It was alluded to in comments on earlier threads, but here it is in its entirety. I'll just share two comments I received about this. One is from Gary Dyer, a Professor of English at Cleveland State University:
Did you see Sally Haslanger's post in which she asks that the "controversy over the Rebecca Tuvel article [. . .] be taken off-line." As if the public aspersions on Professor Tuvel's work should be treated merely as a private matter! Who exactly is protected from harm if public discussion of the specifics of this matter ceases?
Obviously the people protected are Sally Haslanger's friends who are the Associate Editors of Hypatia, whose wrongful conduct harmed Prof. Tuvel (this is also a journal on whose Advisory Board Prof. Haslanger serves).
And then there was this, shall we say, "saltier" (but rather funny) take forwarded by a student who did not want to be named:
Haslanger: “In short, can we move the conversation away from the particular case of Prof. Tuvel’s paper and talk about how our profession can be more respectful and more innovative, how can we stop alienating and marginalizing those who are legitimately frustrated with the profession, and how we can resist the fear mongering of the current political context and build tools needed for a more just and peaceful society?”
loosely translated from the Newspeak:
Let’s not get into who launched mass, nasty, anti-philosophical attacks against whom and just get back to the business of politicizing the discipline in the way that produced this train wreck in the first place.
UPDATE: An untenured philosopher writes:
First, let me say thanks for the salutary work you're doing with regard to this shameful spectacle. I just wanted to forward a short clip from Monty Python and the Holy Grail that I was reminded of as soon as I read Haslanger's post.
It was so painfully obvious that the request to stop discussing Tuvel really meant stop discussing the signatories and associate editors. This was made pretty obvious by her not mentioning them at all among the things people were discussing online but that should be taken offline. But of course they are what is being discussed at least as much as Tuvel and her paper are, and they are her allies, so the idea that she is trying to move the conversation on from Tuvel is pretty clearly a cover for trying to move the conversation on from these other people and what they've done. "Let's not bicker and argue about who defamed who. This is supposed to be a justice occasion!"