Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 22:29:32 +0900
To: fukuzawa@ucsd.edu
From: Dave Aldwinckle
Subject: Journal of Japanese Studies Ignores Issue
Cc: Journal of Japanese Studies

Fellow Fukuzawans and Friends:

THE JOURNAL OF JAPANESE STUDIES:
MUZZLING THE MESSINGER AND IGNORING THE MESSAGE

BACKGROUND: On October 29, I sent Fukuzawa and others some details about a "scathing" (my word) book review which appeared in the JOURNAL OF JAPANESE STUDIES (JJS), Summer 1999 issue--Harvard's Professor Ramseyer on Ivan Hall's CARTELS OF THE MIND.

I have since received word back from the JJS via four venues. One, Fukuzawans know because it appeared on DFS Nov 3, was from the University of Washington's Professor John O. Haley, protesting violation of copyright and demanding cessation of the practice of quoting articles in their entirety without prior permission.

The other came through to me directly on the same day four minutes earlier, under the JJS email address, saying:

////////////////////////////////////////
At 2:36 PM -0800 99.11.3, Journal of Japanese Studies wrote:
> Dear Mr. Aldwinckle:
>
> I am writing in response to your posting of 29 October 1999 at 10:28:21 to
> the Dead Fukuzawa Society newsgroup. In that post, you reproduced and
> electronically published a book review from the Journal of Japanese
> Studies. Copyright of that book review is held by the Society for
> Japanese Studies; you neither recognized that fact in your posting nor
> sought permission to produce and distribute the material. This is clear
> violation of Japanese, United States, and international copyright law as
> well as the policies of the DFS group (see
> http://www.twics.com/~briank/fukuzawa.html). We remind you that use of
> copyrighted material may be made only with permission of the copyright
> holder and insist that you respect this law in future.
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> John O. Haley
> Chair, Society for Japanese Studies
> Garvey, Schubert & Barer Professor of Law, University of Washington
////////////////////////////////////////

TO WHICH I RESPONDED IMMEDIATELY (dates differ due to International Date Line):

////////////////////////////////////////
> On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Dave Aldwinckle wrote:
> > Dr Haley:
> >
> > Understood, and I would like to express my apologies.
> >
> > That aside, I would like to know (the timing might be a little off, but...)
> > if my response could be considered for publication in JJS.
> >
> > Sincerely yours,
> > Dave Aldwinckle
> > Sapporo
////////////////////////////////////////

I received no response to this via email from Professor Haley. However, I did receive email notice two days later from the JJS editorial board, privately (but again under the JJS email moniker and cced to two other people--hence not a private email between individuals but one from an institution and an individual):

////////////////////////////////////////
> Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:39:54 -0800 (PST)
> From: Journal of Japanese Studies
> To: Dave Aldwinckle
> cc: susan hanley, John Treat
> Subject: Re: Journal of Japanese Studies
>
> Dear Mr. Aldwinckle:
>
> Let me try to tackle two of your questions in one email message.
>
> The first is the query you posed to John Haley about the possibility of
> responding in print to Mark Ramseyer's review of Ivan Hall's book. Being
> an editorial matter, this was raised at our editors' meeting yesterday.
> Our Opinion and Comment section is intended to allow the authors of books
> reviewed in JJS a chance to reply to comments and criticisms made in those
> reviews. Most recently, we allowed someone whose work was discussed in a
> review, although it was not the primary subject of the review (see
> comments by William LaFleur in the Summer 1999 issue), to briefly respond
> to the comments made about his work. However, because Prof. Ramseyer was
> not reviewing your work and you are not mentioned in the review, and
> because Prof. Hall has already indicated that he would like to respond in
> print, the editors feel it would not be appropriate for you to reply to
> the review. (JJS could easily become nothing but a free-for-all of replies
> and rejoinders if we established this precedent.) We appreciate your
> interest, and the editors would like to encourage you to submit your own
> work for consideration for publication in JJS.
>
> On another matter, let me also respond to your query about the status of
> your subscription.

[snipped because it is immaterial--talks about the fact that there are two JJS issues per annum, not three]

> I hope this answers your queries, but please let us know if any questions
> remain.
>
> Martha Walsh
> Managing Editor
> Journal of Japanese Studies
////////////////////////////////////////

Now, why am I bothering to make all of this public? Because I received a letter by snailmail, dated November 4, 1999, two days ago from Professor Haley again (this after I sent the abovementioned Nov 3 email of apologies), saying exactly the same as the private email above, with Professor Haley's signature and THE SOCIETY FOR JAPANESE STUDIES at the University of Washington as a letterhead. Again, that is an institutional letter, not between individuals, so it is a non-copyrighted document I can reproduce and talk about in a public forum.

This letter pulls my chain, and it should be known about. All this trouble to shut me up, with three emails and one priority-airmailed missive (to my home address--which they only knew about because I am a subscriber who just renewed for three more years), all to tell me I was out of line. One warning or two, okay, but three or four is waru-nori.

But the kicker is that so far JJS has demonstrated not one whit of an attempt to deal with the issue itself--that of sloppy scholarship within their journal, and of denying the privilege of reply (even The Economist or the Atlantic Monthly isn't this closed-minded--they've published three of my
Letters to the Editor without becoming "free-for-alls") with substantiated arguments and evidence to the contrary, only on the basis of not being mentioned in the original review.

I responded to Ms Walsh's email immediately upon receipt:

////////////////////////////////////////
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:54:10 +0900
To: Journal of Japanese Studies
From: Dave Aldwinckle
Subject: Re: Journal of Japanese Studies
Cc: Ivan P Hall, Chalmers Johnson, susan hanley, John Treat,
davald@do-johodai.ac.jp

Hello Ms Walsh, and thank you very much for your prompt attention to my two inquiries.

At 2:39 PM -0800 99.11.5, Journal of Japanese Studies wrote:
(snip) However, because Prof. Ramseyer was
> not reviewing your work and you are not mentioned in the review, and
> because Prof. Hall has already indicated that he would like to respond in
> print, the editors feel it would not be appropriate for you to reply to
> the review. (JJS could easily become nothing but a free-for-all of replies
> and rejoinders if we established this precedent.) We appreciate your
> interest, and the editors would like to encourage you to submit your own
> work for consideration for publication in JJS.

Okay, I understand how the system works and why it is in place. It just seems unfair that such an (IMHO) unfair review gets to reach subscribers and respectable scholars, while rejoinders (assuming that Mr Hall wants to invest his time and mental energy responding to what was essentially a "free-for-all"-tone review from Professor Ramseyer; you might need an update about his feelings) from unknowns (this was not a point you mentioned, but I do believe it is also a factor here) are blocked out not based upon the merit of what was written but rather who wrote it. Meanwhile, Professor Ramseyer can sit snugly amongst his peers, feeling no need to respond to criticism from outside.

Now maybe you know why I made this article public (quoting it in its entirety with full attributions so as to avoid criticisms of "quoting out of context"--for if I had asked permission beforehand, would you have said yes?). I anticipated being shut out by JJS in just such a way. This is precisely how disinformation can be perpetuated by even the most earnest of scholastic institutions. The information within CARTELS OF THE MIND is extremely important, and if public debate on it can be thusly stifled by even American academia, it does nobody any good, least of all us non-Japanese academics trying to make a living and raise families over here.

This isn't something that should be directed to you, Ms Walsh (especially after your very nice note to me in my subscription notice about one of my travelogues), but as you have cced others and are writing under the moniker of JJS, I think my thoughts should be made known at this juncture.

[reply of thanks for answer to subscription inquiries snipped]

Best wishes to you, Dave Aldwinckle in Sapporo
////////////////////////////////////////

This received no answer, which is fine. But the point I am trying to make is that the JJS is being, IMHO, irresponsible for disseminating bad scholarship and overcontrolling consequent critique of or within its forum. Dr Hall has since told me he has no interest in investing his time and energy in responding to such a "puerile" review, and said that my letter (with website links to hundreds of pages building on his research) was "on target" and suitably substantive. Hence, I am not a crank, and as a piece of scholarly work both Dr Hall and I think my submission to JJS has merit.

Nevertheless, I am being denied any chance to reply because I don't have the right name. Seems like the Otaru Onsens aren't the only discriminating bodies out there. Disappointing is that this comes from a scholastic institution which should pride itself on the distribution of ideas, not name-brands.

Ah well. I can see where this is going to lead. Someone like me branded as a dissident by the stateside Japan-interest intelligensia, and the closing of future research publishing avenues. That's another great way to smother future Japan-related research from budding academics, and if JJS cannot see that as the result of its actions, it is spiting itself. If JJS wants to get angry at me about copyright infringement, I can understand. But to continue to invest so much energy in dealing with the messenger and not at all with the message itself is also off target.

I encourage the JJS to tighten up its editorial policies for its reviews in the first place, and kisei kanwa its rules on follow-up critiques and Letters to the Editor.

Dave Aldwinckle
Sapporo

(It should have ended there, but it didn't. Some people on DFS agreed that JJS was not beholden to print my response even as a certified proxy, others averred that the reviewer is not responsible for giving counterevidence--merely to point out flaws and raise points. I disagreed. If you aren't tired of this whole series of essays by now, click here to read on.)