Professor Hutchinson claims that the authors of the open letter to Professor Alex Byrne[1] commit the logical fallacy of arguing ad hominem. To commit this fallacy is to illicitly exploit a negative assessment of someone’s person – their character, motives, or actions – as an objection to their ideas, aiming to discredit their views by discrediting them. Prof. Hutchinson concedes that “undergraduates, who are only beginning to learn the expectations of academic discourse, might be ignorant of the fallacious nature of ad hominem argumentation.” But, he adds, “[one] would expect that the dozen or so MIT Philosophy graduate students signing the ‘open letter’ ought to know that ad hominem attacks are philosophically misguided and illogical.”

I am not writing to defend the open letter or the “collegiality and civility” of authoring or signing it – Prof. Byrne has posted his own response[2] – but as a professor in the Philosophy Section, I can assure readers they need not fear our students are confused about the ad hominem fallacy.

The open letter criticizes Prof. Byrne’s participation in the recent HHS report on Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria.[3] To criticize someone’s actions, rightly or wrongly, is not to commit the ad hominem fallacy, so long as one does not imply that their ethical failings impugn their ideas. One could, for instance, criticize someone for writing a report even when one agrees with its content, or when its validity is not at issue, because one thinks it will be misused, or have bad effects. Moral criticism of this kind is not properly described as “ad hominem” – at least not in the sense of the fallacy – though it may of course be mistaken or misguided. That would have to be established on the merits, by considering the ethical arguments, pro and con.

Prof. Hutchinson writes: “The posting of this attack online without even bothering to send a copy to Prof. Byrne, shows that the intent was to discredit and ‘cancel’ his ideas by a public attack on him, rather than to engage with his expressed opinions or arguments.” But the open letter is clear that it does not call for “official or unofficial sanctions” and that its focus is Prof. Byrne’s actions, not his ideas. Prof. Hutchinson provides no evidence that the authors of the open letter are arguing in bad faith or inviting any inference from Prof. Byrne’s actions to the validity of his views. The letter states explicitly that its central arguments are intended to have force “even for those who share your views.” What’s more, the timing of the open letter, along with its express content, are evidence against Prof. Hutchinson’s interpretation: the graduate students who signed the open letter were long aware of Prof. Byrne’s views on gender; his book, op-eds, academic articles and public talks prompted no similar letter; and the open letter indicates that it was issued in response to his involvement in the HSS report, the action it primarily criticizes. There is no basis for an accusation of bad faith and thus no basis for the charge of arguing ad hominem – as opposed to engaging in moral criticism, right or wrong.

Why does this matter? Not just because the graduate students in Philosophy who signed the open letter cannot be convicted of misunderstanding the ad hominem fallacy, but because the overly expansive accusation of “arguing ad hominem” is rhetorically dangerous. It risks portraying the university as a space exempt from moral debate, in which moral criticism of the actions of academics is always misdirected or “logically fallacious.” But our actions as academics are open to critique as well as our ideas, and the activity of moral argument is central to at least some parts of the academy, where it is protected as an exercise of academic freedom.

Ironically, Prof. Hutchinson himself takes aim at actions, not ideas: he objects to the act of posting the open letter by appeal to arguments in the ethics of academic inquiry. One could speculate about his motives, as he speculates about the motives behind the open letter. Does he commit the ad hominem fallacy, aiming to discredit the views of the signatories by discrediting their actions? I hope he would agree that such speculation is unfair. We should take authors to be arguing in good faith unless we have strong evidence otherwise. Prof. Hutchinson provides no such evidence in his discussion of the open letter.

[1] https://dearprofessorbyrne.wordpress.com

[2] https://web.mit.edu/abyrne/www/DearColleagues070325.pdf

[3] https://opa.hhs.gov/gender-dysphoria-report

Back to top