A Brief Reply from the Chronicle of Higher Ed

Regarding the previous item, I received the following note from Alex Kafka, a Deputy Editor at the Chronicle, who gave me permission to post it here:

Thanks for your interest in, and careful reading of, The Chronicle Review. Please send essays, ideas, story tips, etc. any time (please see guidelines here).  We are always seeking knowledgeable, articulate, and varied voices for our pages.

I hope some philosophers will submit suitable items!

UPDATE:  Fritz Warfield (Notre Dame) writes:

I'd certainly welcome thoughtful well informed philosophers contributing to the Chronicle. And I'm happy that the deputy editor who replied to your Open Letter would too.

But this would not address the main problem we have right now. The Chronicle has shown via a long string of *very* bad essays about philosophy (almost all by outsiders who know little about the field) that it almost certainly can't tell the good from the bad in this area. It can't even tell the "routinely bad" from the "truly awful" --- though one might argue that the steady publication of the *truly awful* suggests that they *can* tell it apart from the merely bad; they
can tell it apart and they prefer it to the merely bad.

The Chronicle needs not only to be open to informed work about philosophy (which I believe they are), it has to stop publishing ignorant rubbish!