The Boycotted Hotel: To Cover or Not to Cover?

No sooner had I gotten word that the Beverly Hills Hotel had revamped their Troop Beverly Hills Package to appeal to a broader audience did I also read that George Clooney had penned an op-ed encouraging a boycott of that property and the other hotels in the Dorchester Collection.

Clooney reasons, justifiably, that the government of Brunei, which owns the Dorchester Collection through its investment subsidiary, should be held to account for its recent implementation of particularly ghastly forms of capital punishment for LGBT citizens in the country.

Clooney’s opinion raises questions for travelers, travel sellers, and travel writers. I asked myself, how can I, as a travel writer and member of the LGBT community, cover this in good conscience?

On the other hand, would I compromise objectivity if I had plans to cover the hotel’s package before reading Clooney’s opinion, only to scrap those plans upon learning of his reasoning? Would a travel consultant turn away clients wishing to book these hotels?

I came to a decision, but here are a few things I considered along the way.

MORE Hotel & Resort

Marriott Plans First W Hotel in Argentina

Comfort and Views in Downtown Seattle

The Colosseum at Caesars Palace to Celebrate Grand Reopening

It’s curious that Clooney’s opinion piece singles out The Dorchester Collection. Several other luxury hotel brands are similarly owned by investment groups belonging to governments of countries with similar LGBT rights records.

Those luxury hotel brands, like The Dorchester Collection, have both internal and Customer-facing policies requiring equal treatment of all guests and employees, many of which far exceed the laws of many countries in which they operate.

I understand Clooney’s concern. Freedom of identity, of expression, of association are values cherished among many modern liberal democracies, and it’s admirable to support and advocate for those freedoms for all of humankind, regardless of nationality.

However, it’s a rather clumsy approach to single out a small group of luxury hotels and heap the political burden of their owner upon them. Luxury hotels tend to change hands often. The Dorchester Collection is a relatively new hotel group, begun only in the last decade, but many of the employees working at these properties have been there much of their lifetimes.

Like at any storied luxury hotel, many of the most tenured employees have a deep investment and pride of association with the place. Not with the owner, but with the place. They’ve built strong connections with the coworkers and their frequent guests over decades spent doing exactly what the hospitality industry is about—welcoming people—even when they’re demanding, even when they’re disagreeable, even when they’re difficult to relate to.

It’s also important to consider degrees of separation. There’s a straight line between elephant poaching and the market for ivory. There’s a straight line between single-use plastics and plastic pollution. There’s a straight line between some sunscreen additives and coral reef bleaching. These are causes governments, advocacy organizations, and hospitality companies have effectively begun to address.

There’s not a straight line between renting a room at a luxury hotel owned by a government investment corporation and the human rights record of that government, although the proximity is admittedly uncomfortable.

While travelers can refuse to buy ivory, single-use plastics, or sunscreen with harmful chemicals, their refusal to rent a room from a luxury hotel owned by a government whose policies they disagree with is unlikely to effect a policy change. A country need not be rich to afford a poor perspective on human rights.

European lawmakers have condemned Brunei's move, calling on the bloc to consider further actions including asset freezes and visa bans. The efficacy of this is also questionable, as the number of countries with less concern for LGBT rights who are in the market to buy Brunei’s exports (primarily fossil fuels) is large enough to sustain their future needs.

Perhaps there’s a sliver of hope in the fact that the rights of LGBT people in a small Asian nation have been given such visibility. Perhaps it’s also better to leave the complex work of statesmen to actual states. Governments and advocacy groups that wish to effect change in Brunei should, by all means, work for improved human rights for Brunei citizens.

It’s understandably frustrating that there are seemingly few ways to exert international pressure on an autocratic government, but a hotel boycott seems an inadequate salve—one with more adverse impact on the hospitality and travel industry professionals that are the warm lifeblood of our industry than on the intended target.

As journalists, it’s our job to share the truth with our readers, and the truth is that the Dorchester Collection hotels are open for business, and they’re still providing inclusive, quality hospitality at some of the world’s best-known historic hotels, and that’s why I included the Beverly Hills Hotel in my recent article.

As George Clooney writes in his opinion, it’s up to travelers to decide.