Retraction spurs battle for academic freedom

An academic law journal published scholarly research criticizing the misdeeds of multinational corporations. In an unusual move, the journal retracted the article.

The researchers — including two Boise State University professors — called for tighter multi-national trade laws in a 1998 volume of the University of Denver’s Denver Journal of International Law and Policy. The authors used Boise Cascade as a case study to illustrate what they called a critical need for the regulation of abusive practices by multinational corporations.

Now, Boise Cascade claims the article contained “a number of untrue allegations,” the Denver Journal maintains the research “was not consistent with editorial standards,” and the authors, who concluded multinational corporations in many respects, operate above the law, are waged in a legal battle to preserve their professional creditability and academic freedom.

The journal published the research of Donald J. Smith and Boise State University professors William A. Wines and Mark A. Buchanan in the spring of 1998, only to publish an errata in a subsequent issue. The retraction, published in the summer of 1998, notified readers that portions of the article “relating to Boise Cascade were clearly inappropriate and require elimination, revision or correction.”

The retraction prompted Smith, Wines and Buchanan to sue the University of Denver for breach of contract and defamation in U.S District Court. “We believe in what we are doing and we are putting our careers on the line,” said Wines, a professor of legal environment and business ethics in the College of Business and Economics at Boise State.

In their suit, the authors also claim the University of Denver retracted the article after buckling to legal threats from Boise Cascade Corp.

“The (University of Denver) apparently caved into pressure from a global corporation that forced its agenda. This came at the sacrifice of the university’s autonomy and the principle of academic freedom,” said plaintiff Donald Smith, Idaho field representative for the conservation group Alliance for the Wild Rockies.

Smith said he and his co-authors did not know about the retraction until almost nine months after it was published. Now, the researchers are left wondering what and who caused the censure of their work.

A critical analysis of multinational corporations

The authors’ research called for tighter regulation of the international trade economy and painted Boise Cascade as a typical multinational corporation that puts profits before people. ,p>

The article, The Critical Need For law Reform to Regulate the Abusive Practices of Transnational Corporations: The Illustrative Case of Boise Cascade Corporation in Mexico’s Costa Grande and Elsewhere, is a critical analysis of U.S.-based multinational corporations and the existing international legal means for regulating their labor, environmental and political processes. Boise State Management Professor Mark Buchanan said he and his co-authors concluded, “there’s a general lack of an international regimen to enforce (multi-national corporate trade) standards.”

The authors’ research suggests Boise Cascade continued timber operations in the Mexican state of Guerrero with little concern for the social turbulence fueled by the massacre of 17 farm workers by Mexican police officers in 1995. The murders resulted in part over timber extraction in the region, according to a human rights group quoted in the article.

“While there is much concern with government encroachment on rights, there is much more to be concerned with by the abuse of human rights by multi-national corporations,” Wines said of the research.

Doug Bartels, spokesperson for Boise Cascade, said the article, “read more like an opinion piece” than research. “I could go on all day about the (false allegations). There were so many in there.” Bartels declined an invitation to identify specific false allegations.

High risk’ research

On Oct. 8, 1999, The Denver Journal requested the article be withdrawn from the on-line sources Westlaw and LEXUS from the ambiguous errata and an 87 word prepared statement released by the University of Denver Sept. 13, Denver Journal editors and University of Denver officials remain tight-lipped about just why the article was retracted and yanked from electronic databases.

“You can go and look it up. They pulled (the article) from (on-line scholarly databases) Westlaw and LEXUS — and page 453 to page 515 is a blank, with no explanation for why the pages are missing,” said Wines.

The decision to remove the article was made and implemented without the knowledge or notification of the researchers by University of Denver, according to court documents filed with the U.S District Court by the plaintiffs Aug. 31.

“To have done that and not even contacted us seemed very inappropriate . . .they never even gave us a call,” Smith said.

According to the Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial filed by the plaintiffs, the decision to remove the researchers’ work was prompted not on the basis of a defect in fact or scholarship, but because of pressure from Boise Cascade Corp. on the University of Denver.

“It raises so many questions about how this happened and who made this happen. This isn’t a question of scholarship,” Smith said.

The plaintiffs say the case centers on freedom of inquiry by university professors from outside influences on the conduct and choice of topics for their research.

“This is about freedom of speech and the autonomy of free universities,” Wines said.

Authors seek specifics behind retraction

According to the complaint against the University of Denver, Buchanan, Smith and Wines maintain the University didn’t provide an explanation for the retraction.

Warren Smith, spokesperson for the University of Denver, echoed the University’s written statement: “We stand by our decision.” He declined to give further comment due to the pending suit.

In the statement, Paul Chan, university counsel for the University of Denver, said, “We believe that this complaint should be resolved through the judicial process, not through the media.”

Before filing the suit against the University of Denver, Buchanan, Smith and Wines tried to find an explanation for the retraction of their article. In a letter sent to Chan May 15 and submitted as evidence in the suit Aug. 31, Wines, Buchanan and Smith wrote, “Following communications and conversations with Boise Cascade Corporation and with yourself, we have not learned which, if any portions of the article were false and/or defamatory.” The authors further asked the University of Denver to “republish our article in its original form and that it be made available to the public.”

In a response dated May 26, Chan replied that the University could not honor their request because, “the article was not consistent with the editorial standards of the University.” Chan wrote that the university stood by its decision, but did not elaborate on the reason or reasons for the retraction.

The University of Denver never questioned the scholarship of the research, Smith said, and hasn’t provided any information why the article was retracted. “It’s as if University of Denver hoped the issue would go unnoticed.”

The plaintiffs allege Boise Cascade Corp. influenced the university’s decision to retract the article.

A corporate hand in academia?

“We don’t know what happened between Boise Cascade and the University of Denver. But we do know that Boise Cascade played a role,” Buchanan said.

Smith said they learned of the retraction through Boise Cascade about nine months after it was published. “We were never notified of the retraction (by the journal) . . . instead, sometime down the road (the journal) was contacted by Boise Cascade and suddenly it became an issue of editorial policy.”

Smith said the fact that Boise Cascade knew about the retraction “is because they had a hand in it.”

In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege, “. . .after the publication of the (article), the Corporation (Boise Cascade), through its executive officers and lawyers, began a campaign to force the university to withdraw the (article) from publication. In particular, the Corporation threatened to file a lawsuit against the University (of Denver) if the University did not withdraw the (article) from publication . . .”

In a Sept. 20 interview, Bartels of Boise Cascade told The Arbiter, “We (Boise Cascade) provided the University (of Denver) with quite a bit of data to substantiate the false accusations.” Bartels declined to cite specific falsehoods or flaws in the research, but maintained the article was “far from scholarly.”

Bartels said following communication with the University of Denver, “They made a judgment after they saw some facts. They saw the mistakes and apologized.” He said after the University of Denver reviewed information Boise Cascade provided, University of Denver told Boise Cascade the article would be retracted.

Academic norms

Most academic journals maintain an exhaustive peer review process where research considered for publication undergoes close scrutiny by other scholars in the field. The Denver Journal of International Law and Policy is no exception.

“If there were concerns (about the research), they should have been addressed during the editorial review,” Smith said.

Wines said publication of the article was not rushed and the complaint notes that Denver Journal editors requested copies of all footnotes to verify accuracy. ” (The publisher) had (the article) for nine months before publication,” Wines said.

The complaint further notes, “The Denver Journal at all times prior to the publication of the (article) complimented Professor Wines, Professor Buchanan and Mr. Smith on the scholarship and contents of the (article).”

Dr. Jonathan Knight, associate secretary with the American Association of University Professors in Washington, D.C. said it is unusual to retract an article and even more unusual for a journal to handle a retraction in the manner the University of Denver did.

“I’ve never come across a situation where a journal has announced the retraction of a previously published paper without announcing what the views of the researchers are,” Knight said.

“The academic community would expect the journal to indicate what discussion it had with the researchers concerning the article which the journal had published.”

Wines said, “It has become a high risk behavior to write and research what affects corporations. We are in a precarious position (in academia).”

Communication Professor Ed McLuskie, said it is incredibly rare to pull research, but “academic freedom is always under assault.” He said the reduction in state funding to universities and university support of uncritical academic research has already threatened scholars’ autonomy and academic freedom. He said scholars have to be outraged at “any attempt to muzzle academic freedom.”

The retraction “is extremely unsettling,” said Dr. Alex Feldman, associate professor of mathematics and president of the Boise State Faculty Senate.

Feldman said when a researcher’s findings or conclusions raise questions, a rebuttal is usually conducted in a scholarly manner.

Academics usually hash out their scholarly disputes in public, either through journals or at conferences.

“Scholarly work is not about pleasing people — it’s about writing down what you believe to be true even if it makes some uncomfortable,” Feldman said.

Boise State University President Charles Ruch declined to address specifics of the pending case, but said, “Academic freedom is central to what universities are about. . . the core values of our institution allows students and faculty to pursue ideas — no matter where it takes them.”

Corporate norms

“When multi-national corporations can throw their weight around, it chips at our democratic society,” Smith said. “We must have a society where democratic ideals are respected.”

In an ideal world, academics would operate unfettered by the influence of corporations, Smith said. But Wines notes, “The dominant social institution is business.”

Bartels of Boise Cascade said, “We feel (the article) was damaging . . .it’s regrettable it was published in the first place.” He said Boise Cascade has “not yet” decided if damages would be sought for the publication of Wines, Smith and Buchanan’s critical analysis.

Boise State University Council Amanda Horton said corporations could try and hold universities accountable for damages if defamation or disregard for the truth is proved on the part of researchers who work under the university. Horton said researchers “can have academic freedom . . . but there are limits.” She said scholars “have to work within the bounds of the law.”

Buchanan, Smith and Wines maintain they practiced accepted scholarly practices.

“They believe (the research findings) are true, and truth is a defense,” Horton said.

The authors hope their suit against the University of Denver will bring some answers. They want to know why the Denver Journal retracted their work. They want to know who influenced the decision.

McLuskie contends, “It’s too bad researchers have to invest their own money to find out. That’s the power of Boise Cascade.”

- John Threet contributed to this report.

“Since the 1980s, the switch from state colleges to state-assisted colleges has made state colleges more vulnerable to self-censorship.”

– William Wines

Carissa Wolf (arbiter)

Related Posts:

1. Professors subpoena Boise State, Boise Cascade for documents in academic journal retraction lawsuit
2. University owes researchers under fire
3. Academic freedom under attack since Sept. 11, some professors say U.S. caused terrorism
4. Academic freedom: A closer look
5. Academic Freedom and Islam at Boise State