More on U. of Michigan Press controversy

["Joseph J. Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>]

The controversy over the U. of Michigan Press's distribution agreement with
Pluto Press continues.  "Inside Higher Ed" has a brief story on recent
developments, which I am pasting below.  I am not competent to speak to the
issues of academic freedom (beyond making the usual Concerned Citizen's
remark not to politicize higher education), but on the matter of
distribution agreements for university presses, the practical matter is that
distribution agreements help make the dissemination of scholarly information
possible (only one way, of course).  Tiny presses (like Pluto) need
distribution agreements to get a toehold in the marketplace, larger presses
(Michigan or even the better examples of Hopkins and Chicago) use
distribution agreements as a revenue source to fund other, often
unprofitable, publishing.

Presumably the Trustees at Michigan will increase funding to the Press if
and when the distribution agreements are eliminated.

The article follows.

Joe Esposito

______

The controversy continues over the University of Michigan Press and its
distribution agreement with Pluto Press, a left-wing publisher in Britain
whose books are handled by Michigan in the United States. Three of the eight
members of the University of Michigan Board of Regents last week released a
letter calling for the press to stop all distribution arrangements for other
publishers. Distributing books that the Michigan press has not reviewed, the
letter from the regents said, "debases the press' franchise and leaves the
press and the university open to damage." The relationship with Pluto became
controversial because of a book it published and Michigan distributed called
Overcoming Zionism, which was press officials said they would not have
published had it been submitted directly to them. The press announced that
it would not block distribution of the book or end its relationship with
Pluto, citing academic freedom issues, but said it would review its policies
on having distribution relationships without outside publishers. The letter
from the regents said that academic freedom was not the issue because they
were not trying to ban any book. "This is a commercial and policy issue, not
a free speech issue," the regents wrote. "We firmly believe that the
University of Michigan should not make money from

[snip]