for my part as editor I have to say that I could not publish such an inflammatory, insulting, and divisive piece in our Journal. It does not in any way represent an official position of the Association or even a position that most members would wish to see expressed unless I am very much mistaken dedicated server. . . . In my view publishing this piece would tear us apart and destroy the Association.

Dr. Fulker's comments could be appropriate were BGA a political or religious organization, but for a scientific organization issues of "divisiveness" created by differing interpretations of data should be secondary. And, whether positions are expressed or not should be determined by the relevance of those positions to the discipline virtual private server, rather than by what "most members would wish." [9]

The past president's reaction to these demands in a 5 September letter was to accede to his removal as chair of the Awards committee, "in the interests of collegial cooperation," it being clear that the majority of members were unable or unwilling to work with him on activities that usually fall to the past president. However, he refused to resign either from the Board or the BGA. President Wilson's 3 September 1996 letter reiterated the demand that Whitney resign from the Board, and now produced a new threat to force this resignation. There were by-laws, he said, that authorized the removal of an officer from Board "for the good of the Association domain registration," and "plans are presently being made, in accordance with the by-laws, to meet and vote on removing you from the board." The letter urged the past president to voluntarily resign from the Board before such a vote, offering to allow him to stay on as a member of the BGA. Somewhat disingenuously (given his previous open letter) Dr. Wilson now wrote that "to my knowledge there is no strong pressure that you should resign from the association-just the Board." The letter concluded with the ultimatum that "we will wait until noon (your time) Wednesday, 6 September[10] for your resignation. After that we will continue to arrange for the vote."

The time of the ultimatum passed without surrender, so the Board went ahead. A 25 October letter from President Wilson, on behalf of the Board web design services, informed all BGA members that the Board "plans to hold a special meeting in Washington D.C. on 5 November to discuss the possibility of removing Mr. (sic) Whitney from the Board," this being "in the best interests of the Association," and that out-of-town Board members were eligible for reimbursement of expenses. The letter also informed members that "if we are unable to agree on appropriate action at this meeting," some members of the Board might resign.

Dr. Whitney's open letter of 29 October noted that although, as a current member of the Board, he had been invited to come and "defend myself," and had heard that there was in circulation a "list of charges" or a "statement of my wrongdoing," he had received no such list or statement. He also pointed out that even the Inquisition of Rome "informed its victims of its charges." He further requested permission for science writers such as Constance Holden to be allowed to come to the meeting as an observer.

From the beginning of this affair, Dr. Whitney had, of course, received support from BGA members and others who still upheld the distinction between a scientific and other sorts of organizations, even if they did not agree with Dr. Whitney's scientific opinions. However, the Board's 25 October special-meeting notification elicited a new wave of criticisms. In a 30 October e-mail, Dr. David Lykken (a distinguished psychological researcher, perhaps best known currently for his twin studies at the University of Minnesota) signed himself as a "former member" of BGA, and wrote of being alarmed to "discover that a scientific society that one has valued for so long has fallen to the governance of a lynch mob."

Eminent author Jared Taylor drew on the Galileo analogy when he stated, in a 30 October e-mail, that to claim that Dr. Whitney was "insensitive" was like arguing that Galileo should have been "sensitive" to the geocentrists rather than trying to prove them wrong. Further, he suggested that so-called scientists who want to "silence or expel their colleagues, or who avert their faces from awkward data, are the intellectual heirs to Stalin, Beria, and Lysenko." He concluded his message with: "tyrannical orthodoxy in the sciences is both contemptible and ridiculous." > Yet another e-mail on the same day came from Dr. Csaba Vadasz, who, amongst other things, argued that spending the organization's funds on such a special meeting was inappropriate, because the meeting would indicate that the Board "disregards scientific principles in favor of open censorship, political manipulation, and lack of social responsibility." The Board, in Dr. Vadasz's view, should "apologize to the membership for valuing ill-perceived political correctness more than objective and impartial rigorous research in a socially important and sensitive area." On the next day (31 October), a brief e-mail from president Wilson stated that "After telephone conversations, the members of the Executive Committee have, for the good of the Association, decided to postpone indefinitely its planned meeting."