Advocacy

The Battle for SBE and Science Funding: What You Can Do

April 23, 2026

In early April, the White House published its proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2027. In its current form, the proposal threatens the core of U.S. scientific leadership; and if passed by Congress, would impose devastating cuts to programs supporting geography, climate, and spatial sciences.

These proposed reductions included a 55% cut to funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the elimination of the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE) directorate. The impact of this proposed elimination is already being felt, with Nature reporting that NSF leadership is moving to comply in advance by dissolving the directorate entirely, strictly on the basis of the White House request.

Historically, the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate has been a cornerstone of funding for geographers, and social and psychological scientists, supporting nearly 63% of all academic research across those disciplines, but it suffers from an administrative hurdle that other directorates do not have: it was not statutorily established. SBE was established in the early 1990s because of years-long advocacy by social scientists who believed it should exist outside of the biology directorate. In 2017, NSF reaffirmed the value of SBE research to the nation’s priorities in a report that asserted “The diverse SBE sciences that are supported at NSF—anthropology, archaeology, demography, economics, geography, linguistics, neuroscience, political science, psychology, sociology, and statistics—produce fundamental knowledge, methods, and tools for a greater understanding of people and how they live,” knowledge that forms a foundation for acting on national priorities in keeping with the NSF mission.

Nonetheless, SBE’s lack of statutory status reduces its legal and budgetary protections.

The Administration took similar measures in 2025, when it proposed the elimination of the directorate in the 2026 Budget. Due to push-back from many in the science community, including geographers, Congress took measures to limit these cuts, ensuring that the SBE would be able to operate at least through FY 2026.

This iteration of the administration’s budget proposal is likely to face a steep uphill climb in both halls of Congress, as it did in 2025, with members from both sides of the aisle articulating their support for sciences. We must continue to show our legislators that funding for spatial science matters.

What’s next?

In the past two weeks, the House and Senate Budget Committees held their first hearings with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Russell Vought. These were the first opportunities for the administration to defend the proposed cuts. During these marathon sessions, members from both sides of the aisle grilled the OMB Director on cuts to NSF, and other domestic agencies, voicing their displeasure with the impact that this would have on research across the board. Each chamber will work to draft and complete their concurrent budget resolutions by months-end.

In the month or so ahead, the budget will move through both Chambers’ appropriations committees, where it will be marked up for hopeful completion by the end of June. The subcommittees most important in determining how NSF, and SBE funds are appropriated include the House and Senate Subcommittees on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS). The House Subcommittee will hold its markup on April 30, 2026, followed by a full House Appropriations Committee markup on May 13, 2026. Both will be public unless voted on as otherwise by committee members. Between these two Committee markups, the National Science Board (NSB) was scheduled to hold its next meeting on May 5^th. This meeting has since been cancelled. As the governing body of NSF, the NSB’s perspectives on the budget are vital to helping Congress and the president understand which budgetary decision best align with the NSF’s mission. The NSB’s dismissal will have more consequential impacts as the budget process continues to unfold.

Congress must approve a budget, to be sent to the President’s desk by the 30^th of September, or face a government shutdown.

What can you do?

Document how SBE funding has made an impact on your work, your institution, and especially your community and the nation. Send examples to advocacy@aag.org and use them in your communications with your Congressional representatives.
Reach out to your member of Congress, using tools like those provided by the Consortium of Social Science Associations, and AAG’s Action Kit to urge your member of Congress to recognize the importance of disciplines like geography to the nation’s long arc of innovation, and to express any concerns you may have related to the elimination of this crucial directorate of the NSF.
UPDATE: As of April 25^th, 2026, the Administration has fired the entirety of the National Science Board, the governing body of the NSF. May’s meeting of the NSB has been cancelled. Please use tools like those provided by the Consortium of Social Science Associations, and AAG’s Action Kit to urge your member of Congress to recognizethe important role of this storied institution.
Encourage members of your network, such as department leaders, provosts, executives in the private sector, to be in touch and amplify your message.
Add your voice to the public dialogue on science funding. Many people in your community may not even know the stakes of this battle. Write an op ed, schedule a talk at your library, or share on social media. AAG’s Action Kit has ideas and how-to’s.

Stay alert to the appropriations process as it progresses, and stay in touch with AAG through advocacy@aag.org with your questions and ideas.

See All Awards

B L Turner II Award for Doctoral Research in Human-Environmental Science

Deadline for the 2027 awards: October 15, 2026 (by midnight, Eastern Time)

Over a distinguished career spanning more than five decades, B L Turner II has fundamentally shaped our understanding of human-environmental interactions, land systems, sustainability, and socio-environmental vulnerability. Drawing on rigorous field-based and quantitative and mixed method approaches, his pioneering work on land change/systems, sustainability, and coupled human-natural systems helped to solve various research problems and created intellectual pathways that continue to guide research across multiple disciplines and space-time scales.

Beyond his scholarly achievements, Turner mentored generations of students and colleagues, fostering a collaborative research approach that transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries. His guidance shaped not only research agendas but entire career trajectories, instilling in his mentees a commitment to rigorous scholarship that bridges theory and practice.

The Award

This award is designed to support scientific research in human-environmental science. The award will be made every year to a PhD candidate who has successfully defended their proposal, demonstrating geographical or related motivation with particular attention to rigorous science drawing on fieldwork and mixed or emerging methods. Although primarily designed to stimulate human-environment system-oriented scientific investigations within the discipline of geography, this award is open to doctoral candidates examining problems of human-environmental systems regardless of the discipline in question, membership in the American Association of Geographers (AAG), or country of the degree-granting institution.

The B L Turner II Award for Doctoral Research in Human-Environmental Science consists of a cash award of $10,000, a certificate of recognition, a one-year mentorship from one of B L Turner II’s mentees, past awardees, or a scholar identified by the Award Trustees, and recognition at the AAG Annual Meeting during its awards ceremony (registration and travel expenses not included).

Eligibility

Applicants must have completed all Ph.D. requirements except the final defense (ABD), no more than one year before the award application deadline.
The research problem in question must contribute to the advancement of problem solving and theory and/or methods relevant to human-environment systems.
There is no limit with respect to the number of students who can apply from each institution.
Applicants for the award do not need to be members of the American Association of Geographers, but membership is encouraged.
As with all other AAG awards, eligibility also rests on the candidate being in compliance with the AAG Professional Conduct Policy. Nominations may be rescinded, and the award may also be revoked for any candidate or awardee who is found in violation of the AAG’s Professional Conduct Policy.

Applications

A complete application must be received no later than the close of business on the deadline (Eastern Time).

A cover letter containing contact information (name, address, email, and phone number) and a statement of intent to apply for the award.
An abstract of the dissertation that explicitly identifies the individual’s contribution to human-environment systems, including theory/methods.
The applicant’s academic curriculum vitae.
A recommendation letter from a member of the student’s dissertation committee or other faculty member from the student’s Ph.D. degree-granting institution.

APPLY

For questions or difficulties, please contact grantsawards@aag.org or call the AAG at 202-234-1450.

B L Turner II Award for Doctoral Research in Human-Environmental Science Committee

Applications will be reviewed by the B L Turner II Award for Doctoral Research in Human-Environmental Science Committee. The committee consists of three members, appointed by the Trustees. The committee is charged with reviewing the applications and recommending awards to the Trustees. The Trustees will make the formal awards.

Donate to the Fund

News

The AAG Annual Meeting Revenue Flow

April 20, 2026

By Antoinette WinklerPrins, AAG Council Treasurer

This is the last message by outgoing 2024-2026 Council Treasurer Antoinette WinklerPrins. In her earlier series, she helped illuminate several financial dimensions of a professional organization such as the AAG. In this column, she shares a visualization of the income and expenses flow of the AAG’s Annual Meeting. Read previous columns.

We recently gathered for our annual meeting in San Francisco—a celebration of the broad and diverse community that geographers are. The annual meeting is a key activity for the organization and its members. We had over 5,000 registrants and 1,200 sessions, with the majority being held in person, with a hybrid option for session organizers who opted in. Running a meeting is an expensive affair, and arrangements are usually made many years ahead of time, with some costs locked in while others are set at the time of the meeting. This means that there can be inflationary pressures on costs, as there was this year.

The figure below illustrates the flow of the 2026 AAG Annual Meeting Revenue and Expenses—demonstrating the fixed and variable costs that must be accounted for.

Sankey diagram titled “AAG Annual Meeting Revenue and Expense Analysis.” Revenue flows from registration (79%), exhibit booths (4%), sponsorships (7%), and other sources into total meeting revenue. Expenses flow into categories such as hotel, facility, and catering (22%); audiovisual services (23%); contracted meeting services (17%); staff capacity (25%); and smaller technology and administrative costs. Expenses ultimately divide into 62% variable costs and 38% fixed costs. Credit: Betsy Orgodol — Credit: Betsy Orgodol

The AAG operates on a break-even model for its annual meeting and sets its registration fee accordingly, but has to do so ahead of time without knowing precisely how many people will register, nor how some costs will change.

Annual Meeting variable expenses consist primarily of usage-based costs such as catering, certain hotel and facility fees, and audiovisual services—these are not fixed when the contract is signed, and depend on factors such as the number of registrants and number of sessions. The AAG contracts several meeting services, such as meeting and exhibit managers, decorators, childcare services, conference assistants, security, and service providers for conference participants who need accommodation. Staff capacity, insurance, and software technology fees are largely fixed costs that do not change based on the size of the meeting or the number of attendees.

The cost structure the AAG uses provides more flexibility and scalability—when attendance is strong, total expenses rise proportionally but are matched by increased registration and sponsorship revenue, enabling the organization to serve more participants without compromising the quality of the meeting experience. When attendance is smaller, costs decrease in areas like catering and certain service charges, though only to a limited extent since some baseline expenses remain fixed; even so, the meeting can be delivered efficiently while maintaining a consistent standard of value for attendees.

The AAG consistently works to control more costs to ensure that resources are used efficiently and that the meeting remains both financially sustainable and rewarding for attendees. While the AAG strives to conserve meeting expenses in the most efficient manner possible, inflationary pressures, such as those driven by tariffs impacting meeting-related costs and California sales and use taxes, presented a challenge this year. The combination of planning and contracting ahead helped AAG absorb some of these costs.

We realize that it may feel that registration fees are high; the break-even model for pricing is meant to provide you with the services the membership has asked for and expects (refreshments and meals, hybrid options, childcare, and accommodations for disabilities, among others) and to assure that the meeting is a quality event and a positive experience for all.

Please feel free to reach out to me or Gary Langham, AAG’s Executive Director with questions, comments, or concerns. Send your comments and questions with the subject line “Treasurer’s Corner” to helloword@aag.org.

Stories

Member Profile: Dydia DeLyser

April 13, 2026

Photo of Dydia DeLeyser “Figuring out what places are about” is the foundation of Dydia DeLyser’s inquisitive, hands-on work to explore and preserve American landscapes and cultural histories. A professor of geography emerita at Cal State Fullerton, DeLyser has cultivated this outlook from early on. As the child of Dutch immigrants who came to the U.S. in the 1960s, she learned early how place, belonging, and language could open—or close—doors.

“My first language is not English, it was Dutch,” she says. “So my earliest memories are of having sort of a secret language at home that nobody else could understand.” Her parents were “always trying to understand American culture, and yet never able to become a part [of it].”

For DeLyser, the outsider status was doubled by another kind of “outside:” the past. Her parents’ vivid stories of their experiences of World War II and the privations of life in Europe even before Nazi occupation lit up DeLyser’s imagination and appreciation for social history: “The broader cultural stories about our past, like my parents’ stories about the war, are also intimate personal stories that happen in the lives of individuals,” she says. “We connect our individual experiences to the broader narrative, you know, of victory over the Nazis or so many other issues. That’s a geographical or spatial experience.”

DeLyser’s hunger to understand and embrace places and times she couldn’t know firsthand have led to her foundational preoccupation with what she calls “the intimate geographies of social memory.”

Bridging Time and Space

DeLyser started working on her intertwined study of history’s large scales and intimate personal histories while she was still an undergraduate at UCLA, aided by her work at UCLA Library’s Department of Special Collections in the manuscript, photographs, and rare books library, one of the largest such departments in the country. The archive housed the personal papers of L.A. notables and international figures such as novelist Raymond Chandler, journalist Carey McWilliams, writers Henry Miller and Anaïs Nin, and Peggy Hamilton, the first fashion editor of the LA Times.

Reading their letters and manuscripts opened DeLyser’s eyes to new ways of knowing people, even after their deaths. Research—specifically, qualitative research with primary materials—was like a portal through the gap in time and place that had so fascinated and frustrated DeLyser from childhood. She has dedicated her career to the methods that make qualitative research vibrant.

“To me, scholarship should be empirically rich, grounded in some real thing,” she says. “It should be theoretically sophisticated and engaged with whatever conceptual conversations are current and engaging and relevant in the discipline or subdiscipline you are in, and it should be methodologically articulate.” Put simply, she says: “You should be clear how you know.”

DeLyser describes research methods as “an important form of credibility for a scholar, as the core of your scholarly credibility. If you can show how you know—because you interviewed these people or because these are the quotes or because you did this archival research or you spent ten years observing at this place or because you actually did the labor or whatever the reason—If you can show how you know, then we will trust you. And then we’ll be able to learn from you, we’ll be able to take on whatever your point is.”

If you can show how you know, then we will trust you.”

Early in her career, DeLyser established a close relationship to Bodie, a California ghost town in the Eastern Sierra region. Designated a National Historic Landmark and state park in the early1 960s, Bodie began as a gold-mining town that boomed in the 1870s, crashed in the 1880s, but then lingered well into the 20^thcentury. As the population declined, at one point there were more buildings than people. And as residents left, they abandoned furnishings and things they didn’t want to pay to move, which became the intact artifacts of their daily lives on display in about 200 buildings, from dishes, pots, and chairs in kitchens to unused caskets in the town morgue.

Exterior view of a building in Bodie, Calif. Credit: Jon Sullivan, Wikimedia Commons — Credit: Jon Sullivan, Wikimedia Commons

Starting when she was a college student with summers free, she began working as a low-paid, unskilled seasonal worker for maintenance, DeLyser gradually deepened her knowledge of Bodie over the next 35 years in all different ways, from conducting ethnographic research tourists there to using the Park’s own archive to understand how State Parks staff were themselves shaping what visitors saw and ultimately to using her research to make the case for broadening the town’s National Historic Landmark status, all while putting in true sweat equity in caring for the town, from physically working to stabilize the abandoned buildings to “cleaning about 10,000 [public] toilets.” Now, she is executive director of the town’s nonprofit, working to preserve Bodie in a state of “arrested decay—keeping the buildings standing while letting them look like they’re still falling down,” according to DeLyser. Today’s visitors to Bodie can peer inside its buildings to see the many personal items left behind by the final occupants, and imagine the lives of the town’s former inhabitants. DeLyser was interested in the impact of this on visitors, especially in the moments of recognition when a specific object reminded them of something in their own lives. DeLyser then sought to map these personal epiphanies onto the larger stories of history.

Interior view of a kitchen in Bodie, Calif. Credit: Fronl, Wikimedia Commons — Credit: Fronl, Wikimedia Commons

“Ghost towns are so connected to the mythic West in the United States, to the heroic, mythologized tales of the “Wild West” and all that, we simply connect ourselves to big themes about American culture. All of a sudden, from a small life and a small object, it links to the big themes. I’ve seen myself have ordinary objects spark magic in my life many times, and I’ve studied how it happens.“

Always say yes

DeLyser also engages enthusiastically as a teacher, mentor, and champion of the geography discipline. Over the years, she has served on AAG Council, was a founding member of the AAG Qualitative Research Specialty Group, contributed to the work of the AAG Harassment Free Task Force, as well as its Public and Engaged Scholarship Task Force. She worked tirelessly during the COVID pandemic to deliver supportive programming for graduate students, and also serves on the AAG Climate Committee, to name only a few contributions. It’s part of her commitment to hold the door open for the next generation of geographers.

“I’ve had to bust open doors myself in my career, but the point isn’t about busting open doors. The point is to hold the door open and create a pathway for success for the people who will come after us,” she says.

She brings the same esprit de corps to her research and publishing. “There’s no sense in scholarship unless it’s shared,” she says. “If I can learn something from my scholarship about the past, I feel obligated to share that, otherwise I take it with me. It happens in the moment, it happens in the present, but it’s always for the future.”

Living in Bodie, where only Park staff now live, gave DeLyser a strong sense of community, and a strong desire to give back to that community, something that has followed her throughout her career.

DeLyser is careful to appreciate and credit the communities she works with. Years later, as she launched a new research project about how neon signs have shaped the American landscape she recognized that there was a “neon community” or “communities” in the U.S., and, she says, “I wanted people to feel like they knew who I was and they welcomed my work, so it took me a long time to become part of that community, vested in being part of a community as ‘neon people.’” DeLyser says neon signs are “an incredibly overlooked part of the American landscape. People read the sign that says “OPEN” over the door that’s red and blue—they read that sign without even realizing that they’ve read it.” She wanted to bring those hidden signs and their hidden stories to light.

DeLyser had been introduced to the behind-the-scenes world of neon by her husband and longtime creative partner, Paul Greenstein, an expert in the history and repair of classic neon signs. Early in their relationship, she accompanied him to repair a sign over a restaurant, and the adventure sparked questions and conversations, which in turn led to more than a half dozen collaborations over the years. Greenstein and DeLyser have delved into the history and cultural significance of neon, antique cars, and Indian motorcycles. Their 2021 book Neon: A Light History is the latest culmination of these collaborations.

DeLyser’s approach to research combines immersion in the topic, becoming embedded in the communities that hold deep knowledge about it. She sees her research across a spectrum of often deeply personal and committed hands-on experience and careful methodologies. “I had all the tools,” she recalls of her long relationship with Bodie. “I knew how to use a hammer and a Skilsaw, and I also I knew how to do an interview. I had a hammer in one hand and a notebook in my pocket.”

Resources

The Status of Women and Underrepresented Groups in Geography – A Multidimensional Analysis

March 10, 2026

News

AAG Partners with Content With Purpose on new digital series: ‘Unearthing Geography’ video series will reveal the power of geographic thinking

March 2, 2026

Washington, D.C., March 4 — The American Association of Geographers (AAG) is partnering with Content With Purpose (CWP) to produce Unearthing Geography, a new digital series that brings the discipline of geography to life, revealing its relevance, impact and essential role in understanding and addressing today’s most complex challenges.

Too frequently, geography is reduced to maps, place names or the physical features of the Earth alone. In reality, it is an inherently interdisciplinary field, one that connects physical and human systems, science and society, and local realities with global dynamics. Through education grounded in the sciences, social sciences and humanities, geographers are trained to think across boundaries, integrate multiple perspectives, and understand how people, places and environments interact.

At a time of accelerating climate change, social inequity, geopolitical tension, and technological transformation, this connective way of thinking has never been more important.

With cinematic storytelling, expert insight and real-world case studies, Unearthing Geography will showcase the work of geographers across academia, government, industry and communities—applying geographic perspectives to issues such as climate resilience, urban development, environmental justice, public health, migration and technological change.

At its heart, Unearthing Geography positions geographers as connectors—of data and lived experience, of disciplines and sectors, and of science and society—highlighting how geographic thinking helps navigate complexity and support systems-based approaches to the world’s most pressing problems.

The series will also look to the future of the discipline: inspiring students and early-career professionals to explore educational opportunities in geography, re-engaging those who have taken diverse career paths, and helping educators, employers, partners and funders better understand the long-term value of geographic education and training.

“Geography is essential to understanding how the world works—and how we can make it better,” said Gary Langham, Executive Director of the AAG. “Our work with CWP is a timely international collaboration to show how geographers work to shape more just, healthy, and sustainable futures.”

Max Smith, Founder and Managing Director of CWP, commented: “Geography offers one of the most powerful lenses for understanding the interconnected challenges facing society today. Through Unearthing Geography, we’re using our storytelling expertise to elevate the discipline and the people behind it, connecting research with lived experience.”

Unearthing Geography will launch at the AAG Annual Meeting in New York in February 2027, followed by a coordinated digital launch and campaign. The campaign will extend across the AAG’s global network and beyond, reaching geographers, students, educators, policymakers, employers, partners and the wider public.

CWP is a B Corp certified strategic content creator that works in partnership with leading member bodies and associations, engaging professionals in their industries’ role in building a better tomorrow.

Organizations interested in contributing to the series are encouraged to contact Sophie Newboult, Series Development Manager at CWP to learn more: sophie@contentwithpurpose.co.uk.

President's Column

Bridging Difficult Conversations

March 1, 2026

Illustration showing a group of diverse hands connecting to form a bridge.

I grew up in the Midwest, a cultural region where we stereotypically avoid difficult conversations. While my people might famously say ‘that’s interesting’ when we disagree, or ‘I’m not mad’ when we are furious, such conflict avoidance is not a healthy approach for a large and diverse organization such as the AAG.

Nearly a year ago (April 2025), the AAG Council received a successful membership petition asking that we hold a special meeting to discuss a proposal for “the AAG to endorse the campaign for an academic boycott of Israeli academic institutions, and for financial disclosure and divestment of any AAG funds invested in corporations or state institutions profiting from the ongoing oppression of the Palestinian people.” Just a few weeks ago (February 12), AAG members received an email with the AAG Council’s response to the petition, a response which reflects nearly a year of deep conversations with a membership that was often sharply divided on this issue, and on the most appropriate response. I am proud to say that the AAG did not avoid this issue, but tackled it head on in a thoughtful and comprehensive manner. Below I discuss our process for arriving at this response, the response itself, and some common reactions and concerns I have heard from the membership.

Our Process

In receiving and reflecting on the petition, the challenge for the AAG Council was to create a space where all member voices could be heard on this important topic. A one- or two-hour online meeting where the petitioners shared their views would have privileged some perspectives over others and not been accessible to a diverse membership on different schedules and across multiple time zones. After careful thought, Council resolved to hear member input on the petition via two pathways last fall:

to create a background document on the topic (including the AAG’s history of dealing with divisive issues, pros and cons of different actions, etc.) which members could comment on over a 60-day period (a two-month asynchronous meeting if you will); and
to offer two online sessions (one closed and the other open to a member audience) where members could directly share their relevant insights with Council.

While this approach was far from perfect, it was appreciated by many. As one AAG member wrote: “We are a community. A community with different viewpoints, research areas, life experiences, and belief systems, which is what makes our community so vibrant. It is also what makes our community, expertise, and ability to constructively debate with one another critical in a time when misinformation, ignorance, and hate are rampant in public discourse.”

The Response

As explained in the February 12 email to the membership, there are four components of the AAG response to the petition: 1) an ESG Investment Framework and Implementation Policy; 2) an International Partnership Framework and Due Diligence Policy; 3) a Displaced Scholars Support Program and Fund; and 4) a Statement on Palestine and Higher Education. Below I briefly discuss each of these components in turn.

ESG Investment Framework and Implementation Policy. This policy obligates the AAG to more actively manage and monitor the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investment filters that guide its endowment investments. Some of these screens existed beforehand as a result of our climate change work and we added additional screens related to the military weapons industry. As a result, the AAG currently holds no investments in companies listed on the American Friends Service Committee or UN human rights lists. This approach is meant to keep our investments aligned with our values over time, while taking care to sustain our relatively modest endowment in support of our mission. Moving forward, we will review our investments annually, with flags being raised if more than 5% of our investments fall outside of these screens. This policy addresses the divestment concerns of the petitioners without being country specific (we want to avoid investments in problematic companies regardless of where they are operating).

International Partnership Framework and Due Diligence Policy. This policy will help guide new international partnerships (such as formal MOUs, joint programs, or co-sponsored events) with organizations based in countries where there are significant human rights or academic freedom concerns. Using a third-party list of countries where there are concerns as a trigger, the AAG Council will review and vote on potential new partnerships (leaving an official record of the decision). This extra level of scrutiny will also allow Council to make nuanced decisions. For example, Council could decide to collaborate with an organization fighting against oppression in country X, but not to do so with institutions in the same country that are complicit in human rights abuses. While the specific third-party list(s) Council will use to trigger a review is to be determined by a working group in the near future (e.g., Human Rights Watch World Report, Amnesty International Annual Report), it is important to have such a list because Council should not be deciding when or when not to undertake a review on an ad hoc basis. It would also be impractical and cumbersome for Council to review all such partnerships. For example, AAG staff should have the liberty to allow the Canadian Association of Geographers (not on any human rights watch list) to contract for a booth at the annual meeting without Council micromanaging the process. To be clear, the AAG has not had a partnership with any Israeli organization or institution since 2005. This policy, while also not country specific, is essentially a boycott of organizations in other countries that have been complicit in human rights abuses.

Displaced Scholars Support Program and Fund. This is a new AAG program and related fund to support displaced scholars around the world, including those from Gaza and other conflict zones. The program will provide selected displaced scholars with: (1) free AAG membership, (2) waived registration for AAG annual meetings, (3) eligibility to apply for relocation or travel funds, and (4) connections to aid organizations (e.g., IIE Scholar Rescue Fund, Scholars at Risk). A working group will develop the program details over the next year. We currently have three displaced scholars participating in a pilot program, and four internationally recognized experts advising its development. The program provides real and tangible support to geographers whose human rights and academic freedom have been compromised.

Statement on Palestine and Higher Education. The AAG released a statement on February 12 affirming commitments to Palestinian educational rights, human rights, academic freedom, and self-determination. The statement affirms that Palestinian and Israeli scholars, and all members of our community, have the right to pursue higher education and research free from violence, harassment, or discrimination. The statement addresses the destruction of higher-education infrastructure in Gaza, barriers to Palestinian scholars’ mobility and access to education, and threats to campus safety and academic freedom affecting both Palestinian and Israeli scholars. The statement also affirms that criticism of state policy must be clearly distinguished from antisemitism, Islamophobia, or other forms of racism.

Member Reactions and Concerns

While it has only been a few weeks since the AAG released its response, so far member reactions have largely been affirming and recognize the challenge of having such a difficult conversation. One member wrote: “It is notable for the way it [the AAG response] advocates positive and cooperative measures that support our shared values in universal human rights and academic freedom, instead of antagonistic and confrontational actions.” Another member wrote: “While the call for a referendum, and ensuing discussion, were sparked by the events in Gaza, the AAG took a meaningful step in negotiating a series of actions that signal institutional change and a responsiveness to member concerns. I appreciate the clear condemnation of violence and repeated focus on human rights, academic freedom, and education, and rejection of racism, that underpins each of the planned and implemented responses.” Of course, not all AAG members have been happy with the process Council undertook to broker this conversation. Let me speak to a few of those concerns here, concerns that were shared with me before the AAG shared its official response.

Since the time we initially received the member petition, I heard from some members that they would like to have had a yes or no vote on the petitioners’ demands. I would first note that such a vote was not called for in the original petition; it was requested later (without the support of the official petition). Second, such votes are not a part of the AAG bylaws (the membership votes on bylaw changes or in instances where the Council requests a vote). Thirdly, such an approach would have circumvented the AAG Council, a body which is elected by the membership and charged with considering issues in a way that reflects the long-term interests of the association (aka fiduciary responsibility, which is broader than financial considerations). Lastly, a yes or no vote on the original proposal was inherently limiting in terms of choices and would not have resulted in the more nuanced response that eventually emerged after considerable deliberation.

Other members have suggested that our process was undemocratic. I would argue that just because there was not a direct vote on the issue does not mean that the process was undemocratic. The AAG is an indirect democracy in that we elect Council members and special committee members (such as the nominations committee) to act on our behalf. Most of us do not have the time to consider all sides of an issue, so we elect representatives to do this work for us. Furthermore, the AAG Council went to great pains to hear member concerns on this issue and in a way that did not privilege the loudest voices in the room.

In sum, I am proud of the way the AAG has handled this difficult conversation. We have not sidestepped a potentially contentious issue, but addressed the main concerns of the petitioners re: divestment and collaboration, stuck to our core values and heard the views of a diverse membership, while not succumbing to divisive language or putting the organization in legal jeopardy. While I am certain that some of you will remain unhappy with this outcome, being part of a big family often entails compromise, working through challenging issues, and building bridges to arrive at a shared understanding and best possible outcome under the circumstances. Our community is stronger for meeting this moment.

Please note: The ideas expressed in the AAG President’s column are not necessarily the views of the AAG as a whole. This column is traditionally a space in which the president may talk about their views or focus during their tenure as president of AAG, or spotlight their areas of professional work. Please feel free to email the president directly at moseley@macalester.edu to enable a constructive discussion.