http://www.chronicle.com/article/Tampons-in-Men-s-Rooms-/240091?cid=wcontentlist_hp_latest
APSA annual meeting locations
-
It wasn't a "PC" thing. It was more a matter that rights of same sex marriages are not honored and it could be a problem if someone has an accident, etc. There are probably other problems that could arise with real consequences for those who attend.
It is basically like if APSA decided to do the conference in a middle eastern country that made women cover their faces or in an African country in which homosexuality is a crime with capital punishment. Some Southern States are not far from that and if they could, they would make their laws much more extreme.Oh puh-leez! Countless corporations and associations have/had untold numbers of conferences in states without same-sex marriage laws just fine and without "problems that could arise" and their lawyers all green-lighted such events with no questions (to the extent that lawyers would even get involved in such an issue). And even numerous universities host conferences in such places (medical schools, for example, hold CME conferences all the time in those Southern states).
The decision to not hold APSA in some states had *NOTHING* to do with some "problems that could arise" -- it was about making a (liberal) political statement, pure and simple.
And, again, for the record: I am a pro gay-marriage, Trump-hating, card-carrying liberal. But don't try to pass off some fig leaf BS excuse for what was, at its core, a political decision.
-
It wasn't a "PC" thing. It was more a matter that rights of same sex marriages are not honored and it could be a problem if someone has an accident, etc. There are probably other problems that could arise with real consequences for those who attend.
It is basically like if APSA decided to do the conference in a middle eastern country that made women cover their faces or in an African country in which homosexuality is a crime with capital punishment. Some Southern States are not far from that and if they could, they would make their laws much more extreme.
Oh puh-leez! Countless corporations and associations have/had untold numbers of conferences in states without same-sex marriage laws just fine and without "problems that could arise" and their lawyers all green-lighted such events with no questions (to the extent that lawyers would even get involved in such an issue). And even numerous universities host conferences in such places (medical schools, for example, hold CME conferences all the time in those Southern states).
The decision to not hold APSA in some states had *NOTHING* to do with some "problems that could arise" -- it was about making a (liberal) political statement, pure and simple.
And, again, for the record: I am a pro gay-marriage, Trump-hating, card-carrying liberal. But don't try to pass off some fig leaf BS excuse for what was, at its core, a political decision.No. It was because "enlightened" white liberal academics realized that they'd be having their conference in an area with a lot of dark-skinned people and freaked out.
-
You're really telling me that St. Louis, Cleveland, Kansas City etc. can't handle this s**tty conference? What about Texas? It has three of the largest cities in the country, it's right in the middle, and the food's better and cheaper than in Philly. WTF? f**k APSA.
*Of course* other places could handle the conference. But APSA tends to lean toward pedestrian-friendly cities with good public transit systems (its easier for attendees to get around). Not always, but usually.
Those cities you mention are generally NOT that. Plus, lets be honest: Kansas City, Houston, St. Louis, Cleveland generally suck as tourist destinations. Sure, they're big and bustling cities, but they just don't offer nearly as much attractive stuff to visitors (and they're ugly, too). What's more, many cities in late August/early September (e.g. Texas locales) are extremely hot and humid, making them even less attractive as convention venues.Right, Cleveland sucks for tourism. But I'm not going for tourism. I'm going for a professional conference that I'm mostly paying for. Who gives a s**t if it's hot outside, the conference is inside. Gimme a break.
LOL. I only go to my panel then dip to explore the city (or country). Why do I want to go to panels anymore? Intersectionality? Gendered somethingsomething? s**tty data that tenured prof doesn't want to share? UN votes? Yeah, okay.
-
Didn't APSA have kind of PC rules/stipulations that they only would schedule the conference in gay-marriage friendly states? And was there ever anything about being labor friendly/pro-union? I recall there were folks who were mad that 2012 was in Louisiana (anti-marriage at the time) and seem to recall that there were some who led a boycott effort. APSA, I thought, seemed inclined to avoid this controversy in the future and tried to steer toward gay marriage friendly locales.
I could see some similar PC test possible going forward: holding APSA only in states that don't ban "sanctuary cities" or are pro-climate change research, etc. In other words, a backdoor test of liberalism that would result in the conference continuing to be held in essentially the same limited number of lefty coastal cities (and for the record, I'm a lefty) and not in big cities like Phoenix or Dallas.It wasn't a "PC" thing. It was more a matter that rights of same sex marriages are not honored and it could be a problem if someone has an accident, etc. There are probably other problems that could arise with real consequences for those who attend.
It is basically like if APSA decided to do the conference in a middle eastern country that made women cover their faces or in an African country in which homosexuality is a crime with capital punishment. Some Southern States are not far from that and if they could, they would make their laws much more extreme.But at the time they were OK with SF (even though APSA pulled out) despite the fact that CA had passed an anti-gay marriage amendment.
To this day it's not clear to me why SF was OK even though CA was a DOMA state. I heard that the difference was that NOLA was in a "super-DOMA" state.
To which I replied that this meant the anti-NOLA crowd was OK with a medium amount of discrimination, but not with a large amount of it. So, SF was OK because CA's discrimination against gays wasn't high enough. The conversation ended b/c they changed the subject.
-
SF is smaller than Charlotte NC and just about 1/3 the size of Queens NY. Boston is smaller than Indianapolis and not even half as populuous as San Diego. Big cities are cool, small cities less so.
Boston and SF are the 11th and 12th largest metros in the country, respectively. I'm not sure if you are a troll or retahded.