- Email: [email protected]
Letter and comment
The Astronomy Quarterly
Heflections Refractions letters and comment
The following are open letters addressed to the president of the American Astronomical Society regarding Council support of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution.
DearMargaret, . At Austin I did not get a chance to speak to you after hearing about Council's action on the Equal Rights Amendment. Therefore, I am writing this letter, Pursuant to your request for opinions from the membership, to tell you that I am strongly opposed to this action, and to urge that the matter not be allowed to rest here. Most of the arguments against Council's action are fairly obvious, but I will state some of them anyway. I do not want to get into the pros and cons of the ERA itself, because I believe that these are largely extraneous to the chief issue that faces the Society: namely, whether to become involved in poltical action. 1. The AAS, as an organization, is not at all political in purposer and should not allow itself to be used in this way. There are plenty of organizations which are Political and are happy to discuss such things. (The AAS may be a softer !,ouch!)The demand that all groups of whatever kind must ,"become involved" or take a stand" is, in essence, a totalitarian demand. Why should an organization Which failed to take a stand on desegregation, or on the Vietnam war, suddenly start now? 2. Once the precedent of political involvement is set, there are likely to be similar demands for action on other controversial issues; e.g, public funding of abortions, or homosexual rights. What will Council do then? 3. The action which has been taken is quite offensive to some, perhaps to Jnany, members, and this will weaken the Society. Suppose that Council had ~aken some political stand which you, personally, regarded as foolish or even Immoral: say, insistence on public funding of abortions, or support of the
107
Vietnam war*. Presumably you joined the AAS, and lent your name to it, because you wanted to support astronomy, and not because you wanted to take political actions or because you agreed with the politics of most of the members. Would you not then feel betrayed? Would you not feel that the Society was perverting your support and speaking for you in objectionable ways? Would you consider resigning from the Society? At least one distinguished member of the Society has already resigned over the ERA action. Should we have several competing Astronomical Societies, divided along political lines? 4. If Council were to vote on whether quasars are local or cosmological, and then decline invitations from departments where the professors did not agree, everyone would recognize this as a travesty; scientific societies do "not seek truth . in this way. And yet, astronomers do have expert qualifications in that area! It seems, on the other hand, that on the ERA issue we are willing to set at naught the legislatures and people of many states, and tell them that we wish to coerce them into submission, despite the fact that we have no special claim to wisdom in this matter, and no more right to speak than the average man in the street. Many of us have not even considered the matter very deeply! nus kind of self-important posturing gives scientists a bad name among average citizens, and quite rightly so. 5. If there were any kind of repression involved in this matter (e.g, if police were arresting, or mobs assaulting, supporters of the ERA), then a good case might be made that scholars, artists and intellectuals should take a stand against tyranny. But the truth is just the reverse. Few issues have ever been discussed as fully. and freely as the ERA. It has been considered by every state legislature and has inspired a referendum in at least one state. In fact, the ERA is a safe, middle-class, suburban, Establishment cause. There is little danger of any retaliation against the AAS for Council's action. Indeed this goes far to explain Council's action! But it also raises questions about our motives in selecting this, rather than desegregation or the Vietnam war, for our first political expression6. TheSocrcrv will, nevertheless, suffer by this action, for such astronomically important states as Arizona and Virginia are among those which have not ratified the ERA. We will be unable to meet with our colleagues in these states. This harms them and harms the Society. 7. The saddest consequence of an introduction of such matters into Society business is a deterioration of personal relationships among colleagues. I personally found this all too evident at the Austin meeting. I have heard that Council's debate on the subject was also, shall we say, heated! The plain truth is that people's actions in political matters are not subject to the standards and restraints that we accept in science. All the more reason for not dealing with them in a scientific society. "'This is not as far-fetched as it might seem. I recall an eminent theorist telling me a dozen years ago that "I've found it's not possible to get any work done at (X University) unless one has a position on the Vietnam war. So I've decided I'm for it." So quickly do things change! I did not share his position, even at the time - but then, I am known widely as a troublemaker.
108
8. ERA supporters and opponents are aware that the ERA may well be a dead letter in a couple of years. If this happens, what will Council do? Will we sheepishly rescind our resolution? Or will we be urged to continue "punishing" the guilty states which blocked ratification? 9. Precedent is important to some people, and therefore perhaps we should know what others have done about this. Indeed, it has been argued that because other societies have adopted such a policy, the AAS should do so too. While it is true that groups such as the American Psychological Association have done so, it IS not true, so far as I can determine, that any hard-science society has done so. At the moment the AAS seems to be out on a limb in this regard. (i.) Last week I learned privately that the Council of the American Physical Society very recently considered and rejected a similar move. (ii.) A friend of mine who is a pro-ERA activist and sponsor of such a resolution in the American Mathematical Society summarized for me the situation in the AMS: At a recent meeting the 1l1embership passed a resolution giving moral support to such a policy, but explicitly declined to take any action to enforce it. The scheduling of AMS 1l1eetings remains in the hands of their' Council, which opposes such a policy. In her view, therefore, the AMS has failed to take effective action in this matter. I conclUde that our Council has placed us in opposition to the APS and the AMS by the decision at Austin. Those people who like to think about precedents should chew on that one. . A survey of one's local colleagues shows quickly that there is widespread dissatisfaction with Council's hasty action in this matter. If the action stands, there will certainly be bad consequences, e.g, further resignations from the Society. I wish to urge strongly that Council reconsider this matter and rescind the resolution, on grounds that Council should consult the membership before abandoning its long-time policy of avoiding political stands. If Council declines t? rescind, there is bound to be pressure for an advisory referendum. I do not Uke the idea of a referendum, because I do not think the Council or the 1l1embership should be debating and voting on political issues. However, if forced to choose between having a referendum and letting Council's January action stand, I would choose the referendum, because I think that the membership Would reject a policy of political involvement for the Society. Yours sincerely, James E. Felten
Dr. Burbidge: E The action of the AAS council at the recent Austin meeting regarding the RA shows clearly that: 1. The Council considers the AAS to be a scientific front for an organization Which it has the right to manipulate to further its own social and political causes. Astronomy is also affected by which political party is in power, so perhaps the AAs will soon boycott states which vote Republican in national elections? 109
Heflections Refractions letters and comment
The following are open letters addressed to the president of the American Astronomical Society regarding Council support of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution.
DearMargaret, . At Austin I did not get a chance to speak to you after hearing about Council's action on the Equal Rights Amendment. Therefore, I am writing this letter, Pursuant to your request for opinions from the membership, to tell you that I am strongly opposed to this action, and to urge that the matter not be allowed to rest here. Most of the arguments against Council's action are fairly obvious, but I will state some of them anyway. I do not want to get into the pros and cons of the ERA itself, because I believe that these are largely extraneous to the chief issue that faces the Society: namely, whether to become involved in poltical action. 1. The AAS, as an organization, is not at all political in purposer and should not allow itself to be used in this way. There are plenty of organizations which are Political and are happy to discuss such things. (The AAS may be a softer !,ouch!)The demand that all groups of whatever kind must ,"become involved" or take a stand" is, in essence, a totalitarian demand. Why should an organization Which failed to take a stand on desegregation, or on the Vietnam war, suddenly start now? 2. Once the precedent of political involvement is set, there are likely to be similar demands for action on other controversial issues; e.g, public funding of abortions, or homosexual rights. What will Council do then? 3. The action which has been taken is quite offensive to some, perhaps to Jnany, members, and this will weaken the Society. Suppose that Council had ~aken some political stand which you, personally, regarded as foolish or even Immoral: say, insistence on public funding of abortions, or support of the
107
Vietnam war*. Presumably you joined the AAS, and lent your name to it, because you wanted to support astronomy, and not because you wanted to take political actions or because you agreed with the politics of most of the members. Would you not then feel betrayed? Would you not feel that the Society was perverting your support and speaking for you in objectionable ways? Would you consider resigning from the Society? At least one distinguished member of the Society has already resigned over the ERA action. Should we have several competing Astronomical Societies, divided along political lines? 4. If Council were to vote on whether quasars are local or cosmological, and then decline invitations from departments where the professors did not agree, everyone would recognize this as a travesty; scientific societies do "not seek truth . in this way. And yet, astronomers do have expert qualifications in that area! It seems, on the other hand, that on the ERA issue we are willing to set at naught the legislatures and people of many states, and tell them that we wish to coerce them into submission, despite the fact that we have no special claim to wisdom in this matter, and no more right to speak than the average man in the street. Many of us have not even considered the matter very deeply! nus kind of self-important posturing gives scientists a bad name among average citizens, and quite rightly so. 5. If there were any kind of repression involved in this matter (e.g, if police were arresting, or mobs assaulting, supporters of the ERA), then a good case might be made that scholars, artists and intellectuals should take a stand against tyranny. But the truth is just the reverse. Few issues have ever been discussed as fully. and freely as the ERA. It has been considered by every state legislature and has inspired a referendum in at least one state. In fact, the ERA is a safe, middle-class, suburban, Establishment cause. There is little danger of any retaliation against the AAS for Council's action. Indeed this goes far to explain Council's action! But it also raises questions about our motives in selecting this, rather than desegregation or the Vietnam war, for our first political expression6. TheSocrcrv will, nevertheless, suffer by this action, for such astronomically important states as Arizona and Virginia are among those which have not ratified the ERA. We will be unable to meet with our colleagues in these states. This harms them and harms the Society. 7. The saddest consequence of an introduction of such matters into Society business is a deterioration of personal relationships among colleagues. I personally found this all too evident at the Austin meeting. I have heard that Council's debate on the subject was also, shall we say, heated! The plain truth is that people's actions in political matters are not subject to the standards and restraints that we accept in science. All the more reason for not dealing with them in a scientific society. "'This is not as far-fetched as it might seem. I recall an eminent theorist telling me a dozen years ago that "I've found it's not possible to get any work done at (X University) unless one has a position on the Vietnam war. So I've decided I'm for it." So quickly do things change! I did not share his position, even at the time - but then, I am known widely as a troublemaker.
108
8. ERA supporters and opponents are aware that the ERA may well be a dead letter in a couple of years. If this happens, what will Council do? Will we sheepishly rescind our resolution? Or will we be urged to continue "punishing" the guilty states which blocked ratification? 9. Precedent is important to some people, and therefore perhaps we should know what others have done about this. Indeed, it has been argued that because other societies have adopted such a policy, the AAS should do so too. While it is true that groups such as the American Psychological Association have done so, it IS not true, so far as I can determine, that any hard-science society has done so. At the moment the AAS seems to be out on a limb in this regard. (i.) Last week I learned privately that the Council of the American Physical Society very recently considered and rejected a similar move. (ii.) A friend of mine who is a pro-ERA activist and sponsor of such a resolution in the American Mathematical Society summarized for me the situation in the AMS: At a recent meeting the 1l1embership passed a resolution giving moral support to such a policy, but explicitly declined to take any action to enforce it. The scheduling of AMS 1l1eetings remains in the hands of their' Council, which opposes such a policy. In her view, therefore, the AMS has failed to take effective action in this matter. I conclUde that our Council has placed us in opposition to the APS and the AMS by the decision at Austin. Those people who like to think about precedents should chew on that one. . A survey of one's local colleagues shows quickly that there is widespread dissatisfaction with Council's hasty action in this matter. If the action stands, there will certainly be bad consequences, e.g, further resignations from the Society. I wish to urge strongly that Council reconsider this matter and rescind the resolution, on grounds that Council should consult the membership before abandoning its long-time policy of avoiding political stands. If Council declines t? rescind, there is bound to be pressure for an advisory referendum. I do not Uke the idea of a referendum, because I do not think the Council or the 1l1embership should be debating and voting on political issues. However, if forced to choose between having a referendum and letting Council's January action stand, I would choose the referendum, because I think that the membership Would reject a policy of political involvement for the Society. Yours sincerely, James E. Felten
Dr. Burbidge: E The action of the AAS council at the recent Austin meeting regarding the RA shows clearly that: 1. The Council considers the AAS to be a scientific front for an organization Which it has the right to manipulate to further its own social and political causes. Astronomy is also affected by which political party is in power, so perhaps the AAs will soon boycott states which vote Republican in national elections? 109