[LCC] Journal of Homosexuality related complaint re intellectual freedom

Fri Jun 5 08:14:00 PDT 2009

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 <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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> members mailing list
> members at lambdacc.org
> http://lambdacc.org/mailman/listinfo/members_lambdacc.org
>