The New York Times website on Thursday published a short column by the general manager of downtown bookstore and meeting place Malaprop's Bookstore/Cafe questioning whether authors and others should include the business in HB2-related boycotts.

"We’re being made to pay a price for a law we vehemently oppose, as artists, businesses and government officials have begun to boycott North Carolina," writes Linda-Marie Barrett.

Barrett, no relation to this reporter, writes that out-of-state customers say they will not visit until HB2 is repealed, but the store will be particularly hurt by authors' decisions not to hold events at or in conjunction with Malaprop's.

"As justified as a boycott can be, we ask authors to consider a way of protesting other than boycotting bookstores," Barrett writes. "We need your voices, your presence, your art. When you cancel events with us, you deprive readers of a voice that can buoy them up, enlighten them, and demonstrate the fellowship of being there for each other, in community."

Barrett's piece touches on an issue that is almost as old as boycotts themselves. When does the damage to innocent parties outweigh the impact a boycott may have on conduct the boycott is intended to change?

The same question came up when people were putting economic and other pressure on South Africa during the apartheid era. Some of the negative impact was felt by black South Africans who were already oppressed by apartheid. Boycott proponents said the need to end apartheid took precedence.

Some of that debate is echoed in reader comments, numbering more than 220 as of late Thursday morning, about Barrett's letter on the Times website. Many said impacts on Malaprop's are unfortunate, but unavoidable. Others said they will support the store even though they oppose HB2.

"This is the way that the gears and levers of political pressure work," one comment reads. "People boycott businesses so that businesses will in turn pressure their legislators and governor to back off. If it wasn't painful it wouldn't be effective."

"My first response was 'So vote the bigots out!' " another commentator wrote. "I then realized that Ms. Barrett is right. Across the board boycotts are very much a shotgun approach when a rifle is the tool needed."

facebook sharetwitter shareemail shareemail share
Read or Share this story: