-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Annals and The Professional Geographer
Date: 03-Dec-98 at 18:07
From: James Blaut, 70671,2032
TO: Ron Abler,INTERNET:rablerAG.org
Ron:
I've read Will Graf's statement, and I'm beginning to perceive the
substantive issues involved in this debate, but the procedural issues still
remain very murky. Frankly, I don't like it when the most important, nay,
most momentous decision, perhaps in the entire history of this association
-- after all, when previously did we kill an AAG journal? -- is made by a
small group of members, who admit frankly that they are speaking to the
concerns of a minority of the entire membership, and both the membership at
large and the editors of our two journals learn about the decision after it
has, in essence, been made.
Graf's appeal to the Bylaws and to the powers of Council is entirely beside
the point, as well as beiing somewhat feather-ruffling. The Bylaws say
nothing about closing down a 50-year old amd highly respected journal.
(Graf may not respect the PG, but most of us do.) And in in our routine
voting for members of Council, and for the officers, we, ordinary members
of AAG, did not have in mind conceding to Council the membership's right to
decide an issue as momentous as this. How many members would have voted for
Graf if they had knmown that, as President, he would try to close down the
PG? How many would have voted for the present members of Council on such a
program? Perhaps we members would indeed vote for people who plan this
action, but we were never informed that the people we were voting for would
be taking up, much less deciding, this issue. It seems to me that basic
collegiality, indeed, basic respect for democracy, would obligate the
President and Council to undertake a very different course of action. They
do NOT have a mandate from the members of AAG to kill the PG. A fundamental
principle of democracy is that the people retain all rights not
specifically, and democratically, ceded to government. That applies here.
The members, not the elected Council, must decide this issue; the members
have not ceded their right to do so.
I propose that we take a few breaths and consider calmly, coolly, and
deliberately, how to deal with this issue -- the substantive issue --
properly and successfully. There may be alternatives that satisfy the
concerns of geomorphologists and others without sacrificing the PG (and
that, all rheotric aside, is what is being proposed here). I, personally,
would like to see a few alternative models laid on the table and discussed
over a period of at least two years before a final vote is taken -- by the
entire membership -- to choose one or another of these models.
For instance: how much more would it cost to have two parts of the Annals,
one for general and human geography, the other for physical geography and,
perhaps, cartography? I'm thinking of the *Geografisdka Annaler* model:
would it make sense in the AAG? How about the American Anthropological
Association model that charges dues covering only some of the
organization's periodicals, and gives one the right to pay additional dues
to receive the others? -- this might allow us to pay the additional cost
(if there is an additional cost) of having a two-part Annals. What about
taking a close look at the expenses incurred by various entities of the AAG
and seeing whether we can save enough money to allow us to adopt one or
another slightly more expensive option, such as changing the Annals in ways
that Graf suggests *without* sacrificing the PG? (That is: adding pages and
enlarging format.) There must be many other models to choose from. Let the
members mull over all alternatives, and be given full information on the
implicatiomns of each, before a decision is made --by the membership.
I'm a life member of this organization and have been a member for
40-something years. I've been through the battles we fought over such
issues as civil rights (remember when we decided not to hold annual
meetings in hotels that discriminate?), the Vietnam war, and more. Never
before has an issue as traumatic as the present one reared its head. That
is because we always had consensus about *how* basic decision-making must
take place in our assocation. I hope we will retain that conssensus.
With best wishes,
Jim Blaut
Professor of Geography and Anthropology,
University of Illinois at Chicago
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|