There are two things about that BMCR review that I don’t see people talking about. The first is the power dynamic of race and the second is the insufficiency of art/cultural engagement that is not *explicit* scholarly “engagement” 1/? https://twitter.com/blossomstefaniw/status/1339320459704328199

Let me say first that what I say next does not deny the potential harmful effects such a review has on the junior scholars reviewed or on the disrespect felt by scholars in the field. These are not the only negative effects. 2/

As a junior scholar of colour the many responses from especially senior scholars appear to force another senior scholar of colour—one of the few in the field apparently—to conform to their standards of equity, scholarship, form, and critique. 3/

It’s numerous white scholars telling a scholar of colour how to behave and go about in the guild. There are standards, accepted “professional” standards that must be upheld. Fair enough. But I can’t help but feel like the scholar who reviewed the piece is being colonised. 4/

BMCR is open access, it’s a critical voice and so it was an inappropriate place to try something new. But at the same time, where else could one push the limits of academic discourse? 5/

If it was a junior scholar it would have been shut down. If it was in paid journal it would have disappeared. If it was the review of another senior scholar, it would have been viewed as disrespectful. 6/

Instead of focusing on the precarious nature of tenure dossiers and the abusive and bureaucratic system that requires scholars—especially scholars of colour—to conform their discourse and voice to meet the needs of a sometimes arbitrary and fickle process... 7/

...we focus *only* on the character and unprofessionality of the reviewer. Oh how the neo-liberal ethos has won. 8/

The other side of the coin is the way scholars mock cultural products, art, poetry, memes, dance, as inferior forms of critical engagement. This kind of hubris gets my blood boiling. 9/

We are happy to assign creative projects that engage in interpretations of ancient texts but god forbid scholars of standing engage in such artistic interaction with contemporary literature today. 10/

The amount of “smartness” it takes to engage the meaning of art is the same as what it takes to penetrate the jargon, tradition, and complexity of traditional Western hegemonic academic discourse. 11/

So you can go ahead and mark those creative projects in your syllabi as superfluous because when it comes to *actual* scholarly engagement and scholarly respect such forms of reception and interaction are not only inferior but sub-critical. 12/

All this to say, that junior scholars are watching. And the discourse on this website is diminishing the likelihood that scholars of colour will push boundaries in this field while also driving away those of us who value artistic scholarly discourses.

Woe.