Setting boundaries. Photo by Héctor J. Rivas on Unsplash

Much of what the Editorial Board does at Economic Anthropology is routine. We review articles, help authors with edits, supervise the academic production process, and so on. Every once in a while, though, the Editorial Board is called on to take an action for moral reasons. These decisions can be tricky because the conduct in question may not have anything to do with an author’s professional role. In what follows, I want to explain a bit how we think about this sort of situation, and some principles we keep in mind.

To start, we must acknowledge that academic work doesn’t happen individually and doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Academics exist in a larger social context, and are responsible for much of a society’s research, knowledge, and truth. Very basically, the rest of society has to trust us to be the sort of people that can seek and articulate truths, can be trusted with children and young adults, and can fit in with other people and other institutions. It becomes exceptionally difficult for the rest of us to do our jobs when an institution is seen to be harboring a colleague who starts breaking fundamental taboos such as those surrounding sexual violence or child abuse.

A few issues with this assessment immediately arise: First, the generation of knowledge often requires academics to challenge larger societal orthodoxies, even those around sex and sexuality. Generally, and especially retrospectively, we feel this is a good thing and core to what our professional responsibilities are.

Second, we know that taboos, norms, and mores shift historically and across cultural contexts. There really isn’t a universal yard stick for this sort of thing, and we often regret what only recently seemed like commonsense prejudices. The seeming obviousness of racial hierarchies or the apparent deviance of homosexual desire are just two recent examples of past common-sense beliefs that now strike us as both regrettable and tragic for the harm they caused and continue to cause.

Where, then, does that leave us? Basically, with a balancing act—on the one hand we know that we need to have some degree of good standing in larger society to do our job. Moreover, we’re part of that society and often feel the need to enact and assert our own moral sensibilities. On the other hand, we know that absolute moral tests don’t really exist (at least for our purposes); and we also know that moral crusades are often weaponized against academics like us.

So, we weigh. Ultimately, it’s an exercise in judgment, which makes it all the more important to have people, policies, and processes in place ahead of time to deal with these sorts of situations as they arise. Given that, we’ve prepared the following language for our governing document which will codify how this consideration will play out in real time:

Draft Language for removal of “Bad Actors”

Economic Anthropology may refuse to consider for publication the work of authors who have violated the professional and/or ethical standards of the academic and/or university community in which they participate or who threaten the integrity and reputation of the journal. Economic Anthropology will only refuse to publish the work of those who have violated professional standards or threaten the journal after a given author has received an opportunity to write a response explaining themselves, and after the board has deliberated, and after a majority of the board has decided to do so.

Economic Anthropology may terminate an official affiliation with an individual (e.g. editorial board membership, advisory board membership, or similar) if that individual has violated the professional and/or ethical standards of the academic and/or university community in which they participate or who threaten the integrity and reputation of the journal. Economic Anthropology will only terminate the affiliation of those who have violated professional standards or threaten the journal after a given individual has received an opportunity to write a response explaining themselves, and after the board has deliberated, and after a majority of the board has decided to do so.

Anyone holding an official affiliation with Economic Anthropology who is facing a felony criminal allegation will, in principle, be automatically suspended from their role until the matter is settled, decided, or dismissed. Such person may also face removal at any point after deliberation and a majority vote of the editorial board. Such person may appeal their suspension and/or removal by petitioning the editor-in-chief who will convey such petition to the editorial board for deliberation and a vote, with a majority leading to reinstatement.