Re : Origin of word "redskin"

[Geoffrey Nunberg]

>In a message dated 5/27/05 11:08:17 PM, nunberg at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>
>>I'm aware of the work that Ron Butters and David Barnhart did as paid
>>experts for the Washington Redskins in responding to the petition to
>>cancel the team's mark on the grounds it was disparaging. (I served
>>as expert for the other side, pro bono.)
>>
>
>
>It is not easy to see this sentence as anything other than an ad
>hominem disparagement of the work that David and I did on this
>particular case. As such, it might seem to readers that it does
>nothing to serve the cause of rational discourse about the question
>of the meaning of the term REDSKINS in contemporary American
>English. However, Dr. Nunberg does inadvertantly raise a question of
>real import, and one that, moreover, has been discussed a good deal
>by many of the scholars who do expert witnessing for pay.
>
>There certainly are dangers in paid scholarship that is in the
>service of a client: one must vigorously guard against the
>temptation to find only the results that will help the client who is
>footing the bill. These dangers are well known to people who take
>"forensic" work seriously, and there is at least one international
>organization, the IAFL, where such issues are discussed and given no
>little thought. The writings of Roger Shuy, perhaps the most
>respected of all American linguists who work in this field, are
>filled with serious discussions of  just such ethical issues.
>
>But Dr. Nunberg's implication that pro bono work somehow leads to
>superior product is one with which I respectfully disagree. I've
>done a good deal of "expert" witnessing, both pro bono and pro
>dinero, and it is clear to me that (though this is less-frequently
>discussed) pro bono "expert" witnessing is frought with its own
>ethical dangers. Rarely do experts take on pro bono cases unless
>they feel strongly that they are on the moral "right" side--that
>their "expert" witnessing must do "work" (as Dr. Nunberg put it in
>the article that Arnold Zwicky recommended to us) regardless of the
>truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.


I have no reason to suppose that Ron Butters is other than sincere in
his conclusions about the status of the word 'redskin'. But when your
research has been supported by someone with a financial stake in the
outcome, professional ethics requires you to disclose this
information when you write or speak about the subject, so that
readers can take the source of funding into account, and so that you
can protect yourself against the charge that you're concealing who
paid for the work.

This is a standard requirement of journals and professional societies
in fields like medicine, where corporate funding plays an important
role. I've argued that we should establish similar standards in
linguistics, as well, even if the situation comes up less frequently.

I never write about the Redskins case or any other matter in which
I've worked as a legal expert, either pro-bono or paid, without
acknowledging the terms of my involvement. Professor Butters was
remiss in not disclosing his role in the case in his posting. Nor did
he mention it in the presentation on this topic he gave at the DSNA a
few years ago, of which I've heard a tape, until Joe Pickett asked
him about it in the question period. I hope he'll do so if he writes
about this in the future, so that it won't be left to others to
supply the information.