Ethics and Disclosures2

[RonButters at AOL.COM]

Again, my apologies: my previous message with this header was sent before it
was finished. Here is the remainder of what I had to say.

Dr. Nunberg writes, "Professor Butters was remiss in not disclosing his role
in the case in his posting."

He seems pretty certain about this, but for myself I don't see it as an
ethical lapse not to have mentioned my involvement with the Redskin litigation in
my ADS-L postings. This is a discussion group, not a scholarly publication. I
certainly have nothing to hide in this regard, it just didn't seem particularly
important. If ADS-L has a policy on this, then I'm sorry if I've violated it.
I'm certainly willing to follow the rules--I just need to know what they are,
and to know that they are not the idiosyncratric dicta of one member of the
list.

Mr. Nunberg raises an interesting question, however, in his statement below,
particularly as it applies to scholarly publications (and perhaps even
conference papers). I confess I have not given much thought to the question--again,
it has always seemed to me that the truth is the truth, regardless of the
source. I honestly don't remember this topic having ever been discussed by the LSA,
the IAFL, or any professional group. Should I acknowledge that I am a member
of the Editorial Advisory Board of NOAD every time I quote the dictionary?
Maybe so.

At any rate, while I'm not willing to concede that it is simply and clearly
the case that "professional ethics requires you to disclose this information
when you write or speak about the subject," I'm willing to keep an open mind on
the subject--and to be ruled by whatever regulations or code of ethics that
may have been set forth by the Linguistic Society of America or some other
equally authoritative organization (as opposed to whatever rules Dr. Nunberg on his
own may wish to suggest), and I'd
welcome further discussion. Indeed, I hope that Dr. Nunberg will raise this
issue with the Linguistic Society of America (an organization that I believe
regularly refers lawyers to linguists, by the way). Or perhaps he has already
done so. Or perhaps the LSA has done so, and I am simply ignorant of it. It
would be helpful if Dr. Nunberg would suggest, for starters, those publications in
which he has "argued that we should establish similar standards [to those in
medicine] in linguistics, as well."

As I wrote in a previous posting, those "forensic" linguists who take part in
IAFL and similar organizations take their ethical standards seriously. I
think everyone of us should be concerned about the issue that Dr. Nunberg
raises--and I expect that we all would be quite interested in coming to some kind of
resolution of the issue. I can't speak for others, but for myself I am grateful
to him for raising an issue of such obvious importance to him--even if, at
this point, I don't very much agree with him.


> 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.
>
>