|
|
|
UNIVERSITY PRESS AUTONOMY
May 10, 2002
SUMMARYThis open letter, sent to Mark G. Yudof, president of the University of Minnesota, criticizes a decision to conduct an external review of University of Minnesota Press editorial decision-making in response to criticism of a book on juveniles and sexuality by Judith Levine. The letter asserts that the timing of the review sent wrong messages. Among those wrong messages was that the Press must be mindful of public objections to the issues and ideas in its books. The letter reminds President Yudof that university presses, even more than other publishers, have a responsibility to promote full and free inquiry and expression in the quest by us all, as individuals and as society, for better understandings and for truth.
Society of Academic Authors
Winona, Minnesota 55987
May 10, 2002
President Mark G. Yudof
University of Minnesota
202 Morrill Hall
100 Church Street S.E.
Minneapolis MN 55455
Dear President Yudof:
At the Society of Academic Authors we have watched in alarm as recent events unfolded at the University of Minnesota Press. With news that the Press would publish Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex by Judith Levine, critics mounted a campaign against not only the book but the Press. These critics castigated the book as morally improper for dealing with the subject of juvenile sexuality. Some went so far, irresponsibly and erroneously, to say that Judith Levine advocated pedophilia. Explicitly responding to these critics, your administration established an external committee to review how the University of Minnesota Press chooses books for publication.
The timing of this review sends wrong messages. It can be perceived as nothing but a slap at fundamental values that we academic authors share and that, we had assumed, the prestigious University of Minnesota shared too. The effect on the Press can only be deleterious. How could the managers and editorial board members not feel a chilling effect? Amid criticism for a book on a controversial subject, they suddenly find themselves subjected to intense scrutiny.
Our colleagues with the Free Expression Network have written separately, saying that this review at this time "invites future attempts at intellectual blackmail." That too is our concern. The malinformed and wrong-headed critics of the decision to publish Judith Levine's work are taking comfort in the review that your administration has ordered. As if that weren't serious enough, these people are encouraged to step up their campaign to squelch other academic works that don't coincide with their values.
The role of a university press is sacred in a society that means to better understand itself and define its values through continuing re-examination of widely held views. University presses, even more than other publishers, must encourage learning and promote inquiry, no matter how unpopular the subject or even how outlandish a hypothesis. We are reminded that Galileo's idea that the world was spherical was outlandish to many at the time and that there were calls to censor him. Would the University of Minnesota Press have faced up to the criticism and published Galileo? We would hope so. Would the University of Minnesota Press, considering the harsh light the current review is casting, publish Judith Levine's next work on a controversial subject? We cannot, of course, answer our hypothetical question. But the fact that the Press' editorial decision-making process is under this current review does not bespeak a fundamental commitment to academic freedom of inquiry.
We ask that you take several actions. First, call off the external review. Second, issue a statement of support for an independent and politically autonomous editorial review process at the University of Minnesota Press. Third, in the spirit of promoting dialogue on the great and defining social issues of our time, establish forums to explore the issues raised by Judith Levine's work.
These steps would take attention away from the issue as it has been framed, whether the Press should have published the book. That should never have been an issue for a university. These three steps would shift the dialogue away from editorial decision-making to what should be the issue, whether the ideas in the book have merit.
A great university is known for the dialogue that it promotes and thereby enriches the marketplace of ideas. The issue should never be how ideas, good or bad, got into the marketplace.
Sincerely,
John Vivian
For the Society of Academic Authors |
|
|
YOUR
VIEWS
The Society of Academic Authors invites members to comment on authoring issues:
editor@sa2.info |
|
