Inside the APA: More on Public Statements and the Question of Rescinding Prizes

Back in 2016, I wrote an Inside the APA post titled “Statements, Resolutions, Letters, and Censures,” outlining the various ways the APA has of responding to issues of public interest and concern. Since that time, the APA has issued a number of public statements, but we’ve also declined to issue public statements in several cases. We’ve also done some further thinking about steps we can take to ensure that not only our public statements, but also the honors and awards we bestow, are in line with our values and our commitments to our members.

First a review of how the APA handles public statements from the board and the membership.

Board-Issued Statements

All of the public statements the APA has issued in the last few years have been issued by the board. These statements fall under our policy on Letters and Statements on Issues of Public Interest. They have been issued because we received a request—from a member, a related scholarly society, a philosophy department—for a letter or statement, and because the issue fell within one of the categories on which the board is authorized to speak for the association:

• Academic freedom
• Government funding for the humanities and higher education
• Philosophy departments threatened with closure, merger, severe funding cuts, or similar crises
• Conditions of the professional work of philosophers

And just as important, the issues met the other requirements for board statements:

• The issue must be of clear professional interest or concern to the APA membership.
• The issue must be related to the APA’s mission and/or strategic plan.
• If the issue is controversial, there must be a clear majority viewpoint of the membership on the issue (that is, the membership is not, to the best of the board’s knowledge and judgment, deeply divided).
• The facts of the issue must have been sufficiently established.
• There must be a specific audience/recipient for the letter.
• Going through the longer resolution process will significantly reduce the effectiveness of an APA response.

The scenarios in which the board can issue a letter or statement are narrowly drawn, and this is purposeful. When an issue is directly related to our mission, when the position of the board and the membership is clear and uncontroversial, and when the circumstances require a timely response, the board can and should speak for the association. But the board should not be in the business of taking positions on controversial or political issues—we feel strongly that the APA should only do that if you, the members, decide we should. For that reason, we have another route for taking stances on issues of public interest: the resolution.

Membership Resolutions

Resolutions are voted on by the members of each division, and a resolution can only become a position of the APA as a whole (rather than a position of just one division) if it receives a support of a majority of those voting on it in each division.

Resolutions can start at the board level—that is, the board can adopt a resolution and send it to the divisions for consideration—or at the divisional level, proposed by either a divisional executive committee or by members at the divisional business meeting, voted on by the members of that division, and sent on to the other divisions for consideration.

The resolution is the only way for the APA to take a stance on an issue that is political or significantly controversial, because it is not appropriate for the board to speak for the membership on such issues. So, for example, the Radical Philosophical Association recently adopted a statement condemning the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute’s decision (since reversed) to withdraw Angela Davis’s nomination for a major award, and the RPA reached out to us to encourage the APA to adopt a similar statement.

The statement was in line with the RPA’s mission, but because of the APA’s commitment not to take these kinds of political positions, this issue wasn’t appropriate for an APA board statement. The RPA could, however, have encouraged its members who are also APA members to initiate a resolution at their APA division’s next business meeting.

The resolution process is, by necessity and design, much slower than the process to issue a board statement. This can be frustrating, I know, especially given the speed of news cycles, but the APA leadership continues to believe that we as an organization should be cautious and deliberative in approaching political or controversial issues.

Rescinding Prizes

The issue of the withdrawal and then reactivation of Angela Davis’s nomination for a human rights award raises another issue of interest, though—when it is appropriate to rescind honors and awards. In light of allegations of misconduct by high profile scholars in a variety of disciplines, many scholarly societies are currently grappling with questions about when, how, and why they could or should rescind awards and honors. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, of which the APA is a member, is one of the leaders of an effort to offer guidance to scholarly societies on these issues and has just implemented its own procedure on revoking fellowships.

The APA, too, has begun to consider this issue and the board will be taking up a proposed policy at its February meeting. Though the policy hasn’t yet been finalized, the proposal includes two avenues for revoking a prize or award: (1) if the winning individual or work is later found to be ineligible, such as if a prize had been awarded to a book or article that was later found to be plagiarized, and (2) if the recipient has been convicted of a criminal offence or confirmed (through some kind of institutional process) to have engaged in unethical conduct.

This policy, if adopted, would provide the APA with a framework for considering the possibility of revoking a prize or award—something we do not have now. We recognize that some prizes or awards that members might feel should be revoked could not be revoked under this policy, such as a case where a prize winner is alleged to have engaged in unethical conduct but there has been no formal finding of responsibility. But it would be a starting point, and one that balances competing concerns—not putting the APA in the position of investigating allegations, which we cannot do, but allowing us to respond appropriately in cases where other institutions that can investigate have found wrongdoing. And we’ll continue to work with other similar organizations to learn from one another and adapt our policies and procedures to changing landscapes.

Amy Ferrer

Amy Ferrer has been Executive Director of the APA since 2012. She holds a bachelor's degree in women's studies and a master's degree in public policy and administration, both from the University of Massachusetts Amherst. She has spent more than 15 years in nonprofit management, having previously worked for national and regional organizations focusing on civil liberties, public health, and advocacy. Both her work and educational background have focused on diversity issues, communications, development, and program management. She currently serves on the boards of Delaware Humanities and the Academic Placement and Data Analysis project, and has previously served on the boards of the National Humanities Alliance, the American Council of Learned Societies, and the Association of American Colleges and Universities.