Cambridge University Press: Official Response

Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 09:20:37 -0500
REPLY: Cambridge UP responds on Karakasidou case.

The following response from Cambridge University Press about his affair was run on 10 February 1996 on the H-Net Habsburg list.


From: Charles Ingrao
Subject: Cambridge rejects Macedonia book due to threats

Our thanks to H-SAE for alerting us to this troubling story, which could impact scholarly publishing in Balkan history, and to Richard Fisher of Cambridge University Press, who has sent me an official statement that I have also enclosed below:


Official Statement issued by Cambridge University Press:

The decision by Cambridge University Press not to offer Dr Karakasidou a contract for her manuscript was a very complicated and painful one. In particular, we deeply regret the difficult position in which this has placed the author, who has written a serious and valuable study. Following the decision, Michael Herzfeld and Stephen Gudeman resigned from the editorial board of our anthropology monograph series, on which both had been active and much valued members. The Press acted correctly, though in a situation where a good case could be made on both sides of the argument. In the end, everyone has had to choose between powerful but irreconcilable moral imperatives. No compromise was possible, though we all did our best to find one.

We were aware that Dr Karakasidou had received death threats in May 1993 from a right-wing Greek organisation in the United States, and that an anonymous letter, postmarked Athens, threatened her with rape, while the Greek newspaper Stohos published her address in Salonika and her car registration number. Her plight had been taken up by International Pen and various human rights organisations. We included this background information in our report to the Press Syndicate (the Committee that governs Cambridge University Press), in early November 1995. We naturally relied heavily on the assessment of Professor Herzfeld. It is worth noting that in 1994-95, when Dr Karakasidou took up a fellowship at Harvard, concerns for her safety had led Professor Herzfeld to request special protection for her and for himself from the Cambridge police (for he had spoken publicly in her defence).

The senior officers of the Press were in no doubt that the manuscript was of high quality. Understandably the Press officers judged it necessary to make further enquiries on the security question, for Greek nationalist feelings were running high on the Macedonian question. They took advice from the Greek office of Cambridge University Press, from Greek academics and from British officials in Greece, who warned that publication might put at risk the lives of Press staff in Athens, and of Cambridge University personnel in Greece. The Foreign Office was also consulted. Each drew attention to recent cases of terrorist violence against other foreign cultural institutions in Greece which were associated with what were perceived to be 'anti-Greek' organisations.

At a meeting on December 1, 1995, the Press Syndicate (the governing body of the Press, comprised entirely of senior academic staff of the University) had to decide, first, how significant the risks might be, and, second, if there was a risk to their personnel, whether publication should proceed. The Syndicate came to the unanimous conclusion that publication might well put local employees at risk, and a decision was taken not to publish. Professor Herzfeld and Professor Gudeman have suggested that other advice should have been sought, but even if this had been more equivocal about the risk, Cambridge University Press, as a reasonable employer, would have found it very difficult to ignore advice from those in the front line. One could not know for certain what the risks were without publishing the book, but there was understandably enough evidence to give a prudent management cause for serious concern. The series editors argued their case forcefully, even passionately, and their arguments were naturally given very careful consideration by their fellow-scholars on the Press Syndicate. The Press has as its statutory imperative the dissemination of knowledge, and no decision that might in any way compromise the integrity of that imperative would ever be countenanced lightly.

It should be emphasised as a fundamental point of principle that there was no contract to publish, nor ever an implicit one. Every academic press from time to time refuses to publish a book recommended by an editor or series adviser. This was a very difficult decision, taken in good faith by the Press Syndicate following extensive consultation with academic advisers, senior editorial officers and Press representatives around the world. It is very unlikely that a similar concatenation of circumstances would arise ever again.

Cambridge University Press
2.2.96