petition, ALL opposition documents were freely posted in those places. Our posting restrictions were equal opportunity. We would not post documents, letters or supportive press from pro boycott organizers either. The reason the (false) impression was created that we posted for one side and not the other is the simple fact that our National Council unanimously supported the boycott., reflecting the overwhelming member support at the open mike at our conference. Then the largest percentage of members every voting passed the boycott resolution by 2 to 1. Those who lost this vote then claimed that there had been insufficient discussion (after 6 years), or that the voting had somehow been unfair (it hadn't, all conference discussions had been completely open for years, all opposition docs were posted on our website and fb page). The attempt has been made to somehow discredit the vote. But the claims about our rush to judgement, or about discriminatory posting are simply untrue.