2. This referendum is hypocritical because it is political while its authors imply otherwise; it violates the “due process” that it claims to uphold; and it accuses the AAA of condoning a “culture of accusation” while it and the AA article on which it is based involve numerous unfounded accusations.
3. This referendum is destructive because it is an unjustified attack on the professional integrity of the members of the Task Force and the Executive Board instead of a constructive approach to advance professional ethics.
4. This referendum is damaging to the image of the AAA and discipline, and if passed it is likely to alienate many communities who host research thereby compromising the future of anthropology and jeopardizing many careers.
Do any of the proponents of this referendum think that Chagnon ever violated any professional ethics of anthropology and/or human rights of the Yanomami, and if so, which specific ones?
See this website for more background and other statements:
http://www.publicanthropology.org