[LCC] Journal of Homosexuality related complaint re intellectual freedom

[Kirk Ormand]

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 <kmilnor at 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><mime-attachment.html>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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