Posted on 02/12/2009 7:05:57 AM PST by GonzoII
.- The scholarly publisher Blackwell is being accused of censorship for suspending the publication of the too Christian Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization and seeking to destroy existing copies pending a full revision of the text. The encyclopedias Editor-in-Chief is filing two lawsuits against the company to require the encyclopedia be published without removing its Christian content, tone and character.
George Thomas Kurian, Editor-in-Chief of the Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization (ECC), has circulated a letter protesting Blackwells actions, which he calls a looming crisis in the publication of the work.
According to Kurian, the ECC was completed in 2008 a year ahead of schedule and in four volumes instead of the original three.
It was edited, copyedited, fact checked, proofread and finally approved by Blackwells editorial team, he wrote, saying the completed work was launched at the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature where it received high praise.
Kurian said the EEC was lauded and praised by Miami University Prof. Edwin Yamauchi and Notre Dame Prof. Mark Noll.
On the Amazon.com web page for the ECC, Prof. Yamauchi said the work promises to be an exceedingly valuable reference work and is nearly exhaustive in scope providing articles on broad topics like the Roman Catholic Church and giving succinct analysis of themes such as Christian existentialism.
He writes that the ECC also provides a cornucopia of maps, charts and appendices.
According to Amazon.com, Prof. Noll said the thoughtfully conceived ECC presents authoritative articles, sensible bibliographies, and consistently illuminating treatments.
Kurian claimed that some members of the ECC editorial board determined that the encyclopedias introduction and many of the entries were too Christian, too orthodox, too anti-secular and too anti-Muslim and not politically correct enough for being used in universities.
He alleged that under mounting pressure from the powerful anti-Christian lobby Blackwell Religion publisher Rebecca Harkin and Editorial Director Phillip Carpenter agreed with the critics assessment, suspended publication of the ECC, and began proceedings to pulp the entire edition of several thousand copies of the four-volume ECC set.
According to Kurian, they did so just because there are a dozen references to which they do not subscribe and which ran counter to their philosophy and agenda.
Kurian said that Carpenter and Harkin want to delete words or passages such as Antichrist, Beloved Disciple, Virgin Birth, Resurrection, Evangelism, the chronological markers BC/AD, and any reference with an evangelical tone or a tone citing the uniqueness of Christ and Christianity.
He further claimed that the two objected to historical references to the persecution and massacres of Christians by Muslims, also asking for references favorable to Islam and material denigrating Christianity.
All these I have refused to do, Kurian said.
His letter announced a class action suit against Wiley-Blackwell will be filed on behalf of the ECCs nearly 400 contributors. If successful, the suit will require Wiley-Blackwell to publish the book as originally approved and printed, without change and without censorship of its Christian content, tone and character.
Susan Spilka of Blackwells parent company John Wiley & Sons, Inc. responded to Kurians allegations in a statement, claiming that concern about the content of the ECC had been raised in November 2008 prior to publication. Blackwell stated that the review was prompted by concern for its leading reputation as a publisher of high quality scholarly content.
In the course of reviewing the situation with the editorial board (many of whom had similar concerns to those raised by the contributors), we learned that few if any of the contributions to the Encyclopedia were reviewed by the editorial board members as required both by high standards of scholarship and our agreement with Mr. Kurian. Instead, they were only reviewed (if at all) by Mr. Kurian himself. We have therefore asked the appointed editorial board to review the work for scholarly integrity and accuracy prior to publicationthe task they were originally recruited to perform-- and the majority of the board has accepted this appointment.
It described as an allegation completely without foundation Kurians claim that the review is being driven by an anti-Christian lobby determined to de-Christianize and censor the Encyclopedia.
We are sure that you will understand that it would make no sense for us to sabotage a project to which we have committed long-term investment and resources, and which we think will be valuable addition to Christian scholarship.
CNA spoke with Kurian by phone on Wednesday. He said the publisher received complaints about the ECC because it presented a Christian worldview.
He also confirmed that the charge that the ECC was too Christian, too orthodox, too anti-secular and too anti-Muslim and not politically correct enough was the gist of the complaints and not an original quotation of a critic.
Such complaints happen all the time, he claimed, saying changes are typically made in second editions.
Instead of doing that, they went ahead and suspended publication, and they desired to pull thousands of copies before all were sent.
This is a very high-handed action that has no place in any publishing community or in any university environment where you have freedom of expression.
The stand may not be popular with a certain segment of people but these things need to be heard.
More than 400 people worked on this for two years. To destroy that kind of work on the basis of complaint from four people seems contrary to the established traditions we have as a society, he told CNA.
Kurian said it should be expected that the writers of an encyclopedia on Christianity would look upon the positive things in Christianity rather than the negative things.
You dont write a book on a subject when you are hardly interested in exploring it, he added.
To say that a Christian encyclopedia should not be Christian seems to me a contradiction in terms. I brought this project to Blackwell, not the other way around. We had discussed it, we defined what the encyclopedia would be and would try to achieve.
After publishing, he said, they had second or third thoughts.
That is not accepted protocol in publishing. If you publish a book, you edit the book and then publish. You dont publish a book and then edit.
He characterized the publishers response as a classic maneuver, charging that they didnt answer whether they are trying to de-Christianize the work.
What they say is we are a major company, so we are above these things, we dont do those things. But that is not an answer to my question.
They have prevented [publishing] the work until and unless the offensive Christian elements can be removed. Thats the core of the complaint.
We already know they are a big company. The question is, can even a big company indulge in this kind of censorship?
We are beyond the Middle Ages where you could censor books.
We are involved in a society which really needs to know all sides. The Christian side is not being properly heard, thats my contention. And it needs to be heard even by those who dont like it, Kurian told CNA.
CNA also contacted Wiley-Blackwell for comment but did not receive a response by press time.
You can say that again!
Ping.
The late great George Putnam was right......we are living in the age of insanity.
Good grief!
I think there’s more to this story than Kurian’s side. He may be accurate but two things raise red flags for me:
it was completed a year ahead of schedule
it took only two years to do
I’ve contributed articles to a dozen of these projects and been assistant editor for two of them. They never come in a year ahead of time after only 2 years.
Now, in this case, Kurian may have done an exceptionally good job of riding herd on his contributors and pulled off a remarkable feat of editing. If so, he deserves praise.
On the other hand, the publisher’s defense raises a third red flag—that articles were not reviewed by the editorial board is a red herring. The editorial boards for these projects never routinely review all articles. Usually such boards are figureheads and the actual content editing is done by the editor and his assistants. So the fact that the publisher trots out this defense suggests that Kurian may be presenting an accurate account of what happened.
But it also may be that the project was done too hurriedly. The objections he cites, if they are the only objections and if the pulping was done on that basis alone, are politically correct mumbo-jumbo and I wish his lawsuit success.
I lean toward finding Kurian’s account credible, but I’d urge a bit of caution. There are always two sides to any dispute.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Even for four volumes?
It is possible to write about Christianity and take a positive, neutral or even negative view of it. I wonder if there was a miscommunication on whether this would be a positive or a neutral work.
If I were the publisher of an encyclopedia on Islam and expected it to be a neutral academic work but got something that started "In the name of Allah, the most merciful, may the Christian and Jewish sons of apes and pigs be smited..." I would start looking for a way to not publish it and let the authors find someone else to print and sell it.
Just a thought as a writer myself, since Kurian brought the idea to the publisher, isn’t it possible he had much of the work done? When I present a proposal to a publisher I have much of the work done and include sample chapters. I’m sure it’s much different with such an enormous work and so many people involved, but isn’t it possible this project could have been at a certain level of completion (not including editing) when the two years began?
Even if they thought it was going to be neutral, it sounds like to me the publisher believes neutral means that the author must ignore any facts that are positive, even if they are true. Especially since they wanted to ban certain words from the books. You really can’t cover a history of Christianity without mentioning “Antichrist”, and the other words listed. You would have to leave out important parts of the history, which seems ridiculous for an encyclopedia. I wouldn’t be surprised in this day and age if they publishers have no clue what the history of Christianity really is (not the P.C. version) and didn’t know what they were agreeing to. Which isn’t an excuse if they had a contract, IMO.
This is nuts - as most things are these days.
I’ve been complaining for years that the Encyclopedia of Mathematics has too many numbers in it but nobody listens.
Next they will begin burning books, just as Ray Bradbury described in Fahrenheit 451.
Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
I can see why this turkey would object to the term "Antichrist."
They should begin work on the Encyclopedia of Vandalism.
Most of these “dictionaries” or “encyclopedias” arise from publishers contacting academics. Handbooks, dictionaries, encyclopedias have dominated academic publishing for about 20 years now. Libraries cut back their purchasing of individual monographs, no longer attempting to have a collection containing everything. Publishers began marketing these handbooks and dictionaries and encyclopedias to libraries by saying that, well, if you can’t afford to buy all the individual books, buy these “finding aids” so that your patrons can at least find out what’s out there and then obtain things by interlibrary loan.
So usually the idea comes from the publisher who contacts a likely academic to propose that he edit the particular encyclopedia or handbook.
This case may be different. Even so, I can’t really imagine he had much of the work done because “the work” consists of conceptualizing which articles need to be written on what topics, then decding which academic is the best author for reach article, soliciting articles, giving the authors time to write them, receiving them, editing them etc. He would have had to have his gaggle of authors largely lined up, which means he would have had to have had the architecture of the encyclopedia fully established. That’s a lot of work to do before approaching a publisher.
But yes, it is possible to do this more expeditiously and less expeditiously. This editor may have done it very expeditiously. And if it was a case of his having had the project well underway before getting a commitment from a publisher, that could be a reason for the dispute—it would point to greater independence and autonomy on the part of the editor, a more unconventional procedure, which opens up possibilities for miscommunication or latent concerns that can be triggered at the last minute into a conflagration.
I don’t know what happened. But overall, it sounds to me like there’s more to the story. That’s all. More to the story. So far we’ve only heard one side and the teller of the story obviously is on a PR blitz. If indeed he was wronged in the manner he asserts, then he needs the PR blitz and I wish him well and hope he succeeds. But PR blitzes are PR blitzes and one always wants to know more about the other side’s version of what happened before reaching a conclusion.
I have reread the article and I don’t see anything that says that Kurian took his idea to the publisher. As I said, that is not the way it’s usually done. What exactly in the article led you to believe that Kurian initiated the project? Perhaps I overlooked it.
Here’s the quote:
To say that a Christian encyclopedia should not be Christian seems to me a contradiction in terms. I brought this project to Blackwell, not the other way around. We had discussed it, we defined what the encyclopedia would be and would try to achieve.
It looks to me like they were fine with things until they started getting complaints. I’m sure the complaints were coming fast and furious. I can say from experience that writing about Christianity with any honesty, especially Christian history, invites threats and the mobilization of some the same groups that succeed at defining politics in this country. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the pressure of those groups just got to them. The history of the crusades has been so well revised and completely twisted over the centuries that a history true to the evidence (which would make Islam look very bad) would be a hornets nest to be sure. It’s sad that Christianity has become such a target of censorship and political correctness.
Nothing in the sentences you quoted suggests that Kurian brought the idea to Blackwell. He’s describing the interaction that takes place after a publisher contacts an academic to suggest that he take up a project. Of course they then discuss exactly what it’s parameters will be. The academic usually is given freedom to develop it as he thinks best but the publisher, who is putting up the money, has last say. Normally the prospectus and guidelines, after the editor-in-chief has drawn them up are reviewed by academic consultants in the field paid by the publisher to ensure that the proposal has merit and will be considered scholarly and acceptable to the target market, which is going to be academic and general libraries.
All he’s saying is that the publisher’s editor and he got along well, that the publisher had signed off on everything.
I would not say it sounds like the complaints were coming fast and furious. His point is the opposite—the praise was coming fast and furious and the complaints were from a small group of critics.
There’s got to be more to this story. Normally dissident scholars who think a project like this is “unscholarly” or “too religious” (too Chritian) in this case, will savage it in reviews in the scholarly journals. It’s rare for them to pressure the publisher to pulp a print run and start over.
Something unusual happened here in order (1) to get a small group of critics so fired up, (2) for them to get the ear of the publisher to this extent.
I don’t know what it was. But I have a feeling that we’re not getting the whole story.
Yes, there are rabid Christian-haters out there. But acaademic Christian haters, of whom there are many, normally don’t get activist like this. They have their own ways of savaging those they dislike.
Groups like CAIR etc. of course do mount activist campaigns, but normally don’t take out after a nondescript encyclopedia. If this were one of the big name encyclopedias, perhaps. But those publishers long ago kow-towed to the CAIR-type groups.
Something is fishy here. But without further information, it’s hard to know exactly what.
I understand your point perfectly. It all depends on whether Kurian’s claims are true. If, for example they really did have a problem with certain Christian words that are inseparable from Christian history, then they have a problem.
I read the sentence differently. To me he’s saying he solicited Blackwell with the idea. This does happen, albeit rarely. For example one of the writers I ghostwrite for solicites publishers routinely without even a proposal in hand. He can get away with this because he has 5 PhD’s, has written many books, and his resume leaves no doubt he’s an expert on the subjects he writes about. Where I would have to be sure the publisher even accepts unsolicited manuscripts, or proposals from new writers, he has had many things published by simply running an idea by a publisher he’s never even worked with. It’s possible. Connections also go a long way in publishing. Perhaps you could make the assumption that he’s speaking of presenting his idea after they approached him, but it seems to me he went out of his way to say that he “approached them with the project, not the other way around”. Perhaps more information will come out with time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.