Academic freedom
By Brandon Astor Jones
"Responsible journalism is journalism responsible in the last analysis to the editor's own conviction of what, whether interesting or only important, is in the public interest." — Walter Lippmann, 1889-1974
The words above were taken from Lippman's address to the International Press Institute Assembly in London on May 27, 1965. In mid-January 1999, Dr George D. Lundberg was fired from his post as editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
Lundberg had published an article by June E. Reinisch, the now retired director of the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction. Her article contained data that was part of a 1991 survey. It reveals 102 items that relate to certain aspects of behaviour and the transmission of sexual diseases.
Lundberg recently confirmed that the American Medical Association's executive vice president, E. Ratcliffe Anderson, Jr, fired him. Lundberg had been the editor of the prestigious medical journal for 17 years. He had entertained hopes of breaking the 25-year record of the JAMA editorship held by the late Dr. Morris Fishbein.
Lundberg's hopes are now dashed because Anderson's opinion of the article is that it "inappropriately and inexcusably interject[ed] JAMA into the middle of a debate that has nothing to do with science or medicine". Anderson has suggested that Lundberg is stirring the political waters of President Clinton's impeachment hearings for the purpose of swaying the public on what are, and are not, sexual relations.
Reinisch's article, published in JAMA's January 20 issue, explores, according to the Atlantic Journal-Constitutions's January 16 issue, "what Americans mean by the phrase 'had sex'. The study of 599 college students, interviewed in 1991 on various sex-related questions, found that 59 percent of them did not consider oral-genital contact as having 'had sex'."
Few are apt to forget that Clinton testified that oral sex was not one of the acts covered in his definition of sexual relations.
The AMA officials are not contesting the scientific merits of Reinisch's article. They are contesting Lundberg's "timing of its publication". Anderson states that there appeared "to be an accelerated publication schedule for the article to coincide with events in Washington".
Be that as it may, my question is, "So what?".
I think that the AMA officials have really missed the point. Lundberg is not only a doctor, but also (or at least he was) the editor of one of the world's most respected publications.
It is my opinion that the purpose of the JAMA is to inform and enlighten its readers. Reinisch's article does that. It is also my opinion that the AMA should not have fired Lundberg. He deserves praise for not being intimidated by the current political climate in Washington. He presented the facts as the Reinisch article laid them out. I find no fault in that.
I am not using this valued space to encourage debate on whether oral sex falls into one category or another. However, I do wonder what the AMA's view is on the United States Constitution's provisions regarding freedom of the press. I find myself in agreement with Reinisch , when in protest of the AMA's treatment of Lundberg, she said, "This may have [a lot more] ... to do with issues of academic freedom" — who has it and who does not.
[The writer is a prisoner on death row in the United States. He welcomes letters commenting on his columns (include your name and full return address on the envelope, or prison authorities may refuse to deliver it). He can be written to at: Brandon Astor Jones, EF-122216, G3-77, Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison, PO Box 3877, Jackson, GA 30233, USA.]