The question of whether Canadian academics should boycott professional conferences held in the United States has moved to the forefront of national discourse, spurred by recent geopolitical friction and a deteriorating domestic political climate in the U.S. On September 9, University of Ottawa political science professor Daniel Stockemer sparked a heated debate in University Affairs by advocating for a formal boycott of American-based academic gatherings, citing the misuse of Canadian taxpayer dollars during periods of intense trade disputes between the two nations. While the suggestion aims to leverage economic pressure as a form of diplomatic protest, it has met with significant resistance from scholars who argue that withdrawal is a luxury that ignores the urgent need for international solidarity in the face of rising authoritarianism and systemic inequality.
A Chronology of Growing Academic Dissent
The tension surrounding cross-border academic travel did not emerge in a vacuum. It is the culmination of several years of legislative and political shifts within the United States that have fundamentally altered the landscape for higher education.
In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization effectively overturned Roe v. Wade, stripping away federal constitutional protections for abortion. This move prompted an immediate outcry from international academic associations, many of which were slated to hold conventions in states that subsequently moved to enforce strict reproductive health bans.
Concurrent with this, the "Stop WOKE Act" (the Individual Freedom Act) in Florida, championed by Governor Ron DeSantis, began to exert pressure on academic freedom. The legislation restricts how race, gender, and systemic inequality are discussed in classrooms and corporate training settings. Since 2022, the New York Times and various academic watchdogs have documented an increasing number of instances where professors at public universities in Florida have faced administrative scrutiny, threats to tenure, and potential job loss for teaching materials deemed to be in violation of these state-mandated ideological constraints.
These events created a paradox for international researchers: stay away and sacrifice the impact of their work, or attend and risk lending legitimacy to environments that are increasingly hostile to the core values of academic inquiry.
Economic and Political Implications of a Boycott
Proponents of the boycott argue that Canadian institutional funding—often derived from public coffers—should not be used to facilitate travel to a country that has engaged in aggressive trade protectionism against Canada. Trade disputes involving tariffs on steel, aluminum, and agricultural products have historically placed Canadian livelihoods at risk, and advocates suggest that a boycott sends a message that such actions have consequences.
However, economic data suggests that the academic sector’s influence on national trade policy is marginal at best. Academic travel represents a minute fraction of the cross-border economic activity that typically dictates trade negotiations. Critics of the boycott emphasize that the economic impact of academic absenteeism would be negligible, while the loss of scholarly influence would be substantial.
Furthermore, there is a clear distinction between the policies of a federal administration and the realities faced by local populations, particularly those from marginalized groups. For Black scholars, transgender researchers, and immigrant academics, the decision to travel to the United States is complicated by the rise of anti-immigrant and anti-trans legislation. Yet, many argue that this is precisely why attendance is necessary. The act of "showing up" serves as a form of defiance against the very forces that seek to exclude diverse voices from the intellectual arena.
The Role of Academic Solidarity and Global Influence
The argument for continued engagement is rooted in the concept of "doing good trouble"—a phrase coined by the late Congressman John Lewis, which has been adopted by scholars as a guiding principle for academic activism. For feminist political economists and scholars of critical race theory, the American university system remains a primary site of struggle.
When international scholars attend U.S. conferences, they provide a vital support system for their American counterparts who are currently working under the threat of censorship. During the 2023 Allied Social Science Associations (ASSA) conference in New Orleans, the International Association for Feminist Economics chose to maintain their attendance despite the political climate. The group opted to use the platform to picket and hold plenaries on the impact of the Dobbs ruling, effectively centering the issue in a space that might otherwise have ignored it.
This strategy is not merely symbolic. It provides a platform for researchers whose work has been marginalized by restrictive state laws. In instances where American professors are silenced by their own administrations, international colleagues—protected by their own institutions—can voice critiques of racial capitalism and economic exclusion that would otherwise be suppressed.
Institutional Challenges and the Risk of Isolation
The debate also highlights the precarity of academic freedom in Canada. While the focus has been on the U.S., scholars are increasingly aware that intellectual suppression is not unique to any one country. Recent reports, such as those published in rabble.ca, indicate that human rights legislation and administrative procedures in Canadian universities have sometimes been weaponized against Black women scholars.
If Canadian academics withdraw from the global stage, they risk creating an echo chamber that limits the scope of their own research. The cross-pollination of ideas is essential for the advancement of fields such as political science, economics, and sociology. When Canadian professors participate in symposia like the Women of Color Political Science Symposium in Boston, they bring essential perspectives that are often missing from the American discourse. The ability to engage with younger scholars, many of whom are navigating the trauma of being told to remove "woke" language from their research to secure employment, is an irreplaceable function of the international academic community.
Conclusion: The Necessity of Presence
Ultimately, the call to boycott represents a reaction to a feeling of powerlessness in the face of macro-political forces. However, the academic response—centered on the duty to participate—is built on the belief that presence is a form of power.
The decision to travel, even when one feels unwelcome, is a tactical choice. By occupying space in elite institutions—such as Harvard, which has seen its own internal challenges regarding diversity and the tenure of its leadership—international scholars ensure that discussions on race, gender, and economic equity remain at the forefront. The consensus among many who oppose the boycott is that the work of challenging inequality requires proximity.
As the geopolitical landscape continues to evolve, the academic community remains divided. Yet, the argument that one should not spend resources in places where they are not wanted is increasingly being countered by the argument that one must go to the places where they are most needed. For Canadian scholars, the future of this debate will likely hinge on their ability to balance national interest with the global responsibility of maintaining the integrity and accessibility of higher education. Whether through organized protests, keynote addresses, or collaborative research, the act of engagement remains a powerful, albeit complex, tool in the fight for intellectual freedom.
