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