From kmilnor at barnard.edu Thu Jun 4 05:03:45 2009 From: kmilnor at barnard.edu (kmilnor) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 08:03:45 -0400 Subject: [LCC] Journal of Homosexuality related complaint re intellectual freedom In-Reply-To: <2BE0F36D-E3FB-4FE0-A07D-206073901C96@oberlin.edu> References: <3D190E83FA6906478970A9EDC5C5B9EB129D4B9500@ITCS-ECLS-1-VS3.adsroot.itcs.umich.edu> <2BE0F36D-E3FB-4FE0-A07D-206073901C96@oberlin.edu> Message-ID: <29FE579D-DB7C-45E8-9FEE-D1166A41A6EE@barnard.edu> Dear Kirk -- How disappointing that this was NOT resolved as it seemed to have been. I'm inclined for the LCC to take a strong stance, but (as always!) I serve the will of the members. What do you guys think?? klm On Jun 4, 2009, at 12:06 AM, Kirk Ormand wrote: > To the Lambda Classical Caucus, > > Enclosed are two documents (in one .pdf) that pertain to the latest > chapter in a multi-year conflict. > > The short version is this: the Journal of Homosexuality, which is > now published by Taylor and Francis (who also own the Routledge > Press imprint) has rather suddenly and without warning cancelled a > fully refereed and approved special issue that dealt with age- > differential same-sex love in the West. Three of the essays in the > volume were to be by classicists. > > Needless to say, this raises a rather bleak spectre for those of us > in the field who work on topics that might be viewed as > controversial by some segments of the mainstream. While Taylor and > Francis is a private corporation with the right to publish or not > publish what they see fit, they are also a press that sells to the > academic market. If they are going to engage in a homophobic > editorial policy -- as appears to be the case here -- we scholars > should carefully evaluate whether or not we are willing to do > business with them. > > The enclosed document raises, I think, several questions for Lambda: > > 1) Should we get involved in this fight? I think I will, > individually; Lambda needs to consider its corporate stance. > 2) If we do get involved, what kind of actions should we take? some > possibilities: > a) letters to Taylor & Francis informing them that we will no > longer publish, as individuals, with Routledge, nor buy their books > b) a letter from LCC to Taylor and Francis indicating our corporate > disapproval of their editorial policy > c) a letter from LCC to the Professional Matters Committee of the > APA (and the CSWMG) urging the APA to deny Routledge a booth at the > convention, given the apparent editorial policy of their parent > company, which seems to violate the spirit if not the letter of the > APA Statement on Professional Ethics (see below). > > In any case, scholars should know that Routledge is no longer the > press that it once was. As Tom Hubbard wrote to me in a recent e- > mail: "It is also important that classicists know that Routledge is > no longer a safe place to publish cutting-edge sexuality topics > before someone else wastes their time submitting a book to them only > to have corporate management overrule the academic editor, editorial > board, and referees." > > These are serious matters, and they demand both due deliberation and > a certain swiftness of response. I would urge the leadership of > Lambda to initiate a discussion as soon as is feasible. > > Thanks, > > Kirk Ormand > Oberlin College >> >> > <0715_001.pdf> From mbroder at gc.cuny.edu Thu Jun 4 05:22:59 2009 From: mbroder at gc.cuny.edu (Michael Broder) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 08:22:59 -0400 Subject: [LCC] Journal of Homosexuality related complaint re intellectual freedom In-Reply-To: <29FE579D-DB7C-45E8-9FEE-D1166A41A6EE@barnard.edu> References: <3D190E83FA6906478970A9EDC5C5B9EB129D4B9500@ITCS-ECLS-1-VS3.adsroot.itcs.umich.edu> <2BE0F36D-E3FB-4FE0-A07D-206073901C96@oberlin.edu> <29FE579D-DB7C-45E8-9FEE-D1166A41A6EE@barnard.edu> Message-ID: <002401c9e50f$351c7f60$9f557e20$@cuny.edu> I am certainly in favor of LCC taking a strong stand and I support the measures outlined by Kirk below. Best, Michael "Power is exercised rather than possessed...and sometimes extended by...those who are dominated." --Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish Michael Broder PhD Candidate in Classics The Graduate Center, CUNY (646) 281-1634 phone (866) 203-2489 fax mbroder at gc.cuny.edu -----Original Message----- From: members-bounces at lambdacc.org [mailto:members-bounces at lambdacc.org] On Behalf Of kmilnor Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 8:04 AM To: Kirk Ormand Cc: LambdaCC Subject: Re: [LCC] Journal of Homosexuality related complaint re intellectual freedom Dear Kirk -- How disappointing that this was NOT resolved as it seemed to have been. I'm inclined for the LCC to take a strong stance, but (as always!) I serve the will of the members. What do you guys think?? klm On Jun 4, 2009, at 12:06 AM, Kirk Ormand wrote: > To the Lambda Classical Caucus, > > Enclosed are two documents (in one .pdf) that pertain to the latest > chapter in a multi-year conflict. > > The short version is this: the Journal of Homosexuality, which is > now published by Taylor and Francis (who also own the Routledge > Press imprint) has rather suddenly and without warning cancelled a > fully refereed and approved special issue that dealt with age- > differential same-sex love in the West. Three of the essays in the > volume were to be by classicists. > > Needless to say, this raises a rather bleak spectre for those of us > in the field who work on topics that might be viewed as > controversial by some segments of the mainstream. While Taylor and > Francis is a private corporation with the right to publish or not > publish what they see fit, they are also a press that sells to the > academic market. If they are going to engage in a homophobic > editorial policy -- as appears to be the case here -- we scholars > should carefully evaluate whether or not we are willing to do > business with them. > > The enclosed document raises, I think, several questions for Lambda: > > 1) Should we get involved in this fight? I think I will, > individually; Lambda needs to consider its corporate stance. > 2) If we do get involved, what kind of actions should we take? some > possibilities: > a) letters to Taylor & Francis informing them that we will no > longer publish, as individuals, with Routledge, nor buy their books > b) a letter from LCC to Taylor and Francis indicating our corporate > disapproval of their editorial policy > c) a letter from LCC to the Professional Matters Committee of the > APA (and the CSWMG) urging the APA to deny Routledge a booth at the > convention, given the apparent editorial policy of their parent > company, which seems to violate the spirit if not the letter of the > APA Statement on Professional Ethics (see below). > > In any case, scholars should know that Routledge is no longer the > press that it once was. As Tom Hubbard wrote to me in a recent e- > mail: "It is also important that classicists know that Routledge is > no longer a safe place to publish cutting-edge sexuality topics > before someone else wastes their time submitting a book to them only > to have corporate management overrule the academic editor, editorial > board, and referees." > > These are serious matters, and they demand both due deliberation and > a certain swiftness of response. I would urge the leadership of > Lambda to initiate a discussion as soon as is feasible. > > Thanks, > > Kirk Ormand > Oberlin College >> >> > <0715_001.pdf> _______________________________________________ members mailing list members at lambdacc.org http://lambdacc.org/mailman/listinfo/members_lambdacc.org From kmilnor at barnard.edu Thu Jun 4 05:56:59 2009 From: kmilnor at barnard.edu (kmilnor) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 08:56:59 -0400 Subject: [LCC] Journal of Homosexuality Message-ID: <8E05299D-DE25-43FC-8377-F8E10084D9BD@barnard.edu> Hi folks -- Just a little update: as I was thinking about this this morning, I thought it might be good just to see if we could get a statement directly from the Press about why they cancelled publication. So I've sent a note off to the acquisitions editor named in Tom Hubbard's letter, basically stating what we've heard, saying that we are very concerned about the possibility of censorship, and threatening that if the allegations prove to be true it could have serious implications for whether we decide to continue to do business with the company or any of its subsidiaries. When/if they write back, I'll let you know what they say. I've also sent a note to James May, to whom Tom's original letter was addressed, to see what if any actions the APA is going to take. He seems to be out of town (I got an out-of-office message back), so it may be a few days before I can report anything on that front. Thanks -- Kristina (flying solo because Bryan is digging in the wilds of Greece!) From jonesgs at indiana.edu Thu Jun 4 07:00:34 2009 From: jonesgs at indiana.edu (Jones, Gregory S.) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:00:34 -0400 Subject: [LCC] Journal of Homosexuality related complaint re intellectual freedom In-Reply-To: <29FE579D-DB7C-45E8-9FEE-D1166A41A6EE@barnard.edu> References: <3D190E83FA6906478970A9EDC5C5B9EB129D4B9500@ITCS-ECLS-1-VS3.adsroot.itcs.umich.edu> <2BE0F36D-E3FB-4FE0-A07D-206073901C96@oberlin.edu> <29FE579D-DB7C-45E8-9FEE-D1166A41A6EE@barnard.edu> Message-ID: <20090604100034.8yad3jj4g04okgg4@webmail.iu.edu> Dear all, I also support strong action in this case, especially Kirk's suggestion that we co-opt full support from the APA. This is the latest in a long series of events I have witnessed over the past two years which suggest to me, as a relatively young scholar, that academia is not the refuge of reason and free thought I had once believed it to be, especially when it comes to (homo)sexuality. A conservative backlash, or is this typical? Greg J Quoting kmilnor : > Dear Kirk -- > > How disappointing that this was NOT resolved as it seemed to have > been. I'm inclined for the LCC to take a strong stance, but (as > always!) I serve the will of the members. What do you guys think?? > > klm > > On Jun 4, 2009, at 12:06 AM, Kirk Ormand wrote: > >> To the Lambda Classical Caucus, >> >> Enclosed are two documents (in one .pdf) that pertain to the latest >> chapter in a multi-year conflict. >> >> The short version is this: the Journal of Homosexuality, which is >> now published by Taylor and Francis (who also own the Routledge >> Press imprint) has rather suddenly and without warning cancelled a >> fully refereed and approved special issue that dealt with age- >> differential same-sex love in the West. Three of the essays in the >> volume were to be by classicists. >> >> Needless to say, this raises a rather bleak spectre for those of us >> in the field who work on topics that might be viewed as >> controversial by some segments of the mainstream. While Taylor and >> Francis is a private corporation with the right to publish or not >> publish what they see fit, they are also a press that sells to the >> academic market. If they are going to engage in a homophobic >> editorial policy -- as appears to be the case here -- we scholars >> should carefully evaluate whether or not we are willing to do >> business with them. >> >> The enclosed document raises, I think, several questions for Lambda: >> >> 1) Should we get involved in this fight? I think I will, >> individually; Lambda needs to consider its corporate stance. >> 2) If we do get involved, what kind of actions should we take? some >> possibilities: >> a) letters to Taylor & Francis informing them that we will no >> longer publish, as individuals, with Routledge, nor buy their books >> b) a letter from LCC to Taylor and Francis indicating our corporate >> disapproval of their editorial policy >> c) a letter from LCC to the Professional Matters Committee of the >> APA (and the CSWMG) urging the APA to deny Routledge a booth at the >> convention, given the apparent editorial policy of their parent >> company, which seems to violate the spirit if not the letter of the >> APA Statement on Professional Ethics (see below). >> >> In any case, scholars should know that Routledge is no longer the >> press that it once was. As Tom Hubbard wrote to me in a recent e- >> mail: "It is also important that classicists know that Routledge is >> no longer a safe place to publish cutting-edge sexuality topics >> before someone else wastes their time submitting a book to them only >> to have corporate management overrule the academic editor, >> editorial board, and referees." >> >> These are serious matters, and they demand both due deliberation and >> a certain swiftness of response. I would urge the leadership of >> Lambda to initiate a discussion as soon as is feasible. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Kirk Ormand >> Oberlin College >>> >>> >> <0715_001.pdf> > > _______________________________________________ > members mailing list > members at lambdacc.org > http://lambdacc.org/mailman/listinfo/members_lambdacc.org > From kirk.ormand at oberlin.edu Thu Jun 4 07:28:55 2009 From: kirk.ormand at oberlin.edu (Kirk Ormand) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:28:55 -0400 Subject: [LCC] Journal of Homosexuality related complaint re intellectual freedom In-Reply-To: <20090604100034.8yad3jj4g04okgg4@webmail.iu.edu> References: <3D190E83FA6906478970A9EDC5C5B9EB129D4B9500@ITCS-ECLS-1-VS3.adsroot.itcs.umich.edu> <2BE0F36D-E3FB-4FE0-A07D-206073901C96@oberlin.edu> <29FE579D-DB7C-45E8-9FEE-D1166A41A6EE@barnard.edu> <20090604100034.8yad3jj4g04okgg4@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: For what it's worth, I don't think it's typical. I do think that it's important to note that Taylor & Francis is a private (i.e. non- university) press; they may have different standards, and probably don't get as uppity about academic freedom as we do. It is also worth noting that this is something of a boundary condition. That is, in the original special issue of J of H (several years ago) they were willing to publish a wide range of articles about ancient sexual practice. The one that they balked at was about age-different same- sex relations, or, as it is sometimes known, man-boy love. This is a topic about which the public is notably squeamish, and I'm sure that for the press it raises concerns about child pornography legal charges. (Of course, an awful lot has been published about ancient paederasty; but generally authors don't make too big a point of the fact that we're talking about 40-year old men having sex with 14-year old boys. As long as there's enough vagueness to suggest that the boys might have been 18, or at least 16 (as many of them no doubt were) it doesn't hit the same hot button.) I'm not suggesting that this is justified, and obviously the press should be able to make a distinction between academic investigation of a known social phenomenon and participation in an illegal sexual act -- but, as Gayle Rubin pointed out many years ago, we live in an age of sexual hysteria. Best, Kirk On Jun 4, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Jones, Gregory S. wrote: > Dear all, > > I also support strong action in this case, especially Kirk's > suggestion that we co-opt full support from the APA. This is the > latest in a long series of events I have witnessed over the past > two years which suggest to me, as a relatively young scholar, that > academia is not the refuge of reason and free thought I had once > believed it to be, especially when it comes to (homo)sexuality. A > conservative backlash, or is this typical? > > Greg J > > Quoting kmilnor : > >> Dear Kirk -- >> >> How disappointing that this was NOT resolved as it seemed to have >> been. I'm inclined for the LCC to take a strong stance, but (as >> always!) I serve the will of the members. What do you guys think?? >> >> klm >> >> On Jun 4, 2009, at 12:06 AM, Kirk Ormand wrote: >> >>> To the Lambda Classical Caucus, >>> >>> Enclosed are two documents (in one .pdf) that pertain to the latest >>> chapter in a multi-year conflict. >>> >>> The short version is this: the Journal of Homosexuality, which is >>> now published by Taylor and Francis (who also own the Routledge >>> Press imprint) has rather suddenly and without warning cancelled a >>> fully refereed and approved special issue that dealt with age- >>> differential same-sex love in the West. Three of the essays in the >>> volume were to be by classicists. >>> >>> Needless to say, this raises a rather bleak spectre for those of us >>> in the field who work on topics that might be viewed as >>> controversial by some segments of the mainstream. While Taylor and >>> Francis is a private corporation with the right to publish or not >>> publish what they see fit, they are also a press that sells to the >>> academic market. If they are going to engage in a homophobic >>> editorial policy -- as appears to be the case here -- we scholars >>> should carefully evaluate whether or not we are willing to do >>> business with them. >>> >>> The enclosed document raises, I think, several questions for Lambda: >>> >>> 1) Should we get involved in this fight? I think I will, >>> individually; Lambda needs to consider its corporate stance. >>> 2) If we do get involved, what kind of actions should we take? some >>> possibilities: >>> a) letters to Taylor & Francis informing them that we will no >>> longer publish, as individuals, with Routledge, nor buy their books >>> b) a letter from LCC to Taylor and Francis indicating our corporate >>> disapproval of their editorial policy >>> c) a letter from LCC to the Professional Matters Committee of the >>> APA (and the CSWMG) urging the APA to deny Routledge a booth at the >>> convention, given the apparent editorial policy of their parent >>> company, which seems to violate the spirit if not the letter of the >>> APA Statement on Professional Ethics (see below). >>> >>> In any case, scholars should know that Routledge is no longer the >>> press that it once was. As Tom Hubbard wrote to me in a recent e- >>> mail: "It is also important that classicists know that Routledge is >>> no longer a safe place to publish cutting-edge sexuality topics >>> before someone else wastes their time submitting a book to them only >>> to have corporate management overrule the academic editor, >>> editorial board, and referees." >>> >>> These are serious matters, and they demand both due deliberation and >>> a certain swiftness of response. I would urge the leadership of >>> Lambda to initiate a discussion as soon as is feasible. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Kirk Ormand >>> Oberlin College >>>> >>>> >>> <0715_001.pdf> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> members mailing list >> members at lambdacc.org >> http://lambdacc.org/mailman/listinfo/members_lambdacc.org >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > members mailing list > members at lambdacc.org > http://lambdacc.org/mailman/listinfo/members_lambdacc.org From andrewlear2 at gmail.com Thu Jun 4 08:20:55 2009 From: andrewlear2 at gmail.com (Andrew Lear) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 11:20:55 -0400 Subject: [LCC] Journal of Homosexuality related complaint re intellectual freedom In-Reply-To: References: <3D190E83FA6906478970A9EDC5C5B9EB129D4B9500@ITCS-ECLS-1-VS3.adsroot.itcs.umich.edu> <2BE0F36D-E3FB-4FE0-A07D-206073901C96@oberlin.edu> <29FE579D-DB7C-45E8-9FEE-D1166A41A6EE@barnard.edu> <20090604100034.8yad3jj4g04okgg4@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: <7a8aceec0906040820s7bc3eaa3o40f04b552d283e8b@mail.gmail.com> Hi guys, I just want to add into the discussion (without intending to make any broader point) that Routledge recently published my book on vase-painting, in which I make very clear that eromenoi may have been prepubescent, so.....I guess if I have a point, it's that we shouldn't generalize too much. Andrew On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Kirk Ormand wrote: > For what it's worth, I don't think it's typical. I do think that it's > important to note that Taylor & Francis is a private (i.e. non-university) > press; they may have different standards, and probably don't get as uppity > about academic freedom as we do. ?It is also worth noting that this is > something of a boundary condition. ?That is, in the original special issue > of J of H (several years ago) they were willing to publish a wide range of > articles about ancient sexual practice. ?The one that they balked at was > about age-different same-sex relations, or, as it is sometimes known, > man-boy love. ?This is a topic about which the public is notably squeamish, > and I'm sure that for the press it raises concerns about child pornography > legal charges. > > (Of course, an awful lot has been published about ancient paederasty; but > generally authors don't make too big a point of the fact that we're talking > about 40-year old men having sex with 14-year old boys. As long as there's > enough vagueness to suggest that the boys might have been 18, or at least 16 > (as many of them no doubt were) it doesn't hit the same hot button.) > > I'm not suggesting that this is justified, and obviously the press should be > able to make a distinction between academic investigation of a known social > phenomenon and participation in an illegal sexual act -- but, as Gayle Rubin > pointed out many years ago, we live in an age of sexual hysteria. > > Best, > > Kirk > > On Jun 4, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Jones, Gregory S. wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> I also support strong action in this case, especially Kirk's suggestion >> that we co-opt full support from the APA. ?This is the latest in a long >> series of events I have witnessed over the past two years which suggest to >> me, as a relatively young scholar, that academia is not the refuge of reason >> and free thought I had once believed it to be, especially when it comes to >> (homo)sexuality. ?A conservative backlash, or is this typical? >> >> Greg J >> >> Quoting kmilnor : >> >>> Dear Kirk -- >>> >>> How disappointing that this was NOT resolved as it seemed to have >>> been. I'm inclined for the LCC to take a strong stance, but (as >>> always!) I serve the will of the members. What do you guys think?? >>> >>> klm >>> >>> On Jun 4, 2009, at 12:06 AM, Kirk Ormand wrote: >>> >>>> To the Lambda Classical Caucus, >>>> >>>> Enclosed are two documents (in one .pdf) ?that pertain to the latest >>>> ?chapter in a multi-year conflict. >>>> >>>> The short version is this: the Journal of Homosexuality, which is >>>> now published by Taylor and Francis (who also own the Routledge >>>> Press imprint) has rather suddenly and without warning cancelled a >>>> fully refereed and approved special issue that dealt with age- >>>> differential same-sex love in the West. ?Three of the essays in the >>>> volume were to be by classicists. >>>> >>>> Needless to say, this raises a rather bleak spectre for those of us >>>> in the field who work on topics that might be viewed as >>>> controversial by some segments of the mainstream. ?While Taylor and >>>> Francis is a private corporation with the right to publish or not >>>> publish what they see fit, they are also a press that sells to the >>>> academic market. ?If they are going to engage in a homophobic >>>> editorial policy -- as appears to be the case here -- we scholars >>>> should carefully evaluate whether or not we are willing to do >>>> business with them. >>>> >>>> The enclosed document raises, I think, several questions for Lambda: >>>> >>>> 1) Should we get involved in this fight? ?I think I will, >>>> individually; Lambda needs to consider its corporate stance. >>>> 2) If we do get involved, what kind of actions should we take? some >>>> possibilities: >>>> ? ? ? ?a) letters to Taylor & Francis informing them that we will no >>>> longer publish, as individuals, with Routledge, nor buy their books >>>> ? ? ? ?b) a letter from LCC to Taylor and Francis indicating our >>>> corporate >>>> ?disapproval of their editorial policy >>>> ? ? ? ?c) a letter from LCC to the Professional Matters Committee of the >>>> APA (and the CSWMG) urging the APA to deny Routledge a booth at the >>>> convention, given the apparent editorial policy of their parent >>>> company, which seems to violate the spirit if not the letter of the >>>> APA Statement on Professional Ethics (see below). >>>> >>>> In any case, scholars should know that Routledge is no longer the >>>> press that it once was. ?As Tom Hubbard wrote to me in a recent e- >>>> mail: "It is also important that classicists know that Routledge is >>>> no longer a safe place to publish cutting-edge sexuality topics >>>> before someone else wastes their time submitting a book to them only >>>> ?to have corporate management overrule the academic editor, >>>> editorial ?board, and referees." >>>> >>>> These are serious matters, and they demand both due deliberation and >>>> ?a certain swiftness of response. ?I would urge the leadership of >>>> Lambda to initiate a discussion as soon as is feasible. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Kirk Ormand >>>> Oberlin College >>>>> >>>>> >>>> <0715_001.pdf> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> members mailing list >>> members at lambdacc.org >>> http://lambdacc.org/mailman/listinfo/members_lambdacc.org >>> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> members mailing list >> members at lambdacc.org >> http://lambdacc.org/mailman/listinfo/members_lambdacc.org > > > _______________________________________________ > members mailing list > members at lambdacc.org > http://lambdacc.org/mailman/listinfo/members_lambdacc.org > From rhexter at hampshire.edu Thu Jun 4 08:52:34 2009 From: rhexter at hampshire.edu (Ralph Hexter) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:52:34 -0400 Subject: [LCC] Journal of Homosexuality related complaint re intellectual freedom In-Reply-To: References: <3D190E83FA6906478970A9EDC5C5B9EB129D4B9500@ITCS-ECLS-1-VS3.adsroot.itcs.umich.edu> <2BE0F36D-E3FB-4FE0-A07D-206073901C96@oberlin.edu> <29FE579D-DB7C-45E8-9FEE-D1166A41A6EE@barnard.edu> <20090604100034.8yad3jj4g04okgg4@webmail.iu.edu> Message-ID: <4A27EDC2.8020308@hampshire.edu> Friends: I would note that strictly speaking, every time that an opera company puts on Puccini's *Madama Butterfly,* they are representing an act of age-differential (hetero)sex that would be illegal in many jurisdictions. Never seems to have bothered anyone. More to the specific point: Kirk's and Andrew's points are well taken. As we think about this, we might want to consider whether there is any sense to look to the fuller range of authors who have published with Taylor & Francis on all topics. In a sense, once a press begins to exercise censorship of this sort, it puts into question the integrity of all the works the press publishes. Ralph Hexter Office of the President Hampshire College 893 West St. Amherst MA 01002 413/559-5521 Kirk Ormand wrote: > For what it's worth, I don't think it's typical. I do think that it's > important to note that Taylor & Francis is a private (i.e. > non-university) press; they may have different standards, and probably > don't get as uppity about academic freedom as we do. It is also worth > noting that this is something of a boundary condition. That is, in > the original special issue of J of H (several years ago) they were > willing to publish a wide range of articles about ancient sexual > practice. The one that they balked at was about age-different > same-sex relations, or, as it is sometimes known, man-boy love. This > is a topic about which the public is notably squeamish, and I'm sure > that for the press it raises concerns about child pornography legal > charges. > > (Of course, an awful lot has been published about ancient paederasty; > but generally authors don't make too big a point of the fact that > we're talking about 40-year old men having sex with 14-year old boys. > As long as there's enough vagueness to suggest that the boys might > have been 18, or at least 16 (as many of them no doubt were) it > doesn't hit the same hot button.) > > I'm not suggesting that this is justified, and obviously the press > should be able to make a distinction between academic investigation of > a known social phenomenon and participation in an illegal sexual act > -- but, as Gayle Rubin pointed out many years ago, we live in an age > of sexual hysteria. > > Best, > > Kirk > > On Jun 4, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Jones, Gregory S. wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> I also support strong action in this case, especially Kirk's >> suggestion that we co-opt full support from the APA. This is the >> latest in a long series of events I have witnessed over the past two >> years which suggest to me, as a relatively young scholar, that >> academia is not the refuge of reason and free thought I had once >> believed it to be, especially when it comes to (homo)sexuality. A >> conservative backlash, or is this typical? >> >> Greg J >> >> Quoting kmilnor : >> >>> Dear Kirk -- >>> >>> How disappointing that this was NOT resolved as it seemed to have >>> been. I'm inclined for the LCC to take a strong stance, but (as >>> always!) I serve the will of the members. What do you guys think?? >>> >>> klm >>> >>> On Jun 4, 2009, at 12:06 AM, Kirk Ormand wrote: >>> >>>> To the Lambda Classical Caucus, >>>> >>>> Enclosed are two documents (in one .pdf) that pertain to the latest >>>> chapter in a multi-year conflict. >>>> >>>> The short version is this: the Journal of Homosexuality, which is >>>> now published by Taylor and Francis (who also own the Routledge >>>> Press imprint) has rather suddenly and without warning cancelled a >>>> fully refereed and approved special issue that dealt with age- >>>> differential same-sex love in the West. Three of the essays in the >>>> volume were to be by classicists. >>>> >>>> Needless to say, this raises a rather bleak spectre for those of us >>>> in the field who work on topics that might be viewed as >>>> controversial by some segments of the mainstream. While Taylor and >>>> Francis is a private corporation with the right to publish or not >>>> publish what they see fit, they are also a press that sells to the >>>> academic market. If they are going to engage in a homophobic >>>> editorial policy -- as appears to be the case here -- we scholars >>>> should carefully evaluate whether or not we are willing to do >>>> business with them. >>>> >>>> The enclosed document raises, I think, several questions for Lambda: >>>> >>>> 1) Should we get involved in this fight? I think I will, >>>> individually; Lambda needs to consider its corporate stance. >>>> 2) If we do get involved, what kind of actions should we take? some >>>> possibilities: >>>> a) letters to Taylor & Francis informing them that we will no >>>> longer publish, as individuals, with Routledge, nor buy their books >>>> b) a letter from LCC to Taylor and Francis indicating our >>>> corporate >>>> disapproval of their editorial policy >>>> c) a letter from LCC to the Professional Matters Committee of the >>>> APA (and the CSWMG) urging the APA to deny Routledge a booth at the >>>> convention, given the apparent editorial policy of their parent >>>> company, which seems to violate the spirit if not the letter of the >>>> APA Statement on Professional Ethics (see below). >>>> >>>> In any case, scholars should know that Routledge is no longer the >>>> press that it once was. As Tom Hubbard wrote to me in a recent e- >>>> mail: "It is also important that classicists know that Routledge is >>>> no longer a safe place to publish cutting-edge sexuality topics >>>> before someone else wastes their time submitting a book to them only >>>> to have corporate management overrule the academic editor, >>>> editorial board, and referees." >>>> >>>> These are serious matters, and they demand both due deliberation and >>>> a certain swiftness of response. I would urge the leadership of >>>> Lambda to initiate a discussion as soon as is feasible. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Kirk Ormand >>>> Oberlin College > From dg4 at nyu.edu Thu Jun 4 16:42:50 2009 From: dg4 at nyu.edu (David Greenberg) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:42:50 -0400 Subject: [LCC] information on the Taylor and Francis censorship case Message-ID: As someone who has had some involvement in the censored special issue of the Journal of Homosexuality, I may be able to provide some additional information. The story begins roughly ten years ago when Bruce Rind (then an assistant professor of psychology at Temple University) published several papers co-authored with Philip Tromovich and Robert Bauserman, on the psychological effects on juveniles of sexual contact with adults. The papers were a meta-analysis of previous studies. In these papers they conducted statistical analyses of the findings of other people's research, focusing on studies that used non-clinical samples. They found that sometimes there are damaging psychological effects, but in an appreciable proportion of the cases there are not. The effect sizes were small, and they were especially small for gay boys whose adult partners were male. When Dr. Laura, a right-wing radio personality, learned of this research, she castigated Rind and his co-authors for advocat ing child molesting, which was not the case. None of their publications was a work of advocacy. Conservative "family values" groups raised a further ruckus. As a result, both houses of Congress adopted resolutions condemning the papers. A demand was made of the American Psychological Association that it repudiate the article. It did not do so, but appointed a committee of methodologists to review the work. It said that they had done everything correctly. Rind was barred from teaching graduate courses, and was restricted to teaching beginning undergraduate statistics courses. Then he was denied tenure. The fuss died down, but then was revived a few years ago when a special issue of the Journal of Homosexuality devoted to pederasty in ancient Greece and Rome was being prepared. One of the contributors to that special issue, historian William Percy, asked Rind to write a footnote to his own article, summarizing the work of Rind, Tromovich and Bauserman. The footnote grew to a le ngth where it seemed more appropriate as an appendix to Percy's article, and then it grew further, and it was decided that Rind's contribution would be an article in the Journal. When the table of contents of the forthcoming issue was posted to the web site of the publisher of the journal (Haworth), the family values groups again denounced this, and threatened a boycott of the publisher unless the article were to be removed from the issue. Haworth caved in, and published the special issue without Rind's paper. The fuss died down, but then I was contacted by John De Cecco, emeritus professor of psychology at San Francisco State University. He had been editing the Journal of Homosexuality for many years. He told me that there had been ongoing discussions between Rind and the publisher, that had culminated in an agreement that Rind's expanded paper would have a special issue of JH devoted to it provided that it pass editorial muster. He asked me to read and comment on the paper. I approved it for publication, and made some modest suggestions for revision. Ultimately, Beert Verstraete and De Cecco became the special editor for this issue, and commissioned a number of papers that either comment directly on Rind's work, or deal with themes of sexual relations between men and adolescent boys. I have a paper in the collection, as does classicist Thomas Hubbard. I have read most of the other papers in the collection. None is a work of advocacy. Rind's own paper argues that the institutionalized pederastic relations found in some societies are too incongruent with contemporary Western social arrangements and culture to be acceptable, so that significant change in age-of-consent laws is not going to occur. In the interim, Haworth sold JH to Taylor & Francis. Recently the editor at Taylor & Francis indicated that it would not publish the issue, due to the nature of the subject. A number of us tried to persuade the editor but to no avail. It appears that the decision was made at a higher level, to avoid the protests that might accompany the publication. Book publication is now being sought. Hubbard has joined Verstraete and De Cecco as co-editor. I would be happy to e-mail a copy of my paper, "Here's To You Mr. Robinson: Men Who Have Sexual Relations with Underage Males" to anyone who asks. Some parts of it deal with materials that would be of interest to classicists. - David Greenberg, Sociology Department, New York University From jerise at jerise.com Fri Jun 5 08:14:00 2009 From: jerise at jerise.com (jerise at jerise.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:14:00 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [LCC] Journal of Homosexuality related complaint re intellectual freedom In-Reply-To: <4A27EDC2.8020308@hampshire.edu> References: <3D190E83FA6906478970A9EDC5C5B9EB129D4B9500@ITCS-ECLS-1-VS3.adsroot.itcs.umich.edu> <2BE0F36D-E3FB-4FE0-A07D-206073901C96@oberlin.edu> <29FE579D-DB7C-45E8-9FEE-D1166A41A6EE@barnard.edu> <20090604100034.8yad3jj4g04okgg4@webmail.iu.edu> <4A27EDC2.8020308@hampshire.edu> Message-ID: <49296.63.116.126.82.1244214840.squirrel@server.sustainablewebsites.com> Could we see the documents? Has anyone spoken with the press about this particular issue? I agree that it sounds outrageous. But I also think it's important for us to know that this was the reason the press decided to censor, and get their official words on it (possibly as a way of bringing a court case in the end). greetings from ny! Jeri Fogel > Friends: I would note that strictly speaking, every time that an opera > company puts on Puccini's *Madama Butterfly,* they are representing an > act of age-differential (hetero)sex that would be illegal in many > jurisdictions. Never seems to have bothered anyone. > > More to the specific point: Kirk's and Andrew's points are well taken. > As we think about this, we might want to consider whether there is any > sense to look to the fuller range of authors who have published with > Taylor & Francis on all topics. In a sense, once a press begins to > exercise censorship of this sort, it puts into question the integrity of > all the works the press publishes. > > Ralph Hexter > > > Office of the President > Hampshire College > 893 West St. > Amherst MA 01002 > > 413/559-5521 > > Kirk Ormand wrote: >> For what it's worth, I don't think it's typical. I do think that it's >> important to note that Taylor & Francis is a private (i.e. >> non-university) press; they may have different standards, and probably >> don't get as uppity about academic freedom as we do. It is also worth >> noting that this is something of a boundary condition. That is, in >> the original special issue of J of H (several years ago) they were >> willing to publish a wide range of articles about ancient sexual >> practice. The one that they balked at was about age-different >> same-sex relations, or, as it is sometimes known, man-boy love. This >> is a topic about which the public is notably squeamish, and I'm sure >> that for the press it raises concerns about child pornography legal >> charges. >> >> (Of course, an awful lot has been published about ancient paederasty; >> but generally authors don't make too big a point of the fact that >> we're talking about 40-year old men having sex with 14-year old boys. >> As long as there's enough vagueness to suggest that the boys might >> have been 18, or at least 16 (as many of them no doubt were) it >> doesn't hit the same hot button.) >> >> I'm not suggesting that this is justified, and obviously the press >> should be able to make a distinction between academic investigation of >> a known social phenomenon and participation in an illegal sexual act >> -- but, as Gayle Rubin pointed out many years ago, we live in an age >> of sexual hysteria. >> >> Best, >> >> Kirk >> >> On Jun 4, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Jones, Gregory S. wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I also support strong action in this case, especially Kirk's >>> suggestion that we co-opt full support from the APA. This is the >>> latest in a long series of events I have witnessed over the past two >>> years which suggest to me, as a relatively young scholar, that >>> academia is not the refuge of reason and free thought I had once >>> believed it to be, especially when it comes to (homo)sexuality. A >>> conservative backlash, or is this typical? >>> >>> Greg J >>> >>> Quoting kmilnor : >>> >>>> Dear Kirk -- >>>> >>>> How disappointing that this was NOT resolved as it seemed to have >>>> been. I'm inclined for the LCC to take a strong stance, but (as >>>> always!) I serve the will of the members. What do you guys think?? >>>> >>>> klm >>>> >>>> On Jun 4, 2009, at 12:06 AM, Kirk Ormand wrote: >>>> >>>>> To the Lambda Classical Caucus, >>>>> >>>>> Enclosed are two documents (in one .pdf) that pertain to the latest >>>>> chapter in a multi-year conflict. >>>>> >>>>> The short version is this: the Journal of Homosexuality, which is >>>>> now published by Taylor and Francis (who also own the Routledge >>>>> Press imprint) has rather suddenly and without warning cancelled a >>>>> fully refereed and approved special issue that dealt with age- >>>>> differential same-sex love in the West. Three of the essays in the >>>>> volume were to be by classicists. >>>>> >>>>> Needless to say, this raises a rather bleak spectre for those of us >>>>> in the field who work on topics that might be viewed as >>>>> controversial by some segments of the mainstream. While Taylor and >>>>> Francis is a private corporation with the right to publish or not >>>>> publish what they see fit, they are also a press that sells to the >>>>> academic market. If they are going to engage in a homophobic >>>>> editorial policy -- as appears to be the case here -- we scholars >>>>> should carefully evaluate whether or not we are willing to do >>>>> business with them. >>>>> >>>>> The enclosed document raises, I think, several questions for Lambda: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Should we get involved in this fight? I think I will, >>>>> individually; Lambda needs to consider its corporate stance. >>>>> 2) If we do get involved, what kind of actions should we take? some >>>>> possibilities: >>>>> a) letters to Taylor & Francis informing them that we will no >>>>> longer publish, as individuals, with Routledge, nor buy their books >>>>> b) a letter from LCC to Taylor and Francis indicating our >>>>> corporate >>>>> disapproval of their editorial policy >>>>> c) a letter from LCC to the Professional Matters Committee of the >>>>> APA (and the CSWMG) urging the APA to deny Routledge a booth at the >>>>> convention, given the apparent editorial policy of their parent >>>>> company, which seems to violate the spirit if not the letter of the >>>>> APA Statement on Professional Ethics (see below). >>>>> >>>>> In any case, scholars should know that Routledge is no longer the >>>>> press that it once was. As Tom Hubbard wrote to me in a recent e- >>>>> mail: "It is also important that classicists know that Routledge is >>>>> no longer a safe place to publish cutting-edge sexuality topics >>>>> before someone else wastes their time submitting a book to them only >>>>> to have corporate management overrule the academic editor, >>>>> editorial board, and referees." >>>>> >>>>> These are serious matters, and they demand both due deliberation and >>>>> a certain swiftness of response. I would urge the leadership of >>>>> Lambda to initiate a discussion as soon as is feasible. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Kirk Ormand >>>>> Oberlin College >> > > > _______________________________________________ > members mailing list > members at lambdacc.org > http://lambdacc.org/mailman/listinfo/members_lambdacc.org > From jerise at jerise.com Fri Jun 5 08:25:58 2009 From: jerise at jerise.com (jerise at jerise.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:25:58 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [LCC] Journal of Homosexuality In-Reply-To: <8E05299D-DE25-43FC-8377-F8E10084D9BD@barnard.edu> References: <8E05299D-DE25-43FC-8377-F8E10084D9BD@barnard.edu> Message-ID: <49331.63.116.126.82.1244215558.squirrel@server.sustainablewebsites.com> This sounds great, Kristina. J > Hi folks -- > > Just a little update: as I was thinking about this this morning, I > thought it might be good just to see if we could get a statement > directly from the Press about why they cancelled publication. So I've > sent a note off to the acquisitions editor named in Tom Hubbard's > letter, basically stating what we've heard, saying that we are very > concerned about the possibility of censorship, and threatening that if > the allegations prove to be true it could have serious implications > for whether we decide to continue to do business with the company or > any of its subsidiaries. When/if they write back, I'll let you know > what they say. > > I've also sent a note to James May, to whom Tom's original letter was > addressed, to see what if any actions the APA is going to take. He > seems to be out of town (I got an out-of-office message back), so it > may be a few days before I can report anything on that front. > > Thanks -- > > Kristina (flying solo because Bryan is digging in the wilds of Greece!) > > _______________________________________________ > members mailing list > members at lambdacc.org > http://lambdacc.org/mailman/listinfo/members_lambdacc.org > From kirk.ormand at oberlin.edu Fri Jun 5 08:31:51 2009 From: kirk.ormand at oberlin.edu (Kirk Ormand) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 11:31:51 -0400 Subject: [LCC] Fwd: Taylor and Francis References: Message-ID: <54BF1A9F-88A1-48D1-A963-2284DA18663F@oberlin.edu> I've written Beert Verstaete (one of the editors of the special volume) and asked him to send me the full text of the e-mail from Kathryn Rutz (editor at Taylor & Francis) declining the issue. Here, evidently, is the e-mail in full: > Dear Dr DeCecco and Dr Verstraete: > > After review of the manuscripts of your guest edited special issue > Sexual Intimacy between Adult and Adolescent Males, which was sent > to us > by Jay Harcourt as intended for publication in the Journal of > Homosexuality 56 (5/6), a decision has been made not to publish this > material. We appreciate the opportunity to consider the articles for > publication, but choose not to proceed. > > We are grateful to have had the chance to look at this work, and wish > you the very best. > > Sincerely, > > Kathy > Kathryn Rutz > Acquisitions Editor, Behavioral Science and Social Work > Taylor and Francis Group > 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 800 > Philadelphia, PA 19106 > Tel: 607-222-0169 > Kathryn.rutz at taylorandfrancis.com > Not much to go on there. Prof. Verstaete goes on to describe several phone conversations with Ms. Rutz as follows: > As I mentioned in my letter to the ALA, Rutz would not disclose the > specific reason(s) for the refusal to publish, simply saying in a > subsequent e-mail that T&F had exercised their "judgment." However, in > the one telephone conversation I had with her, she did say that the > management of T&F was aware of the controversy created in the early > Fall > of 2005 by the special issue of the JofH entitled, Same-Sex Desire and > Love in Greco-Roman Antiquity and in the Classical Tradition of the > West > (which was eventually published by the Haworth Press, albeit with > Bruce > Rind's article removed), and that one could "infer" from this that > they > were concerned about a repetition of the controversy. I'm not all that comfortable (personally) leading a charge on the basis of an inference authorized by hearsay. Kristina has, I believe, written Ms. Rutz and asked for clarification; I take it she hasn't heard back yet. It would be good to be in full command of the facts before LCC takes any action. I should also say that Andrew Lear's comments (earlier to this list) are well-taken. We have little leverage in a case like this. While my immediate instinct, if we are convinced that the editorial decision was based on homophobia, is that we should bring financial pressure to bear on Taylor and Francis (i.e. by a boycott of Routledge), this would probably have unintended effects, and not necessarily good ones. Do we want T&F to drop Routledge's line of studies of ancient sexuality? Surely not. But this is one possible result of such action. Much to consider here. Kirk From kmilnor at barnard.edu Fri Jun 5 08:45:22 2009 From: kmilnor at barnard.edu (kmilnor) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 11:45:22 -0400 Subject: [LCC] Fwd: Taylor and Francis In-Reply-To: <54BF1A9F-88A1-48D1-A963-2284DA18663F@oberlin.edu> References: <54BF1A9F-88A1-48D1-A963-2284DA18663F@oberlin.edu> Message-ID: Thanks, Kirk. I have not heard from the press, and may well not if they are intending to maintain their silence on why they cancelled the issue. I think, though, we need to give them a few days. I also would like to wait a bit to hear what, if anything, the powers that are in the APA are going to do. Obviously, we can do something else/in addition to what they do, but I do feel like they might have more clout than we do, and I'd like to present a united front with them if possible. best, klm On Jun 5, 2009, at 11:31 AM, Kirk Ormand wrote: > I've written Beert Verstaete (one of the editors of the special > volume) and asked him to send me the full text of the e-mail from > Kathryn Rutz (editor at Taylor & Francis) declining the issue. > Here, evidently, is the e-mail in full: > >> Dear Dr DeCecco and Dr Verstraete: >> >> After review of the manuscripts of your guest edited special issue >> Sexual Intimacy between Adult and Adolescent Males, which was sent >> to us >> by Jay Harcourt as intended for publication in the Journal of >> Homosexuality 56 (5/6), a decision has been made not to publish this >> material. We appreciate the opportunity to consider the articles for >> publication, but choose not to proceed. >> >> We are grateful to have had the chance to look at this work, and wish >> you the very best. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Kathy >> Kathryn Rutz >> Acquisitions Editor, Behavioral Science and Social Work >> Taylor and Francis Group >> 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 800 >> Philadelphia, PA 19106 >> Tel: 607-222-0169 >> Kathryn.rutz at taylorandfrancis.com >> > Not much to go on there. > > Prof. Verstaete goes on to describe several phone conversations with > Ms. Rutz as follows: >> As I mentioned in my letter to the ALA, Rutz would not disclose the >> specific reason(s) for the refusal to publish, simply saying in a >> subsequent e-mail that T&F had exercised their "judgment." However, >> in >> the one telephone conversation I had with her, she did say that the >> management of T&F was aware of the controversy created in the early >> Fall >> of 2005 by the special issue of the JofH entitled, Same-Sex Desire >> and >> Love in Greco-Roman Antiquity and in the Classical Tradition of the >> West >> (which was eventually published by the Haworth Press, albeit with >> Bruce >> Rind's article removed), and that one could "infer" from this that >> they >> were concerned about a repetition of the controversy. > > I'm not all that comfortable (personally) leading a charge on the > basis of an inference authorized by hearsay. > > Kristina has, I believe, written Ms. Rutz and asked for > clarification; I take it she hasn't heard back yet. It would be > good to be in full command of the facts before LCC takes any action. > > I should also say that Andrew Lear's comments (earlier to this list) > are well-taken. We have little leverage in a case like this. While > my immediate instinct, if we are convinced that the editorial > decision was based on homophobia, is that we should bring financial > pressure to bear on Taylor and Francis (i.e. by a boycott of > Routledge), this would probably have unintended effects, and not > necessarily good ones. Do we want T&F to drop Routledge's line of > studies of ancient sexuality? Surely not. But this is one possible > result of such action. > > Much to consider here. > > Kirk > > > > > _______________________________________________ > members mailing list > members at lambdacc.org > http://lambdacc.org/mailman/listinfo/members_lambdacc.org From mbroder at gc.cuny.edu Fri Jun 5 08:47:58 2009 From: mbroder at gc.cuny.edu (Michael Broder) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 11:47:58 -0400 Subject: [LCC] Fwd: Taylor and Francis In-Reply-To: <54BF1A9F-88A1-48D1-A963-2284DA18663F@oberlin.edu> References: <54BF1A9F-88A1-48D1-A963-2284DA18663F@oberlin.edu> Message-ID: <007e01c9e5f5$02373310$06a59930$@cuny.edu> You in-career classicists are all much more savvy about this than I am, but could we explore a special issue of TAPA? Michael -----Original Message----- From: members-bounces at lambdacc.org [mailto:members-bounces at lambdacc.org] On Behalf Of Kirk Ormand Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 11:32 AM To: LambdaCC Subject: [LCC] Fwd: Taylor and Francis I've written Beert Verstaete (one of the editors of the special volume) and asked him to send me the full text of the e-mail from Kathryn Rutz (editor at Taylor & Francis) declining the issue. Here, evidently, is the e-mail in full: > Dear Dr DeCecco and Dr Verstraete: > > After review of the manuscripts of your guest edited special issue > Sexual Intimacy between Adult and Adolescent Males, which was sent > to us > by Jay Harcourt as intended for publication in the Journal of > Homosexuality 56 (5/6), a decision has been made not to publish this > material. We appreciate the opportunity to consider the articles for > publication, but choose not to proceed. > > We are grateful to have had the chance to look at this work, and wish > you the very best. > > Sincerely, > > Kathy > Kathryn Rutz > Acquisitions Editor, Behavioral Science and Social Work > Taylor and Francis Group > 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 800 > Philadelphia, PA 19106 > Tel: 607-222-0169 > Kathryn.rutz at taylorandfrancis.com > Not much to go on there. Prof. Verstaete goes on to describe several phone conversations with Ms. Rutz as follows: > As I mentioned in my letter to the ALA, Rutz would not disclose the > specific reason(s) for the refusal to publish, simply saying in a > subsequent e-mail that T&F had exercised their "judgment." However, in > the one telephone conversation I had with her, she did say that the > management of T&F was aware of the controversy created in the early > Fall > of 2005 by the special issue of the JofH entitled, Same-Sex Desire and > Love in Greco-Roman Antiquity and in the Classical Tradition of the > West > (which was eventually published by the Haworth Press, albeit with > Bruce > Rind's article removed), and that one could "infer" from this that > they > were concerned about a repetition of the controversy. I'm not all that comfortable (personally) leading a charge on the basis of an inference authorized by hearsay. Kristina has, I believe, written Ms. Rutz and asked for clarification; I take it she hasn't heard back yet. It would be good to be in full command of the facts before LCC takes any action. I should also say that Andrew Lear's comments (earlier to this list) are well-taken. We have little leverage in a case like this. While my immediate instinct, if we are convinced that the editorial decision was based on homophobia, is that we should bring financial pressure to bear on Taylor and Francis (i.e. by a boycott of Routledge), this would probably have unintended effects, and not necessarily good ones. Do we want T&F to drop Routledge's line of studies of ancient sexuality? Surely not. But this is one possible result of such action. Much to consider here. Kirk _______________________________________________ members mailing list members at lambdacc.org http://lambdacc.org/mailman/listinfo/members_lambdacc.org From bmcman at optonline.net Fri Jun 5 08:57:50 2009 From: bmcman at optonline.net (Barbara F. McManus) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:57:50 -0400 Subject: [LCC] Fwd: Taylor and Francis In-Reply-To: References: <54BF1A9F-88A1-48D1-A963-2284DA18663F@oberlin.edu> Message-ID: <4A29407E.1090604@optonline.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From phileleutheros at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 12:16:56 2009 From: phileleutheros at gmail.com (Terrence Lockyer) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 21:16:56 +0200 Subject: [LCC] Fwd: Taylor and Francis References: <54BF1A9F-88A1-48D1-A963-2284DA18663F@oberlin.edu> <007e01c9e5f5$02373310$06a59930$@cuny.edu> Message-ID: Michael Broder wrote: : You in-career classicists are all much more : savvy about this than I am, but could we : explore a special issue of TAPA? I suspect the papers that are strictly classical would find no especial difficulty in being published in any number of classical periodicals; but evidently these were only a part of the volume as planned, and non-classical materials would find no ready home in a discipline-specific classical journal. Ralph Hexter wrote: : Friends: I would note that strictly speaking, : every time that an opera company puts on : Puccini's *Madama Butterfly,* they are : representing an act of age-differential : (hetero)sex that would be illegal in many : jurisdictions. Never seems to have bothered : anyone. to say nothing of /Romeo and Juliet/ (see 1.3.18-23). Terrence Lockyer Johannesburg, South Africa From lockyert at mweb.co.za Fri Jun 5 13:40:44 2009 From: lockyert at mweb.co.za (Terrence Lockyer) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 22:40:44 +0200 Subject: [LCC] Fwd: Taylor and Francis References: <54BF1A9F-88A1-48D1-A963-2284DA18663F@oberlin.edu><007e01c9e5f5$02373310$06a59930$@cuny.edu> Message-ID: <5946F0D43C574F9A9BBAE0BAF60945CB@olorin> I wrote: : I suspect the papers that are strictly classical would : find no especial difficulty in being published in any : number of classical periodicals; but evidently these : were only a part of the volume as planned, ... . With this in mind, perhaps someone more in the know should draft a report about this for the H-Net History of Sexuality list, which serves a different (and broader in disciplinary terms, if not others) constituency than LCC, and might also be an appropriate place to discuss the issues and responses. Terrence Lockyer Johannesburg, South Africa From mjanan at duke.edu Fri Jun 5 17:40:22 2009 From: mjanan at duke.edu (Micaela Janan) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 20:40:22 -0400 Subject: [LCC] Fwd: Taylor and Francis In-Reply-To: <54BF1A9F-88A1-48D1-A963-2284DA18663F@oberlin.edu> References: <54BF1A9F-88A1-48D1-A963-2284DA18663F@oberlin.edu> Message-ID: What if we put the idea of a boycott on ice for the moment, but wrote letters to T&F saying that the cancellation "gives the appearance of" bowing to blinkered conservatism out of fear the subject matter would prove too controversial? That doesn't infer anything about anyone's motives for cancellation, it only reads the semiotics of the situation. Micaela Micaela Janan Associate Professor Classical Studies Department Duke University 233 Allen Building Box 90103 Durham, NC 27708-0103 (919) 684-2257 On Jun 5, 2009, at 11:31 AM, Kirk Ormand wrote: > I've written Beert Verstaete (one of the editors of the special > volume) and asked him to send me the full text of the e-mail from > Kathryn Rutz (editor at Taylor & Francis) declining the issue. > Here, evidently, is the e-mail in full: > >> Dear Dr DeCecco and Dr Verstraete: >> >> After review of the manuscripts of your guest edited special issue >> Sexual Intimacy between Adult and Adolescent Males, which was sent >> to us >> by Jay Harcourt as intended for publication in the Journal of >> Homosexuality 56 (5/6), a decision has been made not to publish this >> material. We appreciate the opportunity to consider the articles for >> publication, but choose not to proceed. >> >> We are grateful to have had the chance to look at this work, and wish >> you the very best. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Kathy >> Kathryn Rutz >> Acquisitions Editor, Behavioral Science and Social Work >> Taylor and Francis Group >> 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 800 >> Philadelphia, PA 19106 >> Tel: 607-222-0169 >> Kathryn.rutz at taylorandfrancis.com >> > Not much to go on there. > > Prof. Verstaete goes on to describe several phone conversations > with Ms. Rutz as follows: >> As I mentioned in my letter to the ALA, Rutz would not disclose the >> specific reason(s) for the refusal to publish, simply saying in a >> subsequent e-mail that T&F had exercised their "judgment." >> However, in >> the one telephone conversation I had with her, she did say that the >> management of T&F was aware of the controversy created in the >> early Fall >> of 2005 by the special issue of the JofH entitled, Same-Sex Desire >> and >> Love in Greco-Roman Antiquity and in the Classical Tradition of >> the West >> (which was eventually published by the Haworth Press, albeit with >> Bruce >> Rind's article removed), and that one could "infer" from this that >> they >> were concerned about a repetition of the controversy. > > I'm not all that comfortable (personally) leading a charge on the > basis of an inference authorized by hearsay. > > Kristina has, I believe, written Ms. Rutz and asked for > clarification; I take it she hasn't heard back yet. It would be > good to be in full command of the facts before LCC takes any action. > > I should also say that Andrew Lear's comments (earlier to this > list) are well-taken. We have little leverage in a case like this. > While my immediate instinct, if we are convinced that the editorial > decision was based on homophobia, is that we should bring financial > pressure to bear on Taylor and Francis (i.e. by a boycott of > Routledge), this would probably have unintended effects, and not > necessarily good ones. Do we want T&F to drop Routledge's line of > studies of ancient sexuality? Surely not. But this is one > possible result of such action. > > Much to consider here. > > Kirk > > > > > _______________________________________________ > members mailing list > members at lambdacc.org > http://lambdacc.org/mailman/listinfo/members_lambdacc.org From jerise at jerise.com Sat Jun 6 15:13:20 2009 From: jerise at jerise.com (jerise at jerise.com) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 17:13:20 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [LCC] Fwd: Taylor and Francis In-Reply-To: References: <54BF1A9F-88A1-48D1-A963-2284DA18663F@oberlin.edu> Message-ID: <50235.66.3.96.4.1244326400.squirrel@server.sustainablewebsites.com> I think this sounds like a good idea. Jeri > What if we put the idea of a boycott on ice for the moment, but wrote > letters to T&F saying that the cancellation "gives the appearance of" > bowing to blinkered conservatism out of fear the subject matter would > prove too controversial? That doesn't infer anything about anyone's > motives for cancellation, it only reads the semiotics of the situation. > > Micaela > > Micaela Janan > Associate Professor > Classical Studies Department > Duke University > 233 Allen Building > Box 90103 > Durham, NC 27708-0103 > (919) 684-2257 > > > > On Jun 5, 2009, at 11:31 AM, Kirk Ormand wrote: > >> I've written Beert Verstaete (one of the editors of the special >> volume) and asked him to send me the full text of the e-mail from >> Kathryn Rutz (editor at Taylor & Francis) declining the issue. >> Here, evidently, is the e-mail in full: >> >>> Dear Dr DeCecco and Dr Verstraete: >>> >>> After review of the manuscripts of your guest edited special issue >>> Sexual Intimacy between Adult and Adolescent Males, which was sent >>> to us >>> by Jay Harcourt as intended for publication in the Journal of >>> Homosexuality 56 (5/6), a decision has been made not to publish this >>> material. We appreciate the opportunity to consider the articles for >>> publication, but choose not to proceed. >>> >>> We are grateful to have had the chance to look at this work, and wish >>> you the very best. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> Kathy >>> Kathryn Rutz >>> Acquisitions Editor, Behavioral Science and Social Work >>> Taylor and Francis Group >>> 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 800 >>> Philadelphia, PA 19106 >>> Tel: 607-222-0169 >>> Kathryn.rutz at taylorandfrancis.com >>> >> Not much to go on there. >> >> Prof. Verstaete goes on to describe several phone conversations >> with Ms. Rutz as follows: >>> As I mentioned in my letter to the ALA, Rutz would not disclose the >>> specific reason(s) for the refusal to publish, simply saying in a >>> subsequent e-mail that T&F had exercised their "judgment." >>> However, in >>> the one telephone conversation I had with her, she did say that the >>> management of T&F was aware of the controversy created in the >>> early Fall >>> of 2005 by the special issue of the JofH entitled, Same-Sex Desire >>> and >>> Love in Greco-Roman Antiquity and in the Classical Tradition of >>> the West >>> (which was eventually published by the Haworth Press, albeit with >>> Bruce >>> Rind's article removed), and that one could "infer" from this that >>> they >>> were concerned about a repetition of the controversy. >> >> I'm not all that comfortable (personally) leading a charge on the >> basis of an inference authorized by hearsay. >> >> Kristina has, I believe, written Ms. Rutz and asked for >> clarification; I take it she hasn't heard back yet. It would be >> good to be in full command of the facts before LCC takes any action. >> >> I should also say that Andrew Lear's comments (earlier to this >> list) are well-taken. We have little leverage in a case like this. >> While my immediate instinct, if we are convinced that the editorial >> decision was based on homophobia, is that we should bring financial >> pressure to bear on Taylor and Francis (i.e. by a boycott of >> Routledge), this would probably have unintended effects, and not >> necessarily good ones. Do we want T&F to drop Routledge's line of >> studies of ancient sexuality? Surely not. But this is one >> possible result of such action. >> >> Much to consider here. >> >> Kirk >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> members mailing list >> members at lambdacc.org >> http://lambdacc.org/mailman/listinfo/members_lambdacc.org > > > _______________________________________________ > members mailing list > members at lambdacc.org > http://lambdacc.org/mailman/listinfo/members_lambdacc.org > From kirk.ormand at oberlin.edu Fri Jun 12 08:39:18 2009 From: kirk.ormand at oberlin.edu (Kirk Ormand) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:39:18 -0400 Subject: [LCC] More on Taylor & Francis Message-ID: For those who haven't seen it, a story in Inside Higher Ed., with some quotations from Kristina Milnor, Tom Hubbard, and Beert Verstraete, among others. Kirk http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/11/publisher From lockyert at mweb.co.za Sun Jun 21 05:28:43 2009 From: lockyert at mweb.co.za (Terrence Lockyer) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:28:43 +0200 Subject: [LCC] Another review of Davidson, Greeks and Greek Love Message-ID: <9147550ADC924E3CA6CC9CDADCFD48D0@olorin> Michael Dirda has a fairly uncritical review of the US edition of James Davidson's /The Greeks and Greek Love/ (New York : Random House 2009; original edition London : Weidenfeld & Nicolson 2007) in the Washington Post at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061703407.html I do wonder why the original subtitle ("A radical reappraisal of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece") has been dropped in favour of such an anodyne and inaccurately non-descriptive new one for US audiences ("A Bold New Exploration of the Ancient World"). Terrence Lockyer Johannesburg, South Africa From halperin at umich.edu Sun Jun 21 07:56:18 2009 From: halperin at umich.edu (Halperin, David) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 10:56:18 -0400 Subject: [LCC] Another review of Davidson, Greeks and Greek Love In-Reply-To: <9147550ADC924E3CA6CC9CDADCFD48D0@olorin> References: <9147550ADC924E3CA6CC9CDADCFD48D0@olorin> Message-ID: <3D190E83FA6906478970A9EDC5C5B9EB129E86DF25@ITCS-ECLS-1-VS3.adsroot.itcs.umich.edu> It's astonishing to read the views now casually ascribed to Dover on Davidson's say-so. -----Original Message----- From: members-bounces at lambdacc.org [mailto:members-bounces at lambdacc.org] On Behalf Of Terrence Lockyer Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 8:29 AM To: History of Sexuality; LambdaCC Subject: [LCC] Another review of Davidson, Greeks and Greek Love Michael Dirda has a fairly uncritical review of the US edition of James Davidson's /The Greeks and Greek Love/ (New York : Random House 2009; original edition London : Weidenfeld & Nicolson 2007) in the Washington Post at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061703407.html I do wonder why the original subtitle ("A radical reappraisal of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece") has been dropped in favour of such an anodyne and inaccurately non-descriptive new one for US audiences ("A Bold New Exploration of the Ancient World"). Terrence Lockyer Johannesburg, South Africa _______________________________________________ members mailing list members at lambdacc.org http://lambdacc.org/mailman/listinfo/members_lambdacc.org From dtd916 at mindspring.com Sun Jun 21 11:23:03 2009 From: dtd916 at mindspring.com (Robert T. White) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:23:03 -0400 Subject: [LCC] Another review of Davidson, Greeks and Greek Love In-Reply-To: <3D190E83FA6906478970A9EDC5C5B9EB129E86DF25@ITCS-ECLS-1-VS3.adsroot.itcs.u mich.edu> References: <9147550ADC924E3CA6CC9CDADCFD48D0@olorin> <3D190E83FA6906478970A9EDC5C5B9EB129E86DF25@ITCS-ECLS-1-VS3.adsroot.itcs.u mich.edu> Message-ID: At some point (Today? Tomorrow?) the Plain Dealer may put online a review of Davidson's book by John Kappes at from today's print edition. Why is it not online now? Good question. Why was it printed at all? Probably as an excuse to run over it a picture of the Cleveland Museum of Art's Apollo Sauroktonos as CMA celebrates the opening of its new East Wing (big event here, apparently) The review itself, though, is fairly explicit about the subject matter; the reviewer, however, implies that the "A Bold New..." subtitle is Davidson's idea... Bob White >Michael Dirda has a fairly uncritical review of the US edition of >James Davidson's /The Greeks and Greek Love/ (New York : Random >House 2009; original edition London : Weidenfeld & Nicolson >2007) in the Washington Post at > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061703407.html > >I do wonder why the original subtitle ("A radical reappraisal of >Homosexuality in Ancient Greece") has been dropped in favour of >such an anodyne and inaccurately non-descriptive new one for US >audiences ("A Bold New Exploration of the Ancient World"). > > >Terrence Lockyer >Johannesburg, South Africa > -- Robert T. White Shaker Heights HS Shaker Heights OH dtd916 at mindspring.com white_r at shaker.org From lockyert at mweb.co.za Tue Jun 23 04:06:22 2009 From: lockyert at mweb.co.za (Terrence Lockyer) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:06:22 +0200 Subject: [LCC] Another review of Davidson, Greeks and Greek Love References: <9147550ADC924E3CA6CC9CDADCFD48D0@olorin><3D190E83FA6906478970A9EDC5C5B9EB129E86DF25@ITCS-ECLS-1-VS3.adsroot.itcs.umich.edu> Message-ID: <5269F6905E974BE794EAC880CB2BFA2F@olorin> John Kappes' review of Davidson for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, mentioned by Robert T. White on LCC, is now online over two pages at http://www.cleveland.com/bookreviews/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/entertainment-1/124574587267390.xml&coll=2 or http://www.cleveland.com/bookreviews/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/entertainment-1/124574605567390.xml&coll=2 which are long, so you can also use http://tinyurl.com/muvn79 or http://tinyurl.com/kqb36o Not sure why there are two URLs for what seems to be the same content, or why the formatting was odd at the time I visited. Terrence Lockyer Johannesburg, South Africa From dtd916 at mindspring.com Tue Jun 23 11:46:58 2009 From: dtd916 at mindspring.com (Robert T. White) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:46:58 -0400 Subject: [LCC] Another review of Davidson, Greeks and Greek Love In-Reply-To: <5269F6905E974BE794EAC880CB2BFA2F@olorin> References: <9147550ADC924E3CA6CC9CDADCFD48D0@olorin><3D190E83FA6906478970A9EDC5C5B9EB 129E86DF25@ITCS-ECLS-1-VS3.adsroot.itcs.umich.edu> <5269F6905E974BE794EAC880CB2BFA2F@olorin> Message-ID: TL scrispsit: >Not sure why there are two URLs for what seems to be the same >content, or why the formatting was odd at the time I visited. I must admit it looks much better now here than at both the URLs Terence gave! Bob White -- Robert T. White Shaker Heights HS Shaker Heights OH dtd916 at mindspring.com white_r at shaker.org From blondell at u.washington.edu Tue Jun 23 12:02:23 2009 From: blondell at u.washington.edu (Ruby) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:02:23 -0700 Subject: [LCC] Another review of Davidson, Greeks and Greek Love In-Reply-To: References: <9147550ADC924E3CA6CC9CDADCFD48D0@olorin><3D190E83FA6906478970A9EDC5C5B9EB 129E86DF25@ITCS-ECLS-1-VS3.adsroot.itcs.umich.edu> <5269F6905E974BE794EAC880CB2BFA2F@olorin> Message-ID: <4A4126BF.20209@u.washington.edu> Again, the presentation of "Dover" via Davidson, and of Davidson's "innovations" vis a\ vis Dover, is mind-boggling! Robert T. White wrote: > TL scrispsit: > >> Not sure why there are two URLs for what seems to be the same >> content, or why the formatting was odd at the time I visited. > > I must admit it looks much better now here than at both the URLs Terence > gave! > > > > Bob White From dkamen at u.washington.edu Tue Jun 23 12:46:08 2009 From: dkamen at u.washington.edu (Deborah Kamen) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:46:08 -0700 Subject: [LCC] Iris: call for submissions Message-ID: <4021203D-3E16-48D3-BA9F-764195D455C6@u.washington.edu> Hi all, Planning ahead for the next issue of Iris, the LCC newsletter... 1) Issues of Iris will now include a list of recent academic publications by LCC members. Please submit any titles you'd like me to list! 2) For the next issue--in honor of the upcoming 20-year anniversary of LCC--I'd like to solicit readers' top 10 lists of "the best queer books of the past 20 years," with a focus on books that are either by classicists or particularly useful for classicists. If you're interested, please submit your own list, ideally annotated with one or two sentences explaining why you chose each title. 3) I'd also appreciate any other news, calls for papers, etc. relevant to the LCC mission. If you could send your contributions to dkamen at u.washington.edu by early August, that would be great! thanks, Deb Kamen Editor, Iris Deborah Kamen Assistant Professor Department of Classics University of Washington 218 Denny Hall, Box 353110 Seattle WA 98195 From dkamen at u.washington.edu Wed Jun 24 16:31:17 2009 From: dkamen at u.washington.edu (Deborah Kamen) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:31:17 -0700 Subject: [LCC] Iris (continued) Message-ID: Hi all, As a clarification to my earlier email: when I asked for submissions of recent publications by LCC members, I mean anything published in the past 5 years. And by 'anything,' I mean anything academic; it doesn't have to relate to gender or sexuality. take care, Deb Deborah Kamen Assistant Professor Department of Classics University of Washington 218 Denny Hall, Box 353110 Seattle WA 98195