https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/update-on-the-stubblefield-sexual-assault-case/#comment-143135

I had to respond. This is not my first post to them but this really hit me.

1.    Ralf Schlosser Says:

October 22, 2015 at 5:09 pm

Re # 17. Noetika you mentioned that you had asked Disability Studies Quarterly whether they would consider removing the piece that was supposedly authored by DJ. Please keep us in the loop if you hear back about your request. Thank you!

2.    noetika Says:

October 22, 2015 at 11:19 pm

Ralf, thanks for asking about this — they just never replied to my email. I was actually just wondering last night if I should share it with a few friends and ask them if they feel the question is important too, to write their own letters asking for a response.

3.    mm Says:

October 23, 2015 at 2:21 am

I agree that the journal should retract the paper. It’s also important to know whether they are unwilling to do this, since it would not bode well for the standards of scholarships of the editors of this journal if they are not.

Woah! You just displayed an incredible dose of academic imperialism over disability studies to threaten us! The ink is not yet dry on a highly disputed case that will be appealed with wide support of amicus briefs being offered by national legal justice organizations on many grounds and you want us to remove authorship of a published article because one judge and one jury declared that its author was raped? The jury made this decision with very little of the FC debate in evidence. It is not clear that a lack of trust in FC was the most important factor in their decision, nor even his “mental defectiveness.” The conviction could be based only on his “physical helplessness.” NJ law, as interpreted by this judge in the final injunction, acts as if statutory rape exists when guardianship is involved. What you are suggesting is that you only believe it was rape because the victim could not consent by reason of his intellect, therefore meaning that he could not have written the article. Maybe it was rape because he did not consent? Maybe it was him typing all but the sexual consent part? You don’t know. We don’t know. No one has the text of those conversations, if they existed. Do we strike all of someone’s work because they were “proven” by a jury to be the victim of rape by their mentor? Isn’t that blaming the victim? If you can’t separate these issues you don’t understand disability studies. The only juror to speak so far made it very clear that they decided day one that only a pervert would want to have sex with D. J..

I’ve been a member of the Society for Disability Studies (SDS) since the beginning in 1985. I’m sending this on to the new DSQ editors and the editorial board, which I’m on. The day we ask people to prove authorship of articles because someone else claims that their disability is other than as presented because 12 people in NJ decide the author was raped, is the day I go back to the prior SDS. D. J. has been denied all access to communication except through his family. How could we let him know his authorship has been challenged? We can’t deny him the opportunity to defend his work because he was raped, if he was. I’ll let history decide.

Devva

Devva Kasnitz, PhD

City University of New York—School of Professional Studies—Disability Studies Telecommunications Access for the Deaf and Disabled Administrative Committee, CA

1614 D Street

Eureka, CA  95501-2345

Text and Voicemail:  (510) 206-5767

Skype:  devva.kasnitz

Email:  [log in to unmask]s

If you don’t know me, I prefer email, Skype with IM, or text as I do have a significant speech impairment.

Occupying Disability: Critical Approaches to Community, Justice, and Decolonizing Disability
Editors: Block, P., Kasnitz, D., Nishida, A., Pollard, N.

http://www.springer.com/us/book/9789401799836