Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Brian Kogelmann's avatar
  2. RMD's avatar
  3. Textbook Author's avatar
  4. New Author's avatar
  5. J. McKenzie Alexander's avatar
  6. Terence Rajivan Edward's avatar
  7. JR Williams's avatar

David Wallace’s letter to OUP editor Peter Momtchiloff regarding Alex Byrne’s expose

Brian Leiter

MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY–MANY INTERESTING COMMENTS (SEE ESP. TIM WILLIAMSON'S REMARK)

As usual, philosopher of science David Wallace (Pittsburgh) has a sensible take on the matter noted earlier today, and I thank him for sharing this letter.  (Professor Wallace focuses on OUP's decision not to honor a contract to publish a book by Professor Byrne on gender issues, also discussed in his essay.)

Dear Peter,

I'm writing to express my very grave concern about the recent article by Alex Byrne (published in Quillette, linked to on Justin Weinberg's and Brian Leiter's blogs) about his recent experience with OUP, especially (but not only) the abrupt cancellation, apparently with essentially no explanation, of his contracted book, "Trouble with Gender". (I won't try to summarize further: the details are easy to find online and you probably know them already.)

Perhaps there is another side to the story. But at face value it is very hard to avoid the conclusion that OUP cancelled Byrne's contracted book, outside the normal process of peer review and iterated feedback, because for whatever reason it does not want to be associated with a certain constellation of views on one side of the very heated debate on trans issues and trans rights.

I don't think this is an academically defensible position for any university press to take, especially one as preeminent as OUP. I don't think anyone in academia or academic publishing, whatever their position on the first-order issues, could think that the way Byrne (and, by his account, other authors) was treated is appropriate or acceptable. I don't think progress on these difficult political-moral questions is well served by censorship, and I don't think an academic press should countenance censorship even if it did serve some political goal.

I would be delighted to learn that this is some pure misunderstanding, or some transitory error of judgement that is now being put right. I have enormous respect as an author, reader, and partisan of Oxford for the service OUP provides for the academic community and especially for philosophy – but right now, and I really regret having to say this, I have serious doubts about continuing to publish with OUP.

Best wishes

David

PS I have made the text of this letter public, since I think it's important that senior academics make public the strength of their feelings on the need to protect academic freedom. However, I will treat any reply you make as confidential. 

I am opening comments for readers who wish to note their support for Professor Wallace's position, which I think is the right one.  It is a disappointing turn of events (especially because Peter Momtchiloff is an excellent philosophy editor, as everyone who has dealt with him previously knows), but this isn't the first time that OUP has caved into pressure from the censors.  I hope that OUP will make a public statement about this episode.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

45 responses to “David Wallace’s letter to OUP editor Peter Momtchiloff regarding Alex Byrne’s expose”

  1. Daniel Kaufman

    Wholehearted support for Wallace. And for Byrne. One can only hope that after enough of this sort of terrible exposure, these institutions will start behaving like serious outfits as opposed to some silly YA 'zine.

    Reply
  2. Lee Walters

    On the face of it, OUP are a disgrace. I'd like to hear their side of the story, of course.

    Reply
  3. Disappointed Grad Student

    Stories like this make me feel like I've been duped into dedicating my life to this field. This is incredibly disheartening. Shame on OUP.

    Philosophy will die unless tenured philosophers at elite departments do the brave thing and openly stand against the censorious mob.

    Reply
  4. Ned Hall

    I too wholeheartedly support David Wallace in this. In fact, David made it very easy for me to write to Peter as well, since there was really nothing to add to his points except an explicit endorsement of them. The more of these Peter (and other people at OUP) receive, the better, I think.

    Reply
  5. Moti Gorin

    I recently agreed to review a manuscript for OUP. I'm having second thoughts, which I plan to share with them. This is the second time in very recent memory that OUP has behaved in this manner (the first being the way they handled Holly Lawford-Smith's 2022 book). This suggests that the incident with Lawford-Smith was not a one-time blip but perhaps part of a pattern.

    Reply
  6. John Schwenkler

    I want to thank David for sharing this letter. Like Ned, I'll be sending a similar one.

    I also want to second what is said by "Disappointed Grad Student": if you're an established philosopher and aren't taking a stand against this madness, the time for that to change is now.

    Reply
  7. Michael Pelczar

    I've also written to Peter to express my concern. Over the years, he has done our profession a lot of good in a difficult and often thankless job, which I hope people will bear in mind when choosing a tone for their feedback to him on this matter (David Wallace's letter being exemplary in this regard).

    Reply
  8. Brian

    Yes tenured philosophers should speak up. At least to denounce this nonsense for what it is. But don't think the woke can be reasoned with: they are beyond reason. With their fake jargon, fake journals, and "right on" political attitudes masquerading as scholarship, they are taking over & brooking no dissent. Not so much the Righteous Brothers, more the Self-Righteous Sisters.

    Reply
  9. Istvan Aranyosi

    I also wholeheartedly support Wallace and Byrne on this issue!

    Reply
  10. Andrew

    Tangentially, Peter Momtchiloff is a great hero of mine, as a guitarist with Talulah Gosh and Heavenly – philosophers know about this, right?

    Reply
  11. Daniel A. Kaufman

    And if you want to see Exhibit A of such folks, just poke your head into the bizarre discussion going on over in Weinbergia.

    Reply
  12. Richard Marshall

    Wholehearted support for David Wallace and Alex Byrne on this.
    I'm not a professional philosopher of course. I'm a freelance who just happens to be interested in philosophy and runs a tiny website.
    Stock and Lawford-Smith have been targeted by OUP editors since at least 2019 when a book I was editing – and proposed by OUP – was pulled for bullshit reasons because they were included in it.
    As we all know by now, their careers have been seriously jeopardized by this and subsequent attempts to repress their legitimate academic work. Stock has had to leave her job at Sussex University. Lawford-Smith is being similarly targeted.
    When my Women Philosophers book was cancelled because I included Stock and Lawford-Smith (alongside twenty-five other women philosophers!) I was personally inconvenienced, nothing more.
    But I had big problems with OUP’s behaviour. I wouldn't have had if there had been solid editorial reasons for pulling the book. But this decision was all bullshit. I read back the emails between myself and OUP and it was clearly the 3ammagazine Lawford-Smith scandal that changed everything. OUP’s response to that particular fiasco was to censor two tenured women philosophers for their philosophical work.
    It’s as if OUP had been captured by Duns Scotus and Peter van Inwagen was suddenly persona non grata! Philosophy is defined by these and a thousand other huge antagonisms. We do these debates so we can get to the truth. And if from now on we’re only going to get one side of any debate, then debate itself is screwed. And if philosophy is debate, then philosophy is screwed! It goes without saying that truth gets screwed too somewhere along the line!
    OUP’s remit is to be a vehicle for these momentous debates to be played out. By repressing one side of this particular debate they’ve reneged on this duty and should be held in contempt until they make things right.
    Byrne has been brave jumping in like he has. And David Wallace, as always, has turned his forensic eye to the real issue which of course is not about the substantial philosophical meat and potatoes but rather editorial responsibility and adherence to the settled remit and protocols of a free-thinking Humboldtian Academy. (I take it OUP see themselves as part of that!)
    OUP censored two tenured female academic philosophers in 2019. One has subsequently been forced out of her post by intimidation from which her employers, Sussex University, failed to protect her. The other remains in her post but is facing similar treatment. Now OUP has decided to censor another tenured philosopher, this time male. So that’s three working philosophers being censored by OUP for doing what they’re being paid to do!
    From the outside I’d say that it looks like academic philosophy, OUP and the very idea of a thriving Humboldian Academic culture is lurching towards an unhappy end unless OUP, Universities and career academics decide to clean up this mess.

    Reply
  13. Mike Veber

    Wallace is of course right. And I admire Byrne for keeping his sense of humor. The Quillette piece is a riot–"Witchfinder General"! It's important to take a stand and so forth but another good way to deal with all the pious shrieking is to laugh at it. The Daily Nous is Byrning right now and its peanut gallerists are delivering the chuckles–as you'd expect.

    Reply
  14. Raja Halwani

    Full support for both Wallace and Byrne. It is dismal where things are in the field. Here's a poignantly true sentence from Byrne's essay:

    The discussion of sex and gender should have been philosophy’s finest hour, with our profession contributing to the wider conversation, airing its disagreements for all to see. Instead, the discipline has been slowly suffocated by an intolerant minority, driving it closer to irrelevance.

    Reply
  15. Publishing Veteran

    An interesting way to think about this issue is the extent to which we should emphasize the word "University" in Oxford University Press.

    On the one hand, the two big university presses in the UK function in most respects like the major commercial publishing firms, and aspire to be more like a Wiley than a MIT University Press. The revenues of OUP and CUP are in the ten or nine figures, rather than the eight figures of many university presses in the US. This has been the case for some time. There may therefore be certain commercial considerations that inform their actions when it comes to sensitivities in various markets.

    On the other hand, OUP is still managed by a university, and the extent to which the prevailing notions of what ideas are acceptable in academic scholarly communication may be the decisive factor in this particular instance. OUP is managed by a group of delegates pulled from the faculty. What would be interesting to know here is if OUP leadership acted based on internal policies about how DEI topics should be handled or whether there was some input from the delegates on this issue or more generally about DEI initiatives.

    The pervasive climate of fear of being on the "wrong" side of current opinions — which some have promoted to "History" with a capital "H" — seems related to administrators of all kinds taking the path least likely to get them public attention.

    Reply
  16. Tim Williamson

    I completely share David Wallace’s concerns about OUP’s treatment of Alex Byrne. As far as I can tell, such concerns are in fact widely shared by both senior and junior philosophers, but many people are reluctant to go public for fear of vilification and career harm.

    Reply
  17. Alexander

    Yes! Before the pandemic, I saw him in Oxford supporting The Monochrome Set. A jangle-pop icon.

    Reply
  18. Daniel Kaufman

    One of the things that is so striking about the dumpster fire going on in the comments over in Weinbergia is just how much malicious contempt people in our profession have for one another. To an outside observer, it looks like we're just inches away from knifing each other to death.

    I remember Jerries Katz and Fodor going after one another at the CUNY GC back in the 90's, but compared to the way things are now, they were like a mutual admiration society.

    Reply
  19. Brandon Warmke

    I do hope OUP is willing to share how these decisions were made.

    Reply
  20. Mohan Matthen

    I haven't read Alex's book ms., but I did read his paper for the Journal of Controversial Ideas quite carefully before and then more cursorily after it was published. (In fact, Alex acknowledges my assistance with that paper–not that it was very significant.) I don't agree with every aspect of its methodology–there are places where it relies more heavily on ordinary language than I would like. But it is extremely well-informed, meticulously documented, and (of course) philosophically insightful (aside from all that ordinary language stuff). I'd like to say, "Of course, it is . . . this is Alex Byrne we are talking about," but I guess that would be begging the question. Anyway, it is startling to me that OUP rejected the book without serious comment (aside from the silly back-hander that it was disrespectful and insufficiently serious.) Contrary to Brandon Warmke's comment (#19) above, I hope they are NOT willing to share how these decisions are made. It would be far too depressing to learn the truth.

    Reply
  21. Ned Hall

    I wonder if the APA could be induced to conduct a systematic survey of its members, to find out which philosophical topics they view as too professionally risky to consider engaging with. While I doubt it would yield any surprises, it could help those of us who are deeply concerned about the censorious state of our profession, mainly by making it both highly public and indisputable that we have a serious problem. Curious what people think. (Specifically, about whether this would be a useful effort, *assuming* the APA could be convinced to undertake it.)

    Reply
  22. Jenann Ismael

    I add my support to what David Wallace says here, and also to Alex Byrne. I, too, will write and hope OUP will explain their decision.

    Reply
  23. Justin Kalef

    Even if we ignore the moral wrongness of treating a fellow philosopher as Byrne, Stock, etc. have been treated, and even if we ignore even the remarkable lapses in philosophical integrity that are on display here, there are simple matters of prudence credibility that I hope the people who have acted in these ways will consider, if nothing else.

    Reasonable people who see that a fair and rigorous discussion has led the experts to generally agree that P will therefore give P more credit than they otherwise would. But if it begins to seem credible that the general consensus that P has actually been achieved by intimidation, character assassination, and the out-and-out suppression of alternative ideas, then reasonable people will come to doubt the case for P. Why, after all, would people act this way, if they have compelling reasons for believing that P?

    When people finally get tired of the familiar intimidation and start to speak up at last, as is happening now, it damages people's trust not only in P but in the subdiscipline that allowed this state of affairs to persist. Those who most strongly wish people to accept their worldview should be very careful to *prevent*, not promote, these sorts of unfair moves in favor of the views they support.

    Moreover, if a subdiscipline of philosophy is caught playing dirty like this, it looks bad not just for the subdiscipline but for philosophy as a whole. So there's a second prudential reason for not behaving this way: It's apt to make one's subdiscipline look bad among other philosophers, who will actively try to distance themselves from it when these practices come to be discussed publicly.

    There are all sorts of interesting and important questions about, say, gender identity and sex. But why should people take the philosophical literature on those topics seriously if this is how consensus is maintained?

    Reply
  24. Peter

    I have the suspicion that the woke faculty members actively try to select for more incoming grad students who share their views. If that is the case, and philosophy is slowly overtaken by zealots who cannot stomach certain views, it is time for a divorce. The sane majority rigorously needs to establish its own journals, its own associations where academic freedom is protected.

    Reply
  25. Daniel A. Kaufman

    A number of the miscreants involved in this and previous dustups on this issue were involved in the (admittedly lampoonable) “white paper on publication ethics,” so I would be very suspicious of any APA efforts in this area.

    Reply
  26. disaffected queer historian

    I would support a systematic survey of the kind Ned Hall suggests. I am a junior professor. I am also non-white and queer–the reason I don't identify as trans is because I don't wish to be associated with today's trans-activist crowd. I have made a conscious decision to stay far away from the current 'debates' on gender (as well as race) simply because the risks seem to be too high. Fortunately I work on the history of metaphysics and epistemology, so my career doesn't depend on writing professional articles about the pronoun wars. But I don't like that I have had to choose self-censorship, and I'm sure I'm not alone in being in this position.

    FWIW: I am wholly behind David Wallace's position in this latest mess.

    Reply
  27. John Collins

    Peter is a very good guy, personally known and liked by many of us, and no-one yet knows all the facts. We do know, though, that OUP is not Peter's personal fiefdom, and any decisions made involve a number of people, including people who employ Peter and other editors. So, before we start acting as judge and jurors of Peter and bombarding him with emails, we might pitch things in terms of helping Peter against the forces of darkness rather than having him down as the enemy, which he is certainly not. That said, the idiocy that has beset corners of philosophy is lamentably real and I wholly support Alex, Holly, Kathleen, and many others who have been victims of smear, harassment, blacklisting, and intimidation, all of which is inexcusably foul.

    Reply
  28. Brian Cutter

    I also very much share David Wallace's concern, and I hereby express my thanks to him for writing/sharing this.

    Reply
  29. Alex Byrne

    Just to wholeheartedly echo John Collins' remark about Peter. I have a great deal of respect for him and we've had a productive relationship for many years. He also gave me some very useful comments on an early draft of my book, and I thank him in the acknowledgments. No doubt he was in a tough spot. He is not aligned with the forces of darkness, I'm sure.

    Reply
  30. s. wallerstein

    This may sound cynical, but powerless people when they get power tend to abuse it. The woke are a strange coalition of racial minorities, women, gays, queers, trans and others who identify with these groups for a number of reasons and now that they have a bit of power, years, even generations, of resentment and bitterness, are going to come of the closet as occurs with all revolutions, with the French revolution, the Russian revolution, the Chinese revolution and the Cuban revolution.

    The so-called American revolution just meant that the colonial elite took over, so it wasn't the case of a powerless group coming into power.

    I'm not claiming that long-time elites don't abuse power, but they often tend to do it less blatantly or when no one is looking or where no one can see it occuring (in the third world, in colonies, etc.)

    So the self-righteous sisters are to be expected.

    Reply
  31. Steven Hales

    I agree that many people are reluctant to go public for fear of vilification and career harm. It is also true that the censorious scolds are absolutely indefatigable and never back down or stop. Engaging with that kind of opponent is like committing to eternal war—it's just too exhausting.

    Reply
  32. Peter Carruthers

    I, too, was horrified by Byrne's piece, and am grateful for Wallace's public letter. I will follow up with a note to Peter M. myself.

    Reply
  33. Justin Kalef

    One further point:

    We often hear that certain areas of philosophy cannot be explored in the usual way because we need to consider the effects of the discussion on various people. We are told that these people are so constituted, or so situated, that arguing for the wrong conclusion, or objecting to arguments that should not be objected to, would lead to their death through murder or suicide, etc.

    Leaving aside the question of how plausible that is, what follows? Suppose that there is a proposition P such that its negation, if it were argued for, would cause the death of innocent people. If we then conclude that it would be morally unacceptable to deny that P, or even to raise doubts about some argument for P, or to publish any such things, then what seems to follow is that *no philosophy should be done in that area at all*. On the one hand, it would be immoral (on this assumption) to question whether P is true. On the other hand, this seems to mean that anyone arguing *for* P aren't really engaging in philosophical inquiry, since nobody can rightly deny their assertion and there's no interesting way in which they could 'succeed' in establishing that P under those circumstances. Moreover, nobody who *assumes* that P seems to be producing useful philosophy, either, since everything then proceeds on an assumption nobody has good philosophical grounds for believing.

    I suppose the exception to this would be a case of an article that goes as follows: "Since moral constraints prohibit the inquiry needed to determine whether P is true, I will instead assume P for the sake of argument to see what follows. None of this should be taken to suggest that P is true. But _if_ it were true…" Fair enough — but then it must be remembered on all sides that no support has been given to the belief that anything that follows from P is true.

    Either philosophers may be permitted to argue that not-P, or else those who maintain that P are philosophically unwarranted in doing so. You can't have it both ways, even were it true that denying that P were a form of murder.

    Reply
  34. Scott Wisdom

    I understand the desire to push back against the conduct described in the article, however, philosophers may overestimate their abilities to persuade.

    Take a thousand foot view and see that these things go in cycles. For example, Charles Stevenson did not get tenure at Yale because a few influential prigs could not appreciate his first-rate work. Sure, there wasn't social media on which to cheer and jeer about it – although we can imagine the deeply felt yet wooly threads about positivism being evil if twitter existed back then.

    Jay-Z's line that "A wise man told me don't argue with fools cause people from a distance can't tell who is who" seems apt.

    Reply
  35. Andrew

    I offered to lend Sabina Lovibond, who taught both Peter and me, some of his CDs. She demurred, on the grounds that she might lose them. It's a jangle out there!

    Reply
  36. Peter

    @Scott Wisdom

    Jay-Z is wrong. We are not arguing with fools, we are trying to put crazies back into mental asylum.

    Reply
  37. Tim O'Connor

    I share the deep concern expressed by David Wallace and echoed by others above over what Alex Byrne reports regarding the handling of his invited contribution to a Handbook volume and of his book manuscript by OUP. As a rule, I am loathe to comment online on controversies of the moment, but where the integrity of our profession is at stake, we must speak out, and OUP is our flagship press. I also share the admiration expressed by others for Peter M., and I strongly suspect the decision in this matter came from higher up the food chain. I join the call asking for OUP to explain itself; perhaps public pushback will enable Peter to do his job free of improper pressure in the future. I also second Ned Hall’s suggestion that a survey of members of our profession may be warranted at this time, but I would prefer it not to be done via the APA, as (like our blog host) I am no longer a member. (:

    Reply
  38. Disappointed Grad Student

    I’ve sifted through the comments over at Weinbergia. This one, in response to a footsoldier of the Gender Inquisition, terrified me:

    “As someone employed by the university press in question, I thank you for articulating this so efficiently. This is not a question of academic freedom but rather one of academic integrity and recognizing that scholarly output can and does affect policy. It is irresponsible and transparent when those supporting [Gender Critical] beliefs claim otherwise. If the violent and horrific attacks against the trans and NB community aren't convincing enough, try looking into the extremely high rates of suicide ideation and attempts by trans youth. https://pubmed.ncbi.nl
    m.nih.gov/32345113/“

    Sharing here to amplify it. Obviously we cannot be sure that this commenter is honest about his employment at OUP, but if he is, then it is clear that the book was not rejected on the merits. (Not that anyone could look at this debacle in good faith and think that that’s a live option anymore.)

    Many sensible commenters over at the Daily Nous keep insisting the obvious point that whether the opinions found in GC scholarship constitute harms is itself one of the questions to be adjudicated under the magnifying glass, but this (obvious) remark falls on deaf or stubborn ears.

    Reply
  39. David Wallace

    I've corresponded privately with Alex Byrne about Momtchiloff's reply. I believe Byrne is (properly) concerned about ensuring that confidences are respected, and so I'll be circumspect: let me say only that on the basis of what I have been told I don't think there is any inconsistency between Byrne's account of what happened and Momtchiloff's; nor am I at all inclined to revise my assessment of these events as a fairly dramatic, and almost certainly politically forced, deviation from the norms of academic publishing.

    My own feeling is that there is a genuine issue of how to consider the confidentiality of referee reports, but that it would be regrettable if it were not possible to communicate more of the details here to the community. I hope that Alex Byrne will communicate further on these issues.

    Reply
  40. BorisGrozdanoff

    After having read Alex Byrne's essay I fully support all in David's post, I see it as exhaustive, completely correct and very productive to the issue, that seems like a long due cross-point between stances in the narrow (trans-rights) and perhaps broad (gender in general) debate. Academic and social silence has never been a good option to resolve an important social and academic issue.

    Reply
  41. Paul Elbourne

    I also share David Wallace’s concerns about OUP’s treatment of Alex Byrne.

    Reply
  42. Grad Student

    I fully support David, but I will not post it in my name, because it can hurt my future career. This is the situation we're in now. It's a disgrace.

    Reply
  43. qfbb

    let's see. when a book is published by oup philosophy we don't question the publisher's good judgment. when a book project is rejected by oup philosophy we cry foul. is there anything further to the matter?

    needless to say, i'm in complete solidarity with oup philosophy and their editorial team.

    BL COMMENT: It's a shame you did not use a real email address, or I would have written to you directly to correct your mistaken assumptions. First, philosophers question publishing decisions by OUP all the time; many such cases have been noted on this blog. Just two examples:

    https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2013/11/kerry-mckenzie-did-not-like-colin-mcginns-book.html

    https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2012/11/dupre-on-nagels-mind-and-cosmos.html

    Second, all of this also misses the point: the process in the case of Byrne's book being rejected seems highly irregular for the reasons that have been detailed now at length.

    Reply
  44. Publishing Veteran

    Momtchiloff's letter is inadequate as a plausible explanation of what went on, though an alpha minus exercise in plausible deniability. Academic presses just don't cancel a book at that late stage. With senior acquisitions editors, so well-regarded in the field, virtually everything they put forward will get published. If not, then that is a sign that their judgment is seriously impaired — or some kind of fraud has been perpetrated — and without judgment, an acquisitions editor is nothing.

    There are internal assessments before the manuscript is sent to reviewers, and it's likely to have already been baked into sales and marketing plans.

    Having reviewers vociferously urge against publication would be a sign that both Momtchiloff and the Press didn't know what they were doing when they took the book on, and that clearly is not credible.

    The peer review for books, especially in the humanities, is more impressionistic than it is for journal papers in the sciences. It's almost never a recommendation not to publish. That's not the purpose. The purpose is to suggest relatively small improvements, not render an existential verdict on whether the book should see the light of day. Ironically, these are often aimed at providing a fuller treatment of the range of scholarly opinion on the topic at hand. "A summary of recent French scholarship would not be amiss in Chapter 3," kind of thing.

    The number of reviewers can be important, it can be two or three. If there is a lack of unanimity, then the Press has to make a decision. With any kind of issue where there are different schools of thought, the editor would normally insist on having at least one reader from the two main camps. Imagine a book on consciousness only having readers who agree with Daniel Dennett. It would be a dereliction of duty not to take that approach. What would have been normal practice would have been to have Holly Lawford-Smith, or someone representing a similar viewpoint, act as one of the readers. Does anyone think in this case that any of the reviewers were of the non-woke party?

    What seems clearly to have happened is that a policy decision at the Press was made in the light of the responses to Lawford-Smith. The editorial policy effectively became "we will not publish material that will inflame the woke party." Perhaps it was an attempt at damage control. If so, the results are to have maximized the damage to every conceivable party in the great chain of academic being. The Academy, the Humanities, Philosophy, Oxford University, OUP, woke philosophers, Momtchiloff, and Alex Byrne — all come out of this damaged in one way or another. If the woke think they have scored a victory, I suspect that in a few years "pyrrhic" won't begin to describe its hollowness.

    Reply
  45. Moti Gorin

    I included this comment in my email to the OUP editor, as I found it to be the most troubling on the DN thread (which is saying something, given some of the views expressed there about academic freedom).

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

    Reply

Designed with WordPress