by Richard Harris
Over the past few decades, NASW has grown and changed dramatically as the profession of science writing has evolved. One result of this is that NASW's trusty constitution is in need of serious repair.
Over the past few months, a committee has been meeting in cyberspace to talk about what to do about it. Some of the ideas being discussed represent a major change in the way the organization is structured. We would now like to hear from the membership about what you think.
One major issue we've been wrestling with is how to deal with freelance members. In the olden days, there was a seemingly simple distinction between freelancers who were primarily journalists versus freelancers who did work for major corporations. It should come as no surprise that, these days, many members of NASW hop back and forth across that fence with great agility. Yet each year, we ask freelancers to state whether they are "active" member of the organization (that is basically journalists) or "associate" members (those who work mostly for corporations).
That's not always an easy question to answer. Take, for example, the science writer who writes magazine articles for a foundation that produces its own magazine. That writer may have great editorial independence, and the copy--as with newspapers--may be designed to get people to leaf through a journal to happen by the ads. The supposedly bright line between journalism and corporate writing is a bit fuzzy here.
Right now, nearly three-quarters of freelancers are considered active members, and about one quarter of freelancers are associates. The numbers are even closer for members as a whole: active members barely outnumber associates. Some associate members argue that, by virtue of numbers alone, they deserve equal status in the organization. But NASW was founded as a journalistic organization, and the journalists among us are not interested in changing that character.
Consider the American Medical Writers Association. That group treats journalists and PIOs equally--and the result is an organization that is dominated by PIOs and shunned by journalists. I have no interest in seeing NASW follow suit. The journalists among us still see NASW as our professional organization, dedicated to journalistic principles. We recognize that PIOs as individuals share many of our same goals and interests, but we also know that they are paid by organizations to promote an institution--even if that promotion may look a lot like journalism. NASW is and should be led by journalists and guided by journalistic principles.
The Constitution committee, which has both journalists and PIOs on board, has struggled with how to resolve this conflict. In my view, we can do one of two things: First, we can preserve the differences between the different classes of members. We can do that by sharpening the distinction between actives and associates, or we can add more categories (author, instructor, PIO, corporate publicist, for example). One result may be that freelancers might have to submit more detailed information each year to assure that they are being placed in the correct categories.
At the very least, we'd like a better label than "active" and "associate," since some of the most active members of NASW are "associates." Alternatively, we can dissolve the distinction between active and associate--but just for the general membership. Any member is simply a member, whether he is a full-time journalist, full-time PIO, or a freelancer who works for IBM one week and Discover magazine the next.
In order to maintain NASW's identity as an organization dedicated to science journalism, all officers would be required to be working journalists [staff or freelance]. And journalists would remain a guaranteed majority on the board. In practical terms, that's not so different from how the organization works today. Only active members may be officers. Associate members are well represented on the board, but they are a slight minority. The only functional difference is that today, associates only vote for associate board members; active members vote for active members; officers run uncontested. Under the new plan, actives and associates alike would vote with the same ballot.
What do you think of this? We need to know. The committee is charged with suggesting ideas, but not with making the big decisions about this organization. That's up to the membership as a whole. Please write or e-mail me about your thoughts. I'll share them with the rest of the constitution committee, which includes Rick Borchelt, Shannon Brownlee, Earle Holland, Paul Raeburn and Joel Shurkin.
In the next newsletter (and on our web site) I will post a draft of our new, improved Constitution, and our discussion can continue.
Richard Harris can be reached at National Public Radio, 635 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington DC 20001; phone: 202-414-2786; fax: 202-414-3329; email: rharris@nasw.org
President Harris invited comment from members of the NASW board on the board's listserve and received it in quantity from 11 of them. [Bob Cooke is not into e-mail.] So extensive (and often intensive) were the more than 125 responses that followed and so central were they to the nature of the organization, Harris asked ScienceWriters to summarize the exchange for the full NASW membership. Since the board's listserve is closed in order to encourage frank exchanges, the summary that follows, while intended to air all pertinent views, will not attribute those views to specific individuals.
Harris's distaste for the present division of the membership into two categories, labeled active and associate, was widely shared: The implication that associate members were somehow not active was considered both distasteful and misleading. Nor was there any opposition to the idea that whatever the taxonomy, it should accurately reflect the nature and purpose of the organization.
From then on, the divergence of views became more noticeable. One line focused on how many categories were required to achieve this goal: A number agreed with Harris's proposal of a single category: members--doubly appealing because (1)it does away with the sorting process (temporarily, at least), and (2)because, to some, any classification tends to imply some ethical or moral superiority. Those who took this position, however, generally agreed that not all members would be eligible to serve as officers. Just where that line should be drawn was not resolved in the exchange of views. Finally, support persisted for the present system, but with a change in terminology as also suggested by Harris.
Others argued that an increase in the number of categories would both clarify and more accurately reflect the nature of the organization. One proposal called for four categories: (1) writers, editors, and freelances who work for traditional newsgathering organizations; (2) those who do a mix of work; (3) public-information and public-relations officers; and (4) students. Once again, agreement here inexorably led to often heated debate on eligibility requirements for each category, especially with respect to freelancers.
The president's proposal suggests that only "working journalists" be eligible to serve as officers. This view found some endorsement but raised new questions: How about freelancers with non-conflicting institutional clients? And if freelancers who sometimes served those institutional clients are eligible, why not science writers who staff those institutions? And how were freelancers to be assigned to one category or another--through self-classification or by an annual administrative review?
A large group felt strongly that the authority of the organization should reside with its working journalists, however defined--but, according to one head count, a narrow definition of that category would confine the leadership to an unacceptably small fraction of the membership. The long exchange that followed about the rightness of that head count once again underlined the inherent difficulties of categorization.
One proposal that emerged midway through the three-week-long exchange offered a completely fresh approach: Divide the present membership into two or more separate organizations under an NASW umbrella, each led by its own elected officers according to its own lights but sharing ScienceWriters and annually meeting together in plenary sessions to exchange views. This proposal received some support but also evoked strongly negative responses.
Despite the occasionally heated nature of the debate, there was a remarkable consistency in the view that the broad variety of NASW membership was its strength rather than its weakness--that somehow or other, it all seemed to work.__HJL