Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 07:56:52 -0500
Subject: REPLY: CUP case.
Having just read CUP's justification for censoring Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood. my contempt for this press has increased 100-fold. There can be no excuse for failing to publish in these circumstances, indeed it becomes imperative to publish if academic freedom is to prevail. I have written to CUP saying that I will not purchase, or recommend for purchase by my institution any of their titles until they reverse their decision and I have removed their titles from my reading lists. A small step, but I hope colleagues will act in a similar way.
Andy Fear
cla04@cc.keele.ac.uk
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 09:46:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: REPLY: CUP case.
I'm not sure what Mr. Fear's response will accomplish, other than making Mr. Fear feel good for having stood up to "them", whoever "them" is. How should CUP have responded? What does anyone (corporate or otherwise) do about extortion. Should CUP publish the book and put the lives of staff at risk? After all, CUP staff produce many very good and useful books. What of the loss to knowledge consequent on not being able to publish and distribute those other books in some places? Should CUP call in NATO, or just call in the Turks?
In fact, CUP has done just the right thing. Their action will create a terrible uproar that will call further attention to the danger that extremists pose to us all. The Rushdie case is another.
If Mr. Fear truly believes that the villain is CUP, should show them up by example, start a publishing company with an office in Athens, publish the MS, and hawk it in the main square.
But indeed, what he is doing will call further public attention to the issue. Even if it is, as we say, symbolic.
Gene Hammel
Department of Demography
University of California
Berkeley CA 94720
(510) 642-1256, -9800 voice
(510) 643-8558 fax
e-mail: gene@demog.berkeley.edu
web page: http://demog.berkeley.edu/~gene
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 22:13:13 -0500
Subject: REPLY: CUP case
It seems to me that boycotting CUP wholesale might do as much damage to academic freedoms as their refusal to publish potentially "dangerous" books (please do not misunderstand the quotation marks--I do not mean to belittle or demean the risks involved in the publication of certain kinds of information). To boycott CUP would be to boycott many important works--including some by those who resigned from their editorial board--and to, ultimately, impoverish our acadmic lives--and that of our students.
I'm not at all sure that I have a better solution, but surely the suggestions in the posts accompanying the letters of resignation, ie, refusing to serve on editorial boards, etc, might be a better way of communicating disappointment and anger to CUP. At least that way, previously published authors will not have to suffer for the actions of their publisher. But how will that affect those who submit manuscripts to CUP...? No easy answers, it seems.
Donna M Lanclos
lanclos@garnet.berkeley.edu
UC Berkeley Dept of Anthropology
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 22:10:09 -0500
Subject: REPLY: CUP case
From: Michael Herzfeld I read with interest the exchange between Andy Fear and Gene Hammel. As
one of the principals in the case, let me respond.
Clearly the common ground we all share is a concern for the future of
academic freedom. I greatly appreciate and admire Andy Fear's desire to
stand up against what is an act of appeasement, and see his statement as
an important expression of solidarity. I also think that Gene Hammel may
nevertheless be right that boycotting books is not the immediate answer --
it should be a last resort, if indeed it is attempted at all. Those of us
who have objected to CUP's action have done so on the grounds of the
threat to academic freedom that both subscribers have raised; in addition,
however, Stephen Gudeman and I resigned from the editorial board for
another reason as well -- CUP had not demonstrated that a real threat
existed (its sales representatives were, after all, not really going to
"hawk" the book in "the main square" of Athens or anywhere else; would
that academic books had that wide an appeal!), so its action is really
very insulting to the Greeks. Athens is not a more violent city
politically than, say, London -- and I say this as a born Londoner who has
also spent many wonderful years in Athens. Moreover, CUP has not shown
any evidence of having consulted Greeks or any of the real Greek experts
in the UK or the US, all of whom would have reassured them.
We have addressed CUP's use of the facts in a more extended way in the
earlier set of documents sent out through H-SAE. We have in fact made it
clear that we are not calling for a boycott at this point, because it
would hurt junior authors just published or about to be published, and
would thus reproduce a signifcant aspect of CUP's offense. Nor are we
interested in calling for some kind of punishment for the Press. On the
contrary, our desire is to see CUP restored to health.
For these reasons, we call instead for a moratorium on the reviewing of
new manuscripts for the Press, and on the submission of new mss., because
we hope that in this way a serious review of the procedures that led to
this unfortunate action will achieve precisely what both subscribers want:
a clear defense of academic freedom against a threat that is certainly not
going to go away as a result of preemptive appeasement -- particularly
when there is good reason to doubt whether there was any serious danger to
begin with. Indeed, this action seems to me to create such a danger where
none existed. We hope, by means of this moratorium, to point up the
nature of the serious error that we believe CUP has committed, because in
this way the international academic community will withhold legitimation
from CUP until it has recognized that it does indeed owe that community
something much more substantial than the announcement it has so far
released.
Let me also point out that there is a police force in Greece, whose
job it
is to protect the population against violence. CUP does not appear, and
has never claimed, to have consulted these authorities. I think that
speaks for itself.
Our desire, in any case, is to see a positive outcome in the form of a
serious review of procedures at CUP, a distinguished university press
whose example is important precisely because it sets trends for the whole
world. There is no point in trying to destroy such an important academic
institution, but there is every reason to insist that it recognize the
seriousness of the situation before even more damage can be done, not just
to CUP, but to academic publishing at large.
Michael Herzfeld
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 22:15:43 -0500
From: Stephen Gudeman I agree with Michael Herzfeld's comments on the exchange between Fear and
Hammel, but let me emphasize that CUP has not done "just the right thing" as
Hammel claims.
1. In overriding the fundamental principle of freedom of speech and
inquiry,
CUP was obligated to demonstrate the real risks of a reaction in Greece.
They
failed to set up an independent, "objective" procedure for doing so and
refused
to consider our suggestion that they devise one.
2. CUP refused to consider ways of positively managing the situation
such as
co-publishing or conducting an advance discussion of the book and the
role of a
publisher in relation to an author. Given that this case is not unique, and
will not be so in the future, a thorough discussion of ways to publish would
have greatly benefitted anthropology and many other fields.
3. We have explicitly called for a moratorium on reviewing and not a
boycott on
book purchases. The latter is impractical and would unjustly hurt many
authors
(and authors-in-press) who published when the procedures were entirely
legitimate.
The moratorium on manuscript reviewing is pointed directly at the
fault in the CUP manuscript assessment procedure. By its action, in which
Press administrators overrode accepted criteria for publishing decisions,
CUP delegitimated the role of academic reviewers. By withholding our seal
of legitimacy from future books - until the fault is corrected - we expose
the exact problem with the threat it represents to the academic community,
and do not commit the immorality of participating in a now illicit
process.
Stephen Gudeman
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 11:03:45 -0500
I am grateful for the clarifications from Herzfeld and Gudeman re my
response to Fear, and I stand corrected on a central and important point,
namely that no imminent risk had been reliably ascertained.
The assessment of risk is never cut and dried, but judgmental. First, how
likely is the event to occur? Second, what is the estimated result of the
event? Third, what are the costs and benefits of mitigation?
I take it from Herzfeld and Gudeman that no serious effort was made to
evaluate the first question. I did not know that, perhaps because for
some reason I did not receive the packet of information that Herzfeld
indicated in prior email he would send out. All I had was the
Chronicle of
Higher Education piece and CUPs response distributed over SAE. Just
what were
the consultations of CUP with responsible authorities and experts? How
serious was the situation in Boston alluded to in CUPs response?
I would take as given the extreme risk of death or injury from terrorism
(point 2), should such terrorism occur (that's point 1, and separable).
On point 3, which is much of the substance of Herzfeld's and Gudeman's
most recent comments, I agree that boycott is not particularly
appropriate. There are 3 sets of victims in this case: the author, the
academy of scholars whose work requires intellectual freedom, and (believe
it or not, CUP). No point in blaming victims. Even so, I am sensitive to
the issue of creeping appeasement. You will all remember what the German
cleric said: "When they came for the Communists, I said nothing. When
they came for the Jews, I said nothing. When they came for me, it was too
late."
Gene Hammel
Department of Demography
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 15:09:56 -0500
From: Stephen Gudeman I am very pleased that Hammel is discussing the issue of risk assessment
in relation to the CUP case. It was an important component in my own
thinking from the start: I discussed it in my resignation letter and in
an earlier one (7 December 1995) to Dr. Jeremy Mynott of CUP (which is
available for those interested). I wanted to discuss risk with CUP not
only because of its centrality in the Karakasidou decision but also for
its possible relevance in future cases.
Summarily stated, CUP refused to recognize or discuss the issue. It
relied for its so-called "risk assessment" on its own Athens employee,
Craig Walker, who solicited opinions about Greece from a very, very small
circle of his compatriots who are involved in business or politics. (All
this led to some headlines in the UK about MI6 involvement, but the
Foreign Office has since said that it offered very general advice and
placed no pressure on CUP.) It also led Herzfeld and myself to worry that
CUP was caricaturing the Greek people. If the case were not so dismaying,
I would find Mr. Walker's ethnographic methods slightly amusing -- as a
classroom example of how not to do anthropology -- "hard" or "soft,"
"scientific" or "humanistic"!
Thus, the larger and interesting question was never discussed: how does
one conduct an honest but still limited risk assessment, and what are its
costs? Then, given that there is always some element of risk in publishing
everywhere, what can or should a publisher do about it?
Given CUP's unwillingness to listen to or discuss the issue, and its stony
silence since our resignations, it is hard for me - unlike Hammel - to
view the Press as a "victim" in this case. They brought on the situation
and should be held accountable for their actions. Indeed, Hammel's final
comments, with all their terrible implications, were always on my mind,
and that is why I spoke and wrote.
Steve Gudeman
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 11:24:18 -0500
From: Gene Hammel Steve makes excellent points in his most recent comments. I do apologize
again for not having seen some earlier materials (mea non culpa) before I
entered into the discussion, and especially to Fear for having been a bit
sharp.
It is the broadest issue that concerns me most -- the possibility that yet
another source of censorship of intellectual freedom is emerging, not from
the establishment but from those outside it who wish to reconstruct some
dream world in which they are in charge.
We are accustomed of course to censorship from controlling elites. We are
also accustomed to censorship and intimidation from those in rebellion as
they come to control small organizations in building a political base.
Parts of the American labor movement certainly experienced censorship of
both kinds as Communists came into prominence in some unions. Some
academic departments and indeed whole universities or university systems
have been subjected to both kinds of censorship. The establishment kind is
represented by the regents of various US universities in the McCarthy
period and later, but also by waves of political correctness that prohibit
one from talking about biology in an anthropology department, for example.
But the scariest examples are embodied in the Rushdie case, the CUP case
now under discussion, and in innumerable attempts in the US by political
or religious extremists to stifle academic debate. Those anthropologists
who have worked in the Balkans are not unfamiliar with insane phone calls
or even outright threats, if they venture to give their views on current
or past ethnic conflicts. Such violent reactions are in fact more intense
if the opinions are uttered by someone who has no ethnic connection to the
conflict. After all, if you are a Croat and bash the Serbs, that is to be
expected. If you are an American and do it, you're dangerous because you
have not forfeited your intellectual legitimacy by being a Croat.
But back to Steve's comments. Is CUP a victim? Innocent, no. A victim,
not unlikely. A tool in its own exploitation (not to coin a phrase),
almost surely.
Gene
Prof. E. A. Hammel
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 13:55:37 -0500
From: Michael Herzfeld I was very pleased to see Gene Hammel's generous response to Steve Gudeman
(and Andy Fear). As I indicated before, the whole academic community is
really in the same boat here. CUP may well earn our sympathy when the
whole story is known, if only for not having understood the consequences of
a bad initial decision and a flawed procedure. Our call for a moratorium
is intended precisely to persuade CUP that openness of communication and
decision-making is the only reasonable way to conduct academic business.
Let me also note that "CUP" is in any case a composite entity. The
important thing for all of us is to ensure that the academic sector gains
complete control over all academic decisions. That, I am sure, was also
the point of Andy Fear's call.
I am grateful to both respondents for attending to this matter with such
seriousness. Whatever each of us decides to do, some form of action will,
one hopes, convey that seriousness of intention (and the seriousness of the
problem itself) to the authorities at CUP. Then the ball is in their court.
Michael Herzfeld
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 17:05:24 -0500
From: IN%"H-IDEAS@UICVM.UIC.EDU" "H-NET Intellectual History List"
15-FEB-1996
10:42:52.93
Just my two bits on this one.
I had a conversation with some CUP representatives at an event last night,
and of course what I am reporting has no "official" credibility... but
they did say that apparently they were very worried about "their
people in Greece" (they do have offices and such in very likely areas of
conflict, I mean could anyone contemplate publishing a book on
revolutionary Marxism in 1950s America without at least the fear of a
similar reaction?)
In their minds the most likely parallel case was the Rushdie's, in which
the death toll stands at 36 (I don't mean to sound like a tabloid
journalist). From what they were saying and which I must confess I was
not aware of 36 people connected with Satanic Verses, translators etc,
have been killed. In this context it perhaps makes sense at a pragmatic
level at least, for a company with offices there not to publish this book.
However, it is always open for another company, perhaps one of the safer
(relatively), US academic presses to publish. If anything, the notoriety
aroused by this will guarantee a better selling and in some sense the
attempt to stop the message will have failed.
Anyway, some thoughts away from my disseration...
David
David J. Mikosz
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 17:07:16 -0500
I'm curious... Is this an unprecedented case, either as far as CUP goes,
or any other academic press? Are there previous cases we can look to in
order to try to further evaluate just how far "out of line" CUP is (or is
not?)? As a young scholar hoping to someday publish on research I will be
doing in Northern Ireland, these issues strike close to anxieties I have
held for a while now.
Donna Lanclos
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 21:59:48 -0500
From: Michael Herzfeld In response to D.J. Mikosz's very pertinent observations, I would like
simply to note that CUP -- as its officials openly say -- has published on
other countries that constitute -- unlike Greece -- genuinely dangerous
areas. Moreover, if they really do think Greece is potentially more
dangerous than, say, London, they should demonstrate that claim in an
appropriate process, rather than relying on the non-Greek sources whose
information they use so selectively. And if a low-level risk is involved,
they should either trust the local authorities to protect them or move out
of the country and, while they are at it, stop publishing books about the
United Kingdom or Ireland! I fully agree with Mikosz (and CUP for that
matter) that danger must be assessed -- but this was not the right way to
do it, the right conclusion, or the right consequent action.
Michael Herzfeld
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 09:56:10 -0500
From: Philip Carl Salzman (salzman@sociology.lan.mcgill.ca)
As a student of nomadic peoples, I am convinced that, in the face of
serious threat, real or perceived, retreat may be a reasonable and
effective strategy. But it is only reasonable when basic interests are
not threatened or when the odds against one are overwhelming. When basic
interests are threatened and the odds are not overwhelming, the reasonable
strategy is to stand firm, as nomads often do.
It appears to me that, in the present case involving the CUP, while
there is a perceived threat, the odds are far from overwhelming.
Furthermore, the most basic academic values, academic freedom and
intellectual integrity, are at stake. These are not of course the only
important values. Security of life and property are very important too.
The CUP, in balancing these values in the present case, should have seen
that the immediate threat to academic freedom was more damaging than the
relatively remote threat to life and property.
There are always reasons to follow one's narrow interests. Under the
Nazis, most Christians found good reasons not to protect Jews, just as
during recent ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, most Serbs did not protect
Muslim neighbors. And it is easy for academics such as ourselves to find
reasons for not supporting outspoken and critical colleagues or colleagues
accused of misdeeds, for who wishes to risk alienating collectivities and
administrators upon whom our security and advancement rest. (Nor can I
attest that I would show any more courage in such situations.) So it is
not really difficult to understand the position that CUP has taken.
But it is nonetheless disappointing that CUP has shown no courage when
it was needed and has taken what appeared to be `the easy way out'. I am
convinced by the lucid and eloquent statements of Gudeman and Herzfeld
that going ahead with the publication and pursuing other routes to
guarantee security would have been the right thing and that CUP has
avoided doing the right thing. Consequently I support the measures
suggested by Gudeman and Herzfeld to indicate to CUP the strength of
feeling in the academic community and to encourage CUP to review its
procedures.
Philip Carl Salzman
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 00:24:20 -0500
As an academic, I wish to voice my serious concern about the decision by
CUP not to publish Dr. Karakasidou's book. The precedent this decision
creates gives extremists of all orientations free rein to censor anything
they don't like, using the mere threat of violence, real or imagined,
actual or remotely possible.
As a Greek, I also feel gratuitously insulted by the image of my society
of origin that this decision directly implies. If, from an ivory tower in
Cambridge, Greece and Iran seem no different, this only betrays the degree
of ignorance this kind of decision is based on. I believe that CUP acted
on very unreliable and one-sided information. Did CUP discuss the matter
with the Greek authorities to get a better estimate of the risk involved
and an idea of how much protection would be needed and provided?
Right-wing extremist violence has not been a problem in Greece in decades.
The only significant political terrorism in Greece since the fall of the
military regime in 1974, has been perpetrated by the "17th of November", a
left-wing terrorist organisation that chooses its victims with remarkable
political savvy and has no interest in the nationalistic issues raised by
Dr. Karakasidou's book.
Constantin Polychronakos M.D. F.R.C.P. (C)
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 10:06:29 -0500
For the reasons they advance, I support Herzfeld's and Gudeman's
proposed moratorium on submissions and review work for CUP and the call
for CUP to review its procedures of risk assessment and related policies.
But I wonder what might be done next and when by concerned
anthropologists. I may have missed part of the exchange and do not feel
fully informed about everything that has been happening on the various
academic and public fronts, but it seems that what is currently being
envisioned is for each of us as individual scholars to communicate our
stance on the matter to CUP. Fine, but given the gravity, difficulty, and
likely continuing urgency of the more general ethical and scholarly issues
involved, isn't some more collective consideration of and response to the
situation in order? Minimally, this might take the form of a public "we,
the undersigned . . ." letter." (Is this what Anthony Cohen is doing in
the UK?) Probably, the SAE, AES, and/or the AAA should review the
particular case at hand and the broader issues it raises and formulate an
official response. Where do things currently stand in terms of collective
action?
A second set of issues is also bothering me (which may or may not be
directly relevant to the prospects for publication of Fields of Wheat,
Hills of Blood). In brief, as a professional organization that publishes
scholarly work is the AAA in essentially the same situation and subject to
the same obligations as CUP or not? Clearly, any publisher must consider
risks to its staff and others. But does the AAA have a special
responsibility to defend the academic freedom of anthropologists to
publish, and, if so, (to put the problem too crudely) should it be a sort
of publisher of last resort and be willing to take higher risks in certain
situations?
Rick Maddox
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 13:44:15 -0500
REFLECTIONS ON MACEDONIA AND ETHNOGRAPHY...
I keep seeing the comparison of the Karakasidou case to the Rushdie case.
To my mind, however, the present case is far more sinister in its
implications than the earlier one. Rushdie was, after all, a novelist and
while the defense of creative expression is certainly essential, the
defense of ethnographic truth is even more critical. What CUP is
suppressing is not merely a given author's right to express herself; CUP
is suppressing ethnographic facts that, apparently, have been carefully
assembled, judiciously weighed, and thoughtfully presented.
It is true that any given ethnographic case subsumes a vast inventory of
"facts" and a diversity of "truths." It is also true that ethnographers
are most dangerous when they lend volume and eloquence to political
minorities. Ethnographers have even been known, upon occasion, to censor
themselves-- to refrain from publishing information or views that might be
damaging to the people being studied.
But we have that obligation-- to be truthful and useful. Since The
Satanic Verses was a novel, nobody had to ask the messy questions "Is it
true? Does Rushdie have his facts straight? Will the subjects suffer?"
It disturbs me deeply that a press of the premier reputation of CUP has
acted so irresponsibly in this matter. I think we all, as ethnographers,
should reflect on the implications of this case for our own work and for
the future of ethnography.
Donna Birdwell-Pheasant
ate: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 15:06:22 -0500
Richard Maddox has suggested that the SAE might wish to take a stand or
position on the CUP issue. I will have a chance to talk with Michael
Herzfeld later this week and get a sense of what he thinks we might do as
an organization, if anything. Then I suggest it would be worth it for me
to discuss it with our President, David Kertzer (who is in Italy), and
other members of the Executive Committee before proposing
something to the general membership. As for the AAA, who knows?
Caroline Brettell
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 16:45:06 -0500
We have to be at least as careful about our assumptions as we wish CUP had
been about their assumptions.
As much as I might believe it myself, I am uncomfortable with the idea
that the Karakasidou "case" is different from the Rushdie "case" because
the former involves "facts", while the latter is "just a novel". The
facts related by an ethnographer (especially if they come from informants)
are not so different from the words of characters in a novel. What is
"true" about a good ethnography is not its "facts" but the relationship
between those facts that the ethnographer is able to construct. The same
can be said for a good novel, although the canons of criticism in one
genre are not identical to those in the other. Now a small number of
ethnographers (myself included) firmly believe that symbolic logic, set
theory, and statistics are the proper way to construct relationships
between the "facts" of ethnography; others firmly believe that the way to
do it is to spin yarns. But that's not the issue; each such style has its
canons of criticism, and each such style uses basic material that can
hardly be called "factual" in the common sense of the word. Trying to
legitimize a work like Karakasidou's on the grounds that it is "science"
and to delegitimize CUP on the grounds that it refused to publish the
truth sounds a little hollow coming from a discipline that has so
thoroughly trashed the science tradition in the last couple of decades.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
Second, we should give some thought to what the proper action might have
been if the assumptions of CUP about The Greek Threat were correct. In my
view, CUP did not take the right action __even if__ they had convincing
evidence of a threat. I think they did not properly evaluate the
probability of a dangerous reaction, but let's grant them that. I think
they did not properly evaluate the cost to CUP employees or anyone else
should some act against CUP have taken place. But let's grant them that
there was serious threat to life and limb. Then what?
Possible actions, some of which are taken every day by companies who do
business anywhere in the world, include (but are not limited to):
Thank God we've still got the Navy.
Gene Hammel
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 14:03:25 -0500
I am contributing to the SAE discussion of Cambridge University Press's
handling of the Karakasidou manuscript, FIELDS OF WHEAT, HILLS OF BLOOD,
only because I feel that my perspective as an active participant-observer
in the field of scholarly publishing may prove to be illuminating and
perhaps advance discussion of some of the issues. I want it to be clear
upfront that I am not doing so out of any sense of "victory" over a rival
press, or any sense that in essence Chicago's policies or practices are
superior to CUP's. I want it to be equally clear that I think Cambridge
made a mistake, and a fairly damaging one, and that they handled the
matter poorly. Whether this is the same as saying that their decision
was "wrong," or morally culpable in restricting "academic freedom," will
I hope be resolved in the course of these comments. I do think it was a
"bad" decision--naturally so since Chicago will be publishing the book
early next year and I think our decision to do so was sound from a
publishing perspective quite apart from the public relations coup it
seems to represent--but at the same time I hope to show how CUP can earn
some of our sympathy, as Professor Herzfeld put it in his February 15
message in these pages, when more of the story, the story as told by an
editor at a rival university press, is told.
Academic Freedom--I have to confess that I have been somewhat perplexed
(as Michael Herzfeld knows) from the beginning about why CUP's decision is
thought by so many in academia as well as the popular press to constitute
restriction of academic freedom. Academic freedom is a concept with a
very specific history having to do with the Enlightenment, (e.g.Kant's
RELIGION WITHIN THE LIMITS OF REASON ALONE and Frederick the Great of
Prussia), the secularization of the British universities in the 19th
century, the modern concept of tenure, and the rulings of the American
Association of University Professors. I have always understood it in the
textbook sense of the right of scholars to pursue research, to teach, and
to publish without control or restraint from the institutions that employ
them. It is widely construed as a civil right in countries with
democratic governments. While it is clear to me how government censorship
could infringe upon the civil rights of a publisher, it is not clear to me
how deciding against publication of a given book or author could be
considered infringement of the author's civil rights. Authors in
democratic societies do have virtually unlimited rights to publish
whatever they want, but not wherever they want; no one has a "right" to
publish with a specific publisher unless there is a contract giving them
such rights as in the recent Joan Collins case. The situation with the
Karakasidou manuscript is more analogous to that of a tenure battle (than,
say, to the Rushdie case) since, as we all know, the candidate may have
been given every expectation of winning tenure, having been put through a
lengthy and rigorous review process by colleagues and receiving the
department's and even the Dean's recommendation, and then be denied by the
university's administration. In some cases, a class action suit charging
discrimination can be launched and won, but this is where the analogy with
publishing and usually with the concept of academic freedom again breaks
down.
Scholarly Publishing--If nothing (as far as I know) in the rulings of the
American Association of University Professors condemns CUP's action in
this case, it may be instructive instead to look at the By-Laws of the
American Association of University Presses of which CUP is a Full Member
(published in the AAUP Directory distributed by the University of Chicago
Press.) Section 5 of Article III (Membership and Affiliation) states in
part: "A university press, by its very nature, must be devoted to
scholarly and educational ends; the failure of a university press to
pursue such ends as its fundamental business shall constitute grounds for
canceling its membership in the Association." This is the canonical
principle upon which university presses were founded in the late 19th
century and which differentiates their activities from all presses whose
"fundamental business" is to make a profit rather than to "advance
knowledge." Elsewhere in the By-Laws it is made clear that in order to
ensure that the university press is pursuing its proper ends it is
constrained to have an outside review process and to have its decisions
overseen by a board of advisors from the parent university; in other
words, everything it publishes or does in the name of the university to
which it belongs must be approved by such a board; it is not, however,
explicitly constrained to publish or do everything that is approved.
Thus technically speaking the restriction of pursuing educational and
scholarly ends as its fundamental business applies only to what it does,
not to what it doesn't do. The By-Laws make no specific mention of what a
Press is to do if one aspect of its fundamental business, such as
publishing a certain important scholarly book, might jeopardize another
aspect, such as the continuity and security of its educational
examination sales and administration in a foreign land. The decision
taken is not regulated by the AAUP by-laws or guidelines, but is entirely
a matter of the perceptions of the press of the relative risks involved.
From a purely technical standpoint, then, I do not think CUP's decision
on the Karakasidou manuscript constitutes a violation of the AAUP
By-Laws, though I believe that in a larger sense it violates our
understanding of the mission of a university press and its role in the
scholarly community, as I will argue below.
Risk Assessment--Steven Gudeman in his February 14 message in these pages
astutely raises the "larger and more interesting question" of how one
conducts an "honest" risk assessment and its costs, and he goes on to say
"there is always an element of risk in publishing everywhere." "What can
or should a publisher do about it?" Though raised in a quite serious
context, these questions can't help but bemuse the inevitably cynical
publishing veteran. Every publishing decision requires risk assessment,
not usually of questions of life and death, but rather in terms of
determining whether and how much to invest in a book's production and
marketing. This is an extraordinarily complicated process involving
quasi-inductive hypotheses based upon past experience with books of a
certain kind, the "fit" of the book with one's existing strengths as a
press, technological and financial considerations, questions regarding the
potential non-economic or symbolic returns on one's investment in terms of
prestige, considerations of the media potential or newsworthiness of the
project, and so forth. The reason it is bemusing to be asked what can or
should a publisher do about it, in this context, is that whatever you do
about it you will be wrong most of the time; no matter how carefully all
the variables are weighed, there is a better than 50-50 chance that you
will lose money and that the symbolic returns will not compensate
sufficiently for that fact (as the university administration will
eventually inform you). No press can afford the kind of conventional
market research that producers of other consumer goods undertake; books
simply do not enjoy the same economic dynamics. Standard publishing wit
has it that the first printing of a book is its market research; only
AFTER you've brought the product to market can you determine the wisdom of
your investment, and it is then too late to do anything about it.
Successful presses are ones that guess right often enough, both in terms
of economic and symbolic capital, to keep their creditors or benefactors
off their backs. Being a scholarly, not-for-profit institution does not
exempt a press from these rather miserable fundamental publishing
dynamics.
Now, CUP had already undertaken the usual standard, if hopelessly
inadequate, risk assessment in the Karakasidou case; they had prepared a
financial estimate showing that they could publish the book without loss,
in a manner consistent with the expectations of the market for cultural
anthropology in the U.S. as well as the U.K., and they had certified the
scholarly significance of the project by obtaining the views of
acknowledged authorities in the field of the work thus virtually
guaranteeing that they would not lose prestige in publishing it even if
their financial calculations proved to be, (as they most often do for all
publishers), erroneous (which can ironically be for the better rather than
for the worse, as when a book sells better than anticipated). In short, up
to the point of making their decision they viewed the book as they would
have any outstanding work in cultural anthropology. The inadequacy of the
standard risk assessment was, however, exacerbated in this case by what
could be called an "ecological" consideration of the effect of publishing
the book on the press's functioning as a whole, a somewhat rare but by no
means unique circumstance. In such cases, uncertainty compounds
uncertainty, and it becomes even more unclear than usual whether one can
afford to invest in the publication. The critical question of the book's
"fit" with CUP's strengths determined the strategic final decision. From
the technical standpoint of standard "risk assessment" by publishers, once
again, I do not believe CUP made a serious error.
WHY THEN, if I think that CUP's decision was not technically a violation
of academic freedom, of the canonical principle of university press
publishing, or of the standard publishing practice of assessing risk, do I
continue to share the profound uneasiness of Professors Herzfeld and
Gudeman and so many others regarding CUP's actions in this case? I
suggest, in perhaps Classical Greek style, that it is because we have been
witness to a failure, not of observing the minimum technical requirements
of university press publishing, but of virtue, of striving for excellence
or for the good that, according to Aristotle, makes an entity worthy of
its name. CUP's actions and behavior--the way this case was handled as
opposed to the ultimate decision--reflect a lack of circumspection (the
security issues and the economic issues of the Greek operation should have
been considered before leading the author and the series editors to think
acceptance was forthcoming) and of courage (to face up to a public that
they perceive to be hostile to outstanding scholarly research.) The virtue
of university press publishing is that it serves as a bullwark against the
encroachment of the corporate mentality of commercial publishing into
scholarly life. It has a duty to preserve the voice of reason for the
scholarly community in a world that is indifferent or even hostile to it.
In this sense, CUP's behavior merits our condemnation; they missed an
opportunity to reaffirm the highest goals of their "fundamental business."
It is my hope, shared by my colleagues here at Chicago, that in fact
publishing the Karakasidou book will help to ameliorate the situation in
Greece, to stimulate public discussion and to neutralize the fears of
terrorism. That may be idealistic, but that's just the point. How can
social tensions be resolved if fueled only by ideology and not rational
debate?
Should CUP be boycotted for their poor behavior? Certainly not in
principle. The question is whether on the whole they are committed to
better behavior, whether they can be counted on to be more circumspect, to
treat authors and series editors more judiciously, and to strive for high
ideals. I think the answers to this are affirmative within the
understanding that mistakes of all kinds are endemic to publishing, and
that editors may easily get caught between two very different political
spheres (between series editors and governing officers for example) in
which neither circumspection nor courage seem to be attainable virtues.
Only in this sense does Cambridge merit our sympathies.
T. David Brent
Subject: REPLY: CUP case
Gudem001@maroon.tc.umn.edu
Subject: REPLY: CUP case
University of California
Berkeley CA 94720
e-mail: gene@demog.berkeley.edu
Subject: REPLY: CUP case
Subject: REPLY: CUP case (to Gudeman)
Department of Demography
University of California
Berkeley CA 94720
e-mail: gene@demog.berkeley.edu
Subject: REPLY: CUP case
Subject: Cross-posted REPLY: CUP case.
From: D.J. Mikosz
PhD Student
Churchill College, Cambridge CB3 ODS
Great Britain
email: djm1006@cam.ac.uk
www homepage: http://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/home/djm1006
Subject: REPLY: CUP case
UC Berkeley Dept of Anthropology
lanclos@garnet.berkeley.edu
Subject: REPLY: CUP case
Subject: Re: CUP case
Department of Anthropology
McGill University
Subject: REPLY: the CUP case.
Associate Professor, Department of Pediatrics
McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Subject: REPLY: CUP case
Dept. of History
Carnegie Mellon University
maddox@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: REPLY: CUP case
Professor of Anthropology
Lamar University
birdwell@cs4.lamar.edu
Subject: REPLY: CUP case
President-Elect, SAE
cbrettel@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: REPLY: CUP case
Department of Demography
University of California
Berkeley CA 94720
e-mail: gene@demog.berkeley.edu
Subject: Academic Freedom, Scholarly Publishing, Risk (CUP Case)
Senior Editor
University of Chicago Press
TDB.PRESSBKS@Press.UChicago.edu