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