MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY--MANY INTERESTING COMMENTS (SEE ESP. TIM WILLIAMSON'S REMARK)
As usual, philosopher of science David Wallace (Pittsburgh) has a sensible take on the matter noted earlier today, and I thank him for sharing this letter. (Professor Wallace focuses on OUP's decision not to honor a contract to publish a book by Professor Byrne on gender issues, also discussed in his essay.)
Dear Peter,
I'm writing to express my very grave concern about the recent article by Alex Byrne (published in Quillette, linked to on Justin Weinberg's and Brian Leiter's blogs) about his recent experience with OUP, especially (but not only) the abrupt cancellation, apparently with essentially no explanation, of his contracted book, "Trouble with Gender". (I won't try to summarize further: the details are easy to find online and you probably know them already.)
Perhaps there is another side to the story. But at face value it is very hard to avoid the conclusion that OUP cancelled Byrne's contracted book, outside the normal process of peer review and iterated feedback, because for whatever reason it does not want to be associated with a certain constellation of views on one side of the very heated debate on trans issues and trans rights.
I don't think this is an academically defensible position for any university press to take, especially one as preeminent as OUP. I don't think anyone in academia or academic publishing, whatever their position on the first-order issues, could think that the way Byrne (and, by his account, other authors) was treated is appropriate or acceptable. I don't think progress on these difficult political-moral questions is well served by censorship, and I don't think an academic press should countenance censorship even if it did serve some political goal.
I would be delighted to learn that this is some pure misunderstanding, or some transitory error of judgement that is now being put right. I have enormous respect as an author, reader, and partisan of Oxford for the service OUP provides for the academic community and especially for philosophy - but right now, and I really regret having to say this, I have serious doubts about continuing to publish with OUP.
Best wishes
David
PS I have made the text of this letter public, since I think it's important that senior academics make public the strength of their feelings on the need to protect academic freedom. However, I will treat any reply you make as confidential.
I am opening comments for readers who wish to note their support for Professor Wallace's position, which I think is the right one. It is a disappointing turn of events (especially because Peter Momtchiloff is an excellent philosophy editor, as everyone who has dealt with him previously knows), but this isn't the first time that OUP has caved into pressure from the censors. I hope that OUP will make a public statement about this episode.
