Ethics and Disclosures

[RonButters at AOL.COM]

I had no idea that the DSNA paper was taped. No one asked me if they could do
so. No one told me that a tape had been made. I'm not sure how ethical
surreptitious recording is, but I guess I'm glad to know that people found it
important enough to make a tape of it and later share it with Dr. Nunberg, who was
apparently not in Cleveland for the meeting of DSNA that year. I do remember
that Joe Pickett asked me about my involvement with the Redskins case--a
question that, at the time, seemed to me strangely irrelevant to the evaluation of
the paper itself. That is to say, truth, regardless of the source. Several
people in the audience said as much to me afterwards. However, I don't recall ever
bringing the subject up with Joe Pickett, even though I consider him to be a
personal friend as well as a professional lexicographer who I admire very much.

I don't see it as an ethical lapse not to have mentioned my involvement with
the litigation


In a message dated 5/30/05 1:38:16 AM, nunberg at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU writes:


> 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.
>