I'd like to respond to the parts of Michael's message that were directed at
my previous email.
>>It must also be clarified that a person does not have to be an ARSC
Member” to submit an article to the Journal, propose a presentation to the
Conference Program Committee, or to attend the Annual Conference. I was
very disturbed to read the characterizations of the Members by a former a
Journal Editor based on remote interactions with article submitters WHO
MIGHT NOT EVEN HAVE BEEN MEMBERS.<<
That's quite true, one doesn't have to be a member to submit an article.
However, the people I referred to were members. That's why I referred to
them as "members."
>>But even more disturbing was the story of this editor being warned when
taking the editorship by women OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION that “ARSC
membership had a damaging reputation for being deeply sexist”. One would
think that the new editor had already been in the organization, attended a
number of conferences, and been able to make up her own mind from personal
experience of actually interacting with the members.<<
That's precisely my point. These were women outside the organization.
Regardless of whether you think the perception has any validity, the fact
that that reputation exists is a problem. If an organization wants to grow,
or even simply to maintain the status quo, you need new members, and if a
significant proportion of your potential new members have heard that they
won't be treated with respect if they join, what's the likelihood that
they're going to join?