Most of your article is very fair to Colin, but it is entirely one-sided on a very central issue. The ‘ignominious conclusion” to Colin’s career at Miami, you write, has fueled a continuing conversation about sexual harassment in philosophy departments. Are you not suggesting here that the Miami case is a story of sexual harassment and its consequences for a tenured professor? Readers who might have doubts about your meaning will likely stifle them when they go on to read that “stories of harassment of women have longed plagued the discipline”; that “It is almost unheard- of, however, to see one of these accounts end as it did at Miami: with the departure of a tenured professor”; that women at a British University are now considering making their own complaints of sexual harassment after learning of McGinn’s case; and that, according to another philosopher, McGinn’s resignation will likely embolden administrators to take a harder line on sexual harassment.
Your article is likely to be widely discussed, but except for people interested in real estate, the talk will not be about his penthouse apartment. It will be about Colin McGinn and sexual harassment. Did you have some reason for not telling the reader that this was not a case of sexual harassment? Even if you were uncertain of the charges, did you not think it worth mentioning that you had no evidence that sexual harassment was even alleged let alone proven?