The reinstatement of the canceled Library of Congress exhibition on Sigmund Freud was a major challenge and success to our Association. It tested our ability to quickly mobilize and gather the facts about the cancellation; develop an organizational posture and strategy; use the resources of our membership and their ongoing activities to articulate our position; form alliances with our friends in other organizations to share information, tactics, and monitor results; speak with responsible representatives from the press; and keep our members and officers informed of progress.
Judith Schacter appointed me to chair an ad hoc task force to accomplish these objectives.
In early December 1995 the New York Times reported the Freud exhibit scheduled by the Library of Congress (LOC) in December 1996 had been “delayed” due to lack of funding. The article also referred to opposition to the exhibit by a group of petitioners who were opposed to Freud on polemical grounds. As a member of the Public Information Committee, I sent an E-mail message to Schacter about this article and learned that she had already begun developing an Association position. She contacted Harold Blum, executive director of the Sigmund Freud Archives, whose collection of Freudiana is housed in the LOC.
During the next few days, substantial exchange of information took place over our bulletin board and in E-mail messages. Interested members and other academics and scholars wrote to James Billington, Librarian of Congress, to protest the decision, seek information, and urge reinstatement of the show. Through our bulletin board we urged members and others to continue this effort.
Despite the official position of the LOC that the postponement was due to inadequate funding, there was widespread suspicion that ideological considerations dictated the decision. A follow-up article in the Times described the situation in detail, including the concern that a climate of fear had been a factor in the cancellation. The presidents of the American Psychiatric and American Psychoanalytic Associations sent a joint letter to Billington urging reinstatement of the exhibit. An elegant and forceful letter signed by R. Horatio Etchegoyen, immediate past president of the IPA, decried the efforts of those who would suppress academic discourse and urged presentation of the exhibit as soon as possible.
Our task force began to form after the midwinter meetings. Within a month of the original press reports of the postponement, counter opinions were beginning to appear. An important clarifying article in Psychiatric Times (Jan 5, 1996) reported a commentary by Oliver Sacks, who said his signature on the petition should not be construed as his support of cancellation, suppression, or postponement of the show. He said he felt he was only signing a petition in support of a scholarly and balanced presentation.
By mid-January, our task force was fully established. Our charge was to research, plan, and implement a response to the postponement of the exhibit, if deemed appropriate. The members of the task force were Harold Boverman, Cecil Cullander, and Miriam Tasini.
We decided to try to have the show reinstated and scheduled as soon as possible, and that we would join with like-minded organizations in that objective. We would urge The American to consider how it could help with correcting the financial shortfall reported by the LOC as the ostensible reason for the cancellation, if that became the main obstacle to rescheduling the show. Finally, we would try to publicize The American's commitment to responsible scholarship and free exchange of scholarly viewpoints and its opposition to threats to academic freedom. These positions were in accordance with policies of the Association agreed on at the December meetings. We consulted with Marina Weiss, our legislative consultant, and worked in close collaboration with Blum in his ongoing negotiations with the leadership of the LOC.
In late January, the Pittsburgh Gazette published a letter to the editor from Winston Tabb, associate librarian of the LOC. He reiterated that inadequate funding was the reason for the postponement and said the show would be rescheduled for the year 2000. This date was supposedly selected to coincide with the hundredth anniversary of the publication of The Interpretation of Dreams, and is also the year in which some restrictions on the publication of Anna Freud's materials in the Freud Archives will expire. We considered these positive results, but not a victory. First, we were concerned that a date so far in the future was tantamount to a cancellation, since the momentum for the show might be lost. Secondly, some sources of funding might be lost. Lastly, the appointed curator, Michael Roth, director of European Studies at the Claremont Graduate School, might move on to other projects.
About this time I made contact with Judith Felton of the New York Freudian Society, who had been appointed to head an ad hoc committee of the independent IPA institutes to monitor this matter. We agreed on a set of tactics and objectives and agreed to share information. We decided to continue to urge letter-writing in support of our position to the LOC. A few days later, an article by Paul Goldberger in the New York Times said the show had been rescheduled for fall 1998. However, the dates were not attributed to any LOC source. I sent another E-mail message to our members, encouraging them to write letters and informing everyone of the status of the show.
Blum, who had been meeting with the LOC leadership about this issue, had verbal assurances that the fall 1998 date was firm. However, we agreed to wait for an official announcement. In the meantime I was interviewed by Scott Heller, editor of the Chronicle of Higher Education. Again, our bulletin board was instrumental in alerting him of our positions and concerns.
By early March I received a press release from the LOC stating the show was scheduled for fall 1998. Billington again said the postponement reflected financial, not ideological, concerns. He expressed full confidence in the scholar ship of the curator, organizer, and advisors.
Benson is a training and supervising analyst at the Michigan Psychoanalytic Institute. He is cochair of the APsaA Public Information Committee and a member of the Committee on Institutes and is clinical associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Michigan and Wayne State University.
Michael Roth, the show's curator, praised Freud and quoted Sacks as “bridling” at being linked to angry anti-Freudians. The press release seemed in complete support of our objective: an early rescheduling of the show and a responsible presentation of Freud and his contributions by competent scholars. I sent the release to many of those who had been collaborating in this effort, including Felton and Heller, and I also posted it on our bulletin board.
In an important article in Tikkun, (Vol. 11, No. 2) Roth described the planning and point of view of the exhibit. He also described the political intimidation masquerading as rational academic rationality he felt characterized some of the opponents who tried to derail the exhibit. We felt that our task force had fulfilled its purpose and had demonstrated a model for our Association to follow in responding, quickly and in a unified manner, to subsequent issues.