BY DAVID MOSHMAN
Academic freedom, in the definitive 1940 AAUP Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, includes “full freedom in research and in the publication of the results.” Any law that prevents publication of academic research because it reaches conclusions the government deems objectionable is a clear violation of academic freedom.
In recent controversies over academic freedom in publication, however, the questions are more subtle, requiring detailed consideration of the rights, roles, and responsibilities of authors, editors, reviewers, publishers, and readers. In such cases, I suggest, the rights of individuals are a function of their roles and responsibilities and can only be understood within a general context of respect for the academic integrity of academic journals. Here are three examples.
In a 2017 article in the feminist philosophy journal Hypatia, Rebecca Tuvel began with Rachel Dolezal, who, after presenting as a Black woman for years, was widely ridiculed and condemned because her parents were white. Meanwhile, Caitlyn Jenner “graced the cover of Vanity Fair, signaling a growing acceptance of transgender identity.” After considering multiple similarities and differences, making arguments, anticipating counterarguments, and providing detailed rebuttals, Tuvel concluded that genuinely transracial persons—no less than transgender persons—are due full respect.
Many of Hypatia’s readers immediately dismissed the article as “offensive,” “wack shit,” and “crap.” Deeming Tuvel “transphobic,” “racist,” “crazy,” and “stupid,” they condemned her for “epistemic violence” and “discursive transmisogynistic violence.” Over eight hundred scholars signed an open letter urging that the article be retracted because “its continued availability causes further harm.” A majority of Hypatia’s board of associate editors extended “our profound apology to our friends and colleagues in feminist philosophy, especially transfeminists, queer feminists, and feminists of color, for the harms that the publication of the article on transracialism has caused.”
In response, Hypatia’s editor made clear that the article in question had been properly reviewed, that the reviewers had recommended publication, that she had accepted it for publication, and that she stood behind the process, the decision, and the author. Hypatia’s board of directors wrote: “Hypatia is bound by principles of publication ethics to stand by its editors, referees, and authors except in specific cases such as plagiarism and fraud. These principles have been thoughtfully designed to establish critical conditions for progress in inquiry.”
Over the next year, however, the departures of the editor, most of the associate editors, and ultimately the entire board of directors raised serious questions about the academic integrity of the journal. A 2023 Hypatia article by Rima Basu, perhaps reflecting Hypatia’s new editorial policy, proposed extending the work of institutional review boards beyond the protection of human research participants to the protection of all people and groups from ideas and conclusions deemed morally unacceptable.
Here’s another case: Perspectives on Psychological Science (PoPS) is a major journal of the Association for Psychological Science (APS). In spring 2022, Bernhard Hommel sent PoPS a manuscript responding to a 2020 PoPS article by Steven Roberts and co-authors that presented the results of a study of race with respect to the editors, authors, and contents of six major psychological journals. The Hommel critique deplored what Hommel perceived as a trend toward ideology and activism in psychological research and advocated a broader conception of diversity, arguing that Roberts’ focus on race and his concluding recommendations were not justified by the evidence provided.
The editor accepted the manuscript for publication based on three favorable reviews and invited all three reviewers to expand their reviews into commentaries for publication. He also invited Roberts to reply to what were now four critiques of his work and invited Hommel to write a final rejoinder. Although the commentaries from the three reviewers were accepted by the editor without any review process, Roberts was asked to revise his commentary prior to publication in response to a detailed critique by Hommel.
On December 2, 2022, Roberts posted his revised commentary online along with his account of what he perceived as unfair treatment, which he attributed to systemic racism. This led to a petition signed within days by over a thousand psychologists, beginning with a charge of racism and demanding, among other things, the immediate resignation of the editor. APS concurred and accepted his resignation on December 6. Most of the journal’s associate editors resigned in protest. As of July 2024, a new editor has yet to be named and the review of new submissions, which was suspended nineteen months ago, has yet to resume.
One last case: On June 3, the Columbia Law Review published its latest issue online. Within hours the board of directors shut down the website in order to prevent access to the newly released issue because of an article by Rabea Eghbariah offering a novel conceptualization of Israeli and Palestinian history that coordinates matters of settler colonialism, ethnic cleansing, occupation, apartheid, and genocide. Access to the journal was restored on June 7.
If the journal’s board was using the standards proposed for Hypatia, it might have been concerned that Eghbariah’s account of Israeli history would be offensive, and perhaps even harmful, to Israelis, Zionists, and/or Jews. But the standard for determining what gets published in an academic journal is not whether some readers may be offended or upset. Eghbariah’s manuscript, after careful vetting and revisions, had been deemed by the law review’s editors to have met academic standards of evidence and argument.
The PoPS case seems to me more complicated than either of the others. I’m not convinced the charge of racism was justified but there does seem to have been a questionable pattern of viewpoint discrimination in the review process. The abrupt dismissal of the editor, however, made him a victim too. In all three cases we see the importance of making and respecting academic judgments about what to publish. To compromise this undermines the academic integrity of academic journals.
David Moshman is a professor emeritus of educational psychology at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln.
