Philosopher Kathleen Stock (Sussex) asked me to share the following:
=======statement from Professor Stock below=====
On 18th September I wrote to Dr Skye Cleary, the Lead Editor of the APA blog, as follows:
"One main concern Is the language and tone of Ferrin’s piece, which is personally attacking, and casts serious aspersions on my motivation and character. I am surprised that a blog purporting to represent the profession of which I am a member, chose to represent me personally in this way: ‘malicious’ ‘divisive’, ‘stirring the pot’ and so on (I realise that these descriptions were floated as possibilities rather than asserted conclusively, but the fact they were mentioned at all is highly unusual for a philosophy piece, and clearly insulting).I wasn’t warned in advance that this was coming either, and I wasn’t given a simultaneous right of reply, so that this narrative about me would have gone uncontested, had I not happened to see it.. I am afraid I take this to be a breach of professionalism on the part of those running the blog.
No doubt you and your associate editors felt such descriptions were appropriate, because you think I am, in fact, a bigot, and you think that there is no need to observe professional standards with respect to a bigot. That’s the only explanation I can find for the growing number of instances, including this one, in which I am criticised personally, rather than my arguments. I have no interest in trying to convince you otherwise, but for the record, I am not a bigot.
What makes all this worse is that I am simultaneously being publicly harassed by one of your associate editors, as I am sure you by now know. I have never met him, I have barely interacted with him online (twice, I think, including my most recent exasperated tweet) and yet over several months I have witnessed several abusive tweets from him about me, as well as the incredibly hostile message on the sub-reddit that Leiter is publicising, which talks of ‘handling me with kid gloves’ etc. I note also that on July 9th he appeared in the comments of a piece on the APA blog which had absolutely nothing to do with trans rights, to further criticise me trenchantly - see attached. I would like to know precisely what role he had in the commissioning and editing of this piece, and await your answer with interest.”
Dr Cleary replied shortly afterwards, to apologise for the appearance of Oseroff's comment in the APA blog discussion of July 9th, which she reported to me as since removed. She also stated that Oseroff was not involved with the the Ferrin piece, which, she says, was pitched to a different editor. My other points remain unaddressed.
I wish to add: there's a narrative applied to any complaint I make about certain fellow philosophers’ behaviour with respect to me, which talks about me (or you) ‘targeting vulnerable grad students/ untenured philosophers’ (etc.). Oseroff is an adult. He wishes to be taken seriously, as such, in every other context, including the instances in which he has defamed me publicly. He uses his credentials at the APA blog to bolster his professional reputation. As such, he is accountable for his actions. I have absolutely no sympathy, or any self-recrimination, for pointing out his actions towards me (and I don’t feel bad for calling him a dickhead on Twitter, either - in fact, it gives me a warm glow of pleasure every time I think of it). People who try this pathetically transparent silencing tactic are wasting their breath and typing fingers.
========end of Professor Stock's statement========
I'll just add one comment of my own below the fold.
I think it is a reasonable principle that those involved with the APA Blog ought to be able to manifest impartiality to all members of the profession; someone with strong, public opinions about other members of the profession should not be involved with the APA blog. They can tweet, post on their personal blogs or on Facebook to their (malicious!) heart's satisfaction, but it is reasonable for members of the APA to expect that such individuals are not involved with the profession's blog. Given Mr. Oseroff's clear, public track record of reckless hostility to Professor Stock and any other philosophers who share her views, he should not be involved in editing the APA blog.
UPDATE: Philosopher Dan Kaufman (Missouri State) writes about his own experience with Mr. Oseroff's misconduct at the APA Blog: "I had my own exchanges with him over there. Indeed, so disrespectful was he that I emailed Skye Cleary about it. Below is the email I sent:
I'm wondering whether it is APA's practice to have its employees speak as obnoxiously to senior members of the profession as Nathan Oseroff spoke to me in the discussion thread on Steven Cahn's piece. I quote:
I don’t believe we should treat trans people on par with how gay people were treated decades previously; the way they have been treated in public discourse is not deserved. If you refuse to acknowledge this and instead direct your focus to how a person has been criticized due to publishing poorly-argued articles that call for treating trans people in this way, and disregard the fact that she has risen in public prominence in the United Kingdom in a fashion that mirrors the rise of Jordan Peterson in Canada and the United States, and how she has been treated with kid gloves by much of the profession, then I see no reason to engage with you any further.
Needless to say, I advocated no such thing and neither has Kathleen Stock, a distinguished aesthetician and senior faculty member at the University of Sussex. Regardless, this is not how an editor and a professional behaves.
It also seems as if he is now actively censoring my comments. A comment I posted on this most recent "Fat Female Philosophers" post disappeared into the ether. While it was critical, it was perfectly civil and on-topic.
Sorry to bother you with this, but it's really a bit much.