Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/opinion/what-liberal-snowflakes-get-right-about-free-speech.html?_r=2

The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community. Free-speech protections — not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities — should not mean that someone’s humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned.

so fucking creepy these ppl.

My work sent out an email to be on the lookout for people posting pro-fascist fliers

Then the next day they sent out an email to be on the lookout for people posting anti-fascist fliers

What's the precise creepiness? The institutional language or the proposition itself?

I didn't know we had to show "creepiness" work here, but I found it a little odd since the administration had sent out an email earlier that had same basic content as the "anti-fascist" fliers. Though the fliers used the the phrase "will not be tolerated" which sounds a little intolerant imo.

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/25200000/Tuxedo-mask-sailor-moon-25225153-498-370.gif

this is kind of interesting. rebecca tuvel, an academic philosopher, publishes an article in hypatia, a well-known (in the field) journal of feminist philosophy, titled "in defense of transracialism," about how arguments encouraging acceptance of transgender identities should apply similarly to "transracial" identities. the article passed peer review and was published. here is link to the paper - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hypa.12327/abstract and here is the abstract:

Former NAACP chapter head Rachel Dolezal's attempted transition from the white to the black race occasioned heated controversy. Her story gained notoriety at the same time that Caitlyn (formerly Bruce) Jenner graced the cover of Vanity Fair, signaling a growing acceptance of transgender identity. Yet criticisms of Dolezal for misrepresenting her birth race indicate a widespread social perception that it is neither possible nor acceptable to change one's race in the way it might be to change one's sex. Considerations that support transgenderism seem to apply equally to transracialism. Although Dolezal herself may or may not represent a genuine case of a transracial person, her story and the public reaction to it serve helpful illustrative purposes.

lots of people thought the article was rubbish, but not just in a scholarly sense; they claimed it was deeply offensive on a number of levels and that its continued existence in the journal actively harms transpeople and people of color. an open letter calling for its retraction was created: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1efp9C0MHch_6Kfgtlm0PZ76nirWtcEsqWHcvgidl2mU/viewform?ts=59066d20&edit_requested=true and over a hundred academics and others sign it. here is a quote:

As scholars who have long viewed Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy as a valuable resource for our communities, we write to request the retraction of a recent article, entitled, “In Defense of Transracialism.” Its continued availability causes further harm, as does an initial post by the journal admitting only that the article “sparks dialogue.” Our concerns reach beyond mere scholarly disagreement; we can only conclude that there has been a failure in the review process, and one that painfully reflects a lack of engagement beyond white and cisgender privilege.

then "a majority of the hybatia board of associate editors" post a formal apology on facebook (https://www.facebook.com/astas/posts/10158553472075537)
and state that "clearly the article should not have been published" and promise a review of their editorial and peer review processes. here is a quote:

We, the members of Hypatia’s Board of Associate Editors, extend our profound apology to our friends and colleagues in feminist philosophy, especially transfeminists, queer feminists, and feminists of color, for the harms that the publication of the article on transracialism has caused. The sources of those harms are multiple, and include: descriptions of trans lives that perpetuate harmful assumptions and (not coincidentally) ignore important scholarship by trans philosophers; the practice of deadnaming, in which a trans person’s name is accompanied by a reference to the name they were assigned at birth; the use of methodologies which take up important social and political phenomena in dehistoricized and decontextualized ways, thus neglecting to address and take seriously the ways in which those phenomena marginalize and commit acts of violence upon actual persons; and an insufficient engagement with the field of critical race theory. Perhaps most fundamentally, to compare ethically the lived experience of trans people (from a distinctly external perspective) primarily to a single example of a white person claiming to have adopted a black identity creates an equivalency that fails to recognize the history of racial appropriation, while also associating trans people with racial appropriation. We recognize and mourn that these harms will disproportionately fall upon those members of our community who continue to experience marginalization and discrimination due to racism and cisnormativity.
It is our position that the harms that have ensued from the publication of this article could and should have been prevented by a more effective review process. We are deeply troubled by this and are taking this opportunity to seriously reconsider our review policies and practices. While nothing can change the fact that the article was published, we are dedicated to doing what we can to make things right. Clearly, the article should not have been published, and we believe that the fault for this lies in the review process. In addition to the harms listed above imposed upon trans people and people of color, publishing the article risked exposing its author to heated critique that was both predictable and justifiable. A better review process would have both anticipated the criticisms that quickly followed the publication, and required that revisions be made to improve the argument in light of those criticisms.

brian leiter, an academic philospher who manages a well-known (in the field) blog on happenings in academic philosophy, suggests that tuvell, the author, sue for defamation because of the damages this will have on her career as a tenure-track philosopher - http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2017/05/the-defamation-of-rebecca-tuvel-by-the-board-of-associate-editors-of-hypatia-and-the-open-letter.html - here is a quote:

I confess I've never seen anything like this in academic philosophy (admittedly most signatories to the "open letter" are not academic philosophers, but some are). A tenure-track assistant professor submits her article to a journal, it passes peer review, it is published, others take offense, and the Associate Editors of the journal declare that "Clearly, the article should not have been published" and that the abuse to which the author is being subjected is "both predictable and justifiable." Even the Synthese fiasco in 2011 did not involve behavior this egregious by the editors (and all the editors there stepped down not long after that fiasco).

I hope that Prof. Tuvel consults a lawyer about this defamation; and while it looks to me like defamation per se (i.e., damages are presumed since the critics are impugning her competence in her profession), I would imagine showing damage would not be hard. How can Prof. Tuvel, for example, now use this repudiated but allegedly peer-reviewed article as part of her tenure process? Indeed, how can her department or college support her for tenure when she has been so vilified as a scholar and professional by people who work in her fields? I wonder did any of those professing solidarity with those who specialize in taking offense consider the very tangible harm they are doing to the author of this article?

I would encourage someone to set up a petition to denounce the outrageous treatment of Prof. Tuvel by the Hypatia editors. I would be happy to correspond via e-mail about some draft language, though I will be off-line much of the rest of the day today.

We have been living with an "atmosphere of reckless attack" in philosophy (as one correspondent put it to me in 2014) for awhile now. I hope this proves to be the final straw, and that the community will finally stand up and denounce this misconduct that should be anathema to a scholarly community. If Prof. Tuvel does decide to seek legal redress for what has happened to her, I will organize fundraising on her behalf. It really is time to stop this madness.

and finally the author herself issued a statement - http://dailynous.com/2017/05/01/philosophers-article-transracialism-sparks-controversy/ , excerpt below:

I wrote this piece from a place of support for those with non-normative identities, and frustration about the ways individuals who inhabit them are so often excoriated, body-shamed, and silenced. When the case of Rachel Dolezal surfaced, I perceived a transphobic logic that lay at the heart of the constant attacks against her. My article is an effort to extend our thinking alongside transgender theories to other non-normative possibilities.

I don't understand, I thought a tenured scholar's speech can be professionally protected as a recognition that such protections are good for the academy.

she's tenure track not tenured

It does seem weird for her to lead off an article about trans people describing them as "changing their sex" when (as I understand it) almost all trans people would not describe themselves as having "changed their sex" but rather as having come to terms with the gender they always possessed but were mistakenly not assigned? I mean, I guess she doesn't have to be on board with that account, but she should at least acknowledge that it's the standard account if she's going to come out firing against it!

The whole thing seems like a mess. If the journal qua journal wants to retract the paper, it should, but if it doesn't, and if a lot of editors think the paper shouldn't have been published, maybe they should resign? At the same time, Leiter's idea that Tuvel should sue the pants off the journal seems like a nearly Trump-level case of "I'll crush you if you dare say bad things about me."

well, he doesn't seem wrong about the potential for major damage to her career; and given the way promotion review and hiring work in academia, she's not likely to be able to remedy it in any other way

"she should sue them" is more of a proxy for "we need to take a stand against this kind of behavior" esp if you read the post he links to - http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2014/12/2014-the-year-the-philosophy-profession-went-mad-at-least-on-social-media.html -- within the context of this thread i don't think the over the top reaction is a surprise but if ppl like leiter have skin in the university game u can't really blame him for wanting an intervention. it's v poor behavior.

also, he is a lawyer, and is not shy about suggesting (or threatening) litigation as a strategy for having a real impact in academic employment contexts

various academics on FB calling her article "harmful, violent, actively ignorant", that it "enacts violence and perpetuates harm in numerous ways" etc.

the article itself was not good i guess but the response is ott

the journal's response is really shitty imo

they published the article! it passed their peer review and editorial standards! and then they fold after some public criticism and say the article "clearly should not have been published"?

Since it violently dehumanizes people it should probably be illegal speech. The author is lucky she's not going to jail.

She basically wrote a gun

i don't really get this thread so maybe i should keep out, but is the idea here that a publication should never retract an article? or that people should never ask a publication to retract an article?

I'm confused

just enjoy all this shit for the circus it is imo

is constant internecine warfare on social media just the tradeoff for getting paid to sit in a coffee shop all day and, like,  type out your thoughts

cofcrime

is the idea here that a publication should never retract an article? or that people should never ask a publication to retract an article?

that would be absurd, obviously. but it seems that a good faith effort accepted via the normal peer review process is not something that rises to the level of a retractable scholarly offense. it seems pretty disheartening that the first response of fellow scholars was not to write a response or a refutation, to be published in the next issue, but to move as quickly and publicly as possible to take the author and the journal down with a political/power move.

a good faith effort accepted via the normal peer review process is not something that rises to the level of a retractable scholarly offense

but wait, by that standard when could a publication retract a peer-reviewed article, or be called upon to do so? if i understand you right the only case would be if it was not "a good faith effort," which might be tough to prove. what if it's just "mea culpa, this is bad scholarship and we totally dropped the ball on reading it closely, this reflects badly on us as scholars" or w/e?

also, seems very likely to me that many or perhaps even more scholars probably set out to write responses or refutations to be published in the next issue? do we know that this did not also happen? perhaps their thoughtful refutations influenced the decision of the board to take the rather rare and serious step of issuing a retraction?

not weighing in on the merits of the case as i haven't read the full article - just think these line of argument need a bit of tightening up.

if the article passed through the typical peer-review process then to retract it is either to tacitly admit that their peer-review process is flawed or to admit that it's being retracted for non-scholarly reasons. if I ran a journal I'd be pretty hesitant to admit either of those things.

Why "tacitly"? In one of mordy's block quotes above they explicitly state "It is our position that the harms that have ensued from the publication of this article could and should have been prevented by a more effective review process. We are deeply troubled by this and are taking this opportunity to seriously reconsider our review policies and practices." Presumably they took making a statement like that pretty seriously or else they wouldn't have made it, precisely because it's not the kind of thing you want to admit as a scholar running a journal.

Didn't catch that.

it was my post & sorry for such long block quotes :(

Oh sorry! That was sloppy attribution on my part (though somehow appropriate, I guess, given the subject matter!) - sorry to both of you.

(er, that is, sloppy attribution is appropriate to a discussion of peer-review - not saying the attribution to Mordy was especially apropos or sth)

these materials are political from the beginning. it's not like a STEM journal retracting a paper that used bad data or misunderstood/misstated a mathematical/scientific model. the jargon used and what expressions are permissible or not is inherently political. the journal is pretending like there's some platonic truth about transracialism/transexualism or about the way it should be discussed, that is not just mediated by politics (including the politics of who gets angry at what material and demands a retraction) but that's obv v naive about how language + disciplines are mediated. the best they could say if they were trying to lay claim to some sort of objectivity is that the author didn't consistently use the tropes + parlance of practitioners in the field she chose to write (tho by her own account there are other scholars that she was relying upon) but that's a far cry from "we didn't review this well enough." it seems transparently like ass-covering to me in the wake of a political "scandal" and a natural response in an environment where language is being policed (yes, i know, it's not literally being policed, none of this is as bad as whatever suffering etc etc etc it's just still shitty behavior esp for scholars to behave in - the outcry should've always been limited to scholarly responses - but of course a scholarly response in a dispassionate tone might reveal that this entire controversy is full-of-shit i.e. the intervention only works if you get to use language like "violence" to describe words leaving someone's mouth).

the best they could say if they were trying to lay claim to some sort of objectivity is that the author didn't consistently use the tropes + parlance of practitioners in the field she chose to write

otm

but wait, by that standard when could a publication retract a peer-reviewed article, or be called upon to do so? if i understand you right the only case would be if it was not "a good faith effort," which might be tough to prove. what if it's just "mea culpa, this is bad scholarship and we totally dropped the ball on reading it closely, this reflects badly on us as scholars" or w/e?

fraud or misconduct would be the standard reasons; and aside from ownership of ideas i'm not sure these would cover most philosophy scholarship (e.g. it's typically not even possible to falsify or massage data, since there is none).

some scientific articles are retracted for error, i assume because the error is discovered to be so significant that the conclusion is no longer supportable (not even in amended form). but again, i don't think that sort of error is obviously relevant in most cases of philosophy scholarship.

in science, a publication is also considered to be part of the record of knowledge, so i think it makes a certain amount of sense to officially retract things that are found to be false or not factually reliable. but in philosophy (despite the way some philosophers may act about it) publication is part of the extension of the ongoing conversation; anything and everything published in the past may suddenly be in play again, and nothing anyone ever thinks to 'take back' or consign to the dustbin can ever be assumed to be definitively out of play. trying to force a retraction of something that was published in a procedurally above-board way seems like it has to play philosophy's scientific self-image against the reality of its relation to its own history of publication.

i suppose they could attempt to produce similar grounds for retraction that were strictly ethical/political, since it makes more sense then that e.g. a community of social praxis would have discretion to let certain things said stand or not, not for the sake of their historical legacy but for the sake of the ongoing present/future they will continue to play a part in. but outside of avowedly political (and JUST political) contexts, where i can imagine a group's deciding in a totally arbitrary way that it would or would not, henceforth, recognize something it had given its approval to in the past (a statement, a manifesto, whatever), it seems like forcing a retraction would require that the thing to be retracted is shown to be somehow beyond the pale, ethically speaking. i think pointing to the good-faith scholarly intentions here goes to establishing that the paper was not at all beyond the pale in that way.

(and i guess i should add, despite the things i've read about their review process, i don't think citing a scholarly failure in the review process passes the smell test. you can read people in some of the blogs discussing this case, complaining about mediocre argumentation or whatever. but philosophers read papers for which they have little but contempt CONSTANTLY, our 'industry' would fall apart if people didn't continue to publish all that garbage. if there was a failure here it was not a failure of a 'review process' in the sense of a quality control. it was a shortsightedness in the editorial oversight of the journal, presumably abetted by some degree of hands-off automatic operation of the journal per usual, that allowed their process to produce a publication that rankled their readership and thus presumably thwarted the editorial staff's best intentions. so they should take all the blame themselves for not getting their ideal outcome, not cast aspersions on the duly-participating scholar.)

you'd think in this field provocations + controversy would be prized but i guess only some kinds and this was the wrong kind

that's a tough line to draw because when, as j. mentioned, "ongoing conversation" is the implicit value-judgment driving the discourse then any paper which continues to produce responses/interpretations is "valuable"...but to take this logic to its extreme would produce something like the dicourse on, say, twitter.

but yeah as j. also mentions garbage work is published CONSTANTLY in the humanities, sometimes specifically because it is "controversial."

it seems like we're going through an actual paradigm shift in the Kuhn sense where knowledge and discourse no longer belongs to the the academy; the people who lead it may be employed by the academy as often as not, but scholarly journals are just as fucked up about what matters as any other serialized publication right now. It's all the bazaar all the time.

btw let's compare and contrast the reaction to this with the reaction to bret stephens in the NYT - which is more "overblown?" who really deserves the ire of the woke? how can we make society more better in the long run, by getting this person fired, or by pointing out that yet another hateful ignorant straight white man is getting paid real cash to be the actual worst in the pages of a so-called great american institution?

xp yeah, i think there's something to that. and even the most staid 'truth only' scholar realizes that the door was opened by the relentless drive to self-sales encouraged by the academy's incentives structures. as long as you write something that satisfies basic and un-substantive criteria, and wins some approval of some appointed credit-givers, then anything that is part of an 'intellectual project' or offers a 'perspective on an open issue' etc. all flies.

jesus I think the left may be its own worst enemy. should write a book about this.

what i don't understand about the bret stephens hire is that the NYT basically poached him from the wsj bc they felt in the wake of the trump victory that their op-ed pages weren't diverse enough... so they hired another right-wing anti-trump rino??? there weren't any pro-trump pundits they could bring in to fulfill the purpose of ideological diversity??

not literate ones

the journal is pretending like there's some platonic truth about transracialism/transexualism or about the way it should be discussed, that is not just mediated by politics,

as far as i can tell the purpose of a non-STEM academic journal is to help establish the leading ideas of the day in a particular subject of study. it does this not as an objective member outside of space and time, but as a subjective member within a broader academic community. in this case, other members of that community found a particular article published by the journal to be illegitimate, and so they said so, publicly. the journal then responded in turn. and now we're discussing it here. in my opinion, this seems like common enough discourse. someone makes a claim, others disagree and make a counter-claim, and the first party either stays course or reconsiders. in this case they reconsidered.

is it political? is it subjective? of course. i don't see how it couldn't be. but so is the decision to center Shakespeare in English literature, or Adam Smith in economics, or whoever else in whatever else.

i mean eugenics was once an enlightened idea, regularly appearing in respected journals. now it's not. whether that was accomplished by polite articles written in the proper channels or by activists pressing a point seems besides the point to me.

that sounds fairly disingenuous.

xp I'm interested in whatever your point is, and why you think the "non-STEM" distinction is necessary - legal and medical journals also apply, right?

well, i'd include STEM too (a geo-centric worldview was once thought right, et al), but i figured the point would be cleaner if i sidestepped STEM altogether.

@j. how do you mean? i may be way off, but i don't think i'm being disingenuous. or i'm not trying to be.

it's not as if no one acknowledges the subjectivity, or political partiality, or whatever we call it, in the response; or as if anyone denies that it would always be a factor. but some of the voices calling for retraction don't even seem to be adhering to the sort of norms they otherwise profess to, as philosophers. and it's the criteria of adherence that are at issue.

mordy's remark was actually making that point in the other direction, i think - that the matter is contested and contestable and it's bad faith to be asserting discursive norms as if they hold some firmer authority than that. ('ok so stop doing so!' would not be satisfactory, either, since i think some of the parties involved are committed to having a stronger basis for their position than 'so we say'.)

I appreciate the way you couch mordy's comment, it helps me feel better about agreeing with it. the right way to attack this argument is with debate and not by asserting norms through tendential accusations and shouting down

it seems to me that there's a running theme through this thread that the censors are mistaking voices that are open to debate with voices that aren't, and that creates all the little gaps that FREEEEE DISCOURSE HEROZ like Jon Chait need to opine endlessly about how -

methinks myself doth protest a little loud for a monday night. fuck it, the people who want to have their voices heard over shouting need to learn how to stop shouting other people down. I hate the fucking high road but jesus goddamned christ on a camel get out of your own fucking way, for once, kids

they're not in their own way. this is their strategy.