Sustainability and Inclusion come with a Price Attached, but it is a Price worth Paying
This is a guest post by Miroslav Imbrišević (Allen Hall/London & The Open University)
Doing the right thing isn’t easy; if it were, the world would be a heavenly place. We usually have to overcome our self-interest or our inclination to take the path of least resistance. It requires thinking of others and/or the common good. Surprisingly, the American Philosophical Association (APA) fails in this respect.
In 2021 the group Philosophers for Sustainability launched a campaign, asking the APA, to switch from three in-person conferences per year to two in-person meetings and one virtual meeting. The aim was to reduce the environmental harm of flying to the meetings (more than 1000 people typically attend each conference). In 2022 the three APA divisions ‘agreed to conduct a three-year experiment with a rotating schedule of two in-person divisional meetings and one virtual divisional meeting per year’.
Robert Pasnau, president of the Central Division of the APA, explained: ‘The motivations for going online are in part environmental (…), and in part to provide better access for people who find it difficult or impossible to attend meetings in person.’
But to the astonishment of everyone, the APA pulled the ‘kill switch’. After holding only one virtual conference (the 2025 Central meeting) the APA decided to pull the plug on the experiment, although the second scheduled online meeting in April 2026 will still go ahead. I understand that one of the programme chairs for the 2025 meeting had to withdraw for health reasons, and this had a negative effect on the organisation and planning of the conference. So, the first virtual meeting wouldn’t have been representative for a regular, successful online conference.
The APA gave the following reasons for the early termination of the experiment:
‘The results of the experiment so far show that interest and participation in the online meetings are significantly lower than for in-person meetings – for example, paper submission numbers for both online meetings were just over half of the number of submissions usually received for in-person meetings. Participation in the online sessions was also significantly lower than for in-person meetings (…). The process of organising an online meeting is more challenging for the program committee than organizing an in-person meeting, online meetings are more taxing on APA staff, and the technology for large online meetings is often difficult for participants to navigate. And perhaps most telling, participant feedback on the Central Division meeting indicates that while many people appreciate that the online format may be more accessible for some people, a large number report that they personally would not participate in another online meeting.’
This response is astonishing. It is not surprising that the number of submissions and the participation rates in online-sessions were lower. One would expect this for online-meetings, particularly for the first ‘experiment’. People have to get used to the idea, and there will naturally be teething problems. Issues with technology can be overcome, and Zoom is not the only platform available. Large Zoom meetings seem to be challenging, but one could split off the keynotes from Zoom and live-stream them on YouTube instead (perhaps even make them freely accessible?). The remaining Zoom (parallel) sessions would then be easier to manage. This would also reduce the cost of using a platform like Zoom. Running three meetings online, as planned, might give a more accurate picture, particularly if there is a greater willingness to overcome hurdles as we encounter them.
Self-Sabotage
But what is even more surprising is that the experiment was an act of self-sabotage from the beginning. The registration fees were kept at the same level as for the in-person meetings. Accessibility and inclusion is not just about wheelchair ramps, it is also about affordability. The Early Bird rate for APA members at the 2025 meeting was $155, for the Pacific Division meeting in April of this year it will be $175.
It seems counter-intuitive that an online conference is just as expensive to run as an in-person conference. After all, the cost of hiring a fancy hotel with all the conference facilities and enough rooms for the presentations must be the biggest expenditure. For a virtual conference the biggest cost will be running the technological infrastructure.
Potential presenters/attendees will balk at such high fees and some institutions (although well-funding for in-person events) might refuse to pay for virtual conferences. That might be one reason for lower attendance. Philosophers who are on precarious contracts will be equally put off, especially if we consider that you only get the Early Bird rate if you are an APA member – this again increases the cost of presenting/attending.
Of course, there is an assistance fund for virtual meetings, but if inclusion and accessibility are our aim, then we also need to consider the dignity and self-respect of people on precarious contracts. If they want to take part, they have to go to the APA ‘cap in hand’ and reveal their financial status (to colleagues). These philosophers presumably experience many knocks to their dignity in their daily lives – why add to this?
It would make more sense to set the registration fees for virtual conferences at a low rate (comparable to the student rate) for everyone, or – horribile dictu – even lower. This would increase the number of presenters/attendees. It might even attract people who are interested in philosophy but who wouldn’t otherwise have attended. And these increased numbers might make a virtual conference financially more viable. After all, we don’t know how many philosophers have never attended APA in-person meetings because of accessibility issues.
But there are other considerations, apart from sustainability and access for people on precarious contracts, that would support the 2+1 model. People with certain medical conditions (e.g. Long Covid or immunosuppressed) could take part. Parenting philosophers or carers would have an opportunity to present. People who don’t get (much) funding from their institution (teaching-centred institutions like Community Colleges or non-tenure track teaching faculty at research institutions) could present/attend. If we are interested in an international audience, we could attract a new pool of people who otherwise would be reluctant to spend eight hours or more in a cramped airline seat. This would also avoid visa problems for philosophers from certain countries. And let’s not forget the Trump critics. For the next three years anyone from outside the US faces the real prospect of being turned back at the border if they have been critical of Trump online (as I have).
Acts of Solidarity
The APA needs to realise that helping the environment and improving accessibility come with costs attached. If we want to aid the environment, we need to make some effort, rather than saying: I prefer in-person meetings. And if we want to improve inclusion and accessibility, then we need to be prepared to pay the price for this, by subsidising virtual meetings (if necessary). Attending virtual meetings is also an act of solidarity with those who cannot attend in-person meetings.
J.L.A. Donahue was clear-headed about this:
‘If the online conferences are the ones that fewer of us attend or most of us skip, they won’t help with accessibility. We need many of us to go to the online conferences so that the very folks who cannot attend the in-person ones get access to the benefits of a large APA meeting: many philosophers, gathered together, with many options for presenting and attending a large variety of sessions.’
Robert Pasnau asked before the first virtual meeting: ‘will the philosophical community come together’ to help this be a success? I think the verdict is still out.
Miroslav Imbrišević did his first degree (Staatsexamen: German/Philosophy) at the Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität in Mainz/Germany. He completed his PhD at Heythrop College/University of London. Miroslav is a lecturer in political philosophy at Allen Hall Seminary (London/UK); he also teaches at the Open University.
