Dear all,
I have only recently been alerted to the disturbing association of
Elsevier with Reed, along with the existence of this forum itself. Though
concurring with Rob Kitchin and others about the trouble with the
selectivity of corporation boycotts, I find that it is in our collective
interest to resist militarism (well, really, to me, capitalism generally)
on those occasions in which we can. In any case, boycotting Elsevier
selectively (e.g., just the books published) makes no sense to me,
especially since Elsevier journals provide a lot of revenue to the compnay.
Following Rob's effort to protest the association with Reed through letter
writing, I would like to propose that we write letters of complaint to all
the Elsevier journals upon which we respectively rely for publication and
sources, as has been accomplished with the journal Political Geography,
and ask of the journals to publish the letter in which we criticise the
association of Elsevier with Reed. If they fail to do so, then we boycott
the journal, including editing and reviewing for it and any other such
involvement.
From what I have been understanding so far about the ongoing debate, there
seems to be a conflation between two issues. The boycott must be kept
separate from the problems of how academics treat each other, though they
are ultimately related. Those of us who have justifiable worries regarding
tenure or other prospects related to job security, which includes us non-
tenured folks as well, should concentrate on the problems caused by how
academics treat each other and on the severe lack of solidarity and
organisation among academics generally, rather than focus on avoiding a
boycott. It is in our collective power to have some influence over the
means of distribution of our work.
I am far from persuaded by the argument that boycotting Elsevier is
useless because most, if not all corporations are associated with some
awful practices. This kind of reasoning leads to doing nothing about
social injustice, since all we do is somehow compromised (e.g., most of us
probably pay income taxes). As there are a plethora of peer-reviewed
journals, there is no reason for a boycott that a priori excludes Elsevier
journals (if only the "top ten" are counted at your institutions, then the
fight must be about the absurdity of that accounting scheme, rather than
about avoiding that absurdity with the thin veneer of arguments against
boycotting Elsevier). Just as an illustration, perhaps no one should ever
have bothered boycotting strawberries, since other crops involve similar
if not worse treatment of workers. And yet the boycott, after prolonged
struggle, did make a positive difference to the workers involved directly,
even if in a diluted form and even if recently many advances have been
undermined. I think the same principle applies to us; we must do what we
can, especially in areas where we can have the most impact.
Failing to take such an opportunity to influence a company like Elsevier
would constitute yet another setback for us collectively, among the many
already with respect to commercialisation of universities, for example.
Instead of creating tensions among ourselves, which can only benefit those
more empowered than us, let us organise ourselves to fight militarism
through venues in which we do have a more direct impact. If anyone already
has a letter ready to share that we can use for a boycott, please do post
it so that we can start a hopefully effective boycott that might even lead
to Elsevier becoming dissociated from Reed. Or we could use the article
published by Chatterton and Featherstone in the recent issue of Political
Geography, if they concur.
As for the International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, the fine efforts
of the editors must not be sacrificed in the process of boycotting
Elsevier. The Encyclopedia should be taken elsewhere, published online if
necessary, as some have doubtless already mentioned. However, as contracts
have already been signed, it might be very difficult to extricate the
Encyclopedia from Elsevier, so we should find out ways in which this can
be done with the least damage possible to our colleagues, including me,
one of those that has unfortunately signed a contractual arrangement.
Having checked with legal counsel here, there might be some negative legal
ramifications, including Elsevier's appropriation of encyclopedia entries,
through copyright laws. This may happen regardless of a boycott and will
limit the possibility of distributing our work to other outlets without
incurring legal action. Any advice on this matter will be highly
appreciated.
With great concern and in solidarity,
saed
|