MOVING TO FRONT FROM MAY 4--FURTHER DISCUSSION INVITED; A LETTER IS BEING PREPARED ALONG THE LINES SUGGESTED BY PROF MECKLED-GARCIA IN THE COMMENTS
UPDATE: NOW OPEN FOR DISCUSSION IN THE COMMENTS
I've heard in the last day from two readers (both women as it happens, one an untenured faculty member, one a student) taking issue with my expressed skepticism yesterday about whether a petition or open letter was called for. Here's what the student wrote:
I would ask that you please keep my comments entirely anonymous since I am not in a position to speak publicly right now about the matter at hand. I just graduated from a well regarded philosophy MA program and will be applying to philosophy Ph.D programs soon and I have been absolutely sick about this whole matter with Rebecca Tuvel. I went into philosophy because I felt that it was important to be able to ask hard questions and give difficult answers in reference to important topics without worrying about risking the offense of the politically correct mob. I was wondering if someone could start an online petition asking for the resignation of everyone associated with Hypatia's editorial board. This is utterly beyond the pale and I am livid about it. I understand that many people are sick of these online petitions, but I feel that we owe it to Rebecca Tuvel and other up and coming young feminist philosophers like me who are concerned by this sort of thing to create a record of support at least as visible as the damaging record attacking this scholar's credibility that is now part of posterity. I feel I am in too vulnerable of a position myself to start the petition, but I will sign it openly if someone else starts it.
If someone wants to draft something and send it to me, I'll be glad to offer feedback and then publicize it upon release.
UPDATE: Philosopher Mazviita Chirimuuta (Pittsburgh) writes:
Brian, I'd like to make the case that the last thing the profession needs at this point is another petition or letter. As we all know, these are politically challenging times and many of us will have recently joined marches, called senators, signed petitioned, and felt unable to make powerful people accountable for manifestly harmful deeds. The current administration cozies up to white supremacists and laughs at the idea of trans rights. Do those people care about online petitions? Of course not. What concerns me is that this frustrated desire for action and accountability is being channeled against individuals and groups in our own profession who *can* be held accountable, and indeed harmed by such actions. It's too tempting to unconsciously bracket well-intentioned colleagues whose views and methods trouble us with these remote and unaccountable adversaries, and direct our anger on them. That's cathartic, I imagine. I put this out there as a pure speculation -- so readers, please don't take it as a dig or attack on my part -- but I think this helps explain the intensity of the response that the Tuvel publication elicited. Which gets me to why the last thing we need is another online petition or open letter. If you feel that your liberal and scholarly values are threatened by the editors of Hypatia, and feel the urgency to do something, please pause a minute to consider who your real enemies are. (Maybe... politicians who are ready to torch the humanities, free speech, and the very idea of facts.) Is your desire for action really best directed against some fellow philosophers? Isn't there a way to charitably interpret their actions as at least aiming at outcomes which you yourself would take to be positive -- i.e. greater inclusivity in our profession, and social justice more widely? Whether or not you can find anything good to say about the "other side", please consider whether it is in our collective interest to spend time and energy on attacking each other.
I am not sure anyone is channeling anger about Trump towards Hypatia; I think academics are genuinely angry about the misconduct by the Hypatia editors. But Prof. Chirimuuta raises fair questions, and I invite discussion of them as well. Another philosopher, in the UK, writes with a related question:
Do you think that concerned philosophers (individually) should be raising with Wiley and/or with their librarians the question of whether the journal Hypatia remains credible under its current board? It certainly has had some great content in the past but will anyone want to publish in it, or cite its recent content, now that we know that (a) peer review is not tegarded as decisive and may be second-guessed on political grounds and (b) the official retraction policy is a sham?
I would prefer signed comments, but pseudonymous or anonymous ones will be permitted here, as long as they are relevant, substantive and include a valid e-mail address (which will not appear).
