The next issue of PAA Affairs will be in the hands of new editors and, thus, this is the last Members' Exchange to which I can contribute. The issues of importance to the new editors will likely be different, although the concerns of the membership will remain at its core. From the initiation of this feature in PAA Affairs, I have written it with the encouragement of my former co- editor, Kathy London. Before she died, we planned our swan song in some detail mostly to offset the drudgery of desktop publishing. I had boldly promised a hard- hitting analysis of embedded institutional biases in the PAA and the consequent elitism that pervades the association. We shared a giddy glee about committing to print the usual disenchanted grumbling of our colleagues, who like us, were relatively junior and somewhere outside the mainstream. Because of Kathy's death in March and the premature death of Cliff Clogg, a friend and valued mentor, later in the year, I find myself unable to fill the role of disgruntled critic. The PAA is, in fact, not a disembodied social construct but rather a group of people brought together by common interests and goals. Many of those people are my friends, teachers, and colleagues. The membership embraces brilliant scholars whose work has enlightened me, committed population activists who I admire, and wonderful teachers whose passion for teaching created my generation of demographers and many yet to come. Therefore, I would rather serve the implicit social bargain we have all made by our membership in the association by offering a set of constructive observations and a gentle nudge to the membership to undertake a slightly more active role.
One of the duties of the PAA Affairs editors is to report on the biannual meetings of the PAA Board. Because of that duty, I have become acquainted with both the process by which the PAA makes decisions and the general perspectives of many Board members. The decisions, always well-intentioned and often thoughtful, however, reflect the composition of the Board, which is by in large made up of academics at large well-supported universities. Although other actors on the demographic scene such as the World Bank, the Population Council and the Census Bureau are also represented as are a diversity of interests, the institutional ties between Board members are deep and long- standing. It is clear Board members are elected to these posts for that very reason; they represent the core of the demographic research community.
PAA is a meritocracy, not a representative democracy, although we each have a vote. In and of itself, this is not a bad thing, if the Board is responsive to the concerns of other communities within the organization. In my experience, the Board is responsive when presented with coherent proposals such as those often received from the very well-organized applied demographers. Those coherent voices are, however, few. The institutional mechanisms exist in the form of committees and interest groups yet they remain under used. The annual Business meeting, which is always held in an enormous ballroom that echoes with the shuffling of 25 pairs of feet, is another arena in which you may question, protest, or suggest. Finally, this very column, which given its original intent, has failed despite dealing with issues that give lively substance to the conversations we all have with other demographers such as the journal and the annual meetings. Can it be that we have no constructive criticism to offer?
I could list all the productive ways in which a more active role in PAA might enhance your career or improve your research by increasing your visibility and building your professional networks. This is a familiar appeal. Instead, I would rather remind you that in contributing your time and energy, you will have also enhanced the community made up of your friends, teachers, and colleagues too.
In an effort to fill a white space in the last issue of PAA Affairs, an attempt at humor went awry. See the following letter, which points out the inadvertent error.
Letter received from Shoshana Grossbard-Schechtman
October 25, 1995
I appreciate very much the newsletter you edit. It is also very nice that you attempt at bringing a little humor into the newsletter. The latest issue had a citation from Joseph Campbell about merciless computers, which I am sure you included with the good intention of entertaining your readers to some humour. You probably didn't realize that Campbell's statement is offensive to Jews like myself, who find inspiration in the Old Testament. Obviously, Campbell did not invent the idea that God as presented in the Old Testament is merciless. It is an opinion commonly held in the West. However, this idea's popularity is not based on its accuracy. Judaism, which solely recognizes the authority of what Christians call the "Old Testament", teaches that God has many traits. As Moses addressed him repetitively according to the five books of Moses (Pentateuch), God is merciful. In fact, even high holiday Jews who do not know much about their heritage would recognize some of the words in songs Jews sing repetitively at their high holidays services (just behind us, as you know). For instance "Ad'nai, Ad'nai, el rahum vehanoun....", which translates as "Oh God, oh god, God of mercy and grace....". These words were supposedly said by Moses around the time the Jews received the ten commandments on Mount Sinai. God can also be a God of justice, which is reflected in the use of another term for God in Hebrew. I understand that Christianity focusses on God's merciful traits more so than Judaism. However, it is false to assume that God is merciless in the Old Testament, and to me a statement relying on this assumption is not all funny.