THE HYPOCRISY OF LIBERALS ON THE ISSUE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN A RACIST SOCIETY
Patrick Louis Cooney
Rosemary Santana Cooney, Ph.D., Fordham University
"Thank God, here comes a loud, clear note of discord in the evil harmony! "
Vernon Johns, "Transfigured Moments"
The Sin of Trying to be the New W. E. B. Du Bois and Vernon Johns
At times we feel that we are the only nonracists in America. Everyone else, both black and white, are working within the given racist system for small changes that will never present a fundamental challenge to the racist system in America. We have written how today's stress on the position "plural but equal" in the popular multiculturalism is a kin to the South's Jim Crow era of "separate but equal."
W. E. B. Du Bois was able to overthrow the dominance held by Booker T. Washington, who accepted the "separate but equal" doctrine. We have tried to do the same thing for the "plural but equal" doctrine of the multiculturalists.
In addition, we have also tried to perform the role of Vernon Johns, father of the civil rights movment of Martin Luther King, Jr., to start a third civil rights movement. Vernon Johns was a man who would not accept living within the given racial continuum. He wanted to overthrow the old apartheid system in the South, with which the various political groups either supported or cooperated. But, of course, Vernon Johns was censored and almost completely lost from American history.
As far as we know, we are the only ones in America trying to perform these roles. And the attempt to promote these ideas has been an eye-opening experience because of the overwhelming resistance we have met. We dare say that this experience is unavailable to other Americans because they chose to work within the racist system rather than reject it. You see more clearly how a racist system works when you reject it and then have to suffer the consequences for your actions. (An experience we dare say that members of the A.C.L.U. have not had.)
Unorthodox Thoughts about Censorship
Liberals in America are always bragging about how much they believe in free speech and how much they defend free speech. This is especially true of groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (A.C.L.U.). The contention of this paper is that the liberals are only defending free speech that is compatible with a racist society.
In a racist society such as America, the governmental sector is very small compared to the private sector. The A.C.L.U. primarily concerns itself with governmental censorship. This, however, means that they concern themselves with only a small sector of the sources of censorship in a racist society.
In a racist society, one rejecting that society is denied access to all publication avenues. (One can only self-publish.) All the publishing houses are closed to consideration of the anti-racist system work. Furthermore, even the university presses are closed. And not only the university presses, but also the various disciplines of the social sciences. Even publication in any social scientific journals is not permitted. About as high in the world of publishing one can get is a round table or two at a social scientific conference, such as the American Sociological Association.
Let's just take it for given that the United States is a racist society. (If you don't accept this argument, then you are probably not the type of person to be reading this report.) In a racist society there is a full political continuum from fascists to communists, but the followers of these positions all work within a racist society. Therefore, the various political coalitions are all racist. Now the far leftists will deny this charge saying that they are working to overthrow the existing system. But their strategies have so little chance of ever succeeding in the United States, that one has to question not only their political approach and wisdom, but their motives and character. What do you do with people who keep chasing rainbows into dead ends? You question their motivation.
When one does not accept the current system because it is racist, one really has no allies. In a racist society, all the parts of the system are designed to defend it and keep it going. There are no sponsored avenues available to reject the system. (Of course, if one has lots of money in America, one can get all the publicity one wants. But if one does not, then the avenues for getting one's ideas out to a wider public are non-existant.)
Living within a racist system, groups who say they are devoted to fighting censorship, like the A.C.L.U., are of very little help. The A.C.L.U. only concerns itself with issues flowing from "government" censorship or related issues based on skin color, sex, etc. But in a racist society most of the work of discrimination is done by private individuals and groups. This means that the A.C.L.U. would never have helped Vernon Johns. His ideas never got past the individual and group censors, so the apartheid governments in the South never had to concern themselves with Johns. The private racists made sure his ideas never got to the level of government involvement. They kept him from gaining any significant level of attention.
Currently, the same is true for the Vernon Johns Society. We do not have to worry about government censorship because the private censors working within the racist structure will make sure the ideas will not be spread. Groups like the A.C.L.U. are nice liberals who do some good work, but they are still working within a racist system. In fact, the existence of a limited government sphere in racist America insures that the A.C.L.U. and others groups like it will remain very unhelpful to real change.
To illustrate how silly this all is. Those on the left keep trying to make affirmative action the litmus test of racism. If you oppose it, you are automatically a racist. We at the Vernon Johns Society do not oppose affirmative action. But what we hate is that the leftists spend all this time and energy on a program that will never help more than a small proportion of the black community, while at the same time failing to support even the publication of ideas that have a chance to change to the racist society.
Typical liberal reformers would ask Vernon Johns questions such as, "Well if you are so committed to change, why aren't you in contact with the various liberal groups in your community?" One man asked Johns why he did not cooperate with the ministers in his community. He replied: "Because they don't want to do anything." And that's what we say about the existing liberal organizations of today. They only want to talk about petty governmental programs rather than work to change fundamentally the given racist structure.
Our Experience with Censorship
I (the senior author) worked at Prentice-Hall in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey for about six years. It was a very boring job which did not use my intellect and so to keep my mind active I started making historical tours of Revolutionary battlefield sites in the mid-Atlantic region. When I ran out of these sites I started visiting other historical sites. I soon realized how bewildered I was about the time frame for the varied historical sights I was seeing. So I started to read a lot of American history. After several years of touring and reading I realized that I had a potential book here. I eventually published the book via Rutgers University Press under the title Discovering the Mid-Atlantic: Historical Tours.
While doing the research for the book, the one thing that really amazed and puzzled the me was the similarity between the Puritan religion of the New England states and the culture of the United States today. It occurred to the author that America's value system had not fundamentally changed, despite considerable industrialization, and post-industrialization. This naturally led to a search for the reasons for this lack of progress. The search gradually led to a factor, believe it or not, underemphasized by American social thinkers: race. This in turn led to a search for the reasons why Americans deny the role of race, when it is so important to American society and politics. The findings of this study actually shocked the authors. We knew America was racist, but this was more of a cliche than a useful theory. We did not realize how racist America actually was and continues to be.
The book was certainly not "politically correct." The version of political correctness that now dominates the better universities is a straitjacket on the minds and souls of scholars and should be renounced. Worse, this form of thought control is often used as a cover for discrimination against thought that is different, either from the right or the left of liberalism. It certainly hides the fact that "political correctness" is actually the liberal version of equality-of-opportunity racism.
Although it took nearly three years to realize, it finally dawned on us that America will not publish this work. Frankly, they are frightened of the works' theses. Reading and listening to the objections of middle class editors to the work is a classic illustration of how sophisticated racism operates in America. And the objections reflect all the major themes of racism: laissez-faire capitalism, middle class pseudo-democracy and rigid moralism. The argument proceeds in the following manner. They claim that both black and white people will not purchase the book because the message of the thorough and complete racism of Americans will upset them. (Translation: Americans are racists who will not purchase books that blame the middle class itself for the continuance of racism.)
Isn't it curious that in a straightforwardly racist nation, there are no racists? The real estate agents that show black customers to houses only in non-white areas, say they are not racist. It is just that they live in a racist society where whites do not want blacks living in their neighborhoods. The bank officers who turn down black applicants for loans fiercely maintain they are not racist. Everyone knows that blacks have a harder time repaying loans. The bank officers did not create this reality. And editors at university presses and professors of sociology who turn down manuscripts and papers critical of racism, maintaining that they personally are not racist. After all, they did not create racism. It's not their fault. But if sociology and the publishing industry refuses to publish works that are critical of the middle class, then that class will never be challenged to end its racism. The end result is to create a circular argument that insures the continuance of racism. (One clear sign of the power of a group is whether or not one can criticize it. Apparently, in America one cannot criticize the middle class.)
In fact, sociology is quite cowardly, like most academic disciplines. For instance, one of the chairpersons of sociology (at Drew University) would not even let the senior author teach a course dealing with racism as integral to American society because it might upset the conservative students. His rationale was that we must be able to please all the students, not just the liberal ones. But this is just another apology for sociology not being able to face the unpleasant realities of American society. It takes quite of bit of courage to challenge the system. One faces complete ostracism from the discipline and possible loss of revenue, reputation, and a job -- not to mention all the insults one has to put up from their so-called objective fellow sociologists. But we take comfort in the phrase "He who persists, conquers."
We are two sociologists who have seen the disturbing underbelly of sociology: the resistance to attempts to elucidate the real nature of racism in this country and to build another civil rights movement. It has been a real education to see sociologists who claim to be great humanitarians and civil rights supporters do nothing but censor our work. We have been collecting the nasty letters we have received from sociologists and will eventually write an article on censorship based on these quite disturbing letters. Working for change, we have seen a different side, an ugly side, to sociology that the status quo sociologists never experience or see. Most sociologists are pretty content with their discipline, but they have not tried to be innovative in the sense of working outside the racist system.
Actually, the hostility and censorship of sociologists to our work forced us to go on the attack against multicultural separatist sociology. We at one time thought there were enough good people in sociology that we could at least have our sociological papers accepted at conferences. But the resistance and rejection we have received has convinced us that as long as sociologists are politically correct multicultural separatists, we will not be published. Having no alternative but to fight, we have taken up the challenge.
Because American liberals are equality-of-opportunity racists, their commentary cannot be taken too seriously, at least as far as non-racist scholarship is concerned. And yet the liberals so dominate our universities and media institutions that they can censor any dissent from the equality-of-opportunity model. This is the situation in which the authors of this book found themselves. We have written the first non-equality-of-opportunity racist book explaining American society, government, and history, and yet precisely because it is not accepting of equality-of-opportunity racism, old or new multicultural liberals refuse to publish it.
Of course, liberals will never admit they are motivated by racism. (These days, who will admit they are racist, except a few K.K.K. extremists?) We tried all types of publishers. We tried Marxists, Marxist-Leninist, radical-liberal, both white and black liberal, and middle-of-the-road publishers. Most of them gave us no reason for refusing to publish the book (undoubtedly, the safest policy for censors). Some editors commented on the large amount of history in a sociological book. But if we had not put a great deal of history in the book, the editors would have said that we had not proved our point that American history follows a pattern dictated by the political demands of the white middle class.
Our pre-written book was to be published by a radical-liberal publisher, General Hall, Inc. Dr. Larry Reynolds really liked the book and he was looking forward to hearing the reaction of sociologists to the truth. We received great reviews from at least four radical reviewers. But as the book was about to be published, the copy editor became upset with the book's message and called the publisher to complain. The publisher refused to communicate with us after this, despite the existence of a contract. We learned that to sue a publisher would cost between $20 and $30 thousand. Our only alternative was to take the publisher to the American Arbitration Association. The publisher had to pay us $1,500 for the extra work on the manuscript requested by the radical-liberal editor, and $1,500 to the association for administrative expenses. To make a long story short, we had to publish the work ourselves. We are still looking for the brave few who will abandon politically correct equality-of-opportunity racism.
We sent out about 300 copies of the book to various sociology professors and civil rights activists. We got some modest positive feedback from members of the civil rights community, but virtually no feedback from sociology professors. With one exception. Dr. Joe Feagin wrote that he liked the book.
Dr. Joe Feagin of the University of Florida liked the book that I had to self-publish and was so enthusiastic that he said I should present articles based on it twice yearly at sociological conferences. In the book I had deliberately refrained from criticizing multiculturalism, mainly because I knew so little about it at that time, and because I was afraid that the book would not have any chance for publication or a fair hearing with this in it. Dr. Feagin kept encouraging me to learn more about what the current approaches to race/ethnicity were and said to read his book White Racism. He also told me that instead of writing a book on the Rev. Vernon Johns I should write on Proposition 209 in California. I wrote him back and said that I would not consider this because I was not a multiculturalist. At this point, Feagin stopped communicating to me, even though I wrote him a very extended commentary on his book on white racism. This is a clear example of ideological malice on the part of Dr. Feagin.
In spite of Dr. Feagin's silence, I decided to send two papers to him, one based on the theory about which he was very enthusiastic and one criticizing multiculturalism as the new racial separatism similar to the Booker T. Washington accommodation to the separate but equal system of segregation in the South. Needless to say, Dr. Feagin rejected both articles.
I also sent two papers to Dr. Robert Newby of Western Michigan University. I did not have direct dealings with Dr. Newby, but did have many indirect ones through Dr. Larry Reynolds. Dr. Reynolds was the editor of the book publishing firm of General Hall, Inc. He and the publisher accepted my completed book on the underrated role of race in America and we all signed a contract. When the book was entirely finished including the changes suggested by Dr. Reynolds, the copy editor intervened and wrote me and the publisher that the book was not acceptable to her (although she couched the wording in general phrases rather than referring to herself). The publisher then decided not to publish the book at all and ceased communication with my wife and me. In trying to resolve the matter I found the publisher to be one of the nastiest men I have ever met with complete obliviousness to his unethical conduct. Dr. Reynolds was furious with the publisher and tried to convince him to listen to the reviewers and not the copy editor. Dr. Reynolds told me that he told the publisher that Dr. Robert Newby was their star writer and that he would write a statement in support. All to no avail with the publisher. Dr. Reynolds said that he would help me get the book published somewhere else because he really believed in the book. I was so angry with the publisher that, without thinking, I said I was going to sue him. I never heard from Dr. Reynolds again. (Silly me, the American legal system is so unfair and expensive that it would have cost me more than $20,000 to sue, which effectively blocked that entire avenue.) Fortunately, my wife found a clause in the contract saying that any disputes between publisher and writer should be taken to arbitration. We did this and won a small money award, but more importantly, the satisfaction of hopefully teaching a very unethical and nasty publisher a lesson.
I do not know what happened to Dr. Reynolds. He may have gotten in trouble with his publisher, but to what extent I have no idea. Anyway, since Dr. Reynolds had told me about the favorable disposition of Dr. Newby to my ideas I figured Dr. Newby would be supportive. Dr. Newby, however, never even acknowledged that he had rejected the two articles. Furthermore, he also refused to respond to a letter I wrote him specifically stating that I had a special need to know the status of the two articles. It is always hard to conjecture about a person's motivations, but I suspect that the pseudo-radical Dr. Newby is engaging in both personal and ideological malice. But that is for the ethics committee to determine.
The third case is the most difficult because I do not know Dr. William Brustein of Minnesota University at all. I figured I clearly had the best theory of political sociology (especially considering the poverty of the theories in the area) and Dr. Brustein would possibly, hopefully, acknowledge this and said he would forward the papers to the political sociology roundtables. We never heard from any political sociology roundtable organizer. But Dr. Brustein rejected the articles with no explanation. I am forced to wonder whether he is more conservative and does not like the emphasis on racism in American politics and history, or whether he is just another unthinking follower of multiculturalism giving me a knee-jerk reaction. In fact, most sociologists refuse to discuss my ideas, simply contenting themselves with ignoring the ideas and me, hoping that I will just go away. This is perhaps the most maddening of all the responses. At least if I know where a person is coming from ideologically I have a chance to fight for my ideas. But when they simply ignore you, the situation is impossible. Anyway, I need to find out via the committee what were the grounds of rejection for my two articles.
There has been a polarization in the United States over the issue of multiculturalism. The multiculturalists have replaced the old economic issue political continuum with one based on race and ethnicity matters. And, according to the multiculturalists, anyone who does not agree with multiculturalism is to varying degrees a racist. Unfortunately, this raises ethnocentrism to a virtue. The current discipline of sociology (and especially the area of race and ethnicity) is dominated by multiculturalism. In doing research on the growth of multiculturalism within sociology I discovered that there are very few actual usages of the word in the work of sociologists, but that informally they agree on a multicultural approach. Indeed, the recent article in the ASA Footnotes ad nauseam referred to the city of Toronto's multiculturalism.
Sociology and the related area of black or African-American studies are so dominated by the multicultural and related afrocentric approaches that their members will not consider a challenge to their ethnocentric approaches. Indeed, ironically they have done their best to make the term multicultural ethnocentrism synonymous with the word tolerance.
We sent a letter to the president of the American Sociological Association with copies to members of the selection committees for 1997 and 1998. I only received one response. Dr. Neil Smelser told me that I had an option to bring the issue before the ethics committee. And so I am now formally submitting my complaint about the unethical treatment my wife and I received.
After we had submitted the letter of complaint, we received news that our paper comparing multiculturalism to Booker T. Washington separatism had been accepted by a roundtable dealing with multiculturalism. Oh boy, we get to discuss one of our ideas with two other people. Sociology has always been more about politics than science, but today the situation has totally gotten out of hand.
In trying to find some other sociologists who might be opposed to multiculturalism we wrote three professors who had written critical remarks about the separatism in the work of Alejandro Portes. We only got a response from one of them, and the nastiness of his remarks reveals the type of bias that goes on in sociology:
"Dear. Mr. Cooney:
Thanks (sic) you for your letter. It and the appended document raises useful points, but I think you may be overstating the dangers of multiculturalism as a concept. The issues you address have deeper roots. Also, I not sure (sic) that the state of the nation is as grave as you assert them to be."
I wrote him back and told him I asked him a simple question, but instead he wanted to write and give me a little political lecture from his biased world of multicultural sociology. I told him how, as a traditional sociologist, could he know if I was right or wrong. His abruptness is typical of the dismissal by racist sociologists out of hand of valid arguments. And it is another indication of how censorship proceeds in academia.
The preamble to the code of ethics of the American Sociological Association clearly says that sociologists have a commitment to "free and open access to knowledge" and to working in an atmosphere "without ideological malice," while striving "to maintain objectivity and integrity" in the practice of sociology (Section I). More specifically, in section II.B.1 dealing with publications and the review process it clearly states that editors should fairly apply standards "without personal or ideological malice." This is the section that a number of session organizers for the upcoming ASA meetings in Toronto, Canada violated.
Sociologists are a very sophisticated group of people and when they censor they do it in a very smart, sophisticated way. And, they usually, do not tell you why they censored you. They maintain a wall of silence. In fact, they deny it even to themselves. But the following tells exactly how they censor non-orthodox work. It's actually very easy for sociologists to censor work and it is done quite frequently, especially in these days of political correctness.
The vast majority of sociologists are on the political left, as I am myself. And most of these sociologists, even the multicuturalists, believe in various versions of American liberalism. American liberalism has always held that racism is only a social problem, even though a big one, and that eventually racism will be overcome by gradual liberal reforms. According to this perspective, the opponents of liberalism are primarily the rich businessmen who spend money on political advertising to corrupt the allies of liberalism (such as the working class) by encouraging racism. There are various interpretations of this theme, but they are all pretty much alike. Liberal sociologists do not allow much dissent from this scenario, except in the case of Marxists who are allowed to co-exist within the discipline.
Given this basic liberal approach, when a sociologist, such as yourself, reads an unorthodox paper that dissents from the basic theme of liberal sociology, in some form or other they simply say to themselves: "Well, this isn't right. We all know who are the real villains in American society. This article doesn't acknowledge this fact. It's just wrong. The article's no good. And, since it's wrong, but not Marxist either, it will have to go in the rejection box." It's as simple as that. What the sociological censors do not say to themselves is "Well, here is an interesting paper that the authors have worked long and hard on. Although I personally do not agree with it, it is interesting and thought-provoking, and deserves to be heard."
What sociological decision-makers don't expect is that their judgment will be challenged and that they be accused of bias. Such a challenger would risk being ostracized from all the important opportunities in sociology, and therefore such actions are not expected. If the decision-makers are accused of bias, they immediately start acting like employers in an anti-racial discrimination suit. They deny they had any but the purest of motives, that they are absolutely fair and unbiased to everyone, and that it is just the economic or other limitations of the situation that caused them to make their employment choices. In sociology, the economic or other limitation cited is that the poor chairpersons are overworked because they have to look at 100 or so articles. But most sociologists actually have to read, correct and grade more papers than this from students at the end of every semester. The task of looking over 100 papers is not really a difficult one, and actually should be considered fun and an honor rather than as some onerous task. But the sociologists want to "cool out" the dissatisfied complainant, and so they repeat this rather patronizing refrain to the dissenter.
The Vernon Johns Society has now fired sociology as a means of getting the truth out. Sociologists (and we dare say other social scientists as well, but to a lesser degree) are not really interested in the truth. They are interested in the best fit of their ideas with their politically acceptable beliefs. The Vernon Johns Society knew ahead of time that it would be useless to try to publish via the sociology of the New Left racial separatists. But now we have proved it. (We got tired of hearing "But did you try this and that avenue?") We sent nine articles to ten different sociological chairpersons of various committees for the A.S.A. meetings in San Francisco. None of the papers were accepted. We did not expect them to be, but now we have full proof of the uselessness of the sociological discipline. We have to go directly to the larger public, bypassing the racial separatists falsely parading as the defenders of civil rights. (By the way, none of the contents of the six related Vernon Johns Society websites are publishable in racist America.)
To show you just how corrupt the sociological discipline is: We decided to take three sociologists (Drs. Joe Feagin of the University of Florida, Dr. Robert Newby and Dr. William Brustein of the University of Minnesota) up on charges of censorship on the basis of political beliefs. This was back in February of 1997. It took the sociological office about three months before they finally even got a copy of the ethics code to us. We turned in the charges but did not receive any response until we enquired further. Then we received a letter from a Dr. Kennedy saying "Do I understand the charges?" We did not hear again from the ethics committee for about a year. We were beginning to wonder if sociology really has an ethics committee or if the committee members are deliberately trying to take their time about responding. We doubted that sociology is that swamped by ethical complaints. Hey, it's not like they are like the American justice system. So we sent a strongly worded letter to Ms. Levine of the A.S.A. trying to force her into some kind of response. We thought the whole process bit of a joke.
Kennedy and Levine finally permitted the case to go before the full ethics committee. We, however, were never given a chance even to read the responses of the professors we charged with ethics violations. The entire process was veiled in secrecy. We never really knew what they were doing or when they were supposed to be doing it. Talk about being kept in the dark.
It took about a year and a half, but we finally heard from the full ethics committee, August 1998. Following the secrecy line, no reasons were given for the denial of our ethics case -- just a statement of fact. We are somewhat bitter about the entire process, but we never actually expected to get as far as we did in the first place.
We may be absolutely correct that the sociologists are both racist and absolutely in the dark about the truth, but all that does not matter. Legally, we have no recourse against the lies that a society decides to support. The same thing happened to Vernon Johns. He was shut out by the liberals of his day and had no recourse against them. The only optimistic aspect of this entire affair is the realization that eventually those who presently support racism under the guise of multicultural segregation will be shown to be what they truly are.
If blacks are not upset by the current racist situation enough to want to fight against it, then who is the Vernon Johns Society to protest on their behalf (and, perhaps, even against their wishes). We will just have to wait for a better day, even if we may not see it personally. (After all, these periods of racism tend to last a long time, up to a century even.)
We attended the
American Sociological meetings in Toronto where a Vernon Johns Society
representative gave a talk on how the so-called multiculturalists are little
more than the new Booker T. Washingtons. Also attended Dr. Joe Feagin's session
on white racism. It reminded me of a post SDS-rally where the participants
reported on the crazy racist things the status-quo supporters did in an attempt
by the demonstrators to make themselves feel better and seek praise for their
own courageous displays of protest. Three of the four speakers mocked the
white college students and others who responded to their sociological surveys.
They read the responses in voices that were filled with disgust, rage,
condescension, and pity. The Vernon Johns Society follows the Martin Luther
King inspired philosophy that all ethnic groups, including whites, are victims
of a racist structure. We do not approve of the way in which white people
were ridiculed and wonder : if the larger college audience knew the way in
which "multicultural" sociologists are treating their responses to sociological
surveys, would they ever participate in any more sociological studies. They
might even ask for an apology. Frankly, we wonder if it is ethical for
sociologists to be so openly and publicly contemptuous of their respondents.
The early Malcolm X would have loved the sociologists' "white devil"
presentations, but those following the spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr.
cannot but be upset by the behavior and antics of the so-called liberal
The Vernon Johns Society is interested in starting a new civil rights movement, not in making fun of one or another ethnic/racial group.
For the 1998 meetings of the A.S.A., we sent a paper in nine papers. One of these papers, on modern sociology as a supporter of racism, we sent into Dr. Richard Simpson, editor of the sociological journal Social Forces. We received a letter from the editor saying that he could not publish it and that he was not motivated by political concerns. We then sent in nine other papers to Dr. Simpson and said we suspected that he would not find any of these papers politically acceptable either. We got back a letter from the editor saying exactly what we suspected -- he found them unacceptable because we did not accept sociological orthodoxies. Well, of course, we don't. We are not racists, unlike our sociological colleagues.
Feeling we had the proof of the political bias in sociology, we wrote to the ethics committee saying we wanted to include Dr. Simpson in the complaint. Levine wrote back saying that we could not because Dr. Simpson was not a member of the A.S.A.
Now can you believe this? How can the A.S.A. regulate its membership in an ethical sense when its editors are not even members of their association? This is so hypocritical because they forced me to become a member of the A.S.A. in order to participate in the major sociological conference of the discipline. And yet the editor of a very important journal does not have to be a member? So much for ethics.
But we thank Dr. Simpson for the letter for we feel it is primary evidence of the racist bias in sociology. I guess we don't need any more evidence now.
Return to Main Page Table of Contents
Return to Home Page