...actually continues to defend it in the pages of CHE. There is much that could be said--I'll open comments for substantive criticism--but let me observe that the reason this was of interest to so many academic philosophers was that it breached a basic professional norm and expectation: if your article passes peer review, is accepted for publication by the editor(s), and then published, the author may reasonably expect that the other editors of the journal will not denounce the article and apologize for publishing it in the absence of plagiarism or fraud, neither of which were at issue here. I also encourage readers to send letters to the editor of CHE in response (that information is at the end of the article).
UPDATE: I submitted the following comment after the article at the CHE site:
Prof. Winnubst professes surprise that scholars not working in or interested in feminist philosophy would have taken an interest in this affair, but that posture can only be sustained because she does not plainly state what struck so many as outrageous about what transpired. As I put it in the blog post to which she links above: "I confess I've never seen anything like this in academic philosophy...A tenure-track assistant professor submits her article to a journal, it passes peer review, it is published, others take offense, and the Associate Editors of the journal declare that 'Clearly, the article should not have been published" and that the abuse to which the author is being subjected is "both predictable and justifiable.' Even the Synthese fiasco in 2011 [another case of editorial misconduct] did not involve behavior this egregious by the editors (and all the editors there stepped down not long after that fiasco)." This shocking breach of professional norms for editorial behavior was of course of great interest to the academic community, and certainly to those, like me, who write regularly about academic freedom.
