In late October, the leadership of the Modern Language Association (MLA)—one of the largest and wealthiest US scholarly organizations in the humanities—refused to allow the organization’s Delegate Assembly to vote on a resolution stating that members support the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) movement, on the grounds that this would potentially lead to a drop-off in revenue in states with anti-BDS laws. On December 12, in response to this refusal, seven of the MLA members who proposed the resolution released this statement, calling for the organization to let members decide about BDS. Below is a letter from eight former presidents of the MLA (introduced by former president Judith Butler) calling for a vote on the resolution.
_____________________________
Some of the former presidents of the MLA object to the current Executive Council decision not to forward a resolution on the boycott for discussion. We believe that a topic as important as this should be openly debated. Open debate is one of the tasks of the Delegate Assembly as stipulated in the bylaws of the organization. In refusing to forward the motion, the MLA undermines its own structure of shared governance and the value of free and open discussion. We have various views on the boycott but collectively refuse the unsubstantiated claims made by the Director and the Executive Council that fiduciary concerns prohibit open debate about this topic by the Delegate Assembly.”
–Judith Butler, MLA President 2021-22.
*
Dear Paula, Dear Members of the Executive Council,
As former presidents and Executive Council members of the MLA who were highly concerned with the fiduciary obligations of officers during our tenure at the association, we strongly oppose the decision to refuse Delegate Assembly debate on proposed Resolution 2025-1. We request that the Executive Council re-convene to reconsider its decision in the light of widespread and legitimate public criticism. Having studied the reasons given in the EC’s message and its FAQ’s, and having reviewed the Executive Council’s exhaustive report to the Delegate Assembly issued on December 16, 2024, we urge, once again, that members of the Delegate Assembly be permitted to discuss and exercise their right to vote on Resolution 2025:1.
While we respect the work and thoughtfulness that went into the Council’s recently released documents, we do not see the rationale provided as strong or persuasive enough to merit the action taken. We do not, in particular, judge the financial risks mentioned as having been fully explained or, as currently described, worthy of taking precedence over the MLA’s commitment to open debate on urgent issues presented by its members. Indeed, we note that the MLA has itself recommended that administrators of universities and colleges defend dissenting or “unpopular” speech and confront courageously those who would quell speech–which would include deliberative procedures. These principles can be found in our Association’s published statements on Academic Freedom and in the well-formulated letter that the Executive Council released last March about Emergency Motion 2024-1. That letter emphasized the Association’s “unwavering” support for academic freedom and for the right of faculty, student, and staff members to “speak out against Israel’s violence in Gaza.”
The EC makes several claims without supplying substantiation:
1. The EC writes that “fully two-thirds of the operating budget of the MLA comes from sales of products to universities and libraries. If states with anti-BDS laws began refusing to allow their universities, colleges, and libraries to purchase MLA subscription products, the MLA could lose two-thirds of what enables it to carry out its mission, and students and teachers would lose access to these resources.”
We note the apparent assumption that states would be able to invalidate contracts or refuse renewal on the basis of the membership resolution. Some states might attempt this. On the other hand, cancellation would pose a case of viewpoint discrimination that would involve legal and even constitutional questions that could be challenged. We note, as well, the lack of evidence of your core claim that passage of the resolution could put 2/3rds of the MLA’s revenues at risk. You are not procedurally obligated to withhold the financial data that might make your argument more convincing. We are concerned that the lawyers and financial team have been given a de facto veto prior to any discussion of the issues with the DA as representatives of the membership. This is indeed neither democratic nor respectful of the position of the membership as the substance of the Association.
We urge you, once again, to reconsider your decision, and to present at the Delegate Assembly meeting a projection of possible costs based on the evidence we have asked you to supply.
It would be most helpful to have a list of colleges, universities, and libraries to whom MLA sells its products, and what percentage of MLA total revenue would be at risk. Without evidence to assess the scope and validity of the claim, the representation of danger to the MLA appears to amplify fears that are already quelling discussion in the academy. We caution against capitulating to censorship before it happens.
2. The EC states that “The proposed Resolution 2025-1 sought to mitigate this danger by phrasing the resolution such that it focused on the members of the MLA as distinct from the organization. But we cannot count on legislators and their constituents to make that distinction or recognize it as a meaningful one. News articles proclaiming that ‘MLA supports BDS’ wouldn’t likely highlight the distinction between a resolution expressing a majority of members’ individual views and a policy being supported and adopted by the MLA itself. Moreover, in various of these laws and policies, the language in the resolution on ‘support’ for BDS is sufficiently general that a vote by the Delegate Assembly could be taken by many legislatures as prima facie running afoul of the statute by advancing the BDS movement.”
These arguments are fully conjectural, again imagining scenarios in which the MLA has no power to stand up to those who might misconstrue its proceedings. They forebode an unwillingness to defend any future action that the Delegate Assembly might take as its right and to rebut any possible distortions of the precise language of the resolution. On the contrary, anticipating a misreading, the EC concedes spectral allegations in advance of their actual emergence in the public media.
The Chronicle of Higher Education cites Lara Friedman, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, who tracks anti-BDS state initiatives. She does not believe that “a resolution expressing members’ sentiments toward BDS would violate anti-boycott laws, but that ‘doesn’t mean that you won’t see blowback.’ Friedman said these contract laws are weaponized by lawmakers to impose a chilling effect on companies. ‘Folks who are behind these laws, to some extent, are counting on [organizations] not being willing or able to defend their free-speech rights in court,’ she said.”
We urge you, once again, to reconsider your decision, and to present at the Delegate Assembly meeting a projection of possible costs based on the evidence we have asked you to supply. Debating a resolution does not and cannot predict its outcome. An affirmative vote would not alter MLA policy. And the right to open debate is as central to academic freedom as it is to declared MLA principles. We expect the MLA to counter any possible critics and threats with an affirmation of the right to assemble, debate, and decide. These are the basics of deliberative democracy and the guiding mandate of the Delegate Assembly.
Now is surely the time to stand up to unjustifiable censorship and retaliation, given how many faculty have been charged, suspended, or terminated for expressing their extra-mural commitments and how many books are being banned while the attack on the humanities and critical thought continues. At a moment when academic freedom is being seriously undermined in our universities and colleges and a new authoritarianism is taking hold, we look to our professional organizations to act not from the fears that increasingly pervade US academia, but from the courage our members will need to continue our work.
With all best wishes, and with thanks for considering our requests,
Judith Butler • Frieda Ekotto • Margaret Ferguson • Marianne Hirsch • Christopher Newfield • Mary Louise Pratt • Sidonie Smith • Diana Taylor
