Julian: tl;dr

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=73KS7BJ1C_w6FWABdXN0WVpjXu-P8PXyW87Kj5fdQ_Q&s=arQ2lvOVv_6g3f_lt48RWZTijIgcZuyWFKCrD0rDRVc&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_academic_product_meaningful-2Dwork-2D9780&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HUp8-bkYMlNgd3ZJBxWBKsBsFAFGHrEZg21p9gxugJA&m=73KS7BJ1C_w6FWABdXN0WVpjXu-P8PXyW87Kj5fdQ_Q&s=nIucIrvf9mtaFLD6JHf5uai6jvuN-Lrz9aHt_4ZGDdY&e= 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 190618179?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