...though at least we finally can put names to the original mischief: Linda Martín Alcoff (Hunter College/CUNY), Ann Cahill (Elon University), Kim Q. Hall (Appalachian State), Kyoo Lee (John Jay College/CUNY), Mariana Ortega (John Carroll University), Ásta Sveinsdóttir (San Francisco State University), Alison Wylie (Washington/Seattle & Durham), and George Yancy (Emory). (I note that Professor Heyes has not signed this new letter.) These individuals have responded to the recent statement from the Board of Directors of Hypatia by circulating the following statement (I print the relevant parts; I am not aware of it being on-line at this point):
On Monday, July 17 the nonprofit board gave us an ultimatum of either resigning by noon on July 19 or they would suspend the journal’s governance documents and, thus, the authority of the Board of Associate Editors. At that time, the nonprofit board also informed us that they planned to make a public statement in which they would announce either our resignation or their suspension of the Journal’s governance documents, depending on our response to their ultimatum. They also informed us of the Editors’ impending resignation, retroactive to July 1. Their recent public statement claims that they have “temporarily” suspended our authority. Nonetheless, their unilateral decision is a de facto suspension of Hypatia’s governance documents and a firing of us.
We strongly disagree with several of the claims made in both the Editors’ and the nonprofit board’s public statements explaining this action. Throughout this controversy, we have been guided by commitments to excellence, academic integrity, and inclusiveness that have long informed Hypatia’s vision and have established it as a leading feminist philosophy journal. Additionally, we remain steadfast in our commitment to working within the letter and spirit of the journal’s current governance document that was approved in 2012 by Hypatia’s Editors, Associate Editors, and founding members of the nonprofit board. To this end, we have repeatedly requested that the Editors and the nonprofit board engage in a mediation process with us, facilitated by a feminist philosopher acceptable to all parties. Our aim in making this proposal was to initiate a collaborative process in which we could discuss our differences, identify common goals, and find a constructive way forward for the good of Hypatia. Much to our regret, the Editors and the non-profit board rebuffed these requests, maintaining that we are solely responsible for the controversy in ways that, in our view, systematically deflect attention from the substantial philosophical and methodological issues that we see as the heart of the matter. Despite our persistent requests for mediation, the nonprofit board stated their willingness to engage in mediation only after they had posted their public statement, suspended our authority, and, de facto, suspended the journal’s governance document. We find it untenable to participate in such a process on these terms.
We are greatly concerned that the most recent public statements from the Editors and the nonprofit board will deepen a split in the feminist philosophy community. It is our hope that, as a community, we will opt instead to respond by reflecting upon, and seeking to ameliorate, the various ways in which feminist philosophy has not yet lived up to its ethical commitment to transform itself, and philosophy as a whole, into a discipline that honors the perspectives and welcomes the scholarly contributions of historically marginalized groups, including people of color, trans* people, disabled people, and queer people. The current controversy did not begin with our letter; it is instead grounded in long-standing differences and tensions within the field. It is precisely our respect for Hypatia that informs our belief that what is at stake here is not only the continued existence and relevance of this particular journal, one that has done so much to establish feminist philosophy as a respected and valued scholarly field, but also the very identity and parameters of feminist philosophy itself. This is a pivotal moment in which we need to come together to ensure that our practices and scholarship are appropriately responsive to relevant work by those who are marginalized within the discipline of philosophy.
We deeply regret that the Editors and nonprofit board were unwilling to engage with us in systematically reflecting on these issues and collaboratively addressing their implications for Hypatia. The declaration by the nonprofit board that they are suspending our authority means that we cannot fulfill our duties as Associate Editors in accordance with the journal’s governance documents. Regrettably, we see no alternative but to resign from Hypatia’s Board of Associate Editors with this letter.
The Editors and Board were quite correct not to "engage" with those, unapolgetically, engaged in professional misconduct. By resigning, they've done Hypatia a favor: it can now set about restoring its reputation as a professional, scholarly journal, which the departed Associate Editors have impugned with their defamation of Rebecca Tuvel.
I really do wonder at what point people in the profession will stop giving Linda Alcoff, in particular, a pass for her serial misconduct--I first encountered it in the 1990s, when she would simply make up views and then attribute them to me, utterly shamelessly. The whole profession witnessed it during the "Climate for Women" fraud a few years back. Now there's this. It's telling about the depraved state of the Eastern Division of the APA that she is a past President.