Power Differentials and the SP Petition

General: this is a copy of a facebook post. It has started its life as a response to a letter by David Pesetsky, Barbara Partee, and Polly Jacobson (see link below). Since I started thinking about it, however, the landscape has been changed by the LSA letter that was sent to membership on July 8, 2020. This is now therefore a combined response to both.

I am posting this because I have become very concerned that what has started as a difference of opinion concerning the SP petition is now deteriorating into a power-differential/generational crisis within the linguistic community, with younger scholars feeling alienated, intimidated, ignored, and shut out. Given this concern it would appear surprising, not to say ironic, that it is I, a senior person, who am articulating these concerns. Differently viewed, however, this is an apt window into the nature of the problem, as the junior scholars who signed the SP petition, and who by right should have authored this missive, fear retaliation. The task therefore falls to me, because I am one of the few senior people (and an LSA Fellow at that) to have signed the SP petition. In what follows I am therefore expressing not only my own opinion, but also that of junior scholars who have shared theirs with me, some of whom do not wish to be named.

We all know (or should know) by now that much of the abuse that was (shockingly) levelled at the signers of the SP petition focused on the fact that the bulk of the signers (500+) were junior. Pinker himself tweeted “don’t blame established linguists, I only know one signatory on that list” (one wonders why that is altogether relevant, and see in this context my comment at the end of this letter). But be it as it may, junior scholars were already a target group in this debate, and that is exactly what the letter authored by D. Pesetsky, B. Partee and P. Jacobson was trying to counter. Recognizing the emergence of dangerous division along power-differential lines, they were attempting to assure younger scholars of general support for their right to voice their position. https://www.facebook.com/davidpesetsky/posts/2483813785055149

While the good intentions of the PPJ letter are beyond doubt, in actuality, the letter, as written, has only served to exacerbate the situation, not only in my judgement but also in that of junior scholars that I have conversed with, including some who militated for the ‘tolerance’ letter to begin with. At least one important error of judgement, IMHO, is that the letter lumped together the call for tolerance with opposition to the SP petition, therefore asking people to sign on a conjunction, and with many signers, without doubt, having little care or interest in the tolerance aspect of the letter. There thus emerged an ‘opposition’ list, which actually includes some individuals who have themselves posted abusive comments, alongside many who saw abusive statements but didn’t bother to comment on them.

Another serious problem has emerged as a result of the PPJ letter. That letter as it now stands together with its very distinguished list of signatories, has effectively given rise to two entirely disjoint lists, one junior and one senior, with the ‘senior’ list voicing opposition to the actions of the ‘junior’ list, but assuring its members, nonetheless, of their protection. The disjoint, disagreeing senior list, along its (rather patronising) offer of protection, however, only serve to highlight the power differentials, and as a consequence is alienating and intimidating. I am myself a very senior person, and I personally feel a finger pointed at me, much as that has no consequences at all for me. Imagine a younger scholar, however. The better option, it seems to me, would have been a call for tolerance regardless of position, and to leave opposition to the SP petition to a different thread. This has not been done, and the two disjoint lists, with their power-differential characteristics — in itself an intimidating setup — has thus come to be.

Other problems with the PPJ letter which have been voiced to me by junior scholars concern the fact that it barely rises above the level of basic troll condemnation, and that by reporting the abuse as ‘having been heard’ the writers have distanced themselves from it. The letter has been described to me as sufficiently general that *anybody* would be comfortable signing it, ultimately a very nicely worded way of saying very little, and it certainly stays away from engaging with the actual topic of the SP petition, the opposition to which is a prerequisite for signature.

I would like to move on now to what has emerged, since the PPJ letter, as possibly a much bigger concern, and that is the letter sent by the LSA executive committee to LSA members on July 8, 2020. https://mailchi.mp/45302b5df990/external-reviewers-do-not-review-abstracts-until-notified-679180?e=c1a7fe2460

I had originally considered the letter a good one, but an extended conversation with Hadas Kotek has convinced me that this is not the case. Some of Hadas’ statements on the letter can be found on her wall (https://www.facebook.com/hadas.kotek/posts/10158583501164791), and are also summarized below, alongside additional statements that emerged in our conversation, and a few supplemental observations from me. It is of some significance, it seems to both me and to Hadas, that Hadas, unlike other junior scholars I spoke to, does not mind being mentioned by name. The reason is obvious — she is at present not part of the linguistic power structure, and unlike many other junior scholars, is therefore not dependent on it.

Before turning to the actual content of the LSA letter, one extremely important fact: the petition (500 plus signatories) was submitted to the LSA EC last weekend. As of today, Thursday July 9th, its receipt has not been acknowledged.

Although the LSA has not acknowledged a receipt of the petition, it is obvious that the letter LSA members received (and which SP has claimed publicly as a vindication) was sent because of the petition, together with the accompanying discussion on social media. The letter makes oblique references to the petition, although not to its content directly, and one must judge its attitude by omission, rather than by inclusion.

First, the response is so vague and timid that Pinker feels comfortable celebrating it as a victory. Whether it is or it is not we do not know because the letter makes no reference to the petition, nor have the petition writers been contacted in any way.

Second, while the LSA letter notes opposition to “statements and actions of racism, misogyny and other forms of hate” it does not offer any statement of what the remedy might be. Crucially, the letter conveniently skirts the question of what the boundary might be between “hearing … all points of view” including “objectionable to some”, and “statements… of racism, misogyny etc.”, but whether or not that boundary has been crossed is, precisely, the focus of the SP petition!

Third, while the letter states explicitly that a taskforce will be put in place to review policies concerning award nominations, and one can only surmise this to be, at this historical point, in reference to the SP petition, there is no mention of the need for a procedure to rescind an award. Quite apart from the issue at hand, such a procedure may, alas, be necessary in cases that are possibly less controversial (academic fraud, e.g.). That no mention is made of that, in the present context, is therefore an oblique, but rather obvious, (dismissive) response to the SP petition.

Fourth, two taskforces are being established, as per that letter, but nobody has approached any of the signers of the SP petition to ask whether they would like to be part of either or both of these taskforces. In general, it is entirely unclear how their membership would be constituted, and the extent to which they are connected in any way at all to the SP petition, or the social media climate that has emerged in its wake.

Fifth, the junior/senior tension that has been created (or exposed) as a result of all of the factors above (plus possibly more) is altogether not mentioned.

The LSA EC has thus stonewalled the petition writers, and has shut them out of any discussion of any further actions it may or may not take. Instead of inclusion, it had opted for an evasive and coy letter, something that they feel that they can get away with no doubt because the bulk of the SP petition signers are junior.

This is not a letter by some individuals voicing their opinion and asking for a ‘yay’ vote, as the PPJ letter is. This is a document issued by the LSA EC, and to my eyes, this is, under the most generous of interpretations, a particularly insensitive document. Under less generous view, it is a deliberate brush-off. Again, this was not inevitable. The LSA could have stated that they have received a petition to re-evaluate a previous award for an individual, and that they are looking into whether a procedure is in place to do so, before considering the merits of the issue, or some such statement. Clearly, this is not what they have done.

I am quoting the following, verbatim, from Hadas, because of being extremely succinct on the issue of power differentials, specifically in the context of the SP petition:

“In short: there are some Pinker supporters. They are mostly senior. There are those who are actively opposed to him representing them. They are mostly junior. There are many who are afraid to take a position. They are also mostly junior. There are others who just want everyone to get along and go back to how things were. They probably represent a big chunk of all of the other groups. But keeping the status quo is not a neutral position; it’s a political position that maintains the power in the hands of those who have it, namely the senior people. It is therefore in effect a position that supports Pinker.”

This letter is not written as a petition, but rather as a start of a discussion. My own view is that the LSA EC not only must absolutely explicitly respond to the petition — in some form — but that it should establish, as a matter of urgency, a taskforce to deal with the priorities of junior scholars, and with the sense of alienation, vulnerability and powerlessness that is so obvious (and which no doubt predates the SP conflict). All with the aim of creating a model for our professional community which is better tuned to the issue of power differentials. Such a taskforce, it goes without saying, should have significant junior presence in it. At least sensibly, and because that is how the lines are drawn at present, from among the supporters of the SP petition.

I want to end with a personal statement. The ‘younger’ generation, of which our own junior scholars are part, is the generation that is now in the forefront of the BLM demonstrations, in the forefront of what is emerging as a drive for a progressive change which is bigger, more powerful and more effective than anything we have seen for a very long time. My perspective is that that generation, which includes as well people such as AOC, Ilhan Omar and many other admirable ‘young’ people, knows and understands something about being progressive and about political action which the rest of us either never knew or have forgotten. To be sure, they deserve support. Much more than that, they deserve respect. Respect toward our junior colleagues, it seems to me, has been largely missing in everything that has transpired thus far.