Rebecca Tuvel, the author of a controversial academic paper and presumably still a human being.
In March 2017, Rebecca Tuvel, an assistant professor of philosophy at Rhodes College, published a paper in the feminist philosophy journal Hypatia concerning the topic of ‘transracialism’ — the idea that a person can identify with and transition to a race other than that of their birth — and how common arguments employed to support transgender identities might also be used to support transracial identities. “Importantly,” she wrote, “I am not suggesting that race and sex are equivalent. Rather, I intend to show that similar arguments that support transgenderism support transracialism. My thesis relies in no way upon the claim that race and sex are equivalent, or historically constructed in exactly the same way.”
As you can imagine, Tuvel’s paper elicited no small amount of controversy. Many critics published responses based on the normal principles of calm, reasoned debate, but some chose to resort to more unsavory tactics. Tuvel found herself the victim of an all-too-common barrage of personal attacks and accusations of bigotry from Twitter and Facebook, as well as an highly unusual open letter addressed to Hypatia editor Sally Scholz requesting an official retraction of her paper, claiming “[i]ts continued availability causes further harm [to marginalized groups].” The open letter was authored anonymously but received hundreds upon hundreds of signatures from academics — at least 520 according to one of the letter’s footnotes and likely many more. I wish I could tell you the exact number of signatures, but the list of signatories has now been hidden from the public. Given the letter’s complete disregard for the principles of open, honest discussion, this last act of cowardice is hardly surprising.
New York magazine writer Jesse Singal described the campaign against Tuvel as a “modern-day witch hunt” and characterized the open letter as a “vehicle of misinformation,” saying “each and every one of the falsifiable points it makes is, based on a plain reading of Tuvel’s article, simply false or misleading.” Singal’s article, which I highly recommend reading in its entirety, then goes on to break down in detail why each of the letter’s points is either extremely misleading or outright untrue.
I won’t repeat his points, but I’ll add a few of my own. The open letter describes itself by saying “it is not the aim of this letter to provide an exhaustive list of problems that this article exhibits or to provide a critical response” and it certainly does not do either of those things. The letter — a response to a 15-page academic paper — clocks in at just over 700 words and, despite the grandiosity of the accusations against Tuvel, does not contain a single quote from Tuvel’s actual paper. Not only does the open letter not even attempt to provide a critical response by its own admission, it does not even so much as reference any critical response or link to any external source to support its claims. For an academic paper supposedly so harmful that it justifies the, again, highly unusual step of retraction, it is extremely telling that the open letter does not even pretend to back up any of its claims in the slightest. Its goal is not to convince anyone of the errors in Tuvel’s reasoning through rational discussion, but to extort a retraction through smears, insinuations, and the sheer size of its online lynch mob.
Let me be clear, I support transgender rights 100% and think ‘transracialism’ is a downright silly idea, but I’m not really interested in debating the merits of Tuvel’s arguments. As faulty as some of her reasoning seems to be (full disclosure: there is no way in hell I’m reading a 15-page academic paper for this article), she has done absolutely nothing to warrant of the downright cruel treatment she has received, and that this singling-out and piling-on is being performed by her professional, academic peers only further proves to me that there is indeed something dark and gangrenous in the heart of modern academia.
Vanderbilt philosophy professor Kelly Oliver defended Tuvel and found herself subject to online abuse as well, saying “I felt the need to defend Rebecca Tuvel not only because she is a friend and former Ph.D. student of mine, but also because I respect her work, which is always well argued — whether or not you agree with it — and I found her arguments compelling. I summoned up the courage and entered the fray suggesting only that Hypatia invite critical responses to the article. This suggestion was met with ridicule and derision. I then asked critics to respond with philosophical arguments rather than lobbing insults, which was met with claims that I was doing ‘violence’ to marginalized scholars. The most vocal figures on social media claimed they were harmed, even traumatized, by Tuvel’s article, and by my defense of its right to exist. Some said that Tuvel’s article harmed them, and I was doing violence to them, even triggering PTSD, just by calling for an open discussion of, and debate over, the arguments in the article.”
This is exactly the sort of behavior I decried in a previous article. I would say that the severity and viciousness of the attacks against Tuvel and her defenders were beyond the pale, but such tactics are an everyday occurrence from the anti-liberal far left, and so is, I imagine, the complete lack of sincerity behind them. Oliver continues, “The split between what people wrote to both Rebecca Tuvel and to me in private, and what they felt compelled to say in public is one indication that the explosion of personal insults and vicious attacks on social media is symptomatic of something much bigger than the actual issues discussed in Tuvel’s article. In private messages, some people commiserated, expressed support, and apologized for what was happening and for not going public with their support. As one academic wrote to me in a private message, ‘sorry I’m not saying this publicly (I have no interest in battling the mean girls on Facebook) but fwiw it’s totally obvious to me that you haven’t been committing acts of violence against marginalized scholars.’… Others went further and supported Tuvel in private while actually attacking her in public. In private messages, these people apologized for what she must be going through, while in public they fanned the flames of hatred and bile on social media…
“Some who joined in the protests later admitted in private that they hadn’t even read the article. And at least one person who signed a petition demanding that Hypatia retract the text in question, later, when the media tides were turning, wanted to remove her signature from the damning letter. [Note: As I said before, the list of signatories is no longer public, so I imagine this woman wasn’t alone.] I wonder how many of those who signed that letter had actually read the article. Just this morning, I received a text from someone I respect, lamenting the cruelty on social media, but telling me she was sure she would disagree with the article and find it offensive, even though she hadn’t yet read it.”
Hypatia’s response to this whole controversy has been muddled and disappointing to say the least. In Facebook post, a group of associate editors of Hypatia led by Cressida Heyes — whose work was criticized in Tuvel’s paper — issued an apology on behalf of the journal, stating “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… In addition to the harms… 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.”
This really is a revolting little piece of victim blaming, isn’t it? Tuvel’s mildly-worded paper is “discursive transmisogynistic violence” (as University of Tennessee assistant professor Nora Berenstain called it in a popular Facebook post that, you guessed it, is no longer public), but those that launched personal attacks against Tuvel and slurred her as a violent bigot? They were merely engaging in “heated critique that was both predictable and justifiable.” Justifiable. I try to maintain a minimum level of decorum in my writing, but seriously, go fuck yourself. Tuvel is not the victim of Hypatia lacking “a better review process.” She is the victim of a widespread online harassment campaign organized on the principles of mob justice, a harassment campaign that is, I’ll remind you, led mostly by academics.
On May 6, Sally Scholz — editor of Hypatia and addressee of the open letter — defended the publication of Tuvel’s paper, saying “I believe that a community of scholars should contest concepts and engage in dialogue within the pages of the journal to advance our collective project of educating — students and ourselves…. I firmly believe, and this belief will not waver, that it is utterly inappropriate for editors to repudiate an article they have accepted for publication (barring issues of plagiarism or falsification of data). In this respect, editors must stand behind the authors of accepted papers. That is where I stand. Professor Tuvel’s paper went through the peer review process and was accepted by the reviewers and by me.” She also distanced herself from the publication’s earlier statement, saying, “The Associate Editorial board acted independently in drafting and posting their statement. That board is a policy board and plays no role in the day to day management of the Journal.” While Scholz’s response in heartening, it is also more than a little disturbing that this even needs to be said, let alone that so many of Scholz’s colleagues don’t seem to share her liberal views on open intellectual discourse.
Tuvel herself released a statement on May 1, saying “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… The vehement criticism has already raised a number of concerns…But so much wrath on electronic media has been expressed in the form of ad hominem attacks. I have received hate mail. I have been denounced a horrible person by people who have never met me. I have been warned that this is a project I should not have started and can only have questionable motivations for writing. Many people are now strongly urging me and the journal to retract the article and issue an apology. They have cautioned me that not doing so would be devastating for me personally, professionally, and morally… Calls for intellectual engagement are also being shut down because they ‘dignify’ the article… 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.”
There is a reason why I don’t dare write about feminism under my real name. It’s not because I’m afraid of right-wingers and MRAs; it’s because I’m afraid of my fellow feminists branding me a bigot or trying to destroy my personal and professional life over some piece of writing most of them never even bothered to read. While I disagree with Rebecca Tuvel’s views on ‘transracialism,’ what happened to her is a chilling reminder to any freethinking feminist that derivation from the party line will be swiftly met with overwhelming reprisal, and this harassment, no matter how vicious, will be characterized by many of our fellow leftists as “both predictable and justifiable.”
.jpg)
.png)
Comments are closed on this story.