Yesterday, NASPA sent out an email informing it’s membership that the Board of Directors collectively decided not to move the 2012 national conference out of Phoenix, AZ. (I can’t seem to produce a link to the memo, so if anyone has one, please comment below.) In sum, while they “considered a statement submitted by the Latino/a Knowledge Community, as well as comments from many others” it appears to have come down to money. The email states the cost for canceling the hotels at this point in time would be $850,000. While I agree that this is a large sum of money for NASPA to pay out, I find their logic that paying the penalty negates the effect of an economic boycott a bit of a stretch, and in truth, wrong.
While hotel costs are not yet published, given my previous NASPA experiences, I’ll estimate a cost of $200 per night. Then I’ll estimate the average hotel stay time of 4 nights. At $800 per room, it only takes 1,062.5 rooms to equal $850,000. Even assuming most professionals opt to share a room to cut on costs, that means any additional attendees over 2,125 (the approximate number of attendees in Chicago was 4850) equal profit for Arizona. This does not include the meals, drinks, souvenirs, drinks, tourist attractions, or drinks that also accompany the conference experience. All this to say, moving the conference out of Arizona will have an economic impact.
I do recognize that the $850,000 to pay the cancellation fee is probably not in the NASPA budget for this year. However, I have to wonder if the Board of Directors considered the possible negative financial impact agains the organization by members choosing not to renew membership and/or boycotting the 2012 conference. After deciding to move their December institute out of Arizona, the Social Justice Training Institute made an appeal to members to help offset the cancellation costs. As of June 17th, former attendees have donated $1,535 towards the $5,000 charge.
Exact numbers and figures aside, what most concerns me is that it appears NASPA made a decision based on the bottom dollar and not their members. As the Latino/a KC said in their statement, “although there are financial costs incurred with moving the conference, we cannot put a price on the emotional, psychological, and professional toll that some NASPA members may experience as a result of keeping the conference in Phoenix.” While members who may be fearful or feel threatened can choose not to attend the conference, I give this argument: when a targeted group of members feel as if they are not safe or welcome at a national conference, the hosting organization is acting with the oppressor.
In graduate school, I worked on a collaborative paper where we discussed the difference between intent and impact when making decisions on a college campus. We have all been there, not realizing until it is too late that the intent behind our decision had a far greater negative impact than we ever imagined. In their email from yesterday, NASPA promises that “as an educational organization that stands for justice, inclusion, and access to education” the 2012 conference will prove to be a time where we can come together for change. Invite various government leaders to participate in dialogue with us, organize and brainstorm around immigration reform, and “purposely present in Arizona with programs that will educate” and “enhance the dialogue”.
But if some members boycott, others choose not to attend for fear of targeted prejudice, and government officials give NASPA the snub, who will be left to dialogue?
