At its annual meeting in Boston on 26 May, the ICA board of directors adopted a new policy on political engagement (see text box below).

ICA has periodically received requests from organizations or individuals to take positions on a variety of issues. These have ranged from stances on the recent "Arab Spring" to issues that seem to relate to academic freedom. Debates in the board meetings on these topics have been far ranging and usually spirited. As well, many members of ICA have voiced their concerns regarding the propriety of an academic society taking stances on social or political issues. An international society such ICA consists of members from many different political and socioeconomic countries who have divergent values and perspectives. Any action to support a particular request must take into account all of our various points of view without marginalizing or judging others. As a result, ICA has rarely taken positions in the past, in large part because there has been no guiding policy to direct the discussion or action.

To address this, then-ICA president Francois Cooren appointed a task force in August of 2010 to "consider ICA's decision-making on political engagement and to address a number of questions that connect the complexity of institutional agency and representation with thorny questions of the role of academia in society." Sandra Braman chaired the task force, which also included Yu-li Liu, Yariv Tsfati, and Mark van Vuuren. They issued their report for the board on 1 December 2010.

"Perceptions of ICA's traditional stand on political engagement have focused on advancing and supporting research (including political research) by providing public discourse with facts and theories, by managing and publishing important journals, and by signaling important research (e.g., by bestowing awards)," the report said. "In recent years, however, the association has directly engaged with two specific legal matters (copyright law and regulation of tobacco advertising), and additional possibilities for types of political engagement that might be appropriate have been suggested by association members and by stances and procedures developed by other scholarly associations around the world."

The task force examined ICA's Mission and Ethics Statements, as well as its past history. It also studied how other similar organizations have addressed the issue of political engagement. It developed a series of specific recommendations which were incorporated into the final policy. The full report can be accessed here. The board, at its midyear online board meeting in January, accepted the report and directed the ICA executive director to develop a policy for adoption in May 2011.

One of the concerns of any policy on political action is an ability to react to time sensitive requests in a responsible manner. This was addressed in the final policy by having the Executive Committee review these and forward them on to the Board for an online debate and vote without having to wait until one of the two yearly board meetings. The policy also establishes a high criteria and standard for adoption to insure that any stance represents the association as a whole.

Such an issue was presented to the board shortly after the adoption of this policy. The association was asked to sign on and support an amicus brief going before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Golan V. Holder (SCOTUS Docket No. 10-545). The issue is access to material that has fallen into the public domain. In 1994, an element of an international treaty, now U.S. law, permitted material from other countries that had fallen into the public domain in the U.S. to be re-copyrighted. This act further weakens the provisions of copyright that allow researchers, scholars, students and others to access our shared cultural heritage. The timing required the board to make a decision prior to 13 June 2011. This was made even more difficult given that one-third of the board was new (taking their positions at the conclusion of the Boston conference) and many board members were either traveling or had difficulty assessing their membership. In the end, this request did not pass the board and ICA will not be signing on to the amicus brief.