NAFSA Conference Site Selection to be Discussed

It was brought to my attention that NAFSA was in negotiations with Salt Lake City for the 2003 conference. I informed the SIG Advisory Board about this and a lengthy e-mail discussion ensued. The outcome of the discussion was the letter drafted by Joe Murnan you see printed below and a decision to discuss conference selection at the annual meeting in San Diego. In preparation for that meeting with the membership, I would like to share with you some of the issues involved and points of view expressed. We will then be able to focus our discussion at the meeting.

Some history: In 1994 a resolution was approved which set up a procedure whose purpose was to prevent holding NAFSA conferences in cities or states with laws that discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, national origin, color, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, political opinion, immigration status, or disability. One year later SIG members were angered to learn that NAFSA had signed a contract for Phoenix, obviously ignoring the resolution.

Now, with consideration of Salt Lake City as a conference site, we are once again concerned about whether NAFSA will follow the current procedure (revised since 1994) which states In states with such laws, NAFSA will use its discretion (in consultation with the Diversity Committee) in considering cities with strong records of non-discriminatory practice. While Utah does have an anti-sodomy law on its books, Salt Lake City could hardly be called a city with a strong record of non-discrimination. After all, it was the Salt Lake City school board which banned ALL extracurricular activities held in schools rather than allow students to form a Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network chapter. Advisory Board members were unanimous in agreeing that a letter must be sent immediately to the Conference Selection Committee with copies to the Pr esident, Executive Director, President-Elect and Diversity Committee Chairperson. Sub-sequently we received several responses from Bill Barnhart, President, indicating he fully supports the NAFSA resolution to avoid discriminatory sites. He suggested that the revised resolution may have been how San Antonio was chosen, since Texas is a state with discriminatory laws still on its books.

In preparing to write the letter to NAFSA, Joe Murnan spoke by phone with the GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Educa tion Network) Western Regional Administrator who urged us not to push for a boycott of Salt Lake City, noting that

• incredible strides have been made in the State of Utah regarding GLBT issues
• the Salt Lake City Gay Straight Alliance IS meetin g
• the mayor, city and state department of education have been positive about the chapter
• he would be the first to urge a boycott if there was any discrimination based on sexual orientation

In terms of taking a position with NAFSA in regard to site selection, some Adv isory Board members felt that not drawing a line in the sand was the better course. One member indicated that the wording laws which discriminate against anyone on the basis of...sexual orientation, caapplying to every state, since none permit gays to mar ry, this is clearly discriminatory as non-gays are allowed to do so. Should we draw the line at sodomy laws, even though they may also apply to straights? Or should we draw the line at other egregious laws, resolutions and constitutional amendments?

Others responded that if we donit draw a line we might instead be faced with trying to measure levels of discrimination, something that may be impossible to do. How would we go about deciding if a state or cityis attempts to become less discriminato ry are enough?

At this point in the discussion, Joe Murnan contacted Peggy Pusch who had been involved in the development of the original site selection resolution. Here are her thoughts:

I chaired the task force that drew up the gui delines for conference site selection and language for a resolution that was eventually passed by the Board of Directors. We worked long and hard to make sure that any conference site that is chosen be in a location that respects the diversity of our memb ers while maintaining fiscal responsibility to the association should conditions change in a location that has been selected. The task force was created in response to the possibility of laws being passed (there was a referendum coming up in a proposed st ate) that are prejudicial to gays, lesbians, and transgendered people. That was the concern we were addressing at the time and should continue to be sensitive to in the future.

Further, she said that the conference department tends to explore l ocations that are large enough to handle conferences the size of NAFSAis, especially those with strong support by local NAFSANS. She urged the SIG not to draw a line in the sand, as it may be a line we will have to live with when weid rather not.

We will keep those of you on Rainbow informed of any other responses to our letter, as well as any decisions on the site for the 2003 conference. (We would encourage all of you to sign on to Rainbow to be part of this and other discussions.) < P>I know you will give these issues full consideration prior to the SIGis annual meeting in San Diego where we will discuss them further, and come to some agreement (or agree to disagree) on the SIGis position on Salt Lake City specifically and on site se lection process in general.

February 22, 2000

Ms. A. Renee Battle

Senior Director

Conferences and Meetings

NAFSA: Association of International Educators

Dear Ms. Battle:

We recently heard that NAFSA is considering Salt Lake City as the site of the 2003 National Conference. The consideration of Salt Lake City has given the Lesbigay SIG and its members pause as the State of Utah still has laws on its books, Utah Code 76- 5-403, which are prejudicial to same gender relationships. We are writing to you on behalf of our SIG members to voice our strong concern that, given NAFSAis respect for diversity, Salt Lake City is not an appropriate choice for a national conference site .

NAFSA has long had a tradition of holding its annual conferences only in locations that respect the diversity of its individual members. In October of 1993 the NAFSA Board of Directors approved the following resolution, regarding conference site select ion:

1. That NAFSA neither sign a contract for a national conference nor hold national conferences (subject to item #4 of these guidelines) in cities or states with laws that discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, national origin, color, g ender, religion, sexual orientation, age, political opinion, immigration status, or disability.
2. That a statement indicating NAFSAis position regarding discrimination (as listed in the previous statement) be added to any documents sent to hotel chains and conferences/tourist/business councils who solicit our conference business (e.g. we will not hold a conference in a city or state that discriminates against....)
3. That a watch list of states and/or municipalities that anticipate pass ing a discriminatory referendum be maintained with the assistance of BPIE, Lesbigay SIG, and the Committee on Women International, who also will be asked to review and comment on or add to this list.
4. That the following guidelines be used to de cide on an appropriate response when a state or city, where NAFSA has signed contracts for a conference, subsequently adopts discriminatory legislation.
1. that due consideration be given to the financial and human resources that have be en invested in preparation for the conference,
2. that a conference not be relocated within 18 months of the conference dates,
3. that at nineteen or more months prior to the conference dates, a decision be reached about moving the site, by the Board o f Directors, based on a realistic review of the costs incurred in relation to the NAFSA financial resources.

Utah is one of sixteen states that continue to have laws on their books that we consider prejudicial to same gender relationships. A ccording to Lambda Legal Defense the following states continue to carry these laws on their books: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.

We encourage NAFSA staff to consider this information as they look at sites for future conferences and other NAFSA meetings. We also encourage NAFSA to double its efforts in considering only those sights that are respectful of NAFSAis diversity.

Sincerely,

Bo Keppel
Co-Chair, Lesbigay SIG
East Stroudsburg University
Jo Murnan
Co-Chair, Lesbigay SIG
Hariri Foundation

cc: Ms. Marlene Johnson, Executive Director & CEO
NAFSA: Association of International Educators

Mr. Bill Barnhart, President
NAFSA: Association of International Educators

Ms. Kay Thomas, President Elect
NAFSA: Association of International Educators