These responses are written by people with phds and long careers in the humanities, yet they have allowed themselves to remain blind to some of the most obvious problems with their claim.

Here's Jack Boss saying "but there is Black music that is Schenkable!", ignoring how this just continues to prop up the racist framework by saying "look how well some Black people adopt and incorporate white aesthetics."

Charles Burkhardt's question is what you might pose to a class for discussion, not something left open-ended by a highly accomplished scholar like an unanswerable question and subsequently published in a journal.

David Beach coming a little uncomfortably close to "separate but equal" thinking when implying that as a "white guy" he doesn't need to do the work of analyzing Black music. And bonus points for insisting that the analysis has to conform to the problematic white methodology.

Cadwallader is more nuanced but problematically equates racism with explicit hatred for another race. Pointing out that the theory doesn't explicitly hate black people, so no harm is done by its being "exclusionary", means he fails to see how this idea feeds into a racist system

Boyd Pomeroy cites his personal experience with his grad students as evidence that no one is super bothered by Schenker's racism. He does not mention the demographic makeup of the students, nor does he reflect on how power relations might have come into play in these interactions

Tim Jackson is certainly the most egregiously problematic author in this volume and his words really speak for themselves, revealing a deep lack of awareness of intersectionality between poverty and race as well as calling Ewell anti-Semitic. Note the scare quotes around POC too.

Other responses fall victim to the claim, already well addressed by Ewell in his talk, article, and blog, that we can rescue the theory and ignore the politics of Schenker. This is a convenient solution for some but again ignores how this would propagate these racist systems.

At the end of the day, I am disappointed with several of these scholars for refusing to apply the critical thinking and nuance they use every day in their teaching and research to something as important as these issues are. In 2020, they should do better.

Even if we leave ethics out of it, these are all people whose jobs are secure and whose voices have been well represented in published works. Very little harm would come to them personally if they were to make an honest attempt to understand Ewell's view and make room for others.

If they are unconcerned with ethics and if personal financial gain is irrelevant, then my only charitable conclusion is that pride is more important to them than serious critique of the work they do every day. Less charitable conclusions also certainly suggest themselves.