In the April issue of CAUT, Sandra Bruneau writes: "Men, (Andrew) Irvine assumes, meet and will continue to meet criteria for merit. Why? Apparently because they are men and for no other materially significant reason." The sort of view Bruneau is imputing to Irvine — that there are something like innate differences in intelligence that fall along gender lines — places him in the illustrious company of the Philip Rushtons and Richard Hernsteins of the world. (One must only substitute race for gender.) Most serious scholars would find this particular company unwelcome. More importantly, there is nothing that Irvine has ever written which I am familiar with — and certainly no evidence cited by Bruneau — establishing that he holds anything approximating an incendiary view of the sort Bruneau imputes to him.

If Bruneau has evidence to support her insinuation, then she should disclose it. If she does not, then both she and CAUT should publish a prompt retraction and apology. It debases a scholarly bulletin to publish grave allegations of this sort in the absence of any supporting evidence whatsoever. It is also terribly unfair to the victims of these intellectually sloppy practices.

Sam Black
Philosophy, Simon Fraser University