Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

Lawyer Wendy Kaminer on the unhinged responses to the Harper's letter about "cancel culture"

I was amazed to learn that the letter (referenced in passing earlier today) was actually controversial, albeit among the usual herd animals, who never met an independent thought they could abide.   The lawyer Wendy Kaminer, who signed the letter, has a suitably stinging rebuke:

‘I rest my case’, I’m tempted to say, reviewing the unhinged responses of cancel-culture fans intent on cancelling the judicious defence of free speech in our ‘Letter on Justice and Open Debate’, published by Harper’s this week. I signed emphatically, which makes me one of ‘the worst people in the world of public intellectualism’, according to In These Times. What’s so bad about defending ‘the free exchange of information and ideas’ and critiquing ‘intolerance for opposing views’ and ‘a vogue for public shaming and ostracism’? In doing so we were not really defending the right to debate and criticise, according to In These Times: we were trying to squelch debate and censor our own critics, exhibiting a ‘bizarre aversion to being argued against … [that] now borders on the pathological’.

This is what citizens of cancel culture have apparently learned from Donald Trump: confound your critics by accusing them of precisely the sins you’re busy committing. Social-justice warriors have long demanded protection from the ‘trauma’ of hearing speech they deem offensive, calling for suppression of the speech and shunning of the speaker. So, employing Trumpian tactics, they accuse free-speech advocates of the censoriousness and psychic fragility that’s the raison d’être of their movement.

"Anywhere out of this world," said Baudelaire.

And with that I'm going back on hiatus to work on the book on Marx, as well as the drearier tasks presented by post-mortem bureaucracy in the modern world.

Several dozen Princeton faculty call for massive and systematic violation of their colleagues' contractual right to academic freedom...

...for the holy cause of "anti-racism."   ("Anti-racism" doesn't, in fact, mean opposition to racism any longer, for those who have not been paying attention.  And what is the connection between an abusive cop killing George Floyd in Minneapolis and alleged racism at Princeton?  There isn't any, of course.)  Some portions of the letter are harmless and predictable--the standard opportunism of the moment to claim resources and positions--but this proposal is chilling:

11. Constitute a committee composed entirely of faculty that would oversee the investigation and discipline of racist behaviors, incidents, research, and publication on the part of faculty, following a protocol for grievance and appeal to be spelled out in Rules and Procedures of the Faculty. Guidelines on what counts as racist behavior, incidents, research, and publication will be authored by a faculty committee for incorporation into the same set of rules and procedures.

This is simply a call to violate the contractual academic freedom rights of faculty at Princeton.  Have any signatories, one wonders, even thought about academic freedom and its purpose?  Do they realize that the only review of "research and publications" by scholars that is consistent with academic freedom is one based on applicable disciplinary standards?  Vetting the moral or political bona fides of scholarship is what universities without academic freedom do.

Reminder about my July blogging hiatus

MOVING TO FRONT FROM JUNE 28

Just a reminder that I'm taking a break from blogging for July (so starting Wednesday), so as to make progress on a book and deal with some other matters.  I'll resume a reduced blogging schedule in August.   If there's something very time-sensitive I may post something in July, but otherwise please don't send me stuff for the blog until the very end of July.  Thanks as always for reading.

A petition in support of philosophy at Illinois Wesleyan

Here.  (Thanks to Aaron Garrett for creating it.)

Is Illinois Wesleyan V-P for Finance Matt Bierman responsible for the disastrous proposals there?

Philosopher Christopher Pynes (Western Illinois), one of the editors of the PGR, writes:

I have to say that I feel bad for Illinois Wesleyan. Back in 2018, when Matt Bierman became a VP of finance there, I thought, maybe I should email the philosophers and warn them about him.  Matt Bierman was the budget director at WIU when philosophy, religious studies, women's studies, and Afrian American studies were eliminated in June of 2016.

Bierman was a major voice in the elimination of the programs as the WIU budget director. He believes that universities have to have six months operating cash in reserves (more than the WIU endowment by the way) and that all programs have to have so many majors and graduates a year to justify the programs. Have a look at my blog post from March 2016 on those metrics: https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2016/03/evaluating-philosophy-programs-a-cautionary-tale-about-the-ibhe.html

I don't know how much influence Matt Bierman has at IWU, but given what he did at WIU to promote the elimination of philosophy, promote layoffs, and other cost cutting measures, I believe he is at it again. He's one of the reasons I created the Budget Transparency Committee for our Faculty Senate. I now wish I had reached out to the philosophers at IWU, but it's hard to warn others of an idealogue like Matt Bierman without coming off like a crazy person oneself.  I figured at a liberal arts school, they could handle it.  I was wrong.

Here's the Bierman appointment announcement from 2018.

https://www.iwu.edu/news/2018/bierman-named-vice-president-for-business-and-finance.html

Board of Illinois Wesleyan, a leading liberal arts college in the Midwest, is considering eliminating Philosophy!

This is quite shocking in several respects:   the Philosophy Department, as noted in the PGR, is one of a small handful of regional liberal arts colleges with a notably strong philosophy faculty, all its members being well-trained and productive members of the profession; in addition, the President of Illinois Wesleyan is a classicist, S. Georgia Nugent, who in a prior Presidency, at Kenyon College, was noted for her strong commitment to the liberal arts and especially the humanities.

All four tenured members of the philosophy department received unexpected notifications on June 12 that their program might be closed and that their tenured appointments could be terminated if no suitable alternative positions were found in the university.    And it's not just Philosophy that is a target here, but also Anthopology, French, Italian, Religious Studies, Sociology, and the School of Music.  (26 Illinois Wesleyan faculty received these notices:  over 20% of Illinois Wesleyan's faculty!)  If they go through with this, there is no sense in which the school will remain a "liberal arts" college.

Over 2 million GBP grant from Templeton for project on "Global Philosophy of Religion"...

...led by philosopher Yujin Nagasawa (Birmingham).

On science denial

Philosopher Adrian Bardon (Wake Forest) comments.  I'm pretty skeptical of the adaptaionist explanation for this, even if the phenomenon described is currently all-too-real.

On the phenomenology of solitude

Philosopher Dermot Moran (Boston College) comments.

An interview with philosopher David Wallace (Pittsburgh)...

...about Black Holes.

COVID and higher education...

...with a particular focus on Boston University, from philosopher Daniel Star at BU.  BU has not been covering itself in glory with its approach to faculty and graduate students during the crisis.

Is the philosopher's concept of knowledge an outlier?

This is amusing, if not wholly surprising (after all, if the philosopher's just matched the "ordinary" one what work would the philosopher be doing?):

We find that academics and laypeople share a similar concept of knowledge, while philosophers have a substantially different concept. These experiments show that (a) in contrast to philosophers, other academics and laypeople attribute knowledge to others in some “Gettier” situations; (b) academics and laypeople are much less likely to attribute knowledge when reminded of the possibility of error, but philosophers are not affected by this reminder; and (c) non‐philosophy academics are overall more skeptical about knowledge than laypeople or philosophers.

Where is the self?

Philosopher Shaun Gallagher (Memphis) comments.

Good news out of Poland

President Duda, of the illiberal and reactionary "Law and Justice [sic]" party, has been forced into a run-off election.  Good luck to Poland, where democratic processes may yet oust the neanderthals from power.

Great moments in obscure rock 'n' roll: Red Dirt, "Maybe I'm Right," 1970

We haven't featured this Yorkshire band since 2016, but here's another tune from their debut album:

 

What is it like to be a philosopher? Anne Margaret Baxley edition

Here, courtesy of Clifford Sosis as always.

Philosopher James Ladyman (Bristol) on the plan to close philosophy at UWE

Here.

There is no bottom to dumb, part 392: protesters in Madison tear down statue of an abolitionist

Yikes.

Another amusing take on Isaiah Berlin...

...from the theologian David Hart Bentley in this week's TLS, explaining his judgment that Berlin is "fraudulent":

I was moved to the more intemperate word by reading his short book The Magus of the North, putatively about Johann Georg Hamann (1730–88), a volume universally deplored by Hamann scholars as a bumptious tour de force of ignorance and casual slander. It is clear that Berlin hadn’t much notion of what Hamann thought about anything, and clearly hadn’t consulted the scholarly literature....

In a sense, however, that book was an expression of the real problem with Berlin. He was a man whose learning was broad(-ish) but rarely deep. He wrote a good deal about philosophy and philosophers, but was himself possessed of very little in the way of philosophical sophistication. The result was that he tended to reduce the subjects of his work to simplified and rather vaguely impressionistic sketches. There is a definite intellectual laziness in his evaluations of the topics he discusses. Many of his essays, consequently, turn out to be little more substantial than senior common room chatter or an after-dinner talk delivered to an aldermen’s association over the port and cheese.

This is not an especially grave sin, but neither is it an especially admirable virtue. He was a generalist committed to a very particular and somewhat simplistic narrative of “Enlightenment” and he interpreted almost all of intellectual history through that fabulous ideal. As is inevitable when one looks at everything through a narrow and tinted lens, his view of the things he wrote about was often distorted, monochromatic and devoid of all those nuances that rigorous scholars insist on bringing to light.

(Thanks to David Gordon for the pointer.)

It pays not to read the mail: a Paul Grice story

A propos this, philosopher Ian Rumfitt (Oxford) wrote to John Rapko and myself the following (which he kindly gave permission to share):

Your story about finding an unopened letter from Isaiah Berlin in one of Paul Grice's books reminded me of a tale told by a colleague of Grice's at St John's College Oxford in the 1960s.

UC Berkeley was keen to lure Grice from Oxford. In the manner of those days, they wrote a formal letter offering him a full professorship with a specified starting salary. Some weeks having elapsed without their having received a reply, they assumed that Grice had found the proffered salary insultingly low and wrote again, with a better proposal. Once more, they heard nothing, so they wrote a third time, offering him a *very* generous salary. This last letter happened to arrive shortly before Grice's six-monthly opening of his correspondence -- which is how HPG came to accept the third offer and move to California.

I don't know what the moral of the tale might be. Maybe: it doesn't always pay to open letters promptly.

Things "we" now know that we didn't know about COVID a few months ago

I first started posting about COVID in February, and created a separate "coronavirus" category in early March.  Reviewing these posts, here are a few things that lept out at me:

1.  When the CDC said wearing masks wasn't needed, that was false:  it would have made a difference then, as it does now.  It defies belief that there are some states in this benighted country not requiring that masks be worn in public places that are indoors.

2.  The anxiety about ventilator supply in the U.S. was mostly misplaced.   There was stress in New York City in particular, due to the massive surge in cases, but even there I gather they met the demand.  More importantly, we discovered that avoiding ventilators in favor of high-flow oxygen canulas and masks led to better outcomes for patients.

3.   The question of heat and the novel coronavirus looks to have been settled:  heat doesn't have much or any effect, as the surging cases in Arizona, Florida, Texas, and Southern California, among other places, attest.

4.   People rarely get COVID from contaminated surfaces or from passing someone outdoors who has it (are there any confirmed cases of such transmission?).  The primary transmission occurs indoors with prolonged exposure (10-15 minutes or more).   The worse the ventilation, the more likely transmission is, and the more people are talking, singing, sneezing, or coughing, the more likely transmission is.

It's stunning, though, what we still don't know.  We don't know why some people get very sick, while others have no symptoms or mild illness, even when controlling for known variables like age, pre-existing conditions, obesity, and the like.  We also don't know why this virus ends up doing damage to so many different organs. 

Feel free to offer links to correct any of the preceding claims.

Isaiah Berlin's vendettas

MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY

Suitably scathing description of the overrated windbag.

(Thanks to Phil Gasper for the pointer.)

UPDATE:  Longtime reader John Rapko writes:

Thanks for posting Ali's bit about Caute on Isaiah Berlin; I had overlooked it. I share your view on Isaiah Berlin. I think you'll be amused by this anecdote: 20 or so years ago, I was looking at recent arrivals at Moe's Books in Berkeley, a store where I've passed a few thousand pleasant hours. There were quite a few battered old philosophy books from the 1930s through the 60's, some of which I had never seen. As I flipped through them, I quickly realized that this was part of the library of Paul Grice, who had recently died, as there were various identifying documents stuck in the books. So I got to see a number of Grice's lecture notes and annotations. There was also an unopened (!) letter from around 1960 from Isaiah Berlin to Grice. Of course I opened it, and read Berlin informing Grice that he, Berlin, had no objection to admitting the dim-witted son of some Tory MP to Oxford. The tone of the letter was very chummy--'Oh you know, Paul, I have no problem with that sort of thing'. I took the letter, and a couple of years later showed it to Richard Wollheim, who suggested that I send it to Henry Hardie, who was then editing Berlin's letters. Alas, I simply forgot to do so, and I'm pretty sure I've got it stuck in a volume of Berlin's selected writings. But perhaps it's for the best, as Hardie may well have chosen not to print it. If by chance you ever know of someone who's writing on Berlin's shady Cold War shenanigans, please let me know and I'll send them a copy of the letter.

You can reach Professor Rapko at:  johnrapko-at-yahoo-dot-com

Blast from the past: most important epistemologists since 1945

Back in 2016.

Richard Marshall interviews Muhammed Ali Khalidi (York U, moving to CUNY)...

...at 3:16 AM.

Comparative policing: the case of Austria

Man fined for farting.

"The Economic Origins of Mass Incarceration"

This is quite interesting, a plausible alternative to the account popularized by Michelle Alexander in The New Jim Crow.

(Thanks to Chris Lewis for the pointer.)

ADDENDUM:  From the essay:

Race is relevant because it is our best explanation for the absence of a working-class movement on the American continent, and thus the persistent underdevelopment of American social policy.⁷⁷ American slavery and then Jim Crow delayed the proletarianization of African Americans, with the result that they arrived in Northern cities after the first wave of American industrialization, in urban environments in which pivotal, scarce resources (jobs and housing) were hoarded by the first and second generations of established white ethnics. This was an environment destined to yield working-class disunity. Black Americans strove to penetrate well-protected labor and housing markets. It was no surprise that established incumbents would craft caste-based remedies to exclude them. Such strategies were rational, even if suboptimal in the long run.

In this sense, partisans of the standard story are not wrong to link American mass incarceration to American slavery. But they are connected not because slavery established some transhistorical imperative that America be always a land of white domination. Rather, they are connected because the plantation economy tied African-American labor to the land until 1940. Blacks were thus bypassed by America’s industrial boom. They are connected also because slavery was largely responsible for an American federalism which assigns law enforcement to those parts of the state least capable of paying the higher costs of redistributive remedies.⁷⁸ In the final reckoning, the story of the twin exceptions that have been the subject of this essay starts with this history.

Another COVID Dr. Doom, Israel's Anthony Fauci (as it were)

Like the earlier one, he may be right (he's focused, naturally, on Israel, but one can extrapolate to other places).  Short version:  if you're under 50, you should be fine; if you're over 70, you're in trouble; between 50-70, mixed prospects.

A controversy regarding leadership and accountability at U of Arizona's "Freedom Center"

Originally launched by the well-known political philosopher David Schmidtz in 2008, the Freedom Center initially attracted (mostly pointless) controversy for its Koch funding, but in recent years it has benefitted from direct (!) appropriations from the state legislature.  But the current controversy is different:  some University of  Arizona philosophy faculty, including some previously involved with the Center, are objecting to unilateral and opaque decision-making by Professor Schdmitz.  Even an external review of the Center confirmed concerns about this.

(Thanks to Dan Russell for the pointer.)

Modelling COVID spread on campus

This is sobering.

David Hume statue targetted by protestors in Edinburgh

Who knew there were so many Kantians in Edinburgh?  Joking aside, if holding the same view as your 18th-century contemporaries is grounds for being de-statued, not many will last.

(Thanks to Filippo Contessi for the pointer.)

Australian government decides to destroy humanities in higher ed

What a disaster.

UPDATE:  Philosopher Antony Eagle (Adelaide) has more details about this mischief, which has ramifictions beyond the humanities.

On the meaning of statues

Philosopher Les Green (Oxford & Queen's U) comments.

In Memoriam: D.H. (Hugh) Mellor (1938-2020)

Professor Mellor, who spent his career at Cambridge University, was best-known for his work in metaphysics, although his philosophical interests ranged widely.  I will add links to memorial notices as they appear.

Great moments in obscure rock 'n' roll: Tear Gas, "Big House," 1970

Another great tune from this long-forgotten Scottish rock band:

 

"University" [sic] of the West of England proposing to close its philosophy program...

..no doubt as part of a plan to revert to being a polytechnic in all but name.  There's a petition in support of philosophy you can sign here, and details about the proposed closure and the department here; the latter includes contact information for the administrators at UWE.  Philosopher Amia Srinivasan (Oxford) kindly gave permission to share the apt e-mail she sent:

Dear Prof West; dear Dr Griffiths; dear Prof Coffey,

I am writing to express my profound disappointment and dismay at the news that UWE Bristol is proposing to shut down its philosophy department. A university without a philosophy department is not a university -- not, that is, an institution dedicated to free and humanistic inquiry. It is, instead, a technical shop that has subjected itself to the instrumentalist logic of efficiency and economic growth. If these plans are seen through, I assure you that your administration will be seen by academics across the UK and around the world as the people who not only destroyed what was once an excellent philosophy department, but moreover betrayed the values of learning, truth and education. In turn, the reputation of the institution whose interests you are charged with serving will suffer gravely. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider.

Yours Sincerely,

Amia Srinivasan

Chichele Professor of Social and Political Theory

All Souls College, Oxford

More evidence for the "war crimes" trials for the failed U.S. war on COVID

Here; an excerpt:

Had American leaders taken the decisive, early measures that several other nations took when they had exactly the same information the U.S. did, at exactly the same time in their experience of the novel coronavirus, how many of these Covid-19 deaths could have been prevented?

That isn’t a hypothetical question. And the answer that emerges from a direct comparison of the fatalities in and policies of the U.S. and other countries — South Korea, Australia, Germany, and Singapore — indicates that between 70% and 99% of the Americans who died from this pandemic might have been saved by measures demonstrated by others to have been feasible.

Certainly if there had been adequate testing available, the incidence of asymptomtic staff infecting residents in nursing homes and assisted living facilities would have been far less frequent.

Best places to publish in ancient philosophy and related questions

MOVING TO FRONT FROM JUNE 15--MORE COMMENTS WELCOME

A reader writes:

I know the top 4 specialist journals are (1) Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, (2) Phronesis, and tied for (3) Apeiron and Ancient Philosophy, but I've wondered about, e.g. The Journal of Ancient Philosophy, and also about the importance of varying between specialist journals and general history of philosophy journals. Also useful would be advice from established scholars on the extent to which one should form one's paper differently for an ancient philosophy specialist journal as opposed to a general history of philosophy journal as opposed to, potentially, a classics journal.

Signed comments will be very strongly preferred here.  Thanks.

Richard Marshall interviews John Burgess (Princeton)...

...at 3:16 AM.

The obstacles to ethical vaccine challenge studies

Bioethicist Carl Elliott (Minnesota) comments.

(Thanks to Mark Pavlick for the pointer.)

COVID-19 planning for higher education

A detailed set of recommendations from the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

Can U.S. faculty be forced to come back to campus in the fall?

This is useful, from a law professor.  The short answer seems to be: yes, unless you have a claim for accomodation (i.e., being permitted to work remotely) under the Americans with Disabilities Act:

For those who have not previously requested accommodations, they first must prove they are eligible. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has suggested that if employees have conditions that make them more susceptible to Covid-19, employers should take steps to eliminate the direct threat posed by Covid-19.

Faculty members who seek accommodations under the ADA must show that that they will be able to perform the essential functions of their job at home. When most colleges thrust faculty members into online teaching in March and continued to pay them, the colleges essentially agreed that faculty members are able to perform the essential functions of their jobs from home, at least during this pandemic. Colleges would be hard pressed to now argue that working from home is not a reasonable accommodation. Moreover, they have resisted tuition refunds for students this spring on the grounds that online education is not inferior to in-person classes....

The self-destruction of the American press

Very amusing and mostly right too!

(Thanks to Mark Couch for the pointer).

And now some thoughts from Dr. Doom...

...but he's a serious and informed virologist.  Let's hope he's too pessimistic, but that's only a hope.

"Contemporary Legal Realism"

A special journal issue of solicited contributions at Iuris Dictio, a law journal from Ecuador.  Some, but not all, of the essays are in English.  Besides my own essay, there are contributions by the leading figures in contemporary Italian and French legal realism (Riccardo Guastini and Michel Troper, respectively).

Cheap and widely available steroid drug cuts mortality in patients seriously ill with COVID

A welcome bit of news:

For patients on ventilators, it cut the risk of death from 40% to 28%. For patients needing oxygen, it cut the risk of death from 25% to 20%.

Chief investigator Prof Peter Horby said: "This is the only drug so far that has been shown to reduce mortality - and it reduces it significantly. It's a major breakthrough."

Statement by Alex Byrne (MIT) regarding the debate with Professor Dembroff

It is here (background here).  I would especially call readers' attention to his point #4, which sheds further light on Professor Dembroff's ongoing attempts to distract and deflect.

 

Cedric Johnson on "Black Lives Matter"

This is worth reading; an excerpt:

While a slim majority of Americans now believe police are more likely to use excessive force against blacks than other groups, millions more do not share the most militant calls to defund or dismantle police departments voiced by some activists.1 Most Americans are upset by police killings, but they also want more effective policing. Over the last five years, satisfaction with police has strengthened among all ethnic and racial groups, including African Americans (from 50% “at least somewhat satisfied” in 2015 to 72% now).

Black Lives Matter sentiment is essentially a militant expression of racial liberalism. Such expressions are not a threat but rather a bulwark to the neoliberal project that has obliterated the social wage, gutted public sector employment and worker pensions, undermined collective bargaining and union power, and rolled out an expansive carceral apparatus, all developments that have adversely affected black workers and communities. Sure, some activists are calling for defunding police departments and de-carceration, but as a popular slogan, Black Lives Matter is a cry for full recognition within the established terms of liberal democratic capitalism. And the ruling class agrees.

Still more on Phil Studies and the Dembroff-Byrne debate

Just a recap from last week:  

1.  Philosophical Studies (hereafter "PS") published a paper by philosopher Robin Dembroff (Yale) critiquing an earlier paper in PS by philosopher Alex Byrne (MIT).

2.  The Dembroff paper contained, as the former EIC Stewart Cohen put it, "unprofessional personal attacks" on Byrne (e.g., claiming that Byrne's paper was really "an unscholarly attempt to vindicate a political slogan that is currently being used to undermine civic rights and respect for trans persons” and wondering "about the motives of someone who would so confidently insert themself into this high-stakes discourse while so ill-informed.”  (Clarificatory note:  Professor Dembroff insists on referring to everyone by the third-person plural pronoun even if the indivdiuals in question would prefer "he" or "she," hence the use of "themself" to refer to Byrne)

3.  Springer policy forbids "descriptions of [an individual's] behavior or actions that could potentially be seen as personal attacks or allegations about that person."   Cohen, as EIC, was also committed to that policy.

4.  Given that the Dembroff paper was pretty clearly in violation of that policy, Cohen, as EIC, proposed two remedies:  (a)  PS would "make a public announcement owning up to the mistake" and reminding "prospective authors" that "personal attacks" are not permissible and that referees have a responsibility to alert the editor to such attacks; and (b) giving the target of the personal attack, Byrne, a right of reply.

5.  One other senior editor and Springer rejected these remedies, and Professor Cohen resigned as EIC and asked me to share his statement in public.

Laurie Paul calls to my attention that her colleague Professor Dembroff has now made a public response on Facebook.  It begins, oddly, with three statements of "principle" (as it were) that are not at issue in this case:

Regarding recent decisions at Philosophical Studies:

(1) All papers submitted to a philosophical journal should be subject to a transparent and professional editorial process. No paper should receive special treatment (be it harsh or favorable) because of an editor’s relationship to an author, or the editor’s personal views about the philosophical thesis defended.

(2) Academic freedom is a foundational value of philosophical scholarship. It should be restricted only with great caution. Calls to censor an academic paper that has been accepted after a transparent and professional editorial process, especially one that has gone through the double-blind peer review process, violate this foundational value.

(3) Typically, neither statements about matters of public interest nor true statements are defamatory.

Regarding (2):  there is no violation of academic freedom because a journal has editorial standards that bar personal attacks, as PS does; Cohen's proposed remedies (see my #4, above) did not include a "call[] to censor" the paper.  Perhaps Dembroff meant a call to"censure" the paper, which would be involved in a public statement acknowledging the failure to enforce journal policies.  But since the "censure" pertained to the violation of editorial standards, it would not implicate academic freedom, for the reasons already noted.  (It's a separate question whether post-publication censure is appropriate:  the issue arose during the Synthese debacle a number of years ago, and I'm inclined to think it's a bad idea, but it does  not violate academic freedom.  In the Synthese case, the editors, bizarrely, censured all the papers in the special issue, without naming the offending one.) 

Big victory for LGBT rights at the Supreme Court

The Court finds that the 1964 law barring "sex discrimination" includes discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status.   Roberts and Gorsuch joined the more liberal justices on this--I haven't had a chance to read the decision, but they are textualists in matters of statutory interpretation, so were no doubt persuaded that what members of Congree in 1964 thought about gay people was not the issue, and that discriminating against people because, e.g, they are attracted to members of the same sex was pretty clearly discrimination based on sex.

Thinking in quarantine

Philosopher Zena Hitz (St. John's, Annapolis) comments.