2001 European Summer Meeting in Vienna

This is a report from ASL President Donald A. Martin on a decision made during March, 2000, by the ASL Council to hold the 2001 ASL European Summer Meeting (Logic Colloquium 2001) in Vienna, Austria as scheduled.

Supporting documents considered by the Council during its discussion were as follows:

• Letter sent by Anand Pillay and more than 90 co-signers. (See also http://www.logique.jussieu.fr/info-lc01.)
• Report from the ASL Committee on Logic in Europe.
• Statements by local organizers of the meeting.

It should be emphasized that these documents are as they were seen by the Council during its discussion. For later developments or further comments by the involved individuals, the indicated links given above should be followed.

When the Freedom Party became part of the Austrian government, the question arose whether or not the meeting should be moved or cancelled. A letter urging that the meeting be moved, a letter signed by more than 90 logicians, was sent by Anand Pillay to the ASL President and Council and to the ASL Committee on Logic in Europe. The letter argued that holding the meeting would be counted as an endorsement of the Austrian government, that many logicians would be politically or personally uncomfortable about going to the Vienna meeting, and that the meeting would be unsuccessful because many logicians would not attend.

The Vienna logicians, the local organizers of LC 2001, sent a message to the ASL President and to the Committee on Logic in Europe, asking that the meeting be held in Vienna as scheduled. They argued that cancellation would not harm the current Austrian government but would serve to isolate Austrian logicians.

The President asked that the Committee on Logic in Europe deliberate and make a recommendation to the ASL Council. That committee was unable to reach a decision, deadlocking 3-3 on whether to keep the meeting in Vienna. The members disagreed about the following questions: Is the mere presence of the Freedom Party sufficient to justify a boycott, even though the government has not yet taken any objectionable action? Is the possibility that many will not feel they can in good conscience attend the meeting sufficient reason to cancel it? Is opposition to the meeting better expressed by cancellation or by protest at the meeting? Is it fair to our Austrian colleagues to move the meeting?

The ASL Council held a lengthy email discussion of the issue, and then voted 18-8 in favor of keeping the meeting in Vienna. All the issues that divided the Committee on Logic in Europe arose again in the Council discussion, and a few additional issues arose. Several people felt that the ASL should be non-political and that cancelling the meeting would be a political action, though there was a counter-argument that both moving and not moving the meeting would constitute political actions. Another issue discussed was one raised in the Pillay letter: whether the ASL would be able to hold a successful meeting in Vienna in the present situation. An available piece of information on this issue is the following: Of the 16 people invited to speak at the meeting, the number who declined because the meeting will be in Austria was 3.

The report of the Committee on Logic in Europe had recommended that the ASL should encourage the Vienna logicians to plan a protest at the meeting, that it should encourage ASL members to attend, and that it should ask the Organizing Committee to avoid funding from the present Austrian government or from any institution associated with the Freedom Party. There was some Council discussion of the first and third of these recommendations, but no Council action was taken with respect to any of them.

 

<back to main reports page>