Re: AOM President's Message about travel restrictions to US

Dear President McGahan and AOM officers,

We, the undersigned, believe that recent events surrounding the Executive Order on immigration by US President Donald Trump have put the values of the Academy of Management at risk, specifically those of inclusion and diversity that you underlined in your recent message as being core to the Academy. You noted that the AOM is committed to “inclusion, supportive communities, and social and academic freedom as fundamental and undeniable tenets of scholarly association”, however these are simply not attainable if some of us are threatened with exclusion from association. In addition, we believe that the framing of those discriminatory policies as “travel restrictions” has contributed to normalizing the marginalization of many of our colleagues and friends because of their origin, ethnicity or religion.

We recognize that there are constraints in place that have made it difficult for you to articulate a stance regarding these political developments; specifically, you agreed to be bound by a policy of non-partisanship when you accepted roles of leadership. We are grateful that you take this role and your responsibilities so seriously, even though we are deeply concerned by the outcome. However, by your own admission, the Academy lacks a process for forming a collective view regarding such events, and we therefore urge you to take the first steps in opening this up to discussion. Immediately after the Executive Order was signed, associations in sociology, political science, statistics, philosophy, anthropology and many others mobilized to form a collective view; it is rather embarrassing that the Academy, comprised of scholars of organization, has been unable to formulate a common response.

Crucially, the risk remains that members will be excluded from equal participation in our association, and we currently do not find the measures proposed so far to be sufficient in tackling such a scenario. As it stands in the recent official response, we find the proposals of “telepresence” as a short term fix, along with regional initiatives and local specialized conferences as a more long term solution, to be inadequate. Neither provide the level of intellectual and social enrichment of an Academy experience. More importantly, the suggestion of such solutions is counterproductive, as it makes the unequal accessibility to our flagship meeting a foregone conclusion. Acquiescence relegates some of us to the status of second-class academic citizens.

In addition, it is currently up to the members to reach out to the association for assistance. We believe that as an inclusive community, we must be more proactive in reaching out to or accommodating those that have been adversely affected by discriminatory policies. Many of the members would not know where to find the relevant information were they to be targeted by such policies, and would not know their options for recourse. They potentially would not even know that they were affected within the requisite time frame. If we are to value inclusivity, we have an obligation to develop the means to reach out to affected members, rather than putting the onus of seeking help on their shoulders.

Regardless of whether it is implemented or not, we also ask you to see the Order as an opportunity to address a long-standing issue with the Academy, namely a planning process that exclusively favors US locations. Currently, almost half of AOM members are international, many coming from countries and institutions with far less funding than some of us are fortunate to enjoy in North America. Yet, these members have to bear considerable costs in travelling to the US (and occasionally Canada) for the annual meeting. Moreover, the Kafkaesque administrative delays of American visa applications in previous years have resulted in many of us receiving clearance after the conference. Rotating between US and non-US locations - as many other associations such as SMS or AIS do - is the only viable response to these obstacles. Conference planning in an international location is admittedly not a trivial or inexpensive undertaking, but the espoused values of diversity and inclusion by the Academy - along with the explicitly stated objective of internationalization - can only be realized if we expend the necessary effort to expand our scope beyond one or two countries.

We reiterate that we understand your dilemma: Recent events put your duty to the principles of non-partisanship at odds with the values of inclusion and non-discrimination upon which our community is based. Although we emphatically believe the latter to be of greater importance, we seek to create a discussion about the practical steps required to deal with the dilemma. If there is no process for forming a collective position for an organization this large on such fundamental issues, now would be the best time to start creating one, and indeed, that is one of the intentions of this petition.

Our mission, as an association, is to protect our members in the face of adversity and to defend the fundamental values without which there can be no scholarly activity deserving of that name – freedom of circulation, freedom to assemble, freedom of speech and of expression, inclusion and non-discrimination. Our profession has an impact far beyond the borders of our community, and it is crucial that we show leadership in doing what is right and just.

Sincerely,

The undersigned