Yesterday, Shaun King at the New York Daily News announced a national boycott against “police brutality, racial violence and systemic injustice in America.” The boycott will start December 5, the anniversary of the 1955 start of the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
Here are some of the key features of the planned boycott, from the King article linked above:
1. We will not be releasing the names of the cities, states, businesses, and institutions that we will be boycotting until Dec. 5, 2016. Between now and then, we hope that cities and states around the country will begin to enact emergency legislation and policies to prevent police brutality and racial violence. Furthermore, we do not want any potential institutions to somehow undermine our efforts.
2. We can tell you this, our boycott will be national. That means we will be boycotting:
- Entire cities and states much like what you see being done in North Carolina right now over the anti-LGBT House Bill 2.
- Particular brands and corporations who partner with and profit from systemic oppression.
- Particular brands and corporations headquartered in cities and states notorious for police brutality and racial violence, which say and do little to nothing about it.
- Particular institutions, including banks, which fund, underwrite, inform, train or otherwise support systemic oppression and brutality.
8. We do expect this boycott to last for months, or even years, not days or weeks.
It’s worth reading the whole article to learn about the background and the other details. So, here it is again.
For those of us who intend to support the boycott, some planning is in order. We won’t know which particular cities/companies/institutions are subject to boycott until the day is upon us. But we can make some reasonable conjectures.
Here are a couple of small things philosophers can do to show solidarity with the movement. It is highly plausible that Baltimore will be among the boycotted cities. The 2017 Eastern APA will be held in Baltimore in early January. Philosophers who are in a position to do so may wish to hold off on pre-registering for the APA and purchasing airline tickets to Baltimore until we know whether or not Baltimore is subject to boycott. And, if Baltimore is targeted, those philosophers who are able to skip the meeting should seriously consider doing so. Further, philosophers, especially APA members, should consider writing to the APA to inform the Association that they will be joining in the boycott and hence will miss the Baltimore meeting if Baltimore is boycotted. They should therefore urge the Association to develop both an official position and a clear plan in case Baltimore is boycotted. Finally, we should speak with our colleagues in other disciplines and urge them to take similar tacks with their professional associations, who will similarly have meetings planned in cities that are likely to be boycotted.
(h/t SE for the links)
One thought on “National boycott and some small things philosophers can do to help”
Boycotts have their place, but supporting this one seems very premature. It’s not just that we don’t know the cities to be targeted. We don’t even know the criteria to be used. While it’s good that the organizers promise that the boycotts will be lifted when “serious, credible reforms” are enacted, we’re not told what these might be.
What will count as an “emergency measure” that will show “measurable, tangible change”. Certainly not something like a civilian review board or procedures to bring police up on charges – since Baltimore has both of those – and it’s not clear either produced a measurable change.
There’s also a worry about boycotting without giving the offending city reasonable time to make the proposed changes – since there will be innocent injured parties in boycotts of cities. There may be emergency cases that simply can’t wait, but I wonder what those would look like.
Comments are closed.