Deepa,
I have no opinion of Gilley’s claims. I suspect that I am like 90% of the signatories of the petition to withdraw his paper in that I have not read more than a couple of paragraphs beyond the abstract.
I also have no opinion about whether his piece should have been included in the journal. Having read neither his article nor anything else they have published leaves me profoundly unqualified to make that judgement. (I doubt many people would want me to make such decisions even if I upped my reading. If publishing were limited to things I would approve of, a lot of journals would consist of empty covers.)
I generally believe that once something is published in a journal, it should only be removed for legal or ethical reasons. Academic fraud including misuse of data, plagiarism, and actual malice (in the legal sense of the phrase) are valid reasons for withdrawing a published paper. Disagreement is not. Disagreement is very good reason for writing a reply, however.
Even though I think proponents of withdrawal are in error, I think I was clear that I was not condemning the petitioners.
Introducing threats of violence and giving in to threats of violence are clearly morally wrong as far as I’m concerned. Just as, say, those whose positions have been colonized (if you’ll excuse the term) by racists and misogynists have a special obligation to clarify their objections, so do those who demanded the removal of the article have a special obligation to condemn the reasons the article was removed.
Gunnar
Gunnar Swanson
East Carolina University
graphic design program
http://www.ecu.edu/cs-cfac/soad/graphic/index.cfm
[log in to unmask]
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville NC 27858
USA
http://www.gunnarswanson.com
[log in to unmask]
+1 252 258-7006
> On Oct 9, 2017, at 1:00 PM, Deepa Butoliya <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Agreed that threatening is legally and morally wrong, however, call for
> retraction isn't. I am pretty sure the petition didn't ask for any violent
> measures to be taken by the petitioners. That paper, according to Third
> World Quarterly, was published as a "Viewpoints" essay. I agree with
> Farhana Sultana that the scholarship wasn't worth the rebuttal.
>
> Yes, this can be seen as an attack on freedom of speech, it can be seen as
> intolerance towards diverse viewpoint in academe, it can be seen as just
> taking lazy peer reviewing to task....but these are tangential issues. The
> crux of the whole debate is being insensitive towards those who brutally
> suffered under colonialism and how this was carelessly handled/ignored.
>
> How do you think people would react if, dare I say, "Google's Ideological
> Echo Chamber" was published as a double-blind peer-reviewed essay by a
> publisher like T&F?
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Deepa
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|