And the content of LoCicero's pressure is worth repeating:
The use of [Handelsman's] approach [to teaching about the psychology profession's very dark recent history] might have changed the tendency of academic institutions to ignore the torture scandal, and perhaps that is why the paper was targeted. The decision to retract seems to me to be another violation--this time of academic freedom. The article has so far not been retracted, and is still available, but the plan to retract has been confirmed--perhaps the publishers, though, will reconsider, if enough pressure is brought to bear.The strategy employed by those who would delete torture from APA's history, and thus block APA from healing, seems to be to ignore psychologists' participation in torture, but to complain bitterly about the process by which the story was uncovered. In order to support their approach, one strategy seems to be to search assiduously for things that can arguably be seen as errors in reporting on the story--no matter how minute--and focus on those things, rather than on torture. Another is to complain bitterly about the impact felt by those who had to answer for their violations of ethical codes and international law. The only pain that seems to matter to those who engage in these strategies is the disruption felt by those who have to answer for enabling torture to occur. The harm done to those who were tortured seems to be totally absent from their narrative.
In July, as already noted and as the correspondence below will clearly show, there was indeed a declared intention to retract Handelsman's article, a declared intention confirmed by both the editor of the journal and by Koocher. Neither LoCicero nor I knew that SAGE "had no plans" to retract until APA President Puente wrote that news in his blog comment.
And even now it is still not clear what SAGE or the APA will do to protect the author and editor from whatever fears prompted the original decision to retract. Until these protections are clear, the climate of fear will remain, and we will have to rely on articles like LoCicero's to inspire courage in those threatened with legal or professional punishment for accurately referencing historical facts.
PsySR is, in the meantime, sponsoring a competition to make online videos teaching the content of Handelsman's article ($1000 in prizes), so even if the retraction eventually goes through, the pedagogical insights and value of the article will not be lost to history.
Below is my correspondence--in my public capacity as PsySR President--with various parties, seeking more information about the retraction, which I heard about in mid-July.
This includes correspondence with the editor who originally accepted Handelsman's article, Andrew Christopher, and former APA president Gerald Koocher, who, as previously noted, wrote something to the author and editor that precipitated the original decision to retract.
My correspondence with two SAGE representatives, SAGE editor Danielle Bath and SAGE Public Relations Associate Camille Gamboa, is also included below.
Note 1: My reference to Handelsman's article being peer-reviewed in my own emails reflects a common understanding among psychology dissidents at the time that Handelsman's article underwent peer review. No one (including the editor Andrew Christopher) who has addressed concerned emails about violations of academic freedom has denied this. However, subsequent information from second-party accounts makes me less willing to assert this claim now. Handelsman's article did, at the very least, get reviewed by an acting editor and was not found wanting until other circumstances--presumably the implicit or explicit threat of suffering and impoverishment--were added to the context.
Note 2: The emails below have been edited for each writer's typos, and one short reference to a previous email's typos has been removed. When others have written back to me, I have attempted to summarize and only quote when relevant. I have deleted email addresses and sometimes the names of cc'd parties. I have reconsidered an implication I drew in one of my own emails and so have summarized that email with the implication removed. Otherwise the content of the correspondence is unchanged from the original emails.
Correspondence with acting editor for Handelsman's article Andrew Christopher
From: Ian Hansen
Sent: On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 12:53 PM,
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
