View Thread

  • 1.  ONE-L Digest - 3 Feb 2017 to 5 Feb 2017 (#2017-24)

    Posted 02-06-2017 10:59
    Dear ONE Colleagues
    Great to see ONE Division discussing this issue, but.....  As a Founder of ONE (and still passionate about the cause), I was hoping for a more strident and definitive response.   AOM regulation of staying "apolitical" borders on the amoral, and should be revoked if it is indeed preventing its leaders from denouncing the recent restrictions on science by the new US Administration (travel ban affecting scientists, freezing $4 bil EPA grants/contracts, seeking political oversight of climate research studies, appointment of climate deniers to science/education/environmental agencies, etc ....) . This is not the time to be neutral or silent my friends. Voice, is all we have, let us use it.

    The rest of the scientific world has found words to offer strong resistance. See statements by

    The International Science Union, 

    and Future Earth, 

    and dozens of professional academic associations including American Sociological Association

    I am attaching below a letter from a colleague from Critical Management Division to the President of AOM that eloquently expresses what some members feel, and exemplifies possibilities of resistive action. 

    ONE Executive has an opportunity to lead the entire AoM to a stronger response to happenings all around us.  Lead us on. 

    Also please consider joining the Scientists March on Washington, April 22 (Earth Day) in a town near you. 

    Warm Regards,
    Paul Shrivastava
    Concordia University, Montreal

    -------- Letter from Bobby Bannerjee to AOM -------

    Dear Prof McGahan
    I was looking forward to the Academy of Management's official response to President Trump's Executive Order, given my earlier email to you calling for a condemnation of the order as so many academic associations in the United States have done. Today I read your response with dismay, disappointment and a rising sense of anger and betrayal. To put it mildly this was a cowardly and shameful response to what is a blatantly discriminatory and racist policy measure.
    What I find particularly galling is your statement 'Yet because of our very diversity, the AOM has long had a binding policy that restricts any officer from taking a stand on any political issue in the name of the AOM'. So diversity is not a 'political' issue? And since when did blatant discrimination against specific groups of people become a 'diversity' issue? If this is your understanding of diversity I suggest you start doing some basic reading on the topic. I will be happy to provide you a reading list of papers and books many of which have been published by your members.
    I am truly puzzled by your refusal to engage with the obvious racist and discriminatory nature of the Executive Order. What precisely are you afraid of? After all associations representing sociologists, anthropologists, economists, geographers, historians and even astronomers have released statements condemning the Executive Order. Even CEOs of major US corporations have criticized the order. Do you really expect us to 'stand together in Atlanta in solidarity with our diverse membership' when some of our members may not be permitted to enter the US because of a blatantly discriminatory order? I am sorry but I cannot show solidarity when a co-author or colleague belonging to a particular religion or nationality is forced to present his or her work via Skype thanks to the magnanimity of the Academy of Management, while my passport allows me to travel to Atlanta.
    To sum I have two suggestions to add to the options you have outlined in your response. First, you rename the Academy of Management more appropriately as the United States Academy of Management. That way it is quite clear where your priorities lie despite your pretensions to diversity. And second rephrase the sentence on diversity and political issue to read: 'AOM has long had a binding policy that restricts any officer from taking a stand on any moral or ethical issue in the name of the AOM'. That at least would be an honest statement. At least the Critical Management Studies division had the honesty and courage to take a moral and ethical (not 'political' of course) stance to the Executive Order. I endorse their statement as do several of my colleagues in the Academy of Management.
    I have been a member of AoM since 1995 and have attended almost every conference since then. It is with sadness and a deep sense of betrayal that I inform you that I will not be attending this year's meeting at Atlanta. And that I will be encouraging my colleagues in the United States and elsewhere to boycott AoM at Atlanta as well.
    Sincerely





    Bobby
    Bobby Banerjee, PhD
    Professor of Management
    Director – Executive PhD Program
    Cass Business School
    City University London

    Voice: +44 20 7040 5280; Fax: +44 20 7040 8328; Cell: +44 7455 177405
    Email: bobby.banerjee@city.ac.uk
    www.cass.city.ac.uk/experts/B.Banerjee

    ----------------- end of letter -------------------


    Topics of the day:

      1. From the ONE Exec

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Date:    Sun, 5 Feb 2017 17:07:25 -0700
    From:    P Jennings <dj1@UALBERTA.CA>
    Subject: From the ONE Exec

    Dear *ONE Members*,



    Since November, the ONE Executive has been discussing the implications of
    the U.S. election and the policies of the new U.S. administration as they
    relate to ONE's goals and operations. As part of that discussion, we
    consulted with the Academy of Management leadership. It was pointed out to
    us that the Academy's charter currently does not allow us to take overt
    political stands. Still, like last fall, we think that it is important to
    communicate with our division members about our purposes and views with
    regard to current unfolding political events, such as those around the U.S.
    Executive Order regarding immigration. We feel that our constitution offers
    some useful points of engagement. As stated in Article II:



    The Organizations and the Natural Environment Division is dedicated to the
    advancement of research, teaching, and service in the area of relationships
    between organizations and the natural environment. We believe that these
    interactions may be among the most significant components in the continued
    existence, development, and management of human organizations and
    societies. The pollution of air, water, and land, and the depletion of both
    renewable and non-renewable resources as a result of actions of formal
    organizations are the most obvious manifestations of these interactions and
    relationships. *This Division focuses its scholarly attention on the
    status, causes, and effects of these and other opportunities and problems
    that human organizations and societies encounter in co-existing with the
    natural environment, whether that environment is the workplace, the local
    community, or the global ecosystem.*



    The objectives of the Organizations and the Natural Environment Division
    are: 1) to *promote scholarship *on the topics above among its members and
    to provide a channel for such scholarship via Academy paper sessions and
    symposia; 2) *to develop a network* of scholars interested in these topics
    through electronic media and social gatherings at the Academy annual
    meetings; 3) to promote *environmental management practices for the Academy*
    itself by educating other Academy members as appropriate; and, 4) to
    encourage scholars and students in related business disciplines and in
    related non-business disciplines (e.g., environmental sciences,
    environmental engineering, environmental law, and environmental
    ethics) to *participate
    in the Academy and to work with practitioners in these fields to promote
    environmentally-sensitive policies and practices worldwide.*



    The bolded areas show a number of domains where ONE members can clearly
    serve without any conflict-of-interest or violation of AoM rules. In
    addition, in our new Five Year Plan (which is under review by AoM Board),
    we have proposed greater *advocacy for ONE research and practice* inside
    and outside of the Academy. As part of that advocacy, the ONE Exec has
    expressed to the Academy and other bodies its concern with what we perceive
    as unwarranted political restrictions on some U.S.-based data collection
    and data interpretation, along with unfair, political treatment of ONE
    researchers who are from countries targeted by recent immigration
    legislation. Along these lines, we agree with our colleagues in SIM and
    elsewhere in the Academy that it is important for us to recall and follow
    the AoM Code of Ethics:



    "....AOM members are aware of and respect cultural, individual, and role
    differences, including those based on age, gender identity, race,
    ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation,
    disability, language, and socioeconomic status, and they consider these
    factors when working with all people. *AOM members try to eliminate the
    effect on their work of biases based on these factors, and they do not
    knowingly participate in or condone activities of others based upon such
    prejudices*. ....."



    The Academy leadership has said that in Atlanta it would be interested in
    seeing sessions debating the role of science and social science in
    combating climate change and how political shifts might be influencing our
    research. We look forward to PDW and symposia that do so. We will also be
    discussing some of these strategic issues and specific initiatives over the
    coming months, including in the ONE Business Meeting, in order to identify
    additional positive actions we can take.



    *The ONE Executive*

    ------------------------------

    End of ONE-L Digest - 3 Feb 2017 to 5 Feb 2017 (#2017-24)
    *********************************************************



  • 2.  ONE-L Digest - 3 Feb 2017 to 5 Feb 2017 (#2017-24)

    Posted 02-06-2017 11:06
    Just to add to the litany of today's fractious times,

    ______________________________________
    Andrew J. Hoffman
    Education Director, Graham Sustainability Institute
    Holcim (US) Professor of Sustainable Enterprise
    Ross School of Business/SNRE
    University of Michigan
    701 Tappan Street, R4390
    Ann Arbor, MI 48109
    P: 734.763.9455
    E: ajhoff@umich.edu

    Administrative Assistant: Shelly Whitmer
    E: sjmoore@umich.eduP: 734.647.4516
    ______________________________________


    On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Paul Shrivastava <paul.shri@gmail.com> wrote:
    Dear ONE Colleagues
    Great to see ONE Division discussing this issue, but.....  As a Founder of ONE (and still passionate about the cause), I was hoping for a more strident and definitive response.   AOM regulation of staying "apolitical" borders on the amoral, and should be revoked if it is indeed preventing its leaders from denouncing the recent restrictions on science by the new US Administration (travel ban affecting scientists, freezing $4 bil EPA grants/contracts, seeking political oversight of climate research studies, appointment of climate deniers to science/education/environmental agencies, etc ....) . This is not the time to be neutral or silent my friends. Voice, is all we have, let us use it.

    The rest of the scientific world has found words to offer strong resistance. See statements by

    The International Science Union, 

    and Future Earth, 

    and dozens of professional academic associations including American Sociological Association

    I am attaching below a letter from a colleague from Critical Management Division to the President of AOM that eloquently expresses what some members feel, and exemplifies possibilities of resistive action. 

    ONE Executive has an opportunity to lead the entire AoM to a stronger response to happenings all around us.  Lead us on. 

    Also please consider joining the Scientists March on Washington, April 22 (Earth Day) in a town near you. 

    Warm Regards,
    Paul Shrivastava
    Concordia University, Montreal

    -------- Letter from Bobby Bannerjee to AOM -------

    Dear Prof McGahan
    I was looking forward to the Academy of Management's official response to President Trump's Executive Order, given my earlier email to you calling for a condemnation of the order as so many academic associations in the United States have done. Today I read your response with dismay, disappointment and a rising sense of anger and betrayal. To put it mildly this was a cowardly and shameful response to what is a blatantly discriminatory and racist policy measure.
    What I find particularly galling is your statement 'Yet because of our very diversity, the AOM has long had a binding policy that restricts any officer from taking a stand on any political issue in the name of the AOM'. So diversity is not a 'political' issue? And since when did blatant discrimination against specific groups of people become a 'diversity' issue? If this is your understanding of diversity I suggest you start doing some basic reading on the topic. I will be happy to provide you a reading list of papers and books many of which have been published by your members.
    I am truly puzzled by your refusal to engage with the obvious racist and discriminatory nature of the Executive Order. What precisely are you afraid of? After all associations representing sociologists, anthropologists, economists, geographers, historians and even astronomers have released statements condemning the Executive Order. Even CEOs of major US corporations have criticized the order. Do you really expect us to 'stand together in Atlanta in solidarity with our diverse membership' when some of our members may not be permitted to enter the US because of a blatantly discriminatory order? I am sorry but I cannot show solidarity when a co-author or colleague belonging to a particular religion or nationality is forced to present his or her work via Skype thanks to the magnanimity of the Academy of Management, while my passport allows me to travel to Atlanta.
    To sum I have two suggestions to add to the options you have outlined in your response. First, you rename the Academy of Management more appropriately as the United States Academy of Management. That way it is quite clear where your priorities lie despite your pretensions to diversity. And second rephrase the sentence on diversity and political issue to read: 'AOM has long had a binding policy that restricts any officer from taking a stand on any moral or ethical issue in the name of the AOM'. That at least would be an honest statement. At least the Critical Management Studies division had the honesty and courage to take a moral and ethical (not 'political' of course) stance to the Executive Order. I endorse their statement as do several of my colleagues in the Academy of Management.
    I have been a member of AoM since 1995 and have attended almost every conference since then. It is with sadness and a deep sense of betrayal that I inform you that I will not be attending this year's meeting at Atlanta. And that I will be encouraging my colleagues in the United States and elsewhere to boycott AoM at Atlanta as well.
    Sincerely





    Bobby
    Bobby Banerjee, PhD
    Professor of Management
    Director – Executive PhD Program
    Cass Business School
    City University London

    Voice: +44 20 7040 5280; Fax: +44 20 7040 8328; Cell: +44 7455 177405
    Email: bobby.banerjee@city.ac.uk
    www.cass.city.ac.uk/experts/B.Banerjee

    ----------------- end of letter -------------------


    Topics of the day:

      1. From the ONE Exec

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Date:    Sun, 5 Feb 2017 17:07:25 -0700
    From:    P Jennings <dj1@UALBERTA.CA>
    Subject: From the ONE Exec

    Dear *ONE Members*,



    Since November, the ONE Executive has been discussing the implications of
    the U.S. election and the policies of the new U.S. administration as they
    relate to ONE's goals and operations. As part of that discussion, we
    consulted with the Academy of Management leadership. It was pointed out to
    us that the Academy's charter currently does not allow us to take overt
    political stands. Still, like last fall, we think that it is important to
    communicate with our division members about our purposes and views with
    regard to current unfolding political events, such as those around the U.S.
    Executive Order regarding immigration. We feel that our constitution offers
    some useful points of engagement. As stated in Article II:



    The Organizations and the Natural Environment Division is dedicated to the
    advancement of research, teaching, and service in the area of relationships
    between organizations and the natural environment. We believe that these
    interactions may be among the most significant components in the continued
    existence, development, and management of human organizations and
    societies. The pollution of air, water, and land, and the depletion of both
    renewable and non-renewable resources as a result of actions of formal
    organizations are the most obvious manifestations of these interactions and
    relationships. *This Division focuses its scholarly attention on the
    status, causes, and effects of these and other opportunities and problems
    that human organizations and societies encounter in co-existing with the
    natural environment, whether that environment is the workplace, the local
    community, or the global ecosystem.*



    The objectives of the Organizations and the Natural Environment Division
    are: 1) to *promote scholarship *on the topics above among its members and
    to provide a channel for such scholarship via Academy paper sessions and
    symposia; 2) *to develop a network* of scholars interested in these topics
    through electronic media and social gatherings at the Academy annual
    meetings; 3) to promote *environmental management practices for the Academy*
    itself by educating other Academy members as appropriate; and, 4) to
    encourage scholars and students in related business disciplines and in
    related non-business disciplines (e.g., environmental sciences,
    environmental engineering, environmental law, and environmental
    ethics) to *participate
    in the Academy and to work with practitioners in these fields to promote
    environmentally-sensitive policies and practices worldwide.*



    The bolded areas show a number of domains where ONE members can clearly
    serve without any conflict-of-interest or violation of AoM rules. In
    addition, in our new Five Year Plan (which is under review by AoM Board),
    we have proposed greater *advocacy for ONE research and practice* inside
    and outside of the Academy. As part of that advocacy, the ONE Exec has
    expressed to the Academy and other bodies its concern with what we perceive
    as unwarranted political restrictions on some U.S.-based data collection
    and data interpretation, along with unfair, political treatment of ONE
    researchers who are from countries targeted by recent immigration
    legislation. Along these lines, we agree with our colleagues in SIM and
    elsewhere in the Academy that it is important for us to recall and follow
    the AoM Code of Ethics:



    "....AOM members are aware of and respect cultural, individual, and role
    differences, including those based on age, gender identity, race,
    ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation,
    disability, language, and socioeconomic status, and they consider these
    factors when working with all people. *AOM members try to eliminate the
    effect on their work of biases based on these factors, and they do not
    knowingly participate in or condone activities of others based upon such
    prejudices*. ....."



    The Academy leadership has said that in Atlanta it would be interested in
    seeing sessions debating the role of science and social science in
    combating climate change and how political shifts might be influencing our
    research. We look forward to PDW and symposia that do so. We will also be
    discussing some of these strategic issues and specific initiatives over the
    coming months, including in the ONE Business Meeting, in order to identify
    additional positive actions we can take.



    *The ONE Executive*

    ------------------------------

    End of ONE-L Digest - 3 Feb 2017 to 5 Feb 2017 (#2017-24)
    *********************************************************




  • 3.  ONE-L Digest - 3 Feb 2017 to 5 Feb 2017 (#2017-24)

    Posted 02-06-2017 11:31
    Thank you all for these great exchanges of information. Two questions: what is considered non political? I think that any statement of values or opinions can be called political, and also corresponds to the freedom of speech.
    Second question: Is there a call for action from within ONE-L? I'd love to go beyond discussions.

    A piece of good news: After public outcry on the sale of 3.3 million acres the bill was withdrawn. So speaking up WORKS!!!! https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/02/republican-selling-public-lands-bill-withdraw-jason-chaffetz
    Thank you!


    Isabel Rimanoczy, Ed.D.

    New TED! Watch it here

    Legacy Mindset FB and Twitter 
    Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312
    +1 (754) 444 0092
    Member of Core Team Aim2Flourish


    On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Andrew Hoffman <ajhoff@umich.edu> wrote:
    Just to add to the litany of today's fractious times,

    ______________________________________
    Andrew J. Hoffman
    Education Director, Graham Sustainability Institute
    Holcim (US) Professor of Sustainable Enterprise
    Ross School of Business/SNRE
    University of Michigan
    701 Tappan Street, R4390
    Ann Arbor, MI 48109
    P: 734.763.9455
    E: ajhoff@umich.edu

    Administrative Assistant: Shelly Whitmer
    ______________________________________


    On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Paul Shrivastava <paul.shri@gmail.com> wrote:
    Dear ONE Colleagues
    Great to see ONE Division discussing this issue, but.....  As a Founder of ONE (and still passionate about the cause), I was hoping for a more strident and definitive response.   AOM regulation of staying "apolitical" borders on the amoral, and should be revoked if it is indeed preventing its leaders from denouncing the recent restrictions on science by the new US Administration (travel ban affecting scientists, freezing $4 bil EPA grants/contracts, seeking political oversight of climate research studies, appointment of climate deniers to science/education/environmental agencies, etc ....) . This is not the time to be neutral or silent my friends. Voice, is all we have, let us use it.

    The rest of the scientific world has found words to offer strong resistance. See statements by

    The International Science Union, 

    and Future Earth, 

    and dozens of professional academic associations including American Sociological Association

    I am attaching below a letter from a colleague from Critical Management Division to the President of AOM that eloquently expresses what some members feel, and exemplifies possibilities of resistive action. 

    ONE Executive has an opportunity to lead the entire AoM to a stronger response to happenings all around us.  Lead us on. 

    Also please consider joining the Scientists March on Washington, April 22 (Earth Day) in a town near you. 

    Warm Regards,
    Paul Shrivastava
    Concordia University, Montreal

    -------- Letter from Bobby Bannerjee to AOM -------

    Dear Prof McGahan
    I was looking forward to the Academy of Management's official response to President Trump's Executive Order, given my earlier email to you calling for a condemnation of the order as so many academic associations in the United States have done. Today I read your response with dismay, disappointment and a rising sense of anger and betrayal. To put it mildly this was a cowardly and shameful response to what is a blatantly discriminatory and racist policy measure.
    What I find particularly galling is your statement 'Yet because of our very diversity, the AOM has long had a binding policy that restricts any officer from taking a stand on any political issue in the name of the AOM'. So diversity is not a 'political' issue? And since when did blatant discrimination against specific groups of people become a 'diversity' issue? If this is your understanding of diversity I suggest you start doing some basic reading on the topic. I will be happy to provide you a reading list of papers and books many of which have been published by your members.
    I am truly puzzled by your refusal to engage with the obvious racist and discriminatory nature of the Executive Order. What precisely are you afraid of? After all associations representing sociologists, anthropologists, economists, geographers, historians and even astronomers have released statements condemning the Executive Order. Even CEOs of major US corporations have criticized the order. Do you really expect us to 'stand together in Atlanta in solidarity with our diverse membership' when some of our members may not be permitted to enter the US because of a blatantly discriminatory order? I am sorry but I cannot show solidarity when a co-author or colleague belonging to a particular religion or nationality is forced to present his or her work via Skype thanks to the magnanimity of the Academy of Management, while my passport allows me to travel to Atlanta.
    To sum I have two suggestions to add to the options you have outlined in your response. First, you rename the Academy of Management more appropriately as the United States Academy of Management. That way it is quite clear where your priorities lie despite your pretensions to diversity. And second rephrase the sentence on diversity and political issue to read: 'AOM has long had a binding policy that restricts any officer from taking a stand on any moral or ethical issue in the name of the AOM'. That at least would be an honest statement. At least the Critical Management Studies division had the honesty and courage to take a moral and ethical (not 'political' of course) stance to the Executive Order. I endorse their statement as do several of my colleagues in the Academy of Management.
    I have been a member of AoM since 1995 and have attended almost every conference since then. It is with sadness and a deep sense of betrayal that I inform you that I will not be attending this year's meeting at Atlanta. And that I will be encouraging my colleagues in the United States and elsewhere to boycott AoM at Atlanta as well.
    Sincerely





    Bobby
    Bobby Banerjee, PhD
    Professor of Management
    Director – Executive PhD Program
    Cass Business School
    City University London

    Voice: +44 20 7040 5280; Fax: +44 20 7040 8328; Cell: +44 7455 177405
    Email: bobby.banerjee@city.ac.uk
    www.cass.city.ac.uk/experts/B.Banerjee

    ----------------- end of letter -------------------


    Topics of the day:

      1. From the ONE Exec

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Date:    Sun, 5 Feb 2017 17:07:25 -0700
    From:    P Jennings <dj1@UALBERTA.CA>
    Subject: From the ONE Exec

    Dear *ONE Members*,



    Since November, the ONE Executive has been discussing the implications of
    the U.S. election and the policies of the new U.S. administration as they
    relate to ONE's goals and operations. As part of that discussion, we
    consulted with the Academy of Management leadership. It was pointed out to
    us that the Academy's charter currently does not allow us to take overt
    political stands. Still, like last fall, we think that it is important to
    communicate with our division members about our purposes and views with
    regard to current unfolding political events, such as those around the U.S.
    Executive Order regarding immigration. We feel that our constitution offers
    some useful points of engagement. As stated in Article II:



    The Organizations and the Natural Environment Division is dedicated to the
    advancement of research, teaching, and service in the area of relationships
    between organizations and the natural environment. We believe that these
    interactions may be among the most significant components in the continued
    existence, development, and management of human organizations and
    societies. The pollution of air, water, and land, and the depletion of both
    renewable and non-renewable resources as a result of actions of formal
    organizations are the most obvious manifestations of these interactions and
    relationships. *This Division focuses its scholarly attention on the
    status, causes, and effects of these and other opportunities and problems
    that human organizations and societies encounter in co-existing with the
    natural environment, whether that environment is the workplace, the local
    community, or the global ecosystem.*



    The objectives of the Organizations and the Natural Environment Division
    are: 1) to *promote scholarship *on the topics above among its members and
    to provide a channel for such scholarship via Academy paper sessions and
    symposia; 2) *to develop a network* of scholars interested in these topics
    through electronic media and social gatherings at the Academy annual
    meetings; 3) to promote *environmental management practices for the Academy*
    itself by educating other Academy members as appropriate; and, 4) to
    encourage scholars and students in related business disciplines and in
    related non-business disciplines (e.g., environmental sciences,
    environmental engineering, environmental law, and environmental
    ethics) to *participate
    in the Academy and to work with practitioners in these fields to promote
    environmentally-sensitive policies and practices worldwide.*



    The bolded areas show a number of domains where ONE members can clearly
    serve without any conflict-of-interest or violation of AoM rules. In
    addition, in our new Five Year Plan (which is under review by AoM Board),
    we have proposed greater *advocacy for ONE research and practice* inside
    and outside of the Academy. As part of that advocacy, the ONE Exec has
    expressed to the Academy and other bodies its concern with what we perceive
    as unwarranted political restrictions on some U.S.-based data collection
    and data interpretation, along with unfair, political treatment of ONE
    researchers who are from countries targeted by recent immigration
    legislation. Along these lines, we agree with our colleagues in SIM and
    elsewhere in the Academy that it is important for us to recall and follow
    the AoM Code of Ethics:



    "....AOM members are aware of and respect cultural, individual, and role
    differences, including those based on age, gender identity, race,
    ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation,
    disability, language, and socioeconomic status, and they consider these
    factors when working with all people. *AOM members try to eliminate the
    effect on their work of biases based on these factors, and they do not
    knowingly participate in or condone activities of others based upon such
    prejudices*. ....."



    The Academy leadership has said that in Atlanta it would be interested in
    seeing sessions debating the role of science and social science in
    combating climate change and how political shifts might be influencing our
    research. We look forward to PDW and symposia that do so. We will also be
    discussing some of these strategic issues and specific initiatives over the
    coming months, including in the ONE Business Meeting, in order to identify
    additional positive actions we can take.



    *The ONE Executive*

    ------------------------------

    End of ONE-L Digest - 3 Feb 2017 to 5 Feb 2017 (#2017-24)
    *********************************************************





  • 4.  ONE-L Digest - 3 Feb 2017 to 5 Feb 2017 (#2017-24)

    Posted 02-06-2017 21:20
    Thank you, Paul. You speak for many of us.

    Tom
    On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 at 11:01 AM, Paul Shrivastava <paul.shri@gmail.com> wrote:
    Dear ONE Colleagues
    Great to see ONE Division discussing this issue, but.....  As a Founder of ONE (and still passionate about the cause), I was hoping for a more strident and definitive response.   AOM regulation of staying "apolitical" borders on the amoral, and should be revoked if it is indeed preventing its leaders from denouncing the recent restrictions on science by the new US Administration (travel ban affecting scientists, freezing $4 bil EPA grants/contracts, seeking political oversight of climate research studies, appointment of climate deniers to science/education/environmental agencies, etc ....) . This is not the time to be neutral or silent my friends. Voice, is all we have, let us use it.

    The rest of the scientific world has found words to offer strong resistance. See statements by

    The International Science Union, 

    and Future Earth, 

    and dozens of professional academic associations including American Sociological Association

    I am attaching below a letter from a colleague from Critical Management Division to the President of AOM that eloquently expresses what some members feel, and exemplifies possibilities of resistive action. 

    ONE Executive has an opportunity to lead the entire AoM to a stronger response to happenings all around us.  Lead us on. 

    Also please consider joining the Scientists March on Washington, April 22 (Earth Day) in a town near you. 

    Warm Regards,
    Paul Shrivastava
    Concordia University, Montreal

    -------- Letter from Bobby Bannerjee to AOM -------

    Dear Prof McGahan
    I was looking forward to the Academy of Management's official response to President Trump's Executive Order, given my earlier email to you calling for a condemnation of the order as so many academic associations in the United States have done. Today I read your response with dismay, disappointment and a rising sense of anger and betrayal. To put it mildly this was a cowardly and shameful response to what is a blatantly discriminatory and racist policy measure.
    What I find particularly galling is your statement 'Yet because of our very diversity, the AOM has long had a binding policy that restricts any officer from taking a stand on any political issue in the name of the AOM'. So diversity is not a 'political' issue? And since when did blatant discrimination against specific groups of people become a 'diversity' issue? If this is your understanding of diversity I suggest you start doing some basic reading on the topic. I will be happy to provide you a reading list of papers and books many of which have been published by your members.
    I am truly puzzled by your refusal to engage with the obvious racist and discriminatory nature of the Executive Order. What precisely are you afraid of? After all associations representing sociologists, anthropologists, economists, geographers, historians and even astronomers have released statements condemning the Executive Order. Even CEOs of major US corporations have criticized the order. Do you really expect us to 'stand together in Atlanta in solidarity with our diverse membership' when some of our members may not be permitted to enter the US because of a blatantly discriminatory order? I am sorry but I cannot show solidarity when a co-author or colleague belonging to a particular religion or nationality is forced to present his or her work via Skype thanks to the magnanimity of the Academy of Management, while my passport allows me to travel to Atlanta.
    To sum I have two suggestions to add to the options you have outlined in your response. First, you rename the Academy of Management more appropriately as the United States Academy of Management. That way it is quite clear where your priorities lie despite your pretensions to diversity. And second rephrase the sentence on diversity and political issue to read: 'AOM has long had a binding policy that restricts any officer from taking a stand on any moral or ethical issue in the name of the AOM'. That at least would be an honest statement. At least the Critical Management Studies division had the honesty and courage to take a moral and ethical (not 'political' of course) stance to the Executive Order. I endorse their statement as do several of my colleagues in the Academy of Management.
    I have been a member of AoM since 1995 and have attended almost every conference since then. It is with sadness and a deep sense of betrayal that I inform you that I will not be attending this year's meeting at Atlanta. And that I will be encouraging my colleagues in the United States and elsewhere to boycott AoM at Atlanta as well.
    Sincerely





    Bobby
    Bobby Banerjee, PhD
    Professor of Management
    Director – Executive PhD Program
    Cass Business School
    City University London

    Voice: +44 20 7040 5280; Fax: +44 20 7040 8328; Cell: +44 7455 177405
    Email: bobby.banerjee@city.ac.uk
    www.cass.city.ac.uk/experts/B.Banerjee

    ----------------- end of letter -------------------


    Topics of the day:

      1. From the ONE Exec

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Date:    Sun, 5 Feb 2017 17:07:25 -0700
    From:    P Jennings <dj1@UALBERTA.CA>
    Subject: From the ONE Exec

    Dear *ONE Members*,



    Since November, the ONE Executive has been discussing the implications of
    the U.S. election and the policies of the new U.S. administration as they
    relate to ONE's goals and operations. As part of that discussion, we
    consulted with the Academy of Management leadership. It was pointed out to
    us that the Academy's charter currently does not allow us to take overt
    political stands. Still, like last fall, we think that it is important to
    communicate with our division members about our purposes and views with
    regard to current unfolding political events, such as those around the U.S.
    Executive Order regarding immigration. We feel that our constitution offers
    some useful points of engagement. As stated in Article II:



    The Organizations and the Natural Environment Division is dedicated to the
    advancement of research, teaching, and service in the area of relationships
    between organizations and the natural environment. We believe that these
    interactions may be among the most significant components in the continued
    existence, development, and management of human organizations and
    societies. The pollution of air, water, and land, and the depletion of both
    renewable and non-renewable resources as a result of actions of formal
    organizations are the most obvious manifestations of these interactions and
    relationships. *This Division focuses its scholarly attention on the
    status, causes, and effects of these and other opportunities and problems
    that human organizations and societies encounter in co-existing with the
    natural environment, whether that environment is the workplace, the local
    community, or the global ecosystem.*



    The objectives of the Organizations and the Natural Environment Division
    are: 1) to *promote scholarship *on the topics above among its members and
    to provide a channel for such scholarship via Academy paper sessions and
    symposia; 2) *to develop a network* of scholars interested in these topics
    through electronic media and social gatherings at the Academy annual
    meetings; 3) to promote *environmental management practices for the Academy*
    itself by educating other Academy members as appropriate; and, 4) to
    encourage scholars and students in related business disciplines and in
    related non-business disciplines (e.g., environmental sciences,
    environmental engineering, environmental law, and environmental
    ethics) to *participate
    in the Academy and to work with practitioners in these fields to promote
    environmentally-sensitive policies and practices worldwide.*



    The bolded areas show a number of domains where ONE members can clearly
    serve without any conflict-of-interest or violation of AoM rules. In
    addition, in our new Five Year Plan (which is under review by AoM Board),
    we have proposed greater *advocacy for ONE research and practice* inside
    and outside of the Academy. As part of that advocacy, the ONE Exec has
    expressed to the Academy and other bodies its concern with what we perceive
    as unwarranted political restrictions on some U.S.-based data collection
    and data interpretation, along with unfair, political treatment of ONE
    researchers who are from countries targeted by recent immigration
    legislation. Along these lines, we agree with our colleagues in SIM and
    elsewhere in the Academy that it is important for us to recall and follow
    the AoM Code of Ethics:



    "....AOM members are aware of and respect cultural, individual, and role
    differences, including those based on age, gender identity, race,
    ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation,
    disability, language, and socioeconomic status, and they consider these
    factors when working with all people. *AOM members try to eliminate the
    effect on their work of biases based on these factors, and they do not
    knowingly participate in or condone activities of others based upon such
    prejudices*. ....."



    The Academy leadership has said that in Atlanta it would be interested in
    seeing sessions debating the role of science and social science in
    combating climate change and how political shifts might be influencing our
    research. We look forward to PDW and symposia that do so. We will also be
    discussing some of these strategic issues and specific initiatives over the
    coming months, including in the ONE Business Meeting, in order to identify
    additional positive actions we can take.



    *The ONE Executive*

    ------------------------------

    End of ONE-L Digest - 3 Feb 2017 to 5 Feb 2017 (#2017-24)
    *********************************************************

    --
    Thomas P. Lyon

    Dow Chair of Sustainable Science, Technology and Policy
    Ross School of Business
    School of Natural Resources and Environment
    University of Michigan
    701 Tappan St., Room 6366
    Ann Arbor, MI 48409
    734-615-1639



  • 5.  ONE-L Digest - 3 Feb 2017 to 5 Feb 2017 (#2017-24)

    Posted 02-07-2017 07:40

    All,

     

    Fortunately, the AOM rules have not prevented a lot of activities.  A number of people have begun to build a multi-school diversity support network.  Our goal is to make it an ongoing effort rather than a response to a single event.  We have over 400 faculty participants.  If you want to sign on to the statement/pledge, go here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LF8TZJV I am working with a group of people to direct the effort.  If you have ideas/suggestions, please send them on.  This is my main area of political work.

     

    Also, many members of the ARCS board published a statement on the environment.   http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/315692-trumps-last-chance-to-save-our-environment  We got flamed in the comments. 

     

    What's next?  This is going to be a long fight.  What activities do you think would be most effective for supporting diversity and for protecting the environment?

     

    Andy

     

     

    From: ONE-L [mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.AOM.ORG] On Behalf Of Thomas Lyon
    Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 9:20 PM
    To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.AOM.ORG
    Subject: Re: [ONE-L] ONE-L Digest - 3 Feb 2017 to 5 Feb 2017 (#2017-24)

     

    Thank you, Paul. You speak for many of us.

     

    Tom

    On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 at 11:01 AM, Paul Shrivastava <paul.shri@gmail.com> wrote:

    Dear ONE Colleagues

    Great to see ONE Division discussing this issue, but.....  As a Founder of ONE (and still passionate about the cause), I was hoping for a more strident and definitive response.   AOM regulation of staying "apolitical" borders on the amoral, and should be revoked if it is indeed preventing its leaders from denouncing the recent restrictions on science by the new US Administration (travel ban affecting scientists, freezing $4 bil EPA grants/contracts, seeking political oversight of climate research studies, appointment of climate deniers to science/education/environmental agencies, etc ....) . This is not the time to be neutral or silent my friends. Voice, is all we have, let us use it.

     

    The rest of the scientific world has found words to offer strong resistance. See statements by

     

    The International Science Union, 

     

    and Future Earth, 

     

    and dozens of professional academic associations including American Sociological Association

     

    I am attaching below a letter from a colleague from Critical Management Division to the President of AOM that eloquently expresses what some members feel, and exemplifies possibilities of resistive action. 

     

    ONE Executive has an opportunity to lead the entire AoM to a stronger response to happenings all around us.  Lead us on. 

     

    Also please consider joining the Scientists March on Washington, April 22 (Earth Day) in a town near you. 

     

    Warm Regards,

    Paul Shrivastava

    Concordia University, Montreal

     

    -------- Letter from Bobby Bannerjee to AOM -------

     

    Dear Prof McGahan
    I was looking forward to the Academy of Management's official response to President Trump's Executive Order, given my earlier email to you calling for a condemnation of the order as so many academic associations in the United States have done. Today I read your response with dismay, disappointment and a rising sense of anger and betrayal. To put it mildly this was a cowardly and shameful response to what is a blatantly discriminatory and racist policy measure.
    What I find particularly galling is your statement 'Yet because of our very diversity, the AOM has long had a binding policy that restricts any officer from taking a stand on any political issue in the name of the AOM'. So diversity is not a 'political' issue? And since when did blatant discrimination against specific groups of people become a 'diversity' issue? If this is your understanding of diversity I suggest you start doing some basic reading on the topic. I will be happy to provide you a reading list of papers and books many of which have been published by your members.
    I am truly puzzled by your refusal to engage with the obvious racist and discriminatory nature of the Executive Order. What precisely are you afraid of? After all associations representing sociologists, anthropologists, economists, geographers, historians and even astronomers have released statements condemning the Executive Order. Even CEOs of major US corporations have criticized the order. Do you really expect us to 'stand together in Atlanta in solidarity with our diverse membership' when some of our members may not be permitted to enter the US because of a blatantly discriminatory order? I am sorry but I cannot show solidarity when a co-author or colleague belonging to a particular religion or nationality is forced to present his or her work via Skype thanks to the magnanimity of the Academy of Management, while my passport allows me to travel to Atlanta.
    To sum I have two suggestions to add to the options you have outlined in your response. First, you rename the Academy of Management more appropriately as the United States Academy of Management. That way it is quite clear where your priorities lie despite your pretensions to diversity. And second rephrase the sentence on diversity and political issue to read: 'AOM has long had a binding policy that restricts any officer from taking a stand on any moral or ethical issue in the name of the AOM'. That at least would be an honest statement. At least the Critical Management Studies division had the honesty and courage to take a moral and ethical (not 'political' of course) stance to the Executive Order. I endorse their statement as do several of my colleagues in the Academy of Management.
    I have been a member of AoM since 1995 and have attended almost every conference since then. It is with sadness and a deep sense of betrayal that I inform you that I will not be attending this year's meeting at Atlanta. And that I will be encouraging my colleagues in the United States and elsewhere to boycott AoM at Atlanta as well.
    Sincerely





    Bobby
    Bobby Banerjee, PhD
    Professor of Management
    Director – Executive PhD Program
    Cass Business School
    City University London

    Voice: 
    +44 20 7040 5280; Fax: +44 20 7040 8328; Cell: +44 7455 177405
    Email: 
    bobby.banerjee@city.ac.uk
    www.cass.city.ac.uk/experts/B.Banerjee

     

    ----------------- end of letter -------------------



    Topics of the day:

      1. From the ONE Exec

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Date:    Sun, 5 Feb 2017 17:07:25 -0700
    From:    P Jennings <dj1@UALBERTA.CA>
    Subject: From the ONE Exec

    Dear *ONE Members*,



    Since November, the ONE Executive has been discussing the implications of
    the U.S. election and the policies of the new U.S. administration as they
    relate to ONE's goals and operations. As part of that discussion, we
    consulted with the Academy of Management leadership. It was pointed out to
    us that the Academy's charter currently does not allow us to take overt
    political stands. Still, like last fall, we think that it is important to
    communicate with our division members about our purposes and views with
    regard to current unfolding political events, such as those around the U.S.
    Executive Order regarding immigration. We feel that our constitution offers
    some useful points of engagement. As stated in Article II:



    The Organizations and the Natural Environment Division is dedicated to the
    advancement of research, teaching, and service in the area of relationships
    between organizations and the natural environment. We believe that these
    interactions may be among the most significant components in the continued
    existence, development, and management of human organizations and
    societies. The pollution of air, water, and land, and the depletion of both
    renewable and non-renewable resources as a result of actions of formal
    organizations are the most obvious manifestations of these interactions and
    relationships. *This Division focuses its scholarly attention on the
    status, causes, and effects of these and other opportunities and problems
    that human organizations and societies encounter in co-existing with the
    natural environment, whether that environment is the workplace, the local
    community, or the global ecosystem.*



    The objectives of the Organizations and the Natural Environment Division
    are: 1) to *promote scholarship *on the topics above among its members and
    to provide a channel for such scholarship via Academy paper sessions and
    symposia; 2) *to develop a network* of scholars interested in these topics
    through electronic media and social gatherings at the Academy annual
    meetings; 3) to promote *environmental management practices for the Academy*
    itself by educating other Academy members as appropriate; and, 4) to
    encourage scholars and students in related business disciplines and in
    related non-business disciplines (e.g., environmental sciences,
    environmental engineering, environmental law, and environmental
    ethics) to *participate
    in the Academy and to work with practitioners in these fields to promote
    environmentally-sensitive policies and practices worldwide.*



    The bolded areas show a number of domains where ONE members can clearly
    serve without any conflict-of-interest or violation of AoM rules. In
    addition, in our new Five Year Plan (which is under review by AoM Board),
    we have proposed greater *advocacy for ONE research and practice* inside
    and outside of the Academy. As part of that advocacy, the ONE Exec has
    expressed to the Academy and other bodies its concern with what we perceive
    as unwarranted political restrictions on some U.S.-based data collection
    and data interpretation, along with unfair, political treatment of ONE
    researchers who are from countries targeted by recent immigration
    legislation. Along these lines, we agree with our colleagues in SIM and
    elsewhere in the Academy that it is important for us to recall and follow
    the AoM Code of Ethics:



    "....AOM members are aware of and respect cultural, individual, and role
    differences, including those based on age, gender identity, race,
    ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation,
    disability, language, and socioeconomic status, and they consider these
    factors when working with all people. *AOM members try to eliminate the
    effect on their work of biases based on these factors, and they do not
    knowingly participate in or condone activities of others based upon such
    prejudices*. ....."



    The Academy leadership has said that in Atlanta it would be interested in
    seeing sessions debating the role of science and social science in
    combating climate change and how political shifts might be influencing our
    research. We look forward to PDW and symposia that do so. We will also be
    discussing some of these strategic issues and specific initiatives over the
    coming months, including in the ONE Business Meeting, in order to identify
    additional positive actions we can take.



    *The ONE Executive*

    ------------------------------

    End of ONE-L Digest - 3 Feb 2017 to 5 Feb 2017 (#2017-24)
    *********************************************************

     

    --

    Thomas P. Lyon

    Dow Chair of Sustainable Science, Technology and Policy
    Ross School of Business
    School of Natural Resources and Environment
    University of Michigan
    701 Tappan St., Room 6366
    Ann Arbor, MI 48409
    734-615-1639



  • 6.  ONE-L Digest - 3 Feb 2017 to 5 Feb 2017 (#2017-24)

    Posted 02-07-2017 09:56
    I agree wholeheartedly with Tom that Paul's letter speaks for many of us. These are not normal times.  It is a time for resistance.  If not, the abuse of power will increase. 

    ~Diane Swanson
    Sent from my iPad

    On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:19 PM, Thomas Lyon <tplyon@UMICH.EDU> wrote:

    Thank you, Paul. You speak for many of us.

    Tom
    On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 at 11:01 AM, Paul Shrivastava <paul.shri@gmail.com> wrote:
    Dear ONE Colleagues
    Great to see ONE Division discussing this issue, but.....  As a Founder of ONE (and still passionate about the cause), I was hoping for a more strident and definitive response.   AOM regulation of staying "apolitical" borders on the amoral, and should be revoked if it is indeed preventing its leaders from denouncing the recent restrictions on science by the new US Administration (travel ban affecting scientists, freezing $4 bil EPA grants/contracts, seeking political oversight of climate research studies, appointment of climate deniers to science/education/environmental agencies, etc ....) . This is not the time to be neutral or silent my friends. Voice, is all we have, let us use it.

    The rest of the scientific world has found words to offer strong resistance. See statements by

    The International Science Union, 

    and Future Earth, 

    and dozens of professional academic associations including American Sociological Association

    I am attaching below a letter from a colleague from Critical Management Division to the President of AOM that eloquently expresses what some members feel, and exemplifies possibilities of resistive action. 

    ONE Executive has an opportunity to lead the entire AoM to a stronger response to happenings all around us.  Lead us on. 

    Also please consider joining the Scientists March on Washington, April 22 (Earth Day) in a town near you. 

    Warm Regards,
    Paul Shrivastava
    Concordia University, Montreal

    -------- Letter from Bobby Bannerjee to AOM -------

    Dear Prof McGahan
    I was looking forward to the Academy of Management's official response to President Trump's Executive Order, given my earlier email to you calling for a condemnation of the order as so many academic associations in the United States have done. Today I read your response with dismay, disappointment and a rising sense of anger and betrayal. To put it mildly this was a cowardly and shameful response to what is a blatantly discriminatory and racist policy measure.
    What I find particularly galling is your statement 'Yet because of our very diversity, the AOM has long had a binding policy that restricts any officer from taking a stand on any political issue in the name of the AOM'. So diversity is not a 'political' issue? And since when did blatant discrimination against specific groups of people become a 'diversity' issue? If this is your understanding of diversity I suggest you start doing some basic reading on the topic. I will be happy to provide you a reading list of papers and books many of which have been published by your members.
    I am truly puzzled by your refusal to engage with the obvious racist and discriminatory nature of the Executive Order. What precisely are you afraid of? After all associations representing sociologists, anthropologists, economists, geographers, historians and even astronomers have released statements condemning the Executive Order. Even CEOs of major US corporations have criticized the order. Do you really expect us to 'stand together in Atlanta in solidarity with our diverse membership' when some of our members may not be permitted to enter the US because of a blatantly discriminatory order? I am sorry but I cannot show solidarity when a co-author or colleague belonging to a particular religion or nationality is forced to present his or her work via Skype thanks to the magnanimity of the Academy of Management, while my passport allows me to travel to Atlanta.
    To sum I have two suggestions to add to the options you have outlined in your response. First, you rename the Academy of Management more appropriately as the United States Academy of Management. That way it is quite clear where your priorities lie despite your pretensions to diversity. And second rephrase the sentence on diversity and political issue to read: 'AOM has long had a binding policy that restricts any officer from taking a stand on any moral or ethical issue in the name of the AOM'. That at least would be an honest statement. At least the Critical Management Studies division had the honesty and courage to take a moral and ethical (not 'political' of course) stance to the Executive Order. I endorse their statement as do several of my colleagues in the Academy of Management.
    I have been a member of AoM since 1995 and have attended almost every conference since then. It is with sadness and a deep sense of betrayal that I inform you that I will not be attending this year's meeting at Atlanta. And that I will be encouraging my colleagues in the United States and elsewhere to boycott AoM at Atlanta as well.
    Sincerely





    Bobby
    Bobby Banerjee, PhD
    Professor of Management
    Director – Executive PhD Program
    Cass Business School
    City University London

    Voice: +44 20 7040 5280; Fax: +44 20 7040 8328; Cell: +44 7455 177405
    Email: bobby.banerjee@city.ac.uk
    www.cass.city.ac.uk/experts/B.Banerjee

    ----------------- end of letter -------------------


    Topics of the day:

      1. From the ONE Exec

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Date:    Sun, 5 Feb 2017 17:07:25 -0700
    From:    P Jennings <dj1@UALBERTA.CA>
    Subject: From the ONE Exec

    Dear *ONE Members*,



    Since November, the ONE Executive has been discussing the implications of
    the U.S. election and the policies of the new U.S. administration as they
    relate to ONE's goals and operations. As part of that discussion, we
    consulted with the Academy of Management leadership. It was pointed out to
    us that the Academy's charter currently does not allow us to take overt
    political stands. Still, like last fall, we think that it is important to
    communicate with our division members about our purposes and views with
    regard to current unfolding political events, such as those around the U.S.
    Executive Order regarding immigration. We feel that our constitution offers
    some useful points of engagement. As stated in Article II:



    The Organizations and the Natural Environment Division is dedicated to the
    advancement of research, teaching, and service in the area of relationships
    between organizations and the natural environment. We believe that these
    interactions may be among the most significant components in the continued
    existence, development, and management of human organizations and
    societies. The pollution of air, water, and land, and the depletion of both
    renewable and non-renewable resources as a result of actions of formal
    organizations are the most obvious manifestations of these interactions and
    relationships. *This Division focuses its scholarly attention on the
    status, causes, and effects of these and other opportunities and problems
    that human organizations and societies encounter in co-existing with the
    natural environment, whether that environment is the workplace, the local
    community, or the global ecosystem.*



    The objectives of the Organizations and the Natural Environment Division
    are: 1) to *promote scholarship *on the topics above among its members and
    to provide a channel for such scholarship via Academy paper sessions and
    symposia; 2) *to develop a network* of scholars interested in these topics
    through electronic media and social gatherings at the Academy annual
    meetings; 3) to promote *environmental management practices for the Academy*
    itself by educating other Academy members as appropriate; and, 4) to
    encourage scholars and students in related business disciplines and in
    related non-business disciplines (e.g., environmental sciences,
    environmental engineering, environmental law, and environmental
    ethics) to *participate
    in the Academy and to work with practitioners in these fields to promote
    environmentally-sensitive policies and practices worldwide.*



    The bolded areas show a number of domains where ONE members can clearly
    serve without any conflict-of-interest or violation of AoM rules. In
    addition, in our new Five Year Plan (which is under review by AoM Board),
    we have proposed greater *advocacy for ONE research and practice* inside
    and outside of the Academy. As part of that advocacy, the ONE Exec has
    expressed to the Academy and other bodies its concern with what we perceive
    as unwarranted political restrictions on some U.S.-based data collection
    and data interpretation, along with unfair, political treatment of ONE
    researchers who are from countries targeted by recent immigration
    legislation. Along these lines, we agree with our colleagues in SIM and
    elsewhere in the Academy that it is important for us to recall and follow
    the AoM Code of Ethics:



    "....AOM members are aware of and respect cultural, individual, and role
    differences, including those based on age, gender identity, race,
    ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation,
    disability, language, and socioeconomic status, and they consider these
    factors when working with all people. *AOM members try to eliminate the
    effect on their work of biases based on these factors, and they do not
    knowingly participate in or condone activities of others based upon such
    prejudices*. ....."



    The Academy leadership has said that in Atlanta it would be interested in
    seeing sessions debating the role of science and social science in
    combating climate change and how political shifts might be influencing our
    research. We look forward to PDW and symposia that do so. We will also be
    discussing some of these strategic issues and specific initiatives over the
    coming months, including in the ONE Business Meeting, in order to identify
    additional positive actions we can take.



    *The ONE Executive*

    ------------------------------

    End of ONE-L Digest - 3 Feb 2017 to 5 Feb 2017 (#2017-24)
    *********************************************************

    --
    Thomas P. Lyon

    Dow Chair of Sustainable Science, Technology and Policy
    Ross School of Business
    School of Natural Resources and Environment
    University of Michigan
    701 Tappan St., Room 6366
    Ann Arbor, MI 48409
    734-615-1639