“An academic journal has reversed course and rejected an article about abortion that it initially accepted, citing concerns about the author being a ‘white’ ‘male,'” reports The College Fix.
The article “Abortion Restrictions are Good for Black Women” was initially accepted for publication earlier this year in The New Bioethics. But the journal’s editors put it on hold after an abstract received criticism on social media, and then rejected it.
Editor Matthew James claimed that due to a publisher’s technical error, he did not read the article before it was accepted, as typically occurs. James cited concerns about “sensitivity” and mentioned Hendricks’ race and sex. He also claimed that he had concerns about the article’s “academic quality and rigour” that could not be remedied by revisions.
“In cases such as this one, where white authors write about racial inequalities, or when male authors write about women’s rights, this needs to be done with a considerable degree of circumspection, humility, and sensitivity. This manuscript falls short in that regard,” James told the article’s author, philosopher Perry Hendricks.
Hendricks says the journal’s rationale conflicts with its own editorial guidelines. Those guidelines state that the sex and race of an author should not be a consideration in deciding which article to publish: “Journal editors should give unbiased consideration to each manuscript submitted for publication. They should judge each on its merits, without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author.”
Hendricks says that “whether an argument is sound has nothing to do with the sex and race of the author—this is something any adult knows.”
The journal accepted Hendricks’ article on Feb. 12. But his article was put on hold on Feb. 15 after it was denounced by a reader on X, formerly known as Twitter.
Hendricks, who has a Ph.D. in philosophy and used to be an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota, lamented that social media outrage triggered the rejection of his article. “It’s unfortunate that The New Bioethics would succumb to pressure from unstable and distraught Twitter users. Academic journals aim to publish research that has been vetted by peer review. But in this case, Twitter-review, not peer review, seems to have been a decisive factor. This whole kerfuffle started because some academics on Twitter were distraught by seeing an article that didn’t align with their views. These academics should seek help: it’s not healthy to become distraught at the prospect of someone disagreeing with you, and it’s indicative of an unfortunate kind of mental fragility.”
The journal’s decision was also criticized by Brandon Warmke, a philosophy professor at Bowling Green State University. He said, “By rescinding acceptance of Dr. Hendricks’ paper, The New Bioethics, editor Matt James, and Taylor and Francis have made clear, not only that the journal will let an ignorant online mob trump the peer review process, but that its editor will use an author’s race and sex as a reason to reject papers. This is the behavior of clowns.”
