Closure of Association for Research on Mothering

Readers of this blog may want to lend their voices to this fight.

As of May 1, ARM will be forced to close due to York University’s refusal to provide funding. This is a very great loss for anyone doing work in this area. A letter from Director Andrea O’Reilly, with more information about the closing, can be found here.

If you can, please send emails, attesting to ARM’s importance, to the addresses below. What follows is a brief excerpt from Andrea’s letter:

The Association for Research on Mothering was founded in 1998, its journal in 1999, and its press in 2006. Over these twelve years ARM’s accomplishments have been many and diverse including: 35 international conferences, including conferences in New York City and in Puerto Rico and one recently planned for Portugal in 2011; 22 journal issues and ten Demeter Press titles published (with another 15 Demeter Press titles in production or under contract) [ the list goes on – JN] …

ARM receives NO funding from York University though in recent years York has provided a small office for ARM and some teaching release for myself as director (and does provide accounting and financial services). …With York’s refusal to provide some funding or to cover some of ARM’s operational costs and its recent decision to freeze our accounts and suspend its research activities, I see no other choice but to close ARM. I believe that ARM’s many achievements make ARM deserving of institutional support and have done my utmost to convince York of this but York remains steadfast in its argument that ARM must operate on a cost-recovery basis
with no institutional support, (though York’s many research centres receive far more in university funding than ARM is requesting and do far less in research activities). I ask that any comments or questions on the forced closure of ARM be directed to the following individuals (please cc;

Associate Dean of Research, FLAPS, Barbara Crow,
Executive Officer, FLAPS, Felim Greene,
Associate Dean, External Relations, FLAPS, Moghissi Haideh,
Dean, FLAPS, Martin Singer,
Vice President, Research and Innovation, Stan Shapson,
Associate Vice President Research, Social Sciences and the Humanities, David Dewitt,
Vice-President Academic & Provost, Patrick Monahan,
Director, Office of Research Services, David Phipps,
President and Vice Chancellor, Mamdouh Shoukri,

CFP: SWIP at Joint Session Extended Deadline




At the 2010 Joint Session of the Aristotelian Society and the Mind Association, there will be a SWIP UK panel of papers devoted to topics in any area of interest to women in philosophy.

We solicit full papers,(2500 words) plus 250 word abstract, suitable to be delivered in no more than 20 minutes with a further 10 minutes for discussion. We encourage submissions from graduate students. (As with
all the open sessions, papers accepted for this session will not be published in the Supplementary Volume of the Aristotelian Society.) We expect to confirm which papers have been accepted by the end of March.

Please make sure that your submission is suitable for anonymous reviewing and attach a separate document with your name and contact details. Email submissions are preferred; please send your full paper, with an abstract, as either .doc or .pdf attachment to Dawn Phillips, at dawn.phillips AT or send a hard copy to: Dr Dawn Phillips, Department of Philosophy, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.

For information about SWIP UK, see
For information about the Joint Session at UCD, see

Pacific APA Hotel Boycott

Louise and Sally have sent us this to post. I urge you to read it (despite its length), as these are important issues and how our profession responds to them matters:

As you may already know, there is a union boycott of the Westin St.
Francis hotel in San Francisco, the site of the Pacific Division meeting of the
APA from March 30 through April 4 this year. To briefly review: on January 18
the Executive Secretary of the Pacific Division informed program participants
that United Here Local 2, which represents the hotel workers in San Francisco,
had called for a boycott of the Westin, along with a number of other major
hotels in the city, because of an unresolved contract dispute. Program
participants were surveyed concerning whether or not to move the conference from
the Westin, and also concerning the kinds of burdens such a move would incur for
them. After consulting the program participants, the decision was made to stay
at the Westin, with provision being made for those who want to honor the boycott
by moving their sessions offsite. It now appears that the University of San
Francisco will be hosting the offsite sessions.

We feel strongly that holding the convention at the Westin is
morally wrong. However, we are not trying to reverse the decision to stay now.
Rather, we are writing to urge you to sign a pledge to personally honor the
union boycott and to urge others to honor it. Since the union is asking that no
one “eat, sleep, or meet” in the hotel until an agreement is reached, we are
asking you to pledge not to set foot in the hotel during the convention as long
as the boycott remains in force.

In our conversations with other APA members, we have heard a number
of arguments against the view that we have a duty to honor the boycott. We’d
like to address them.

1. Some people are under the impression that the dispute between the
union and the hotel management is limited to a small and inconsequential matter.
Although the hotel management is representing the situation in this way, the
hotel workers tell a different story. Here is an excerpt from an email message
to a number of APA members from Connie Hibbard, Unite Here Local 2:

“My co-workers and I are currently in the midst of a dispute with Starwood
Hotels, the company that manages the Westin St. Francis. The company is
insisting on proposals that would make health benefits unaffordable for myself
and my family, cut workers’ retirement benefits, and increase workloads. This is
despite the fact Starwood made $180 million in profits during just nine months
last year, and the Westin St. Francis hotel itself generated over $11 million in
earnings. My co-workers and I went on a 3-day strike in November to show that we
will not let Starwood, whose CEO made $4.8 million in 2008, use the economy as
an excuse to squeeze us even harder. We are calling on all Westin St. Francis
customers to BOYCOTT the hotel until it agrees to a fair contract. I understand
the APA is taking input on whether or not to hold its conference at this hotel.
Unfortunately, the information the APA sent its members was false and misleading
on several counts. For example, the APA said that “there is no dispute over
salaries or working conditions” and that “the parties do not appear to be far
apart.” This simply isn’t true. The issues at stake in negotiations include
wages, working conditions, workers’ right to join unions, and affordable

And here’s a quote from Riddhi Mehta, taken from TV coverage of a picket of one
of the boycotted hotels:

“They want our members to pay $200 a month for health care over a period of
three years, and they can’t afford that. They make $30,000 a year and they
cannot afford that.”

2. Some people claim to see a morally significant difference
between a boycott and a strike; they say that they would never violate a strike
or cross a picket line, but that they do not feel the same obligation to honor a
boycott. We simply do not understand this reasoning. Strikes and boycotts are
tactical devices used by unions to attempt to offset the built-in bargaining
advantage naturally possessed by management, especially large corporations.
Both are effective and concrete means of promoting basic human rights for
working people who deserve to live decent lives. Unions waging contract
struggles need to be smart about how they expend their resources and so must
think strategically in choosing their tactics. We do not see how their choice
changes the moral valence. The justification for honoring a boycott is therefore
continuous with – and as strong as – the justification for honoring a strike.
Moreover, the costs to APA members of implementing the boycott are marginal
compared to what workers stand to gain.

We note, too, in passing, that contrary to what APA members were
told, the hotel workers have been engaged in picketing, as evidenced by the
television story cited above. Here’s Connie Hibbard again:

“[T]he APA said, “There are no pickets, though union staff may distribute
leaflets at the hotel doors”. Local 2 members have held multiple picket lines
outside the St. Francis. I myself participated in a lively picket line just a
few days ago, along with 150 coworkers, in front of the hotel. Starwood is
trying to spread the idea that it’s just a few “union staff” at our actions –
but APA members shouldn’t buy into this line. You can get a glimpse into our
struggle through a video that’s posted on our union’s website,”

3. Finally, some people have cited the concessions and sacrifices
we are all being asked to make in these current, difficult economic conditions:
if we are accepting pay cuts, furloughs, higher work loads and increased health
care premiums, why shouldn’t the hotel workers also have to make concessions?

We have a great deal to say in response to this argument. First of
all, there are at least three factors that make the hotel workers’ situation
importantly different from our own. First, unlike the hotel workers, we are
employed by not-for-profit institutions; savings squeezed from us are not going
directly to profits. Second, the financial crisis in higher education,
especially in public institutions, is real, whereas the hotel group targeted by
the workers has posted healthy profits over the last year – for the Westin, $11
million over just nine months. This hotel group can afford a decent deal for
their workers, and is crying poverty merely as pretext. Third, size matters.
Although we recognize the precarious position of our un- and under-employed
colleagues, we wish to call on the consciences of those members who have secure
employment and comparatively generous salaries to act in support of workers
struggling for a decent life at the economic margins of society.

Second, the argument incorrectly assumes that college professors
ought in all cases to accept the concessions being demanded of them. But as the
recent protests in California attest, many of us are actively fighting wage
cuts, givebacks, and hikes in student fees, particularly when our employers
privilege administrators’ compensation over staff retention, faculty
recruitment, and student financial aid, or when state governments try to shift
the cost of running a public resource onto the backs of faculty, staff, and

We hope you have found our case for honoring the boycott convincing
and agree to sign the on-line pledge we have created. Note, it is appropriate to
sign even if you are not planning to go to San Francisco, as the pledge involves
encouraging others to honor the boycott as well. The last day APA members can
sign this pledge is Wednesday 24th of March 2010. Once signatures have been
collected, the statement will be sent to the Westin Hotel and to the Union. The
Union may choose to post the statement and accompanying signatures on their web
page. To sign the pledge, please point your browser here.