LAUSR

Each editor and journal has its style: in particular, some journals, and some editors, are more politically engaged than others. I have striven to keep Urban Geography essentially nonpartisan. As editor, it has been important for me to keep personal politics at bay (insofar that it is possible), maintaining the journal’s catholic stance, open to research and ideas from a wide variety of points of view. The current climate hasmade this more challenging, and the US travel ban introduced earlier this year has forced me to think through my position. It is with some reluctance that I feel compelled to write an essentially political editorial as my last contribution as editor in chief. As fascist-type parties, repressive measures, police detentions and broad surveillance become the norms in many countries, including England, the United States and France – which pride themselves as birthplaces of democracy, human rights and the enlightenment – it is difficult to remain indifferent. Yet, it is also difficult to identify a specific trigger along this creeping process that would spark engagement as editor. An editor’s role is a public one, usually held by a fairly senior academic who has by-and-large benefited from the system in place. Thus, on the one hand, it is tempting to remain quiet – and comfortable to do so, academic neutrality oblige. On the other hand, I feel that being an editor carries with it some responsibility, particularly to speak out on matters that have an impact on academic freedom and the running of the journal. To my dismay, there is no manual or book of etiquette spelling out when an editor can or should write an engaged editorial. I do not wish to abuse my platform, yet, like many other geographers, I do not wish to become a functionary of the current system. Somewhat like Christaller was – a German academic whose contributions to geography are highly respected, but tainted by the fact that he published them during the 1930s and became a public servant of the Nazi regime (Barnes & Minca, 2013) – I am an academic doing a job. I am not (yet?) personally caught up in the rising tide of suspicion, repression and unpleasantness, thanks tomy privileged position, skin color and passport: yet, wider circumstances are altering society, normalizing values with which I disagree and which impinge on matters that pertain to the journal. Indeed, with the travel ban, the United States is effectively beginning to dictate the way Urban Geography selects its board, preventing certain types of people from traveling to board meetings. I do not wish to be complicit in this. But how can I avoid being complicit? Questions such as this were being asked by many of us at the Boston AAG (Association of American Geographers) meetings, and a wide variety of responses – from critical engagement, militancy, or refusal to enter the United States – were voiced. The problem, though, extends well beyond the travel ban: our board meetings are usually held at the AAG, in the United States, but, on reflection, there seem to exist no practical locations which would ensure unimpeded access to academics from all countries. The Trump ban, however reprehensible, is just a maladroit expression of the position held by most western countries with respect to travel by people deemed undesirable. My initial repugnance at the ban morphed into a wider question: what, exactly, am I trying to avoid complicity with? An initial answer – building upon my reaction to the travel ban – is that I do not wish to be complicit with current populist regimes, which are promoting short-sighted, selfish and URBAN GEOGRAPHY, 2017 VOL. 38, NO. 7, 955–957 https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2017.1338555