BUZZ
Journal hides who killed the book review
Notre Dame University’s philosophy journal rejected a book review critical of gender ideology, although its board is providing little explanation why.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology philosopher Alex Byrne submitted a detailed review of a book titled “Gender Identity: What It Is and Why It Matters.” The book takes a stance in favor of gender ideology and “trans rights.” Byrne is an expert on gender identity, contributing to a Department of Health and Human Services report on the harms of transgender drugs and surgeries.
The author of the book he reviewed, however, has some flaws in her thinking.
One blurb, reprinted by Byrne, says:
[O]ur gender identities establish that we morally ought to be treated as and thought of as the gender that matches our gender identity … [This book] has shown that our gender identity also seems to matter for the gender that we metaphysically are. It has shown that we should understand being trans in terms of gender identity.
Byrne, a critic of gender ideology, sent a review into Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews examining problems with the scholarship, including questionable citations.
Managing Editor Kirsten Anderson, to Byrne’s surprise, said the review would be published.
“Your review will now go through the standard process, starting with being vetted by a board member covering the relevant area,” Anderson wrote to Byrne, “If the length is a problem, I’ll let the board member weigh in along with any other revision requests that may arise.”
“Otherwise, it’ll go straight to copyediting,” she said. “After that, it’ll be published.”
Yet as detailed in The Philosopher’s Magazine, somewhere along the way an unidentified board member squashed the review. Byrne said it is typical practice in academic publishing for the authors of rejected papers to receive feedback.
The professor wrote:
The identity of the “clear and unswerving” board member remains unknown. More importantly from my point of view, at the time of writing I have not been told anything about the reasons for rejection; neither have I been told anything about the reasons for secrecy.
Byrne wrote critically of his field: “The philosophy profession has shown itself to be an institution of fragile integrity when put to the test. One can only hope spines will eventually stiffen, and academic law and order is restored.”
He notes that there is a glimmer of hope, as Philosophy and Public Affairs did publish the rejected review.
A handful of scholars weighed in on the situation.
Harvard University professor mocked the Notre Dame journal for deeming the book review “too dangerous to print.”
“Philosophy welcomes brutal book reviews,” Carole Hooven wrote. “That is, unless they are critical of gender orthodoxy.”
“[Byrne’s] killed (invited) review is a case in point,” she said. (Hooven and Byrne are married to each other).
