With no response to another letter I wrote to the editors at the Journal of Biosocial Science ten days ago, I started to wonder if anyone at Cambridge University is concerned that a journal published by Cambridge University Press can now boast that Paul Cameron is among its contributers. In my online research, I discovered the meeting minutes of the Cambridge University Students’ Union Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay and Transgender Campaign which documents the best intentions gone nowhere.

To be clear, the responsibility of publishing junk science lies on the shoulders of Cambridge University Press, not CUSU LBGT. I certainly can’t and won’t blame CUSU LBGT for the article getting published. However, it’s incredibly disappointing to discover that they knew about the pending article, thought about speaking up, and then ultimately did nothing.

Here are excerpts from their meetings during the Spring 2006 semester in which the Cameron/JBS issue was mentioned:

From the Minutes of the CUSU LBGT Exec Meeting
January 22, 2006 (PDF document)

• During the week, the Exec was alerted to an article on the website of the Journal for Biosocial Science (a Cambridge University Press journal) by a Paul Cameron of the American Family Research Institute. It was suggested by the person who alerted the Exec to this article that the article, which suggests on the basis of apparently problematic methodology that the children of gay parents are more likely to be gay in the same way that the children of religious parents may be religious, or if parents smoke then their children are more likely to, and that there are social policy implications from such findings. It was suggested that CUSU LBGT write to CUP [Cambridge University Press] to protest.
• Mike H has queried whether a political group such as us should try and query academic work — could be construed as censorship. Also queried various statements by exec members.
• Fish noted that it is not unusual for political groups to lobby.
• FRI who sponsor Cameron is a political group and so the issue is political from the beginning.
• There is evidence that contradicts what Cameron claims — datasets etc.
• It was decided that we should contact Dr Susan Golombok, a Professor in Cambridge, who researches in this area, to find out whether we should approach the editors of the journal, and, if so, how and on what basis. Alistair to do this.
  
• Olly to write to Jim Burroway (who alerted us to the article), outlining what we have discussed and what we are going to do — open a dialogue.

It was a good start. Clearly they still had not actually read the article since anyone in an LGBT organization would know the article was junk after reading the first sentence in Cameron’s article: “Common sense holds that homosexuality is contagious.” But they were taking steps to get more information and explore possibilities for action.

From the Minutes of the CUSU LBGT Exec Meeting
January 29, 2006 (PDF document)

Journal of Biosocial Science

• Olly, David and Mike met Dr Susan Golombok this week to discuss a strategy. It was agreed to write a friendly letter to the JBS pointing out some of our concerns.
• David to write the letter asap and circulate.
• Varsity were given a statement by Olly as agreed with the Exec which they didn’t think was sensationalist enough and so printed part of an email that he had sent to the CUSU Exec as well as the statement. However, the coverage could have been worse.

Kudos to them for meeting with Dr. Golombok. She is a well known name in research on kids of queers. Certainly after meeting with her, they would be fired up to move quickly in writing the letter. But alas…

From the Minutes of the CUSU LBGT Exec Meeting
February 5, 2006 (PDF document)

Journal of Biosocial Sciences

• David hasn’t done anything yet. Will write the letter to the editors (as per last week) before handover.
• Jim Burroway emailed Olly — pleased with the coverage level in Varsity. He hasn’t yet had a reply from the JBS.

David recommits to writing the letter. But then…

From the Minutes of the CUSU LBGT Exec Meeting
February 12, 2006 (PDF document)

Matters arising from the minutes of the last meeting
Journal of Biosocial Sciences article.

• David confirmed that he hasn’t had to chance to write to the Journal yet.
  David to write asap and circulate the letter around the Exec before sending.

David said he will take care of it, but time marches on and the following week there is no update about this issue. Another week: nothing. And another.

The next time the issue is mentioned, “David” — who was supposed to write the letter — is not named explicitly. Instead, the minutes attempt justify why no action was taken:

From the Minutes of the CUSU LBGT Exec Meeting
April 30, 2006 (PDF document)

Homophobia Article submitted to Cambridge Journal — Luke

• Luke enquired into the outcome of the journal article deemed homophobic, this article has now been published, the letter of objection was not written by the designated Exec member. It was decided that no action should be taken, this could attract more attention to the article and the Exec felt they did not know enough about the subject to question it comprehensively.

They dropped the ball, nothing more, nothing less. Blame it on apathy, on a heavy course load, on being preoccupied with your latest crush. College students are allowed to get distracted and have wonky priorities.

But blaming their inaction on “[not knowing] enough about the subject”? Please! They had Golombok, a leading expert, at their finger tips. By leaning on that excuse, they insult Golombok’s expertise and disregard her effort to make time to meet with them. Anyone smart enough to get into college is smart enough to challenge Cameron’s claims after just a few minutes with Golombok.

I have to believe “the Exec” didn’t fully think through the consequences of not doing whatever they could to challenge the article before it was published. Perhaps to them, it was just more homophobic rhetoric — the fact that it was published in a peer-reviewed journal didn’t matter much to them.

But outside of the walls of academia, a peer-reviewed journal is exactly what is necessary to transform homophobic rhetoric into destructive “conventional wisdom.” I doubt these students understood the connection between junk science being validated in the journal and how it would then be referred to on AM Radio talk shows across the U.S. They hadn’t made the connection as to how such an article will be cited in amicus briefs to oppose gay people from adopting children.

But they ultimately chose silence, claiming that speaking up could do more harm than good. Hmmmm….where have I heard that before?

Oh yes, I remember:
(with credit and gratitude to Martin Niemöller, author of the original.)

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
but no one felt they knew enough about the subject to question it comprehensively.

Consider this a case study for why it matters so much to “Think Globally, Act Locally.”

Trackback URI | Comments RSS