What Harvard Finds Unfit to Print

In the ivory tower today, the idea that marriage is good is apparently considered an extremist notion. On the other hand, the idea that there are few real differences between normal men and convicted rapists is regarded as cutting-edge theory. That, at least, seems to be the conclusion of Harvard University Press, which recently, and under highly unusual circumstances, rejected an important new book on the benefits of marriage.

The book — The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off — is by Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher, and has just been published, to considerable fanfare, by Doubleday. It was expected, until a few months ago, to be published by Harvard University Press. It dropped the book, however, and therein hangs a tale, one of political correctness run riot.

At a press like Harvard, a manuscript is reviewed by two scholars. If the reviews are positive, the book is slated for publication, pending final approval by the board, which is normally a formality. But with “The Case for Marriage,” the press's Board of Syndics stepped in to kill the book because — according to the anonymous board critique — its tone was too strong and its evidence too meager.

To anyone who compares “The Case for Marriage” with other books Harvard has proudly published, this is hard to swallow. Although the book is certainly a direct assault on several cherished feminist myths, its tone is measured. Whether arguing that staying married is better for children, or that husbands don't damage their wives' mental health, Ms. Waite and Ms. Gallagher write clearly, and calmly, and let their evidence speak for itself.

Old news don't you think, tbird5? Frontpage Mag ran this in 2000; the book's been out since 2000. Still, I'm glad you did, since it gives an opportunity to point out some of the misconceptions of the author of the piece.

Harvard University Press, which along with Oxford University Press, is the gold standard in academic publishing, is in the business of doing two things: publishing great scholarship and making money doing it. The review process to have a book accepted by them is extraordinary and, quite frankly, many books that make it part-way through the review process never make it all the way. Just because two reviewers think the book is worthy, doesn't mean that it is. (The reference to Harvard University Press' own internal reviewers is misleading; they don't rely on internal sources; they ship the manuscript out to experts outside the press for review.)

To preserve their reputation, they need a rigorous review process. That's why they have a final board of syndics vote. As anyone who's published with Harvard University Press (or any other major university press) can tell you: until the entire editorial board agrees (often the vote must be unanimous), the press is not obligated to publish the book.

I had never heard of the book before, but a quick check on Amazon reveals that it's aimed at a pretty popular audience. Rather different from most of what Harvard publishes. Harvard University Press doesn't refuse to publish books because they're politically incorrect; they refuse to publish because they're not sound scholarship. (Harvard published, for instance, Mary Ann Glendon's Abortion and Divorce in Western Law. Professor Glendon is one of the most vocal academic opponents of abortion.) In this case, the book seems aimed at a popular audience and apparently the research underlying it belies that popular audience.

Nice try, though tbird5. Keep up the attack; the more one investigates, the better Harvard and the other great American universities look. Their rigorous standards ensure excellent scholarship and protect their trademarks from being tarnished by poorly supported scholarship.

Umm, if you're talking about matters that go back to the time of Jesus Christ, then that's 2000 years ago, not just 1500. I think it demeans western civilization to reduce it to a "culture war," but we can talk about that some other time.

For the purposes of the present post: Harvard University Press is in the business of making money, while preserving their good name by only publishing the highest quality work. Since they make money by selling books, if the research had been solid enough, they would have published it--that's what capitalism is all about. As I pointed out, Harvard University Press publishes work on all sides of the political spectrum. (Witness Professor Glendon's work.)

>(1) if you're talking about matters that go back to the time of Jesus Christ, then that's 2000 years ago, not just 1500. (2) I think it demeans western civilization to reduce it to a "culture war" (3) ...Harvard University Press is in the business of making money...

1) Not all Christian things
date back to the time of Christ.
2) Civilization

itself is bigger
than its transitory wars.
3) And you should check out

HUP before
assuming they're the bee's knees.
Not all their imprints

are geared toward profit --
some are privately funded.
And if you read through

their whole catalogues,
they don't -- to my eyes -- appear
any less biased

than, say, any hour
of a CNN "report."
One or two authors

in a sea of books
isn't even the Gulf Stream,
just random eddies . . .

theFIRMbss,

You're the one who posted a picture of a book about Jesus. That's 2000 years ago. Thanks for recognizing that civilization is way, way more than the culture wars--that's my whole point.

I know a lot about HUP and their products; that's precisely why I think they're the "bees' knees" (along with a very small number of other universities presses, like Oxford University Press and Stanford University Press); HUP is in the business of making money while publishing excellent monographs. If you see a book with the HUP label, you can pretty much be sure it's excellent.

Thanks for bringing up the issue of subventions. Again, that makes my point--unless there was some additional funding, HUP wouldn't publish the books that get a subvention. Why? Because they're trying to make money. And a lot of the academic books aren't going to sell a lot of copies. If HUP were in the business of pushing an ideological agenda, they wouldn't be asking for a subvention.

Great, well-researched books that'll make money have a good chance of being published by HUP. Ones based on less thorough research don't. If the question is whether HUP refuses to publish something because it's politically biased, you need a better example, because HUP publishes high-quality work in the field of that The Case for Marriage (like Professor Glendon's excellent scholarship).

As to your reference to the sea of eddies, you might recall that the original post was about a single book. The free market, which I believe in, spoke--and it said that The Case for Marriage didn't deserve the HUP trademark.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.