Julian: tl;dr

Rebecca

On May 30, 2017 8:05 PM, "Julian Vigo" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
>
> I have been following these conversations with great interest. I am aghast
> at some of the intellectual dishonesty taking place and the blindsided
> reactions to sound critique (even if you disagree) herein.
>
>
> For instance, Miriam’s comment here:
>
>
> The remarks here insisting that the original letter signed by 800
> academics are a critique of the institution and not an attack on an
> individual even though almost the entire focus of the letter is on an
> individual scholar who is a junior seem disingenuous to say the least.
> Everybody  here knows how vulnerable Juniors are to quirks in tenure
> committees let alone to such a full scale public excoriation.  Indeed the
> first letter is a pointed threat to juniors and other vulnerable academics
> including grad students about not "getting scholarship wrong" --although
> the reality is not about scholarship but ideology--not getting the ideology
> wrong. In this case pro-trans and what many of us call pro-*gender*
> ideology.
>
>
> I have to concur with what she has written and add this:  today the stakes
> are far higher for junior scholars where winning a lottery seems more
> realisable than landing a tenure-track position, much less keeping one. I
> have seen widely published scholars not receive contract renewals and
> tenure for far less!  And shockingly nobody is discussing this.  For what
> the open letter I helped to craft addresses is precisely this sort of
> ideological homogeneity and intellectual bullying that is taking place
> within higher education and within publishing today.  And it is pervasive,
> make no mistake.
>
>
> The letter is addressed to the academic heads of universities and editors
> to begin a discussion that is long overdue. To make this out as
> authoritarianism is risible at best after many of you have taken advantage
> of your tenure and solidly-confirmed positions in academia to put a junior
> scholar’s tenure and livelihood at risk by addressing the very publication
> en masse, demanding for the retraction of her article.  In writing the
> provosts of universities—not Human Resources, not chairpersons, not
> disciplinary boards—we are asking not for authoritarian censorship or
> discipline (you did that already, thank you very much!). We are demanding
> that there is an accountability of academic scholarship (ie. curricula,
> courses offered, new hires, and publications) and how the arguments are
> being limited to a very strict orthodoxy, quasi-religiosity, when it comes
> to gender identity specifically.  This affects everyone from our students
> to our colleagues to the manner in which the  recruitment of graduate
> students and faculty is undertaken in our departments (ie. hires based not
> on merit but on ideological affinity). I have seen it close up and I know
> those here have as well (but perhaps you have participated from the other
> side of the table).
>
>
> What troubles me in many of the exchanges here between those of you who
> have signed onto the letter to Hypatia is that instead of contemplating
> your actions over these past weeks in reaction to many excellent, valid
> takedowns of them (ie. Singal’s piece remarkably captures the cruelty of
> what some of you have engaged in), it seems clear to me that you have dug
> your heels in all the more, quite secure that your ideological perspectives
> and tactics are the best, that they are the only correct positions to hold,
> and that censorship is the answer to intellectual disagreement.
> Paradoxically, you attempt to contort our open letter to the academic heads
> (not disciplinary heads) of universities and editors into something that
> resembles precisely the intent of the letter you signed, a convenient
> projection I might add.  Indeed while you do not think “it acceptable or
> typical that offering such criticism should be met with penalties in
> employment” (nor do we for that matter),  it is pure hyperbole on your part
> to make such a claim. The role of the provost is to supervise and oversee
> curricular, pedagogical, and research matters. It is entirely appropriate
> that this dialogue take place within all levels of academia and just
> reading the discussion here is evidence that it is still not happening due
> to what appears to be a particular comfort with forcing a monolithic
> discourse around these academic issues.  Hence, it is a perfectly
> reasonable notion that provosts and editors take part in this
> discussion—especially given that nobody here seems to be willing to concede
> that there are valid grounds for critique in how we approach this specific
> subject, particularly how academic feminism is becoming a reactionary force
> that we might considering resisting rather than embracing.
>
> We have raised this issue with academic heads and editors specifically to
> jumpstart the discussion as to how we ended up in a place where a scholar
> whose work has gone through the rigorous peer-review system is subject to
> an extra-institutional hazing of sorts that no other such research in this
> process has ever been subjected to.  As Kathy notes, anyone who is going up
> for even a contract renewal will face great duress, and let’s not even
> address how this will affect her tenure.  Additionally, what happened to
> Tuvel and others has  a domino effect, far-reaching beyond academia’s
> walls—from popular publications to the virtual communities of those who
> pontificate that words equal murder, where women who discuss the biological
> realities of being female are branded “transphobes”, and on and on.  If any
> of you are unaware of what is happening as a result of our collective
> scholarship (and I have spent much of my career writing queer theory), I
> highly recommend you jump down from your tower and get in the “moat”.
>
> It is an understatement to say that there is far more at stake than merely
> Tuvel’s future career in academia: this sort of hazing is well known when
> anyone—especially females—who critiques gender identity. Our claim has
> never been that we support Tuvel’s argument. We (the authors) don’t believe
> that gender is a feeling and similarly we don’t believe that race is a
> feeling. No one is suggesting that Tuvel was correct in her support for
> transracialism. We do not believe in some internal racial essence; nor do
> we believe in some internal gendered essence. Beyond that, we think that
> both beliefs are quasi-religious and lead to bad philosophy and bad
> politics. The authors of this document do not at all agree with Tuvel’s
> piece because we do not view identity as something that can be simulated
> through one’s sympathy towards the Civil Rights movement (ie. Dolezal) or
> the affinity towards dresses, makeup or the notion of a “feminine essence”
> (ie. transgender women).  To have this debate about why so many people are
> no-platformed, publications pulled, and myriad death and rape threats made
> to female writers and scholars who touch upon gender criticism is not
> tertiary to this debate. It is fundamental and central to it.
>
> For instance, after my 2013 CounterPunch piece where I wrote about the
> ideological warfare between feminist and transgender activists, my editor
> and myself as well as his daughter and my four-month old daughter, were met
> with over one hundred death and rape threats. I had to leave the UK for a
> month to recuperate and get out of harm’s way.  Within a few weeks,
> Caroline Criado-Perez was met with the same treatment after lobbying for a
> female on a British banknote, a far more publicised story. It doesn’t take
> much these days for females to receive the ire of the Twitterati and
> hate-filled mobs who feel that they are carrying through the mandate of
> queer theory.  The results of any theoretical foundation which attempts to
> subsume feminist discussions of sex in favour of gender and which assumes
> that feelings of gender are real but those of race are reductive, racist,
> and essentialist is a foundation that is apt to be critiqued. The paradox
> of Tuvel’s paper is that by using a popular form of queer theory and
> applying it to another paradigm, she unwittingly shows the weakness of
> gender identity and the absurdity of an intrinsic racial identity to boot.
>
>
> Regarding Cynthia Paccacerqua’s point:
>
> “ … given that some if not most of the signatories of the letter do not
> seem to exist under the names given or have no relationship to the issues
> at hand (in which free speech does not equal academic freedom and epistemic
> authority) I believe it can be downplayed as such if the letter makes it to
> our administrative superiors.”
>
> What is the evidence that “some if not most that some if not most of the
> signatories of the letter do not seems to exist under the names given?”
> It’s true that two signatories, Adam Smith and Ted Roosevelt, can be
> dismissed as fake, but I would remind you that the original letter which
> some of you signed contained these two signatures: Dick Chopper and
> Vladimir Ulyanov. Are we to conclude from this that “some if not most of
> the signatories” of the letter that many of you signed also do not exist
>  under the names given?
>
>
> As for your constant references to women (myself included) as “TERFs”, you
> do your profession a disservice while buying into the modern day term for
> “witch” or “bitch”, a linguistic cog within the larger continuum of
> misogyny.  The term TERF
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.feministcurrent.com_2014_07_29_how-2Dterf-2Dworks_&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HUp8-bkYMlNgd3ZJBxWBKsBsFAFGHrEZg21p9gxugJA&m=G8Ow4gTEtaqlfwsAF3qB6npNZasnHjL1SMkdnMDrlqs&s=18rfYD1AMAnQUiCN35abnAFj0d-8QXox7NHYSAHZXdU&e=>
> functions to deride females who speak, who dissent, and who formulate
> thoughts that might go against your own thoughts.  The academic and adult
> response is to contest with argument, not epithets.  As for my article in
> CounterPunch and elsewhere, if all you can say is that I am a TERF (uh,
> for the record I am not a radical feminist), make fun of *CounterPunch’*s
> logo, or that my “tone and approach are not conducive to advancing feminist
> commitments”, then you don’t have much to offer given your condescending
> remarks and tone here regarding myself and other fellow scholars.  It is of
> great dismay to me to witness women with PhDs denigrate other women through
> such ad hominem, hyperbole, and vague references that have no
> substantiation.  While I thought tone policing was largely the domain of
> the Internet, I would welcome a paper on the tone and approach that female
> scholars must take.  It sounds vaguely familiar already given the reluctant
> insertion of women into academia. In addition, by throwing around the slur
> of TERF you give even more credence to our claim that there is a “growing
> academic trend, particularly evident when it comes to gender, to stifle
> debate and shame, harass, and defame anyone who does not mindlessly parrot
> the prevailing orthodoxy.”
>
>
> What does it mean to have “no relationship to the issues at hand?” How we
> conceptualise and are allowed to speak about gender isn’t akin to
> discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It has
> wide-ranging implications mostly for women and girls, writers and scholars
> alike.  The letter has been signed by scholars in a variety of disciplines
> as well as journalists, writers, and artists, all whom one can credit with
> enough intelligence to understand what is at stake here.
>
>
> I would also point your attention to this passage in the letter:
>
>
> We are a diverse group of people who understand that ideas matter and that
> intellectual trends impact the society at large. They affect law, media,
> medicine, culture, language, and politics; they affect how we are educated
> and how our workplaces function; and, as this episode has made abundantly
> clear, they can even determine who is allowed to express an opinion and who
> isn’t. Because of this, vigorous and open debate and discussion is
> essential.
>
>
> Nowhere does the letter claim that its signatories are all academics or
> scholars. In fact, it explicitly states that they are not. This is actually
> a strength of the letter. How we define gender and how (and if) we are
> permitted to question popular notions of it have real-world consequences
> for real-world people who exist far outside of the academy. It is not a
> coincidence that at the same time the notion of gender as a “feeling” has
> been popularized both by the academy and the mainstream media, we have seen
> the number of children referred to gender clinics soar. We cannot help but
> see an elitism in some of the comments that deem the signatories invalid
> should they not be academics. You seem to confuse those outside of the
> bounds of academia with those who are incapable of formulating an
> intelligent thought on the matters raised within the letter.
>
>
> It is a strange dichotomy that is now at play: We hear often about the
> importance of honoring “lived experience;” yet alongside of that we see a
> dismissal of anyone who does not meet some academic criteria to express a
> concern about how ideas impact them. It is precisely how notions of gender
> can and do impact lived experience that we recognize and try to address by
> opening up the debate to those, who while outside of academia, are affected
> by the intellectual trends nurtured within it.
>
>
> A demand for a retraction is a demand that an opinion be removed from
> public consideration. There are times when this is defensible and
> appropriate. But the letter many of you signed fell far short of making a
> persuasive case that the Tuvel article should be retracted. When you lend
> your intellectual and professional weight to a demand for the public
> disappearance of an opinion based on a less than credible argument you
> embolden those among us who will resort to the kind of abuse described
> above. Julian is not the only one to have suffered it and Tuvel is
> currently the target of hateful attacks. For feminists you seem curiously
> unconcerned about women being abused for offering opinions.
>
> There is so much more to say regarding some of the blatant misreadings of
> the open letter and the vast misrepresentations committed here.  I cannot
> help but think that this discussion is merely an extension of the bullying
> culture that led to the Hypatia letter and I see no good faith invested
> by most here into examining how academic discourse forces submission by
> fiat and groupthink.  I also think this serves as a terrible example to our
> students and makes mentoring a challenge for those of us who guide our
> students to read, interrogate, and question.   This is why it is
> necessary to have this debate outside of a purely academic context and to
> understand the larger repercussions that fall far beyond one feminist
> philosophy journal.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Julian Vigo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> I recommend that the discussion regarding Tuvel’s article be at least
> temporarily set aside and ideally not carried out through emails.  Much has
> been written already and it seems to me that what remains by now is a
> higher level engagement that can attempt to address our scholarly and
> academic practices.  And, peer reviewed literature already exists on
> feminist intellectual practices and methodologies - even in *Hypatia *(for
> over 20 years) that might be used as starting points (and even in our
> classrooms).
>
> I also think that any disentangling of the framework and politics of
> "pro-trans = pro-gender” be carried out by way of longer, sustained
> writings and generous interpretations.
>
> I do, however, urge all involved to read the letter initiated by Julian
> Vigo very carefully before deciding to endorse it.  I believe that even
> those who hold theoretical positions critical of a current in feminist
> philosophy/thought/practical assumptions would likely be against the
> overall discourse of that letter.  I am going to point out what I see as a
> few of the claims signatories would be making by way of their support:
>
> 1. Free speech = academic freedom, a paradigm that is creating a cultural
> environment that invites hate speech on campuses across the country by
> equivocating any speech with authoritative knowledge
> 2. Authoritarianism can be fought by appealing to the authority of
> university Provosts, Deans, and Chairs, an administrative class that is
> increasingly disenfranchising all faculty and students within a model of
> higher education invested in private sector interests over access to the
> type of knowledge made available through Humanities, Arts, and Social
> Science departments, programs, and centers.  This is especially the case in
> public universities, which both serve the majority of students in the
> United States and employ the most faculty from lower social economic and
> underrepresented backgrounds.
> 3. That the source of the censorship in the Academy lies in “identity
> politics” as worked out in our scholarship rather than its deployment by
> very specific and concrete political investors on both sides of the rather
> limited U.S. political spectrum.  When we accept and endorse this ideology,
> we are in fact joining forces that would like and is in many places
> succeeding in the disappearance of Women’s, Gender, Sexuality, Ethnic
> studies as well as any variation of feminist philosophy - both in the
> learning and production of these knowledges.
>
> I have also taken the time to read Julian Vigo’s writings and as much as I
> may or not agree with some of the points made in these, the truth is that I
> do not believe that their tone and approach are not conducive to advancing
> feminist commitments.
>
> The letter does not seem to be a hoax in the sense that it will not be
> used.  It does seem to be a form of bait to commit people to an ideology
> that espouses the above, among other claims.  But, given that some if not
> most of the signatories of the letter do not seems to exist under the names
> given or have no relationship to the issues at hand (in which free speech
> does not equal academic freedom and epistemic authority) I believe it can
> be downplayed as such if the letter makes it to our administrative
> superiors.  This is probably the best strategy at this point.
>
> Finally, I will ask that my university email address be removed from this
> list and might suggest that others do so as well in favor of a personal
> email account that is not subject to review by university authorities - and
> in my case, state authorities.
>
> Cynthia Paccacerqua
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the FEAST-L list: write to: mailto:FEAST-L-SIGNOFF-
> [log in to unmask] or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FEAST-L&A=1
>
>
> On 30 May 2017, at 16:49, John Flowers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> With regards to Dr. Miriam's response, I see both letters as dangerous to
> junior scholars in particular ways. In fact, if I were to engage in
> sweeping generalizations, I would say the entire situation is dangerous to
> junior scholars in a variety of ways, many of which lend themselves to a
> hostile climate in a field which itself emerged to support scholarship that
> itself was the subject of marginalization.
>
> As Dr. Miriam rightly points out, the two e-mails I cited referred to the
> most recent letter, however, I take both letters to be cautionary tales, at
> least in so far as a clear and present danger to a scholar must be made
> evident in order for the field, and the scholars within it, to recognize
> the problems with their own responses. And even then, those responses may
> serve to further exacerbate the situation by reproducing ideologies and
> power structures that serve to further marginalize junior scholars.
>
> In my mind, they are both cautionary tales; albeit with * different* words
> of caution. Dr. Scheman's most recent response captures one note of this
> caution when she describes the letter as "a laboriously constructed
> attack on vulnerable people, clearly motivated by anti-trans animus and
> with an obliviousness to racism," which might indicate to us the ways in
> which our own good intentions can be appropriated and used to further all
> those things we claim to stand against.
>
> More pressing for me is Dr. Miriam's statement, "everybody here knows how
> vulnerable Juniors are to quirks in tenure committees let alone to such a
> full scale public excoriation," the validity of which is not in question.
> What remains, however, is what is implied in the quote that I borrowed from
> Ahmed: even if everyone here knows the vulnerability of junior scholars,
> does everybody know how they are complicit in maintaining that
> vulnerability, or enabling attacks on junior scholars? Again, we cannot
> treat ourselves as external to the problem at hand if we want to fully
> address the problem at hand.
>
> Finally, while I agree with Dr. Kukla's statement, "The letter should be
> completely unsupportable for any feminist or any decent human being. No
> need to reopen exhausted conversations about earlier events over it," I see
> a trap in this. If we consign the entire situation to memory, as an
> unfortunate event in scholarship, we risk forgetting the conditions that
> gave rise to it and the way that those conditions persist. I, for one, will
> bear in mind this situation even as I prepare articles for submission, not
> just for publication, but for conferences as well.
>
> All I am saying, and have been saying, is that we need to do the work to
> engage the situation in all of its messy complexity form the question of
> how we can cultivate scholars that avoid some of the missteps (actual or
> perceived) made by Tuvel, Hypatia, and the field, to how our assumptions
> that everyone understands the vulnerability of junior scholars, to the very
> notion that we can "solve" the issue are all implicated in the situation
> and all need to be teased apart.
>
> From my position, it might take the work of senior scholars in
> conversation with junior scholars to actually address it, but we do need to
> start somewhere.
>
> John Flowers
>
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Tamsin E Lorraine <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Rebecca about the reprehensible nature of the current letter
>> and apologize if I appeared to be minimizing the seriousness of the
>> concerns it raises.
>>
>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Rebecca Kukla <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> I really think this is all beside the point. The Tuvel paper and the
>>> Hypatia response were discussed to death last month. What we have now is an
>>> open, blatant attempt to get people (mostly junior, many trans/POC) in
>>> trouble with their institutions, by way of an offensive, TERF-infested,
>>> race-erasing letter. The letter should be completely unsupportable for any
>>> feminist or any decent human being. No need to reopen exhausted
>>> conversations about earlier events over it.
>>>
>>> Rebecca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Tamsin E Lorraine <
>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry--of course I meant "inclusion" not "conclusion" in the first line!
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Tamsin E Lorraine <
>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I do think Tuvel's argument was "valid" for conclusion in Hypatia
>>>>> because it used careful reasoning in applying a parallel between two cases.
>>>>> This is a particular kind of approach that our discipline endorses. That
>>>>> such an approach can appear to me to be overly circumscribed and
>>>>> ahistorical --as well as dismissive of real life and power
>>>>> relations--doesn't mean that it doesn't produce interesting and even
>>>>> productive results in some cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> The way the problem was set up didn't seem to me to require a
>>>>> canvassing of research in the area since it was set up as a circumscribed
>>>>> approach designed to follow through a (perhaps overly intellectualized)
>>>>> problem in a narrow way. I would hope that the article would trigger other
>>>>> articles that would point out the limitations of such an approach and the
>>>>> way it failed in this instance.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not a matter of saying "all viewpoints are equally valid"--it's a
>>>>> matter of pushing through the limitations of our own approaches by virtue
>>>>> of debate and critical reflection rather than policing. Tuvel's article was
>>>>> well-intentioned and well-done for what it was. To allow it to incite
>>>>> further debate on its drawbacks would, I think, be illuminating and helpful
>>>>> for moving philosophy as a discipline past some of its blockages in
>>>>> addressing crucial contemporary problems in an ethical way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>> Tamsin Lorraine
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 10:27 AM, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dipping back into a conversation because it seems like a relevant
>>>>>> qualifier is being excluded:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tasmin & Kathy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I feel like in defense of Hypatia there continue to be some serious
>>>>>> flaws in addressing the issue. By framing free speech as a void there is a
>>>>>> continuing tendency to argue that "all viewpoints are equally valid," while
>>>>>> Hypatia is opening itself to such viewpoints should Hypatia, Feminist
>>>>>> Philosophy and Philosophy at large revisit other arguments lacking in
>>>>>> scholarly merit? Should we look forward to article arguing for the positive
>>>>>> contributions of eugenics? The necessity of fascism? And further *why* is
>>>>>> there a blithe dismissal that so many people that objected to the original
>>>>>> article objected because *it could not muster a veneer of relevant
>>>>>> research* which is entwined with issues of review process. Nowhere in the
>>>>>> original letter is there a call for Tuvel to lose her job nor is there a
>>>>>> call for her to face academic sanctions nor is there an explicit claim that
>>>>>> no research should ever be done on a subject. The claim is that the voices,
>>>>>> arguments and research of stakeholders in an argument are actually
>>>>>> important, something we could simply call "poor scholarship." It is
>>>>>> troubling that academic freedom only seems to come up when the academic has
>>>>>> managed to attack socially vulnerable groups (certainly Ward Churchill did
>>>>>> not get the same defense when he actually lost his position, which was
>>>>>> directly a freedom of speech case) and which continues to act as though
>>>>>> Tuvel is *entitled* to a job; if her two papers I have read (the Hypatia
>>>>>> article and one on "animality" about women of color which both show a
>>>>>> marked disinterest in the scholarship of women of color which talking about
>>>>>> women of color) are a benchmark for her research, she doesn't deserve the
>>>>>> position given her antagonistic viewpoint of historically vulnerable
>>>>>> populations as objects for her to utilize for thought experiments rather
>>>>>> than subjects of knowing. Maybe my assessment is harsh? But it is
>>>>>> immaterial.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kathy trying to parse your second to last paragraph, am I wrong in
>>>>>> thinking you are claiming that treating trans individuals as fully
>>>>>> functional human beings (and as having a legitimate gender) is an
>>>>>> ideological point which (again as I am parsing it) you believe is invalid
>>>>>> and dogmatically enforced? Because you could come out and say it? Since the
>>>>>> whole "pro trans = pro gender" reads as though you are arguing that there
>>>>>> is something wrong with the position?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Fiona Maeve Geist
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 30, 2017, at 9:38 AM, Tamsin E Lorraine <
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was troubled by the original letter demanding retraction of Tuvel's
>>>>>> article both for its harshness toward a junior faculty member as well as
>>>>>> its harshness toward Hypatia reviewers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the same time that I am sympathetic to those who were offended by
>>>>>> Tuvel's article, the kind of discomfort caused by feeling one's own
>>>>>> experience squelched seems to me endemic to debate--especially in our
>>>>>> relatively conservative discipline. Yes, this article marginalizes specific
>>>>>> forms of lived experience--never mind the work emerging from those lived
>>>>>> experiences--by virtue of turning it into a kind of intellectual puzzle
>>>>>> that carefully works through a circumscribed problem from one angle. But
>>>>>> even if this particular article might not have been my cup of tea, it
>>>>>> seemed to me that the article was in keeping with the standards of our
>>>>>> discipline. To exclude it from open debate where multiple viewpoints are
>>>>>> included seems to me to be counter-productive. What Hypatia needs to do, in
>>>>>> my opinion, is not exclude this kind of article, but make sure it includes
>>>>>> other voices, styles, and approaches as well. I worry about silencing
>>>>>> voices and I worry about policing voices that attempt to push our
>>>>>> discipline in positive directions even if that direction may not appear to
>>>>>> be "positive enough" according to our own sensibilities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>> Tamsin Lorraine
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:15 AM, kathy miriam <[log in to unmask]
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi John Flowers,
>>>>>>> you write, "Even if, as Dr. Tirrell notes above, this letter was
>>>>>>> meant to "scare and waste time and energy," and even if it is an elaborate
>>>>>>> hoax as Dr. Scheman suggests, some of us do not have the luxury of treating
>>>>>>> it as "exterior" to our future scholarship: I, as an example, have no
>>>>>>> choice but to treat this as a cautionary tale for what might happen to me *should
>>>>>>> I get scholarship wrong*, as a junior scholar."
>>>>>>> Are you referring to the original letter or the recent letter?  I"m
>>>>>>> confused because while the women you refer to are talking about the recent
>>>>>>> letter it seems a complete reversal to call *that* letter a "cautionary
>>>>>>> tale" which hovers as a threat to juniors and minorities etc.rather than
>>>>>>> the first.  Can you clarify? thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The remarks here insisting that the original letter signed by 800
>>>>>>> academics are a critique of the institution and not an attack on an
>>>>>>> individual even though almost the entire focus of the letter is on an
>>>>>>> individual scholar who is a junior seem disingenuous to say the least.
>>>>>>> Everybody  here knows how vulnerable Juniors are to quirks in tenure
>>>>>>> committees let alone to such a full scale public excoriation.  Indeed the
>>>>>>> first letter is a pointed threat to juniors and other vulnerable academics
>>>>>>> including grad students about not "getting scholarship wrong" --although
>>>>>>> the reality is not about scholarship but ideology--not getting the ideology
>>>>>>> wrong. In this case pro-trans and what many of us call pro-*gender*
>>>>>>> ideology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm really surprised that nobody is addressing the chief issue of
>>>>>>> the recent letter which is to cry out against censorship. Again it seems
>>>>>>> disingenuous to call for more critical thinking rather than less (as Naomi
>>>>>>> does) when the original letter is a project calling for *retracting* an
>>>>>>> article rather than taking the usual tack of rebuttal.  Why so drastic?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have more points to raise but I'll leave it here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sincerely
>>>>>>> Kathy Miriam
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Abigail Klassen <
>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi John and all,
>>>>>>>> As a recent PhD myself, I just found myself saying in my head,
>>>>>>>> "Wow, this man (John Flowers) has written what I wish I could have even
>>>>>>>> begun to articulate in the privacy of my own head, let alone in a mass
>>>>>>>> email." At least I managed to get that thought out "on paper" (i.e. as
>>>>>>>> pixels on a screen).
>>>>>>>> Thank you, John.
>>>>>>>> -Abigail
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dr. a.r. (Abigail/Abi) Klassen - pronouns: ze/they/theirs
>>>>>>>> Faculty, Department of Philosophy and Honors College
>>>>>>>> University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Central Desert Complex 4, 424
>>>>>>>> Lab Affiliate, Laboratory for Perceptual and Cognitive Systems,
>>>>>>>> Faculty of Computing
>>>>>>>> University of Latvia
>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> or
>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>> www.abigailklassen.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.abigailklassen.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HUp8-bkYMlNgd3ZJBxWBKsBsFAFGHrEZg21p9gxugJA&m=CThd0G_E86zibHo-0NXY0qisodZDPO2IQhA4eIvY8IQ&s=TB3LDbLqbSwoyrjEd8OEpKASGmVA7APRVf9VE2HH1To&e=>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 6:52 AM, John Flowers <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As one of the junior scholars on the list, I've been following
>>>>>>>>> this conversation with interest, specifically with regards to how senior
>>>>>>>>> scholars in the field take up their obligation to mentor and cultivate
>>>>>>>>> junior scholars. In my mind, this also includes the *defense* of
>>>>>>>>> those scholars from retaliation within and outside of the field.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However, something about the direction of this conversation has
>>>>>>>>> troubled me, and I think this troubled sensation can be summed up in a
>>>>>>>>> quotation from Sara Ahmed's text *Living A Feminist Life* which I
>>>>>>>>> think is apropos of the situation:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *"When we have to think strategically, we also have to accept our
>>>>>>>>> complicity: we forgo any illusions of purity; we give up the safety of
>>>>>>>>> exteriority. If we are not exterior to the problem under investigation, we
>>>>>>>>> too are the problem under investigation." *
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We are all implicated in the situation that has given rise to the
>>>>>>>>> letter above (which, as a black junior scholar, is a frightening reality),
>>>>>>>>> as well as the need for conversations about the editorial practices of
>>>>>>>>> Hypatia, and the response of our field to Tuvel's article, and we must all
>>>>>>>>> look at how we *allowed* this to happen within our own community.
>>>>>>>>> That is, we must all examine the ways we bear some collective
>>>>>>>>> responsibility for the situation, and then do the hard work to change it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again, as Ahmed says, we need to give up the "safety of
>>>>>>>>> exteriority" if we're going to make any actual headway at eliminating the
>>>>>>>>> conditions that allowed for this situation to arise in the first place. We
>>>>>>>>> need to ask how we, as a community of scholars, created the conditions for
>>>>>>>>> this entire situation to arise, and that requires us to accept some
>>>>>>>>> responsibility for it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even if, as Dr. Tirrell notes above, this letter was meant to
>>>>>>>>> "scare and waste time and energy," and even if it is an elaborate hoax as
>>>>>>>>> Dr. Scheman suggests, some of us do not have the luxury of treating it as
>>>>>>>>> "exterior" to our future scholarship: I, as an example, have no choice but
>>>>>>>>> to treat this as a cautionary tale for what might happen to me *should
>>>>>>>>> I get scholarship wrong*, as a junior scholar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That being said, while I agree with Dr. Springer on the need for
>>>>>>>>> individual conversations, we must not forget that statements from
>>>>>>>>> institutions (and I would treat Hypatia and FEAST itself as institutions)
>>>>>>>>> generally carry the weight of the individuals who make up those
>>>>>>>>> institutions. While individual conversations are necessary, statements from
>>>>>>>>> institutions, *supported by action*, are also necessary.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An institutional commitment to resolving a this situation in a way
>>>>>>>>> that promotes the elimination of the kinds of conditions that have given
>>>>>>>>> rise to this situation is something that can be used to hold not only the
>>>>>>>>> institution accountable, but those individuals who claim to be part of the
>>>>>>>>> institution as well. However, as I said above, a institution must be
>>>>>>>>> willing to support said statement with action (which is something I also
>>>>>>>>> claim of individuals) if the statement is to be effective.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I do want to conclude by stating that I am heartened by the number
>>>>>>>>> of responses to the letter that pointed out its attempts to target
>>>>>>>>> vulnerable junior scholars: many of my colleagues have expressed concern
>>>>>>>>> about weighing in on the situation out of fear that they, too, might become
>>>>>>>>> targets before they've managed to establish themselves within the field.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> John Flowers
>>>>>>>>> Ph.D Candidate,
>>>>>>>>> Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Reiheld, Alison <
>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the work involved in tracking down the provosts and admins
>>>>>>>>>> is a remarkable investment. And, so far as I can tell, an accurate one.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That said, I look forward to a conversation with my Provost about
>>>>>>>>>> how my concerns over the Hypatia issues (as symptomatic of the profession,
>>>>>>>>>> but hoping for much better from our beloved flagship journal of feminist
>>>>>>>>>> philosophy) undermine the study of female materiality and women's issues in
>>>>>>>>>> the academy. I mean, speaking as the Director of Women's Studies, this
>>>>>>>>>> seems like a serious problem that the Provost and I should take up with
>>>>>>>>>> Prof. Reiheld.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Alison
>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> Alison Reiheld
>>>>>>>>>> Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy
>>>>>>>>>> Director, Women's Studies Program
>>>>>>>>>> College of Arts and Sciences
>>>>>>>>>> Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville
>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__siue.academia.edu_AlisonReiheld&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HUp8-bkYMlNgd3ZJBxWBKsBsFAFGHrEZg21p9gxugJA&m=UIZ84WIGM40l44h3wf9GRVKQ6dO-F4GHp2UBshTI0CU&s=5VPnaVG1wBExflWh4CM6srcuS56AAPguoJlO4Fey2Wo&e= 
>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__siue.academia.edu_AlisonReiheld&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HUp8-bkYMlNgd3ZJBxWBKsBsFAFGHrEZg21p9gxugJA&m=N7HjC8sTkL-P07ndX8XZxHvZsrhs0gucwhW-zudsYe0&s=dsSaeJmJxGJIBkg1kV2-QCY8fbtgS1CsT-XGCmm7-Lk&e=>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> *From:* Feminist ethics and social theory <
>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of Naomi Scheman <
>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, May 28, 2017 10:34:19 PM
>>>>>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: open letter
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The only signatories' names that looked at all familiar to me
>>>>>>>>>> were Ted Roosevelt and Adam Smith. But the letter specifically says they
>>>>>>>>>> are not all academics, let alone philosophers, so I don't know if it's a
>>>>>>>>>> hoax or rather a piece of nastily sophisticated trolling. And someone did a
>>>>>>>>>> huge amount of work tracking down the provosts at the universities of all
>>>>>>>>>> the signers of our open letter.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Naomi Scheman
>>>>>>>>>> Professor Emerita, Philosophy and Gender, Women, & Sexuality
>>>>>>>>>> Studies
>>>>>>>>>> University of Minnesota
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On May 28, 2017, at 10:40 PM, Lynne Tirrell <
>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am wondering if this is a hoax. Did others look at the
>>>>>>>>>> signatures? Do you know anyone? Only a few have institutional affiliations,
>>>>>>>>>> and I don't recognize a single name. I don't know everyone in philosophy,
>>>>>>>>>> of course, but NONE??
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is meant to scare and waste time and energy. I'm walking
>>>>>>>>>> away. But thank you to everyone who has posted useful analyses.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (Also, my last note was marked a possible fraud on my own iPad,
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure why.sorry if you got that too. )
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lynne Tirrell
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On May 28, 2017, at 10:23 PM, Rebecca Kukla <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Julianna - Are you sure you provost signed it? They set it up so
>>>>>>>>>> that the people they are sending it *to* look like the people
>>>>>>>>>> who signed it. I think your provost is on there because you signed the
>>>>>>>>>> original letter and they are trying to rat everyone out to their provosts,
>>>>>>>>>> because they are rancid pond scum.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rebecca
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Julinna Oxley <
>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks to Rebecca, Camisha, Serene, Ann, and others who I may
>>>>>>>>>>> have missed, for your thoughts. I am in complete agreement with the points
>>>>>>>>>>> you raise.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am writing with a “heads up” to anyone who signed the letter: take
>>>>>>>>>>> caution. My Provost has signed this letter, which means they
>>>>>>>>>>> did circulate the letter to upper administrators. I have a chair and a dean
>>>>>>>>>>> between me and the provost; the provost is the highest person that I would
>>>>>>>>>>> “directly report” to. I am not sure whether this letter was sent to my
>>>>>>>>>>> Dean. To be clear, I did not agree with everything in the original letter
>>>>>>>>>>> to Hypatia, but agreed with its spirit, and signed on in order to support
>>>>>>>>>>> the people whose work and lives I felt were erased in the Hypatia essay.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am shocked that:
>>>>>>>>>>> (a) this matter has been brought to the awareness of my
>>>>>>>>>>> EMPLOYER. The original letter which I signed was addressed to Hypatia, as
>>>>>>>>>>> it was an academic matter. It was not an employment matter. But now my
>>>>>>>>>>> participation in an academic debate has become a subject of my employment.
>>>>>>>>>>> Great.
>>>>>>>>>>> (b) the letter my employer received framing this debate is
>>>>>>>>>>> completely one-sided, and has the faults that others have identified.
>>>>>>>>>>> (c) the signatories of this counter-letter do not recognize the
>>>>>>>>>>> irony of their own actions with respect to harm, speech, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am grateful that I am tenured and have a good working
>>>>>>>>>>> relationship with my Provost (at least I did up until now, I hope he did
>>>>>>>>>>> not receive an email saying, “Julinna Oxley is a witch-hunter, you should
>>>>>>>>>>> step in here”!!). My provost is a Business professor by training and I
>>>>>>>>>>> reported to him when I directed our Women’s and Gender Studies program.
>>>>>>>>>>> During that time he was very supportive and open to learning more about
>>>>>>>>>>> gender and feminism, gave us more lines to grow the program—and in fact, we
>>>>>>>>>>> just hired a full-time director to replace me. I personally am not worried
>>>>>>>>>>> about my employment (though I wonder now what his impressions of me and
>>>>>>>>>>> this whole debacle are), but I am pretty irate that they did this, because
>>>>>>>>>>> it could be really harmful for other people who may have signed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I will not be writing or signing yet a third letter to circulate
>>>>>>>>>>> to the employers of the signatories of THIS LETTER – but the thought did
>>>>>>>>>>> cross my mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In solidarity,
>>>>>>>>>>> Julinna
>>>>>>>>>>> * —— Julinna C. Oxley, Ph.D. *Associate Professor of Philosophy
>>>>>>>>>>> Coastal Carolina University
>>>>>>>>>>> Edwards Humanities and Fine Arts #280
>>>>>>>>>>> 133 Chanticleer Drive West
>>>>>>>>>>> P.O. Box 261954
>>>>>>>>>>> Conway SC 29528
>>>>>>>>>>> (843) 349-6548
>>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__joxley-40coastal.edu&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HUp8-bkYMlNgd3ZJBxWBKsBsFAFGHrEZg21p9gxugJA&m=KfVDTAp8SMAq3DDX3VV7hy7cACxXi36mA2G_T8_c5hU&s=KNx8KSc1VQ-eR0cUaTjwsx_MIlc8XoG7SLECCMo201Y&e=>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Feminist ethics and social theory <
>>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of Serene Khader <
>>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>> Reply-To: "[log in to unmask]" <
>>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 8:52 PM
>>>>>>>>>>> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: open letter
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Speaking as an individual (and not as a representative of
>>>>>>>>>>> Hypatia), I want to agree with the concerns raised Ann, Naomi, Rebecca, and
>>>>>>>>>>> Camisha.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I also want to draw attention to something that Rebecca already
>>>>>>>>>>> started to, but that may not be evident to many readers at first blush: the
>>>>>>>>>>> letter is TERFy. Point 3 is all about how "feelings about gender" are
>>>>>>>>>>> making it impossible to talk about sex. So, though the letter paints itself
>>>>>>>>>>> as a defense of academic freedom, I urge people to take note of what is
>>>>>>>>>>> being said in that section of the letter. As far as I can tell, the letter
>>>>>>>>>>> is trying to create outrage about the idea that trans people are silencing
>>>>>>>>>>> "females" and preventing feminist movements from advancing their interests.
>>>>>>>>>>> And I would hope that most people in the feminist philosophy community
>>>>>>>>>>> would find that proposition false and morally suspect--and that those of us
>>>>>>>>>>> who are cis would consider the interests and perspectives of our trans
>>>>>>>>>>> friends and colleagues as we formulate our individual reactions to the
>>>>>>>>>>> letter.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Lynne Tirrell <
>>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Ann and think Naomi and Rebecca are right on.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks especially, Naomi.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lynne
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad, by dictation
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 28, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Ann Garry <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> i'm coming to this only after seeing a number of responses.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's not give these people any more publicity. Ann
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Rebecca Kukla <
>>>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The more I am processing this the angrier I am getting. So
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are sending this stupid letter to the provosts and deans of untenured
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people, trans and other minority scholars, and grad students who signed -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> presumably to get them in trouble? To fuck up their lives? To what end? How
>>>>>>>>>>>>> does this even conceivably help the causes that they themselves claim to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> champion? What the hell?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And they are using THIS LIST  to try to get feminist scholars
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to throw vulnerable people under the bus at their own institutions, quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly without even noticing that that's what they are doing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> With Naomi's clarification I am now about a thousand times
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more angry and disgusted than I was at the start.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rebecca
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Rebecca Kukla <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't understand the list either! Weird! Thanks, Naomi.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with several others on this thread that (even though
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I started it) a back and forth over email is unlikely to be a wonderful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea, and things will only get more and more meta. The more I read this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> letter the worse it gets, It's TERFy and ignorant and doing even Tuvel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> herself no favors. I'm pretty furious it exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll just once more renew my call for people to actually work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on these issues and on communicating and listening better.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rebecca
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Naomi Scheman <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just a quick note lest anyone make the mistake I made: the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list of names at the bottom of the open letter are the addressees, not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signers!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Naomi Scheman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Professor Emerita, Philosophy and Gender, Women, & Sexuality
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Studies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> University of Minnesota
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 28, 2017, at 4:31 PM, NOELLE MCAFEE <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree 100 percent with Rebecca. Let's just stop tearing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the feminist philosophy community apart. Enough with letters, petitions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defensiveness, and attacks. We need to think constructively about editorial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> practices going forward. Feminists ought to understand that if a group of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colleagues are deeply offended by something then we all need to take notice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and be honest and charitable and try to appreciate what is going on. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may call for a conference to sort it out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 28, 2017, at 10:59 AM, Rebecca Kukla <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So people are angry about an open letter that they felt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attacked a junior person so they thought the best solution was yet another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open letter attacking what was mostly junior people? This has to stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somewhere. And this affair has to be allowed to die already.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't sign the first letter and I am not signing this one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People need to stop trying to settle their academic and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> political disagreements via open letters designed to publicly shame by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ganging up on other people. It's not even clear what action item this one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is calling for. (The article is already being published, with only tiny
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word changes to bring it in line with current linguistic conventions that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid slurs, and the other two items are too vague to be actionable.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issues in this area are super important, so let's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually work on them, rather than devoting our productive hours to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metametametacritiques.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rebecca
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Veltman, Andrea - veltmaal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Julian Vigo ([log in to unmask]) asked me to forward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the following message to the FEAST listserv.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ______________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Andrea Veltman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Associate Professor of Philosophy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Department of Philosophy & Religion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> James Madison University
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MSC 8006
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harrisonburg, VA  22807
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Office phone: 540-568-4236 <(540)%20568-4236>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My latest book, *Meaningful Work*, is recently published
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by Oxford University Press:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__global.oup.com_academi&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HUp8-bkYMlNgd3ZJBxWBKsBsFAFGHrEZg21p9gxugJA&m=UIZ84WIGM40l44h3wf9GRVKQ6dO-F4GHp2UBshTI0CU&s=sR1ZJR-Kebowwx3vt9a1OQRiT5uyefhsbnIKBaElOm0&e= 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> c/product/meaningful-work-9780190618179?cc=us&lang=en&
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__global.oup.com_academic_product_meaningful-2Dwork-2D9780190618179-3Fcc-3Dus-26lang-3Den-26&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HUp8-bkYMlNgd3ZJBxWBKsBsFAFGHrEZg21p9gxugJA&m=LOV-2yxVfBhZ6rrELChk7V70HvBgW6zEshQ0UIKg7j4&s=HYce-eGOp33z007rPm2X5TNGaDb6rEQYz0bS3UosSqI&e=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *From:* Julian Vigo <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 27, 2017 3:54 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To:* Veltman, Andrea - veltmaal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* open letter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am writing to ask if you could sign & share this open
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> letter to protect academic freedom related to the Tuvel affair with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consequences far beyond:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...

############################

To unsubscribe from the FEAST-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FEAST-L&A=1