{"id":8051,"date":"2014-04-01T18:09:40","date_gmt":"2014-04-01T18:09:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2014\/04\/01\/is-blind-review-offensive\/"},"modified":"2014-04-01T18:09:40","modified_gmt":"2014-04-01T18:09:40","slug":"is-blind-review-offensive","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2014\/04\/01\/is-blind-review-offensive\/","title":{"rendered":"Of ‘Blind Review’ and Pandora’s Box"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is not an April Fool's joke.<\/span><\/p>\n

Blind review is a standard practice employed by editors of professional journals and organizers of academic conferences.  The editor\/organizer removes the name of the author from the manuscript before sending it  to the referee or referees for evaluation.  My present concern is not  whether this is a good practice.  I am concerned with the phrase that describes it and whether or not this phrase can be reasonably found offensive by anyone.  There are those who think that the phrase is offensive and ought to be banned.  Shelley Tremain writes<\/a>,<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

For the last few years, I have tried to get the APA [American Philosophical Association] to remove the phrase \u201cblind review\u201d from its publications and website.  The phrase is demeaning to disabled people because it associates blindness with lack of knowledge and implies that blind people cannot be knowers.  Because the phrase is standardly used in philosophy and other academic CFPs [Calls for Papers], it should become recognized as a cause for great concern.  In short, use of the phrase amounts to the circulation of language that discriminates.  Philosophers should want to avoid inflicting harm in this way.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Let's consider these claims seriatim<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

1. "The phrase is demeaning to disabled people . . . "  Well, I am a disabled person and the phrase is not demeaning to me.  As a result of a birth defect I hear in only one ear.  And of course there are innumerable people who are disabled in different ways who will not find the phrase demeaning. <\/span><\/p>\n

2. " . . . because it associates blindness with lack of knowledge and implies that blind people cannot be knowers."  This is not just false but silly.  No one thinks that blind people cannot be knowers or that knowers cannot be blind.<\/span><\/p>\n

Besides, it makes no sense to say that a phrase associates anything with anything.  A foolish person who is precisely not thinking, but associating, might associate blindness with ignorance, but so what?  People associate the damndest things.<\/span><\/p>\n

To point out the obvious:  if the name has been removed from the mansucript, then the referee literally cannot see it. This is not to say that the referee is blind, or blind with respect to the author's name: he could see it if it were there to see.  'Blind review' means that the reviewer is kept in the dark as to the identity of the author.  That's all!  <\/span><\/p>\n

3. ". . .  it should become recognized as a cause for great concern."  Great<\/em> concern?  This is a wild exaggeration even if this issue is of some minor concern.  I say, however, that it is of no concern<\/em>.  No one is demeaned or slighted or insulted or mocked or ridiculed by the use of the phrase in question.<\/span><\/p>\n

4. ". . . use of the phrase amounts to the circulation of language that discriminates."  One could argue that the practice<\/em> of blind review discriminates against those who have made a name for themselves.  But that is the only discrimination in the vicinity.  I said at the top that this post is no joke.  What is risible, however, is that anyone would find 'blind review' to be discriminatory against blind people.<\/span><\/p>\n

5. "Philosophers should want to avoid inflicting harm in this way."  This presupposes that the use of the phrase 'blind review' inflicts harm.  This is just silly.  It would be like arguing that  the use of 'black hole' inflicts harm on black people because its use associates blacks with holes or with ho<\/em>s (whores).<\/span><\/p>\n

\"Pandora's<\/a>In the early-to-mid '80s I attended an APA session organized by a group that called itself PANDORA: Philosophers Against the Nuclear Destruction of Rational Animals.  One of the weighty topics that came up at this particular meeting was the very name 'Pandora.'  Some argued that the name is sexist on the ground that it might remind someone of Pandora's Box<\/a>, which of course has nothing to do with the characteristic female orifice, but in so reminding them might be taken as a slighting of that orifice.  ('Box' is crude slang for the orifice in question.)  I pointed out in the meeting that the name is just an acronym, and has nothing to do either with Pandora's Box or the characteristic female orifice.  My comment made no impression on the politically correct there assembled.  Later the outfit renamed itself Concerned Philosophers for Peace ". . . because of sexist and exclusionary aspects of the acronym."  (See here<\/a>)
<\/span><\/p>\n

\nRelated articles<\/span><\/legend>\n
\n
\"\"<\/a>Profiling, Prejudice, and Discrimination<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This is not an April Fool's joke. Blind review is a standard practice employed by editors of professional journals and organizers of academic conferences.  The editor\/organizer removes the name of the author from the manuscript before sending it  to the referee or referees for evaluation.  My present concern is not  whether this is a good … Continue reading “Of ‘Blind Review’ and Pandora’s Box”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,163],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8051","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-language-matters","category-leftism-and-political-correctness"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8051","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8051"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8051\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8051"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8051"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8051"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}