From galta@GBMS01.UWGB.EDU Sun Feb 11 22:22:50 1996
EDITOR'S NOTE: The following long post is a compendium of statements from
Michael Herzfeld (member H-SAE editorial board and past-President of the
Society for the Anthropology of Europe) and Stephen Gudeman relating to
the Cambridge University Press refusal to publish Anastasia Karakasidou's
manuscript for fear of terrorist reprisal. The outlines of the situation
were reported on this list several days ago (Feb. 7) in a posting from
Jill Dubisch, and we transmitted Cambridge University Press' response this
morning on H-SAE (cross-posted from HABSBURG, where it first appeared).
This is a long message so interested readers may want to print it for ease
in reading. It contains the following elements:
I hope that the importance of this case will be be clear from an
examination of what follows, and of the Cambridge University Press statement
transmitted this morning, and that a discussion of the matter will ensue
on H-SAE and HABSBURG.
Tony Galt, Editor H-SAE
FROM: Stephen Gudeman and Michael Herzfeld
On 1 December, 1995, The Syndicate of Cambridge University Press voted not
to publish a book manuscript by Dr. Anastasia Karakasidou, entitled Fields
of Wheat, Hills of Blood. This decision led to our resignations as
academic editors in anthropology on the grounds that the Press had
seriously violated the fundamental principles of academic freedom, and of
freedom of speech and research. We also felt that CUP's action, taken
because it claimed to fear a terroristic response to the book's
publication, displayed a lack of understanding and respect for the Greek
people and for the purpose of anthropology itself.
The matter has now moved beyond Dr. Karakasidou, the Balkans, and
anthropology. When the world's most prestigious university press
knowingly sacrifices legitimacy for expediency, its action exposes others
not so well positioned to increased pressure from those who would
undermine the foundations of an open society. Since our resignations,
CUP's decision has been discussed in the international news media. The
extensive coverage has included articles in The Guardian, The
Washington Post, The Times Higher Education Supplement, The Chronicle
of Higher Education, as well as television and radio broadcasts.
In our month-long discussions with CUP, which began on 17 November, 1995,
and were conducted by telephone, letters, fax, and e-mail, we asked the
Press to establish a more thorough and legitimate procedure for reviewing
manuscripts. Despite our best efforts to establish a reasoned dialogue,
CUP consistently refused to reconsider the decision or to discuss either
the decision or the broader issues it raised. The Press's present silence
and lack of action (except for the reiteration of earlier statements). in
the face of public scrutiny, continue the same pattern. Until the CUP
management conducts a fair, thorough, and genuinely independent assessment
of its review procedures, CUP's legitimacy as the globe's leading academic
publisher will be irrecoverable.
In consequence -- as Cambridge graduates, authors, and former editors --
we call for a moratorium on all further manuscript reviewing for, and
submission to, Cambridge University Press. The moratorium has two
components. First, and foremost, because CUP has damaged and made a sham
of the academic review process, we urge our colleagues to withhold their
seal of professional approval from future CUP publications by not
participating in a demonstrably problematic review procedure. Given that
this action will both underscore the way in which CUP has delegtimated its
standing and will sustain tbat delegitimation in the absence of a
satisfactory response, we suggest that our colleagues not send any new
manuscripts to CUP. We explicitly do not encourage a boycott of books
already published. That alternative, by harming junior scholars, would
merely reiterate CUP's offense against Dr. Karakasidou. By hindering the
production and reviewing of new manuscripts, we hope to demonstrate the
academic world's collective dismay at the CUP administration, and to bring
about a healthy reassessment that will benefit the entire academic
profession.
Stephen Gudeman
Michael Herzfeld
Following are our letters of resignation. Please note that in many
respects they anticipate the response from CUP that has already been
circulated. I would particularly draw your attention to the selective use
of information -- for example, contrast the point about my request for a
police check in 1994-95 in CUP's statement with my explanation to CUP of
why I shared that information with them in the first place. I do not
think that I need belabor the point, especially when readers consider the
chronology of the various documents and events.
Michael Herzfeld
Resignation letter -- Gudeman
Note: These letters were also copied to editorial board colleagues and to
two other officials of CUP.
28 December 1995
Mr. Anthony Wilson, Chief Executive
Dear Mr. Wilson;
I appreciated receiving the letters that you and Dr. Mynott sent in
response to mine explaining the reasons for not publishing Dr.
Karakasidou's book manuscript. They well articulate your thinking. But
as I remain deeply troubled by the morality of your decision as well as
the procedures you followed, I write to resign from the editorial board of
the Cambridge Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology series. I do so
with regret, for I enjoyed my seven years of service on the board, admired
the books that Cambridge published,and had been looking forward to serving
as an editor for a new anthropology series that I helped design. My
regret at severing ties with the Press is heightened because this also
threatens close friendships of more than 30 years standing. Since
learning of the manuscript and of the author, as well as of the Press'
intentions on Friday, November 17, I have worked to slow the decision
process so that a more warranted procedure could be formulated and a
greater range of choices could be considered. I am especially sorry that
the Press did not respond to this attempt to reach a solution that would
satisfy different, and sometimes competing, moral claims.
As one of the world's leading publishing houses, dedicated to serving the
public good by disseminating scholarly and scientific findings, you bear
an obligation to uphold the principle of freedom of speech and scientific
inquiry. The world of the academy and anthropology is founded on reasoned
inquiry, critical discussion, and the open dissemination of information.
Because the Press operates under the name, goodwill and legitimacy
afforded by Cambridge University, your obligation to support the
principles on which our educational system resides is a very special one.
Indeed, the prestige of the Press and the University is in part founded on
the trust that scholarly and public decisions are made on the basis of
merit, not politics, even when the subject matter of a work is politically
controversial and sensitive. Your decision not to publish abook on the
grounds that it might bring harm to the interests and personnel of the
Press has particular weight, therefore, because it can serve as a model
for those who would oppose free speech and inquiry, and for those who are
less well positioned and able to support the principles underlying
scientific thought and humane discussion.
The Press has urged that the Karakasidou situation is a "unique case"
meriting refusal to publish, because it has five employees in Athens,
Greece is the largest market for the Cambridge Local Examinations
Syndicate, and the book could provoke a terroristic response. The Press
has suggested as well that Americans may not fully appreciate the
potential for terrorism and violent reprisals in Greece. But terrorism
and violent responses have become common throughout the world. Does the
Press avoid publishing books concerning Northern Ireland or England on the
grounds that some local parties might strenuously object? The United
States is one of the world's most violent nations, and reprisals for
perceived political injustices have become all too frequent here. Much the
same could be said of Mexico, parts of Central America such as Guatemala,
El Salvador, and Nicaragua, and many nations in South America. The list
would be expanded when we turn to Europe, Africa and the Middle East. But
we do not cease publishing in these and other locales for fear of
reprisals. Clearly, if we allow the potential for terrorism to determine
what is published, we convey the message that violence is effective in
preventing open communication, and this heightens the probability of its
recurrence.
If one is to argue that the Greek situation is unique and justifies
overriding the principle of free speech, then special care in gathering
information must betaken, and a clear and independent process for
assessing these facts and determining the situation must be devised. The
Press, in reaching its publication decision on Karakasidou's manuscript,
has not done this. You have drawn principally on the opinions of your own
representative in Greece who has lived there for some 15 years. Loyalty
is a commendable virtue, but surely even an employee with experience in
Greece cannot be thought to have the only trustworthy perspective, for his
interests are also at stake. You seem not to have consulted beforehand
with Greek academics and other nationals, nor with scholars of other
nationalities who study Greece. You have not consulted with the member of
the editorial board who has worked in and written about Greece for many
years; you have not drawn on his suggestions for further opinions on the
contemporary situation; and you have not sought a reasoned response from
Dr. Karakasidou on this issue. The only written discussions that you have
presented are from your employee in Greece and his British associates
there from whom he solicited opinions. Given the narrow range of opinions
sought on terrorism, I worry especially that you may be caricaturing the
Greek people - as uncontrolled and prone to violence - in a way which is
unacceptable to an anthropologist. The process for considering the
information gathered must also be sufficiently clear and independent to
legitimate a decision not to publish. Because the Press and the
University have substantial property and business interests in Greece, in
addition to personnel, it was especially important to warrant the decision
procedures. As I stated in my prior letter to Dr. Mynott, I was surprised
that you solicited information from and acted on behalf of the Cambridge
Examinations Syndicate, because making decisions on the basis of their
interests surely jeopardizes the Press' standing as an independent
publisher. I particularly requested that you reconsider your decision,
however, because the closed procedure by which it was reached undermined
trust in the outcome and the role of your academic editors. When I was
first informed of the situation, for example, I was also told that a
decision had in effect, already been taken; indeed, when the Press Syndics
reviewed the case, apparently they also remarked upon the fact that a
decision had been reached in advance. I certainly do not think that the
editorial board of one book series should alone decide upon moral issues
of importance; and I agree that a press makes the final decision on
publication, based on academic, commercial and related reasons. But
academic editors - who stand for the educational establishment - offer a
special warranty of academic independence to a university press' books;
and by lending their names to each publication in a series, they are
implicated in every publication decision. When a decision that
contravenes academic principles is taken, therefore, the academic editors
must be properly informed in advance; their advice should be sought; and
the press' process of deciding must be sufficiently open and independent,
and based upon a broad range of sources, so as to be convincing and
legitimate to a discerning community. Otherwise, you undermine the
integrity of the press and its academic editors, for they can no longer
warrant that publication decisions have been taken on reasonable academic
or commercial grounds. When subjected to unjustified, overriding
decisions, an academic editorship becomes otiose, if not a sham.
Finally, I remain unconvinced that the Press considered all possible
solutions to this problem, from joint publication to the judicious use of
publicity to an author's explanatory preface to a press' justified
disclaimer over control of a book's content.
Let me conclude on a personal note. I earned BA., MA. and Ph.D. degrees
from Cambridge where reasoned inquiry and free discussion became a living
reality for me. My intellectual life began and flourished there, and I
shall always be grateful for that education. For this reason, I find the
University Press' actions all the more dismaying. I would betray my
Cambridge teachers - not to speak of my family, past and present - by
accepting your refusal to publish.
Thus, because Cambridge University Press did not inform or consult with its
editors, did not fully consider a range of ways to handle publication, did
not adequately solicit information about the possibilities of violence, and
did not engage in an independent and warranted judgment process, I resign
on the grounds that it has violated the fundamental scholarly and democratic
principle of free speech and inquiry.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Gudeman
Resignation letter -- Herzfeld
26 December, 1995
Dear Mr. Wilson:
Thank you for your letter of 15 December. I appreciate your prompt
response, but I do not feel that you have -- or had earlier -- left any
space for a serious reconsideration of the Press's decision concerning
Professor Anastasia Karakasidou's book manuscript. I am therefore afraid
that we have now, to my genuine and deep regret, reached a point where my
continuing service on the Editorial Board of the Cambridge Studies in
Social and Cultural Anthropology has become incompatible with the
principles governing my academic life. Your gracious recognition of my
services notwithstanding, your refusal to address any of the substantive
issues I have raised leaves me no further choice, and I therefore hereby
submit my resignation.
I have given much thought to this decision. In fairness, I have wanted to
give full consideration to the several points that you and Dr. Mynott have
made. In the end, however, I have come to a conclusion that gives me no
occasion for pleasure but at least does not betray my principles or my
academic colleagues.
While I agree that a scholarly publisher has the right to reject
manuscripts for any academic or commercial reason, and while I also agree
that you do have obligations to your Athens staff, I nonetheless cannot
accept your view that in this case there is no issue of academic freedom.
I base this view on the fact that Professor Karakasidou was informed of
the final decision after she had revised her manuscript, which she did
specifically in accordance with the instructions of the Press's readers;
their evaluations were passed on to her with strong encouragement to
proceed, even though the Athens office had already expressed concern about
possible risks, and although one of the initial readers' reports as well as
my own signaled the intensely controversial nature of the study. The fact
that no legally binding contract was involved is ethically immaterial
under these circumstances. At the very least you owe a struggling and
courageous young scholar an abject written apology for the humiliation
that your unconsionably clumsy procedures have added to her already
enormous burden.
You have also chosen to disregard my request that you share with me the
sources and details of your allegedly extensive consultations in Athens,
and thus have given me no serious reason to doubt my own, much more
optimistic assessment. I regard this uncooperative stance as incompatible
with my continuing to serve on the CSSCA Editorial Board. In effect you
have asked me to value some anonymous and vaguely reported assessments of
the Greek situation over my own expertise, and you have also failed to
consult the two individuals -- one of them a senior Greek state employee
-- whose names I gave the Press because I considered them particularly
well qualified to assess the situation. As I already noted in my previous
letter to you, this does not inspire confidence in the reasons given for
your decision.
Nor do I regard as genuinely independent the advice of the British
officials whom I now understand you to have consulted. Indeed, the
attitude that emerges from such correspondence as I have belatedly been
able to see is not one in which, as a British citizen, I can take any
pride. On the contrary, such preemptive appeasement contrasts strongly
with the stance of Professor Karakasidou, who, by continuing her research
in Greece despite the threats made against her, has shown these threats up
for what they were. My own public disagreements with official and media
misrepresentations of Professor Karakasidou's credentials and ideas are, I
suggest, more in keeping with the moral example she has set us all.
Moreover, they have demonstrably not provoked any reprisals (other than
verbal ones) against either my person or the organizations with which my
name has been associated (including, to date, the Press). Inasmuch as
some of the verbal responses to my stand have exhibited an anti-Semitic
character, moreover, I am particularly determined not to yield to -- and
thereby become complicit in -- such distasteful intimidation. My decision
will, I suppose, at least relieve you of the necessity of continuing to
place my own "controversial" name on books in the series. Moreover, I
would not wish you to feel compromised by our continuing association; nor
do I wish my name to appear in connection with the series, lest it be
taken as an endorsement of the policy that your action represents.
I do in fact appreciate the importance of considering security questions
carefully, but my interpretation differs in important respects from yours.
As you no doubt know, I took my own precautions at Harvard during the
1994-95 academic year and my positive evaluation of the security situation
during that year is based on the verbal report I subsequently obtained
from the Harvard police. This should be viewed as evidence for the
absence of serious risk, rather than, as has bizarrely been suggested, for
the reverse.
Indeed, that conclusion belongs to a series of misconceptions that I feel
obliged to correct. The occasional acts of serious violence committed
against foreign personnel in Greece have never, to the best of my
knowledge, been linked to the issues raised in Professor Karakasidou's
manuscript. I see no evidence that the earlier decision by another press
not to consider the manuscript was motivated by anything other than a
perception that the project was not appropriate for their list; on the
other hand, the same press has published a potentially no less
controversial work on Macedonia (which has, to date, brought them no
trouble). What is more, their decision in regard to Professor
Karakasidou's manuscript was immediate, in marked contrast to yours. As
for the absurd contention that I gather has been put forward to the effect
that I failed to alert the Press to the possible risks involved, allow me
to direct your attention to the details I have given in the third full
paragraph of this letter concerning the sequence of events surrounding the
evaluation of the manuscript. I think I may safely leave it to you to
draw the correct conclusions about the responsibility for any failure of
communication.
In light of the racist elements in the attacks against Professor
Karakasidou and me, the entire case would seem to warrant particular
sensitivity and, above all, a principled rejection of any kind of
intimidation. Indeed, it strikes me that the Press's stance suggests a
tacit appeasement of two quite distinct forms of racism. I have just
mentioned the first. Your action helps to direct the second at the Greeks
themselves. Specifically, your British informants' selective treatment of
the case implies a troubling willingness to tolerate, perpetuate, and even
exploit the irresponsible caricature of Greece as a volatile and
undisciplined country. That attitude, and the decision that you are now
predicating upon it, gratuitously insult both the Greek people and the
Greek authorities, in a manner that repeats past injuries against them --
a sorry tale that I have treated at length in the book I have published
under your label. Let me remind you that successive Greek governments
have generously supported symposia at which Professor Karakasidou and
others whose views conceivably conflicted with official policy have
presented their scholarly work; and let me also remind you that Professor
Karakasidou, who has been given unrestricted access to state-supported
archives in Greece, has been able to function over long periods of time
there without violence or hindrance. Any Greek citizen must therefore
find the implications of your action deeply offensive, as do I, and your
endorsement of an unflattering stereotype -- one already deeply resented
by most Greeks -- may well direct far more comprehensive and justified
anger at the Press than publication of Professor Karakasidou's book would
have done.
The experience of this affair would certainly seem to suggest the
desirability of dissociating the functions of the Press from other
commercial activities, especially from those that require a politically
sensitive presence abroad. The Press must have full freedom to publish
timely, first-rate scholarship. This is not a uniquely Greek issue, but
must indeed pose global problems of credibility for the Press. Nor is it
a peculiarly anthropological issue: all disciplines with potential
political implications outside the United Kingdom must necessarily view
these developments with profound misgiving.
In the course of the various exchanges, we have heard a great deal about
the global significance of the Cambridge name. So be it; but, precisely
by that token, the Press has an exemplary responsibility to the cause of
free scholarly expression. Any compromise diminishes both the cause and
the name, and lends encouragement to political blackmail. I presume that
you would not wish to see Cambridge University Press regarded as a model
of self-censorship? Yet that, it seems to me, is one aspect of the very
long wedge of which you have just inserted the thin end into the practice
of academic publishing.
As a Press author and a graduate of Cambridge University, I especially
regret the necessity of withdrawing from an activity in which I have taken
great pleasure. Until now I have felt able to play a reasonably
productive role. Unfortunately, however, your action now deprives that
role of any meaning. Under the circumstances, for example, I could not in
good conscience solicit manuscripts or suggest the names of potential
reviewers; nor do I have any assurance that my own reviewing would be
taken any more seriously than my recommendations in the present matter
have been. It would also be inconceivable for me to publish my own
further work on the region in a list that I considered both ethically
compromised and intellectually incomplete. Your refusal to discuss
alternative courses of action -- courses that would have honored the
indisputable moral imperative of safeguarding your personnel while
protecting the freedom of scholarly expression that it is a university
press's primary duty to serve -- thus leaves me with no acceptable choice
but to resign.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Herzfeld
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 20:34:34 -0500
From: TONY GALT
Reply to: An H-Net List for the Society for Anthropology of Europe
To: Multiple recipients of list H-SAE
Subject: REPLY: Herzfeld/Gudeman:Cambridge University Press Case.
I
DATE: 11 February, 1996
Professor of Anthropology, Univerity of Minnesota, and Fellow at the Center
for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford
gudem001@maroon.tc.umn.edu
Professor of Anthropology, Harvard University, and Editor of American
Ethnologist
herzfeld@wjh.harvard.edu
II
herzfeld@wjh.harvard.edu
III
Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building
Shaftesbury Road
Cambridge CB2 2RU
England
IV
Professor