Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

California Budget Crisis and the Cal State System

Story here; additional comments from those knowledgeable about the specific issues facing philosophy departments in the Cal State system welcome.

Ned Block on the NRC "Methodology"

This is worth reading, and pretty damning.

University of Wisconsin Faculty Also to Face Furloughs

A colleague in the University of Wisconsin system calls to my attention the now official "furlough" policy for faculty.  His summary and comments:

All UW faculty will be furloughed over the next 2 years, taking 6 days/year for faculty 9-month appointments, effectively a 5% cut (3% + rescinded 2% raise).  Since furloughs cannot interfere with instruction, and research-minded folks like me cannot seem to find their curiosity time-clock, it’s just a pay-cut without permanently reducing base salary—which will return to Fall, 2008 levels in the Fall of 2011.  We have obtained the right to unionize, however. 

"Enduring Questions" and the NEH, Again

This time in IHE, though it's a pretty thin piece.

University of California Budget Crisis Update

The University of California has announced its response to the budget crisis.  The plan includes this information of particular relevance to job seekers:  “UC Berkeley, for example, anticipates reducing faculty recruitment from a typical 100 positions a year to 10. …Moreover, most campuses are deferring at least 50 percent of planned faculty hires.…”

This newspaper account adds additional details:      

The $813 million state funding cut represents about 20 percent of all general state revenue for UC, [UC President] Yudof said.

Yudof's plan for furlough days would be progressive, meaning lower-paid employees would experience a lower percentage of furlough days and lower percent of lost income compared to high wage earners. Here's Yudof's proposal:

$40,000 and under -- 11 furlough days -- 4 percent of income
$40,001-$46,000 -- 13 furlough days -- 5 percent of income
$46,001-60,000 -- 16 furlough days -- 6 percent of income
$60,001-$90,000 -- 18 furlough days -- 7 percent of income
$90,001-$180,000 -- 21 furlough days -- 8 percent of income
$180,001-$240,000 -- 24 furlough days -- 9 percent of income
$240,000 and above -- 26 furlough days -- 10 percent of income

The one 'advantage' of a furlough as opposed to a salary cut in this context is that, absent further action, salaries remain officially at their current level, and so after one year return to normal--unless, of course, there is another round of 'furloughs.'

Comments from UC faculty about effects of the budget cut on their departments are welcome--also comments from Cal State faculty.  Additional informational links are also welcome.

UPDATE:  A related IHE story here.

The NRC Releases Its "Methodology" for Ranking Graduate Programs (Ranking to Follow...)

IHE has a useful story and summary of the 200-page (!) document.  What made the earlier NRC reports (1982, 1995) useful was they included systematic surveys of experts in different disciplines evaluating program faculty and training of students.  That is no more.   According to the IHE article, the worry about expert evaluation was that, "Many people assume departments at outstanding universities must be outstanding as a result, even if that's not the case, or people who associate certain stellar researchers with a department may not know that they have retired."  Dare I observe that there is a pretty simple solution to these problems:  ask experts to evaluate faculty lists, not university names, and make sure the faculty lists are current and exclude those who are retired, dead, not really teaching etc.

Instead of the peer evaluations that made the prior NRC reports so important, programs will now be evaluated using 21 different variables--many different in kind from each other (see below)--and all weighted differently.  Here are the variables being utilized (I wish I were making this up, but, really, I'm not!):

The 21 Program Characteristics Listed in the Faculty Questionnaire.

Faculty characteristics

i. Number of publications per faculty member

ii. Number of citations per publication (for non-humanities fields)

iii. Percent of faculty holding grants

iv. Involvement in interdisciplinary work

v. Racial/ethnic diversity of program faculty (only non-Asian minorities count)

vi. Gender diversity of program faculty

vii. Reception by peers of a faculty member’s work as measured by honors and awards

 

Student characteristics

i. Median GRE scores of entering students

ii. Percentage of students receiving full financial support

iii. Percentage of students with portable fellowships

iv. Number of student publications and presentations (not used)

v. Racial/ethnic diversity of the student population (only non-Asian minorities count)

vi. Gender diversity of the student population

vii. A high percentage of international students

 

Program characteristics

i. Average number of Ph.D.’s granted in last five years

ii. Percentage of entering students who complete a doctoral degree in a given time (6

years for non-humanities, 8 years for humanities).

iii. Time to degree

iv. Placement of students after graduation (percent in either positions or postdoctoral

fellowships in academia)

v. Percentage of students with individual work space

vi. Percentage of health insurance premiums covered by institution or program

vii. Number of student support activities provided by the institution or program

The weightings to be used in the case of philosophy programs are not yet public--the weightings were determined in each case by a survey of people in the field.   No doubt many of these individual measures will be illuminating, but the idea of aggregating them in order to say that "Ivy University is in the 5-15 cluster" will produce a meaningless, 'nonsense' number:  what does it mean to say Ivy University is somewhere between 5th and 15th based on some aggregation of the number of publications per faculty member, the number of international students, the number of non-Asian minority faculty, and the number of student support activities?   Who would care about such an aggregation?   What is most distressing is that the NRC has eliminated any meaningful measure of faculty quality, relying on factors that have no qualitative dimension (e.g.,  publications per faculty member) and proxies for quality like grants and honors, some of which are certainly probative (e.g., Guggenheim or NEH Fellowships), others of which will just reinforce traditional hierarchies because of their insular and self-reinforcing nature (e.g., American Academy of Arts & Sciences membership)).

And then, of course, there is the delay issue.  Most of the data collection on faculty took place over three years ago.  Among those who would have been included for philosophy at UT Austin, for example, are Robert Kane [now retired], me, and Robert C. Solomon [now deceased].  Chicago's evaluation will presumably include William Wimsatt (now retired), John Haugeland (retiring next year), and Charles Larmore (left for Brown).  One Ohio State department reports that more than 20% of the faculty is new since the time they submitted the faculty questionnaires to the NRC, while nearly 20% of the faculty at OSU then have either left or retired.  There will obviously be substantial variation in how much these changes in faculty rosters over the last 3-4 years matter, but in some cases, they will be very significant.     

In any case, I would be most interested to hear what philosophers think of the variables the NRC is using and also what they think of the idea of an aggregation of such variables.  Non-anonymous comments preferred, though you must at least submit a valid e-mail address; submit comments only once, they may take awhile to appear.

"Enduring Questions" and the NEH, Again

A propos this, Robert Stainton (Western Ontario) wrote to the NEH as follows:

I had one question about the application process. Is it acceptable simply to submit course outlines from the philosophy courses that I and thousands of my colleagues have been offering for, I don’t know, one hundred years or so?

 This elicited the following reply from a no-doubt well-intentioned NEH program officer:

 

Dear Professor Stainton:

 

Your inquiry about our Enduring Questions grant competition was passed along to me for a response.   I'll do my best to answer your question.

 

These are grants for a brand new course, developed around some "enduring question" in the humanities.  Obviously, many of the "questions" proposed will be ones very familiar to philosophers.   But the better applications are likely to frame a familiar "question" in a fashion that is novel and thought-provoking.  Readings could include both historical/canonical works and more recent efforts to address the question.   

 

I don't see, therefore, how the inclusion of one of your past course outlines would bolster your case, unless you wanted to compare what you've been doing for many years with what you're proposing for the new course.  

 

I've pasted below the content requirements for the Enduring Questions grant applications.  You can find the complete Enduring Questions guidelines at the NEH website:  www.neh.gov.

 

By the way,  my understanding is that these grants are only available to scholars at institutions in the United States.   That means, unfortunately, that the University of Western Ontario would not be eligible to apply.   But you should double check the Guidelines cited above. 

 

Well, I hope that answers your immediate questions.  Thanks for the inquiry and please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

NEH and "Enduring Questions" Redux

Here, and, last year, here.

Meetings of Department Chairs at the APA

A propos an earlier subject, Sandy Goldberg (Northwestern) writes:

The 2009 Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association meeting will be reinstituting a “Chair’s Caucus” meeting. The aim is to have an institutionalized venue for chairs from across the country to discuss issues of mutual interest and to share best practices. To ensure that this year’s sessions are productive, I will be assembling a list of questions that Philosophy Chairs would like to see addressed. Please send suggestions to me.

 

This year there will be two sessions of the Chair’s Caucus. The first will be an open-agenda meeting, where we will discuss challenges and opportunities facing Philosophy Departments in these difficult economic times. The second will be a session with experienced chairs and administrators who will be asked to share insights and give advice to first-time chairs. These sessions will be as follows:

 

Chairs’ Caucus: Open Agenda

 

Monday December 28, Group Session Meetings, 5:15-7:15 p.m.

 

Participants: Amy Allen (Chair, Dartmouth College); Sandy Goldberg (Chair, Northwestern University); Norah Martin (Chair, University of Portland); Andrew Mills (Chair, Otterbein College); David Schrader (Executive Director, APA); Anita Silvers (Chair, San Francisco State

University)

 

Chairs’ Caucus: Advice for New Chairs

 

Tuesday Dec. 29, Group Session Meeting, 7-9 pm

 

Participants: John Bickle (recently named Head of Philosophy, Mississippi State University); Saul Fisher (Associate Provost, Hunter College, CUNY); Valerie Hardcastle (Dean, McMicken College of Arts and Sciences, University of Cincinnati); Brian McLaughlin (Chair of the Rutgers Philosophy Department from 1999-2005 and 2006-07); David Schrader (Executive Director, APA)

Choosing a Dissertation Supervisor

A grad student writes:

How should one choose a supervisor? I'm a graduate student at a PGR rank 15 - 20 school, and starting to think seriously about dissertation topics. One consequence of our relative status is a very mixed placement record: some of our students get amazing jobs, but others struggle to get any interviews. I get the sense that choice of supervisor is a crucial factor in this.

I suppose one shouldn't have as chair someone who is just starting (less than 5 years post-PhD) in the profession. But what about the other end of the scale: would it be a bad call to have someone who is well known and produces great work, but who hasn't produced much in the past few years? What about a very famous philosopher who has become more of a 'public intellectual'? And how should one balance considerations of who would be a good adviser, pedagogically speaking, against who is more well-known in the profession?

I know that, in the end, one should go for the most interesting topic, and try to produce the best work one can - but I suppose that it can't hurt to stack the deck a little by taking such things into account.  Thanks very much for any thoughts!

Comments are open; submit your comment only once, it may take awhile to appear.

Draconian Budget Cuts at UCLA

Student newspaper story here.  In 2008-09, UCLA searched to fill 74 faculty lines; in 2009-10, UCLA will search to fill just 20 faculty positions.

More Unethical Behavior by Elsevier

First this, now this.  Elsevier will soon be known as the Bush Administration of academic publishers!

(Thanks to Tim O'Keefe for the pointer.)

California Budget Crisis Update: 8% Pay Cut for University of California Faculty in the Offing

Wow.  Any private or state school with money for hiring is going to be looking hard at the U of C system for talent next year if this goes through.

UPDATE:  A philosopher in the UC system writes:

The UC pay cut is actually more like 10%.  That is because a separate decision earlier this year meant that they are, starting next yr, directing 2% of our pay into our pensions.  So the 8% cut will come on top of the 2% cut.  And none of that factors in the lack of cost of living increases for many, many yrs.  Most UC faculty are already making 20-30% lower than market rates.  Subtract another 10% and you're right, it could be the end of UC being a preeminent school.  With ten campuses (including UCSF), a 20% cut in state funding is effectively not (state) funding at all two whole campuses.

Budget Crisis at Florida State University: Layoffs of Tenured Faculty in the Works?

There are a variety of documents collected here, though it's unclear how far-reaching the layoffs will be and whether Philosophy will be among the affected departments.  (My read of the materials suggests that tenured faculty at risk are in units that may be eliminated, and I see no indication that includes Philosophy.)   Any insight from those at FSU?  Philosophy at FSU has been a huge success story over the last dozen years, hopefully it will weather this crisis.

The Ethics of Teaching in a Small Department and Obligations to the Students

A young philosopher writes:

Here is a question on the ethics of teaching philosophy in a small department. I can imagine circumstances in which a philosopher only gets to teach one course a year in their specialism (because the department is small but it needs to cover as much of the whole cannon as possible). That one course might be the students' only exposure to your area. Do you have a duty to give a survey for that course too (even if this means you only get to give a single lecture, say, on the topic of your PhD---or whatever other topic most interests you personally)? 

The students' education might be better served by the survey course, but on the other hand it would only be the handful of students who take philosophy further that would be disadvantaged, and teaching what really interests you helps with your research and keeps you sane. 

Any thoughts?

Comments are open; please post only once, comments may take awhile to appear.

Why so few joint appointments (are there any?) in the UK?

Thom Brooks (Newcastle) comments.  I suspect it must have something to do with the heavily bureaucratic nature of higher education in Britain.

Nous & PPR Not Accepting Submissions Until October 1, 2009

Via the Weatherson blog.  Another argument for more open access venues like Philosophers' Imprint.

UPDATE:  Tamler Sommers (Houston) writes:

My guess is that the reason PPR and Nous are swamped is because they have, by far, the most responsible reviewing process of the very top journals.  They get back to people within a month, usually with helpful comments even if they reject.  If they accept, you get to put a great 'forthcoming' publication on your CV, which can help you get a job or move up in the world even if the article takes forever to actually come out.   As a junior faculty member, you have a strong incentive to choose them for an initial submission over other journals. 

 

So Open Access is great, but a bigger issue is reviewing practices.  If Open Access can help with that, then it's the best of all possible worlds.  If not, there's still a real problem and the journals who address it--open access or not--will have to take frequent moritoriums.

Comments open for those who want to continue the 'open access' discussion or react to Professor Sommers's observations.

Open Access Journals in Philosophy: Why Aren't There More, and More Better Ones?

Gualtiero Piccinini (Missouri/St. Louis) writes:

I’d love to see philosophers discuss open access philosophy journals.  

Some observations:  (1) In many sciences, some of the most prestigious journals are now open access. 

 

(2) In philosophy, only one open access journal (Philosophers’ Imprint) has a good enough reputation to be ranked among the 20 best philosophy journals (as per the ranking recently published in Leiter Reports); the top philosophy journals remain the usual ones.  

 

(3) Some commercial publishers, such as Bentham, are now trying to establish for profit, open access philosophy journals, but their quality is questionable.

 

High quality, open access philosophy journals seem to be both desirable and feasible – witness Philosophers’ Imprint, not to mention the many prestigious open access journals in other fields.  Why aren’t there more prestigious open access philosophy journals?  Why haven’t open access journals been able to threaten the dominance of the old philosophy journals in the way they have done in other fields?

 Comments are open; post only once. 

Anti-Muslim Bigotry Emanating from Kalamazoo

When someone flagged for me last week Clayton Littlejohn's pointer to a bit of raving bigotry by one of the many right-wingers at the aptly-named "What's Wrong with the World" blog (which exemplifies, rather than analyzes, the phenomenon), I merely added a note about it as an afterthought to an earlier post.  But an alert reader has since pointed out to me that the author of the offending item, Lydia McGrew, is the spouse of the Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Western Michigan University, which has long been a recommended terminal MA program in the PGR.  Here is what the Chair's spouse wrote:

Does this mean that I think Muslims in America should not have due process, should not be legally treated as innocent until proven guilty? No, it means I think they should not be in America....

[T]he time has come for conservative American parents to consider the danger posed to them by immigrant cultures that, to put it bluntly, make traditionalist parents look bad. It is in our interests to support the ending of Muslim immigration, thereby blocking a route by which the public will plausibly be made suspicious of parental rights and of countercultural groups.

Anyone interested can read the entire post to appreciate the "reasoning" underlying this item, but in short, it is this:  conservative Christians, especially those who homeschool, don't want society to interfere with the religious indoctrination of their children, therefore, conservative Christians should oppose Muslim immigration, since (it is alleged) some Muslim parents mistreat their children in ways that would prompt societal interference in the family.

It may well be that Professor McGrew, the Chair of the WMU Philosophy Department, does not share his wife's bigotry or hostility towards Muslims.  But, as my correspondent pointed out, I owe it to students, especially Muslim students, to flag this extraordinarily ugly display so that they can investigate the situation for themselves in the event they are considering the terminal MA program there.  

UPDATE:  Professor Allhof from WMU writes:

As Director of Graduate Studies at WMU, I can attest that we have had have had all sorts of minorities (racial, sexual, religious, etc.) in our program, and there has never been a complaint from any of them about the climate or their treatment.  Since I’ve been here, we haven’t had a Muslim student that I know of, but I suspect it’s only because we haven’t had many apply.  (One of our admittances for next year is from Iran, though he has yet to commit and I know nothing of his religious views.)  I encourage prospective students to contact me with any questions about the graduate program or else our incoming chair, who will be appointed next month.  Certainly Dr. Lydia McGrew’s views should not be taken to reflect those of the department, with which she is not affiliated.

I think that speaks fully to any reasonable concern someone might have had, and I thank Professor Allhof.

Publishing Philosophy While Outside the Academy; Getting Back Into Academia After Being Away

A reader writes:

I am a Visiting Assistant Professor who is weighing returning to a temporary position versus exploring other, non-academic career options.  I am still holding out, at least in the near term, for a permanent position, and I have been “close” to acquiring one in the past.  However, I am also concerned that I will be in the same position of uncertainty next year.

 

I was wondering if your readers could comment on the following questions.  First, is it more difficult to publish while not having an academic affiliation?  I am not necessarily concerned about the inevitable constraints on time another job would entail (regarding writing and research), but does the likelihood of acceptance diminish without an “edu” on your email?  Second, does taking a year or two break from academics severely reduce the likelihood of landing a job?  I realize PhDs tend to “stale” after time, but I’m wondering if a year or two break, especially in this economic climate, would be looked at as unfavorably as it would be in more normal times.

My take:  (1)  publication, at least with journals that run a legitimate peer review process, should not be harder; (2) hiring departments tend to be skeptical about people who have been away from philosophy, unless there is good evidence that they have remained intellectually engaged with the subject.  Comments are open for other perspectives; post only once; comments may take awhile to appear.

No May JFP This Year!

Tim O'Keefe (Georgia State) writes:

Saw the following at http://www.apaonline.org/ :

"The National Office has not received a sufficient number of employment ads to warrant publishing a May 2009 issue of Jobs for Philosophers, No. 182. Therefore, there will not be a JFP print issue published in May. Web only ads (if any) will continue to be published on-line from May through the summer months."

Thought it might be worth noting on your blog, as it does reflect the overall terrible job market--I must say I'm rather surprised that the May JFP would be particularly sparse, since I thought a lot of places not filling TT slots because of the economy would still be in the market for cheaper adjuncts and the like to teach their classes, and the May JFP often has ads for those sorts of positions.

Also, I'm surprised that the APA would make this decision. Even if the number of ads is low, how much would it cost the APA to send out a 4-page-long total JFP, one newsprint sheet folded in half?  They seem to have the money to send out chunky bound copies of Proceedings and Addresses several times a year to all members.

What do readers make of this?  Departments that were unable to hire tenure-track faculty this year, how are you meeting your teaching needs?  Have departments also been denied temporary and adjunct positions?  Signed comments please.

Transforming Universities?

Several readers have e-mailed me about this piece.  The author is Columbia religion professor Mark C. Taylor (yes, the Derrida apologist and postmodern "theorist").   Here's a taste of the careless rhetoric:

GRADUATE education is the Detroit of higher learning. Most graduate programs in American universities produce a product for which there is no market (candidates for teaching positions that do not exist) and develop skills for which there is diminishing demand (research in subfields within subfields and publication in journals read by no one other than a few like-minded colleagues), all at a rapidly rising cost (sometimes well over $100,000 in student loans).

In fact, many graduate programs produce PhD graduates who secure tenure-track teaching positions, and many of whom (the majority of whom?) do so without acquiring any debt.  There are "Chrysler" PhD programs that should close, but that's no basis for smearing all graduate programs--though perhaps Professor Taylor is inadvertently telling us something about his department (I hope the Columbia Provost takes note!). 

Professor Taylor goes on to lament specialization (one can understand why pomo intellectual tourists might do so), though he would do well to read Weber.  But he is certainly correct that the size of many graduate programs is dictated more by the needs of universities for cheap labor than by academic considerations:

The dirty secret of higher education is that without underpaid graduate students to help in laboratories and with teaching, universities couldn’t conduct research or even instruct their growing undergraduate populations. That’s one of the main reasons we still encourage people to enroll in doctoral programs. It is simply cheaper to provide graduate students with modest stipends and adjuncts with as little as $5,000 a course — with no benefits — than it is to hire full-time professors.

Professor Taylor concludes with the following recommendations, that range from the juvenile to the perhaps worth experimenting with to the naive and dangerous:

1. Restructure the curriculum, beginning with graduate programs and proceeding as quickly as possible to undergraduate programs. The division-of-labor model of separate departments is obsolete and must be replaced with a curriculum structured like a web or complex adaptive network. Responsible teaching and scholarship must become cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural....

2. Abolish permanent departments, even for undergraduate education, and create problem-focused programs. These constantly evolving programs would have sunset clauses, and every seven years each one should be evaluated and either abolished, continued or significantly changed. It is possible to imagine a broad range of topics around which such zones of inquiry could be organized: Mind, Body, Law, Information, Networks, Language, Space, Time, Media, Money, Life and Water....

3. Increase collaboration among institutions. All institutions do not need to do all things and technology makes it possible for schools to form partnerships to share students and faculty. Institutions will be able to expand while contracting. Let one college have a strong department in French, for example, and the other a strong department in German; through teleconferencing and the Internet both subjects can be taught at both places with half the staff. With these tools, I have already team-taught semester-long seminars in real time at the Universities of Helsinki and Melbourne.

4. Transform the traditional dissertation. In the arts and humanities, where looming cutbacks will be most devastating, there is no longer a market for books modeled on the medieval dissertation, with more footnotes than text. As financial pressures on university presses continue to mount, publication of dissertations, and with it scholarly certification, is almost impossible. (The average university press print run of a dissertation that has been converted into a book is less than 500, and sales are usually considerably lower.) For many years, I have taught undergraduate courses in which students do not write traditional papers but develop analytic treatments in formats from hypertext and Web sites to films and video games. Graduate students should likewise be encouraged to produce “theses” in alternative formats.

5. Expand the range of professional options for graduate students. Most graduate students will never hold the kind of job for which they are being trained. It is, therefore, necessary to help them prepare for work in fields other than higher education. The exposure to new approaches and different cultures and the consideration of real-life issues will prepare students for jobs at businesses and nonprofit organizations. Moreover, the knowledge and skills they will cultivate in the new universities will enable them to adapt to a constantly changing world.

6. Impose mandatory retirement and abolish tenure. Initially intended to protect academic freedom, tenure has resulted in institutions with little turnover and professors impervious to change. After all, once tenure has been granted, there is no leverage to encourage a professor to continue to develop professionally or to require him or her to assume responsibilities like administration and student advising. Tenure should be replaced with seven-year contracts, which, like the programs in which faculty teach, can be terminated or renewed. This policy would enable colleges and universities to reward researchers, scholars and teachers who continue to evolve and remain productive while also making room for young people with new ideas and skills.

Part of what underlies this is the fact that Taylor has no specialty or discipline of his own, and so would like every other unit to follow suit, and "specialize" in intellectual superficiality across many topics.  But the proposal regarding tenure is really reckless and naive.   Tenure means faculty can be termined only "for cause."  Universities are undoubtedly too timid in initiating termination proceedings where they would, in fact, be justified, but the remedy for that problem is not the elimination of tenure, which does, indeed, protect academic freedom (and the First Amendment rights of state university professors), but also acts as an essential form of non-monetary compensation for faculty.

Thoughts from readers on Professor Taylor's article and his proposals?  Signed comments only:  full name and e-mail address.

Acquiring Substantial Debt While in Grad School: How Much? How Common?

A PhD student at a top program writes:

I'm finishing up the 2nd year of a program that I expect to finish in 5 years total. I'm married; we've got a young child; and we'd like to have another in the next couple years. As an undergrad, I took out about $15,000 in student loans (which, as I understand things, is about average). But for each of my first 2 years of grad school, I've had to take out a HUGE loan. My wife is well educated and could work a full-time job, but if she were to do so, we'd have to pay for child care. Decent child care is absurdly expensive in this area (and extremely difficult to come by); and even if we could afford it, we'd rather avoid it (for personal reasons). So she works a part-time job, and stays at home during the days with our child. So it's looking like I'll have to take out yet another HUGE loan this summer (and, if conditions remain the same, the summer after that and the summer after that). And by the time I actually earn the Ph.D., we could be looking at student loan debt well into the six figures. I'm at a wonderful, highly-respected program, so I'm confident (relatively speaking) that I'll find a job. But then, from what I hear, my starting gross yearly income might be LESS THAN HALF of what I owe in student loans. I've always heard that student loan debt is "good debt," especially if you're in grad school, but that no longer makes me feel any better.

 

My questions are these: Is this anywhere close to normal (for other grad students similar situations - married, with children, etc.)?   Should I be thinking about possible new career paths, or will that sort of student loan debt be manageable as a philosopher? Any idea what sort of monthly payments I'll have to make?

 

I'd really, really appreciate hearing some advice, testimony, etc., from others around the discipline ... and I imagine that there are many other grad students that could benefit from such a discussion.

 

Comments are open; it is OK to post anonymously on this thread, but please include a real e-mail address (it won't appear).   Please post only once, as comments may take awhile to appear.

Discrimination Against Theists by Secular College?

Inspired by Professor Hoekema's courageous letter to the APA, Professor Swingline of Alan Turing College has drafted his own letter to the APA (here: Download Hoekmaparody) regarding allegations about his philosophy department.

Letter to APA from David Hoekema (Calvin) Regarding Petition to APA Regarding Discrimination Against Gay Men and Women

Professor Hoekema's letter (reference in his commenthere) can be found here.  I am not going to open comments, since it seems to me that the issues raised in Profesor Hoekema's letter have been dealt with in great detail in prior threads here. 

Today's Pacific APA Business Meeting in Vancouver and the Motion for the APA to Enforce Its Existing Anti-Discrimination Rules

I'm opening comments here, in the event that some in attendance want to post about what takes place, either as it happens or afterwards.  (I'm opening the thread now, several hours before the business meeting, so those who might attend are more likely to know of its existence.)

Murphy Letter to APA Regarding Discrimination Against Gay Men and Women Now On-Line With Signatures

Here.  Not quite a 100 philosophers have signed, some of whom signed the earlier Feser counter-petition, but many new philosophers (including many folks whose work I admire) have signed the Murphy letter.  The earlier discussion of Professor Murphy's letter is here.

REMINDER: Motion Regarding APA's Discrimination Policy to be Presented at Pacific Meeting

UPDATE:  Moving to front from March 26.  This is now happening tomorrow!

Alastair Norcross (Colorado) informs me that the following motion (which tracks the petition crafted by Professor Hermes) will be presented at the business meeting at the Pacific APA meeting in Vancouver on Thursday, April 9 at noon (it will take place in the President room, which is on the 2nd floor of the 'Tower'):

Whereas the American Philosophical Association has a clear policy opposing discrimination based on race, color, religion, political convictions, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identification or age; and whereas several institutions that explicitly violate that policy with respect to sexual orientation have recently placed advertisements in Jobs for Philosophers; and whereas more than 1400 members of the American Philosophical Association have signed a petition calling on the APA either to enforce its nondiscrimination policy or to change it; be it therefore resolved that the American Philosophical association (1) enforce its policy and prohibit institutions that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation from advertising in Jobs for Philosophers, or (2) clearly mark institutions with these policies as institutions that violate our anti-discrimination policy, or (3) publicly inform its members that it will not protect gay philosophers and remove its anti-discrimination policy to end the illusion that a primary function of the APA is to protect the rights of its members.

Any signatories who will be attending the Pacific APA are urged to attend the business meeting.  You may contact Professor Norcross via e-mail if you would like to discuss logistics or strategy.

Kudos to Professor Norcross for getting this issue before the APA.

Final Version of Murphy Letter to APA Opposing Action Against Schools that Discriminate Against Gay Men and Women

Mark Murphy (Georgetown) has posted the final version of his letter to the APA and is soliciting signatures from APA members.   I would invite readers to discuss the arguments raised by Professor Murphy's letter below.  (My earlier comments on the draft letter are here.)  Comments must be signed and substantive.  Post only once, comments may take awhile to appear.

Good Places for Grad Students to Study German?

I've started a thread on the topic at my Nietzsche blog, but this will obviously be of interest to others.  Please weigh in if you have useful experiences to report.

U.K. Philosophers Speak Out in Support of Preserving Philosophy at Liverpool

Details here.

What Kind of Obligation do Philosophers Have to Referee Papers?

A philosopher writes:

I've recently been talking to Journal editors in various fields, who all lament the difficulty of securing quality referee reports.  Certainly, authors can often be heard voicing the same complaint, and one wonders if this is implicated in the dearth, alleged in the recent Chronicle article, of Journal submissions by senior academics (who often have "invited" placement options).  My impression is that the amount of refereeing people do varies wildly, and it occurs to me that it might be useful to attempt articulating some disciplinary norms in philosophy, to help people determine what would count as "pulling one's weight."  To take an arbitrary example, an appropriate workload might be 3 a year for untenured people, and 6 a year for tenured people, with standard administrative workloads. But for all I know the number should be lower, or higher (perhaps the latter is more likely, at least for tenured people). 

 

So: How much refereeing do people *actually* do, and how much do they think people *should* do in a typical year?

Because I have edited a journal since 2000 (Legal Theory until recently, Oxford Studies in the Philosophy of Law currently), I probably do less refereeing than some, since I already have a lot of referee work connected to my editorial duties.  Still, I probably do 2-3 referee jobs for other journals each year.  I have no idea what the norm is.  Comments are open; signed comments preferred, but you must at least use a real e-mail address (which will not appear)--if you don't want to sign the name, at least indicate something about your professional position (e.g., 'full professor,' 'assistant professor,' that kind of thing).

Inside the Mind of Religiously-Inspired Bigots

Edward Feser (Pasadena City College), author of the pro-discrimination petition to the APA, offers some insight into how religiously inspired bigots think in his curious book The Last Superstition.  I quote some selections from the Preface:

At the time of this writing, exactly one week has passed since the Supreme Court of the State of California decreed that homosexuals have a "basic civil right" to marry someone of the same sex.  Whether these Golden Gate solons will follow up their remarkable finding with a ruling to the effect that an ass is the same as a horse, it is too early to say; but they have already gone well beyond the sophistical orator of Plato's dialogue in "confoudning good with evil," not to mention reason with insanity....

[T]he most important thing to know about the belief that God exists is not that most citizens happen (for now anyway) to share it, that it tends to uphold public morality, and so forth.  The most important thing to know about it is that it is true, and demonstrably so.  Similarly, the most important thing to know about "same-sex marriage" is not that it has been lawlessly imposed by certain courts even though a majority of citizens happen (again, for now anyway) to oppose it.  The most important thing to know about it is that the very idea is a metaphysical absurdity and a moral abomination, and (again) demonstrably so.  It is no more up to the courts or "the people" to "define" marriage or to decide whether religion is a good thing than it is up to them to "define" whether the Pythagorean Theorem is true of right triangles, or whether water has the chemical structure H2O.  In each case, what is at issue is a matter of objective fact that it is the business of reason to discover rather than democratic procedure to stipulate.

The "demonstration" consists in recycled Thomist arguments (with no meaningful attention to their now familiar refutations and the repetitive rhetorical trope that everyone [except Professor Feser] has failed to grasp the real import and nuances of these arguments) and some premodern Aristotelian metaphysics, recycled through the lens of Professor Feser's sad obsession with where sperm ends up.  The publisher of this strange "philosophical" tome:  St. Augustine's Press in South Bend, Indiana.   It is not, I should add, uninteresting as a sociological and psychological document, and it does throw a somewhat clear light on the distinctive features of 'modernity' that are so frightening to those still living in the "dark ages."

ADDENDUM:  For motivated readers, pp. 132-153 are particularly remarkable, and might be useful for those wanting a good example of bad philosophy in the service of religious dogma.

The "Top Ten" Academic Presses in Philosophy

So the earlier poll, with more than 500 votes, is now complete.  The results struck me as fairly sensible.  Oxford University Press was the hands-down winner, and Cambridge University Press was a distant, but clear, second.  Blackwell came in third, and Harvard University Press fourth.  Three presses were fairly close to each other in the poll, but distant fifths from Harvard:  MIT Press, Routledge, and Princeton University Press.  Then there was another drop in votes before Cornell University Press and University of Chicago Press, which were very close.  Yale University Press was a somewhat distant 10th, with Kluwer/Springer not far behind.

Some readers pointed out that Oxford may get an advantage from the fact that it publishes more philosophy than any other press--though the fact that OUP publishes leading work in every sub-field of the discipline probably ought to count in OUP's favor.  But Oxford certainly has a much larger catalogue than most of the others.  PUP, which may have the smallest catalogue, also, in my opinion, may have the highest 'per capita' quality.  OUP, CUP, MIT, and Routledge all publish work in Continental philosophy quite regularly.  Harvard is an unusual case, and not just because their catalogue is small, but because, as one friend put it to me, their catalogue actually has "a philosophical position" (roughly anti-naturalist, and whatever is on the agenda at Harvard and Pittsburgh, plus some ethics):  this means Harvard publishes important books within the "party line," but nothing at all in many of the most lively areas of current research.

Thoughts from readers on the results?  Signed comments only, meaning a full name and an e-mail consistent with that.

Financial Aid Offers for PhD Students: Is There a "Normal" Amount These Days?

Based on anecdotal evidence, I have the impression that the nature of financial aid awards to new PhD students varies quite dramatically from school to school.  I thought it might be useful, both for departments and students, to collect these anecdotes in one place.  Two kinds of posts are welcome here.  Faculty, who must sign their name, can post the financial aid awards in their department, e.g.:

University of [insert name] offers each year two Fellowships (three years, no teaching, 18K/year plus 3K summer money, full tuition remission), and 5-7 TAships (15K per year, some summer teaching available, 80% tuition remission, typically involves marking or leading discussion with 40 students per term).  Support is available for up to seven years; those on Fellowship are eligible for TAships after Fellowship support runs out.

Alternatively, students (who must post a real e-mail, it won't appear) can post the financial aid awards they have received from particular programs, e.g.:

[insert name] University offered me a University Fellowship, five years of guaranteed support of 22K per year, plus summer support (5K) for three summers; full tuition remission; must teach in the 2nd and 4th years.  No support guaranteed thereafter.

Remarkable Story on "Essay Mills"

From CHE, here.  Have any philosophy teachers encountered students using these 'services'?  Do you sense that this kind of 'plagiarism' is on the rise?

UPDATE:  The CHE reporter kindly sent a link to a free version of the article.

Which journals publish the best work in moral and political philosophy?

MOVING TO FRONT FROM MARCH 13--this poll is also open for a few more days.

This poll includes some of the top journals from the earlier survey that regularly publish in moral and political philosophy, as well as many of the specialized journals in this general area.

The plan is to run some more surveys next week for some other areas, like history and philosophy of the sciences and mathematics.

UPDATE:  I'll probably need to do a run-off version of this poll, to add some of the journals whose omission has been called to my attention, such as Hastings Center Report, Hypatia, and Politics, Philosophy, & Economics.

Which are the highest quality "general" philosophy journals in English?

MOVING TO FRONT FROM MARCH 12:  This poll is still open and will be a couple of more days.

=============================

This topic comes up quite a lot, especially in correspondence, and especially from graduate students and younger philosophers trying to figure out where to publish.  We have touched on the issue before, but I've created a poll for readers on the subject to see whether any consensus emerges.  I have listed 29 journals, which readers can rank order (with ties, of course), and you can also express 'no opinion.'  I'll let this run till the middle of next week.  Hopefully this new poll will prove useful.

NOTE:  At least on my brower, the counter for "votes cast" went back to zero after some 120 votes had already been cast--though the votes were preserved, clearly, in the results.  No idea what happened, but if the total votes cast at the top seems inconsistent with the results, below, that's why.

UPDATE:  So with about 400 votes cast, this ranking seems to have become fairly stable:

1. Philosophical Review  (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)

2. Journal of Philosophy  loses to Philosophical Review by 214–99

3. Nous  loses to Philosophical Review by 239–91, loses to Journal of Philosophy by 190–141

4. Mind  loses to Philosophical Review by 245–85, loses to Nous by 167–152

5. Philosophy & Phenomenological Research  loses to Philosophical Review by 282–64, loses to Mind by 242–101

6. Philosophical Studies  loses to Philosophical Review by 199–28, loses to Philosophy & Phenomenological Research by 239–89

7. Analysis  loses to Philosophical Review by 304–53, loses to Philosophical Studies by 192–133

8. Australasian Journal of Philosophy  loses to Philosophical Review by 308–42, loses to Analysis by 159–156

9. Philosophical Quarterly  loses to Philosophical Review by 297–42, loses to Australasian Journal of Philosophy by 167–121

10. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society  loses to Philosophical Review by 309–34, loses to Philosophical Quarterly by 220–84

11. Philosophers' Imprint  loses to Philosophical Review by 183–21, loses to Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society by 105–87

12. Philosophical Perspectives  loses to Philosophical Review by 289–20, loses to Philosophers' Imprint by 135–116

13. Tied: American Philosophical Quarterly  loses to Philosophical Review by 305–30, loses to Philosophical Perspectives by 108–80 Pacific Philosophical Quarterly  loses to Philosophical Review by 323–17, loses to Philosophical Perspectives by 147–114

15. The Monist  loses to Philosophical Review by 308–27, loses to American Philosophical Quarterly by 156–116

Just outside the "top 15" are Canadian Journal of Philosophy, European Journal of Philosophy, Philosophical Topics, and Ratio.  I am surprised by Journal of Philosophy's strong hold on #2, and that Philosophers' Imprint didn't have an even stronger showing (though it is far and away the youngest jounral in the the top 20), but otherwise there are, I imagine, no surprises here.  Anyway, I expect this is a useful list for many young philosophers to have.  We'll see if things change over the next few days.

APA Members Oppose Discrimination Against Gay Men and Women by a Margin of More than 30-1

Good to know, and certainly no surprise (plus, at the preceding link, you get an entertaning talk by philosopher John Corvino [Wayne State] on the morality of homosexuality).  Of course, it's a bit sad that it's not more like 100-1. 

UPDATE:  And see also thenew 'open letter' by Keith DeRose (Yale).

Philosophy Department at University of Liverpool Threatened with Closure

More details here.  Feel free to post more information and/or suggestions about what to do in the comments.  Post only once; signed comments preferred, as always.

Productive Philosophers: What Explains It?

Brian Domino (Miami U.) writes:

I am repeatedly asked various questions by graduate students, undergraduates and junior colleagues about writing. These questions might be condensed into the following single question: why do some people write (and publish) so much more than others? The two most obvious answers, institutional support for research (including teaching load) and intelligence, don't stand up to scrutiny.  If the top institutions have the lion's share of highly productive people, I think that the causality runs the other way (i.e., they got to those places because they were productive). I think that the "answer" has more to do with habits such as writing every day. I would be curious to hear what you and others think.

Interesting question; comments are open.  Post only once; you must post with a real e-mail address (which won't appear).  As always, comments reviewed for relevance!

Socrates Loses Job Offer Because of Sexual Orientation!

Shocking developments.

Philosophy and Theism

Certainly relevant to our topic du jour is this essay by Alex Byrne (MIT).  A taste:

The classic contemporary work [on the question of God's existence] is J. L. Mackie’s The Miracle of Theism, whose ironic title summarizes Mackie’s conclusion: the persistence of belief in God is a kind of miracle because it is so unsupported by reason and evidence. The failure of arguments for God’s existence need not lead straight to atheism, but philosophers often seem to find this route tempting. In his contribution to Philosophers Without Gods, a collection of atheistic essays by twenty prominent philosophers, Stewart Shapiro observes that “among contemporary philosophers, the seriously religious are a small minority.” Dean Zimmerman, a notable member of the minority, has ruefully remarked that “although numerous outspoken Christians are highly respected in analytic circles, many of our colleagues still regard the persistence of religious belief among otherwise intelligent philosophers as a strange aberration, a pocket of irrationality.”

The world was very different when a distinguished philosopher could say, as St. Thomas Aquinas did, “the existence of God can be proved in five ways.” Contemporary Christian philosophers often content themselves with pulling up the drawbridge and manning the barricades, rather than crusading against the infidel. Alvin Plantinga, perhaps the most eminent living philosopher of religion, devotes the five hundred pages of his Warranted Christian Belief to fending off objections to either the truth or rationality of belief in traditional Christian doctrines. He does not argue for the existence of God, and still less for the truth of Christianity; rather, his main question is whether a reasonable person who finds herself with firm religious convictions should change her mind. Plantinga is not trying to persuade Dawkins and company to change their minds.

"Christians in the World of Professional Philosophy"

Keith DeRose (Yale) has initiated an interesting discussion of the topic here--brought to the fore, I suspect, by the recent debates, going on here and throughout the philosophy blogosphere, about religious institutions that discriminate against gay men and women.  Keith also found an interesting blog discussion of the whole topic from several years ago, with comments by him, Michael Rea, Fritz Warfield, and even me (I'd totally forgotten this).

Deciding Between Admissions Offers: The Importance of Visiting/Talking With Current Students

MOVING TO FRONT FROM APRIL 3, 2008 (SINCE TIMELY AGAIN)

Applicants to PhD and MA programs are now receiving offers of admission and, if they are lucky, are beginning to weigh choices between different departments.  I want to reiterate a point made in the PGR, namely, that students are well-advised to talk to current students at the programs they are considering.   There are often things you will want to know that you won't glean from familiarity with the excellence of the faculty's work, even if that remains the most important, if defeasible, reason for choosing a particular department.  Here are some examples of information that no ranking, no departmental brochure, and no "official" departmental representive will tell you about; all of these are drawn from stories I've heard from students over the last few years about ranked departments (the departments will remain unnamed, obviously).  You can think of them as representing "types" of problems you should be aware of before enrolling.  I've tweaked some of the details to protect identities.

The Absent Faculty:  Are the faculty who look so good on paper actually around and interested in working with students?  I heard a story about a key senior person in one department who is an alcoholic, and who simply ignores his students.  In another department, almost all the graduate students had to sign an open letter to the faculty a few years ago protesting the failure of faculty to return graded papers and their general lack of interest in mentoring the students.   In yet another department, a well-known senior member of the faculty spent so much time travelling and lecturing around the world, that he rarely had time to review or discuss work carefully with students. 

The Sexual Predator Faculty:  Are women treated as young philosophers and aspiring professionals, or do faculty regularly view them as a potential source for dates and sexual liasons?  It's a bit shocking to realize that this is still a live issue in some departments, but, sadly, it is.  Are faculty-student sexual relations common in the department?  What happens when the relations end?  Are there repeated cases of sexual harassment complaints against faculty in the department?  Do they ever result in discipline?  I suppose it is possible this could be an issue for male students, but all the reports I've gotten over the years have been from women victimized by male faculty. 

The Nasty Faculty:  Talented philosophers and scholars often differ, dramatically, in how pleasant they are personally and professionally.  I recall the story of one department where a member of the faculty was known to reduce students to tears in seminar.  In another department, a faculty member regularly refuses to work with students, even those interested in his areas; he works only with those he deems "worthy," and there are not many of them!  In another department, faculty openly express doubts about the competence of the graduate students and their ability.  Make sure the philosophers who seem most interesting to you don't fall into these categories!

The Factionalized Faculty:  Many faculties are "factionalized," in the sense that there are sub-groups that rarely see "eye to eye" about departmental issues, from appointments to admissions.  Where this becomes worrisome, though, for a prospective student is when certain members of the faculty who share interests and approaches control all the key resources--fellowships, resources for speakers etc.--and use that control to define "in" and "out" groups of faculty and students:  students with the "wrong" philosophical interests or who express an interest in the "wrong" faculty members are denied access to important perks and support.  This kind of ugly factionalization is less common, but it exists. 

I wish it were possible to meaningfuly measure and evaluate faculties along these important dimensions, but, alas, it is not.  I can report, based on accumulated anecdotes over many years, that some departments are really exceptional for how pleasant they are as places to do graduate study:  faculty are engaged, kind, supportive, committed, and professional in their interactions with students.  Arizona, North Carolina, MIT, UC Riverside, and U Mass/Amherst are among those about which one regularly hears these kinds of glowing reports.  I have no doubt there are many others, and the way for a prospective student to discover them is to talk to lots of current students.

Good luck with your decisions!

Draft Letter by Mark Murphy (Georgetown) on the APA's Policy Regarding Ads from Schools that Discriminate Against Gay Men and Women

Mark Murphy (Georgetown) has posted a draft letter to the APA here, developing some of the points that he debated with others in the earlier thread.  The quality of argument and reasoning here is certainly more substantial than in the counterpetition--not surprising, giving that Murphy is a very good philosopher of law--though, for reasons addressed by others responding to Professor Murphy here, not ultimately compelling.   I will comment on just the final paragraph, which perhaps touches the central issue:

The APA is a diverse association marked by deep pluralism.  Its members can rightly expect that the APA will respect the deep differences among them in judgments about how it is reasonable for individuals to live and for communities to organize themselves, and it is far from clear that the suggested change in course does respect those differences.  It has been correctly claimed by some who argue for the change in policy that any such respect has its limits: the APA of course would not respect colleges the common life of which was built on racist norms.  In our view the appeal to this argument highlights what is involved in excluding or marking as bigoted the job advertisements from these Christian colleges.  There is no serious reasoned disagreement on racist norms; the APA can rightly feel free to speak on behalf of its members to condemn any such.  What would be involved in changing the APA’s policy with respect to these Christian colleges is that the APA would be taking an official stand, speaking on behalf of all of its members, on what are still matters of deep and reasoned controversy among them: whether so-called traditional marriage has any privileged normative status, and whether sexual activity outside such marriage is thus morally suspect.  For the APA to take such a stand would be a grave error and an injustice.

Professor Murphy is right that there is some "controversy" within the APA membership over these issues, but the worry is that it is not "reasoned controversy," even if some very able philosophers have, on occasion, taken it upon themselves to offer embarrassingly bad arguments on the subject.  (Without exception, these arguments are proferred by adherents of religious traditions which disfavor or condemn homosexuality or homosexual behavior; the arguments are, to all the world, obviously post-hoc rationalizations for the religious convictions.)  The APA, having already included discrimination based on sexual orientation among forbidden practices, has also already taken a stand on this issue, notwithstanding the fact that the religious beliefs of some APA members lead them to believe this is not pernicious discrimination.

I won't open comments here, but Professor Murphy is soliciting feedback at the site linked above.

UPDATE:  When I first posted this item yesterday, there was a parenthetical comment about the crank Ed Feser, author of the counterpetition.  Apparently Feser sets his homepage to my blog, since the fact that I deleted the parenthetical a couple of hours later (since it was tangential and made the sentence in which it appeared unwieldy) immediately caught his attention, leading him to post lengthy ripostes on at least two different blogs to a parenthetical comment that lasted all of two hours on this site.  I would like to assure Professor Feser that I do indeed think he is a crank--how could one not?  The latter link supplies some evidence for thinking he is a liar too, but on that question I'm agnostic:  I'm happy to believe that his religious zealotry has so wrecked his mind, that he is noncuplable for his false statements about the nature of universities and the like.  And like so many other intellectual lightweights who populate the blogosphere, Professor Feser also doesn't know what an "ad hominen" is:  this grad student offers some help.  I'm sure that within 24 hours, there will be several more cyber-treatises from Professor Feser.  Yawn.

"The Black Box of Peer Review"

Anyone who has applied for fellowships or other competitive support or awards will find this item of interest.  An excerpt of the findings:

In deliberations, many panelists admit to forming alliances with like-minded scholars to back or oppose proposals, and to using "strategic" voting, in which they may go along with one grant to win support for another. Many admit to "high balling" proposals that they like, giving them ranks that are higher than deserved, as a means of keeping a proposal alive in the competition. But relatively few would admit to "low balling" and there appears to be a general consensus against it....

[One] timing issue involves the inevitable plane to catch. One panel Lamont observed simply didn't award all the fellowships it could have because the reviewers wanted to leave for the airport....

[W]hen it comes to an affinity for work that is similar to their own or that reflects personal interests having nothing to do with scholarship, many applicants benefit in a significant way. In a passage that may be one of the most damning of the book, Lamont writes: "[A]n anthropologist explains her support for a proposal on songbirds by noting that she had just come back from Tucson, where she had been charmed by songbirds. An English scholar supports a proposal on the body, tying her interest to the fact that she was an elite tennis player in high school. A historian doing cross-cultural, comparative work explicitly states that he favors proposals with a similar emphasis. ... Yet another panelist ties her opposition to a proposal on Viagra to the fact that she is a lesbian....

 When peer reviewers talk about excellence in their deliberations, Lamont writes, they frequently link their opinions on applicants' character to their proposals (without much link to what grant competitions claim to be about). For example, she writes that there are frequent attempts to bolster proposals from "courageous risk-takers," or to reject ideas from "lazy conformists." People also reference, in positive ways, such qualities as "determination," "humility" and "authenticity," she writes....

UPDATE:  Richard Chappell has interesting commentary.

Chris Shears, "Matt Hart," Ed Feser, and Other Charming Folks

1.  So it turns out that there are people out there who aren't happy if you call folks like Francis Beckwith, who think their religion excuses their bigotry towards gay men and women, "bigots."  One such person is Chris Shears (no idea who he is), who sent me the following enlightening missive:

 Chris Shears [mailto:onandontillthebreakadawn@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 4:07 PM
> To: Leiter, Brian
> Subject: Your a hypocrite and a bigot.
>
> I've been reading your law and philosophy reports for years but I'm
> tired of your bigotry towards the positions of those you call bigots
> so I'm done reading your blogs.  I can get 99% of what you offer
> elsewhere.  In the unlikely event that your thoughtful and sensitive
> of others, specifically your readers, view of you I thought I should
> let you know.  If not then carry on with your unhappy, arrogant self.

I suggested to Mr. Shears that a moral objection to bigotry was not properly characterized as itself an instance of "bigotry," but he did not handle that suggestion well.  Alas. 

2.  "Matt Hart," author of this bracing comment in the earlier thread (and even more lunatic ones which I declined to approve), shares the same IP address (86.12.47.64 in Stockport, England) as "Michelle," whose comment in an earlier thread on this issue I had not approved, but which now bears noting:  "But gays are people who deserve to be discriminated against. You wouldn't get any complaints if you turned down a guy because he had, say, murdered someone at some point in his life. So why we complain when it happens to gays? Hypocrites."  When one of my Chicago students told me awhile back that my Wikipedia entry had been vandalized, I didn't give it much thought, but--surprise surprise--it now turns out that Mr. or Ms. Hart also shares the same IP address as the vandal.  Imagine that!  Aint' the Internet grand?

3.  Via Professor Hermes, I learn that the 'counterpetition' is the creation of Edward Feser, whom we encountered long ago, after this remarkably unhinged screed.  He is also the author of this book (which seems to be in the same nonsensical genre as this one, i.e., "black is white" and "war is peace" and "squares are round").  His webpage does assure us, however, that The National Review deems him one of "the best contemporary writers about philosophy."  One can be sure that is a judgment on the merits of his writing, and not on his ideology.

4.  The signatories to the "counterpetition" include three faculty from Texas (Daniel Bonevac, J. Budziszewski, Robert Koons), three from Notre Dame (John Finnis, Alasdair MacIntyre, Alvin Plantinga), as well as Linda Zagzebski (Oklahoma) and Roger Scruton, among other notables.  (Budziszewski is, to be sure, a complete philosophical hack, unlike the others--his main appointment is in Government at Texas.  [Addendum:  someone thought I mentioned Professor Budziszewski's main appointment as evidence that he is a hack, which wasn't at all the claim--my point is that I have friends in the Philosophy Department at Texas who are embarrassed both by this counterpetition and by his showing up as a Phil Dept signatory--I just wanted to make clear that the UT Department is not, as it were, infested with these 'counterpetition' folks.  The evidence that Professor Budziszewski is a philosophical hack is his work.]) One "anonymous" signatory to the counterpetition probably makes what is perhaps the strongest point on its behalf (stronger certainly than the petition's own statement which, as others have noted, is pretty thin, intellectually and otherwise):

Do we really want the APA to push out all the conservative religious educators at a time when there are only 23 jobs listed in the latest JFP? The relationship between individual sexual freedom and freedom of religious belief is very complex and we should not attempt to squelch all disagreement on the topic through schismatic APA policies.

The APA, however, has already adopted a "schismatic" policy, namely, one prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, and the original petition simply calls for enforcement of the policy or its explicit repeal.   Academic freedom would continue to protect the right of philosophers to debate the issue and to disagree about it.   And all of this is quite independent, as Ralph Wedgwood, among others, noted on an earlier thread, of whether or not principles of religious liberty and freedom of association require us to tolerate the existence of institutions committed to religious traditions that sanction bigotry and pernicious discrimination. No one, and certainly not the petition, has challenged that point.

Class Action Settlement Against Google Which Affects Book Authors

Thom Brooks (Newcastle) has useful details here.

A Counterpetition to the APA Emerges: Discrimination Against Gay Men and Women Really Isn't Discrimination!

The petition is here.  Its arguments were addressed in the earlier thread, but this has made no impact on these philosophers.  I applaud them, though, for signing their their names to this, rather than "signing" anonymously (which is tantamount to not signing--the same person could "sign anonymously" 200 times).  So far it has 39 actual signatures; I shall be interested to see how it fares over the coming weeks.  (The original petition now has over 1200 signatures; I am surprised, frankly, that it does not have more, given how reasonable its position is:  the APA should either enforce its non-discrimination policy, or abandon it.  If this involved racial discrimination, no one [one hopes!] would hestitate in the least just because some religious traditions sanctioned such discrimination.)   

Comments on the merits of the new petition are welcome.  Signed comments only, and keep it substantive. 

UPDATE:  I realize this petition is highly offensive to many people, but I would really urge folks not to post 'fake' signatures.  I am genuinely curious to see which philosophy professors are willing to sign their name to this.  The enterprise ought to proceed without Cyber-vandalism.

ADDDENDUM:  May I ask that the jackass who keeps adding my name to this petition stop this childish vandalism.  No one believes I would sign it, so you are just wasting the time of the petition organizers, who have to then remove my name.