Editing Cambridge University Press (section)

== Controversies ==

===Tax exemption controversy===
In May 1940, CUP applied to the Inland Revenue for the exemption of its printing and publishing profits from taxation, equivalent to charitable status. After a November 1940 Inland Revenue hearing, CUP's application was refused "on the ground that, since the Press was printing and publishing for the outside world and not simply for the internal use of the University, the Press's trade went beyond the purpose and objects of the University and (in terms of the Act) was not exercised in the course of the actual carrying out of a primary purpose of the University".<ref>M. H. Black (1984), [http://www.akmedea.com/MHB-267.jpg ''Cambridge University Press 1584–1984''], Cambridge University Press, p. 267</ref> In November 1975, with CUP facing financial collapse,<ref>M. H. Black (1984), [http://www.akmedea.com/MHB-249.jpg ''Cambridge University Press 1584–1984''], Cambridge University Press, pp. 248–49</ref> CUP's chief executive Geoffrey Cass wrote a 60-page "preliminary letter" to the Inland Revenue again seeking tax-exemption. A year later Cass's application was granted in a letter from the Inland Revenue, though the decision was not made public.<ref>G Bridden (9 November 1976), [http://www.akmedea.com/MHB-267.jpg letter to Geoffrey Cass]</ref><ref>M. H. Black (1984), [http://www.akmedea.com/MHB-283.jpg ''Cambridge University Press 1584–1984''], Cambridge University Press, p. 282</ref> After consulting CUP, Cambridge's 'sister' press, the giant [[Oxford University Press]] presented their own submission and received similar exemption. In 2003 OUP's tax exemption was publicly attacked by Joel Rickett of [[The Bookseller]] in ''[[The Guardian]]''.<ref>Rickety, Joel (30 August 2003). [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/aug/30/featuresreviews.guardianreview21 "Latest news from the world of publishing"]. ''The Guardian''.</ref> In 2007, with the new 'public benefit' requirement of the revised Charities Act, the issue was re-examined<ref>Jessica Shepherd (17 April 2007). [https://www.theguardian.com/education/2007/apr/17/administration.highereducation "Freedom of the presses"]. ''The Guardian''.</ref> with particular reference to the OUP.<ref>Tom Tivnan (2007). [http://www.akmedea.com/bkslr5.jpg "Charities review could hit publishers"]. ''The Bookseller''.</ref> In 2008 CUP's and OUP's privilege was attacked by rival publishers.<ref>Philip Jones (24 April 2008). [https://www.thebookseller.com/news/rivals-attack-oup-and-cup "Rivals attack OUP and CUP"]. ''The Bookseller''.</ref><ref>Chris Koenig (16 May 2008). [https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/2276814.oup-status-attacked/ "OUP status attacked"]. ''Oxford Mail''</ref> In 2009 ''The Guardian'' invited author [[Andrew Malcolm (author)|Andrew Malcolm]] to write an article on the subject.<ref>Andrew Malcolm (15 April 2009), [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/apr/15/cambridge-univsersity-press-oxford "The Oxford presses aren't charities but are given unfair tax breaks"]. ''The Guardian''.</ref>

In 2007, from the National Archives at Kew, Malcolm obtained scans of CUP's unsuccessful applications for tax-exemption made in the 1940s and 1950s and their later successful applications in the 1970s. He then indexed and posted these on the Akmedea website.<ref>[https://www.akmedea.com/1940indx.html 'CUP'S and OUP'S claims for tax-exemption, 1940–1950", Index of scans on the Akmedea website]</ref><ref>[https://www.akmedea.com/75aindex.html 'CUP's and OUP's tax-exemption applications, 1975–78', Index of scans on the Akmedea website]</ref> Late in 2020, the papers held at Kew were withdrawn from public access and ruled closed for 50 years until 1 January 2029.<ref>[https://www.akmedea.com/scrnsht3.jpg Catalogue entry in the National Archives at Kew, a screenshot on the Akmedea website]</ref> This rendered the scans on the website their only public source.

In 2021, the documents were cited in a discussion on the formation of [[Cambridge University Press & Assessment]] reported in the [[Cambridge University Reporter]]. D.D.K.Chow of Trinity College, expressed concerns about the lack of academic leadership of the new body:{{Quotation|text="For 323 years, the Press has been tightly controlled under the University's academic leadership through the Press Syndicate (formerly Curators)...However, the Council's report proposes a Press and Assessment Syndicate, without such academic leadership....The proposed change in composition of the Syndicate...is in stark contrast to the arguments used by the Press to obtain its current tax exemption. In a landmark letter to the Inland Revenue in 1975, Sir Geoffrey Cass, then Chief Executive of the Press, wrote: "The Press of Cambridge University is actually no more than a department of the University, with no independent status of its own, governed by academic senior members of the University" and that it was not "an almost semi-independent 'international publisher'....Without adequate academic leadership, it would be all too easy for commercial concerns to override academic values, removing public benefit....If the Regent House does zippo to provide leadership on the Press and Assessment Syndicate, treating Cambridge University Press and Cambridge Assessment as cash cows, there is little reason for the University to continue owning them."<ref name="Chow" />}}

=== Alms for Jihad ===
{{Main|Alms for Jihad}}

In 2007, controversy arose over the press's decision to destroy all remaining copies of its 2006 book ''[[Alms for Jihad|Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World]]'', by Burr and Collins, as part of the settlement of a lawsuit brought by Saudi billionaire [[Khalid bin Mahfouz]].<ref>{{cite web | title = One Way Multiculturalism | work = [[The New York Sun]] | publisher = Ronald Weintraub | date = 6 August 2007 | first = Mark | last = Steyn | url = http://www.nysun.com/opinion/one-way-multiculturalism/59930/ | access-date = 4 May 2011}}</ref> Within hours, ''Alms for Jihad'' became one of the 100 most sought after titles on [[Amazon.com]] and [[eBay]] in the United States. The press sent a letter to libraries asking them to remove copies from circulation. The press subsequently sent out copies of an "errata" sheet for the book.

The [[American Library Association]] issued a recommendation to libraries still holding ''Alms for Jihad'': "Given the intense interest in the book, and the desire of readers to learn about the controversy first hand, we recommend that U.S. libraries keep the book available for their users." The publisher's decision did not have the support of the book's authors and was criticized by some who claimed it was incompatible with freedom of speech and with freedom of the press and that it indicated that [[English defamation law]]s were excessively strict.<ref>{{cite web | title = Bonus Books criticises CUP | work = The Bookseller | date =3 August 2007 | first=Anna | last = Richardson | url = http://www.thebookseller.com/news/bonus-books-criticises-cup.html | access-date = 4 May 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title = A University Press stands up – and wins | publisher = Inside Higher Ed | access-date =4 May 2011 | first = Scott | last = Jaschick | url = http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/08/16/yaleup | date= 16 August 2007 }}</ref> In the ''[[New York Times Book Review]]'' (7 October 2007), [[United States Congressman]] [[Frank R. Wolf]] described Cambridge's settlement as "basically a book burning".<ref>{{cite news | title = Libel Without Borders | work = [[The New York Times]] | first = Rachel | last = Danadio | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/books/review/Donadio-t.html?ex=1350532800&en=a46a9c67602861ee&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink | date= 7 October 2007 | access-date = 4 May 2011 }}</ref> The press pointed out that, at that time, it had already sold most of its copies of the book.

The press defended its actions, saying it had acted responsibly and that it was a global publisher with a duty to observe the laws of many different countries.<ref>{{cite magazine | title = Why CUP acted responsibly | magazine = The Bookseller | date = 9 August 2007 | url = http://www.thebookseller.com/blogs/why-cup-acted-responsibly.html | access-date = 4 May 2011 | first = Kevin | last = Taylor }}</ref>

===''Cambridge University Press v. Patton''===
{{Main|Cambridge University Press v. Patton}}

In this case, originally filed in 2008, CUP et al. accused [[Georgia State University]] of infringement of copyright.<ref>{{cite news |last=Hafner|first=Katie|date=16 April 2008 |title = Publishers Sue Georgia State on Digital Reading Matter |newspaper = The New York Times |url = https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/technology/16school.html |access-date=13 May 2020|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> The case closed on 29 September 2020, with GSU as the prevailing party.<ref>{{Cite magazine|first=Andrew |last=Albanese |title=Publishers Escape Fee Award as GSU E-Reserves Case Finally Ends |url=https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/copyright/article/84514-publishers-escape-fee-award-as-gsu-e-reserves-case-finally-ends.html |date=2 October 2020|magazine=Publishers Weekly}}</ref>

=== ''The China Quarterly'' ===
On 18 August 2017, following an "instruction" from a Chinese import agency, Cambridge University Press used the functionality that had been built into Cambridge Core to temporarily delete politically sensitive articles from ''[[The China Quarterly]]'' on its Chinese website. The articles focused on topics China regards as taboo, including the 1989 [[Tiananmen Square massacre]], [[Mao Zedong]]'s [[Cultural Revolution]], the 2014 Hong Kong [[2014 Hong Kong protests|protests]], and ethnic tensions in [[Xinjiang]] and [[Tibet]].<ref>{{cite news |url = http://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/chinese-news-40975474 |title=《中國季刊》:對中國刪300多篇文章深表關注 |newspaper=BBC News 中文 |language=zh |trans-title=China Quarterly: Deeply concerned about China's deletion of more than 300 articles |date=18 August 2017 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cambridge.org/about-us/media/press-releases/cambridge-university-press-statement-regarding-content-china-quarterly/ |title=Cambridge University Press statement regarding content in The China Quarterly |website=Cambridge University Press |language=en|date=18 August 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://medium.com/@millwarj/open-letter-to-cambridge-university-press-about-its-censorship-of-the-journal-china-quarterly-c366f76dcdac |title=Open Letter to Cambridge University Press about its censorship of the China Quarterly |last=Millward |first=James A. |date=19 August 2017 |website=Medium |access-date=20 August 2017}}</ref>{{self-published inline|date=February 2023}}<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/20/cambridge-university-press-censorship-exposes-xi-jinpings-authoritarian-shift |title=Cambridge University Press censorship 'exposes Xi Jinping's authoritarian shift' |last=Phillips |first=Tomn|date=20 August 2017 |newspaper =The Guardian |access-date=20 August 2017 |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> On 21 August 2017, in the face of growing international protests, Cambridge University Press announced it would immediately repost the articles to uphold the principle of academic freedom on which the university's work was founded.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/aug/21/cambridge-university-press-to-back-down-over-china-censorship |title=Cambridge University Press backs down over China censorship |last1=Kennedy |first1=Maev |date=21 August 2017 |work=The Guardian |access-date=22 August 2017|last2=Phillips |first2=Tom |issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40998129 |title=Cambridge University Press reverses China censorship move |date=21 August 2017 |work=[[BBC News]] |access-date=22 August 2017 }}</ref>

In a discussion reported in the [[Cambridge University Reporter]], D.K.K.Chow declared, "Without academic leadership on the matter, the University's basic ethical values were cast aside by commercial considerations. This instigated public debate, which would have been avoided had academic leadership been more vigilant, causing unnecessary damage to the University's reputation. The Press statement<ref>{{Cite web |date=21 August 2017 |title=The China Quarterly follow-up statement |url=https://www.cambridge.org/about-us/media/press-releases/china-quarterly-follow-statement |website=Cambridge University Press}}</ref> explained that lack of academic leadership was to blame: 'This decision was taken as a temporary measure pending discussion with the academic leadership of the University.'"<ref name="Chow">[https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2020-21/weekly/6611/6611.pdf? D.D.K.Chow, "Report of Discussion", ''Cambridge University Reporter'', 17 March 2021, 238–9.]</ref>

=== ''The Cambridge Handbook of Privatization'' ===
In February 2021, the forthcoming ''Cambridge Handbook of Privatization'' was found to have included a chapter by [[J. Mark Ramseyer]] in which he described Koreans murdered in the [[Kantō Massacre]] of 1923 as "gangs" that "torched buildings, planted bombs, [and] poisoned water supplies". Editors Avihay Dorfman and [[Alon Harel]] acknowledged the historical distortions of the chapter, but gave Ramseyer a chance to revise. Harel described the inclusion of the original chapter as an "innocent and very regrettable" mistake on the part of the editors.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20210220002400325 |title=Harvard professor Ramseyer to revise paper on 1923 massacre of Koreans in Japan: Cambridge handbook editor |last=Song|first= Sang-ho|date=20 February 2021|work=Yonhap News|access-date=22 February 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://world.kbs.co.kr/service/news_view.htm?lang=e&Seq_Code=159613 |title=Controversial Professor Denies Japan's Kanto Massacre of Koreans in 1923 |date=22 February 2021 |work=KBS World |access-date=22 February 2021 }}</ref>