Brian Leiter has two posts on the monstering of Rebecca Tuvel. The first is nicely titled Thought crimes watch: comparing trans-racialism to transgenderism verboten!

A majority of the editorial board of an allegedly scholarly journal apologizes for publishing an article (which presumably went through whatever passes for peer review there) called “In Defense of Transracialism,” by Rebecca Tuvel, an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Rhodes College.  Here’s the abstract for the thought crime article:

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.

Apparently the “harm” to Prof. Tuvel of a public apology by the majority of the editorial board of the journal that published her article was outweighed by the “harm” of her thought crime to transgender people.  (Addendum:  no thought crime is complete without a public letter of protest.  What is chilling about this is that instead of this campaign of vilification of a junior faculty member and demand for “retraction” of her article, someone could have written a response piece and sent it to the same journal.  But this is obviously not a scholarly community, but a political one.  Those familiar with the history of 20th-century Marxist movements will recognize what’s going on here, and it isn’t a happy sight.)

It’s ugly. Ugly ugly ugly.

The second is even harsher (I don’t say that disapprovingly – I think harshness is well deserved here): The defamation of Rebecca Tuvel by the Board of Associate Editors of Hypatia and the authors of the Open Letter.

I just want to flag something else about the remarkable “apology” issued by the Associate Editors of Hypatia, which a couple of readers flagged for me.  It contains the following:

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.

The “open letter” is even more explicit that Prof. Tuvel is not, in the view of the signatories, a competent professional scholar, stating that, “Many published articles include some minor defects of scholarship; however, together the problems with this article are glaring,” so much so that they demand retraction.

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.”

Yes. It’s horrible. It’s familiar but it’s none the less horrible for that.

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 really doubt it. I think they were too busy frotting their imaginations over the imaginary harm Tuvel’s article would cause to imagined victims.

The open letter to Hypatia that their groveling apology was a response to is pretty horrifying if it really comes from academics.

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.”

In what circumstances is it normal to request an academic journal to retract an article? I assume it would have to be for reasons of gross malpractice or dishonesty – shameful mistakes or shameful lies. The “scholars” who wrote the letter have other grounds for their “request.” (I can see there are going to be a lot of scare quotes in this post. That’s because there’s a lot of abuse of language and thought in the letter.)

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.

I repeat: there’s no such thing as “cisgender privilege.” Women don’t have “cisgender privilege.” Pretending they do is profoundly anti-feminist.

We believe that this article falls short of scholarly standards in various areas:

1. It uses vocabulary and frameworks not recognized, accepted, or adopted by the conventions of the relevant subfields; for example, the author uses the language of “transgenderism” and engages in deadnaming a trans woman;

Subfields of what? Hypatia is a philosophy journal; what are the relevant subfields of philosophy that adopt conventions on whether or not to use the word “transgenderism”? Is there a subfield of philosophy that has any view at all on “deadnaming”? That’s not a technical word, it’s a political jargon word. Is there a subfield of philosophy that forbids scholars to mention a trans woman’s previous name? That sounds like a very odd subfield to me.

2. It mischaracterizes various theories and practices relating to religious identity and conversion; for example, the author gives an off-hand example about conversion to Judaism;

How is that a reason to demand that a journal retract an article?

3. It misrepresents leading accounts of belonging to a racial group; for example, the author incorrectly cites Charles Mills as a defender of voluntary racial identification;

Same question. They have detailed objections, but objections are not a reason to retract an article (much less to shame its author on Facebook).

Many published articles include some minor defects of scholarship; however, together the problems with this article are glaring. More importantly, these failures of scholarship do harm to the communities who might expect better from Hypatia. It is difficult to imagine that this article could have been endorsed by referees working in critical race theory and trans theory, which are the two areas of specialization that should have been most relevant to the review process.

Except that Hypatia is a philosophy journal.

A message has been sent, to authors and readers alike, that white cis scholars may engage in speculative discussion of these themes without broad and sustained engagement with those theorists whose lives are most directly affected by transphobia and racism.

And?

They may. There is no law that says white scholars or “cis” scholars (whatever they are) may not engage in speculative discussion of whatever theme they choose. Apparently the authors and signers of this horrible letter want to send the message that they may not – literally may not, on pain of public shaming and retraction of a published article.

We urge that Hypatia immediately acknowledge the severity of these concerns. In addition to retracting the article, we also believe it is imperative that Hypatia commit immediately to the following:

1. Issue a statement taking responsibility for the failures of judgment associated with publishing this article and apologize for the initial uncritical response posted on Hypatia’s Facebook page;

In other words, grovel, a lot.

4. Avoid the practice of deadnaming (that is, referring to trans people by former names) and commit to developing best practices for naming trans individuals as authors and subjects of scholarly discussions.

They say that as if “deadnaming” were an ordinary, universally recognized word and concept. It’s not. There is no general rule that forbids saying X used to go by Y. Sometimes people need to know former names, for safety reasons for instance. It’s not a human right to change one’s name and keep it forever secret no matter what.

And then they had to grovel themselves, because they said A Wrong Thing too, or neglected to say A Right Thing.

“Note from statement writers (added 5/1): We acknowledge that this statement should have named anti-Blackness directly. The statement is not an exhaustive summary of the many harms caused by this article. We hope it will at least serve as a way to register that harm and issue a demand for a retraction. This is one step in the direction of seeking accountability for the harms committed by its publishing– and to begin a conversation about the larger problems with our discipline it represents. And we thank Chanda Prescod-Weinstein (and others) for pointing out the dangerous erasure of anti-Blackness and the erasure of the Black labor on which the rhetoric of our own letter is built”

Tomorrow there will be an addendum saying what Chanda Prescod-Weinstein neglected to say and the people she thanks, and it could go on that way forever.

Hypatia’s statement on Facebook:

To our friends and colleagues in feminist philosophy,

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.

But here they are adding to the “heated critique” the author was exposed to, and holding her up for more stoning.

In addition, to reconsidering our review policies, we are drafting a policy on name changes that will govern review of all work considered for publication in the journal from this point forward. We wish to express solidarity with our trans colleagues in our condemnation of deadnaming. It is unacceptable that this happened, and we are working to ensure that it never happens again. We also wish to express solidarity with our colleagues of color (understanding that gender and race are entangled categories) in our condemnation of scholarship about racial identity that fails to reflect substantive understanding of and engagement with critical philosophy of race. We are working to develop additional advisory guidelines to ensure that feminist theorists from groups underrepresented in our profession, including trans people and people of color, are integrated in the various editorial stages. This does not mean that we want to place future responsibility solely on transfeminists and feminists of color. We are committed to improving our review process and practice in order to make the best decision about publication and to prevent similar mistakes in the future.

Hypatia is a journal committed to pluralist feminist inquiry and has been an important site for the publication of scholarship long-considered marginal in philosophy. Too many of us are still characterized as “not real” philosophers by non- and anti-feminist colleagues. As a feminist journal, Hypatia is committed to providing mentorship to all who submit articles by encouraging substantive feedback on essays submitted for consideration. Clearly there was a mistake along the line in the review process, and we are doing our best to figure out a way forward.

So when the mentorship goes wrong they hold the non-mentored author up for people to stone.

Several further types of responses have been suggested to us, including issuing a retraction and setting up a blog or website for further conversation about how to move forward and improve our process. We continue to consider those responses and all of their potential ramifications thoughtfully. We welcome more feedback and suggestions, as we intend to learn from this mistake and do our best to be accountable and worthy of the trust of all feminist scholars.

Finally, we want to recognize that following the publication of the article, there was a Facebook post from the Hypatia account that also caused harm, primarily by characterizing the outrage that met the article’s publication as mere “dialogue” that the article was “sparking.” We want to state clearly that we regret that the post was made.

We sincerely thank all who have expressed criticism of the article’s publication and who have called on us to reply. Working through conflicts, owning mistakes, and finding a way forward is part of the crucial, difficult work that feminism does. As members of Hypatia’s editorial board we are taking this opportunity to make Hypatia more deeply committed to the highest quality of feminist scholarship, pluralism, and respect. The words expressed here cannot change the harm caused by the fact of the article’s publication, but we hope they convey the depth and sincerity of our commitment to make necessary changes to move forward and do better.

Sincerely,
A Majority of the Hypatia’s Board of Associated Editors

A contemptible display.

Another one of these – a public grovel and shunning over someone – a woman, naturally – saying Wrong Things about transracialism and transgenderism. The CHE reports:

The feminist philosophy journal Hypatia has apologized for publishing an article comparing transracialism with transgenderism.

In a post on the journal’s Facebook page on Monday, “a majority of the Hypatia’s Board of Associated Editors” signed a lengthy and “profound apology” in which they said that “clearly, the article should not have been published.”

The article, ”In Defense of Transracialism,” by Rebecca Tuvel, an assistant professor of philosophy at Rhodes College, drew a significant backlash following its publication, in late March. The article discusses public perceptions of racial and gender transitions by comparing the former NAACP chapter head Rachel Dolezal’s desire to be seen as black with the celebrity Caitlyn Jenner’s public transition from male to female.

It’s nice that Hypatia hung her up for the crows to peck – and by “nice” I mean “profoundly loathsome.”

Since a backlash erupted on social media, more than 400 academics have signed an open letter to the editor of Hypatia calling for the article to be retracted. “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,” the letter says.

There’s no such thing as “cisgender privilege.” The claim that there is is exactly as stupid as claiming there’s such a thing as “cisracial privilege.”

Ms. Tuvel, the article’s author, wrote in a statement to The Chronicle (quoted in full on the website of the Daily Nous) that she welcomed the opportunity to respond to the controversy that her article had caused. She said that she had written the article “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.”

Ms. Tuvel added that she had received hate mail and had been strongly urged to retract the article. She also said that a few people had expressed support — talking about “bullying culture, call-out culture, virtue-signaling, a mob mentality, and academic freedom.”

“So little of what has been said, however, is based upon people actually reading what I wrote,” she continued. “There are theoretical and philosophical questions that I raise that merit our reflection. Not doing so can only reinforce gender and racial essentialism.”

She added: “Calls for intellectual engagement are also being shut down because they ‘dignify’ the article. If this is considered beyond the pale as a response to a controversial piece of writing, then critical thought is in danger. I have never been under the illusion that this article is immune from critique. But the last place one expects to find such calls for censorship rather than discussion is amongst philosophers.”

You would think.