TO: ALL ASA MEMBERS
The ASA Business Meeting on August 9th is OPEN to ALL Members.
It will be held at 7 a.m. in a place to be announced in the on-site
ASA
program in Chicago. A number of important issues will be
discussed
including the Council's rejection of the Publication Committee's
recommendations for the editorship of American Sociological Review.
WE URGE YOU TO ATTEND THIS MEETING to voice your concerns about
improving democratic procedures in the American Sociological
Association.
Some of the issues to be discussed include:
(1) Resolutions to Create a Democratic Process for Publication
Committee
Decisions in the ASA. The Publications Committee have proposed a
number
of changes in the ASA by-laws to ensure that what happened this year with
the
Publication Committee and ASA Council will not happen in the future (see
item
#15 in attachment). We support these resolutions.
(2) Resolutions to Re-open Discussion of Procedures for Electing Various
ASA committees. Specifically, we are asking to reinstate
regional
elections for the Nominations Committee and to reinstate the
Committee on
Committee as an elected committee. We understand that SOCIOLOGISTS FOR
WOMEN IN SOCIETY is making motions and/or proposals that speak to these
issues and we support them.We encourage you to attend THE BUSINESS
MEETING ON AUGUST 9TH AT 7 A.M.
Other possible items include diversifying the ASR and who should control
FOOTNOTES.
Please forward this email to others who might be interested in
attending.
Jennifer Pierce
Rhonda Levine
Michael Burawoy
Arlene Kaplan Daniels
Robert Freeland
Barry Goetz
Loic Wacquant
Sean O Riain
Ruth Milkman
Kristin Luker
Jeff Manza
Erik Wright
Michael Schwartz
Margaret Somers
Ruth Horowitz
Judith Wittner
Carol Heimer
Martha Gimenez
Maud Schaafsma
Evelyn Nakano Glenn
Richard Wood
James Petras
Peter Evans
Dan Clawson
Maren Klawiter
Elizabeth Higginbotham
Vicki Smith
Wend Espeland
Martin Sanchez-Jankowski
Rick Baldoz
Julia Curry Rodriguez
Judith Stacey
Mark Gould
Peter Meiksin
Howard Kimeldorf
Kathleen Schwartzman
Bill Fiedland
Robert Zussman
Arthur Stinchcombe
Raka Ray
Martin Murray
Kathleen Gerson
Kim Voss
Hyun Ok Park
James Geshwender
Neil Fligstein
Christopher Rhomberg
Barbara Heyns
Michael Kennedy
Nancy Jurik
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1 \deff0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f1\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Arial;}
{\f2\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 02070309020205020404}Courier New;}{\f3\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05050102010706020507}Symbol;}{\f4\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times;}
{\f5\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Helvetica;}{\f6\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Courier;}{\f7\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Geneva;}
{\f8\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Tms Rmn;}{\f9\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Helv;}{\f10\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Serif;}
{\f11\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Sans Serif;}{\f12\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}New York;}{\f13\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}System;}
{\f14\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Wingdings;}{\f15\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604030504040204}Tahoma;}{\f16\fnil\fcharset2\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS LineDraw;}
{\f17\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}LinePrinter;}{\f18\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CG Times;}{\f19\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Univers;}
{\f20\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Univers Condensed;}{\f21\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Antique Olive;}{\f22\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020404030301010803}Garamond;}
{\f23\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CG Omega;}{\f24\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Albertus Medium;}{\f25\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Albertus Extra Bold;}
{\f26\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Clarendon Condensed;}{\f27\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Coronet;}{\f28\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Letter Gothic;}
{\f29\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Marigold;}{\f30\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Marlett;}{\f31\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0504020203020204}News Gothic MT;}
{\f32\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03010101010101010101}Lucida Handwriting;}{\f33\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0602030504020204}Lucida Sans;}{\f34\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0602030504020204}Lucida Sans Unicode;}
{\f35\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040602050305030304}Book Antiqua;}{\f36\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0502020202020204}Century Gothic;}{\f37\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 02010509020102010303}OCR A Extended;}
{\f38\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040603050505030304}Calisto MT;}{\f39\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0306030101010103}Abadi MT Condensed Light;}{\f40\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0705020206020404}Copperplate Gothic Bold;}
{\f41\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0507020206020404}Copperplate Gothic Light;}{\f42\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040403030d02020704}Matisse ITC;}{\f43\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020404030d07020202}Tempus Sans ITC;}
{\f44\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040506030f02020702}Westminster;}{\f45\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0609040504020204}Lucida Console;}{\f46\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0806030902050204}Impact;}
{\f47\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604030504040204}Verdana;}{\f48\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05030102010509060703}Webdings;}{\f49\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0a04020102020204}Arial Black;}
{\f50\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05050102010205020202}MT Extra;}{\f51\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0506020202030204}Arial Narrow;}{\f52\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02050604050505020204}Bookman Old Style;}
{\f53\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00050102010706020507}Map Symbols;}{\f54\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040604050505020304}Century Schoolbook;}{\f55\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04040404050702020202}Curlz MT;}
{\f56\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020904090505020303}Elephant;}{\f57\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02090707080505020304}Engravers MT;}{\f58\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0907030504020204}Eras Bold ITC;}
{\f59\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0805030504020804}Eras Demi ITC;}{\f60\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0402030504020804}Eras Light ITC;}{\f61\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0602030504020804}Eras Medium ITC;}
{\f62\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04060505060202020a04}Felix Titling;}{\f63\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03060902040502070203}Forte;}{\f64\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0503020102020204}Franklin Gothic Book;}
{\f65\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0703020102020204}Franklin Gothic Demi;}{\f66\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0706030402020204}Franklin Gothic Demi Cond;}{\f67\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0903020102020204}Franklin Gothic Heavy;}
{\f68\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603020102020204}Franklin Gothic Medium;}{\f69\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0606030402020204}Franklin Gothic Medium Cond;}{\f70\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03020402040607040605}French Script MT;}
{\f71\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040502050405020303}Georgia;}{\f72\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0502020104020203}Gill Sans MT;}{\f73\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0506020104020203}Gill Sans MT Condensed;}
{\f74\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0a06020104020203}Gill Sans Ultra Bold Condensed;}{\f75\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0a02020104020203}Gill Sans Ultra Bold;}
{\f76\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02030808020601010101}Gloucester MT Extra Condensed;}{\f77\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0902020104020203}Gill Sans MT Ext Condensed Bold;}
{\f78\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020502050305020303}Goudy Old Style;}{\f79\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0706040902060204}Haettenschweiler;}{\f80\fdecor\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 04020605060303030202}Imprint MT Shadow;}
{\f81\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 020b0509030504030204}Lucida Sans Typewriter;}{\f82\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020e0502030308020204}Maiandra GD;}{\f83\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030303020206070c0b05}Palace Script MT;}
{\f84\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020502060505020804}Perpetua Titling MT;}{\f85\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020502060401020303}Perpetua;}{\f86\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03070502040507070304}Rage Italic;}
{\f87\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02060603050405020104}Rockwell Condensed;}{\f88\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02060603020205020403}Rockwell;}{\f89\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02060903040505020403}Rockwell Extra Bold;}
{\f90\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 03040602040607080904}Script MT Bold;}{\f91\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0602020104020603}Tw Cen MT;}{\f92\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0606020104020203}Tw Cen MT Condensed;}
{\f93\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0803020000000004}Tw Cen MT Condensed Extra Bold;}{\f94\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0603020202020204}Trebuchet MS;}{\f95\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 050b0604020202020204}Arial Special G1;}
{\f96\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 050b0604020202020204}Arial Special G2;}{\f97\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 050b0506020202030204}Arial Narrow Special G1;}{\f98\fswiss\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 050b0506020202030204}Arial Narrow Special G2;}
{\f99\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05020603050405020304}Times New Roman Special G1;}{\f100\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05020603050405020304}Times New Roman Special G2;}{\f101\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604030504040204}Verdana Ref;}
{\f102\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040502050405020303}Georgia Ref;}{\f103\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 02000500000000000000}RefSpecialty;}{\f104\fscript\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 030f0702030302020204}Comic Sans MS;}
{\f105\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}MS Outlook;}{\f106\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}SPSS Marker Set;}{\f107\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1{\*\panose 02070309020205020404}Courier New Cyr;}
{\f108\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CyrillicChancellor;}{\f109\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CyrillicCooper;}{\f110\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CyrillicGaramond;}
{\f111\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CyrillicGoth;}{\f112\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CyrillicHeavy;}{\f113\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CyrillicHover;}
{\f114\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CyrillicOld;}{\f115\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CyrillicRevue;}{\f116\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CyrillicRibbon;}
{\f117\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CyrillicUniversity;}{\f118\froman\fcharset204\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f119\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times NR Cyr MT;}
{\f210\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Tahoma CE;}{\f211\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Tahoma Cyr;}{\f213\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Tahoma Greek;}{\f214\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Tahoma Tur;}{\f215\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Tahoma Baltic;}
{\f252\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Garamond CE;}{\f253\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Garamond Cyr;}{\f255\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Garamond Greek;}{\f256\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Garamond Tur;}{\f257\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Garamond Baltic;}
{\f324\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode CE;}{\f325\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode Cyr;}{\f327\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode Greek;}{\f328\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Lucida Sans Unicode Tur;}
{\f330\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Book Antiqua CE;}{\f331\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Book Antiqua Cyr;}{\f333\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Book Antiqua Greek;}{\f334\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Book Antiqua Tur;}{\f335\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Book Antiqua Baltic;}
{\f390\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Lucida Console CE;}{\f391\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Lucida Console Cyr;}{\f393\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Lucida Console Greek;}{\f394\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Lucida Console Tur;}
{\f396\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Impact CE;}{\f397\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Impact Cyr;}{\f399\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Impact Greek;}{\f400\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Impact Tur;}{\f401\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Impact Baltic;}
{\f402\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Verdana CE;}{\f403\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Verdana Cyr;}{\f405\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Verdana Greek;}{\f406\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Verdana Tur;}{\f407\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Verdana Baltic;}
{\f414\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial Black CE;}{\f415\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Black Cyr;}{\f417\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Black Greek;}{\f418\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Black Tur;}{\f419\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Black Baltic;}
{\f426\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial Narrow CE;}{\f427\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Narrow Cyr;}{\f429\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Narrow Greek;}{\f430\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Narrow Tur;}{\f431\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Narrow Baltic;}
{\f432\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Bookman Old Style CE;}{\f433\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Cyr;}{\f435\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Greek;}{\f436\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Tur;}
{\f437\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Bookman Old Style Baltic;}{\f444\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Century Schoolbook CE;}{\f445\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Century Schoolbook Cyr;}{\f447\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Century Schoolbook Greek;}
{\f448\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Century Schoolbook Tur;}{\f449\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Century Schoolbook Baltic;}{\f504\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Book CE;}{\f505\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Book Cyr;}
{\f507\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Book Greek;}{\f508\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Book Tur;}{\f509\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Book Baltic;}{\f510\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi CE;}
{\f511\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi Cyr;}{\f513\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi Greek;}{\f514\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi Tur;}{\f515\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi Baltic;}
{\f516\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi Cond CE;}{\f517\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi Cond Cyr;}{\f519\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi Cond Greek;}{\f520\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi Cond Tur;}
{\f521\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Demi Cond Baltic;}{\f522\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Heavy CE;}{\f523\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Heavy Cyr;}{\f525\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Heavy Greek;}
{\f526\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Heavy Tur;}{\f527\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Heavy Baltic;}{\f528\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium CE;}{\f529\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cyr;}
{\f531\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Greek;}{\f532\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Tur;}{\f533\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Baltic;}{\f534\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cond CE;}
{\f535\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Cyr;}{\f537\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Greek;}{\f538\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Tur;}
{\f539\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Franklin Gothic Medium Cond Baltic;}{\f552\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Gill Sans MT CE;}{\f558\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Gill Sans MT Condensed CE;}{\f564\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Gill Sans Ultra Bold Condensed CE;}
{\f570\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Gill Sans Ultra Bold CE;}{\f582\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Gill Sans MT Ext Condensed Bold CE;}{\f594\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Haettenschweiler CE;}{\f595\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Haettenschweiler Cyr;}
{\f597\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Haettenschweiler Greek;}{\f598\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Haettenschweiler Tur;}{\f599\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Haettenschweiler Baltic;}{\f666\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Tw Cen MT CE;}
{\f672\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Tw Cen MT Condensed CE;}{\f678\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Tw Cen MT Condensed Extra Bold CE;}{\f684\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Trebuchet MS CE;}{\f688\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Trebuchet MS Tur;}
{\f726\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Verdana Ref CE;}{\f727\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Verdana Ref Cyr;}{\f729\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Verdana Ref Greek;}{\f730\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Verdana Ref Tur;}{\f731\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Verdana Ref Baltic;}
{\f732\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Georgia Ref CE;}{\f733\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Georgia Ref Cyr;}{\f735\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Georgia Ref Greek;}{\f736\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Georgia Ref Tur;}{\f737\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Georgia Ref Baltic;}
{\f744\fscript\fcharset238\fprq2 Comic Sans MS CE;}{\f745\fscript\fcharset204\fprq2 Comic Sans MS Cyr;}{\f747\fscript\fcharset161\fprq2 Comic Sans MS Greek;}{\f748\fscript\fcharset162\fprq2 Comic Sans MS Tur;}
{\f749\fscript\fcharset186\fprq2 Comic Sans MS Baltic;}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;
\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\widctlpar\adjustright \cgrid \snext0 Normal;}{
\s1\sb240\sa60\keepn\widctlpar\adjustright \b\f1\fs28\kerning28\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 1;}{\s2\sb240\sa60\keepn\widctlpar\adjustright \b\i\f1\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 2;}{\*\cs10 \additive Default Paragraph Font;}{\s15\nowidctlpar
\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\adjustright \f2\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext15 header;}{\s16\widctlpar\adjustright \cbpat9 \f15\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext16 Document Map;}}{\info{\title LETTER FROM BARRIE THORNE TO SWS}{\author Michael Burawoy}{\operator Michael Burawoy}
{\creatim\yr1999\mo7\dy6\hr12\min4}{\revtim\yr1999\mo7\dy30\hr1\min31}{\version9}{\edmins16}{\nofpages35}{\nofwords12442}{\nofchars70923}{\*\company Dell Computer Corporation}{\nofcharsws87098}{\vern113}}
\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\hyphcaps0\formshade\viewkind4\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot \fet0\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectdefaultcl {\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}
{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}
{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain
\s1\sb240\sa60\keepn\widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright \b\f1\fs28\kerning28\cgrid {ENDNOTES: CHRONICLE OF AN ASA CONTROVERSY
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\adjustright \cgrid {
\par }\pard\plain \s2\sb240\sa60\keepn\widctlpar\outlinelevel1\adjustright \b\i\f1\cgrid {\b0\i0\f0 17}{\f0 .}{\b0\i0\f0 .Letter to President Portes }{\b0\i0\f0 f}{\b0\i0\f0 rom Judy Auerbach, President of SWS 7/23/99}{\f0
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\adjustright \cgrid {16.Letter from Patricia Roos, Council Member, to SWS 7/19/99
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {15.Response from ASA Publications Committee 7/13/99
\par 14.Letter to ASA Council from Beth Hess et al. 7/7/99
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {13.Letter from Erik Olin Wright 7/8/99
\par 12.Letter from Rachel Kahn-Hut 7/4/99
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {11.Letter from Michael Schwartz and Elizabeth Higginbotham 7/2/99
\par 10.Letter from Arlene Kaplan Daniels 7/1/99
\par 9.Letter from Patricia Roos and Paula England 7/1/99
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {8.Barrie Thorne\rquote s Response 6/30/99
\par 7.Lynn Smith-Loven\rquote s Note 6/30/99
\par 6.President Portes\rquote Second Response 6/30/99
\par 5.Letter from Dan Clawson, 6/30/99
\par 4.Patricia Roos\rquote Response 6/29/99
\par 3.Robert Zussman\rquote s Comments 6/29/99
\par 2.President Portes\rquote First Reponse 6/28/99
\par 1.Michael Burawoy\rquote s Resignation Letter 6/15/99
\par
\par
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s2\sb240\sa60\keepn\widctlpar\outlinelevel1\adjustright \b\i\f1\cgrid {17.Letter to President Portes from Judy Auerbach, President of SWS 7/23/99
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\adjustright \cgrid {
\par }{
\par Professor Alejandro Portes
\par President
\par American Sociological Association
\par 1307 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 700
\par Washington, D.C. 20005-4701
\par
\par }{
\par }{Dear Professor Portes,
\par
\par I am writing on behalf of Sociologists for Women in Society (SWS}{) to }{express the
\par concern of many in our organization about recent changes in ASA governance that
\par appear to reflect an erosion of democratic process. The most current instance
\par is the conflict between the ASA Council and the Publications Committee,
\par signified by Michael Burawoy's resignation from the Committee, and the wide
\par circulation of his letter to you and your response to him prior to publication
\par in Footnotes.
\par
\par We are aware that other ASA members and organizations also have weighed in on
\par the current controversy, and are pleased to know that you will hear from many
\par different voices. SWS members wish to join those who have expressed the desire
\par to not focus on the particular issue of the ASR editorship, but rather to
\par address seriously the underlying issues of how ASA operates as an organization.
\par
\par As you know, SWS historically has been }{an organization concerned about }{issues of
\par equity and participatory democracy-mos}{t specifically around issues of }{gender and
\par women's status in the sociology profession, but also more generally. Thus, the
\par key issues for us are a sense that pol}{icy and practice changes in ASA
\par governance }{are occurring in ways that do not allow for sufficient participatory
\par consultation and decision-making. As specific examples, SWS members cite as
\par problematic the too-hurried by-laws change election, the elimination of the
\par Committee on Committees, and the elimination of regional representation on the
\par Nominations Committee. In the case of the ASR editorship, SWS members feel
\par strongly that even if specific legal rules exist that allow Council to overrule
\par recommendations from Committees, it is not ethical to overrule without
\par appropriate consultation, explanation, and debate.
\par
\par At the urging of a number of our memb}{ers, SWS is submitting a formal }{resolution
\par to the ASA Council for consideration during the Business Meeting at this year's
\par annual meeting in Chicago. Without the opportunity to fully discuss the
\par specific issues of concern in a participatory and democratic way (the usual way
\par we conduct our organizational business) be}{fore the appointed deadline for }{filing
\par such resolutions, we opted to submit our resolution "pending formal approval
\par during the SWS business meeting," and to register our concerns meanwhile
\par }{through }{this letter. Please know that we are }{resolved to advocate for a more }{inclusive,
\par open, and lively process of organizational participation, and ask Council to
\par re-open its consideration of recent by-laws changes, provide the ASA membership
\par with alternative models for the organization's governance, and allow a new vote
\par to occur after a reasonable time for membership debate.
\par
\par We trust that you will take our concerns and our suggestions seriously,
\par }{and look fo}{rward to the opportunity to discuss them further with you, other ASA Council
\par members, and the general membership in Chicago.
\par
\par Sincerely yours,
\par
\par Judith D. Auerbach
\par 1999 SWS President
\par }{
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s2\sb240\sa60\keepn\widctlpar\outlinelevel1\adjustright \b\i\f1\cgrid {16. LETTER FROM PATRICIA ROOS, COUNCIL MEMBER, TO SWS 7/19/99
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\adjustright \cgrid {
\par To: SWS colleagues
\par
\par With one exception (Paula England's and my posting July 1st), the missing voice
in the ongoing discussion on this list about the ASA/Burawoy flap is Council's. The consequence is that many still don't have a full enough picture of what happened, and when it happened. The facts are sometimes different from what is assumed. Initial
r
umors became "fact," and misperceptions flourished. I suspect many on Council feel as I do, bound by a pledge of confidentiality and figuring that it's better to learn what other members have to say than weigh in ourselves. However, the time now seems r
i
ght to give a somewhat different perspective than many on the list have expressed, from the point of view of a current Council member. Of course, I speak only for myself. I've made many of these same points in personal emails to those I know whose notes
have been posted on the list.
\par
\par [As an aside, you know from an earlier email from Felice Levine on this list that ASA President Portes has extended the time of the Business Meeting to allow for an open forum on this issue. I encourage you to be there, sinc
e Council members will no doubt be interested in hearing the full range of opinion on this issue. The full details on the Business Meeting will be in the final program.]
\par
\par First, despite initial claims, there was no censorship. Burawoy's letter and Portes
' response to the membership will be published in July/August Footnotes. The minutes from Council's February meeting--where the selection of ASA editors occurred--will also be published in July/August Footnotes. [These minutes make it public that Counci
l did not accept the rankings sent forth from the Publications Committee.] There will obviously be further discussion at the Business Meeting as well.
\par
\par Second, my und
erstanding is that no formal ethics complaint to COPE has been made against anyone. There are potential issues of confidentiality involved in implying what attributes editor candidates do or do not have. COPE has been asked to render an opinion on issue
s of confidentiality that will guide future deliberating bodies in light of
\par recent events.
\par
\par Third, some have expressed concern that the Publications committee received no feedback or information after the February Council meeting. To the contrary, the appr
opriate members of Council talked with the Chair of the Publications Committee several times within a week of Council's meeting in lengthy conference calls. This occurred before any candidates were notified. Shortly thereafter, President Portes set up a
special May 24}{\super th}{ meeting in Washington for the Publications Committee to allow
\par additional, extensive discussion. Many, of course, wish that Council had consulted
\par with Publications before its final vote, and that did not occur. But in acting with the auth
ority vested in it by the ASA Constitution, Council acted properly under currently existing procedures. I understand that Council will consider the proposals recommended by the Publications Committee at its May 24th meeting. Speaking personally, these p
roposals make some useful recommendations, and I suspect they will form the basis
\par for a fruitful Council discussion on these issues. The Publications Committee as a whole made some of these same points, as Michael Schwartz's July 13th email to friends and colleagues shows (I don't believe that email has shown up on this list).
\par
\par Fourth, some have expressed concern that Council overrode the Publication
\par Committee's recommendation. People have argued that this is "unprecedented" and inconsistent with the recen
t membership vote to keep the Publication Committee as an elected committee. Pub. Comm. is an elected committee, and will likely remain so. It's important to remember, however, that Council is an elected body as well, and like the Pub. Cte. It changes e
ach year. Indeed, Council is a more representative body than
\par Publications, solely on the basis of its size. Publications consists of six elected members (two voted in each year), plus the President and Secretary of the Association, for a total of eight pe
ople. Council consists of 12 elected at-large members (four voted in each year for 3-year terms), plus the President, VP, Secretary, Past-President, Past-VP, President-Elect, and VP-Elect, for a total of 19 voting members. Thus, like Publications, Coun
c
il is made up of regular people voted in each year by the membership. It's not some static, elitist organization, separate from the membership. Over the past 6 years, I've served on Council with many other SWS members, including among others Myra Marx F
erree and
\par Barry Thorne (both as VP), Arlene Kaplan Daniels and Beth Hess (both as Secretary). My point here is that all of us were elected by the membership, in the same way that Pub. Comm. is. Many of you will find yourself elected to one of these bodies
in the future. Council is not "the other", it's an elected representative body that includes many of "us,"
\par And for which all of us vote.
\par
\par With respect to the claim that Council's action is "unprecedented," I'd like to see the data. During my time on Cou
ncil I remember Council disagreeing with Pub. Cte. (at least reversing their ordering), and others I have talked with who have longer histories in governance vaguely remember similar incidents. It's true it doesn't happen very often, and that's because C
o
uncil does take the recommendations of Pub. Cte. Very seriously. I've always been struck by that seriousness, from my very first days on Council. However, Council also takes its constitutional authority to appoint editors very seriously, and in this cas
e the minutes will make clear that a majority of Council disagreed with Publications' recommendations and acted accordingly under existing procedures. My
\par Point here is that we simply don't know the past history on this. We're all relying on vague memories.
\par
\par Fifth, some have expressed the sentiment that as an elected committee, Publications should have the final say on editor selection. I personally could not support such a recommendation. I'd rather leave that responsibility in an elected 19-person Counc
il, than an 8-person Publications Committee. I think all organizations need one, overarching,
\par elected body charged with and responsible for final oversight. Otherwise one could imagine, for example, a committee making a decision to initiate a new project t
hat the Association was unable to fund. It's also useful to point out that the authority to appoint and remove editors is vested in Council through the ASA Constitution (see Article IV, section 4), not just the bylaws. That makes it more unlikely that t
wo-thirds of the membership (required to change the ASA Constitution) would agree to such a change.
\par
\par Finally, I don't buy claims that Council overrode its authority, or that it acted in a "casual" and cavalier manner. Council acted within the existing proc
edures, and carried out its responsibilities seriously and deliberately. Council heard about the rationale of the Publications Committee from the two members who overlap on both committees. Contrary to some people's perceptions, the discussions were leng
t
hy, serious, and deliberate. As the public minutes will show, there were substantial differences of opinion reflected in the votes, and these differences were aired at length. Having defended Council's decision making process, however, I am personally in
t
erested in the proposals hammered out at the May 24th meeting of the Publications Committee, and look forward to debating them in August. There is a lot to be said for developing procedures that encourage more dialogue among ASA's committees, elected or
n
ot. I, for one, would like to hear more about the wide-ranging discussion of candidates in Publications, and to learn about any diversity of opinion existing in Publications. That would greatly inform Council deliberation. Increased openness can work b
oth ways.
\par
\par I have focused here on the procedural issues. In closing, let me mention two other issues that have become entangled in the current controversy: the future direction of ASA journals and the aftermath of the 1996 elections on restructuring ASA c
ommittees. To my mind, both are quite legitimate discussion items for the ASA membership (as are the
\par Procedural issues I noted above). Council and Publications have had continuing
\par discussions about ASR in particular over the years, and will continue to do
\par so. The new ASR editors are themselves quite diverse in their intellectual approaches, a point Erik Olin Wright makes in his biographical sketch of the editors in the July/August Footnotes, which I commend to you. They would no doubt welcome suggestion
s that would increase the pool of reviewers and papers they can consider.
\par
\par With respect to the ASA committee restructuring, we can continue the debate. A forum in Footnotes, as many have suggested, is a good idea. In retrospect, I personally think it woul
d have been useful to have more discussion about the more controversial aspects of the restructuring. But this is easier to see after the fact than for those of us who lived
\par Through a lengthy discussion process, and who debated its particulars for well
\par Over a year. We watched a process that reached out to all ASA committees and all ASA sections for comment. In retrospect, the discussion should have gone on longer, but that's much clearer now than then. Council did learn from this, as evidenced by its
request for an extensive comment period on the proposed resolutions policy (a topic that will also be discussed at the Business Meeting). I personally think the committee restructuring as a
\par whole was much improved, even though I (or others) might have som
e qualms about some of the specifics. We shouldn't just assume that the old way of doing things is the best way. For example, we now have Task Forces that have the potential to inject a more dynamic element into governance than existed previously. Task
force topics can come from anywhere and anyone--existing committees, sections, individual members. People can nominate themselves (and most of the people eventually seated on current
\par task forces did in fact nominate themselves). It's useful to continue to debate what's useful and what might need to be changed, but it's also true that we've scarcely had time to see how the new process works.
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {Thankfully, we have time to debate these issues.
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {Pat Roos
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {Patricia A. Roos, Professor of Sociology & Dean-Social and Behavioral
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {Sciences, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Rutgers University, 77 Hamilton
\par St., New Brunswick, N.J. 08901. (732) 932-8435;
\par http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~roos
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s2\sb240\sa60\keepn\widctlpar\outlinelevel1\adjustright \b\i\f1\cgrid {15.RESPONSE FROM ASA PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE 7/13/99
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\adjustright \cgrid {
\par
\par To the Members of the Association:
\par
\par In response to the many requests for information in the wake of Michael
\par Burawoy\rquote s resignation, the Publications Committee wishes to make public some of
\par its deliberations concerning the editorship of the American Sociological Review.
\par
\par At our winter meeting on January 8 and 9,1999, the Committee reviewed a
\par number of excellent proposals for editing ASR in the next term. By majority
\par vote, two proposals were selected to be recommended to the ASA Council. In
\par mid-February, however, we were informed that the Council chose to reject both of
\par these candidates in favor of another application. Shortly thereafter, Council\rquote s
\par choice of the team of Charles Camic and Franklin Wilson was made public.
\par
\par Upon learning of Council\rquote s decision, we began an initial discussion via the
\par internet. When it became clear that Council\rquote s actions warranted a more thorough
\par consideration and response, President Portes offered to convene a special
\par meeting of the Committee to evaluate the situation. We then met in Washington,
\par DC, on May 24 to discuss our reactions to Council\rquote s action and decide how to
\par respond.
\par
\par We recognize that Council is not formally bound to accept the Committee\rquote s
\par choices. We also understand that our recommended candidates offered different
\par strengths and opportunities for the future of ASR that merited evaluation by
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {Council. Yet the decision to set our recommendation aside altogether is
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {unprecedented. It raises questions about the governance of the ASA and the
\par appropriate relationship between Council and the Publications Committee, both of
\par which are elected bodies.
\par
\par At our May meeting, we considered these issues and discussed a range of
\par responses. One proposal, which we chose to reject, would have involved an
\par amendment to the ASA by-laws to give the Publications Committee final authority
\par in the selection of editors. Concerned that public discussion of such an
\par amendment would likely result in disclosing confidential information, a majority
\par voted to reject this proposal. As a Committee, we accept proposals from
\par potential editors in confidence, and we consider it our duty to all of the
\par candidates to maintain this confidence. We also believe that, having accepted
\par the responsibility to lead ASR through the next term, the team of Charles Camic
\par and Franklin Wilson deserves our support. We therefore decided not to seek a
\par change in the by-laws at this time.
\par
\par While we held the principle of confidentiality as a high priority, we also
\par concluded that procedural changes are essential to safeguard the future work of
\par the Publications Committee. The Committee thus voted to make the following
\par recommendations to the ASA Council. We expect them to be discussed at Council\rquote s
\par August meeting and hope they will be passed at that time.
\par
\par These recommendations state:
\par
\par (1) The Chair of the ASA Committee on Publications, or a duly appointed
\par representative, will present the Committee\rquote s recommendations in person to
\par Council on selection of editors and other matters deemed important.
\par
\par
\par (2) If Council rejects the recommendation of the Committee on
\par Publications, Council must return the decision to the Committee with
\par Council\rquote s rationale and alternative proposals.
\par
\par (3) In the case of a continuing dispute about editor selection, a
\par subcommittee of the Committee on Publications and Council will be formed to
\par discuss and ultimately prepare a mutual recommendation for Council\rquote s
\par consideration.
\par
\par Pending the Council\rquote s response to these motions, the Committee decided to
\par take no further immediate action and to reassess the situation at our next
\par meeting. By clarifying our actions at this time, we hope to contribute to an
\par open and productive discussion of these important issues. We look forward to a
\par resolution that ASA members with diverse perspectives can support.
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright { Sincerely,
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright { Michael Schwartz, Chair
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright { Kathleen Gerson
\par Elizabeth Higginbotham
\par John Logan
\par Marta Tienda
\par
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s2\sb240\sa60\keepn\widctlpar\outlinelevel1\adjustright \b\i\f1\cgrid {14.LETTER FROM BETH HESS ET AL TO ASA COUNCIL \endash 7/7/99
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\adjustright \cgrid {
\par
\par >To: ASA Council and Executive Office
\par >
\par >From: Beth Hess, Bill Gamson, Arlene Kaplan Daniels, Evelyn Nakano Glenn,
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>Earl Babbie and Myra Marx Ferree
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>
\par >
\par >We are writing to express our grave concern with what appears to be a trend
\par >toward de-democratization in the governance of the Association. Several
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>structural changes made in the past few years have eliminated elected
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>committees, thus concentrating power in the hands of Council. In addition,
\par >to an unprecedented extent, decisions of the remaining elected Committees
\par >have been ignored or overridden by Council. While we have considerable
\par >confidence in the integrity of members of Council and the other elected
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>offices, as sociologists we also know that structures may produce
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>consequences other than those intended by the individuals acting within
\par >them.
\par >
\par >Democracy demands more than the formal process of casting votes. For a
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>professional organization to be truly accountable, its members must be
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>fully informed of substantive issues and policy differences among those who
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>represent them. Last year, for example, members were asked to ratify
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>changes in the bylaws without adequate discussion of the pros and cons of
\par >their vote. This year, Council has chosen to set aside the recommendations
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>of the elected Publications Committee, without discussing their
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>reservations with that Committee. Now, the public resignation of a member
\par >of the Publications Committee is being treated as a breach of ethics rather
\par >than as an effort to inform the membership of the underlying controversies
\par >[that could and perhaps should have been handled through consultation].
\par >
\par >As former elected officers of ASA, we are fully cognizant of the need for
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>confidentiality with regard to individuals. At the same time, [the issues
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>and concerns that lie behind Council and Committee votes] deserve full and
\par >frank communication to the membership, to the greatest extent feasible.
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>Footnotes was originally intended to serve just this function, but has
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>failed to do so, offering, for the most part, a sanitized \'echouse organ\'ee
\par >version of events rather than information on the governance issues being
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>debated, including diverse views of past and impending decisions. For
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>example, a forum with alternative views of the bylaws changes should have
\par >been published well in advance of the voting, in time to stimulate further
\par >discussion and input from members.
\par >
\par >There is still time to use Footnotes to disseminate a wide range of views
\par >on the current controversy over selection of ASR editors. Instead, [even
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>though aspects of the controversy have been widely circulated on the
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>internet] the major concern of Council and the Executive Office is to
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>maintain secrecy concerning the selection process. The need for
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>confidentiality to protect individuals is real and important, but the
\par >process demands daylight. How are members to know if and when Council is
\par >carrying out their wishes if they cannot be told that Council overruled the
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>Publications Committee? Although formally entitled to do so, such
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>arrogation should be based on grave reasons, reasons that should have been
\par >communicated to the Committee either before but certainly immediately after
\par >Council\'eds vote. [In addition, if the underlying issues were that weighty,]
\par >then Council also owes the membership, within the bounds of confidentiality
\par >for the individuals involved, an explanation of why these differences in
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>priorities and policies led to this outcome. If , as we trust, the mere
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>fact that the Publications Committee did not make the same choices or
\par >express the same preferences as some members of Council would not be
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>sufficient grounds for overridding its selections, then there must be
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>important grounds that that should be openly addressed.
\par >
\par >Accountability and openness are inseparable, [and certainly should be the
\par >hallmarks of a voluntary organization of professionals]. Council should
\par >examine its process of decision-making. The elected committees are there
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>precisely to constrain Council\'eds arbitrary exercise of discretion in
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>matters of nominations and appointment, as well as policies. The existing
\par >committees should be respected, and some that have disappeared deserve to
\par >be revived.
\par >
\par >From our own experiences, we apprecite the good intentions of Council
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>members, acting for what they sincerely believe to be the good of the
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>Association. Nonetheless, we prefer on principle as well as sociological
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>disposition, that Council accept the structural limits imposed by
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>delegation and democracy. We therefore urge this and future Councils to
\par >encourage and support maximum openness, accountability, and participation
\par >of our increasingly diverse membership.
\par
\par
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s2\sb240\sa60\keepn\widctlpar\outlinelevel1\adjustright \b\i\f1\cgrid {
\par 13.LETTER FROM ERIK OLIN WRIGHT, Distributed 7/8/99
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\adjustright \cgrid {
\par
\par Dear Colleagues,
\par
\par I thought it might be constructive for me to circulate a letter I wrote to Alejandro Portes concerning the controversy over Michael Burawoy's decision to resign from the ASA Publications Committee and make his letter of resignation public.
\par
\par -----------------------------------------
\par
\par July 3, 1999
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {Dear Alejandro,
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par I am sure that you are being besieged by letters, commentaries, reactions to Michael Burawoy's letter of resignation and the subsequent controversy it has sparked. I thought that i
t would be worthwhile for me to express my views, both on the events which precipitated this action and the issues directly involved in the public circulation of the letter of resignation.
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {The source of the controversy
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par In your two letters you seem to s
uggest that Burawoy's resignation, and the subsequent decision to publicize this, was an act of protest against the specific choice of editors for the ASR. While it is, of course, the case that Burawoy -- along with the majority in the Publications Commit
t
ee -- supported other candidates, and that he opposes the decision that was made, the protest is over how the decision was made, not the decision per se. It is therefore, I believe, a distortion of the conflict to describe Michael as part of a disgruntled
minority that lost in a democratic process, which is what you imply when you wrote in your letter to Michael: "Extensive disagreements can be expected in many important matters.....The fact that an individual or group find themselves in the minority does
n
ot entitle them to unilaterally break standing rules established by a democratic process." This statement suggests that you see Burawoy as raising these issues because of the "extensive disagreements" over the choice of editor and his unwillingness to g
racefully accept the status of being a minority. This is simply not the central issue.
\par
\par What then is the central issue? Michael insists that the issue is the problem of substantive democracy. He is not denying the formal legal rules in which the ASA C
ouncil has the power to choose the ASR editor. If the Publications Committee were simply a subcommittee of the Council and appointed by the Council a proposal that was defeated by the Association as a whole then its status as a purely advisory body wh
i
ch could be overridden without serious consultation might make sense. But the Publications Committee is itself a democratically elected body and one with a high level of recently reaffirmed legitimacy because of the referendum's rejection of the proposal
t
o turn the Publications Committee into a simple arm of the Council. Given this, the action of summarily disregarding the Publications Committee's choices and selecting an alternative without any sustained consultation and dialogue between these two elect
ed bodies is, prima facie, a violation of the substantive, ethical content of democracy.
\par
\par You wrote in your letter, comm
enting on the inevitable disagreements in an association like the ASA, "The crucial consideration is whether they are resolved in a democratic manner and according to legal rules." I agree -- as I presume so does Michael Burawoy -- that this a crucial c
o
nsideration, but I would emphasize the seriousness and primacy of the "democratic manner" as the basis for interpreting and acting within the "legal rules". As every political sociologist knows, formal, legalistic rules of democratic procedure can be used
by powerful actors to block the arduous process of the formation of democratic consensus and compromise. And, of course, in such contexts, "legal rules" becomes the way of legitimating an action that may, at its core, be an exercise of power rather than
d
emocracy. Imagine a somewhat analogous situation in an academic department: a department brings five people in for interviews for a professorship and sends two rank-ordered names to the Dean for approval, but the Dean offers the position to a third perso
n on the list without ever discussing the matter with the department. This would be legal in many universities, but surely would be a violation of norms of a democratic culture.
\par
\par What does all of this mean in the concrete instance of the present controvers
y? If the Council found the two nominees of the ASA elected Publications Committee to be unacceptable, the proper procedure from the point of view of democratic conflict resolution would have been to have entered into a serious dialogue over the issues in
contention. This would have given the Council an opportunity to explain to the Publications Committee why they felt the Publications Committee's recommendations were unsound, and it would have given the Publications Committee the opportunity to explain t
h
e rationales and trade-offs in greater depth. Through such dialogue there is every reason to believe that compromise, if not consensus, would have been possible. And if, after such serious deliberation, a majority of the Council still felt that their choi
c
e was sufficiently better than those proposed by the Publications Committee to warrant overriding the Publications Committee's recommendations, then this could be regarded as the outcome of a substantively democratic process. If such a procedure had been
followed, then I have no doubt that Michael would have shrugged his shoulders and accepted the decision without fuss, even if he remained unconvinced about its merits.
\par
\par This is how most people, I think, will view the issues once the matter is fully aired.
In this context, therefore, I think it is a serious mistake to aggressively attack Burawoy, questioning his integrity and treating the issue as if he is just a spoiled sport, a sore loser.
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {The circulation and eventual publication of the letter of resignation
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par A number of people, including you, have argued that Michael's decision to circulate the letter of resignation was a serious, unethical breech of confidentiality. I have discussed this matter with a number of my colleagues, and no one thinks that th
is is really an issue here. The letter does not mention the names of any of the ASR editor nominees of the Publications Committee, nor does it discuss the substance of any of the discussions of the merits or demerits of particular people. Indeed, I do not
have a clue about who these nominees were. Of course the letter does reveal the simple fact that the Council reversed the decision of the Publications Committee and, therefore, that Camic and Wilson were not the on the Publication Committees nomination li
st. That is an unfortunate by-product of publicly raising an objection to a use of power in the Association, but I do not see how Michael had any alternative under the circumstances.
\par
\par I do not think that this will taint the editorship of Camic and Wilson.
They were both completely unaware of any special circumstances of their appointment, and this fact can easily be made known. They will certainly do a superb job as editors, and that will quickly neutralize any ill-will generated by the public revelation
o
f the process by which they were selected. The one thing which might create a more enduring problem for their tenure as editors is if the conflict significantly escalates and gets couched in terms of factions of the association who are either for or again
s
t their being the editors of the journal. Burawoy, at the end of his letter of resignation, affirmed his own confidence that in fact Camic and Wilson will be excellent editors: "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 imagine that most people who share Michael's priorities for the ASR
also share this opinion. This is another reason why I feel it is important not to frame the controversy as over the people actually selected for the editorship but over the procedure adopted.
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {What's to be done?
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par I think a broad based discussion both of
issue of democratic procedure for these two committees and the issue of the character of the ASR is now inevitable and, in the end, desirable. I personally doubt if the former will end up being that contentious: a majority of the ASA has already affirme
d
the desirability of a democratically elected publications committee and I think a majority believe this implies it being a real partner in the editor selection process. The latter issue, in contrast, will be contentious because Sociology, as always, cont
ains rival visions of the discipline and thus of the appropriate character for its leading journals.
\par
\par In my judgment it would be very desirable for this wide-ranging discussion to be separated from the pragmatics of the present situation and the current ed
itorship. That is, I think it would be a big mistake if this general discussion over the ASR became a discussion over the merits of the actual choice made for the current editors. One way to avoid this would be for there to be a frank acknowledgment that
while the Council did have the formal power to make this decision, there was an error of judgment in the process: in light of the elected status of the Publications Committee, there should have been serious dialogue and consultation between the two electe
d
bodies before a final decision was reached and that this will be the procedure followed in such instances in the future. With that admission on the table, then I think the discussion can move on to the future rather than dwell on the present editorship.
If, on the other hand, the debate is waged in a polemically strident manner defending the procedures and actions of the Council, then I think this will increase, rather than reduce, the extent to which the controversy contaminates the current ASR regime.
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {I hope these thoughts are of some use to you.
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {Sincerely,
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {Erik
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par
\par
\par
\par _______________________________________
\par
\par Erik Olin Wright
\par Vilas Professor
\par Department of Sociology
\par University of Wisconsin
\par 1180 Observator Drive
\par Madison, Wisconsin 53706
\par
\par tel: 608-262-2921 (office) 608-255-6454 (home)
\par Fax: 608-265-5389
\par
\par http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/
\par email: wright@ssc.wisc.edu
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {
\par
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s2\sb240\sa60\keepn\widctlpar\outlinelevel1\adjustright \b\i\f1\cgrid {12.LETTER FROM RACHEL KAHN-HUT 7/4/99
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\adjustright \cgrid {
\par
\par >I want to thank Michael S(both Michaels actually) and Elizabeth for the
\par >work they have done to bring the current problem--and the issues behind
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>it--to the attention of the ASA membership and also for their effort to
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>focus on what now needs to be done. I appreciate their focus on the
\par >relationship between Council and the Publications Committee because this is
\par >where we need to start.
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>But I do believe that the actions -- and attitudes reflected in some
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>letters to various listservs -- suggest the existence of a problem of the
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>broader context in which this specific disagreement arose. And I am
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>writing this letter to say that I hope that once we arrive at a resolution
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>of how to establish an appropriate relationship between Council and
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>Publications, we will not forget to address the broader one which allowed,
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>I think, this specific to occur. If we don't, I think that we will find
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>ourselves revisiting the underlying issues over and over again. For
\par >example, the principles which Michael and Elizabeth identify for handling a
\par >potential disagreement between Council and Publications seem to me to be
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>the principles which should apply between Council and all
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>committees--either elected or appointed--because we are all peers or
\par >colleagues in this professional organization.
\par >
\par >Barrie Thorne spoke in an earlier message of the underlying issue as one of
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {> "democracy" in ASA. I have been thinking of it as two questions to
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>myself. "Who is ASA?" and "what is the appropriate relationship between
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>officers and members in an organization of (and for) professional
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>colleagues?" These questions were raised for me by last years election
\par >which led to a major restructuring of ASA. We were required to vote on a
\par >major reorganization of ASA without having the opportunity to carefully
\par >discuss the issues. Council--or members of Council--were clearly in a rush
\par >to get decisions made and changes instituted. Of secondary importance was
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>any interest in providing the opportunity for the development of an
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>educated electorate through careful debate and discussion in Footnotes and
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>at the Convention in San Francisco. It seems to me that the current
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>"bruhaha" as one friend has called it, is the inevitable result of an
\par >attitude which I see imbedded in that rushed election. An attitude which
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>suggests to me that under the real pressure to get things done in an
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>efficient manner some people have come to see ASA as those officers who
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>hold their position for 1-3 years or the staff in the WDC office who are
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>there for an admittedly longer time. I see ASA is those of us who
\par >participate in its programs, maintain its organization through our work on
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>its committees and, yes, benefit from the intellectual and personal
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>colleagiality it provides. While for legal reasons there are times when
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>ASA is the people who can sign documents it remains, primarily, an
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>association of professional colleagues.
\par >
\par >If I am correct, then we need to think about what kinds of procedures need
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>to be established to maintain such an organization. Greater care to
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>maintain participation from a diversity of members based on regional as
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {>well as individual criteria and and colleagial based processes between
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {>Council and the "subordinate" committees seems to me to be primary. Both
\par >of these issues have come to ahead in the current conflict, but it seems to
\par >me that they are much more general than this one incident. So, I am hoping
\par >that when we have moved on the suggestions which Michael and Elizabeth make
\par >regarding the appropriate relationship between Council and Publications,
\par >when we have a mandate from the membership re ASR (following an open and
\par >real debate among members) then we will use the principles developed to
\par >look at ASA organization more broadly.
\par >
\par >Rachel Kahn-Hut
\par >(Long, long time member of SWS and ASA where I am a current member of
\par >Committee on Sections)
\par >___________________________________________________________
\par >Rachel Kahn-Hut, Chair Office: HSS 370
\par >Dept. of Sociology Phone: 415-338-7503
\par >San Francisco State University Fax: 415-338-2653
\par >___________________________________________________________
\par }\pard\plain \s2\sb240\sa60\keepn\widctlpar\outlinelevel1\adjustright \b\i\f1\cgrid {
\par 11.LETTER FROM MICHAEL SCHWARTZ AND ELIZABETH HIGGINBOTHAM, MEMBERS OF PUBLICATION COMMITTTEE 7/2/99
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\adjustright \cgrid {
\par
\par Dear Friends and Colleagues:
\par
\par We, like the rest of other members of the Publications Committee of the ASA,
\par were taken by surprise by Councils reversal of our ASR editorship choices, and
\par have struggled, collectively and individually, to frame an appropriate response.
\par By now you have probably heard about Michael Burawoy?s response--that is, his
\par resignation from the Committee. Because it has been so widely circulated, you
\par have probably also gotten a chance to read his letter of resignation. If not,
\par we are attaching it to this message.
\par
\par We are writing this letter because we believe that Burawoy's resignation, and
\par the discussion it has triggered, removes the last barrier to a necessary
\par discussion among the membership of two very important issues: the procedural
\par rules that allowed one elected body of the ASA to summarily reverse the actions
\par of another elected body; and the very important question of intellectual
\par diversity in our journals. We are hopeful this communication will help to
\par define those issues, inform the now inevitable public discussion, and help to
\par frame a proactive policy response that will address these issues substantively.
\par
\par We hope you will circulate this message to other members of the Association,
\par particularly since, so far, this is the only way we have of reaching the
\par membership.
\par
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {THE PROCEDURAL ISSUE.
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par As Burawoy's letter forcefully discusses, the nub of the procedural issue is
\par this: the Committee on Publications, following standard procedure, sent to
\par Council two nominees for the editorship of ASR chosen from a group of five
\par applicants. While all the proposals had valuable ideas and proposals, we felt
\par that only these two were high on all the dimensions the Committee was seeking.
\par Nevertheless, Council without soliciting the logic behind our decision rejected
\par both our first and second choices, and instead chose one of the remaining five
\par candidates. As Burawoy pointed out, this is more than unprecedented. In the
\par past few years, no one can remember an instance in which the Council rejected
\par Pub Comm?s first choice (though surely this must have happened in the distant
\par past); everyone who is knowledgeable agrees that Council has never before (for
\par any editorship) reached beyond Pub Comm?s nominees to select an applicant who
\par had not been sent forward.
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {While this act is not illegal (there is no specific bylaw prohibiting it), it
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {should be; and it certainly violates the spirit of the recent vote by the
\par membership to retain an elected Committee on Publications. If we were appointed
\par by Council, our job would be to follow the direction of Council. But since we
\par are not a creature of Council, and directly represent the membership, we have an
\par obligation to make editorial appointments that are consistent with the
\par principles developed within the committee to fulfill our electoral mandate.
\par When and if Council disagrees with our actions (that is, when there is a
\par disagreement between two elected bodies, both representing the membership) this
\par constitutes an important policy conflict within the Association, and it should
\par be treated as such. This would normally involve some sort of attempt to define
\par the issues and adjudicate them. (And it could certainly merit a public airing of
\par the underlying differences.)
\par
\par But Council did not treat reversing our judgment as a weighty issue. Instead,
\par in a short time, in the midst of an already cluttered meeting, it made a final
\par judgment that brushed aside all our deliberations and planning. And
\par representatives of Council have consistently refused to detail the reasons for
\par rejecting our nominees, instead indicating that the Council discussion "raised
\par the same criteria that were central to the debate in the Committee on
\par Publications, with slightly different emphasis."
\par
\par In short, the small amount of official information given us about the Council?s
\par deliberation appears to suggest that Council reversed our decision because of
\par slight differences in opinion about what constitutes a good candidate for the
\par editorship of ASR. And, that because of these slight differences, it took an
\par action that is unprecedented in the history of the American Sociological
\par Association.
\par
\par We cannot know the real thinking of those who voted for this reversal actually
\par was, but we do know that it must have been ill-conceived. On the one hand,
\par Council should never reverse the decision of another elected body based on small
\par differences of opinion or emphasis. On the other hand, if the reversal rested
\par on what they thought were large differences in policy, they should have engaged
\par in a dialogue with us to assure that the ultimate outcome was duly considered.
\par
\par The fragmentary--but we think incontrovertible--information available to use as
\par members of the Publications Committee leads us to believe that the differences
\par are indeed significant; and that the underlying substantive issues are worth the
\par time and energy of a thorough discussion among the membership.
\par
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE.
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par So what is the underlying dispute about? It has to do with the ancient and very
\par important issue of intellectual diversity in the ASR. For at least ten years,
\par since a formal Council resolution about diversity was first passed, the
\par Committee on Publications has struggled with the tendencies for ASR (and other
\par journals the Association publishes) to publish articles reflecting less than the
\par full range of ideas and subjects current in the Association. Four years ago,
\par Council formally mandated Pub Comm to explore these issues once again, and to
\par look for ways to broaden the intellectual content of ASR. We have been working
\par hard toward this end, so far with only limited success. The current editor of
\par ASR has been particularly diligent in trying a number of strategies (some of
\par them suggested by the Committee), with only moderate success. He has convinced
\par many of us on the Committee that the most important problem is broadening
\par submissions: getting people who would normally not think of the ASR as an outlet
\par to submit their most important and pathbreaking articles to the journal.
\par
\par This insight figured as a part of our deliberations on the ASR editorship. Both
\par of our designated nominees were, of course, superbly qualified in terms of the
\par other criteria we utilize in selecting an editor. But each of them also
\par addressed the issue of intellectual diversity in ways that appeared to have a
\par reasonable chance of broadening submissions. For many of us, this was a point
\par in their favor, since it would help advance the diversity project that had been
\par part of our mandate for the past four years. We should reiterate, however, that
\par this factor was by no means the primary qualification of either of the
\par candidates we sent to Council.
\par
\par While this diversity issue was not the central one in our deliberations, we
\par believe that it is central to Council?s unprecedented refusal to select either
\par of our nominees, in two different ways. First, by reaching beyond our nominees,
\par Council has brushed aside our efforts to broaden the intellectual content of the
\par ASR. Even if this was unintentional, it represents a major threat to this
\par ongoing effort. Second, we don?t think it was unintentional. A reasonable
\par inference from what is known to us about their decision is that at least some
\par members of Council felt that the attempt to diversify the content of the ASR
\par would alter its content: that at least some articles traditionally accepted by
\par the Journal would be replaced by other articles not traditionally a part of the
\par ASR mix.
\par
\par We do not deny that any attempt at change involves some danger to good aspects
\par of the current arrangement. For example, it is a legitimate concern that a more
\par diverse ASR might mean that high quality articles in one area would be replaced
\par by articles of lesser quality in another area. That is, intellectual diversity
\par might lead to a decline in standards. We agree that this is something to be
\par concerned about, and that is why Council?s action is so unfortunate: the
\par insights and approach our two selections would have maximized the chances of
\par diversifying the content while maintaining (or even raising) the standards of
\par the Journal.
\par
\par The question about whether and how to accomplish intellectual diversity is the
\par nub of the issue, and it is a very important one for the content of our journals
\par and for the future of the profession. Those of us who support the diversity
\par project believe that there are strong structural forces (in every profession and
\par every journal) that work against the inclusion of productive new areas and
\par important new paradigms. No one is to blame for this, but without careful
\par planning and self conscious effort, our journals will fail to acknowledge and
\par nurture at least some of the most significant new developments in sociology.
\par
\par For those of us who have grappled with these issues, Council?s actions are an
\par enormous setback. We have worked hard to identify solutions to these problems
\par that do not undermine the prestige and quality of the ASR and other ASA
\par journals. And these have been swept aside. We remain committed to addressing
\par these issues, but we need some assurance that our future work will not also be
\par swept aside.
\par
\par To gain this assurance, we need two things: procedural guarantees that our
\par decisions cannot be casually reversed, as they were in this case; and a strong
\par mandate from the membership that specifically embraces the principles of
\par intellectual diversity that we have been trying to implement.
\par
\par This is why the dispute between Council and Publications Committee needs to be
\par openly debated and resolved by the membership. If it is, we are confident that
\par our position will be vindicated: that the membership will support our efforts to
\par broaden the content of ASR (and other ASA journals); and agree with us that it
\par can be done while we also raise the quality of the journal. And we also feel
\par that the specific tactics and more general strategies of our nominees will be
\par vindicated and perhaps ultimately implemented.
\par
\par Such a public discussion is one way to assure that this sort of confrontation
\par will not re-occur. We are confident that a full airing of the issues will
\par assure the sort of procedural changes that preclude arbitrary reversal of Pub
\par Comm by Council. Without such changes, Publications Committee deliberations
\par will be contaminated by the need to anticipate the reaction of Council. This
\par will have a pervasive chilling effect, not only on the diversity project, but
\par other Pub Comm policy initiatives as well.
\par
\par
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {THE ISSUE OF CONFIDENTIALITY
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {One of the most difficult parts of this controversy has been the rules of
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {confidentiality, and the way they have been applied to the actions of Pub Comm
\par and Council. These rules initially prevented Pub Comm from even understanding
\par the logic of Council?s action and they remain a hindrance to an airing of the
\par differences between the two bodies. They have also--until Burawoy?s
\par resignation--prevented most members of the Association from appreciating the
\par existence of an important policy conflict within the elected leadership.
\par
\par It is important to make explicit the rationale for confidentiality, at least as
\par it is applied to personnel decisions. It?s primary goal is to protect
\par individuals who participate in collective decisionmaking by making such
\par deliberations secret--at least when they apply to the qualifications of specific
\par individuals. The secrecy of the deliberations is meant to insure that people
\par speak freely (and critically) about colleagues and other individuals they know
\par personally. Its secondary goal is to protect those who are the subject of this
\par decision-making. People will be less willing to stand for public or
\par professional office if they feel that it will become the occasion for public
\par (and often unjustified) criticism.
\par
\par The underlying principle is simple: we protect our nominees from public
\par criticism when and if it does not prevent the full debate of policy issues. We
\par do not offer or give such protection when the broader needs of the organization
\par demand public debate, as the deliberations of Congress over Presidential
\par appointments illustrates.
\par
\par As Burawoy indicated in his letter of resignation, Council?s reversal of Pub
\par Comm?s decision has put enormous strain on the customary secrecy of the
\par appointment process. If Council had organized a dialogue between the two
\par bodies, we might have resolved the differences in an orderly manner that
\par satisfied our electoral mandates without creating a policy dispute. But by
\par reversing our decision, the Council created two very important policy disputes:
\par one over our ongoing diversity efforts and another over the governance rules of
\par the ASA. Since they are both very important and since they involve differences
\par between two elected bodies, these disputes should be discussed by the
\par membership.
\par
\par The Publications Committee sought to organize such a discussion, but was
\par frustrated in these efforts. We were told that confidentiality rules were
\par absolute in this instance; that there could not even be a public acknowledgment
\par that Council reversed our decision; that the minutes of Council, when published
\par in Footnotes, would contain no reference to the reversal.
\par
\par Pub Comm was bound by these rules, and framed its response accordingly. This
\par makes Burawoy?s resignation all the more important, because he has brought the
\par issue to the membership when Pub Comm was prevented from doing so.
\par
\par When Burawoy's letter expresses his regret for breaking the confidentiality
\par rules in order to raise these issues with the membership, he is referring to
\par these rules. We support him in his argument that the larger issues raised by
\par Council?s actions justify this breach. That is, while he has broken the letter
\par of the rule as it is being applied in this instance, he is not violating the
\par spirit of confidentiality. Confidentiality should not apply when a key policy
\par issue is at stake--one that requires the voting membership to be informed.
\par
\par But there is also a way in which confidentiality should simply not be an issue
\par at all. The two policy issues raised by Council?s action are almost (but not
\par quite) divorced from issues of personnel. One is the issue of diversifying the
\par intellectual content of the ASR, and about the conditions under which this can
\par occur; and the other is about Council?s right to reverse the nominations of the
\par Committee on Publication, and how disagreements between the two bodies should be
\par appropriately adjudicated.
\par
\par We believe that debates over these issues can be conducted with minimal
\par reference to the individual candidates that triggered this dispute. Burawoy?s
\par letter makes it clear that this is possible. It only requires that those
\par engaged in the debate do their best to avoid unnecessary reference to these
\par individuals.
\par
\par But we realize that however careful everyone is, there already has been some
\par invasion of the traditional privacy accorded to the process of selecting
\par editors. And there will be more in the immediate future. So be it.
\par Confidentiality is not an absolute right. It must be compromised when larger
\par issues about the organization are at stake, and everyone (present and future
\par editorial candidates included) should acknowledge that and understand it when
\par they become involved in seeking office in the organization. We should limit the
\par discomfort that derives from this discussion by making every effort to organize
\par an orderly interchange of ideas, with the goal of resolving these issues; and
\par therefore prevent the debate from gravitating toward unproductive public airing
\par of personal information.
\par
\par And most importantly, we have to realize that confidentiality has already been
\par breached. Even before Burawoy's letter was written and circulated, many of us
\par have been fielding questions and rumors that were surprisingly detailed in their
\par knowledge of the events. With Burawoy's letter spreading rapidly through the
\par net, there will soon be general knowledge of the broad outline of the issues
\par involved. Even if it were better to keep silent (which we don?t believe), that
\par is no longer possible. The only possibility is to have an open discussion; and
\par to conduct it responsibly.
\par
\par
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {WHAT SHOULD BE DONE
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par We speak in this note as members of the ASA, but our positions on Pub Comm give
\par us a strong sense of the importance and urgency of these issues. We hope that
\par this statement will help generate an atmosphere in which the following can
\par occur:
\par
\par First, a reasonable public discussion of the issues raised by these events.
\par Hopefully this will appear in Footnotes, where all parties can carefully state
\par their positions and the membership can get a clear sense of what is at stake,
\par from the perspective of all those involved.
\par
\par Second, Pub Comm has submitted a list of procedural proposals to Council that
\par would codify the relationship between these two elected bodies. Hopefully these
\par proposals will be published in Footnotes, but briefly, they involve the
\par following: (1) The Chair of Publications Committee will present the nominations
\par for editorships to Council, with a detailed rationale for the decisions; (2) if
\par Council cannot accept any of the designated candidates put forward by Pub Comm,
\par it will return the nominations to Pub Comm, together with a set of reasons for
\par the veto; (3) if mutually agreeable candidates cannot be found, a conference
\par committee will be appointed to negotiate a compromise.
\par
\par We are hopeful that these can be quickly passed and implemented, and thus
\par prevent a re-occurrence of this unfortunate event. The membership should think
\par through these issues and make sure that the new procedures are satisfactory.
\par
\par Third, and most important, we need to settle on a viable way of increasing the
\par intellectual diversity in the ASA journals. As this event demonstrates, there
\par are strong differences of opinion within ASA leadership and within the
\par organization as a whole. We hope that this unfortunate incident will at least
\par be the occasion for the membership to inform itself about this issue and that a
\par clear sense of how to proceed will emerge.
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {Michael Schwartz
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {University at Stony Brook
\par Chair, ASA Committee on Publications
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {Elizabeth Higginbotham
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {University of Delaware
\par Member, ASA Committee on Publications
\par
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s2\sb240\sa60\keepn\widctlpar\outlinelevel1\adjustright \b\i\f1\cgrid {10.LETTER FROM ARLENE KAPLAN DANIELS 7/1/99
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\adjustright \cgrid {
\par In spite of my resolve to keep out of this affair, I cannot help commenting
\par on Paula England and Pat Roos' commentary over the ASA-ASR brouhaha. They
\par are quite right, of course on the subject of technical liability. Of course
\par the council has the right to override the publication committee. The
\par question really is: should it do that? As an old hand at council activities
\par I know just how hot and heavy those deliberations can get and how political
\par swings and heat of the moment can affect what happens. And, as ever, there
\par are underlying themes and counter themes that are not always explicit. But I
\par have a hunch that one of those subterranean conflicts may have been over
\par those constantly recurring arguments surrounding elitism and standards that
\par always come up when new and previously underrated ideas and positions come to
\par the fore. The new people or ideas are not seen as quite the sort of thing
\par that we of the old guard are comfortable with and so we down play them as not
\par quite the thing. I do think these are the conflicts that should be aired
\par quite openly at the meetings. The issue of confidentiality is important, of
\par course. But it is often a cloak behind which dark deeds are hidden. To
\par assure that this is not the case, would it be possible somehow to air the
\par names of rejected candidates if they would allow it? Or would it b e
\par possible to have, in some general way, a summary of at least some of the
\par deliberations? Could we hear from some of the council members who voted
\par against the majority? I have a lively interest in what they might say. Let
\par us think and ponder and then consider what might be the best strategy for
\par approaching the matter in the business meeting or wherever seems suitable.
\par Because at the very least, the brouhaha suggests that the membership is not
\par entirely pleased with its council's procedures and wants some further
\par accountability than that found through a technical understanding of council's
\par responsibility.
\par Arlene Kaplan Daniels Old China Hand and Venerable Bede in this
\par organization(SWS)and in ASA as well.
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s2\sb240\sa60\keepn\widctlpar\outlinelevel1\adjustright \b\i\f1\cgrid {9. LETTER FROM PATRICIA ROOS AND PAULA ENGLAND, COUNCIL MEMBERS 7/1/99
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\adjustright \cgrid {
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {Dear SWS colleagues,
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par As SWS members and elected members of Council, we wanted to comment on the
\par recent discussions of Michael Burowoy's resignation from the Publications
\par Committee in protest over the fact that Council did not approve the
\par Publications Committee's recommendation for ASR Editor.
\par
\par Some discussion on the list-serve as well as personal communications we
\par have received suggest that the action of Council was antidemocratic or
\par unethical. We disagree. Current ASA bylaws provide for the (elected)
\par Publications Committee to make a recommendation to the (elected) Council,
\par which has the final responsibility for selecting editors for ASA journals.
\par In this case, in our personal opinions, there were a number of excellent
\par candidates. To assess these candidates, and the recommendations of the
\par Publications Committee, Council members examined the relevant bylaws
\par carefully and the options open to us. Lengthy deliberations ensued about
\par procedural and substantive matters. As is often the case, reasonable people
\par disagreed about criteria and how they applied to the cases at hand. A
\par majority decision was reached. We don't see how this is anti-democratic or
\par unethical. We can't discuss the substance of the debates, because
\par discussions of editor selections are wisely supposed to remain confidential.
\par
\par In our view, Council members take the counsel of the Publications Committee
\par very seriously. As elected representatives of the ASA membership, Council
\par members also take seriously their ultimate responsibility to the membership
\par to make the final selection of editors. This is not the first time that
\par Council has disagreed with recommendations of the Publications Committee;
\par it won't be the last. The recent membership vote did, as some have noted,
\par reaffirm the existence of an elected as opposed to appointed Publications
\par Committee. However, Council's ultimate responsibility to select editors
\par remains in place. According to our bylaws, the Publications Committee
\par remains advisory to Council, and in our minds should remain so.
\par
\par Some of the discussion on the list-serve encourages dialogue. We agree with
\par this suggestion. If people think that Council should not have the authority
\par to overturn a recommendation of the Publications Committee, they could
\par suggest changing the bylaws. If people have suggestions about how the ASR
\par should be run, and what kind of scholarship it should include, they can
\par share these with the Editors-elect (Charles Camic and Franklin Wilson), the
\par Publications Committee, Council, or in letters to the Editor of Footnotes.
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {Paula England
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {Patricia Roos
\par Patricia A. Roos, Professor of Sociology & Dean-Social & Behavioral Sciences
\par Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Rutgers University
\par 77 Hamilton St., New Brunswick, N.J. 08901-1248
\par (732) 932-8435 (Dean's Office); (732) 445-5848 (Sociology)
\par http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~roos
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s2\sb240\sa60\keepn\widctlpar\outlinelevel1\adjustright \b\i\f1\cgrid {8.LETTER FROM BARRIE THORNE TO SWS 6/30/99
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\adjustright \cgrid {
\par Re: the ASA Council overriding the Publication Committee's recommendations
\par for the next editor of ASR --
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright { Thanks to the folks who posted Michael Burawoy's letter of
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {resignation from the ASA Publications Committee. His letter is written in
\par a way which safeguards identities but which clarifies the larger issues and
\par principles that are at stake. It is clear that he acted out of principle
\par both in resigning and in sharing his carefully crafted letter.
\par I hope that Michael Burawoy's concerns will be a focus of extensive
\par discussion among sociologists. Let's bring his letter, and our concerns,
\par to broader audiences via e-mail, conversations with colleagues, and by
\par continuing to push (as some of us have already done) for FOOTNOTES to
\par publish Burawoy's resignation letter, and responses, in the open forum
\par format that has been so useful in airing other contoversial matters.
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright { HERE ARE THE TWO CORE ISSUES, AS I SEE THEM:
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par 1) DOES COUNCIL'S RECENT ACTION INDICATE A TREND AWAY FROM DEMOCRATIC
\par GOVERNANCE IN THE ASA, A TREND WHICH SHOULD BE NAMED, DISCUSSED, AND
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {PERHAPS CHALLENGED?
\par About a year ago the SWS-list included many messages of concern
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {about Council's proposals to make the Publications Committee an appointed
\par rather than an elected committee (that proposal was voted down by the ASA
\par membership), and to make the Committee on Commitees appointed rather than
\par elected (that one passed, thereby lessening opportunities for sociologists
\par not at research universities or in elite networks to become active in ASA
\par governance).
\par The ASA membership continues to elect members of the Publications
\par Committee, which I believe gives extra legitimacy to their recommendations
\par for journal editors. (Plus, the Publications Committee members do a great
\par deal of homework, reviewing not only proposals from potential editors, but
\par also the history, vision, and quality of each ASA-sponsored journal.)
\par Council has the right to ignore committee recommendations, but in the past
\par has never done so,at least in the case of recommendations for ASR editors.
\par (Please correct me if any of the facts I assert are off-base.) Nor,
\par according to Burawoy's resignation letter, did Council explain why it so
\par summarily ignored the recommendations in this case -- Council did not
\par consult with the Publications Committee, did not request further
\par information. Council simply replaced the recommended candidates with its
\par own choice of editors.
\par I'm not on the inside of any of these matters, but from the outside it
\par looks like Council is subverting the mandate and efforts of another
\par democratically elected body, and thereby moving in an anti-democratic
\par direction already signalled by the restructured governance they proposed
\par (and partially succeeded in establishing) a year ago.
\par
\par 2) THE AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW IS TOUTED AS THE 'PREMIER' AND
\par 'FLAGSHIP' JOURNAL OF U.S. SOCIOLOGY (in some tenure/promotion reviews an
\par ASR article is "worth" as much as a book, folks say, and certainly "worth"
\par more than articles published elsewhere). BUT WHAT SORT OF VISION OF
\par SOCIOLOGY DOES IT REPRESENT? WHAT VISIONS AND APPROACHES GET FAVORED OR
\par EXCLUDED? WHO CONTROLS THE ASR?
\par To many of us old-timers the ASR has long represented the hegemonic core
\par of the discipline, with a narrow idea of what "counts" as good sociology,
\par and with a skew favoring some methodologies, epistemologies, topics,
\par theoretical perspectives much more than others. There have been repeated
\par calls, over the years, to broaden the ASR -- and many jokes about how
\par narrow it continues to be in content and outlook. Now and then something
\par broader gets through; some editors are more narrow as gatekeepers than
\par others; there have been broadening efforts. But many of us don't even
\par submit to ASR because it isn't worth the effort to try to crack through the
\par hegemonic assumptions about methods and discourse and framings of ideas.
\par Again, I don't know the any of the inside story re discussions in the
\par Publications Committee, or in Council, regarding the next editors of ASR.
\par But the suspicions I sketched in the previous paragraph are fueled, rather
\par than allayed, by Council's rejecting the recommendations put forth by a
\par Publications Committee elected by the full range of sociologists. How can
\par we prod ASR to encompass a broader vision of sociological knowledge if the
\par committee elected with those concerns in mind is not given full sway to
\par exercise its mandate? I know that the narrow outlook of ASR has been
\par extensively discussed by past publicatins committees. The problem remains,
\par and is worsened by Council's action, which undercuts the credibility of the
\par journal and suggests that active gatekeeping is going on.
\par
\par Something is amiss in the house of ASA. Let's get some democratic breezes
\par blowing, and issues out in the open.
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {Barrie Thorne
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par Barrie Thorne Office phone: 510-643-1073
\par Dept. of Sociology Office fax: 510-642-0659
\par 410 Barrows Hall
\par Univ. of California Home phone: 510-549-0803
\par Berkeley CA 94720 Home fax: 510-845-4030
\par ^^^^^Ratio of children in poverty in Canada, Australia, Sweden,
\par ^^^^^Germany, Netherlands is 1/3 of U.S. rate, of elderly, 1/4 of U.S.
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s2\sb240\sa60\keepn\widctlpar\outlinelevel1\adjustright \b\i\f1\cgrid {7.LETTER FROM LYNN SMITH-LOVEN, FORMER MEMBER OF PUB COM 6/30/99
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\adjustright \cgrid {
\par Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 09:21:26 -0700 (MST)
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {From: Lynn Smith-Lovin <smithlov@u.arizona.edu>
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {To: James Cassell <cassell@vance.irss.unc.edu>
\par Cc: Southern Sociological Society Network <sssnet@vance.irss.unc.edu>,
\par Sociology Graduate Student Discussion <socgrad@csf.colorado.edu>,
\par polisoc@vance.irss.unc.edu
\par Subject: Re: More information on Micheal Burawoy's resignation
\par
\par
\par Dear Folks,
\par As a former member of the ASA Publications Committee (ex officio, as
\par an editor of SPQ, before the editors were removed from the committee by
\par last year's constitutional changes), I think I might be able to add a
\par little information about the process without commenting directly on this
\par year's problem. Each year when we discussed editor recommendations in the
\par Publications Committee, it was stressed that we were just making
\par recommendations to Council (also an elected body), which had the final
\par say. We gave at least two (ranked) choices because we recognized that
\par COuncil might not approve our judgments. We often spent a great deal of
\par time discussing how to get Council to adopt our first choice. In short,
\par the procedure was for the Pub Comm to make recommendations and the Council
\par to choose.....and people generally recognized that while Council had
\par usually ratified Pub Comm's choices, it might not in any specific case.
\par It was also stressed (to a great degree) that the Publications
\par COmmittees recommendations were to be VERY confidential, since if Council
\par did not adopt them we did not want it widely known that the Council's
\par choices (the new editors) were not the Publications Committee's choices.
\par Another reason for confidentiality is to encourage people to apply without
\par the risk of being publicly rejected.
\par As I mentioned above, the editors did not participate this year in the
\par Committee's decisions about recommendations to Council. I write here
\par mainly to clarify procedure.
\par Cheers, Lynn Smith-Lovin
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s2\sb240\sa60\keepn\widctlpar\outlinelevel1\adjustright \b\i\f1\cgrid {6.SECOND RESPONSE OF PRESIDENT PORTES 6/30/99
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\adjustright \cgrid {
\par
\par TO: Members of the American Sociological Association
\par
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {FROM: Alejandro Portes, ASA President
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par
\par SUBJECT: Consequences of Letter of Resignation by Professor Michael
\par Burawoy
\par
\par
\par DATE: June 30, 1999
\par
\par
\par Professor Michael Burawoy has recently circulated a letter impugning the
\par selection of the new editors of the American Sociological Review. In
\par violation of the existing bylaws of the American Sociological Association,
\par the letter divulges details of the selection process that were meant to be
\par confidential for the protection of colleagues who have advanced their
\par candidacies for editorial positions. The letter makes allegations that
\par represent the author's personal views, but are not substantiated by existing
\par ASA rules of governance. These rules specify that the Publications
\par Committee makes recommendations for the selection of new editors, but that
\par the final decision rests with the elected members of Council.
\par
\par
\par The recent election of all new editors was conducted in full compliance with
\par existing rules. Recommendations by the Publications Committee and final
\par decisions by Council were arrived at by open majority votes. Impartial
\par procedure does not require unanimity in such votes and the existence of
\par other deserving candidates in no way invalidates the legitimacy of the
\par selection. Most Council members deemed the joint proposal submitted by
\par Professors Charles Camic and Franklin Wilson as the best on the basis of its
\par merit and promise for the future of ASR.
\par
\par
\par Professor Burawoy has resigned from the Publications Committee because he
\par disagrees with this decision. He has the right to do so. He is equally
\par entitled to propose changes in the selection procedures and lead a drive to
\par that effect. He does not have the prerogative, however, of unilaterally
\par breaking existing rules and, in the process, calling into question the
\par legitimacy of duly selected editors. When becoming part of the Publications
\par Committee, he, like all officials, agreed to abide by a set of rules and
\par regulations sent to him upon election.
\par
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {This breach of confidentiality has jeopardized the integrity of the
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {selection process and has placed the new editors of ASR in a difficult
\par position through no fault of their own. Existing rules of governance are
\par not an idle bureaucratic constraint. They embody the very spirit of an
\par equitable and democratic process. Without them, the very existence of this
\par or any other professional association would be compromised. This is the
\par crux of the problem in this case.
\par
\par
\par In light of these events, I have taken the following steps:
\par
\par
\par * I have accepted Burawoy's resignation from the Publications
\par Committee.
\par * I have concurred with the Editor of Footnotes to publish the Burawoy
\par letter. The letter has been circulated so widely as to make the issue of
\par confidentiality moot at this point.
\par * I have communicated with Professors Camic and Wilson to reaffirm the
\par legitimacy of their selection and ASA's support for them in their new
\par editorial role.
\par * I have asked Council to review Burawoy's letter both for the
\par situation it created and its substantive content. As a senior scholar in
\par the field, Professor Burawoy is optimally situated to propose changes meant
\par to improve our rules of governance. This could have been done without the
\par harm produced by violation of the bylaws.
\par
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s2\sb240\sa60\keepn\widctlpar\outlinelevel1\adjustright \b\i\f1\cgrid {5.LETTER FROM DAN CLAWSON, FORMER EDITOR OF CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY, TO FOOTNOTES 6/30/99
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\adjustright \cgrid {
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {Michael Burawoy resigned from the Publications
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {Committee to protest elements of the selection process
\par for a new ASR editor, and publicly circulated a letter
\par of resignation that revealed (extremely limited)
\par details of the selection process. According to
\par President Portes's letter to Burawoy, "appropriate
\par standing committees" have been asked to look into this
\par because "this conduct constitutes prima facie evidence
\par of a breach of the ASA Code of Ethics."
\par
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {Is Burawoy being investigated because he is the first
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {ever to breach confidentiality? Not likely. Maybe
\par there's an editor who first learned of his or her
\par appointment through the official notification process,
\par but a large majority learn through other channels --
\par this is, through breaches of confidentiality -- and
\par these cases never elicit official action.
\par
\par
\par Burawoy is targetted not for violating confidentiality,
\par but rather for sharing information with the general
\par membership -- which almost no one does -- instead of
\par telling one or two dozen members of the profession's
\par inner circle -- which almost everyone does.
\par
\par
\par Evidently, the Publications Committee made an attempt,
\par firmly rejected by Council, to open up the discipline.
\par Wouldn't it be exciting if ASA leadership used this
\par opportunity to involve the membership in a wide-ranging
\par discussion of the future of sociology, to ask, for
\par example:
\par
\par
\par Does ASR accurately reflect the views, perspectives,
\par styles, and approaches to be found in the discipline?
\par What would be lost, and what gained, by experimenting
\par with alternative models of scholarship and modes of
\par presentation? What efforts, if any, should be made to
\par attract a wider range of contributors and readers?
\par Does a majority of Council believe it is important that
\par ASR continue largely unchanged?
\par
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {Unfortunately, Council has not brought these issues to
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {the members, and when Professor Burawoy did, the
\par response has been repression.
\par
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {With a sufficiently rigorous interpretation of the Code
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {of Ethics, no one outside of Council and the
\par Publications Committee could ever learn that there had
\par been any controversy, much less be involved in the
\par debate.
\par
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {I'd like to believe that stifling debate is an
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {unintended aberration, but I keep thinking back to last
\par year: Council voted that members should not be
\par permitted to elect the Publications Committee,
\par FOOTNOTES presented only the Council (anti-election)
\par viewpoint, and dissenting views were excluded. I was
\par told this was an unfortunate and unavoidable accident.
\par This year, however, not only will FOOTNOTES not publish
\par the dissenting view, but the dissenter is targetted for
\par sanction.
\par
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {Dan Clawson
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par
\par
\par
\par --
\par Dan Clawson 413-545-5974 (work)
\par Dept. of Sociology 413-545-0746 (fax)
\par W-36 Machmer Hall 413-586-6235 (home)
\par Univ. of Massachusetts
\par Amherst MA 01003 email = clawson@sadri.umass.edu
\par
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s2\sb240\sa60\keepn\widctlpar\outlinelevel1\adjustright \b\i\f1\cgrid {4.LETTER FROM PAT ROOS, COUNCIL MEMBER 6/29/99
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\adjustright \cgrid {
\par >Delivered-To: soc_fac-og@email.rutgers.edu
\par >X-Sender: roos@email.rci.rutgers.edu
\par >Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 22:46:55 -0400
\par >To: soc_grad@email.rutgers.edu, soc_fac@email.rutgers.edu
\par >From: "Patricia A. Roos" <roos@rci.rutgers.edu>
\par >Subject: ASA and Burawoy
\par >Sender: owner-soc_fac@email.rutgers.edu
\par >
\par >To all:
\par >
\par >As an officer of the Association, and a longtime member of Council, I've been
\par >swamped with emails about this issue over the past few days. Conspiracy
\par >theories are running rampant, and misinformation is spreading like a computer
\par >virus. What has happened over this issue shows the real danger of half truths
\par >and innuendos spread electronically without any regard for the full truth.
\par >
\par >I am in the process of composing a response to a listserve with a colleague on
\par >Council that addresses this issue, and will forward it to all of you. I'll
\par >also forward you a copy of Alex Portes' (the current ASA president) response.
\par >As someone who was present during the Council deliberations on this issue, I
\par >can say with absolute certainty that democratic procedures as outlined in the
\par >ASA's constitution were followed to the letter in a very lengthy discussion.
\par >The right to appoint editors rests with Council, upon recommendation of the
\par >Publications Committee. As the Council minutes will show, a majority of the
\par >Council believed that the current editors-elect were the best choice among a
\par >set of good candidates. One member of the Publications Committee clearly
\par >disagreed with Council's action, and took it upon himself to publicize private
\par >deliberations. Democracy is sometimes messy, but it's not up to one member of
\par >an advisory committee to decide to make confidential deliberations public.
\par >
\par >One obvious factual error in the attached correspondence: I happened to be
\par >down at ASA today and a final decision on whether to publish Burawoy's letter
\par >in Footnotes has yet to be made. However, my guess in that Burawoy's letter
\par >will not be published, but this is hardly censorship. My own take on this is
\par >that, despite its widespread electronic distribution, publishing the letter
\par >would be ethically inappropriate and would condone the public release of
\par >confidential information. Just as we wouldn't want our private deliberations
\par >re tenure and promotion decisions publicized, nor our evaluations of student
\par >progress, Council discussions re editor candidates also need to be private.
\par >Otherwise, we'll have difficulty convincing future editor candidates to put
\par >their names forward, fearful that they too will undergo the public humiliation
\par >the current editors-elect have faced.
\par >
\par >pat
\par
\par
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s2\sb240\sa60\keepn\widctlpar\outlinelevel1\adjustright \b\i\f1\cgrid {3.LETTER FROM ROBERT ZUSSMAN, EDITOR-TO-BE OF QUALITATIVE SOCIOLOGY 6/29/99
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\adjustright \cgrid {
\par Like Gary Fine, I would like to know much more. I have a strong presumption
\par about the choice of editors but this largely on who my friends in the field
\par are. I have far too little info even to have a settled view, let alone an
\par informed view, on who should have been picked. HOWEVER, that said there
\par seem to me two basic issues that I do have a view on.
\par
\par First, the ASA sponsored journals are typically amazingly narrow in what
\par they represent of the field. (Let me add that I am about to take over the
\par editorship of Qualitative Sociology--about which, much more to this list
\par later--and have obvious biases.) To be sure, there are many excellent
\par articles in ASR and in the other journals I look at. Moreover, I think a
\par lot of the journal bashing--mine included--is a convenient excuse to justify
\par not reading the stuff we don't have time or energy to read. Still, the ASR
\par is a bizarre representation of the field, intellectually, politically and
\par demographically. As a result, I have a strong and informed view that there
\par is good reason to support almost any well-intentioned effort to shake it up,
\par broaden its base and make it relevant to a wider audience.
\par
\par Second, the ASA position on confidentiality seems to me a perversion of the
\par intention of such policies. Portes has written back to Burawoy, expressing
\par concern about B's violation of ASA policy in this regard and suggesting that
\par he will ask the "appropriate cdommittee" to look into B's "breach of the ASA
\par code of ethics." But confidentiality is meant to protect the powerless and
\par to ensure the integrity of process. In this case, it is doing neither while
\par helping to limit the kind of open discussion that is absolutely essential to
\par substantive democracy within any organization.
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {So, sure, let's get more information. But we should also understand that
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {asking for more information has become, in this peculiar incident, itself a
\par political act and that Burawoy has very much put himself on the line to get
\par at least some information out. So two cheers for Michael Burawoy with the
\par third reserved only until we all know the full story.
\par -----Original Message-----
\par
\par
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s2\sb240\sa60\keepn\widctlpar\outlinelevel1\adjustright \b\i\f1\cgrid {2.FIRST RESPONSE FROM PRESIDENT PORTES 6/28/99
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\adjustright \cgrid {
\par
\par June 28, 1999
\par
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {Professor Michael Burawoy
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {Department of Sociology
\par 410 Barrows Hall
\par University of California
\par Berkeley, CA 94720-1980
\par
\par
\par Dear Professor Burawoy:
\par
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {I received your letter dated June 15, and I accept with great regret
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {your resignation from the ASA Publications Committee.
\par
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {It is important to state that the propriety of the selection of editors
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {according to ASA existing rules is not an incidental matter but is the
\par core of the issue. Extensive disagreements can be expected in many
\par important matters. The crucial consideration is whether they are
\par resolved in a democratic manner and according to legal rules. The fact
\par that an individual or group find themselves in the minority does not
\par entitle them to unilaterally break standing rules established by a
\par democratic process.
\par
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {Your reasons to resign are your prerogative. I lament, however, the
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {decision to circulate your letter of resignation, divulging in it
\par details of the selection process and placing your personal
\par interpretation on them. This action has compromised the integrity of
\par the process and placed a number of your colleagues in a difficult
\par position. Among them are the appointed editors of the American
\par Sociological Review who, through no fault of their own, find their
\par ability to carry out their job compromised.
\par
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {Since this conduct constitutes prima facie evidence of a breach of the
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {ASA Code of Ethics, I have asked the appropriate standing committee of
\par the Association to look into the matter.
\par
\par
\par Sincerely,
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {Alejandro Portes
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {President
\par
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {AP:bjm
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par
\par cc: Members of Council
\par Publications Committee members
\par Felice J. Levine, Executive Officer
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par
\par }\pard\plain \s2\sb240\sa60\keepn\widctlpar\outlinelevel1\adjustright \b\i\f1\cgrid {1.RESIGNATION LETTER FROM MICHAEL BURAWOY 6/15/99
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\adjustright \cgrid {
\par
\par
\par \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab June 15, 1999
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {President Alejandro Portes
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {Department of Sociology
\par Princeton University
\par Princeton 08544-1010
\par
\par
\par Dear President Portes:
\par
\par \tab Since late February, I and my colleagues on the Publications Committee have been wrestling with a response to Council\rquote s peremptory reversal of our recommendations for the editor of the }{\i 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 Publication
s 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.
\par
\par \tab While Council was }{\i formally}{ within its rights to over-rule the Publications Committee, this was nonetheless an egregious violation of }{\i substantive}{
accountability, rendering our extensive work null and void. Council did not explain its action, nor did it request a co
nsultation 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?
\par
\par \tab 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 indepe
ndence 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.
\par
\par \tab I have listened to those who have argued that making the membership awa
re 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\rquote
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.
\par
\par I was elected to the Publications Committee to reflect a variety of perspectives current in our discipline, and to speak for the div
erse 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 }{\i 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.
\par
\par I have every confidence that Professors Wilson and Camic will do an excellent job as editors of the }{\i American Sociological Review}{ but, through no fault of their own, it will not be one that reflects the Publications Committee\rquote
s efforts to carry out its mandate. I can find no other response but to publicly resign forthwith from the Publications Committee.
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {Yours Sincerely
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par
\par
\par }\pard \widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright {Michael Burawoy
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {Department of Sociology
\par University of California, Berkeley
\par
\par
\par cc.Members Council
\par Members of the Publications Committee
\par Professor Franklin Wilson
\par Professor Charles Camic
\par
\par
\par
\par }}