It is here, and most of it does not merit discussion, since she just wilfully ignores all the questions that have been asked, and misrepresents, yet again, the objections to this travesty. A philosopher elsewhere summed it up pretty well via e-mail:
(1) = this is hard, give us a break.
(2) = don’t pretend that when you have objections, you are right.
(3) = you assholes know who you are, and pretend you have real objections!
(4) = something stupid is better than nothing.
Read it for yourself and decide. I do find it hard to believe that someone so lacking in professionalism could be the President-Elect of the Eastern Division.
The first comment on the latest non-response is also apt:
The dishonesty of this latest statement is staggering. Alcoff claims she (or "we" - but I have seen no comments here or elsewhere by the other two editors of the guide) has constructively engaged with criticisms of the climate guide, and that most of the information people have been asking for has been made public (here and on the guide website). This is not true.
A sampling of questions that have not been aswered:
1. What was the survey response rate for each of the ranked departments?
2. How were the raw scores converted into the final rankings?
3. How was the decision to remove the University of Oklahoma from the "needs improvement" list made?
Also, the insinuation that some of the demands for evidence in the case of the PG climate guide are motivated by "a desire to avoid making changes" to improve the climate for women in philosophy, or that the sort of evidence demanded has been such that it could endanger whistleblowers, is nothing short of disgusting.
There is one bit of the latest statement that is really very revealing, however, and it comes early on, as Professor Alcoff tries to put the "Climate for Women" section of the Guide in context:
There has been a generation of brain drain in philosophy. Continental philosophers go into English and Religion and Comparative Literature departments; critical race philosophers go into Ethnic Studies Programs or law schools; LGBT folks go into English or LGBT programs; American philosophers go into Political Science departments; feminists go into Education and Women’s studies. Some of the best and brightest choose between a career facing constant battles within philosophy, or fame and fortune (relatively speaking) outside philosophy, and make rational choices.
Notice how this confuses an ideological agenda--to get certain kinds of "philosophy" back into philosophy departments--with an alleged concern for equal opportunity and non-discriminatory treatment of women, ethnic and racial minorities, and LGBT philosophers. In fact, the "Continental philosophers" who go into English and Religion and Comp Lit departments are, almost without exception, mediocre philosophers and scholars who have no business being in philosophy departments. This is not a "brain drain," it is not even a drain: it is the departure of folks who don't really want to do philosophy, but still talk about some philosophers, to other departments. In reality, the most striking development in the last thirty years is the huge influx of really good scholars and philosophers working in and on the post-Kantian European traditions into philosophy departments, which is why, as I've remarked before, this is now a Golden Age for philosophers interested in German Idealism, Nietzsche, phenomenology, the Frankfurt School, and so on. That Professor Alcoff stands this reality on its head is just astonishing, but also very revealing. I do not know enough about the "feminists" who go into Education or Women's Studies programs, rather than Philosophy Departments, to know whether it is the same situation there, but I would not be surprised if the situation is similar. (Judith Butler, to take only the most notorious case, is a Yale PhD in philosophy, in the Rhetoric Department at Berkeley.)
In any case, Professor Alcoff has, unwittingly, revealed the actual purpose of this whole exercise: it is not to figure out which departments have genuinely good climates for women, but rather to pressure philosophy departments to hire certain kinds of academics, doing certain kinds of work. And that, of course, explains why the list of departments "strongly recommended" for their "Climate for Women" was overwhelmingly SPEP departments--regardless of their current or historical problems with sexual harassment and discrimination!--and, in particular, departments teaching lots of feminist theory. A friendly "climate for women" really means a friendly climate for women who want to do certain kinds of feminist work, not a friendly climate for women who want to do metaphysics or logic or moral philosophy.
In light of this telling confession by Alcoff, let me retireate something I said on an earlier occasion: "some good 'analytic' philosophers interested in gender and race seem to have thrown their lot in with some very weak philosophers who self-identify with Continental philosophy. It is hard not to interpret this as contempt for or indifference towards those of us who take the Continental traditions in philosophy seriously. What a shame." It is even clearer now that for the sake of pretending to promote equal treatment for women in the profession, some philosophers are willing to sell serious scholarship in the Continental traditions--about which these philosophers obviously don't care--down the river. We know, of course, that the list of "advisors" to the "Climate for Women" section isn't reliable, but I hope reputable philosophers on that list will soon speak up.
ADDENDUM: Philosopher Steve Hales (Bloomsburg) writes:
I think you've hit the nail on the head. The purveyors of the climate for women guide equate woman-friendliness with feminist philosophy (and LBGT friendliness with queer theory, etc.). But the problem is worse than you've noted. Those equations actually make things *worse* for women by ghettoizing them. A female friend of mine who graduated from Brown about the same time I did was just expected to teach a feminist philosophy course when she was hired-- despite the fact that her training and interest was straight up Jaegwon Kim-style phil of mind. She was offended by the implication that because she was a woman that she could or wanted to teach fem phil. Of course she did it anyway.
ANOTHER: Another good comment, by "j," follows Alcoff's non-response, linked above, and it deserves notice:
Much like the open letter from the Oregon professors, this post seems to expend a great deal of energy in talking around the actual points of concern.
You published a ranking survey that effectively accused three of the top ranked programs of institutionalized sexism; and at the same time lauded a very specific subgroup of institutions that you yourself are associated with. Even without the ghastly stories coming from Oregon, or the methodological problems that seem to underlie the survey itself, did you really think people would take such accusations (and self-flattering praise) in stride and not question your motives?
Frankly I'm not surprised that the only real response you and others associated with this survey can seem to muster is accusing your critics of sexism or anti-feminist bias. It's the only response you have left short of releasing the actual details of how the survey was conducted.
Either way, it's unbecoming to question our motives while feigning umbrage at our questioning yours.