In April 2019, Stanford Provost Persis Drell—citing "budgetary" reasons, and consulting neither the Faculty Senate nor anyone working at SUP—announced her decision to cut the $1.7 million subsidy to Stanford University Press. This was met with swift and tremendous blowback, from thousands of researchers, scholars, faculty, students, publishers, and readers, both from within and beyond the Stanford community. This website chronicles the ongoing situation, with a timeline (below), collection of news coverage, letters, petitions, responses from the community, as well as tools to help save SUP—and all it stands for.
|
The Chronicle of Higher Education | by Alexander C. Kafka
— (Web | PDF)
"'This is a reprehensible moment for one of the richest universities in the world and a diminution of intellectual inquiry. It really boggles the mind,' said Woody Powell, a Stanford sociology professor..."
The Stanford Daily | by Paxton Scott
— (Web | PDF)
"'At stake is our intellectual identity,' said [Professor David] Palumbo-Liu. 'University presses perform both an institutional and public good. They are not judged by an economic calculus, but by an intellectual value, and the value to the intellectual mind and the reputation of a University.'"
Letters from Stanford departments and faculty
Stanford faculty in Classics, DLCL, English, Music, Religious Studies, and American Studies (PDF)
Stanford Law School (PDF)
Stanford Committee on Libraries (C-LIB) (PDF)
SUP Faculty Editorial Board (PDF)
Stanford Graduate School of Education (PDF)
Stanford History Department (PDF)
Stanford Anthropology Department (PDF)
Stanford Sociology Department (PDF)
Stanford Theater and Performance Studies (TAPS) (PDF)
Stanford Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures (PDF)
Walter Powell, Professor of Education, Co-Director of Stanford Center on Philanthrophy and Civil Society (PDF)
Stanford Center for East Asian Studies (CEAS) (PDF)
The Stanford Daily | by Elise Miller
— (Web | PDF)
"University presses have 'long been the defenders of academic integrity,' noted author Elena Danielson, Archivist Emerita and retired Associate Director of the Hoover Institution. [...] Danielson added that one of David Starr Jordan’s requirements when he accepted the inaugural position of Stanford president was to have a university press. 'When you walk past Wallenberg Hall, look up,” she added. “There are four figures perched on the front facade of the Quad facing the Oval. One of the statues is Johannes Gutenberg. He was placed there to remind us of the importance of printing books.'"
Inside Higher Ed | by Scott Jaschik
— (Web | PDF)
"[Provost] Drell told a group of faculty leaders recently that she considered the press 'second rate' and that many of its series could be pruned, according to some present at the meeting. The comments angered many professors who consider the press to be a point of pride."
American Sociological Association (ASA)
— (PDF)
"Stanford University Press is home to a long and distinguished sociology list, and the decline or demise of the press would significantly disrupt the dissemination of important sociological knowledge."
The Association of University Presses (AUPresses)
— (PDF)
"Eliminating all institutional funding precipitously will never right-size a publishing operation, but destroy it. Successful press reconfigurations are planned, implemented, and assessed over years, matching the demands of the university press mission."
The Stanford Daily | by Michael Rothberg
— (Web | PDF)
"...this cut could lead to the demise of one of the nation’s premier outlets for academic scholarship. It is difficult for me to understand how one of the world’s richest educational institutions could be so shortsighted as to risk such a dire outcome, even in a budget year that you have described as 'tight.' I am writing in the hope that you can still be convinced to reverse this misguided decision and save the reputation of your university."
The Chronicle of Higher Education | by Cathy Davidson
— (Web | PDF | HASTAC original post from 4/28/2019)
"Technology by technologists for technologists, with no regard for the human and social implications, is what has brought the world to a fraught and morally vexed place. Ironically, among the many fields Stanford University Press publishes are legal studies and security studies. Given the state of our world and the role of monopolistic, global, invasive, and irresponsible surveillance and communications technologies in that world, Stanford’s decision is not just symbolic; it is irresponsible and even dystopian."
The Chronicle of Higher Education | by Alexander C. Kafka
— (Web | PDF)
"News last week of the discontinuation of the subsidy sparked vociferous protest, including open letters and petitions signed by more than a thousand within and outside the Stanford community. Besides the money, what angered and puzzled faculty members and the press’s editorial staff and advisers is that they weren’t consulted. The move was announced in a meeting with department chairs and only later publicly acknowledged in a Faculty Senate meeting."
The Stanford Daily | by Elise Miller
— (Web | PDF)
"'Stanford, as a single entity, ultimately needs to be sustainable … but it must be considered differently at [different] levels and granularities within a university … What gets funded (or not) reflects an institution’s actual values. [T]he fundamental question here,' [Prof. Ge] Wang continued, 'is not the budget, but rather the extent to which the Press aligns with Stanford’s core values.'"
Inside Higher Ed | by Scott Jaschik
— (Web | PDF)
"Berkery added, 'The reverberating outcry from communities of scholars, alumni and communities often comes as a surprise to universities making decisions similar to what is being contemplated by Stanford. Internally, unilateral administrative decisions affecting university presses raise questions about university governance, including protest from faculty editorial boards already tasked with press engagement and oversight. Significantly, unexpected announcements which call into question a press’s future viability can immediately harm ongoing acquisitions efforts, and may give rise to potential breach of contract claims for its new and forthcoming books.'"
Times Higher Education | by Paul Basken
— (Web | PDF)
"Hundreds of professors had signed petition opposing scrapping of annual subsidy from parent institution."
The Stanford Daily | by Doctoral Students from Stanford Schools of H&S, Education, and Law
— (Web | PDF)
"...we also learned that we were used as justification for the budget cuts to the university press in exchange for graduate fellowships. Independently of the fact that the SUP modest base subsidy of $1.5 million would only cover a few fellowships and that there are hundreds of us, we did not appreciate being pitted against the SUP. Choosing between graduate funding and the SUP is not a choice at all."
Inside Higher Ed | by Barbara Fister
— (Web | PDF)
"There’s a cascade of issues, here. Thanks to austerity, public higher ed has to pay for itself. Libraries can’t afford books, so presses lose a market and scholars lose a chance to share their research widely. Individual faculty purchases can’t make up for lost sales because they’re paid piecework and aren’t sure where they’ll be living next semester. What’s happening at Stanford seems ridiculous, but destroying a long-term national commitment to higher education is the real absurdity."
The Nation | by Michael Rothberg
— (Web | PDF)
"The greatest source of concern, however, is the signal that Drell’s decision broadcast regarding the value of research in the humanities and social sciences on campus. (Drell is a physicist.) Scholarly publications sometimes turn a profit, but unlike trade publications, profit is not their primary reason for being. They are contributions to knowledge that illuminate matters of public concern. They cannot—and should not—compete according to the profit-driven dictates of the market."
The Atlantic | by Ilya Somin
— (Web | PDF)
"The controversy reflects broader concerns about the future of academic presses. If one of the nation’s wealthiest and most prestigious universities is apparently willing to gut its highly respected press, that does not bode well for other academic publishers. And if academic publishing goes into decline, that in turn could impede the production and distribution of new knowledge—a prospect that should concern even the many people who do not read, much less write, academic books."
Times Higher Education | by David Palumbo-Liu
— (Web | PDF)
"If university presses go, you can eliminate the word 'ideas' from 'marketplace of ideas', at the same time as you erase the word 'university' from 'corporate university'. The loss will be felt by everyone – just at a time when we need free, well-funded university presses more than ever."
Selected Letters in Support of SUP
April 29th, 2019 — American Sociology Association (PDF)
April 30th, 2019 — Association of University Presses (PDF)
May 1st, 2019 — Modern Language Association (PDF)
May 3rd, 2019 — Board of the Consortium of Humanities Centers and Institutes (PDF)
May 5th, 2019 — Association for Political and Legal Anthropology (PDF)
May 6th, 2019 — Homi K. Bhabha, Director, Mihindra Humanities Center at Harvard (PDF)
May 6th, 2019 — John F. Padgett, University of Chicago (PDF)
May 8th, 2019 — American Historical Association (PDF)
May 13th, 2019 — Letter cosigned by 16 associations and societies (PDF):
The Stanford Daily | by Elise Miller
— (Web | PDF)
"'University presses are the backbone of humanistic scholarship and … arts and social sciences' at 'every stage' of the 'life cycle of a scholar,' from first-year course readings to first monograph to work as an established scholar, [Professor Thomas Mullaney] said."
#SupportSUP Newsletter
— (Web | PDF)
"Three Principles for #SupportSUP:
KQED Forum : NPR | hosted by Michael Krasny, with Tom Mullaney & Scott Jascick
— (Web | MP3)
"A controversy is brewing over the future of the Stanford University Press, which has published research in the humanities and social sciences since 1892. Earlier this year, Stanford University turned down a subsidy request from the press, with some in the administration arguing the press should be self-sustaining. But some faculty members say the press is central to Stanford’s academic mission to produce original scholarship, regardless of profitability. We’ll get an update on the controversy. What do you think? Should university presses think about profit in what they choose to publish?"
At Stanford Faculty Senate by C-Lib (Committee on Libraries), read by Tom Mullaney
— (PDF)
"First, one catalyst for this resolution comes from the origins of the SUP crisis itself - not merely the budgetary decision that was made, which alone would have been enough to trigger a maelstrom of criticism - but also the circumstances surrounding that budgetary decision. Although some have since tried to downplay or deny the record on this point, it is established fact that dismissive, insulting, and unfounded statements were made about SUP by our administration - not just once, but repeatedly - and that these statements, when coupled with Stanford's rejection of SUP's budgetary request - set off a chain reaction of criticism of the Stanford administration and support for SUP, in equal measure."
At Stanford Faculty Senate by Stanford Graduate Students in the Humanities and Social Sciences; ready by Jason Beckman
— (PDF)
"Do not threaten to impoverish our futures while making overtures of support for our mental health. We see the repeated attempts by the provost and deans to weigh funding for graduate students against funding for the press and categorically reject this logic as a false choice. Make no mistake that we stand firmly with our faculty advisors and the press on this issue, and will not be used as rhetorical human shields for the administration’s myopic stance towards the Press and academic publishing. "
Stanford Faculty Senate Minutes
— (PDF)
"At its meeting on June 13 2019, the Faculty Senate passed, on a divided vote, the following motion, which had been introduced by Professor Adrian Daub..."
Stanford News by Chris Bliss
— (Web | PDF)
"The Stanford University Press took center stage at the Faculty Senate meeting on Thursday, with senate members engaging in a lively discussion about the role of a university press, the challenges of academic publishing and the future of Stanford University Press."
The Book Haven by Cynthia Haven
— (Web | PDF)
"'...Truly, this has been such a self-inflicted wound for Stanford, such an unforced error, that the situation feels largely out of control. It has been remarked that this PR debacle has probably already cost Stanford more money than it would have cost to endow SUP in perpetuity.'"
The Scholarly Kitchen by Karin Wulf
— (Web | PDF)
"It is perhaps the perfect illustration of what the near-frenetic enthusiasm for technology and business has wrought that it is the university press in the shadow of silicon valley — from the university that has been the seedbed of some of the most important (and arguably, some of the most problematic) innovations of the past century — that is under the gun. The language of “right-sizing” the press, and the concern with “sustainability” that is surely not about quality — after all, SUP is making important contributions to knowledge with every publication — seem to be only about financial investments and returns. Is this what a great university does, is, and should be?"
Provost-appointed committee chaired by Judy Goldstein
— (Announcement | Full Report)
"Throughout our discussions this summer, we have been struck by the eagerness among all stakeholders to see Stanford University Press thrive. Yet, reaching the goal of a press that is equal to the status of Stanford University has been difficult. Below, we attempt a better understanding of the source of the problems and offer a set of specific recommendations for consideration."
Inside Higher Ed by Greg Britton
— (Web | PDF)
"Most remarkable about the report, however, is the committee’s preoccupation with the press’s status compared with its elite peers. The committee relied on a research assistant to search webpages of other academic presses to calculate the percentage of authors from elite institutions, although the exact methodology of this research isn’t described. They assumed that faculty at “the top 10 or 20 universities” must write better books, which presumably would sell better. The committee also admonishes the press to publish more senior faculty and fewer books by new scholars. The assumption, again, is that these will sell better, and, if not, at least bring luster to the operation. This ignores a core mission of a university -- to foster, assess and support the work of junior scholars. Further, it ignores a truth that every editor knows: that that excellent work comes from scholars in every corner of higher education regardless of faculty rank or institutional ranking."
The Book Haven by Cynthia Haven
— (Web)
"'Lost in the recommendations for how to fix the Stanford situation is any recognition that university presses have continued to innovate their way out of this. University presses publish books that extend the reach of scholars beyond the gates of their universities. Yes, they produce field-specific monographs, but they also publish deeply thoughtful books that inform the human condition, solve problems and extend knowledge far and wide. Stanford University Press is no exception.
Stanford has a great university press. It’s not clear the Stanford committee believes this.'"
Faculty Senate-appointed committee chaired by Rich Martin
— (Full Report)
" Many of the ongoing deliberations about the Press have centered on questions of financial performance and sustainability. These discussions must be contextualized by confronting the realities within which the Press operates. Stanford University Press, without any significant endowment or additional programs (such as journals) to support its operation, has maintained consistent financial performance and continually maintained a books program of the highest caliber. A books program will never serve as the basis for a “breakeven” enterprise, when looking solely at monetary returns. Alan Harvey has acknowledged this, and it is widely known by everyone in the academic publishing industry. Speaking at the Association of University Presses roundtable at Stanford University on October 25, 2019, Executive Director Peter Berkery recalled a quip by a former UCLA press director, to a room of scholars who nodded in agreement: “While commercial presses make books to make money, academic presses make money to make books.” The value of these books, when accounting for their impacts on scholarly careers and entire fields, and their intrinsic value as new knowledge, should be taken into account when addressing the question of operating deficits, for an industry within which such a result is always to be expected. Given the limited support afforded by the University, Alan Harvey should be commended for his leadership and the many successes of the Press."
To telegraph our major recommendation: we are in favor of a tripartite governance system. To that end, we have endorsed the idea of a Board of Governors (recommended in a recent report by the Provost-appointed committee); we formally bring a Motion to establish a standing Committee on the Press; and we move that the Senate entrust the Committee on Committees with the role of appointing members of the SUP Editorial Board. All three components ensure that in the future there will be strengthened and dedicated faculty participation in governance and advising for the Press. The new Committee on the Press will be the lynch-pin for the successful working of this three-fold structure.
We subsequently detail (below) our recommendations, in response to and in conversation with those submitted by the Provostial Committee on October 15, 2019..."
(Read the full memo and motions here.)