To the LSA: Graduate students are professionals

The letter below was sent to the Linguistic Society of America Executive Committee on August 7th. The response from LSA President Marianne Mithun is included at the end, with her permission.

To the Executive Committee,

We are six signatories to the Open Letter to the LSA, all tenured professors, all Fellows of the Linguistic Society of America (LSA), employed at Queen Mary University of London, the University of Arizona, the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Chicago, and Yale University. We signed, as did six hundred and twenty-nine of our colleagues, because we think our professional society should stop promoting Steven Pinker as a leading linguist, someone who media and policymakers should contact for expert opinions about language science. The letter asks that he be removed from the ‘media experts’ list, and from the list of ‘Fellows of the LSA’, of which we are also members.

We are not writing to rehash the arguments in favor of these actions, though we invite you to read one or more of the pieces in the public domain which provide further context for the case in the letter, or detail additional ways in which Pinker’s public statements and work undermine the goals of the LSA. We signed the letter as written, and would do so again. It is not an example of ‘cancel culture’, no matter what click-hungry outrage articles in the popular press say, nor is it an attack on Pinker’s freedom of speech. It’s about who represents our field.

Instead, we are writing to identify and decry one facet of the disturbing response to the letter from Pinker and his supporters, which touches on broader trends in higher education and which, we feel, must be denounced forcefully, particularly by academics with seniority and institutional authority: the attack on the letter’s junior signatories. Pinker led the charge with his very first tweets in response to the letter, and has continued to double down in his subsequent media tour. His message has been amplified by nearly all of the many opinion pieces joining the chorus of ‘but freedom of speech!’ which is the angle of response he took to the letter when it first appeared.

“Don’t blame established linguists: I recognize only one name among the signatories.” Steven Pinker, on Twitter, July 5

“There were several hundred names on it. Very few of them were well-known linguists” (UnHerd, July 8)

“Most of them were graduate students and lecturers…by no means an indication of the sentiment of professional linguists.” Steven Pinker, on BBC World At One, July 22nd, interview begins at 36:45. Transcript here.

We wish to point out two things about these statements: a) it’s not true that most of the signatories were graduate students or lecturers; b) even if they were, graduate students and lecturers ARE ‘professional linguists’, established in every sense that matters. Their rank is not a reason to discount their opinions, especially on a topic like this; their opinion matters just as much, and likely even more, than that of comfortable full professors with tenure like ourselves.

Michael Dow compiled a count of the rank of every letter-signer whose rank was publicly available (508 of the 635 signatories), and found that 43% (220) were graduate students and 3% (16) were lecturers. So ‘most’ of the signatories were not graduate students or lecturers. In fact, this percentage of graduate student support is reflective of the makeup of the LSA itself: 32% of LSA members are graduate students. The signatories to the letter represent a broad cross-section of current working linguists.

The claim that most signatories were ‘graduate students and lecturers’, or that ‘virtually all…well-known linguists’ refused to sign, was repeated uncritically as fact by the Telegraph as well as in widely-circulated opinion pieces subsequently boosted by Pinker in his compilation of favorable press about the letter.

But facts be damned; the most important point is that even if it were the case that most of the 600+ signatories were graduate students, that would not be a reason to dismiss or devalue the letter. Indeed, given that graduate students represent the literal future of our field, one might think that their (collective) concerns should be given more weight than those of the ‘established’ linguists, we privileged few who have been lucky enough to achieve status and the luxury of security in the pyramidal structure of academic merit. Appeal to authority is a tempting and facile rhetorical move; those interested in rational argument should avoid it.

The ‘students and lecturers’, in the current dire financial straits of higher education, are those who teach our undergraduates, grade our assignments and tests, pursue novel discoveries in the service of our collective human understanding, all while being paid at borderline poverty-line rates, often going into debt for the privilege, and living in constant awareness that the jobs they are training to do are becoming scarcer and scarcer with every passing year. Besides being brilliant, dedicated scholars, they are flat-out courageous.

Pinker and his defenders, in claiming that the letter wants to “significantly narrow the bounds of acceptable speech”, suggest that there are many scholars who feel they cannot express their true views about race and gender because they fear for their careers. But from where we sit, the people who are truly on the receiving end of public harassment, abuse, and professional censure are those standing up for an inclusive and welcoming atmosphere of discourse in our profession, the (less senior) signatories to the letter. We are referred to as ‘scolds’ and a ‘gang’, epithets whose connection to stereotypes of gender and race are a bit on the nose for a piece on this topic in “Reason”. But in personal communication, tweets and comments, the real vitriol is launched, particularly at those lower down in the pecking order.

In a comment on Jerry Coyne’s piece analyzing the charges in the letter, one commenter wrote, “What is utterly unsurprising in this Goebelsian petition is the signatories themselves. Hundreds of unremarkable PhD candidates, activists and other low-status academic types… who resort to bullying and grievance mongering to feel validated… Fortunately they’ve outed themselves — and we have their names — for when the pendulum swings the other way.” Another commenter suggested to “keep the list in mind, and for other academics etc. to be wary of working with such people.” On twitter, one person wrote “anyone who signs this letter is mentally useless.” Accusations of Nazism and Stalinism flew thick and fast. Another tweet called two female signatories ‘despicable’ and said ‘One day they will come for your sorry asses.”

Private messages received by some signatories have been much worse (thanks to Todd Snider for compiling a collection of these). One signatory received a note which called the signers “disgusting cultists” and asked, “Are you as fucking useless at linguistics as you are at basic facts? No wonder you’re jealous imbeciles in that case.” Another one called signatories “fucking pussies”. Another private message read “You fucking racist asshats are on a crusade… we need to get your bitch asses on front street so we can deal proper with your racist lies… we are going to publicly unhorse you in the most vile and humiliating way…Where you bitches coz we taking more than your job and reputation, we taking you down to China town for a last supper.”

The email address that the authors of the letter set up for correspondence was deluged with similar messages. The choice for anonymity of the actual authors of the letter has been questioned, but given that they received several threats of actual violence, was and is a necessary and wise choice. Not everyone seems to think that freedom of speech is as important a value as all that.

These may or may not come from professional linguists, but several public comments do come from professional linguists, and suggest that signatories may find themselves subject to professional censure for their exercise of free speech. “A sad testament to the scholarship and future of this discipline,” wrote one. “Demons at the gates”, fulminated another. Another suggests asking the LSA to deny membership to all signatories, as a deterrent to others who might dare to write other such petitions in the future. Another called it ‘shocking and disappointing’ to see the signatories’ names. Another said that the signatories “no longer merit my respect.”

An early-career researcher was called by a professor at their institution and asked whether they knew any of the signatories. The professor made it clear that he strongly opposes such ‘cancel culture’ efforts. The researcher now feels that they cannot express their opinions on the matter or on similar matters, since they are dependent on that professor for their future career success.

We agree with Pinker, who writes, “It’s the more vulnerable junior faculty and lecturers and people who work for private companies who are much more worthy of concern.” The junior faculty and lecturers and students who exercised their right to free expression by signing the letter are being disrespected, vilified, threatened and intimidated. We hope that everyone, especially the LSA, can stand with us in calling for this campaign against our junior colleagues to end. Their right to exercise freedom of speech is under attack. Please see the postscript for some specific actions we suggest that the LSA could undertake.

Karlos Arregi, The University of Chicago.

Hagit Borer, Queen Mary University of London

Claire Bowern, Yale University

Andrew Garrett, University of California, Berkeley

Heidi Harley, University of Arizona.

Salikoko S. Mufwene, The University of Chicago

• Empanel a (another) taskforce on managing power differentials and representation in the field and in the association, with significant junior membership
• A public statement from the LSA that they support the right of the TOL signatories to express their views and condemn (unambiguously) the abuse we document above.
• A commitment to acting on all this with some reasonable speed (rather than waiting for the next annual meeting).
• A press release with the particular statement in the second LSA letter regarding the fact that they have not made a decision, as by now numerous newspapers have claimed the opposite. This would repeat the same exact language as in the second letter, but as a press release.

*Response from Marianne Mithun, 8/10*

Dear Karlos, Hagit, Claire, Andrew, Heidi, and Salikoko,

Thank you all for your beautifully written letter. I myself, and I imagine all other EC members (though I can of course only speak for myself here) share your alarm at the level of discourse from some corners and especially the threats, both subtle and unsubtle. As you can see, your letter has been circulated to the Executive Committee.

As you may know, the EC has been setting up two Task Forces. One is charged with rethinking and rebuilding the resource on the Public Relations page to the media for answers from knowledgeable LSA members to their questions about language. The charge to the other is to establish clear policies and procedures for grievances and allegations of professional misconduct that is in violation or goes against the LSA Ethics Statement and the LSA Civility Policy. We’ve been working hard to try to create teams that are representative of the diversity of the Society in terms of perspective, career stage, and demographics.

Unfortunately, all of this takes much more time than we wish. We have wanted to be sure that every voice on the EC is heard on each detail: the charge, the selection of members, etc. Our invitations to potential Task Force members went out some time ago, and we have heard from all but a very few. So things should be up and running quite soon.

In any case, I will be sure to circulate your letter to both Task Forces.

Thank you also for the clear suggestions at the end of your letter. We’ll take this up with the Executive Committee right away, not waiting for the Annual meeting.

Thank you,

Marianne Mithun

LSA President

Note 8/19: The LSA’s task forces dealing with the issues raised by the open letter are now up and running.