MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY–UPDATED

An untenured female philosopher writes:

Thanks very much for posting the link to the latest What is it like to be a philosopher interview. I am curious as to what you think about Tina Fernandes Botts’ comments on Rebecca Tuvel, as I find some of them rather unbelievable.

On the “whiteness” of Tuvel’s article, Botts comments:

“Importantly, the author of the “white” article does not understand the article as white, and is often well-intentioned, as is the case, I firmly believe, of Rebecca Tuvel. But, in a way, the well-intentioned writer of a white article is the most dangerous, because there is no sheet-wearing monster to blame. Instead, all we have, as in the case of Tuvel, is a perfectly well-meaning, untenured, young, physically attractive, white woman just trying to write an article for tenure. No one wants to call her out. No one wants to call what she did “violence” (as some critics of the article have done). Hence, the dramatic public defense of Tuvel’s article, in some white circles, and the concomitant re-injury to black persons, the original victims. Disclaimer: There is not enough space in this interview for me to fully explain this. I have tried to mention the highlights.”

Is Botts really claiming that Tuvel is *more* dangerous than the KKK? She seems to suggest that the “dramatic public defense” of Tuvel came from a desire to protect a “well-meaning, untenured, young, physically attractive, white woman.” Well, has Botts considered the possibility that philosophers come to Tuvel’s defense because of her unjust treatment, rather than how she looks? Botts also claims that “No one wants to call her out.” Is this real? I seem to remember an open-letter signed by 800+ people calling out Tuvel. 

There is a disclaimer at the end of the paragraph saying that there is not enough space in this interview for Botts to fully explain her view. I am *eager* to hear Bott’s explanation of how Tuvel could be more dangerous than the KKK. As a person of color, I am honestly way more threatened by the KKK than an academic paper. But perhaps my fear is misplaced.

Botts's comments are disgraceful, but symptomatic of the nuttiness in parts of the profession that has been on full display during the defamation and mistreatment of Tuvel.

UPDATE:  Professor Botts has asked me to post her reply to the preceding concerns, which I am happy to do:

I just want to say that, female philosopher to female philosopher, I actively support Rebecca Tuvel and her right to write any philosophy paper on any topic on which she wishes to write it. I don't know Dr. Tuvel personally, but I know people who know her. I support her integrity and her skills as a scholar. Despite recent claims in the media, I most definitely do not think Dr. Tuvel is more dangerous than a Klansman. My point in the Cliff Sosis blog was that people can hurt other people without intending to do so, and sometimes that's dangerous, BECAUSE THERE IS NO VILLAIN, so it is difficult to know how to redress the injury. Namaste. Peace to all.