Dear NAISA Council,

In light of Arizona’s legislature passing HB 2281 attacking ethnic studies, and in response to the productive debates and discussions that have taken place on the NAISA blog and elsewhere, we are writing to follow up with our first letter.

Among our own group, given the variety of different circumstances we find ourselves in, our attendance and participation in the conference will vary. However, we all agree that the economic boycott of Arizona is an urgent political movement that we believe we each must honor to the greatest extent possible.

As others have already stated on the blog, the time to boycott is now, in the three months before SB 1070 goes into effect. There is no guarantee that SB 1070 will be overturned in the courts as California’s anti-immigrant Prop. 187 was in 1994—especially because SB 1070 was drafted with particular attention to this precedent. The national recognition and growing strength of the boycott are now undeniable and likely will be crucial in the decisions other state legislatures make to follow Arizona’s lead in passing similar legislation. The additional passage by the Arizona legislature this past week of HB 2281, banning ethnic studies courses, and the Arizona Department of Education’s new policies targeting English instructors “with heavy accents,” are similarly outrageous attacks on immigrants, indigenous peoples, and other people of color. If HB 2281 is signed into law on May 11, many of us entering Arizona for the NAISA conference will find not only our bodies criminalized, but also our professions and our life’s work.

In addition, SB 1070 is part of a larger problem - the widespread political support for racist policies. SB 1070 was passed with 70 percent of support from Arizona citizens. Even if the bill is repealed, the longstanding racism in our society that makes passing racist policies politically expedient for legislators continues. Legal strategies are insufficient; we must build a widespread political movement for justice so that passing racist policies becomes politically suicidal rather than politically expedient. This boycott has garnered widespread support from many sectors of society, including educators, truckers, athletes, and fraternities. Regardless of the fate of SB 1070, it is critical that NAISA and NAISA members be part of the political mobilization that the boycott represents. The scholarly project of Native and indigenous studies cannot be separated from its political commitments to social justice.

We respect that the association (incorporated as a non-profit in Arizona) cannot completely boycott the state of Arizona, and we understand that canceling the conference at this point would endanger the sustainability of an association that we all value as a much-needed academic home. Yet, we would like to see NAISA participate in the boycott to the extent it can, which means not only stating that we will not hold future meetings in Arizona or any other state that passes legislation similar to SB 1070 or HB 2281, but also leading us in cutting back on any expenses possible. For some of us, this may mean not purchasing food at the Westin, staying at nearby tribally-owned hotels, or minimizing expenses to the greatest extent possible.

While we do not doubt that NAISA faces bankruptcy if hit with a lawsuit from the hotel over breach of contract, and while we are anxious to avoid such a scenario, we also ask if the council could give us a bit more direction as to how our individual economic decisions might impact the association. We ask this not because we distrust the leadership of NAISA but rather because providing greater transparency over the costs involved with different political decisions will enable the membership to supplement the fundraising apparatus of NAISA to ensure its continued health. Some of us have been part of organizations that have faced similar financial dilemmas. When these organizations shared the numbers with their broader membership, members stepped in and provided alternative resources that broadened the political options of those organizations.

We also agree with Simon Ortiz’s call for substantially redirecting the agenda of our meeting in order to use our time together in Arizona to organize, in solidarity with those who live in Arizona, against SB 1070 and HB 2281.

We call on the Council to develop, as soon as possible, some concrete actions that will take place during the meeting, which will lead us in addressing the issues at hand. It is important to develop these plans before the meeting begins in order for members to be able to decide what kind of meeting they will be participating in. For many, the opportunity to work with the NAISA community in fighting this legislation could be a key motivating factor in attending the meeting. In solidarity with the suggestions others like Lisa Hall have already made on the blog, we suggest the following direct actions as starting points that the Council could address. We respectfully request that NAISA council in conjunction with the Host committee:

1. Provide its members with a list of establishments that support repealing Law SB 1070 and HB 2281.

2. Ask the Westin to write to their representatives telling them how their legislation is threatening their business. The services we utilize should be made to recognize they are receiving funds from people of color and our allies, who may or may not be 'documented.' In accepting those funds, they should be made to agree to fight SB 1070 and HB 2281.

3. Provide information about a scheduled protest with time, place, and protest attire. If assistance beyond the Council and Host committee is required in planning this, send out a call to form a planning committee. We also request that media be alerted to the time and place.

If the Council does not feel that it has a mandate to institute such changes, then we ask them to follow Jace Weaver’s call for a NAISA membership vote on Ortiz’s proposal. As Weaver has also stated, none of these suggestions to the NAISA council violate the terms of a 501(c)(3) organization, the non-profit tax status held by NAISA.

We look forward to continuing the discussions around these issues and planning how to use our collective voice in the most effective ways possible.

In solidarity,

Maile Arvin
Angie Morrill
Andrea Smith
Mishuana Goeman
Jessica Cattelino
Jenell Navarro
Kimberly Robertson
Laura Beebe
Michelle Jacob
Anne Walker
Michelle Erai
Michelle Raheja