Peter Wood’s Call for a Blacklist


At Minding the Campus, Peter Wood’s essay about “The Case for Colonialism” article argues this:

“And perhaps we should not forget the names of those thousands who signed the petitions.  It might be a good exercise for deans and provosts who have received from academic search committee recommendations to appoint candidates for academic positions to match those names against the list of signatories. Signing such petitions, after all, is a public declaration of hostility to the very principles that the university say are ‘bedrock.’ A candidate’s name on such a petition at least raises a question of whether such a person is to be relied on to uphold the standards of a free intellectual community.”

This is an extraordinarily alarming and disturbing call for a blacklist. Actually, Peter Wood’s essay raises the question of whether he can be relied on to uphold the standards of a free intellectual community. But that still wouldn’t be a good reason to ban him from being hired as a professor. Professors should be judged on their academic credentials, not their political views (including whether or not they support someone’s view of academic freedom). Nor should professors be banned from jobs for their hostility to “bedrock” principles, whether one thinks those bedrock values are traditional scholarship or diversity or social justice.

A blacklist against scholars who sign petitions criticizing articles is a radical step toward repression. It’s even more alarming because Wood is equating a petition with a threat of violence, which is a despicable smear against people who (even if they might be misguided) merely dislike the content and the process by which this essay was published. The death threats in this incident are a crime, and must be denounced, but Wood’s approach in blaming innocent people makes things worse. Whatever one thinks of The Case for Colonialism, we should all oppose Wood’s Case for Blacklists.

Users who have liked this post. Please consider sharing on social media and/or making a comment below.

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

4 thoughts on “Peter Wood’s Call for a Blacklist

  1. Peter Wood makes some valid points about scholars calling to remove articles that were peer reviewed and published– but then goes way too far with his suggestion of the blacklist.

    • Gilley’s piece was REJECTED in peer review, and was published as a click-bait metric-raising tactic by the journal. Read the editorial board’s latest statement here: Taylor & Francis’ stunt on claiming alleged threats has not been confirmed. Where is the evidence and where is the investigation if this is true? Wood is carrying out a McCarthyist move in asking for a witch-hunt of people he does not agree with. The people who organized the petition and the ones who signed it were calling for greater academic integrity and ethics in publishing, not curtailing Gilley’s opinions (which he is free to publish on a blog or Breitbart). It was so sub-par, full of incorrect information and falsities, that it was rejected and thus did not merit publication at all. Wood and other supporters of Gilley as well as racists are just now going after progressive professors worldwide in their attempts to silence critique of academic integrity.

  2. Pingback: Pro-colonialism article has been withdrawn over threats to journal editor - Grants For College

Your comments are welcome. They must be relevant to the topic at hand and must not contain advertisements, degrade others, or violate laws or considerations of privacy. We encourage the use of your real name, but do not prohibit pseudonyms as long as you don’t impersonate a real person.