{"id":113961,"date":"2018-07-16T12:00:33","date_gmt":"2018-07-16T11:00:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=113961"},"modified":"2018-07-23T10:22:48","modified_gmt":"2018-07-23T09:22:48","slug":"genocide-hoax-tests-ethics-of-academic-publishing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2018\/07\/genocide-hoax-tests-ethics-of-academic-publishing\/","title":{"rendered":"Genocide Hoax Tests Ethics of Academic Publishing"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

Debates over the history of colonialism have sparked controversies on university campuses in recent years, as illustrated by the removal of a statue honoring Cecil Rhodes at the University of Cape Town in 2015.
Desmond Bowles, CC BY-NC-SA<\/p><\/div>\n

2 Jul 2018 – <\/em>Hate speech is on the rise<\/a>. In Canada alone, it increased by a staggering 600 per cent between 2015 and 2016 as part of what some have called \u201cthe Trump effect<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Academia is not immune to this trend. According to a recent study, some scholars have sought to promote \u201ccolonial nostalgia and white supremacy\u201d by using the \u201cscholarly veneer\u201d of academic journals to spread \u201cwhat are otherwise hateful ideologies.\u201d<\/a> What are the responsibilities of scholars in light of these developments? Are there any ethical limits to what is acceptable for debate in scholarly journals?<\/p>\n

To take an extreme example, would an article advocating for genocide<\/a> be fair game for publication, or is it beyond the ethical bounds of legitimate scholarly debate? That these sort of questions even need to be asked is a testament to the troubling times in which we live.<\/p>\n

Recent academic controversies, such as the debate over the \u201cEthics and Empire<\/a>\u201d project at Oxford, which seeks to develop a \u201chistorically intelligent Christian ethic of empire<\/a>\u201d in order to justify neo-imperialist interventions in the present, have given a new sense of urgency to addressing the ethics of academic scholarship. Yet when leading historians and other scholars<\/a> have challenged the legitimacy of such scholarship, the self-proclaimed champions of \u201cfree speech\u201d<\/a> have predictably claimed that academic freedom is under assault.<\/p>\n

However, a scholar\u2019s right to free speech does not entitle them to be granted unlimited access to whatever scholarly platform they desire. Scholarly journals have a right to reject any article they decide is unfit for publication \u2014 whether due to lack of scholarly merit or on ethical grounds.<\/p>\n

The scholarly community also has a right to question the judgement of academic journal editors if they believe that a published article does not meet the basic standards of academic conduct.<\/p>\n

This was precisely the situation that arose last year when a prominent international studies journal published an article praising the virtues of colonialism while ignoring the atrocities of colonial rule.<\/p>\n

The \u201ccase for colonialism\u201d debacle<\/strong><\/p>\n

When the Third World Quarterly<\/em> published Bruce Gilley\u2019s \u201cThe Case for Colonialism<\/a>\u201d last fall, it sparked outrage within the scholarly community<\/a>. Not only did the article proclaim that colonialism was \u201cbeneficial\u201d to the colonized, but it also advocated for the recolonization of former colonies by the Western powers.<\/p>\n

Read more: Colonialism was a disaster and the facts prove it<\/a> <\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In response, two<\/a> petitions<\/a> garnered over 18,000 signatures calling for the article\u2019s retraction. The petitions argued that the article should never have been published since its account of the history of colonialism was deeply flawed<\/a> and its recolonization proposal would violate the basic human rights of millions<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The publisher, Taylor & Francis, eventually withdrew the article<\/a>. Yet they did so not for the reasons laid out in the petitions, but allegedly due to threats of violence against the journal\u2019s editor. To date, the publisher has not released any concrete evidence related to these threats, nor have they explained whether a criminal investigation was conducted into the matter.<\/p>\n

Although the petitioners welcomed the news of the article\u2019s retraction, both critics and supporters of the Third World Quarterly<\/em> viewed the publisher\u2019s rationale for withdrawing the article due to violent threats \u2014 rather than a lack of scholarly merit \u2014 as setting a dangerous precedent.<\/p>\n

However, the article was recently republished by the National Association of Scholars<\/a>, a conservative advocacy group, in the name of supporting \u201cacademic freedom.\u201d<\/p>\n

Supporters of the Third World Quarterly<\/em> had made much the same argument in a petition<\/a> published in The Times<\/em><\/a> last December, which stated that academic journal editors have a right \u201cto publish any work \u2014 however controversial \u2014 that, in their view, merits exposure and debate.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

European colonialism was based upon the establishment of racial hierarchies that subjugated colonized peoples to European control.
Walter Crane\/Boston Public Library<\/p><\/div>\n

Ethics and academic freedom<\/strong><\/p>\n

What exactly \u201cmerits exposure and debate\u201d in scholarly journals? As the editor of a scholarly journal myself, I am a strong supporter of academic freedom. But journal editors also have a responsibility to uphold the highest standards of academic quality and the ethical integrity of scholarly publications.<\/p>\n

When I looked into the pro-Third World Quarterly<\/em> petition in more detail, I noticed that over a dozen signatories were themselves editors of scholarly journals. Did they truly believe that \u201cany work \u2014 however controversial\u201d should be published in their own<\/em> journals in the name of academic freedom?<\/p>\n

If they had no qualms with publishing a case for colonialism, would they likewise have no ethical concerns about publishing a work advocating a case for genocide?<\/p>\n

The genocide hoax<\/strong><\/p>\n

In late October 2017, I sent a hoax proposal<\/a> for a special issue on \u201cThe Costs and Benefits of Genocide: Towards a Balanced Debate\u201d to 13 journal editors who had signed the petition<\/a> supporting the publication of \u201cThe Case for Colonialism.\u201d<\/p>\n

In it, I mimicked the colonialism article\u2019s argument by writing:<\/p>\n

\u201cThere is a longstanding orthodoxy that only emphasizes the negative dimensions of genocide and ethnic cleansing, ignoring the fact that there may also be benefits \u2014 however controversial \u2014 associated with these political practices, and that, in some cases, the benefits may even outweigh the costs.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As I awaited the journal editors\u2019 responses, I wondered whether such an outrageous proposal would garner any support from editors who claimed to support the publication of controversial works in scholarly journals.<\/p>\n

Would they think that a case for genocide \u201cmerits exposure and debate,\u201d or would any of the editors raise ethical concerns about its content?<\/p>\n

As it turns out, nine of the editors declined to move forward with my proposal and the remaining four never responded<\/a>. This seemed to be a reassuring sign that there were still ethical standards at work in the editorial decision-making process. However, the reasons for their rejections differed markedly, and very little had anything to do with scholarly ethics.<\/p>\n

The editors\u2019 responses<\/strong><\/p>\n

Two editors noted that their journals rarely if ever accept special issue proposals, while two others explained that the topic of genocide didn\u2019t align with the focus of their journal. Interestingly, several editors expressed skepticism about whether there was a need for \u201cbalanced\u201d debate on the topic.<\/p>\n

More concerning were those who declined the hoax proposal but praised it nonetheless. For instance, one editor noted that the proposal \u201csounds fascinating.\u201d Another offered encouraging advice and even stated that \u201cI hope you do find an outlet.\u201d<\/p>\n

Of all the responses to the hoax, only one editor raised any major ethical concerns about the nature of the proposal itself.<\/p>\n

Referring to the submission as \u201cmorally repugnant\u201d and \u201coffensive,\u201d the editor said it was simply unthinkable to imagine that such a proposal could even have been submitted for consideration to a scholarly journal.<\/p>\n

Here was a forceful defense of the ethical integrity of academic publishing if ever there was one. Yet why had this very same editor supported the publication of \u201cThe Case for Colonialism,\u201d especially given the historical linkages between colonialism and genocide<\/a>?<\/p>\n

The ethical limits of scholarly debate<\/strong><\/p>\n

When a journalist brought the comparison between colonialism and genocide to the attention of Bruce Gilley, author of \u201cThe Case for Colonialism,\u201d Gilley made a very revealing comment<\/a>. He said that:<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s an absurd analogy. Genocide, I think everyone would agree, is a moral wrong. There\u2019s absolutely no plausible philosophical argument that one group of people establishing authority over another is an inherent moral wrong. Human history is all about alien rule.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This statement is remarkable in a number of ways. For starters, it ignores the fact that a basic principle of international law<\/a> is that the \u201csubjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Colonialism violates the right to self-determination as established by UN Resolution 1514(XV), 14 December 1960. Patrick Gruban\/Flickr<\/p><\/div>\n

It also obscures the undeniable historical connections between colonialism and genocide<\/a>. And, lastly, it is a tacit acknowledgement that an academic work which promotes a \u201ccase for genocide\u201d is indeed beyond the bounds of legitimate scholarly debate on ethical grounds.<\/p>\n

All the blustering rhetoric of academic freedom<\/a> notwithstanding, it seems there is, in fact, general agreement that scholars must have at least some sort of ethical limits to academic debate. The key point of contention is where<\/em> exactly those lines should be drawn. Gilley and his supporters would have us believe that making a case for colonial domination is well within those limits.<\/p>\n

As for my part, I\u2019ll stand with the more than 18,000 scholars who have argued that if an academic work is calling for the violation of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms, that\u2019s a pretty good indication it doesn\u2019t deserve the time of day from reputable scholarly publishers.<\/p>\n

_________________________________________<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/em>Reuben Rose-Redwood <\/a>– Associate Professor, University of Victoria<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Republish <\/em>The Conversation articles for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons license.<\/em><\/p>\n

Go to Original \u2013 theconversation.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

2 Jul 2018 – When the Third World Quarterly published Bruce Gilley\u2019s \u201cThe Case for Colonialism\u201d last fall, it sparked outrage within the scholarly community. Not only did the article proclaim that colonialism was \u201cbeneficial\u201d to the colonized, but it also advocated for the recolonization of former colonies by the Western powers. In response, two petitions garnered over 18,000 signatures calling for the article\u2019s retraction.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":113963,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[224,127,56,51,53,66,54,142,139,221,148,200,208],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-113961","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-human-rights","category-africa","category-asia-pacific","category-europe","category-latin-america-and-the-caribbean","category-middle-east-north-africa","category-palestine-israel-gaza-genocide","category-education","category-justice","category-indigenous-rights","category-history","category-academia-knowledge-scholarship","category-literature"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113961","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=113961"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113961\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/113963"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=113961"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=113961"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=113961"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}