More than 30 leading museum directors and art historians are among the 320-plus academics from nine countries who have signed a letter to the senior management of Yale University Press condemning the redundancies of two longstanding commissioning art editors, Gillian Malpass and Sally Salvesen. They had worked for the publisher for 33 and almost 24 years respectively. A follow-up letter was addressed to the president of Yale University. The publisher has defended the controversial restructuring and promised investment in its art department.
In recent months, there have been six lay-offs in the London office and two roles have been restructured, according to Noel Murphy, the sales and marketing director at Yale University Press London (YUPL). Meanwhile, Mark Eastment, the former publishing director of V&A Publishing, is joining YUPL in the new role of editorial director for art and architecture.
The letter of complaint, dated 8 July and written by Jules Lubbock, a professor at the University of Essex, and Andrew Saint, a University of Cambridge professor, expresses a “sense of shock” at the “drastic changes” at YUPL. They say that the reorganisation will have the “gravest impact” on the art list, which is the “cornerstone of Yale University Press’ reputation”.
But John Donatich, the director of Yale University Press, and Heather McCallum, the managing director of YUPL, say in a written response that “nothing could be further from the truth” and that the publisher “is in fact investing in this area significantly”. Addressing questions about the rationale for their actions,
Donatich and McCallum say that the reorganisation of YUPL “is not confined to the art department; it is a company-wide initiative” that has the “full support” of the YUPL trustees, Yale University Press and the Yale University leadership. “The reorganisation has been designed to support and sustain YUPL’s academic art publishing and to build on and continue its distinguished legacy,” they say. Donatich and McCallum do not mention Malpass and Salvesen directly, describing the restructuring as a “confidential process”. Murphy says that there were extensive—and necessarily confidential—consultations with the staff involved, and that due process was followed.
Saint says, however, that the response from Yale University Press does not give a proper explanation of why Malpass and Salvesen were made redundant. “The reason they have given is that it’s a private matter; the whole thing has been smothered in a blanket of confidentiality, which is grossly insulting and insensitive to two of the biggest people in publishing,” he says, noting that the organisation has charitable status and should be held accountable.
Lubbock and Saint sent a second letter, dated 20 July, to Peter Salovey, the president of Yale University, asking him again “to address the collective concerns” of the more than 320 signatories. The letter continues: “Some of our colleagues’ reactions to YUP’s reply are unprintable, but the following sums up the general sentiment: ‘What a pathetic response from Yale—insulting, really, as if no one who signed that letter deserved a serious account’ of the rationale for the changes.” Saint says that they are yet to receive a response to their latest correspondence.