Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

Two philosophers among recipients of Killam Awards in Canada

They are:  Thomas Hurka (Toronto) and Dominic McIver Lopes (British Columbia).

More on Orban and the CEU...

...at 3 Quarks Daily.

(Thanks to Richard Marshall for the pointer.)

Philosophers who signed the "Open Letter" about Tuvel's article on transracialism: why?

There's a nice takedown of the letter here, though as I noted in an earlier posting, most signatories (happily) are not academic philosophers.  But some are, including the very first signatory (Elise Springer [Wesleyan], who may or may not be the author, I do not know).   (Here's a copy of the letter with the signatories, the original letter site is down.)

Here are the philosophers whose names I recognized who signed this letter along with their institutional affiliation (I'm sure I missed some):  Elise Springer (Wesleyan), Lori Gruen (Wesleyan), Alice MacLachlan (York, Toronto), Tempest Henning (Vanderbilt), Luvell Anderson (Memphis), Gaile Polhaus (Miami University, Ohio), Samanthan Brennan (Western Ontario), Adriel Trott (Wabash), Leigh Johnson (Christian Brothers), Cynthia Willett (Emory), Lisa Guenther (Vanderbilt), Sharyn Clough (Oregon State), Ed Kazarian (Rowan), Cassie Herbert (Georgetown), Nora Berenstain (Tennessee), Rachel McKinnon (Charleston), Naomi Scheman (Minnesota), Rocio Zambrana (Oregon), Perry Zurn (American/Penn), Robin James (UNC-Charlotte), Karen Frost-Arnold (Hobart & William Smith), Julinna Oxley (Coastal Carolina), Daniel Smith (Penn State), Lisa Miracchi (Penn), Mark Lance (Georgetown), Ammon Allred (Toledo), Janice Dowell (Syracuse), Axel Mueller (Northwestern), Jill Gordon (Colby), Lynne Tirrell (U Mass, Boston), Alisa Carse (Georgetown), R.A. Briggs (Stanford),Lori Watson (San Diego), Annaleigh Curtis (PhD, Colorado; currently an attorney), Gabriel Rockhill (Villanova).

As a couple of readers pointed out to me, two signatories--Gruen and Guenther--were actually members of Prof. Tuvel's dissertation committee.  What a thing to do to a former student!

Now some of these signatories are among the "usual suspects" involved in cyber-nonsense (see, e.g., here, or here), but many are substantial and accomplished professional philosophers, junior and senior.  So I ask them:  can you please explain why you signed this letter?  You may also indicate if you now regret having signed, in light of the many criticisms that have been made.   Only signatories to the letter may post here (including signatories not mentioned above, whom I missed).  I will not permit responses to the explanations offered, this comment thread is strictly for those who signed the letter.  Given how outrageous this entire episode seems to so many, I think, in the Millian spirit, we need to hear from those involved as to how they are thinking about this episode.

Regarding a possible petition or letter of support for Tuvel

No one I'm aware of has yet produced one, and I don't plan to.  As one correspondent put it to me, we've had enough of "online packs" in philosophy.  (Ironically, Prof. Tuvel herself joined another online pack a few years ago, being one of the roughly 540 philosophers who said they would "boycott" the PGR even though they were not invited to participate in it!)  I will continue to update the earlier post with statements from philosophers about these events.

Philosophers (and others) speak out about the unprofessional conduct of the Hypatia editors and the defamation of Rebecca Tuvel

UPDATED AS OF MAY 3, 11:45 AM CST.

A lot of philosophers have been speaking out about the appalling behavior of the Hypatia editors, and I've gotten permission to share a few responses already.  If you would like to add your own, e-mail me.

Philosopher Debra Satz (Stanford) sums up what is at stake here quite crisply:

A note of appreciation for your post about the Hypatia debacle. I regret to see so many rush to intolerance when confronted with ideas that they disagree with. This kind of response to an argument, even if flawed, -- calling for a retraction, apologies from the associate editors, etc -- will only chill independent thought and limit the exchange of ideas. But these latter are precisely what we need now and also what I thought philosophy was about 

Philosopher José Luis Bermudez (Texas A&M):

I am deeply concerned about what appears, on the evidence available, to be an egregious episode of collective persecution that breaches longstanding norms, not just of academic life but of civilized behavior. I have no comments on Dr. Tuvel’s article, but the correct response to an article with which one disagrees is surely to write a response pointing out perceived flaws in argumentation and evidence. The job of a journal's editorial board is to provide a forum where such disagreements can be voiced, explored, and hopefully resolved. It is not to serve as a weather-vane. Academic life does not, and cannot, proceed via petitions, public shaming, and unfounded accusations of unspecified harms. This sort of behavior does nothing but cast our profession into well-deserved disrepute and mockery.

 Of course, petitions can be appropriate for protesting, e.g., unprofessional conduct by editors, but they have no place in adjudicating published and peer-reviewed scholarship.

Philosopher Matthew Kotzen (UNC-Chapel Hill):

Just wanted to thank you for your post about the outrageous behavior of the editors of Hypatia. This madness is anathema to everything we do as scholars, and I can't tell you how grateful I am to have your prominent voice denouncing it.

Blast from the past: Schliesser on shunning and Ludlow in 2014

This hasn't aged well, which should have been expected even before the Kipnis book.

"Burn the heretic!"

More on philosophers behaving badly.

Adolf Reed, Jr. on the "good" and "bad" trans

Reader Bo-Shan Xiang  calls to my attention this interesting piece from a couple of years ago.

The defamation of Rebecca Tuvel by the Board of Associate Editors of Hypatia and the authors of the Open Letter

I just want to flag something else about the remarkable "apology" issued by the Associate Editors of Hypatia, which a couple of readers flagged for me.  It contains the following:

It is our position that the harms that have ensued from the publication of this article could and should have been prevented by a more effective review process. We are deeply troubled by this and are taking this opportunity to seriously reconsider our review policies and practices. While nothing can change the fact that the article was published, we are dedicated to doing what we can to make things right. Clearly, the article should not have been published, and we believe that the fault for this lies in the review process. In addition to the harms listed above imposed upon trans people and people of color, publishing the article risked exposing its author to heated critique that was both predictable and justifiable. A better review process would have both anticipated the criticisms that quickly followed the publication, and required that revisions be made to improve the argument in light of those criticisms.

The "open letter" is even more explicit that Prof. Tuvel is not, in the view of the signatories, a competent professional scholar, stating that, "Many published articles include some minor defects of scholarship; however, together the problems with this article are glaring," so much so that they demand retraction.

I confess I've never seen anything like this in academic philosophy (admittedly most signatories to the "open letter" are not academic philosophers, but some are).  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 did not involve behavior this egregious by the editors (and all the editors there stepped down not long after that fiasco).

I hope that Prof. Tuvel consults a lawyer about this defamation; and while it looks to me like defamation per se (i.e., damages are presumed since the critics are impugning her competence in her profession), I would imagine showing damage would not be hard.  How can Prof. Tuvel, for example, now use this repudiated but allegedly peer-reviewed article as part of her tenure process?   Indeed, how can her department or college support her for tenure when she has been so vilified as a scholar and professional by people who work in her fields?  I wonder did any of those professing solidarity with those who specialize in taking offense consider the very tangible harm they are doing to the author of this article?

I would encourage someone to set up a petition to denounce the outrageous treatment of Prof. Tuvel by the Hypatia editors.  I would be happy to correspond via e-mail about some draft language, though I will be off-line much of the rest of the day today.

We have been living with an "atmosphere of reckless attack" in philosophy (as one correspondent put it to me in 2014) for awhile now.   I hope this proves to be the final straw, and that the community will finally stand up and denounce this misconduct that should be anathema to a scholarly community.  If Prof. Tuvel does decide to seek legal redress for what has happened to her, I will organize fundraising on her behalf.  It really is time to stop this madness.

Martha Nussbaum's Jefferson Lecture in Humanities can be watched on livestream...

...here at 7:35 pm EST. 

(My thanks to  Ellen Jones at the NEH for sending me the link.)

2017 Lebowitz Prize for outstanding philosophical achievements and contributions...

...goes to Nancy Cartwright (UC San Diego & Durham) and Elliott Sober (Wisconsin).

Speaking of those who want to suppress expression...

...if they were only on the editorial board of Hypatia, we could rest fairly easy, but they're also in the White House.

Thought crimes watch: comparing trans-racialism to transgenderism verboten!

A majority of the editorial board of an allegedly scholarly journal apologizes for publishing an article (which presumably went through whatever passes for peer review there) called "In Defense of Transracialism," by Rebecca Tuvel, an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Rhodes College.  Here's the abstract for the thought crime article:

Former NAACP chapter head Rachel Dolezal’s attempted transition from the white to the black race occasioned heated controversy. Her story gained notoriety at the same time that Caitlyn (formerly Bruce) Jenner graced the cover of Vanity Fair, signaling a growing acceptance of transgender identity. Yet criticisms of Dolezal for misrepresenting her birth race indicate a widespread social perception that it is neither possible nor acceptable to change one’s race in the way it might be to change one’s sex. Considerations that support transgenderism seem to apply equally to transracialism. Although Dolezal herself may or may not represent a genuine case of a transracial person, her story and the public reaction to it serve helpful illustrative purposes. 

Apparently the "harm" to Prof. Tuvel of a public apology by the majority of the editorial board of the journal that published her article was outweighed by the "harm" of her thought crime to transgender people.  (Addendum:  no thought crime is complete without a public letter of protest.  What is chilling about this is that instead of this campaign of vilification of a junior faculty member and demand for "retraction" of her article, someone could have written a response piece and sent it to the same journal.  But this is obviously not a scholarly community, but a political one.  Those familiar with the history of 20th-century Marxist movements will recognize what's going on here, and it isn't a happy sight.)

ADDENDUM:  Just in case the link above goes dead (an earlier link to a remarkable comments thread on Hypatia's facebook page about this article has disappeared already, since it too caused "harm"!), I repost the apology in its entirety: 

Most important philosophy *to you*!

On the streets in Berlin (but near the Humboldt University)--in German, but with English subtitles.   Kant and Hegel do pretty well, though the philosophy teacher (identity unknown) says Nietzsche, but definitely not Hegel!  And what's with this Zizek fascination?  Yikes!

(Thanks to Evan Goodwin for the pointer.)