Philosopher and leading Hume scholar Paul Russell writes:
I think that a number of your readers may be interested to see how this debate/controversy has developed. In particular, Ashton and Hutton make a strong case [longer treatment] that not only is Waldmann's original accusation [against Hume] either groundless (with respect to the charge of slavery) or exaggerated (with respect to the charge of "racism"), the university is guilty of a serious violation of standards and procedural justice. The key point relating to this is the following:
"... It is astonishing that the university leadership took this decision without appearing to question the basis of the allegations made against Hume; his guilt was taken as self-evident. It took less than three months from the launch of the online petition to the decision to remove Hume's name. Many would regard this as precipitate; after all, in a court of law, the evaluation of the evidence usually precedes the verdict."
Given the (fresh) evidence and analysis that Ashton and Hutton present, the procedural matter is compounded by the falsity of the original charge.
Since the "taint" of the charges of being "directly involved in the slave trade" and being "an unashamed racist" still hang over Hume's reputation at Edinburgh and beyond, I think that this recent contribution should be widely circulated (espcially within the philosophy community).
Earlier coverage here.
Recent Comments