The Essay on Reproductive and Population Ethics that Vox.com Commissioned from Torbjörn Tännsjö, But Didn't Dare Publish

Indeed. For the informed in philosophical ethics, the ideas argued by professor of practical philosophy at Stockholm University and formerly my colleague in Gothenburg and once doctoral supervisor Torbjörn Tännsjö is no news. Apparently, though, it scared the socks off the Vox.com editors, who decided to give in a to a perceived heckler vote and scrap a commissioned piece popularly presenting one of several well-known standard positions in population and reproductive ethics. Of course, this is very good reason to spread the article as widely as poosible, so please download it here. Naturally, this has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with Tännsjö on the issue.

Brian Leiter has the backgroundstory here, including link to a response from the Vox editors, apparently produced in a panic at being faced with a minor uproar around Twitter and other places. Read it, and I think you'll agree that it only strengthen the reasons to continue having their underwear pulled down in public. Apparently it is Vox's official position that if a person holds what they take to be a pro-life opinion on abortion (which ironically Tännsjö don't, he's radically pro-choice! and pro-life positions on the politics of abortion is in no way implied by his argument), they cannot be published in Vox provided the editors don't feel sufficiently "comfortable" about they themselves promoting the view in question. I suppose they universalize this maxim, and publish only opinions they themselves personally feel comfortable promoting – good luck with that sorry excuse for publishing policy! That in addition to their more carefully elaborated exposition of their own  lack of journalistic spunk.

Brian Leiter: from Online Harrassment and Ridiculous Legal Threats to Simple False Flag Bullying

You thought it was over, but of course it was not. Like a dung beetle will eventually find its way to a suitable habitat, where it can enjoy itself royally, University of Chicago philosopher and law professor Brian Leiter is now finally finding his way home, resorting to slander and bullying, pure and simple rural redneck style. You may inform yourself about foregone events regarding professor Leiter's manners and manoeuvres here and through the links there provided.

Then move on to read the latest tidings on how the dear professor tries to get back at one of his self-perceived nemesis, Leigh Johnson: Here and here. Given the increasingly sorry figure Brian Leiter is in these ways making of himself, you may ask yourself if you might commit the mistake of the Black Mamba / Beatrix Kiddo judging the motivational features of Bill:

... and whether the dear professor commits that of Bill misjudging "Kiddo", of course.

As for myself, wise from my own experience of anonymous comments on matters Leiter (see first link above), there is at least no mystery with regard to the identity of "AnonUntenured", an observation of which I'm far from alone.

Brian Leiter's Christmas Present: Threatening Colleagues with Defamation Suit for Signing "The September Statement" and Carrie Ichikawa-Jenkins with Exposure of Intimate Health Details

Remember The September Statement from earlier this year, signed by 648 academic philosophers in North America and elsewhere against Chicago philosopher and law professor Brian Leiter's unacceptable treatment of his UBC colleague Carrie Ichikawa-Jenkins, ending in Leiter's statement of resignation from the institutional ranking operation he had founded and coordinated up till then, the Philosophical Gourmet Report? If not, a recapture of some of the essential of this sad and disgraceful story is here (start at the bottom to get the adequate chronology). This detailed chronological account is also rewarding.

One would have thought that after this, Brian Leiter would prefer to lay dead and lick his wounds for a while, waiting for the memory of the scandal and his own disgrace to settle, and maybe find new pathways to having himself feel good about himself besides bullying and threatening (apparently mostly female) academic colleagues for one of the other, more or less fathomable, reason found by him to justify such behaviour. Maybe do something meriting a minimal portion of admiration and respect from academic colleagues, perhaps?

Not so at all.

As revealed on Christmas eve by Jonathan Ichikawa-Jenkins, Carrie's husband, Leiter has recently had a Canadian lawyer send a letter to them both, threatening with a defamation lawsuit unless they publicly post a "proposed statement" of apology to Leiter, with the specifically nasty ingredient of a specific threat that such a suit would imply " “a full airing of the issues and the cause or causes of [Carrie’s] medical condition;”. Moreover, the letter asks the Ichikawa-Jenkins to apologise not only for the personal declaration of professional ethos that made no mention of Brian Leiter whatsoever but that for some reason – to me still incomprehensible as long as a deeply suppressed guilty conscience or outright pathology is not pondered – to to be an attack on his person, but also for the actions of other people, such as this post at the Feminist Philosophers blog, and The September Statement itself – implying obviously that all the signatories to that statement would be in the crosshairs of professor Leiter. The full letter of the lawyer setting out these threats is here. The (expected) response from the Ichikawa-Jenkins' lawyer is here, stating the simple and obvious claim that all that's been publicly communicated on this matter – such as making public bullying emails of Leiter –  is protected by normal statutes of freedom of speech.

Following the quick uptake of this news, with comments by The Daily Nous, and Jon Cogburn pointing out the perversity of an academic promoting the abuses of free speech by UK libel law standards, Leiter has posted a comment of his own. He states that Jonathan Ichikawa-Jenkins' brief recapture of Leiter's lawsuit threatening letter is "misrepresenting" it, which – in want of any specifics from leiter's side – seems to mean not disclosing it in full (making every academic book, including Leiter's own works, commenting on the works of others into a "misrepresentation" as defined by Leiter himself). He moreover states that the Ichikawa-Jenkins's dismissal of his legal threat means that "we now have an effective admission by Jenkins and Ichikawa that they misled the philosophical community with their claims in the September Statement". The argument for this bizarre claim seems to be that their legal response is not responding to his lawyers' statement of the September Statement as factually inadequate. What Leiter forgets, however, is that this response is already all over the internet, in the form of Leiter's own emails and public remarks on this affair. On this matter, the onus is on Brian Leiter to prove that he hasn't as a matter of fact written or said the things attributed to him. All that remains beyond this, as noted by The Daily Nous, is apparently that Leiter wants to question that Carrie Ichikawa-Jenkins was as a matter of fact harmed by his behaviour towards her, conveniently forgetting that what his professional colleagues reacted against was his own unacceptable bullying behaviour, and the implications of having him getting away with such breeches from the position of power bestowed on him by being in charge of the PGR. As we now know, this assessment was shared by a sizable enough portion f the PGR advisory board to eventually produce the mentioned resignation of Leiter from his position of influence over this institution.

This utterly bewildering attempt by a philosphical academic at constructing an argument that wouldn't even pass for a 101 essay reminds somewhat of the attempt of Leiter to have me retract statements on my own blog that his harassment of Ichikawa-Jenkins was unprovoked. Apparently, Leiter believes that the fact that he feels something (such as provoked) implöies the existence of something (in this case a provocation) that justifies the behaviour he exhibits due to this feeling. Maybe it is the same thing going on with this lawsuit threatening business of his – since he feels he has the right to treat colleagues as pieces of crap when he feels like it, this is also "factually adequate"? Or maybe he just likes to annoy other people, who knows?

Brian Leiter ends his comment by clarifying ...

Legal remedies may yet be pursued against others among the original signatories and authors of the September Statement.  As I have remarked previously, I do not begrudge those who signed subsequently for doing so given the misleading statements that were presented to them.

As one of those subsequent signatories, I do wonder whether or not the implication that I didn't have the wits to check the relevant facts, such as Brian Leiter's own original bullying email to Carrie Ichikawa-jenkins, before signing could perhaps constitute libel. Perhaps me and the 647 others should open a class action defamation suit against Leiter for soiling our academic reputations by ill-meant slander? Or perhaps not. Perhaps we should stand by the minimal decency standard of civil academic discussion not to try to resolve either factual or normative disputes by threats of force towards opponents.

Brian Leiter Announces He Will Step Down As PGR Editor After The 2014-15 Edition.

This is following up on recent events reported here, here and, most recently, here.

Today, Brian Leiter posted the following on his blog, Leiter Reports:

... the Advisory Board and I have agreed on the following statement regarding the plan for the PGR:

The 2014-15 PGR will proceed as planned, with Berit Brogaard joining Brian Leiter as co-editor and taking over responsibility for the surveys and the compilation of results, with assistance as needed from Brian and the Advisory Board.  At the conclusion of the 2014-15 PGR, Brian will step down as an editor of the PGR and join the Advisory Board.  Berit will take over as editor until such time as a co-editor can be appointed to assist with future iterations of the report.  After 2014, Berit will have ultimate decision-making authority over the PGR.  Upon completion of the 2014-15 PGR, Berit will appoint a small advisory transition committee that she will consult on possible improvement, both substantive and operational, in the PGR going forward.

Of the 50 members of the Advisory Board, 45 voted in favor of this plan, none voted against, and 2 Board members abstained ...

There is more to read in Leiter's post, for those who are inclined, but this is the gist. A comment summing up the whole thing and putting into some slightly larger context can be accessed at the Daily Nous blog.

To this day, the September Statement, which initiated the process leading up to this conclusion has assembled 648 (!) signatories in North America and overseas.

Some Further Developments on Brian Leiter and the PGR, following the September Statement and the Advisory Board Letter that Urges his Resignation

This is following up on the events a week or so back, which resulted in two posts here and here. A string of unprovoked* harassments, bullying and threats towards various academic colleagues online by Brian Leiter, famous philosophy blogger and coordinator of the Philosophical Gourmet Report (a sort of home-cooked, informal ranking of English-speaking philosophy departments based on mutual appraisal or lack of such by said departements), finally led to a storm of protests. These were especially strong in support of Leiter's latest victim, Carrie Ichikawa Jenkins and documented in the September Statement (to date signed by 613 academic philosophers in North America and overseas and called a "smear campaign" by Leiter himself). This letter urges academic philosophers to recline serving the PGR with any type of input as long as it is linked to Leiter. As a subsequent reaction, 30 out of 56 of the PGR's advisory board – basically what makes the PGR radiate any sort of academic authority in the first place – wrote to Leiter, asking him to hand over the management of the PGR to new regime. A more detailed update to this request was sent on October 1, and today, Leiter posted a reply on his blog, where the essential info is this:

two of the options mentioned in the letter, both involving my immediate departure from the PGR, were unacceptable:  I have already invested hundreds of hours in correcting and updating the spread sheet with more than 550 evaluators, as well as the spread sheet containing more than one hundred faculty listings.  Any report based on that work is a report I have at least co-edited.

I have also informed the Board that I am still considering the third proposal, namely, proceeding with the 2014 PGR (with Brit Brogaard as co-editor) while simultaenously committing to turn over any future PGR to others.  I am also considering two other possibilities:  (4) proceeding with the 2014 PGR (again, obviously, with Brit as co-editor) and postponing any decisions about the future of the PGR until after the 2014 PGR and after the current controversy; or (5) simply discontinuing the PGR altogether.

My analysis: Leiter dares the gang of 30 (thereby daunting the gang of 613) to a game of chicken, where the opening play is "I do whatever I want with my baby". Possibly he does, the question is who actually cares about the baby in the long run, when he has had it drained of fat, so to speak. To be frank, although regularly having students and post docs who gravitate towards seeking foreign contacts, careers or training opportunities across the anglophone philosophy world, I never did, as my Canadian bioethics colleague Udo Schuklenk has made clear that he doesn't – classifying the PGR as a "gossip document", where "people affiliated with pre-selected programs evaluate the quality of people in pre-selected programs based on ... well, apparently, whatever criteria they choose to evaluate quality". To find good departments is easy, you look up what people publish in the field you're interested in, read it and assess it and check how it's flying in the collegial discussion, and possibly chart a bit how the seminar programs look like and what the funding situation looks like – easy enough these days.

I did and do, however, care lots about the horribly bad example set by Leiter's behaviour towards colleagues – in particular, women colleagues, as it seems – and the effects that this has on these persons. That was reason enough for me to sign the September Statement. Whether or not Leiter runs his PGR baby into the ground is not really any concern of mine, although I do think, as Udo seems to do, that it might actually do the English-speaking academic philosophy world a bit of good to get rid of at least one layer of the many layers of the mutual academic back-scratching club.

*) Addition on October 6, 2014: As can be seen by the comments below, Brian Leiter thinks that the word "unprovoked" here (as in my earlier posts) is factually incorrect. In light of the evidence he has provided and the further comments following Leiter's two posts below, I have nevertheless decided to let it stay, but with the following addendum: 

It is clear to me that BL felt strongly provoked by some complex process of events around the PGR and that he at the time, for some reason, saw Carrie Jenkin's blog post as part of what he  perceived as a "smear campaign" against him. Taking, BL's word for it, he later received information that he himself was among the philosophers, whose behaviour Jenkins distanced herself from in her post. However, to my eyes, this just confirms what I have written. The fact that someone is filled with strong negative and resenting affect, caused by some phenomenon, does not make that phenomenon into a provocation. The fact that Leiter in retrospect allegedly finds some information that, had he known it at the time, would have made the phenomenon into a provocation doesn't change this situation. But, I'd go some steps in Brian Leiter's direction and make the assumption that indeed Carrie Jenkin's had Leiter in mind as one of the philosophers she thought about as exhibiting unprofessional behaviour, and that Leiter at the time knew this to be the case. Does that in any way constitute sensible cause to do what Brian Leiter did? I cannot see how it would under any minimally reasonable standard of professional academic conduct. Thus, even then, no provocation for the actual actions of Leiter would exist – this is my position. I'm aware that Brian Leiter holds a different position on this matter, but that in itself is no reason for me to change my mind.

A Few More Details and Developments Regarding Brian Leiter's Unprovoked Bullying of Colleagues

So, reading from the number of hits on this blog since yesterday evening, I can assume that a precious few have missed yesterday's post on the bizarre and completely unacceptable behaviour of Brian Leiter towards Carrie Jenkins of UBC and Aberdeen and a number of other almost exclusively female academic colleagues.

Today, Feminist Philosophers, posted an update on Leiter's alleged attempt to apologise to Jenkins, and the devastating effects his behaviour has had on Jenkin's state of mind and health. Here, it also surfaces that Leiter's claims that another female philosopher had "tipped him off" about the completely neutral and impersonal post that had Leiter blow his top off as an attack on Leiter, is a blatant lie. It also recaptures some more detail on the bizarre Twitter attacks by Leiter on Jenkins, following the originbal harassment email this July.

The "September" statement I linked to yesterday in support of Jenkins, against Leiter's actions towards her and others and for withdrawing service forthe Philosophical Gourmet Report as long as Leiter has a role in it, is now again available as a Google page. Yesterday, it was taken down, as someone had reported it for violating user-conditions – which, apparently, it does not. On its dropbox site, the statement has now collected 260 signatories, as I write this. As mentioned yesterday, anyone in academic philosophy may add their signature by emailing septemberstatement@gmail.com from their institutional address and provide full name and institution.

Moreover, on the Read More Write More Think More Be More blog,  a number of further links, besides the ones I provided yesterday are presented. More importantly, this blog documents what was yesterday night circulated only as a rumour on Facebook and Twitter (photo shared by courtesy of Jason Stanley):

That is, besides the September Statement, the very institutional backbone of the PGR is now revolting in earnest. At least, it seems likely that this base of the power that Leiter has so badly abused is now slipping out of his grasp.

However, for my own part, while seeing this development as promising, I mostly hope that Carrie Jenkins and the others grazed by leiter's inconsiderate harassments, feel the support of their colleagues all over the American continent and the rest of the world and can take some comfort and healing out of it.

An Increasingly Remarkable Series of Unprovoked Bullying Attacks Puts Brian Leiter in the Sight of Open Statement Signed by A Growing Number of Philosophers in US and Worldwide

Brian Leiter, well-known philosopher at the University of Chicago law school and even more well-known philosophy blogger, has recently come under some heavy criticism from colleagues in North America and overseas, following a remarkably strange series of completely unprovoked, outright nasty, harassing and openly threatening email-attacks against Carrie Ichikawa Jenkins, philosopher at the universities of British Columbia and Aberdeen, and some others. These as well as the one against Jenkins are documented here and here. The latter of these resources also offers the following further readings and samples on the subject of Brian Leiter's manners:

• Daily Nous, Insults and Obnoxiousness
• Philosophy Adjunct, The Real Crisis in Philosophy is About Power
• Leigh M Johnson, Leiter v. Alcoff Part One and Part Two
• Julie Van Camp, Female Friendly Departments
• Brian Leiter, We Get Mail: Thomas R. Grover, Esq, Edition
• Paul Campos:
  Brian Leiter’s Slow-Motion Car Crash, Parts One and Two
  What’s Going On in the Faculty Lounge?
  “We’re dirty guys and they doubt we were ever virgins but they don’t say the story is inaccurate”
  Pathological Liars
  For the Record
• Damon Cheston, Is Brian Leiter Guilty of Cyber-Stalking

For some reason, most of the victims of his behaviour are women, not unimportant in view of the recent critical discussion of the treatment of female philosophers across US academia.

The particular attack against Carrie Jenkins was apparently due to the following blog post that Jenkins publicised due to her attaining full professorship at UBC, this summer. She here sets out the following principles of a professional ethos for herself to abide by:

1. In my professional capacity, I will treat other philosophers with respect.

• In particular, I will treat other philosophers more junior and/or professionally vulnerable than myself with respect.
• I will not make negative personal comments about individual philosophers in professional contexts.
• If I disagree with someone’s work or ideas, I will find ways to express that disagreement without suggesting the person is unintelligent, lacking in credibility, unfit to be a philosopher, or otherwise undeserving of respect.
• I will not treat other philosophers or their work in ways that are belittling, trivialising, and/or exclusionary.

2. I will not react to behaviour that does not meet the basic standards described in 1 as if it were normal or acceptable within my discipline.

• I will make clear, in public, that in my opinion behaviour which does not meet the basic standards described in 1 is both unprofessional and unethical.**
• I will not accept or treat those whose behaviour regularly fails to meet these standards as normal or representative members of my profession.
• I will not lend my professional authority or support to such behaviour or to the people who regularly engage in it.

3. I will work with like-minded colleagues to find ways to make philosophy a discipline in which junior and otherwise professionally vulnerable academics are not routinely subject to behaviour that does not meet the basic standards described in 1

This, for some reason that is beyond me, had Brian Leiter write and send the following:

From: Leiter, Brian
Date: Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Subject: I'm curious about your threats aimed at me
To: "Jenkins, Caroline"
Cc: "Leiter, Brian"

Dear Carrie:
Since you have issued the following threats aimed at me on your blog:

• I will make clear, in public, that in my opinion behaviour which does not meet the basic standards described in 1 is both unprofessional and unethical.**
• I will not accept or treat those whose behaviour regularly fails to meet these standards as normal or representative members of my profession.
• I will not lend my professional authority or support to such behaviour or to the people who regularly engage in it.

I’m curious what you’re going to do, especially regarding the second and third. Are you going to spit at me if I see you at the APA or chase me from the room with a bat? That would be bad. Does this mean I can’t list you as a reference? That’s OK. Does it mean you will defame me whenever the opportunity presents itself? That would also be bad.
Also, calling me “unprofessional” is probably defamatory per se in Canada, so I’d suggest you stick to “unethical” (since “ethical” as we all know has no cognitive content). It may be in the US too, I haven’t asked my lawyer yet, but I will.
I’ve grown used to the fact that lots of philosophers are sanctimonious assholes (“SAs” for short), but I’m really curious what you’re “thinking” if anything? I know you only from social media, where you come across as an SA, but it may be in real life you’re a civilized person and not an SA.
So what should I expect going forward? I’m trying to plan out my litigation strategy for the next year!
Thanks for your help!
Best wishes,
Brian
P.S. Don’t worry I’m not going to embarrass you in public about this (though I may quote some of if without attribution, since it is quite remarkable).

As a particularly sour seasoning to this sorry brew of unprovoked hostility, Leiter is in charge of coordinating the so-called Philosophical Gourmet Report, PGR, a sort of ranking list of philosophy departments in the USA and the rest of the English speaking world, which means Leiter is a power figure of sorts throughout this territory. This position has been activated by Leiter in his initial reaction to the complaints against him, insinuating that there is a covert operation initiated to undermine the standing of the PGR, as well as corrupting polls launched by Leiter on his blog about the usefulness/desirability of updating the PGR and, more recently this, as he has apparently started to realise that his own linking of PGR to his own bizarre and inconsiderate behaviour towards professional colleagues may have started to hurt his baby. In the first of these posts, Leiter basically repeats or recounts chosen tidbits of the attacks on the people mentioned earlier originally sent via the emails displayed above and through the links above. 

However, it seems that Brian Leiter has gotten all of these things wrong – just as he (heaven knows why) got it into his head that Carrie Jenkins personal ethos was directed at him personally. It is, in fact, his own behaviour against colleagues that now has prompted, as I write, 149 and counting academic philosophers across North America and overseas to sign an official statement against his actions – in particular the completely unmotivated nastiness towards Carrie Jenkins, and to call into question not the PGR, but Leiter's association with it. These signatories not only protest against the distasteful power abuse and bullying of Leiter, they also midly suggest that they themselves and other colleagues so positioned will withdraw any association with the PGR as long as Laiter is associated with it. This statement/letter can be read here, and I quote it verbatim (minus the signatories, which can be inspected via the link just provided):

A serious issue has arisen that impacts Professor Carrie Ichikawa Jenkins.
Professor Jenkins has been targeted by Professor Brian Leiter (University of Chicago) with derogatory and intimidating remarks privately by email in July, and recently with further derogatory remarks publicly on Twitter.
Professor Jenkins wrote the following blog post in July:
    http://csi-jenkins.tumblr.com/post/90563605390/day-one
in response to which Professor Leiter sent her an email saying that she comes across as a "sanctimonious asshole" (and indicating that he is not sure whether "in real life" she is a sanctimonious asshole or a "civilized person"). The email also intimates that Professor Leiter is contemplating litigation against Professor Jenkins, states that he is wondering "what she is 'thinking' if anything", and asks if she plans to spit at him at the APA or chase him with a bat.
He has now followed this up by saying publicly on Twitter that he has called Carrie a "sanctimonious arse". He sent her another email in an attempt to apologise for 'upsetting her', which only succeeded in causing further harm.
The effects of this on Professor Jenkins since July have been very serious, impacting her health, her capacity to work, and her ability to contribute to public discourse as a member of the profession. In the light of this recent incident on Professor Leiter's public Twitter feed, we feel compelled to act. We are now standing with Carrie publicly, as colleagues and friends.
Professor Leiter has the power to have this kind of impact on Professor Jenkins in part because of his control over the Philosophical Gourmet Report. We don't find what has happened to our colleague acceptable, and don't wish voluntarily to help provide Professor Leiter the power that makes it possible.
It is up to each of us individually to decide what we will volunteer to do. The undersigned members of the philosophical community have decided to decline to volunteer our services to Leiter's PGR. While we recognise that there are other ways to condemn Professor Leiter's behaviour and to support our colleague, we think the best choice for us involves publicly declining to assist with the PGR. We cannot continue to volunteer services in support of the PGR in good conscience as long as Brian Leiter continues to behave in this way. We therefore decline to take the PGR survey, we decline to serve on the PGR advisory board, and we decline to send Professor Leiter information to help him compile the survey (e.g. updated faculty lists and corrections). We are only declining to volunteer our services to the PGR while it is under the control of Brian Leiter. With a different leadership structure, the benefits of the guide might be achieved without detriment to our colleague.
We feel that we need to consider very carefully what kind of example we are setting for graduate students, and for philosophers across the whole discipline, when something like this happens. Tolerating this kind of behaviour signals to them that they can expect the same in their own professional lives. We wish to set a clear example of how to respond appropriately but firmly.

/.../

ADDENDUM
On September 24, the people listed above, motivated to decline to volunteer services to the PGR by these specific incidents impacting Carrie, signed this statement.
Others may also be similarly moved by these incidents, or may know of other relevantly similar incidents, and thus may not wish to participate in the PGR while it is under the control of Brian Leiter.
If you wish to add your name to those declining for these reasons to volunteer their services to the PGR while under the control of Brian Leiter, please email septemberstatement@gmail.com with your name and affiliation.
Please use your verifiable university email account to avoid confusion.
Those who email are being added to the list posted below this addendum. The people signing are writing as individuals; like the philosophers listed above, each signatory declines to volunteer his or her individual services to the Philosophical Gourmet Report while it is under the control of Brian Leiter. This list will be updated as time allows.

 As you can see, the statement is open for additional signatories and I myself just sent an email to add my own. Any professional academic philosopher may do the same, using the same method I did (also described above):