Recently in the wake of Dobbs, some academic oncologists proudly declared they will boycott all conferences in red states. Previously, a handful of bills over the last decade, on a range of social issues, resulted in doctors saying they would boycott the state in question. Someone told me recently they were boycotting New Orleans because of a Louisiana state law. Wow, New Orleans, I thought! In many cases, I am sympathetic to the policy issue. I also disagree with the law in question in these states. But would I boycott a state? Little old me?
My home state of California is guilty of the single greatest discriminatory act: prolonged school closure. Homelessness is out of control. Should I leave it too bc I disagree how these issues are managed?
Boycotting a state-- or more importantly announcing your Boycott on twitter-- doesn't actually make the world better, it is empty virtue signalling. Losers boycott, while winners change the law.
First, consider that boycotts have unintended consequences. This was a smart tweet I read about Boycotts (the replies were less smart)
Second, boycotts are unlikely to work. They will change a tiny fraction of state GDP. Mostly to the tourism sector, and the beliefs in question that underlie these bills are not going to shift for a tiny bit of money. Does anyone think these beliefs are financially swayable?
Third, there is not even going to be a boycott. At best some conferences will cancel, but most will go on; so the effect will be even smaller and negligible.
Fourth, the goal is to actually change policy. The simplest way to do that is persuasively articulate a middle ground, or push for your position. Win elections. Change the law. Boycott is for losers. Winners rewrite the rules
Finally, the truth is…
