Calling for a boycott is one thing; getting results is another

MAD at a destination? Don’t like its politics or laws? Boycott it.

That seems to be a popular response, based on my recent search for “travel boycott” on Google, which turned up more than 7 million hits. But whether such efforts effect change is questionable.

Among recent campaigns:

* Alabama Gov. Bob Riley in November urged a travel boycott of the Caribbean Dutch island of Aruba to protest what he claimed was an inadequate investigation into the disappearance of tourist Natalee Holloway, an Alabama high school student.

* Some abortion-rights advocates are suggesting travelers skip South Dakota, which passed a law banning abortions except to save the life of the mother.

* The town of Kanab, Utah, has inspired the ire of syndicated travel columnist Arthur Frommer. He recently urged readers to avoid visiting the Zion National Park gateway because its city council endorsed a “natural-family” resolution that he believes slights gay men and lesbians.

Although it’s too early to tell whether potential visitors are staying away en masse, history suggests that Aruba, South Dakota and Kanab may not lose much in tourist revenue. Travel boycotts often don’t succeed.

The reasons are many, industry experts say. Although meeting planners may switch venues because of boycotts, individual travelers often don’t know about them. And when they do, and even if they care about the issue, they rarely tell tourist bureaus why they won’t be visiting. It’s devilishly difficult to document the nonarrival of visitors, and that blunts the clout of boycotts.

But there have been apparent victories. And on a personal level, some tourists may derive moral satisfaction from withholding their dollars from a place they disapprove of.

It is widely believed that cancellations of more than 100 conventions helped influence Arizona voters in 1992 to rescind their refusal to make the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday a paid state holiday.

And a travel boycott may have played a role, along with trade sanctions and internal opposition, in pushing South Africa to dismantle apartheid in the early 1990s.

But commonly, such efforts fizzle out or end in a standoff.

Among the longest-running campaigns have been those by the Southern Baptist Convention against the Walt Disney Co. -- recently ended -- and by the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People against South Carolina, which is ongoing.

A closer look at each:

In June 1996, the Southern Baptist Convention, which says it represents more than 16 million American churchgoers, passed a resolution urging members to avoid Disney’s theme parks and products if the company continued an “anti-Christian and anti-family trend.”

Among the objections: Disney had granted health insurance benefits to partners of gay and lesbian employees, hosted gay-themed nights at its parks and disparaged Christian values by releasing, through a subsidiary, the 1995 movie “Priest,” about a gay priest. In 1997, the convention called for a boycott.

Eight years later, last June, it ended the boycott with a resolution stating it had “communicated effectively” its displeasure.

According to the Baptists’ news service, supporters of ending the boycott said Disney was displaying “a more hospitable attitude” toward religion, noting its plans to distribute “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,” based on a book by C.S. Lewis, a Christian theologian.

Also cited was the departure of Michael Eisner, Disney’s chief executive, whom the Baptists blamed for the company’s policies.

Whether Disney was influenced by the Baptists’ campaign is debatable. The company has declined to comment on the boycott, and it does not disclose attendance at its theme parks.

An after-hours AIDS fund-raiser known as Gay Night, held for several years at Disneyland, ended after the event’s organizer canceled it in 1998. Gay men and lesbians still turn out at Disney parks each year on unofficial “gay days,” which are not sponsored by the parks.

Walt Disney Co. continues to offer domestic-partner benefits to employees.

In South Carolina, the issue is the display of the Confederate flag on state property. Supporters say the flag represents the state’s history; critics say it symbolizes oppression of blacks.

The NAACP in January 2000 began a travel boycott of the state because it flew the Confederate flag atop the Capitol dome in Columbia. Seven months later, the Legislature moved the flag to statehouse grounds.

Unsatisfied, the NAACP continued to call for travelers to avoid the state, a stance it maintains today. The flag still flies on statehouse grounds.

Initially, pressure from the hospitality industry helped influence the Legislature to take the flag off the dome, said Marion Edmonds, spokesman for the South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism.

“There’s no question,” he said, “that a lot of groups that were planning to come to South Carolina chose somewhere else to go.”

But since the flag was shifted, and the issue moved off the front pages, “we have almost no feedback anymore,” he said.

Throughout the controversy, he said, visits to South Carolina grew each year, from about 29.1 million in 1999 to 32.5 million in 2005. Many leisure travelers may not know about the boycott, Edmonds said.

The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP fields fewer inquiries about the boycott today than in 2000, said Dwight James, its executive director, but “scores” of family reunions, fraternities, companies and other organizations have avoided the state.

Among the larger groups is the National Collegiate Athletic Assn. The NCAA’s policy, said spokeswoman Crissy Schluep, precludes its Division I, II and III member institutions in South Carolina from hosting NCAA championships, certified pre-season and post-season tournaments and NCAA committee meetings. Regular-season games are allowed.

Other groups continue to stage events in South Carolina, including Black Bike Week. Last month, the NAACP settled a lawsuit accusing two Myrtle Beach restaurants of closing to avoid serving thousands of motorcyclists, most of them black, who attend the annual rally.

“From time to time” groups stop observing the boycott, the NAACP’s James acknowledged. But six years into the campaign, he seemed undeterred.

“Change comes slowly in South Carolina,” he said. “We’re committed to seeing it through to the end.”

Jane Engle welcomes comments but can’t respond individually to letters and calls. Write to Travel Insider, Los Angeles Times, 202 W. 1st St., L.A., CA 90012, or e-mail jane.engle@latimes.com.