Published in:
05-12-2019 | Symposium: Self-Censorship and Life in the Liberal Academy
Sources of Self-Censorship
Author:
Nicole Ramsoomair
Published in:
Society
|
Issue 6/2019
Log in
Excerpt
Whether it is backlash from the publication of controversial papers or calls for no-platforming, the question of freedom of expression in academia seems to be more pertinent than ever. Tuvel (
2017) recently faced heavy criticism for her piece on an analogy between transgenderism and racial transition she termed “transracialism” (271). The publication of her paper resulted in calls for retraction and eventual dissolution of the journal’s editorial board. Likewise, Littman’s (
2018) controversial article arguing for “rapid onset gender dysphoria” was met with charges of promoting transphobic sentiments. The criticism led the journal to issue an apology (3). Further, the UK chapter of Minorities and Philosophy (MAP) questioned whether Kathleen Stock, known for her controversial views on gender identity, should speak at an Aristotelian Society conference (Conkerton-Darby, Amy et al.
2019). More recently and as a result of these and other similar controversies, twelve philosophers signed an open letter that urged against sanctions on certain opinions on sex and gender in philosophy. They expressed concern for the state of academic integrity and feared a potential chill in the rich discursive environment that is meant to characterize philosophic inquiry. They write, “censuring philosophers who defend these controversial positions or preventing those positions from being advanced at professional conferences and in scholarly journals, violate the fundamental academic commitment to free inquiry” (Bermudez et al.
2019, para 3). It is clear that scholars should not be ostracized for their views, but what is often left out of these calls for greater academic integrity, is the equally important role of academic responsibility. …