The statement issued last week by the American Political Science Association begins by noting that the rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol were motivated by the “false promise of overturning the results of a free and fair election.” It condemns those who committed violence and President Trump for sowing “doubt and mistrust” in the electoral process. “We are shocked, dismayed, and disgusted at the events on Capitol Hill,” it reads, echoing a near-universal sentiment.
But toward the end of the statement came a call for “both sides to do better and work together to dismantle the systems and structures that lead to the harm.” Hold on — both sides? In the wake of violence that was clearly egged on by members of one political party, and perhaps mostly by that party’s leader, the impulse to issue a light scolding (“do better”) to Republicans and Democrats, and then vaguely call for cooperation, felt more than a little off key.
Political scientists noticed. In the ensuing flood of furious tweets, many objected to the both-sides-ing of the tragedy. The statement was deemed an “embarrassment,” “a meaningless piece of drivel,” and “bullshit.” Others slyly advised the association to “revise and resubmit,” a reference to the notation that researchers often receive when a journal wants a scholar to improve a submitted paper. Some pointed out that whoever wrote the statement (it wasn’t signed) seemed ignorant of the field’s research on asymmetric polarization. Tommaso Pavone, a postdoctoral fellow in political science at the University of Oslo, took the extra step of marking up the statement and putting in suggestions for improvement in the margins, as if he were tearing into a subpar undergrad essay. He wrote “DESK REJECT” in all caps and circled it at the top.
You would think an association of political scientists, perhaps more than anyone else, would — what’s the phrase? — do better.
Still, let’s acknowledge that institutional expressions of concern are a dicey business. In the aftermath of a major world event, there can be pressure to say something official, and that often results in several paragraphs of boilerplate language that embraces the prevailing view while scrupulously avoiding assigning blame or offering concrete recommendations. They tend to play it safe while pretending to be bold. Though even when you’re trying to say all the right things as inoffensively as possible, there are pitfalls, as the APSA found out.
Other associations issued statements that didn’t cause a stir. The American Historical Association referred to the burning of the Capitol in 1814 by British troops, and expressed dismay at the seditious banners carried by last week’s rioters, including the Confederate flag. “This assault on the very principle of representative democracy received recent explicit and indirect support from the White House and from certain senators and representatives themselves,” the statement said. There’s no mention of Sens. Ted Cruz or Josh Hawley, but it’s probably clear enough who’s being called out.
The American Psychological Association decried the riot and noted, for the record, that it’s been a rough year thanks to the pandemic, economic uncertainty, and — just to cover their bases — “widespread divisiveness.” Both associations squeezed in a plug for their disciplines. The historians’ association noted uncontroversially that “everything has a history” and that what happened last week is “part of a historical process.”
Institutional statements tend to play it safe while pretending to be bold.
The APA contends that psychology “is of immense value in a time of such complex tragedy and trauma,” and pointed to the role of confirmation bias in the lead-up to the riot, that is, the tendency to embrace only information that backs whatever view you already hold. They could have also name-checked the Dunning-Kruger effect, normalcy bias, and the bandwagon effect, along with other relevant cognitive biases.
The Modern Language Association, which held its annual convention last week (virtually, of course), issued a brief statement asserting that the research its members do is “essential to resisting the racism and authoritarianism represented in the events in D.C. today.” Paula Krebs, executive director of the MLA, tweeted that those who were leading sessions should feel free to talk about the riots rather than their planned topics. Though scrolling through the list of announced sessions, several seemed more or less on target, particularly the one on “Fascism and American Culture.”
In response to the fallout from the first statement, the political-science association issued a new “expanded” version that expressed regret for the phrase “both sides,” saying that it evoked “deeply harmful rhetoric.” This heavily revised version laid blame at the feet of Republicans and condemned “xenophobia, white supremacy, white nationalism, right-wing extremism, and racism.” It essentially called President Trump a liar and a racist. For good measure, the statement also condemned “racial disparities in treatment by law enforcement” and committed to “centering … Black and Indigenous Scholars, Scholars of Color, Women and other Scholars who have been marginalized historically.”
As for who wrote the initial, poorly received statement, Steven R. Smith,executive director of the APSA, said in an email that it was “crafted in collaboration between APSA staff and presidents and/or Council members.” He explained that the association had wanted to “quickly and clearly condemn anything related to the insurrection” but that “in our haste, we chose the wrong words for the wrong time.”
Not everyone was satisfied. Several commenters complained about the lack of any reference to anti-Semitism in either statement, even though a number of rioters were photographed in Nazi attire. Another commenter wondered why there were no links to research in the field on these issues, and still another pointed out that the expanded statement “won’t undo the white supremacy embedded in core texts in our discipline.” But there seemed to be general agreement that the second statement was, if not perfect or comprehensive, at least better.