Our association has a rich history tied to public policy. For instance, we were founded in 1839 in Boston to support the 1840 census. We count among our early members US President Martin Van Buren and Minister to France Lewis Cass. Fast forward to 1996, and the ASA’s Census 2000 Blue Ribbon Panel addressed concerns about statistical methods proposed for use in the census. Today—funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Annie E. Casey Foundation, and California Community Foundation—the ASA oversees The Nation’s Data at Risk project, monitoring the health of the federal statistical agencies.
Through all its growth and change, the ASA has remained dedicated to promoting the practice and profession of statistics. In support of this mission, the ASA leadership is often asked to comment on proposed policies or to write or sign on to letters in support of policy positions. Occasionally, we are asked to provide amicus (friend of the court) briefs. And, sometimes, we are urged to issue an official statement. To guide the ASA Board in deciding which issues warrant a board statement, we adopted a formal process.
In May 2025, we revisited and updated the process, which lays out the following seven guiding questions:
- Is the ASA particularly well-positioned to respond to the issue?
- Does the issue have an impact on the statistics and data science profession or on the ASA itself?
- Does this issue have an impact on the quality or integrity of science?
- Is there an opportunity to educate about statistics and data science, or is there a statistical perspective on this issue that we should speak to?
- Would ASA members expect the ASA to be involved in the issue?
- Does the issue involve a serious violation of accepted norms of practice in statistical science or the ethical principles of the profession?
- Does the issue relate to possible infringement on scientific freedom or human/civil rights?
If the ASA is particularly well-positioned to respond to the issue and the answer to one or more of the other six questions is yes, the process suggests we should consider developing and issuing a statement.
Consideration of these questions must follow the association’s bylaws, specifically Article X1.1, which states:
Partisan Issues. The name of the Association must not be used in connection with support for partisan issues or for candidates for public office. Resolutions by the Board of Directors on non-partisan issues require approval by two-thirds of the voting members of the Board who are not required to recuse themselves due to their government employment or a conflict of interest. When there is concern as to whether an issue is partisan, a majority vote of the voting members of the Board is required to declare it non-partisan.
However, the boundary between partisan and nonpartisan has become harder to see, leaving our association with the profound challenge of holding to its mission in a climate in which even neutral positions risk being perceived as political. The complexity lies not in avoiding controversy altogether—an impossible task that would render us ineffective—but in determining how to respond in a manner that serves our mission.
We acknowledge that every path forward carries consequences. Maintaining strict neutrality may be interpreted as complicity or indifference by some stakeholders, while taking principled stands on issues central to our mission risks alienating members who view those positions through a partisan lens. This is the reality that has dominated the discussions at each meeting of the ASA Board and Executive Committee and in many conversations outside formal meetings. These discussions require dialogue about our values, transparent decision-making processes, and a commitment to clearly articulating how our choices connect to our mission. The stakes are significant. Our credibility, membership unity, and long-term effectiveness all hang in the balance.
The stakes are significant. Our credibility, membership unity, and long-term effectiveness all hang in the balance.”
These challenges are compounded by the fact that our board members are volunteers with professional roles and affiliations elsewhere, making it difficult to separate their ASA duties from their positions as employees, consultants, or leaders under their own stakeholder pressures. This is not abstract. When Board members speak or act, personal views, professional obligations, and fiduciary duty to the ASA can become uncomfortably intertwined, creating conflicts and public confusion about whose interests are being represented. But stepping back from hard conversations or giving up on our mission would be a far bigger failure than the temporary discomfort of navigating these challenges with integrity and purpose.
That is why we have a structured process in place. It is intended to help us navigate the balance between silence and overreach. However, even when the guidelines strongly suggest an issue and warrant a response, we must still consider practical realities: member safety; institutional risk; and nonprofit status. So, we have taken a different approach this year. Ron Wasserstein, our executive director, has responded to several policy decisions directly through carefully crafted social media posts and letters. These responses are often shaped with input from experienced members and vetted by those executive committee members who can participate without conflict of interest. They are measured, factual, and focused firmly on the profession, not on politics. This allows the ASA to register its position while avoiding unnecessary institutional exposure.
I believe these introductory paragraphs from an August 2, 2025, post exemplify how impactful these posts are:
Friday’s firing of Commissioner of Labor Statistics Erika McEntarfer is calamitous. The firing undermines Americans’ trust in federal statistics, with adverse ramifications for the broad swath of decisions that these data inform, affecting all Americans. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) statistics are key inputs to far-reaching public and private policy decisions that have immediate and wide-reaching implications with continuing impacts on the economy. Further, firing a federal statistics official out of dislike for what official statistics indicate is tantamount to blaming your doctor for your diagnosis. The rigor, checks, and care that go into the production of official statistics are extensive, transparent, long respected, and used across administrations. Presidents may not like the statistics but have respected them.
If you have not read the important statements, I encourage you to take time to read them.
Why This Matters
Some may see this as splitting hairs, but the stakes are real. On one side is the danger of irrelevance; if we never speak, we risk becoming invisible at moments when our voice matters most. On the other side is the danger of overreach; if we speak too freely, we may damage the very association we are trying to protect and the volunteers who are so crucial to its success.
Finding balance is not easy, and it may never be. But I want our members to know this: Every decision we make on this front is deliberate. We are not shying away from hard issues, nor are we rushing into political fights. We are weighing carefully how best to safeguard both our mission and our members.
At the same time, each of us has a role to play. The ASA can’t and shouldn’t be the only voice. Every member has the right and responsibility to communicate with their elected representatives about issues affecting statistics, research, and data integrity.
Finally, this is a conversation we will keep having. It is healthy for us to discuss it. It is part of what makes the ASA a vibrant professional community. And it reflects a deeper truth: Statistics does not live in isolation. It is embedded in society, shaped by policy, and vital to public trust.
As we move forward, I encourage you to stay engaged. Each issue of ASA Member News has ASA science policy updates, and I invite you to subscribe to the Count on Stats newsletter. Share your views, challenge our assumptions, and offer suggestions. If you have ideas about how the ASA should handle these questions, please let me know. Your input helps guide us, and it strengthens the collective voice of our profession.
Leave a Reply