ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

I?have always found Felipe Fern¨¢ndez-Armesto¡¯s opinions stimulating, not least because I?am often in disagreement, at least partially, with them. In ¡°Translation: steer clear¡± (Opinion, 13 July), I?jumped at the casual sexism of the following remark ¨C ¡°The submission is insufficiently sexist: it would be fine if it featured women just because they¡¯re women rather than because they¡¯re relevant¡±, which was offered as the ¡°trans-lation¡± of an hypothetical peer reviewer¡¯s comment, to wit, ¡°Unfortunately, the submission lacks gender balance¡±.?

The fact is that mentioning a?lack of gender balance in the context of a peer review (or in other areas, for that matter) does not mean what Fern¨¢ndez-Armesto implies, instead it highlights an intellectual laziness that should be intolerable in academia. Such lack of understanding is confirmed by the definition of gender (the study topic) as a ¡°modish shibboleth¡± later in the same piece, a rather popular view in conservative quarters, old and new (¡°Gender studies under attack from the new right¡±, www.timeshighereducation.com, 11 May).

Perhaps Fern¨¢ndez-Armesto should practise himself the advice he offers to peer reviewers, ¡°there is something to be said for brilliance unalloyed with erudition¡±, only brilliance is even better untainted by sexism.

Anna Notaro
Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design, University of Dundee
Twitter: @Notanna1

Letters should be sent to:?THE.Letters@tesglobal.com
Letters for publication in?Times Higher Education?should arrive by 9am Monday.
View terms and conditions.