You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
The following Editorial is a joint statement initiated by the editors of the Journal of the American Psychoanalytical Association and the International Journal of Psychoanalysis. It is endorsed and will be published by the editors of Psychoanalytic Quarterly, Psychoanalytic Inquiry, Contemporary Psychoanalysis, America Imago, The Canadian Journal of Psychoanalysis, Psychoanalytic Dialogues, Psychoanalytic Review, Psicoanalisi (Journal of the Italian Psychoanalytic Association), Psyche-Zeitschrift für Psychoanalyse und ihre Anwendungen and FEPAL.
As editors of psychoanalytic journals devoted to the advancement of knowledge about the human mind and human relationships, we condemn recent actions that have denied academic freedom to individuals solely on the basis of their nationality. On 18 June 2002, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported (see also the New Yorker, 8 June, and the New York Times, 11 July) that two distinguished Israeli scholars have been dismissed from the boards of two academic journals published in Great Britain. A senior lecturer in translation studies at Bar-llan University was dismissed from the editorial board of The Translator and a professor in Tel Aviv University's School of Cultural Studies was dismissed from the international advisory board of Translation Studies Abstracts. These actions have reportedly been taken in response to demands by a group of European scholars who, in support of one side in the Middle East conflict, would bar all Israeli nationals from academic conferences, publication in scholarly journals and participation on their boards. No suggestion was made in either case that the dismissed board member had written, said or done anything that this group deemed improper or indeed anything that was even relevant to the political issue involved. Had such a suggestion been made, our concern would be no less urgent but it would be different. At issue would be the bounds of civil discourse, the right to express opinions and the p