MLA v. BDS 4: Updated Letter from Former Presidents of the MLA to the MLA Executive Director and Executive Council on Blocking the Debate

Mississippi River from MLA Convention Hilton on January 8, 2025

I'm cross-posting our ex-presidents letter from Lit Hub, updated to reflect the addition of Michael Bérubé. He co-chaired the Ad Hoc Committee that authored the review policy that the EC used to justify blocking the Delegate Assembly debate of the BDS resolution. 

For other materials, please see the initial headnote and resignations letters (MLA v. BDS 1), and the letters from ex-members of the EC (MLA v. BDS 2) and of the MLA Academic Freedom Committee (MLA v. BDS 3).

**

December 16, 2024, updated January 3, 2025

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 Resolution 2025:1. We request that the Executive Council re-convene to reconsider its decision in the light of widespread and legitimate publiccriticism. Having studied the reasons given in the EC’s message and its FAQ’s, we urge 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 Executive 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 MLAsubscription 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 for 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.

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 itfocused on the members of the MLA as distinct from the organization. But we cannot count on legislators and their constituents tomake 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. This argument forebodes 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 the Executive Council 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,

Michael Bérubé

Judith Butler

Frieda Ekotto

Margaret Ferguson 

Marianne Hirsch

Christopher Newfield

Mary Louise Pratt

Sidonie Smith

Diana Taylor

Former Presidents, Modern Language Association