Pants-of-dog wrote:I was paraphrasing Dr. Padilla.
It is a logical conclusion, based on what we know about history, economics, et cetera.
I'm an economist and I would not say it's a logical conclusion of the history of how the journal system was established. But I do agree it probably needs some reform, since it's possible for certain clubs to take over some flagship journals. Such clubs may of course effectively exclude people from certain ethnic groups or gender(s?), but I would not say that's their intent or why the system was set up. I also don't think it's something only people of a certain ethnicity or gender do.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Perhaps. This seems like an unverifiable claim to me.
It may be more correct to argue that BIPOC and women are not attracted to the field because there is no real recognition of their identities.
That's the converse of what I said, and it's not surprising since the field in question are Western Classics, all of which not only come from Europe but also from societies where it was rare for women to engage or be allowed to engage in philosophy, and leave their thoughts for posterity.
But how is it any different from other similar fields? Why would you concern yourself about recognizing European or African identities in a field like Chinese studies? It would seem that the field would be inherently centered on analyzing China.
Perhaps another more interesting question would be if people from a different ethnicity would add value to the field. I would say "yes" but I also don't think this means their research should be held up to a different standard by giving them dedicated journal space.
There is legislation around this already, so I assume you think it should change? Is that the argument?
My argument is that there is some degree of tension, in academia, between "freedom of political speech" and "keeping good departmental relations".
If a White Supremacist academic showed up at an African American Studies department, engaged in research that effectively affirms his ideological position yet publishes well, constantly expressed his opinions on the matter and his colleagues found that offensive... Should he get tenure? On one hand, yes, because he's getting good publications, meaning he's actually achieved recognition by some in his field. On the other, no, because the fact that his colleagues find his speech offensive could be said to be disruptive and even fall under the legal definition of a "hostile workplace environment" and if he gets tenure he stays until retirement.
Or a couple of much less extreme, and much more realistic examples. Take some researcher in a social science department that arrives to conclusions that go against claims of systemic racism in the US (say, for instance, in policing), and manages to publish in good journals. Or simply take a medievalist who does historiography of the medieval period about somewhere outside Europe or analyzes European medieval history but from a non-European perspective and using mainly non-European sources arguing that the traditional historiography of the field excludes BIPOC, and such research also publishes in good journals or the books sell well. In both cases, the researchers' colleagues disagree, find the results to be offensive and even disruptive to work within the department since everyone is having arguments around these and these can often get heated and bitter. Should these researchers get tenure?