Bruya doesn't speak for scholars of Chinese philosophy

This should really go without saying, but no one should assume that Brian Bruya's incompetent hit piece on the PGR represents the views of all those (or even any of those) who work on Chinese philosophy (a field that I personally wish were better represented, since I have always found work in the area I've read by P.J. Ivanhoe, Bryan van Norden, and Stephen Angle, among many others, iilluminating).  In any case, a graduate student writes to helpfully make the point:

I study Chinese philosophy at the PhD level and I'll be honest: I'm a bit embarrassed by the Brian Bruya stir-up. As much as I would like to see Chinese philosophy more well-received and popular, I can't help but think his methods in this article are manifestly wrong. The rounds of Chinese philosophy grumbling after the publication of each report are nothing new, but that stuff should really stay in "comments" sections of websites, not take up space in respectable journals.

I'm a bit surprised that I'm claiming that Prof Bruya's critique is so misplaced, since he also published an article over the summer in the Chinese philosophy journal Dao that was diagnostic of the field as a whole and its reluctance to take Chinese philosophy seriously---something I thought was common knowledge among Chinese philosophy folk. That article didn't strike me quite as methodologically suspicious (I didn't read it very carefully though), but then again nor was it as polemical or manifestly wrong. 

Blaming the messenger and attacking the PGR I think does more harm then good with respect making Chinese philosophy more respectable, and since my livelihood depends upon that being the case, I felt the need to speak up. That Chinese philosophy is not "higher up on the list" is not the fault of the PGR, but the fault of the discipline as a whole and I would also say, to a certain extent, Chinese philosophy folk themselves. Of course it's an uphill battle to get programs to take world philosophy more seriously, so give them a reason to! As a person in the Chinese philosophy subfield, I can't help but think that Bruya's efforts would have been better spent giving mainstream philosophy a reason to take Chinese philosophy seriously rather than complaining that the discipline's assessors do not.

I would just like to make it clear that at least one Chinese philosophy representative finds the PGR helpful and diagnostic and condemns Bruya's confused critique.