Burawoy letter & President Portes response

Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 16:45:14 -0400
From: ASA Chair Link <chairlink@asanet.org>
Subject: CHAIRLINK JUNE 30, 1999

CHAIRLINK JUNE 30, 1999


BURAWOY RESIGNS FROM ASA PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE; ASA PRESIDENT PORTES
RESPONDS
A letter from Michael Burawoy resigning from the ASA Publications Committee
has been circulated over a number of listservs.  That letter and a response
from President Portes are reprinted here.

 
********************************
BURAWOY RESIGNS FROM ASA PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE; ASA PRESIDENT PORTES
RESPONDS

The following letter from Michael Burawoy has circulated on a number of
listservs since June 25.  President Portes asked that his response be put in
CHAIRLINK as well.  Both letters will appear in the July-August issue of
FOOTNOTES.

June 15, 1999

President Alejandro Portes
Department of Sociology
Princeton University
Princeton 08544-1010


Dear President Portes:

         Since late February, I and my colleagues on the Publications
Committee have been wrestling with a response to Council's peremptory
reversal of our recommendations for the editor of the American Sociological
Review. As you know, we sent forward two candidates; Council rejected both
and installed its own. This complete reversal of the appointment decision of
the Publications Committee, an elected body representative of the
membership, is unprecedented in the history of the association. I have
listened to you and my colleagues on the Publications Committee but I still
find resignation the only appropriate response.

         While Council was formally within its rights to over-rule the
Publications Committee, this was nonetheless an egregious violation of
substantive accountability, rendering our extensive work null and void.
Council did not explain its action, nor did it request a consultation with
us regarding our choice, nor did it return the appointment to our committee
for reconsideration and/or further recommendations. It simply chose a
different editor, based on a short discussion in the midst of a whole host
of other business.  What is the point of our ongoing explorations of the
trajectory of each journal, our decisions about how to insure their
continued high quality, our careful examination of each candidate, and then
our lengthy deliberations, if Council summarily overturns them?

         Only two years ago the membership was asked whether the
Publications Committee should be appointed by Council. The membership voted
to continue the practice of electing the Publications Committee. I take this
to be a mandate to maintain our independence of Council. The membership
should know that their injunction has been ignored. To keep silent would be
to compound the already flagrant transgression of substantive democracy.

         I have listened to those who have argued that making the membership
aware that Council had over-ridden the recommendations of the Publications
Committee would violate the confidentiality of the process and the rights of
candidates to anonymity. It will be known that new editors of the ASR were
not chosen by the Publications Committee and that therefore their
appointment is tainted. I agree that confidentiality should be protected but
not at the cost of keeping members ignorant of Council's thwarting their
determination to be represented by an independent Publications Committee. I
break the confidentiality rule because Council unilaterally suspended the
normal rules of democratic decision making.

I was elected to the Publications Committee to reflect a variety of
perspectives current in our discipline, and to speak for the diverse
interests of its membership. In our deliberations we were following the
directives of Council itself which several years ago urged the Publications
Committee to insure the openness of the American Sociological Review as our
flagship journal. Yet as soon as we recommend distinguished editors with new
visions that we believe would enrich our discipline, we are arbitrarily
over-ruled without consultation, discussion or dialogue.

I have every confidence that Professors Wilson and Camic will do an
excellent job as editors of the American Sociological Review but, through no
fault of their own, it will not be one that reflects the Publications
Committee's efforts to carry out its mandate. I can find no other response
but to publicly resign forthwith from the Publications Committee.

Yours Sincerely


Michael Burawoy
Department of Sociology
University of California, Berkeley

cc.Members Council
     Members of the Publications Committee
     Professor Franklin Wilson
     Professor Charles Camic

				**********************

TO:	Members of the American Sociological Association

FROM:   Alejandro Portes, ASA President

SUBJECT:	Consequences of Letter of Resignation by Professor Michael
Burawoy

DATE:	June 30, 1999

Professor Michael Burawoy has recently circulated a letter impugning the
selection of the new editors of the American Sociological Review.  In
violation of the existing bylaws of the American Sociological Association,
the letter divulges details of the selection process that were meant to be
confidential for the protection of colleagues who have advanced their
candidacies for editorial positions.  The letter makes allegations that
represent the author's personal views, but are not substantiated by existing
ASA rules of governance.  These rules specify that the Publications
Committee makes recommendations for the selection of new editors, but that
the final decision rests with the elected members of Council.

The recent election of all new editors was conducted in full compliance with
existing rules.  Recommendations by the Publications Committee and final
decisions by Council were arrived at by open majority votes.  Impartial
procedure does not require unanimity in such votes and the existence of
other deserving candidates in no way invalidates the legitimacy of the
selection.  Most Council members deemed the joint proposal submitted by
Professors Charles Camic and Franklin Wilson as the best on the basis of its
merit and promise for the future of ASR.

Professor Burawoy has resigned from the Publications Committee because he
disagrees with this decision.  He has the right to do so.  He is equally
entitled to propose changes in the selection procedures and lead a drive to
that effect.  He does not have the prerogative, however, of unilaterally
breaking existing rules and, in the process, calling into question the
legitimacy of duly selected editors.  When becoming part of the Publications
Committee, he, like all officials, agreed to abide by a set of rules and
regulations sent to him upon election.

This breach of confidentiality has jeopardized the integrity of the
selection process and has placed the new editors of ASR in a difficult
position through no fault of their own.  Existing rules of governance are
not an idle bureaucratic constraint.  They embody the very spirit of an
equitable and democratic process.  Without them, the very existence of this
or any other professional association would be compromised.  This is the
crux of the problem in this case.

In light of these events, I have taken the following steps:

*	I have accepted Burawoy's resignation from the Publications
Committee.
*	I have concurred with the Editor of Footnotes to publish the Burawoy
letter.  The letter has been circulated so widely as to make the issue of
confidentiality moot at this point.
*	I have communicated with Professors Camic and Wilson to reaffirm the
legitimacy of their selection and ASA's support for them in their new
editorial role.
*	I have asked Council to review Burawoy's letter both for the
situation it created and its substantive content.  As a senior scholar in
the field, Professor Burawoy is optimally situated to propose changes meant
to improve our rules of governance.  This could have been done without the
harm produced by violation of the bylaws.

Editor's note: See also the Council minutes on pages 13-15 of the
July-August issue of Footnotes.