Several people have asked me my opinion on the recent petition to the American Philosophical Association regarding alleged discrimination by certain colleges and universities against homosexuals. At the moment I have nothing to say about either the petition or the counterpetition. I want to point out that the politicization of the A. P. A. is nothing new and, more importantly, that it is inconsistent with the charter of the A. P. A as a professional organization that it take groups stands on debatable social and political questions. My reasons are given in the letter to the A. P. A. reproduced below.
Neven Sesardic e-mailed a while back:
I wonder whether there has ever been any reaction to your wonderful letter to the APA about their stand on the war in Iraq. I let my subscription lapse after that.
I did receive a very nice supportive letter from Panayot Butchvarov, although it may have been in reference to an earlier letter in which I protested the APA's taking of a group stand against capital punishment. Having lived under Communism, Butchvarov is familiar with the perils of groupthink.
I am glad to hear that Sesardic let his membership lapse. So did I. And I encourage other conservatives and libertarians to ask themselves whether it is really in their best interest to fund Left-leaning organizations. But even liberals should be able to appreciate that professional organizations ought not take group stands on eminently debatable social and political questions. Here is the Iraq letter, published in the Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, vol. 77, no. 2 (Nov., 2003), p. 85.
Dear Editor:
The APA Pacific Division has proposed a resolution to "express our serious doubts about the morality, legality and prudence of a war against Iraq led by the United States." If individual members have doubts, it is their right to express them in their capacity as private citizens. But a collective expression by the APA as a whole, or in any of its Divisions, is clearly inappropriate. The reason should be obvious. The purpose of the APA is "exclusively educational, literary and scientific . . . " as per its constitution. It is therefore in keeping with its charter that the APA provide a framework in which serious discussion of questions concerning pacifism, just war doctrine, etc., can take place. But for the APA to endorse pacifism, or just war theory, or a version of just war theory that rules out preemptive strikes, or to express doubts about the moral justification of a particular war, is clearly in violation of its mandate. This would be as wrong, and indeed as absurd, as if the APA were to adopt an official stance on the mind-body problem, or on any other philosophical problem. If the APA is not prepared to take sides in the debate between, say, John Searle and Daniel Dennett, then it ought not take sides in the debate in foreign policy between, say, William J. Bennett and Noam Chomsky.
But the effort and expense spent on this hopelessly belated resolution are not entirely wasted. The arguments given in favor of the resolution, fallacious as they are, provide excellent fodder for logical analysis, and so may be of some use to teachers of logic. The latter can say to their students: Here is what happens when otherwise intelligent people allow ideological bias to cloud their thinking.
