Search News


Browse Archives

News

Pressure Prompts Publisher to Punt

September 27, 2005

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

A publisher of nearly 200 scholarly journals has canceled publication of a book on same-sex desire in ancient times, citing complaints from a conservative Web site that one chapter in the book “could be interpreted as advocating adult and adolescent sexuality.”

Haworth Press, Inc. announced that its Harrington Park Press imprint would not publish Same-Sex Desire and Love in Greco-Roman Antiquity and in the Classical Tradition of the West. The book was scheduled to appear as a freestanding title and as a special issue of the Journal of Homosexuality, which Haworth also publishes, in November.

The book, which is edited by two researchers at Nova Scotia’s Acadia University and includes the work of scholars at the University of California at Los Angeles, City University of New York’s Hunter College, and the University of Texas at Austin, among others, is generally a history of the role and perception of homosexuality in ancient Greece and Rome. But it also features a chapter, called “Pederasty: An Integration of Cross-Cultural, Cross-Species, and Empirical Data,” by Bruce Rind, an assistant professor of psychology at Temple University.

Last week, WorldNetDaily, a Web site that describes itself as independent but that often takes up conservative causes, published an article drawing attention to an abstract of Rind’s article that appeared on Haworth’s Web site, which began this way: “Pederasty, or sexual relations between men and adolescent boys, is condemned in our society as an unqualified evil that maims and destroys. In ancient Greece, samurai Japan, and numerous other cultures, pederasty was seen as the noblest of human relations, conducive if not essential to nurturing the adolescent's successful intellectual and physical maturation.”

The summary went on to say that pederasty “came to serve a mentoring function,” and that “empirical data” today show that “pederasty is not only not predestined to injure, but can benefit the adolescent when practiced according to the ancient Greek form.” (The abstract of Rind's article and the others in the book is no longer available on Haworth's Web site, but it can be found here on the Web site of an organization, IPCE, that describes itself as a "forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults.")

The WorldNetDaily article quoted its managing editor, David Kupelian, as saying that the mainstreaming of "adult child" or "intergenerational" sex is the next big "sexual liberation" movement on its way. It also noted that Rind had been the subject of controversy before: In 1999, the American Psychological Association felt compelled to make clear its opposition to sexual abuse of children after its Psychological Bulletin published an article by Rind that suggested children were less harmed by such abuse than is generally thought, provoking intense criticism from members of Congress.

Kathryn Rutz, vice president for editorial development at Haworth, said in an e-mail message that the press had received about 20 e-mail messages in the 24-36 hours after the WorldNetDaily article appeared, and that the flurry of messages prompted a “vigorous” discussion among the press’s top officials.

“Issues on the table,” she said, “included freedom of speech, consequences of negative publicity, personal objections to the subject matter, and resistance to what might appear to be caving in to a particular group with its own right-wing agenda.”

Ultimately, Rutz said, the decision to cancel the book was based on the fact that “the final article by Bruce Rind is construed by some as being sympathetic to pederasty,” which she emphasized that the press does not “in any way support or endorse.”

Rutz said the decision “can on one level be considered a business decision. Our customer base is large and the number of disciplines we cover is large. Because 95 percent of our customers would likely be opposed to anything even remotely construed as sexual abuse apologetics, publishing this paper would be a bad business decision.”

Neither Rind nor John P. De Cecco, an emeritus professor at San Francisco State University who edits the Journal of Homosexuality, responded to requests for comment. One of the editors of the proposed volume, Vernon Provencal, an associate professor of history and classics at Acadia, said in an e-mail message that he could not comment until he had spoken to editors and publishers at Haworth.

While some commentators have condemned Haworth for dropping the book, others who see themselves as defenders of academic freedom find themselves twisted in knots about this case. "I don't particularly like publishers being intimidated into dropping books, even objectionable books," wrote Cathy Young on her blog "The Y Files." But "you really don't need to be a right-wing moralist to have misgivings about attempts to normalize sexual relations between adult men and underage boys. And I do think that Haworth Press (the publisher) used poor judgment in approving this particular essay, as outlined, for inclusion in the book."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments on Pressure Prompts Publisher to Punt

  • Posted by John Lobell at Pratt Institute on September 27, 2005 at 9:46am EDT
  • Ok, so political pressure is challenging Darwinian evolution, and now changing the cultural history of Greece and Rome. If someone thinks the book got it wrong, publish a scholarly review challenging it. What’s next? Challenges to gravity, as in the theory of “Intelligent Falling?” This will no longer be amusing when it hits engineering education.

  • Posted by Larry on September 27, 2005 at 11:10am EDT
  • There has to be more to this than just WND’s article. Nobody take them too seriously, though some people consider it a badge of honor to be smeared by them.

  • Wait
  • Posted by Cicero , Professor on September 27, 2005 at 11:11am EDT
  • John (if I may),

    I don't believe the objection is to the historical fact (there are plenty of books and articles well establishing the existence of such practices). I think, rather, the objection is to the shading of the material into apologetics for the practice. Since we have wisely abandoned the myth of "total objectivity" in the study of culture, it is totally appropriate for a publisher to consider moral issues when deciding what to publish. Their fault was in approving the essay in the first place and thus putting themselves in the embarrassing position of retraction.

  • Pederasty In Ancient Worlds
  • Posted by Christine Sell on September 27, 2005 at 2:29pm EDT
  • Pederasty is surely a word that our modern western culture applies to sexual relations between older men and boys or older men and young men. Can you take a modern word and apply it to an ancient cultural practice? Are we now afraid to look at ancient worlds and find out about them, muse on their practices, learn from their mistakes and their rightful actions? Why is everything about crime and punishment these days? Why should people and publishers be made to feel that they are committing a crime when considering the publication of a book such as the one that Haworth has dropped. Does this mean that we are not far from the moment when even to discuss something that used to be acceptable in other times, but is unacceptable in our times is criminal? Pederasty is a crime in most western nations. Talking about pederasty is not. Talking about pederasty in the context of an ancient society is not a crime. No scholar should be made to feel that his/her work is criminal; no publisher should run in fear of an accusation from the right; no reader should flinch from reading about another culture and its practices. Yet that is what we are doing now, repeatedly.
    We are really in a crisis here, aren't we? Here sits the Right afraid of anything that smacks of individual action, intelligent discourse, or information that might cause thoughts to happen in someone's head; hiding from discovery behind the back of God. Here sits the Left with its head in the thought cloud, dropping down from the fog long enough to say or publish something that smacks of individual action/thought, intelligent discourse, and information that might cause thoughts to happen in someone's head. And that seems for some reason to make a small vocal portion of our FREE SPEECH society go berserk. If the Right takes even a small action (20 E-MAILS????) then the mainstream (in this case a publisher) runs amok - with not a clue what to do , how to react rationally, how to respond to a little opposition and pretty generally opts for copping out. No wonder we can't assist people in hurricanes - we can't even face reading something about an ancient culture that is dead and gone without hyperventilating and retreating, a scream buried in our throats and thoughts blown from our minds. Could we please, as a nation, start to consider joining a real, grown up, thinking and considerate world? What a switch that would be....

  • What the*#@!?
  • Posted by Cicero on September 27, 2005 at 3:43pm EDT
  • Nice rant, but did you actually read the article? Once again, the problem is NOT that the book is about pederasty, but rather the fact that one of the essays actually advocates it. Absolutely no one is saying that we shouldn't look unflinchingly at human culture. They are only saying that there is a difference between examining an ancient practice and advocating that practice. An analogy: no one would object to a book explaining the workings of human sacrifice in the ancient world, but SURELY we would object to (and as publishers not wish to be involved in the distribution of) a book advocating that we burn a few innocent folks alive every month or two.

    Before you go off on some self-righteous liberal rant about all those stupid conservatives, try grasping the actual facts of the case.

  • Posted by Larry on September 27, 2005 at 4:26pm EDT
  • Cicero,

    I am not sure I see the difference. Until electrocution was phased out in favor of lethal injection, I am pretty sure that we did burn a few innocent folks every month or two. Now we use lethal injections. We do engage in an elaborate ritual wherein various figures played different roles – often dressing up in black robes – or blue police uniforms – or “common” jurors outfits – but we the result was the same and many (perhaps most) people still think that some sacrifices of life are good for the greater good of society. The people executed are by-and-large from certain “segments” of society, and the ritual must be followed quite strictly or people will think that an “injustice” has been done and society has not been properly cleansed. There is much discussion and advocacy regarding this ritual.

    Of course, I could describe the process in more flattering terms and use words like “truth” and “punishment” but many would disagree with me and accuse me of advocating for something or other.

    I am not sure that the article itself was advocating that intergenerational relationships are “good” or not. (Though some seem to have attained societal acceptance, especially if the man is older and wealthier.)

    Instead, I think (and I might be wrong) that the article was saying that there should be more discussion about whether they are really as bad as commonly thought. Arguing that there should be more discussion of an issue (and that the issue itself, should be taboo) is hardly advocating that the behavior should be legal or even accepted.

    So, if we are to be truly open-minded about discussion, I think, we need to assure ourselves that no subject is taboo, even if the acts themselves are.

  • Advocation vs. Analysis vs. Statement
  • Posted by Kevin , undergraduate on September 28, 2005 at 4:20am EDT
  • Well, there needs to be a distinction between stating something (x occured in ancient Greece), analysing it (here are what could explain x) and advocating it (we should do x).

    There needs to be a high standard for advocating an action that is not only illegal but potentially very, very dangerous to the psycological health of those involved.

    Unless the author has some very good reasons to advocate something with such implications, the publisher is reasonable in considering the consequences of his actions more fully.

    Incidentally, there is a distinction between a judicial system in a democratic secular society and religious rituals in ancient autocracies. Both may end in death - but the reasons are entirely different.

  • Book on pederasty
  • Posted by Bunel Jean on September 28, 2005 at 4:21am EDT
  • I am a French scholar and I wish to publish a book comprehensive book on pederasty. It's a 20-year work. I am very surprise to realisze that that censorship is widepread in USA. What are these censors afraid of? Nevertheless I'll try to find a publisher either in USA or in the UK.

  • Posted by Larry on September 28, 2005 at 7:42am EDT
  • Mr. Brunel, While there is some difference on this board over what constitutes “censorship” I am unsure whether a given publisher refusing to publish something falls within anyone’s definition. Unlike Europe, there is pretty much an unfettered right to say whatever you want in the US without fear of criminal penalties. You can deny the holocaust. You can even say that the holocaust was a good idea (in text or comic book form) without fear of criminal penalties. In fact, you can even argue that certain illegal acts are good. (Though you can’t order people to commit them “now” (but here we have the hazy area of law known as “clear and present danger.”) This debate is regarding whether a certain publisher did something “good” or was unduly influenced by people that did not care about the academic merit of a subject.

    Kevin, What do you mean by “There needs to be a high standard for advocating an action that is not only illegal but potentially very, very dangerous to the psycological health of those involved.”? People say exact same thing about marijuana cultivation and usage. Possession is illegal in most states and people claim that it is “dangerous” the psychological health of those involved. Please explain what sort of higher bar you would place on academic study of things the legislature doesn’t like, and the lower standard you would place on study of things that the legislature does. You seem to be implying that a legislature can restrict speech based on what is legal or not.

    I would be anxious to know the difference is between a modern judicial system that frequently executes people and an ancient religious ritual that frequently executes people. Adherent to both of them swear that they are for the greater good and detractors swear that they are 1) primitive; 2) uncivilized; and 3) don’t actually help those that remain alive.

  • Study vs. Publication
  • Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on September 28, 2005 at 10:21am EDT
  • I don't think we need to stop anyone from studying the subject. However, I think that a responsible publisher will consider the implications of advocating an action. He can study it all he wants, and publish it anywhere he can find someone who wants to listen - I just think that that publisher will be behaving irresponsibly.

    Human sacrafice is destroying a person through no fault of their own. Capital punishment is terminating the threat posed by a person who has proven themselves a danger to society by their freely chosen illegal actions. This follows a inditment, a jury trial, conviction and numerous appeals to a legal system - the best system of determining guilt and innocence we have found to date. Its not the same as screaming to a crowd as one is being dragged to the stake.

    While mistakes have been made in each - check the (Illiad) for human sacrafices, the two work for very different goals and take lives for very different reasons

  • So, sex between a 19 and a 17 year old is paedophilia
  • Posted by Just Curious on September 28, 2005 at 9:39pm EDT
  • and sex between a 65 year old and an 18 year old is a private affair and nobody's business?

    Why? Because someone somewhere at some point in time decided that 18 is a golden rul.e age of maturity for every single human within their territory (village/city/county/state/federation of states etyc.) and then the surrounding regions mimicked this silly practice?

    Or because the state has a Foucauldian (mind you it is not as is often misspelled *Foucaultian) power to "discipline and punish?

    Or because we are tired of the critique of Malinowski's sexual escapades in the field?

    Or why?

  • Posted by Wes on September 29, 2005 at 4:58am EDT
  • 'The Illiad' -- I think Kevin just gave me the name for my next rap album. But seriously, it seems that the other contributors to the "censored" volume are getting unfairly shafted by this press. (My knowledge of Mr. Rind doesn't extend beyond the article above.) Also, Kevin ignores the existence of ancient jurisprudence and calls their (equally "legal") practice of execution "human sacrafice" [sic twice]. Judging from his post on witholding Pell grants for drug possession charges, this young man puts too much confidence in the decrees of his government vis-a-vis "justice". That is, I wonder if he would ever think to put the word justice in quotes. He also seems unaware that the Iliad was written centuries before the Athenian state. One last point: since the French write 'FoucaulTien' I think 'FoucaulDian' is wrong. Plus I have yet to see the latter form in print, which doesn't mean others haven't been similarly smarmy.

  • Foucauldian
  • Posted by Jessica B. Burstrem , M.A. Student at University of Florida on September 29, 2005 at 4:30pm EDT
  • Just for the sake of argument, in which I wholeheartedly believe, I must comment that I did just see "Foucauldian" in print in my reading today. Check p.145 of Spivak's IN OTHER WORLDS. It's right next to "Derridian," for what that's worth. ;)

  • Wes
  • Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on September 29, 2005 at 8:29pm EDT
  • I used the Illiad as an example because it showed a prominent example of the Greeks recognizing (in supernatural form) the consequences of human sacrafice. I did not mean to imply that it was an accurate representation of the actions of later Greek democracies or their feelings.

    An action being legal does not make it the result of a legal action - extrajudicial punishment and death is sanctioned by various societies in the modern day - from parents grounding the children (punishment) to sharia killings in Africa. This is not the same as the death penalty being enforced as a result of a conviction by a court. (Incidentally, unofficial gatherings of angry people do not constitute a court.)

    I have held that as a response for a crime, a lawfully convicted party might, in a nation which has such an institution, impose the death penalty. I hope you will note the distinction.

    Justice does not need quotes. It may be imperfect, but the very concept of justice is based on the society which it serves. Our society does not condone the sexual abuse of minors. Disagreeing with this concept does not mean the concept of justice is illegitimate - it just means that you disagree.

    Living in a democracy, we leave the people and their representatives to decide what is just and the judicial system to apply it. Though the people may have their excesses, I have great faith in the ability of representative democracy to express the knowlage of the day.

    Incidentally, that means we know more than our predecessors. We may make mistakes that they did not, but I feel confident that allowing sexual abuse is not one of them.

    As for the others, pedophilia is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent individuals - not 17 yearolds. The precise age of 18 is the best guess by our current knowlage of when a normal person can resume full responsibility for his or her own actions. I would not disagree with the idea that a 17 is probably capable of deciding whether or not to engage in sexual acts.

  • Posted by weston knight , alum at Grand Canyon Community College on September 30, 2005 at 7:44pm EDT
  • Kevin, your argument seems to hinge on 'current knowledge'. This notion might have a shred of legitimacy if we're only talking diachronically (ancient hijinks), but this 'knowledge' conveniently ignores the laws of other countries today, not to mention points of conflict between federal and state governments (synchronic perspective). When the feds swear to uphold their own marijuana laws despite the decision of the people of CA, AL, etc -- not their representatives -- to modify those laws, what becomes of your 'current knowledge'? This is kind of absolutist. 'There is no authority except that which [current knowledge] has established.' 'He who rebels against lawful authority is rebelling against what [current knowledge] has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment upon themselves.' [Romans 13:5, Proverbs 14:34] (Hat tip Crispin Miller, who leaves god in there when he quotes this.) So much for that. What I'm still wondering, and probably will never know as this page dissolves into the archival ether, is why did the other contributors lose out, or did they show solidarity by refusing to simply drop Rind's piece? And re: 'foucaultian', Spivak's writing is not a place to go to settle a grammatical question -- it's full of solecisms and catachreses -- but I will agree to go with the '-d-' because that version beats mine in google hits 204,000-50,100. Thanks.

  • Cancellation of book
  • Posted by Karen Kalinowski , Honours Psychology/Law on October 5, 2005 at 4:29pm EDT
  • I am surprised that no one seems to be upset by the fact that a book is being cancelled based on 20 e-mails from people who only read the abstract about the book. These were received from WorldNet Daily website (a site that promotes conservative causes) and sent to the Haworth Press, Inc. editors. They decided to cancel the book based on this small backlash. Please excuse my ignorance of American law (because I'm not American) but doesn't your country supposedly treasure freedom of speech ? On September 27, "Cicero" wrote, "Nice rant, but did you actually read the article ?" My reply: No Cicero, none of us read it because the book has been banned. How can people make an informed decision if they cannot even formulate an opinion ?
    Does anyone out there think that this book is being banned because of Rind's former articles, including A Meta_Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples (co-authored by Philip Tromovitch and Robert Bauserman), Psychological Bulletin, July 1998, Vol. 124, No. 1, 22-53 ? If you have not informed yourself of what happened here, the authors basically went through a witch hunt for reporting their findings. They were the first scientific article to be denounced in Congress based on their report on July 12, 1999. This is scary stuff, people. Censorship before the book was even released. What next ?
    Karen

  • Censorship vs. Cancellation
  • Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on October 7, 2005 at 4:39am EDT
  • Karen, there is a distinct difference between censorship and cancellation. The publishing company is not censoring their speech - it is simply making a business decision not to print their book. As they own their presses, they have every right to decide what does and does not come off of them - frankly without even owing anyone an explanation.

    The authors can still speak or publish their work anywhere they can find a willing party, or even publish it themselves if they so choose. No one prevents it.

    The first amendment to the American constitution prevents the government from creating legal restrictions that prevent speach that does not pose a "clear and presant danger" to others. It doesn't mean that owning a printing press means being forced to print whatever is submitted to you.

    Wes, in a democracy the people make rules and those who disagree elect people to change them. The fact that the laws are so complicated and shot full of exceptions and changed so often testifies to their imperfection - but it also points out their attempts at improvement and finetuning.

    If there is better knowlage than that which is currently available, then it will come. Simply saying that there are a lot of opinions out there doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't take action on any of them - as a people, we choose the ones that we find most reasonable based upon our current knowlage.

    As to the medicinal regulations, the constitution acknowlages federal primacy in law - and the high court upheld it. If you want to change the law, elect people who will.

  • Re:Censorship vs. Cancellation
  • Posted by Karen Kalinowski , Honours Psychology/Law on October 7, 2005 at 11:24am EDT
  • Kevin, do you know anything about the Rind et al./ Lilienfeld controversy ?
    Rind, Bauserman and Tromovitch wrote a meta-analysis discussing the effects of child sexual abuse in 1998. In 1999, right wing conservative groups forced politicians into moving to denounce their work in Congress.
    Haworth Press had already accepted the article as part of a book it was set to release. It's not as if the article was simply rejected by the editors from the moment it was received. This mirrors the Lilienfeld controversy surrounding RBT's meta-analysis. Lilienfeld decided to speak out about the RBT meta-analysis. His journal article was accepted, then deemed unacceptable by American Psychologist. A special edition of American Psychologist (March 2002, I think)addresses the controversy surrounding this issue.
    I think what is really happening here is that the author is being punished for studying a controversial topic. Not getting published has a lot of repercussions on your tenure, funding and reputation. I think we should be encouraging more speech instead of less.
    If one sceintist is silenced by twenty e-mails from a right-wing group, what chance do other scientists have who study controversial topics ? Who's to say that work on same-sex unions and stem cell research, as examples, will be next to not be published?

  • far too long for one entry (part 1)
  • Posted by Peter on November 30, 2005 at 4:34am EST
  • First off, I agree with Kevin in that just because the US has the first Amendment and free speech is at least rhetorically honored by the American government and its citizens, a publishing company has every right to refuse to publish anything they choose for whatever reason they choose (unless seen to be discriminatory as defined by US law).
    With this point in mind, I see no problem with arguing whether or not the publisher should have succumb to the pressure not to publish the said book. Nevertheless, this argument can take on an anecdotal presence at best unless we actually read the article in question.

  • trying to make sense of all this
  • Posted by Peter on November 30, 2005 at 4:35am EST
  • First off, I agree with Kevin in that just because the US has the first Amendment and free speech is at least rhetorically honored by the American government and its citizens, a publishing company has every right to refuse to publish anything they choose for whatever reason they choose (unless seen to be discriminatory as defined by US law). With this point in mind, I see no problem with arguing whether or not the publisher should have succumb to the pressure not to publish the said book. Nevertheless, this argument can take on an anecdotal presence at best unless we actually read the article in question.
    I personally would like to read the article so I can make my own judgment as to how it really approaches the subject of pederasty. Does it really advocate the practice? And if it does, does it give good reason? I say this because I see nothing wrong with arguing against something that is held to be a moral standard in society. If someone wants to explain to me how pederasty is somehow good for the world, so be it; I may or may not listen. I think it’s a MAJOR problem that we hold our moral values as constants when history has shown us that this couldn’t be further from the truth. Society (for the most part) does not shun the discussing topics such as genocide, for example, in their historical context; as it does not shun discussing pederasty in the same manor. What society tends to stay away from are the normative arguments of whether these acts are right or wrong and what their true effects might be. Now I would assume that the vast majority of us would believe that mass genocide is wrong and should not occur, but the fact is it still does occur, and if we really want to do something about it we need to truly understand why someone might think that it’s good and right.
    Lastly, others may argue with this point, but I believe that the recent events within the Catholic Church were truly pederastic in nature because the Priests involved took on a mentoring status with the young boys which they were accused of molesting, and this is the very essence of Ancient pederasty. I would like to ask of Mr. Rind or anyone else interested; whether or not it is possible that these relationships between the priests and the young boys were not only not as destructive as we deem them to have been but possibly good for the children involved. Yes I said it! Is it possible that, as the Ancient Greeks believed, pederasty is actually GOOD for the young “apprentice” involved? I would like some in depth answers please; don’t just tell me that pederasty is wrong just because it is.

    Peter.