On May 11^th, an article ran in the New York Times’ philosophy blog, “The Stone,” which bore the title, “If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is.” If you missed it, you can read it here: Its authors, Jay L. Garfield (Yale-NUS College, Singapore) and Bryan W. Van Norden (Vassar College), make the case that academic philosophy departments have failed writ large to incorporate non-Western traditions and texts into their curricula, refused to hire specialists in non-Western philosophy, and steadfastly defended an American- and Euro-centric paradigm of philosophy. Surprisingly (or maybe not), they do not demand these shortcomings be systemically addressed. Instead, their request is a simple matter of rebranding: “We therefore suggest that any department that regularly offers courses only on Western philosophy should rename itself ‘Department of European and American Philosophy.'”

If you are not a “professional” philosopher and you read this article, you were likely convinced this change is reasonable and long overdue. Don’t feel bad. The authors, knowingly or not, begin by committing the logical fallacy known as “poisoning the well.” They write, “Many philosophers and many departments simply ignore arguments for greater diversity; others respond with arguments for Eurocentrism that we and many others have refuted elsewhere.” The well is thus poisoned: whatever counter-argument I might try to make, you are told, has been refuted—not just argued against, but refuted—somewhere else, though you know not where.