Stalinism at the American Political Science Association? That’s what Paul Rahe, professor at Hillsdale College and scholar extraordinaire, calls it, and he’s got a point. The American Political Science Association was founded in 1903, around the time of the establishment of other national academic associations. Like the American Association of University Professors, founded in 1915, the APSA took a strong stand for academic freedom. Now the APSA seems to be stepping back from that.
As Rahe describes, the APSA executive director sent out on July 30 — in time to catch most members during summer vacation — a revised set of bylaws drafted by an Ad Hoc Committee on Governance. It included, under Statement of Purpose, a previous phrase: “In achieving these purposes, the Association strongly supports academic freedom.” But it dropped, without notice, the following three sentences: “The Association as such is nonpartisan. It will not support political parties or candidates. It will not commit its members on questions of public policy nor take positions not immediately concerned with its direct purpose as stated above.”
As Rahe points out, other academic professional groups like the American Historical Association have been taking positions on issues. The APSA heretofore has not. Why the change? Well, the answer seems to be contained in two paragraphs that were added: “Revocation of membership: The Council may revoke an individual’s membership by a 2/3 vote of all Council members after hearing from the member whose membership is in question.” And “Removal from office: Any Council member may be removed on a vote of 2/3 of the members of the Executive Committee and 75 percent of the Council.”
At the APSA annual meeting in San Francisco over Labor Day weekend, Rahe and others tried to amend the proposed changes by restoring the original language. Rahe: “This opportunity was denied; when one in our number stood to draw the attention of the chair to the fact that the business meeting no longer had a quorum — and could therefore no longer conduct business — those present voted to ignore the absence of a quorum and to submit the proposed bylaws to the members of the APSA for final approval by an electronic ballot. All of this is supposed to take place between now and the 4th of October, when the new bylaws are slated to go into effect.”
There you have it. Proposals submitted with undisclosed changes. Stacked meetings. Purges of dissidents. Kangaroo courts. Show trials. “The fix is in,” Rahe writes. “Joe Stalin would be proud.”
What does the APSA apparat have to say about this?
