Peter Singer, the famous ethical philosopher at Princeton, and Rebecca Tuvel, an associate professor at Rhodes College, are two main parties to this story. We have encountered them before when they tried to cancel.
Singer got into a lot of trouble when he proposed that it might be permissible to kill newborns in extreme circumstances. In July of 2017: here is what I wrote.
Peter Singer, a philosopher, has argued that it's a good idea to kill babies who have horrible conditions or are doomed to a life that can't afford happiness. If you are allowed to kill a fetus that has a genetic defect, why can't you kill it after it's born? Newborn babies aren't aware of death, aren't nearly as sentient as an older child or adult, and have no rational faculties to make judgments, so they wouldn't develop such faculties. It makes no sense to prolong the life of a child who is doomed to die or suffer a painful death. Singer suggests that we should be allowed to painlessly end the life of a newborn with an injection, since the parents and doctors have no legal penalty for withdrawing care. I agree.
Both Singer and I restrict this action to newborns who are doomed to die soon, or will live without a meaningful existence. It wasn't meant to apply to disabled people who could live happily. It didn't matter. Singer's views were denounced by the disabled, who said that his views would put us on a slippery slope to kill any child. We put strictures in place that parents as well as several doctors would have to consent, and this was not the case we were making.
I wrote this in 2020 when Singer was deplatformed in New Zealand, Germany, and Canada for his "inhumane" stand on abortion.
It seems to me that an enlightened philosophy would allow people to be able to end their lives in a humane way. In Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Colombia, Switzerland, Victoria in Australia, and in some states of the U.S., assisted suicide is legal.
>
I believe that we should allow newborns with conditions that will cause them to die young to be euthanized, because I have gotten into trouble for this. The conditions under which I think this is allowable, but ethical, were first laid out in this post. It is a view that people need to consider, and Singer has defended it more extensively than I.
>
Singer has been subject to calls for his resignation from the University of Melbourne, and has undergone considerable pushback for his views. Heather Hastie defended my views on her own website, and I also wrote about it.
Russell Blackford has defended Singer, and he has received a lot of nasty emails and comments. I think Singer made the right call since a newborn cannot make a decision for itself.
Now for Rebecca Tuvel. She was a woman of extraordinary courage, which she demonstrated in the Hypatia transracialism controversy, in which she published a paper in that journal questioning whether there was a meaningful difference in seeing yourself as a member of another sex or a member of a different race. Tuvel was attacked because this was regarded as a taboo question. There were calls for her to be fired and for the journal to withdraw the article. Tuvel didn't back down and the article still stands.
Singer was invited to be part of a panel at Rhodes College by a group of philosophers. The topic wasemic ethics. This had nothing to do with the killing of infants. It reminds me of the cancellation of Dorian Abbot's talk at MIT because he had criticized DEI initiatives on his own.
Rhodes College issued a statement defending Singer's right to speak but deploring much of what he said previously.
The fracas is described in two parts.
The Daily Nous is a philosophy site.
Higher Ed is from inside.
There are three special incidents.
Singer was disinvited from Inside Ed because the faculty objects.
Faculty in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology and the Africana Studies Program sent out an email to the college community.
>
The faculty in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology and the Africana Studies Program are very upset about the invitation of Professor Peter Singer to our campus. We believe that the current structure of the event could make students, faculty, and staff less likely to attend.
>
Professor Singer has advanced arguments that presume the superiority of many disabled lives is dehumanizing and dangerous. The logic of creating a hierarchy of lives as a justification for the allocation or denial of limited resources has a long and violent history. Eugenicist arguments mark marginalized populations as unsuitable to be a part of the advancement of the human race.
>
We encourage anyone who reads Singer to read this rich scholarship because disability scholars have critiqued Singer's work across a range of themes. The idea that certain disabled people have lives that are less worth living than normal people is one of the themes of a panel on pandemic ethics. Given that COVID is one of the most profound disability rights issues of our lifetimes, it would seem that any panel on pandemic ethics would include disability scholars.
>
Rather than suggesting an alternative structure to the event, the faculty says:
>
We affirm our dedication to disability justice and urge the college to withdraw the invitation, as we stand next to our students who are working hard to fight for their ideals of equality, fairness, and diversity. We advocate for freedom of speech and expression if it doesn't deny others their humanity.
The characterization of Singer's views as "denying some disabled people's full humanity" is simply hyperbole. They are denied needless suffering. If your baby was born without a brain and was in great distress, would you let it suffer until it died?
I have had doctors and nurses tell me that they agree with what Singer says about putting infants out of their mothers' arms. I have not had a medical professional tell me that they disagree with me. I get letters from people who are disabled but have meaningful lives, who accuse me of denying their humanity, or saying that I would have killed them if I had the power.
The history faculty at Rhodes objected to the event.
Prof. Peter Singers has views that some humans have less value than others. He was invited to speak at Rhodes College as part of a panel. His reprehensible beliefs that deny the very humanity of people with disabilities are only legitimized by the fact that he is an expert on ethics. Hypothetical morals cause violence. Historians are familiar with the idea of labeling marginalized, vulnerable, and minority populations as "life unworthy of life" and the consequences for those deemed "unfit" to live. We historians assert that Prof. Peter Singers has no place in serious academic exchange here at Rhodes because of his blatant inhumanity.
Is it possible to position him as an expert on ethics? He is the world's expert on practical ethics. They play the race card, mentioning marginalized, vulnerable, and minority populations. Race does not have a role in Singer's views on this issue.
The university supports Singer.
A member of our faculty told us yesterday that he had been disturbed by the invitation of Prof. Peter Singer to speak on a virtual panel next week.
>
We acknowledge that Professor Singer can participate in the virtual panel despite the institution's spirit of supporting speech. Our community values compel us to condemn some of the views he has expressed over the years through various addresses, writings, and media interviews.
>
Rhodes College is committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Individuals with disabilities are included in these values. Peter Singer's views on disability are antithetical to the values of diversity, equity and inclusion that we hold dear. We reject and condemn any views that question the value and worth of human life. We make the following Affirmations in this context.
>
We affirm our belief in an inclusive, diverse, equitable, and accessible community, one in which the worth and dignity of all persons is championed and supported.
We support disabled members of our community who have expressed anger, outrage, and offense at some of Prof. Singer's writings. The College believes that disabled people enrich the community by their presence on our campus and that they don't tolerate discrimination on the basis of disability. We still have a lot of work to do as an institution to support individuals with disabilities.
>
The Statement on Diversity expresses our commitment to providing an open learning environment where freedom of thought, a healthy exchange of ideas, and an appreciation of diverse perspectives are fundamental. Academic departments can invite a variety of speakers to campus because of this commitment to freedom of expression. They should do so with responsibility and with careful attention to our values as a diverse, equitable, and inclusive institution.
They should have said that Professor Singer's participation in the virtual panel is not a restriction on his freedom of speech. People like me and Tuvel don't agree with the idea of a doomed infant suffering unnecessarily. Which student or untenured faculty member would stand up to the Rhodes administration? Rhodes would not make official statements on moral issues if it followed Chicago's Kalven Principles.
Rhodes is giving comfort to people who don't want free speech, even though they don't want it to be discussed.
The department held their ground after a faculty member objected to Singer's appearance.
We write in response to a colleague who has publicly expressed concern about the invitation to Peter Singer, and he has every right to do so. The speaker's objection is not the topic. We are aware that Professor Singer's arguments on bioethical issues are offensive to many in the disabled community, and we are aware of the fact that many find them disturbing and offensive. Some of Dr. Singer's views were taken issue with by the organizers.
>
No one should be cavalier about the fact that serious intellectual exchange about matters of significance can cause anger, offense, and pain. We don't know what follows from our colleague's expression of distress at some of Professor Singer's views. Do those views prevent Singer from participating in the exchange of ideas at a liberal arts college? If that is the conclusion, we respectfully disagree, for the premise is that ideas that cause anger and dismay should not be part of the exchange, and that is incompatible with our mission to teach students how to engage in productive dialogue even.
That is a good letter. Tuvel offered to run a reading group on the issue.
I realize that now is not the time to get into Singer's ethics. I would be more than happy to organize a reading group and/or zoom event where I and other members of the Philosophy department can clarify Singer's views on these incredibly sensitive topics. I think our community would benefit from an event devoted to discussing delicate matters. Professor Charles Hughes, parents of children with disabilities, and relevant others are some of the experts that would need to be included in such an event.
The Daily Nous also has a letter from a philosophy student clarifying Singer's views.
A video of the whole Singer event. Singer responds to the controversy in the first question.
Rhodes College needs to stop truckling to the mob. It is cowardice to disinvit someone of the stature of Singer, who is talking about a subject unrelated to the other controversy. The administrators of Rhodes are not humans.
