[LCC] Journal of Homosexuality related complaint re intellectual freedom

[Ralph Hexter]

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 <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 
>