Academic Blacklisting
A few weeks ago, a fellow philosopher suggested to me that it would be a good idea to produce a book of essays discussing my work, which he would edit. I agreed. He contacted Wiley publishers and received a highly enthusiastic response from their commissioning editor Will Croft. It only remained to sign the contract and have the project approved by the editorial board. On September 14 he received a letter from Mr. Croft reversing the earlier enthusiasm, saying: “When the project was discussed and put to the editorial board, it was felt that it was inappropriate to move forward, and there were also market concerns, given the controversy surrounding Professor McGinn. After careful consideration, we are unable to proceed to the next steps.” So, if there is “controversy” surrounding a potential subject for an academic book, this publisher deems it “inappropriate” to publish such a book. Notice that there is no claim here about the truth of anything in the “controversy”; it is thought sufficient merely that “controversy” exists. This is appalling enough in itself, but consider the implications. It is now ten years since the alleged “controversy” flared up, so there is no reason to believe that Mr. Croft and his colleagues are willing to put any time limit on their ban, since the “controversy” will continue to have occurred. Presumably, then, it will be policy until the time of my death. But more than that, it would be deemed acceptable to extend the ban after my death, perhaps in perpetuity, since the “controversy” will be an historical fact. This means that, irrespective of the merits of the “controversy”, and no matter the loss to the academic community, and no matter what readers may demand, Wiley will decline to publish anything about Colin McGinn for the foreseeable future. If other publishers were to take the same line, that would mean that for the rest of time no one will be allowed to publish anything about me, despite the quality of what may be produced. Surely anyone can see that this is absurd, unjust, foolish, imprudent, unethical, and downright stupid.
Such a book as was proposed to Wiley publishers would certainly have sold. So timid are the times when a major publishing house would hesitate at the door-step of profit.
The facts that there is no claim about the truth of anything in the controversy and that the controversy is a decade old are immaterial. If you had committed murder this morning, motivated by racism or misogyny, and had confessed, so that there was no controversy about it, that would not be a reason not to publish a book discussing your philosophy.
Move to Substack! Far more people will get to read your work anyway, and you can cut the publishers out of the equation altogether.
Moving to Substack or boutique publishers or self-publishing are all viable options. Life is too short to wait for return of fairness in the case of industry barons.
Complete silence from the publisher despite my letters of protest. Not surprising.