And what authoritative accounts have you used to dismiss the paper and the journal editor?
If you believe the editor when they say "I am happy to stir up controversy" why not also believe them when they say "we could make a real contribution here"?
> what authoritative accounts have you used to dismiss the paper and the journal editor?
I read the paper and drew my own conclusion.
> why not also believe them when they say "we could make a real contribution here"?
That snippet in context: "After the Middlebury fracas, in which none of the protestors had read the book they were protesting, we could make a real contribution here by insisting that all views be heard." That's just fancy language for "stir shit up." There's nothing there about the intellectual merit of Hill's paper, just an unobtainable value that "all views be heard."
People should read the paper to make up their own minds, though. I'm with her, there.
If you believe the editor when they say "I am happy to stir up controversy" why not also believe them when they say "we could make a real contribution here"?