Do Senior Faculty Have an Obligation to Retire at Some Point?

Regarding the possible effect of the economic downturn on the academic job market for philosophers, Thomas Carson (Loyola/Chicago) writes:

This is very grim news for people who would like to enter the profession.  Your observation that  "a lot of faculty who might have been thinking about retirement in the coming year are going to postpone given the huge losses most will have suffered" [in the stock markets] seems correct.  This raises seriouis ethical questions for tenured faculty.   Since keeping one's position and not retiring is likely to directly cause the unemployment/underemployment of young philosophers, it is wrong to postpone one's retirement past a certain age?  If so, at what age should one retire?  I don't have answers to these questions but would like to see them discussed on your blog.

We had a related discussion some time ago, but perhaps the subject is timely again.

Usual commenting rules:  non-anonymous posts strongly preferred; post only once, comments may take awhile to appear.

Comments

[Andrew Jorgensen]

"Do senior faculty have an obligation to retire at some point?"

Certainly not. Who would such an obligation be owed to? Young graduates? That suggests life owes them a career. How nice for them that they don't have to take risks for their careers like other young workers. The whole idea is smacks of utopian fantasy.

[Matt Burstein]

One minor complication (for those who might be inclined to think there's something to an obligation to retire) here is whether philosophy departments would be allowed to keep the lines of retiring faculty. Given an economic crunch, the temptation to reallocate lines to fields that are "cash cows" (if you'll excuse the shorthand here) may be too great for administrators to resist. In these sadly common cases, retiring wouldn't benefit "young philosophers" . . . though they might benefit "young academics" in other fields.

[Andrei Buckareff]

I agree with Matt Burstein. I worry about what administrators will do with vacant lines in philosophy departments. That has not been a problem at the college I teach at (where the department has grown, owing in part to its prominent role in the core curriculum). However, Andrew Jorgensen should keep in mind that not every senior faculty member "deserves" his or her job any more than a young job candidate. In fact, at least in some instances, the younger candidate may merit a post more than a senior department member who has reached "retirement age." I can imagine that some would argue that the current scheme that is found widely in the U.S. of letting professors hold onto their posts as long as they would like is not ideal if we want to have the best researchers and instructors filling posts in departments. I am not advocating forced retirement. It's just that it is not obvious that senior faculty do not have an obligation at some point to retire and make room for new faculty who may be more productive, better instructors, and will breathe new life into a department. That said, I do object to the policy still found in some parts of the world of requiring that faculty retire at a specified age. Such policies are not obviously in the best interest of the institutions where they are implemented.

[Alex Leibowitz]

If retirement would harm the professor or her family unduly, then I would say she doesn't have an obligation to retire.

[Kirk Ludwig]

Retiring when economic times are bad with the idea that it will provide a position for younger philosophers rests on the assumption that the department will retain the lines. My department has had two retirements this past year. There are no searches to replace them this coming year. The department and the college may simply lose the lines, for the college is meeting the demand for a 6% cut in its budget in part by eliminating faculty lines.

[Gilbert Harman]

More ageism.

[Tom Hurka]

Ageism? Balls. It's about reducing the huge inequality between an age-cohort that's had it extremely good (those hired in the 1960s) and an age-cohort that are going to find it very tough (those now coming onto the job market). Or do we just say the latter group can go to hell?

[Jon Cogburn]

If the senior faculty member is still doing at least some reasonable facsimile of the amount of teaching, service, and research by which their junior colleagues are judged when they are hired, retained, and promoted, then they have absolutely no obligation to retire. This is a lot of "ifs" though, and honesty compels us to admit that the tenure system encourages their non-satisfaction.

If the senior professor is just showing up to teach out-of-date versions of his or her minimum course-load (when their contract stipulates research and service) he or she does have a defeasible obligation to get out of the way [I've known several full professors that just come in, teach their classes, and then do things like run their antique business, restore homes on the side, go on vacations with inherited money, play in a band, or just watch commercial television all the time like the poor saps that actually have to work forty hours a week.]

Colleges tend to save a lot of money on retirements even when the line is rehired. Assistant professors are cheaper in salary and usually benefits as well. This is why schools sometimes offer early retirement with guaranteed rehiring of the line.

Finally, Jorgensen's comments are weird. How can forced retirement be "utopian fantasy" when it is the norm in many countries and until recently was the norm here? And Jorgensen also assumes that Leiter's question only concerns the good to the unemployed junior faculty. What about the students, citizens, and for that matter Lady Philosophy herself? To the extent that lots of good younger people aren't getting employed and dead wood fills up the departments, it is extremely bad all the way around.

Since my views on this are not politically correct- some caveats: (1) Of course there are very many good professors (who would have been forced to retire on the old system) who make first rate contributions to their departments and to the field. Just consider the great professors that we have now as a result of bad British mandatory retirement programs. (2) All I'm asking is that older professors be judged by the standards of their contracts, which very often does not happen. (3) Instead of mandatory retirement, why not increase the course-load of professors who no longer do meaningful research? I realize this actually is "utopian," because I was an undergraduate when it failed to become policy at the University of Texas. But it's a good idea, and would have the added benefit of gently encouraging retirement when it is needed.

[Mitch Green]

Drawing out Gil Harman's remark just a bit: Be you 40, 60, or 80 years of age, whether you ought to retire evidently depends on whether you're pulling your weight in your department. I've seen 40 year olds who don't, and many people much older who do. If you're 40 and not pulling your weight (and by that I mean publishing, teaching and serving in administrative roles that benefit both your department and university), it may be that you should (at least for your own sake) move on to another career. But I have no idea why reaching a certain age provides you with an obligation to do anything. (And even if it did, as Kirk Ludwig points out it is often quite unclear that retiring would help any young philosophers.)

Surely there are lots of other ways of helping junior philosophers than leaving the field! (Refereeing journal articles and book manuscripts, mentoring, organizing symposia, all come to mind.)

[jon kvanvig]

Gil's point is obvious. Andrei, the arguments you cite should lead you to counsel unproductive people to resign, weak instructors to resign, and people not to stay at one place very long. None are good arguments for older people to resign.

[Steven Gross]

Jon Cogburn writes in reply to Andrew Jorgensen: "How can forced retirement be "utopian fantasy" when it is the norm in many countries and until recently was the norm here?" But note that Jorgensen didn't say anything about forced (mandatory) retirement. And in case it's of use, though I imagine this is familiar to most: mandatory retirement is no longer the norm here because it was rendered illegal by the 1986 amendment of the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

[marty nikousi]

It seems obvious (to me anyway) that there's something ethically suspect about holding on to a professorship just out of self-serving economic concerns. I don't think that necessarily relates to the age of the professor, though I imagine that it's a dilemma aged professors face more often than others. As naive as it may sound, I think there's a certain expectation of selflessness expected from any teacher--some self-sacrifice for the sake of the students, education, and research and all that. I'm reminded of a poor Wittgenstein insisting that he could not take a grant from the Rockefellar Foundation unless they "knew the complete truth about me." Despite the fact that Wittgenstein was actually still capable of producing valuable philosophy at the time (even though he died not much longer later if I recall correctly), I think it's hard to deny that what Wittgenstein insisted is what we expect from ethically scrupulous academics.

As for making sure that the department isn't narrowed upon your retirement, there may be something to that, if that's your real reason for refusing to retire. Otherwise, appealing to such an excuse is a bit of tartuffery, albeit of an arguably benign form. Please don't crucify me for saying this but it may be that, in any case, it's not right to cling to a position even for that reason--i.e., to put the interests of your department ahead of the whole university's (which isn't to say that some dialogue isn't in order). Though that's a whole other can of worms that I probably shouldn't be opening right now (so as not to stray too far off topic)

[Kris Kemtrup]

Everyone who disagrees with the following is an anti-youthist!

1. I think we can all agree that that just as young people don't have a right to an academic job, older people don't have a right to keep their job indefinitely. Remember, tenure is designed to ensure academic freedom; it is not designed to prevent the influx of new blood into the profession. If a university sees that its in their interest to move on- i.e. give older professors a pink slip and hire younger people- then that univeristy is not violating anyone's rights nor academic freedom.

2. In my experience, older professors do their jobs as well as, if not better than, their younger counterparts. But even so, there are all sorts of reasons to bring in new people and let older professors go: new perspectives are good, change is good, some students relate well to young faculty, etc.

3. The idea that universities might take lines for retired philosophers and give them to other disciplines is a bit of a red herring. The decline of philosophy departments is a separate problem and should be dealt with as such.

4. I'd be interested to hear what Rawlsians have to say about all of this. I think if I were looking at the academic world from the original position, I'd be terrified about being a young, unemployed philosopher: i.e. the worst off. I'd be somewhat less concerned about being an older professor who was forced out by some sort of early retirement law or social convention. Thus, I wonder whether we should have forced retirement as a law- or at least as a social convention, where older professors are expected and pressured to retire. (Perhaps I'm abusing Rawls here. No matter.)

[Heath White]

Since there are always more candidates than jobs available, a retiring academic will free up their line to a younger philosopher no matter what year they retire. The economic conditions are irrelevant, except that the department is more likely to lose a line in bad conditions, which is a pro tanto reason not to retire in a weak economy. What the "job shortage" argument really suggests is for the profession collectively to encourage shorter careers, allowing more people to get jobs in the aggregate. But this just means that philosophers will be poorer over their lifetimes, or they will have to count on two careers or a slew of odd jobs in old age.

The other considerations people have suggested--we'll call them the "dead wood" arguments--have some merit but apply irrespective of economic conditions.

[Michael Parkins]

Jorgensen's suggestion that putting pressure on older academics to retire would bring it about that younger philosophers "don't have to take risks for their career like other young workers" is just downright stupid. Even in a world where such pressure was applied, there would still be many more young philosophers than jobs (consider e.g. the situation in Britain). Moreover, in such a world young philosophers would still have to train for up to seven years before the job market is even an option; young philosophers would still face the very real prospect of moving to undesirable and far-off locations to pursue their work (and the consequent difficulties of starting a family); young philosophers would still face the prospect of earning (relatively) little cash for their entire lives, especially until one's mid-thirties. The idea that such a profession is "risk free", just because a few older academics cash in their chips a little earlier, borders on the perverse. I'm not trying to argue in favour of the early-retirement proposal. But if there's a criticism of that proposal, it ain't lurking in Jorgensen's post.

[Mike Otsuka]

In order to avoid charges of ageism, the question should have been phrased in terms of years of service rather than retirement age: should people make way for others after they've occupied a line beyond a given number of years (given that these years have been sufficient to generate a decent pension)?

There are other cases in which we think people should make way after they've occupied a line for long enough. Recall the phone booth, and the queues that used to form when someone kept talking and talking. If we were so long-winded that our conversations went on for decades rather than minutes, phone booth hogs would be old. But it wouldn't be because they were old that we'd want them to move on. Rather, it would be because they've talked long enough and should free up the line for the next person.

[jon kvanvig]

Kris says, "If a university sees that it's in their interest to move on- i.e. give older professors a pink slip and hire younger people- then that university is not violating anyone's rights nor academic freedom."

I think that's indefensible. It would be illegal to do so and would be in violation of tenure.

As for O.P. consideration of the issue of being an unemployed philosopher, I doubt that issue would occupy much attention, though the more general issue of finding meaningful work for people, given their abilities and interests, would. But I suspect that Kris's #4 is not sufficiently informed by the veil of ignorance. It looks like what too many men say about the plight of women, and too many whites say about the plight of people of color. There aren't enough legally protected classes (e.g., sexual orientation clearly should be one), but it is hard to argue that those that are protected shouldn't be, whether by Rawlsian considerations or ones more sensitive to actual history.

[jon kvanvig]

Mike's point is a very good one: it shows how to raise the issue without raising the charge of ageism. The resulting question, however, becomes much less interesting, in my opinion: "How long should you stay in your present position before you should move on, either to another position (outside academia) or to retirement?" Universities have no special interest in a restrictive answer here--the need for long-term commitments is part of the justification of the practice of tenure. And, of course, no one is *entitled* to anyone's academic position, in the moral sense (though the courts have held that tenured professors have a property interest that is at stake if the position is taken away, I think, but that is irrelevant here and best left to legal experts to confirm): neither the holder of the position nor anyone else with an interest in having the position has such a right or entitlement. Once past that issue, it is hard to see what general policy could do better than the present tenure practice, which sets no limit on one's stay in a position independent of some other legitimate cause for dismissal.

[lisa]

I've been very saddened by the many retirements at my university even though the (unsubstantiated) rumor is that these retirements may make the administration slightly more inclined to tenure junior faculty. The recent NY Times article about the loss of progressive professors to the academy was so on target, at least for my university. Although we do have a great department at all levels, we have lost and will continue to lose fascinating, wise, progressive people that are remarkably dedicated to their students, to mentoring junior faculty and are still on top of their game research-wise. Some of us who are a generation or two below are much more careerist and do not all have that vocational passion, history and radical politics that add so much to the mix. I don't think it necessarily bodes well for the academy to clear out the upper ranks for young blood. It's bound to happen naturally--at my university people really retire very willingly-- but I do think that many of the retirements now are coming out of an academic 'great generation.' Let's not rush them out the door.

[Kris Kemtrup]

I don't think my proposal in #4 is indefensible. In fact, here's a defense against Prof. Kvanig's charges.

Yes, forced retirement is illegal in the U.S., but so is gay marriage. The real question is whether forced retirement SHOULD be legal.

And no, forced retirement should not be seen as a violation of tenure. In fact, pace Prof. Kvanig, having tenure shouldn't mean you get to hold onto your job indefinitely anymore than it means you should get to hold on to your job unconditionally. That is, tenure should only mean you can't be fired for what you say- nothing more.

Or at least that's how I see it.

I'd defer to what Prof. Kvanig says about Rawls, but I'm not sure I get it. I don't think I'm saying young philosophers should be a 'protected class' in society like women or minorities, but rather that academic institutions ought to focus on protecting their own 'worst off': young professors.

At any rate, Rawlsian considerations aside, I suppose I lean towards being against forced retirement; there's just something cruel and cold about forced retirement.

[Jamie]

I mainly agree with Jon, with Chris Heathwood, and with Mike Otsuka (except, Mike, what's a phone booth?). But I think one thing's been left out. My contract with Brown doesn't allow the university to fire me because of my age, or to make way for more talented people (whether they be younger than I or not). Maybe Brown should change the way it contracts with new faculty, but I suspect if it did so we wouldn't be able to hire people who are as good as the people we actually can hire. They'd go to Baylor (we hardly ever lose anyone to Baylor now). I bet in the original position the parties would want to allow such contracts and would want them to be enforceable.

[Jamie]

Hm, now I think Jon did more or less make the point I just made. Sorry. But at least I made it more explicitly.

[Sean D. Kelly]

I like Mike Otsuka's phone booth analogy, but I worry that it makes too strong a point. It seems to suggest that people who don't need the salary from a University appointment should step aside in favor of new faculty too. After all, if the guy hogging the phone booth had a cell phone in his pocket, one might justly feel the situation unfair. Of course there are other advantages than a salary that accrue to a University position - the pleasure of teaching and mentoring students, interaction with colleagues, access to university resources - and so there might be reasons for wanting the position regardless of the salary it produces. But from the point of view of the administration presumably these other reasons are not what one is considering in determining whether to approve a line. So, does the independently wealthy person have an obligation to work for free? Perhaps, but if so it's not obvious this is the same question as whether senior faculty have an obligation to retire. The phone booth analogy seems to treat them as identical.

[Andrei Buckareff]

Jon, you're right. My arguments only support the claim that unproductive persons may have an obligation to make room for those who are more productive. Of course, we have to be careful in assessing what makes for an unproductive professor. If publications is the only metric, then some really outstanding philosophers were unproductive (Rogers Albritton comes to mind).

[Andrei Buckareff]

In the interest of clarification, I am not suggesting that Rogers Albritton was unproductive.

[Doug]

Suppose it is granted that unproductive senior faculty have a special unmet obligation to would-be faculty or the profession as a whole. It doesn't follow easily from this that such an obligation is best discharged by retiring. For reasons many have mentioned, the link between philosophy retirements and new tenure lines in philosophy is tenuous. Mass retirements may even be counter-productive insofar as they hasten the demise of the tenure system in favor of part-time labor.

Senior faculty who have become unproductive are in a wonderful position to be politically active on behalf of the profession: 1) Presumably, they have little to fear as they likely lack the desire for "upward mobility". 2) Their tenure affords them a pulpit typically unavailable to retirees. 3) They have (by their own choosing) a lot of time on their hands.

[Michael C]

It’s true, as several people have pointed out, that most of the relevant arguments are essentially about performance, not age. Still, as a matter of framing, it’s easy to see why a system of mandatory/encouraged retirement plus exceptions for people who are doing great would appear more navigable than one of de facto retention with provisions for firing slackers. The latter would, for one thing, be more apt to generate legal issues – for some reason “why was I the one singled out to get the boot?” carries a lot more weight than “why was I not the one singled out to be kept on?” But presumably this difficulty could be met by means of suitably objective and rigorously enforced standards.

The real issue with a more ruthless merit system is, I think, less legal than social. Imagine having to be the one to tell an aging, treasured colleague of many years that they are no longer cutting it, that they have got to move on. Such a prospect seems to me not merely awkward, but heart-rending, and – from the perspective of the colleague in question – even cruel. Of course we all know that such a time must come, but when it does, is it not far more palatable to say (and also to hear) “it’s not you; it’s just time” – even if we know it not to be fully true?

This does not, of course, speak to the main question of whether aging faculty have an obligation to retire. I merely want to emphasize that the issues of age and performance are in reality not so neatly separable as they may be in the abstract. It’s all well and good and true to point out that being old does not imply underperforming at one’s job, but if the two correlate significantly then it will be necessary to find a way of addressing both together that is not only fair in principle, but humanly acceptable as well.

[Jason]

I don't think the people who have written in favor of "forced retirement" policies have thought clearly about how these would impact the profession or individuals.

At many state universities, the pay is very poor (and I mean *very* poor – less than typical retail managers) until one hits the rank of full professor. Obviously, it would hurt recruitment of talent if one's lifetime earnings were cut down even further by "forced retirement" policies. I certainly would have chosen another career if philosophy professors were commonly forced into retirement or "non-academic employment" at the age of 60 or 65. (Who the hell is going to hire you when you're 65?)

People count on those last ten working years to pay off their children's college tuition and to pay off their homes. In large cities (New York, San Francisco, L.A., and Boston for sure) it is very difficult for those of us who won't have help from wealthy relatives to buy a house until we are associate or full professors. And at that point (say, age 38), we will be signing up to pay back $500,000+ on a 30-year mortgage. We will need to work until we are in our late 60s. If we were forced into retirement, we might be forced out of our homes.

[PA]

A couple of (obvious?)comments re. the putative obligations of senior faculty members to retire:

1. The issue is distinct from that of whether univerities (or governments) ought to have a mandatory retirement policy of some kind: the fact that one has an obligation to do X does not entail that an institution of which one is a part ought to compel one to do X (and vice versa).

2. Tenure-track/ tenured positions are a scarce resource. As a result, an advocate of an "equality of outcome" account of distributive justice might be able to contruct an argument according to which all interested and qualified parties are entitled to a certain amount of time occupying one of these positions. Advocates of other account of distributive justice will presumably balk.

3. If such an argument were accepted, time served and not age would determine who had an obligation to give up a tenured or tenure track position -- age is only a rough measure of time served. Note: no one would be under any obligation to give up her position if the university did not intend to renew the line.

4. Exemplary service to the university or the profession might entitle one to more time occupying some such position, whereas poor service might count in favour of a shorter term.

Note: I don't endorse an argument along these lines but it does seem the most promising route to defend an obligation of the sort Carson was interested in.

[Christian Perring]

There seem to be two issues here. One concerns productivity, and whether less productive people should make way for more productive people. The other issue concerns whether older academics have a responsibility to the new generation of academics coming up, stepping down so there are jobs for the younger people to take.

The main way I can see to argue for such responsibilities is via a responsibility to a community. The community might be the particular university one is at, the community of philosophers, or maybe even the community of all academics.

This raises the question of what counts as a community. I don't think every university and college manages to constitute a community, although some do. I am pretty skeptical that there's any such thing as the commnity of philosophers or the community of all academics. It looks to me like a group of people without any special responsibility to each other. I'd be curious if others think there is a community of philosophers.

[J. Bogart]

Apparently philosophers should be immunized from the economic pressures the rest of the population faces. Rather large portions of the population, including the middle management most like academic faculty, face the risk of being fired at every stage. Surely this bunch of bright folk have an argument explaining why academics should be so much better off.

[John Protevi]

I don't have much to add on the obligation issue, but I think these comments are germane to the discussion, as several commenters have noted that long term trends in American universities are the underlying condition of the job crunch for young philosophers, which, as Brian Leiter astutely notes, may be getting even worse due to short-term economic trends.

A very useful survey of current work on those trends (often called the installing of the "corporate model") can be found in the following article: Jeffrey Williams, "The Post-Welfare State University,"
_American Literary History_ Volume 18, Number 1, Spring 2006, pp. 190-216. It's available online if your university library subscribes to the journal.

If I may, I'd also like to urge philosophers interested in joint and effective action in fighting or at least slowing down the attacks on faculty members that make up the "corporate model" to join the national AAUP at http://www.aaup.org/aaup. The AAUP is not just about protecting tenure rights; it also works on behalf of faculty members and prospective faculty members at all levels of the profession, from graduate student TAs to full and emeritus professors.

[John Protevi]

It's so nice of Mr. Bogart to take the side of the poor corporate masters of the universe who gnash their teeth so helplessly at the job security of tenured professors. What a horrible example they set! Imagine, workers that do not live in daily fear of unemployment at will! How much better off are the stockholders of private schools without tenure!

Sorry, I mean the taxpayers!

[Derek Bowman]

Kris,

I think Jon's claim about the Original Position and protected classes was that 'the aged' should be a protected class by Rawlsian standards, and so the currently law preventing age discrimination is justified. The other point, I think, was that in the OP you wouldn't be terribly concerned about whether young philosophers can get philosophy jobs, though you would be concerned more generally with the ability to people to find meaningful work.

[Les Green]

I think most of the relevant considerations have been well stated above. So let me raise a slightly different issue.

More universities ought to think about phased retirement schemes. I know several talented philosophers at or near compulsory retirement age who would happily work two-thirds, half, or even quarter time. ('Work' here generally means teaching and admin--the people I have in mind will anyway continue their research programmes).

Such arrangements are rarer than they should be, and where they exist tend to be ad hoc and discretionary on the part of 'management.' They are too often accompanied by absurd reductions in status and benefits (loss of offices, administrative support... in one case I know of even loss of a gym membership!) We should be making it easier, not harder, for people to work on a (tenured) part-time basis. That would be another way of allowing for more movement at the entry level.

[Anita Bernstein]

As someone who isn't a philosopher I hesitate to type the phrase "distributive justice" on this blog, but I see a temporal effect. Philosophy faculty who have held tenured posts for decades are (still) enjoying race and/or gender privilege that is unjust. They won having played on a very unlevel field, tilted their way. This benefit for white men has dwindled over time and now accounts for much less of success in the academy. Thus the retirement-age incumbent is less likely than his young rival-aspirant, other things being equal, to deserve the job. To the extent there is an obligation to get out of the way (I'll stay neutral on that one for now), beneficiaries of unjust privilege have more of the obligation, and those who did not enjoy this boost have less.

[P Steck]

Philosophers don't live forever, so the real worry is that the older cohort will die in place, leaving an experience and intra-university power deficit. Especially in cases where a line has been guaranteed, phasing in the retirement of the 60s cohort seems to be a good idea.

[Margaret Atherton]

Anita Bernstein's argument only holds water if the percentage of women and minorities hired in philosophy today is significantly greater than was the case in, say, the early 70's. Alas, I am not sure there are figures to back that up. Of course, if the lost tenure lines in philosophy departments go to other, women and minority friendly fields, then that is a different story.

[Saul Smilansky]

James Lenman raises some doubts about the likelihood that we are missing a lot of good philosophy because many young people do not get a chance, in “Why I Have No Plans to Retire: In Defence of Moderate Professional Complacency”, Ratio 20 (2007), pp.241-246. This is in response to my "Paradox of Beneficial Retirement" (see the previous thread Brian mentioned). My reply to Lenman can be seen in the September 2007 issue of Ratio.

I am glad that this topic is being taken seriously. The case for the earlier rather than later retirement of the not very good is certainly stronger in the case of e.g. surgeons, as we would all wish that the best surgeon operate on our child (even if this requires the earlier retirement of the less competent). In the case of surgeons staying on while knowing that better surgeons would replace them were they to leave, this is indeed a case of "your integrity or your job". But we cannot dismiss the problem concerning philosophers, without implying that what we do does not really matter very much.

My original claim did not focus on age but pertained even to people in mid-career. But if we are thinking about people who are not very good and are in (say) their late sixties, and still do not want to leave, then surely the case is much stronger. I must say that I find the charge of ageist discrimination quite hollow here: after all, one has had circa 40 years in which to contribute.

[Anita Bernstein]

Dr. Atherton, the argument would still hold water (albeit less water) even if women and minorities haven't been hired in greater numbers, IF the decline in revering whiteness and maleness has had a meritocratic secondary effect on the job market. In other words, perhaps white men are being hired in the same high proportion as before, but are more deserving white men than their elderly predecessors, because the ideological shift has made departments less inclined to treat pale hues and Y chromosomes as proxies for merit.

[lisa]

I think Jason raises the important point that many people who go to graduate school take an economic hit by delaying the time they receive a full salary until they are in their early thirties. The sixties for professors may be somewhat different than the sixties for those who started their profession at 25 or 26 (e.g., lawyers). Moreover, many professors--especially women--delay having children until post tenure. Which means their kids might be starting college when they are nearing 60.

Is one idea in the background here that everyone is comfortable and secure at the age of 65 and people are delaying retirement out of some kind of greed or vanity? As Jason says, people may need to continue to work in their sixties simply to get by. I don't approve of forced layoffs for anyone at the age of 60 who is doing his or her job. Yes, businesses can screw you because of perceived lack of productivity or age bias. But this doesn't mean they should. Nor should we be required to run everything like a business. Why is business our shining beacon as opposed to, e.g., government service or other secure and/or unionized professions?

I am not entirely sure about this but I do sometimes think that OP arguments in micro contexts like academia are misplaced. What goods are being distributed and are jobs the sort of thing that should be distributed in this way? Another issue has to do with scale--is this the level at which we want to fairly distribute? So the relevant group here is the profession? Why not make scale even smaller and distribute at the university or college level? Why not distribute full time positions to adjuncts? They are surely the worst off. My point is not that we should do this but that the pool of recipients of distribution is very fuzzy here and the good (a particular kind of job) seems to need justification. Then, merit is getting into the mix in these comments as well as what is good for the profession. I suspect that you can't disentangle these easily because, if you did, the fairest thing would look like some kind of lottery for all professors everywhere with the best jobs going to those people are calling the most productive--or some other criteria. (One would hope that 'the most productive' refers to those producing something worthwhile.) Now this kind of redistribution would lead to quite a shakeup. I think if you are going to go down the fairness route, then you have to justify your stopping point and I see no reason why it has to focus entirely on this particular imbalance in who has what rather than the many imbalances that exist in academia.

[David Sobel]

Some have suggested that it counts against the idea that philosophers who have had a full turn in the profession have an obligation to retire that this will discourage people from entering the profession. People will think of philosophy as a profession that will not allow one to buy (and keep) a home, etc. And this, it is thought, would cut down on the talent available to the profession. However, it seems to me that there being few jobs available in philosophy to the next generation has a similar effect. At present, my guess is that the latter concern is cutting down more on the entry of new talent than the former. Obviously, even if I am right about this, this consideration far from settles what we should think about the general issue.

Additionally, it is worth noting that these are all effects of complying with the normative obligation, not effects of its existence.

[J. Bogart]

The comments have pretty much run their course. The arguments about delay in compensation supporting retaining senior faculty are suspect. There are very few areas of the economy which provide similar protection. One would like a case for it here, where participants are already highly compensated. Expectations of continued employment are not indefeasible, and, in this context, particularly weak (because foregone options are not significantly more rewarding for most in the profession, among other things). So we should have a more direct answer to whether senior faculty have a duty to arrange their lives to permit new entrants into the profession.

[C. Sistare]

J. Bogart writes, "One would like a case for it here, where participants are already highly compensated." Is the claim that philosophy professors are 'highly compensated'? This is not universally true, by any means. Perhaps professors at elite unitversities are doing well (Stanley Fish apparently thinks so), but those of us at small colleges are not doing that well, at all. Given cost of living changes, many of us have 'fallen behind.' For our years of delayed compensation - and debt accrual - and our level of work preparation, we compare very unfavorably with other professionals. We do, indeed, need to work longer in order to send our kids to college, buy our homes, and save for retirement. This does not settle the question of our obligations, but facts are relevant to obligations.

I'm a bit conerned by Anita Bernstein's equating of being hired in a certain generation and being underserving, or less than deserving, of one's position. As a woman philosopher, I certainly had to compete with [white] men who (in my opinion) were less competent than I, but I never assumed that all my white male colleagues were less deserving - certainly not less deserving just because they were white males! A different kind of argument based on gender and ethnic diversity can be made, however: viz., that it is good for the profession and for students to have a more diverse professoriate. That might tip the blanace in favor of a prina facie obligation to consider retiring as soon as one can afford to do so while meeting obligations to family and self.

Finally, I'm puzzled by M. Otsuka's phone booth analogy and by S. Kelly's response. I think the analogy begs the question, to be sure: it presumes that 'hogging' a public amenity is analogous to keeping one's competitively obtained job. So, it assumes that those who keep their jobs are 'hogging' that which they ought to be sharing with others. That, however, is what is up for debate. On the other hand, I don't understand S. Kelly's interpretation of the analogy. Could Sean or someone else expand on the point?