Let’s start with a tempest-in-a-teacup at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine. Earlier this year, two students, both members of student government, threw a tequila-themed birthday party for a friend. The hosts provided attendees with miniature sombreros, which—the horror— numerous partygoers wore.
When photos of the party circulated on social media, campus-wide outrage ensued. Administrators sent multiple emails to the “culprits” threatening an investigation into an “act of ethnic stereotyping.” Partygoers were placed on “social probation,” while the two hosts were ejected from their dorm and later impeached. Bowdoin’s student newspaper decried the attendees’ lack of “basic empathy.”
The student government issued a “statement of solidarity” with “all the students who were injured and affected by the incident,” and demanded that administrators “create a safe space for those students who have been or feel specifically targeted.” The tequila party, the statement specified, was just the sort of occasion that “creates an environment where students of colour, particularly Latino, and especially Mexican, feel unsafe.” In sum, the party-favour hats constituted – wait for it – “cultural appropriation.”
Curiously, across my country Mexican restaurants, often owned and run by Mexicans, are festooned with sombreros – if perhaps not for long. At the UK’s University of East Anglia, the student union has banned a Mexican restaurant from giving out sombreros, deemed once more an act of “cultural appropriation” that was also racist.
Now, I am a little at a loss to explain what’s so insulting about a sombrero – a practical piece of headgear for a hot climate that keeps out the sun with a wide brim. My parents went to Mexico when I was small, and brought a sombrero back from their travels, the better for my brothers and I to unashamedly appropriate the souvenir to play dress-up. For my part, as a German-American on both sides, I’m more than happy for anyone who doesn’t share my genetic pedigree to don a Tyrolean hat, pull on some leiderhosen, pour themselves a weisbier, and belt out the Hoffbrauhaus Song.
The ultimate endpoint of keeping out mitts off experience that doesn’t belong to us is that there is no fiction.
But what does this have to do with writing fiction? The moral of the sombrero scandals is clear: you’re not supposed to try on other people’s hats. Yet that’s what we’re paid to do, isn’t it? Step into other people’s shoes, and try on their hats.
David Shoemaker (Tulane) calls my attention to the fact that Peasoup, the long-running ethics blog, has a new home and a new sponsor, the Prindle Institute of Ethics at DePauw University under the direction of Andrew Cullison. Prof. Shoemaker and David Sobel (Syracuse) will continue as the editors, and Shoemaker tells me they will be moderating comments a bit more actively to insure quality discussion.
...so the only remedy is to require them all to have blogs. (Having blogs hasn't slowed me down that much, alas, but 50% of what I read in jurisprudence should have been on a blog instead; 80% in the case of alleged Nietzsche scholarship [down from 99%]).
Moyers's folksy left populism is always engagingly told, though it never quite manages to identify the core dysfunctionality of capitalism at the root of the phenomena he observes. Amusingly, Schopenhauer makes an appearance at the end to explain how true selflessness is possible--though as a friend said to me, if the basis of true compassion requires Schopenhauer's metaphysics, then we're really in trouble! But if I may invoke another German philosopher of the 19th-century, lack of compassion and altruism isn't the problem; the problem is the economic system that demands the behavior that Moyers laments.
The CFP is here. Last year, we received more than fifty submissions, and chose three through an entirely blind review process. Two of the three papers chosen were by PhD students. We are able to cover travel and lodging costs for those whose papers are chosen. All papers presented at ISNS appear in a special issue of Inquiry each year.
My friend John Doris, a philosopher at Washington University, St. Louis, is working on a new book on expertise, in which chess figures as an important example (there is apparently a large psychology literature on it), but he himself is not a serious chess player. He writes: "If any ELO-rated or titled chess players would be willing to chat with me for a few minutes in connection with my research on the development and assessment of expertise, I'd be delighted if they could send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org with 'chess' in the subject line." John is in Princeton this year at the University Center for Human Values, if any of you chess experts are local!
Back in the old days (from 1989 through the late 1990s), the PGR consisted in my assessement of professional opinion about the quality of graduate programs in the form of an annual guide to prospective PhD students in philosophy in the Anglophone world. This was my assessment of professional opinion, not my own opinion about quality. I was sufficiently good at that that the PGR became hugely influential throughout the profession, so much so that faculty at departments not doing so well began protesting back in 2001. I gradually shifted to more systematic measurements--elaborate on-line surveys of senior and junior faculty--which just amplified the influence of the PGR. The results were not very dissimilar from when I was doing it from the armchair, but the evaluations of particular areas of specialization were clearly improved.
Brit Brogaard's plan is try to undertake new PGR surveys in fall 2017, but that doesn't obviate the need for some updated guidance. What follows is my best judgment as to how the faculty changes in the interim should lead prospective PhD students to think about the relevant hierarchy of PhD programs in the U.S. and elsewhere compared to the 2014 survey results. Rather than offer a guestimate about an ordinal rank, I put the PhD programs into "clusters" of what I think should reasonably be considered "peer" programs among which students should choose based on considerations other than "overall prestige." But I generally think it's reasonable to choose between programs in adjacent peer groups based on other considerations (financial aid, location, particular faculty, specialty strength etc.). I'll try to update the "specialty rankings" in the coming weeks. (Note: there are other moves that may transpire: e.g., Pittsburgh has made a senior offer to L.A. Paul at North Carolina; Stanford is trying to recruit Philip Pettit and Victoria McGeer from their half-time posts at Princeton [they are also half-time at the ANU, which would not change]; Berkeley is trying to recruit Sally Sedgwick from Illinois/Chicago. I'll update things accordingly during the year.)
An * indicates a program that arguably belongs in the next highest peer grouping.
Group 1 (1) Anglophone Programs outside the U.S.
New York University
Group 2 (2-8)
Princeton University *Oxford University
*Rutgers University, New Brunswick
University of California, Berkeley
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
University of Pittsburgh
University of Southern California
Group 3 (9-15)
Columbia University University of Toronto
Massachussetts Institute of Technology
University of Arizona
University of California, Los Angeles
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Group 4 (16-22)
Brown University Cambridge University
City University of New York Graduate Center Australian National University
University of California, San Diego
University of Chicago
University of Notre Dame
University of Texas, Austin
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Group 5 (23-27)
*Cornell University University of St. Andrews/University of Stirling Joint Program
Duke University University of Edinburgh
Indiana University, Bloomington King's College, London
University of California, Irvine University College London
Washington University, St. Louis University of Sydney
MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY: SHORT UPDATE (SEE #3, BELOW)
Let me start with a word about how I happened to start blogging about this. Eric Schliesser (Amsterdam) first called Prof. Stevens's website to my attention, and then, upon his receiving some kind of confirmation from Sally Haslanger (MIT), he blogged about it. Others began sending me links as news stories began to break. It was pretty clear from the start that Prof. Stevens's account was, understandably, biased in her favor and incomplete; her rhetorical posture also did not enhance her credibility by my lights (but that is weak and defeasible evidence in a matter like this). I have, in the past, championed cases that were framed as Prof. Stevens framed hers: an outspoken professor being mistreated by a heavy-handed administration. But given my lawyerly instincts, I wait until I have more information before pressing forward (this is why, for example, I did not blog about Professor Sartwell's case initially, until I was persuaded he had been treated wrongfully--as the outcome suggests he was.) Victims are often made to look guilty unfairly, but miscreants almost always plead their innocence and sometimes try to play the victim (for example), so some caution is required in these matters.
Here is what I think we now know based on the various news accounts, and information supplied by Professors Stevens and Tillery on various occasions (as well as others):
1. On March 8, Prof. Stevens met with Prof. Tillery, in his capacity as Associate Chair, regarding course scheduling in the Department. This meeting did not end well. Prof. Stevens claimed Prof. Tillery screamed at her and slammed the door on her; Prof. Tillery claimed it was Prof. Stevens who behaved unprofessionally. (The University's investigator found in favor of Prof. Tillery on this point.)
2. Subsequently, Prof. Stevens began making statements about Prof. Tillery's conduct to others; Prof. Tillery claims these statements were false and defamatory. Prof. Tillery retained a lawyer who sent Prof. Stevens a demand letter that she cease and desist her alleged defamation and, allegedly, that she reimburse Prof. Tillery for his legal expenses. [9/11 UPDATE: Prof. Stevens has updated her website; the only relevant new information is a copy of the letter sent by Prof. Tillery's lawyer to her.]
3. Prof. Stevens refused, and asked the university to indemnify her against Prof. Tillery's legal threat. Before deciding whether indemnification was appropriate, the University hired an outside investigator, Kathleen Rinehart, the General Counsel of St. Xavier University here in Chicago, whose integrity Prof. Stevens has ceaselessly attacked since going public with events on September 1, but without any actual evidence of misconduct by the investigator.
4. The investigator found in favor of Prof. Tillery regarding the March 8 incident, but also reported that "most individuals" she interviewed "expressed serious concern about the unpredictability of Prof. Stevens' conduct" either toward themselves individually or towards others in the department, and that the "cumulative impact" of her conduct has been "debilitating" for normal department functioning.
5. These findings, it appears (I'm less certain about this), triggered some "process" (whose details and standards of evidence are unknown at this time) that resulted in Prof. Stevens being banned from campus and required to undergo a psychological evaluation.
Foghat was a sensation in the mid-1970s (they even inspired the parody-turned-musical-commodity Spinal Tap later), but this live version of "Slow Ride," with the wonderful slide introduction, is less-known (the video and audio quality is not great, alas):
Joshua Smart from the University of Missouri asked me to share this announcement, which I'm happy to do:
While advisors and committees are important, it can be incredibly helpful to discuss one’s work with peers in a lower-stakes environment, and it can be particularly enlightening to do so with those who take a different approach or have a different focus. Not only that, but there is evidence from psychological research that thinking about problems in relation to persons who are geographically distant can increase creativity. With students in programs from 8 countries and 20 different U.S. states, Virtual Dissertation Groups are a great (free!) way to capture some of these benefits.
The setup is that each member is grouped with two others working on dissertations in the same general area of philosophy. About once a month, one member sends the others a 3-6k word piece of their dissertation to the other two for feedback and comments.
I'd be interested to hear from students who've participated what their experience was like. Comments are open for that purpose. Please identify yourself in some general terms (e.g., "top 10 PGR program," "SPEP department," "unranked PhD program," also mention your country).
The following law schools (listed in rough order of strength of the law school overall--though these are all major law schools) have a strong commitment to philosophy:
University of Chicago
New York University
University of California, Berkeley
University of Pennsylvania
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
University of Virginia
University of California, Los Angeles
Law school hiring is extremely pedigree-sensitive (more so than philosophy), so the further down this list you go for the JD, the more difficult your prospects will be in legal academia, though all these schools have graduates who now teach in law schools. (See, e.g., this data.) Yale, NYU, Berkeley, Michigan, and UCLA all have "top ten" philosophy departments, though with differing strengths. Chicago has a "top twenty" philosophy department, though its strengths are primarily in the history of philosophy (esp. ancient and post-Kantian Continental), which could be a good fit for a student with strong historical interests (including the Continental traditions in philosophy). Penn has an established JD/PhD program, and a philosophy department with particular strength in political philosophy, which could be a good complement for a JD/PhD student. (Columbia still has the great legal philosopher Joseph Raz on a half-time basis, though he in his late 70s, and I don't know how much longer he will continue to teach.)
UPDATE: A student writes:
Thanks for your recent blog post about schools for a JD/PhD in Philosophy. I am looking to apply shortly for philosophy PhDs (and I already hold a deferred JD offer, though may reapply elsewhere if necessary) so this was very interesting. If you don’t mind, I would be very interested to know your answers to a few questions I have.
Firstly, neither Harvard nor Stanford appear on your list. Both are top law schools with top philosophy departments, so I was wondering what your rationale was for not including them? They also seem to be amongst the few law schools to fund (or mostly fund) the JD component if one takes a JD/PhD (unlike, for instance, Yale) which seems like a fairly important selling point.
Secondly, what are your thoughts on taking the PhD at a different institution to one’s law school? It seems to be theoretically possible, and there appear to be some obvious benefits — NYU, for instance, has a great philosophy department, but there are much stronger JD programmes. Similarly, I could try to sandwich a JD between an Oxford BPhil and DPhil (if I was lucky enough to be granted funded admission; though — as I did very well in my philosophy undergrad [in the UK] — that is not a negligible possibility). Those are just hypotheticals; but do you think that there are good reasons to only take the JD and the PhD at the same institution?
Since others may have similar questions, I thought they would be worth addressing here.
I learned recently that the fact that the Executive Summary of the Rinehart Report, which investigated the incident between Stevens and me, was placed in my personnel file gives me some ability to talk about it. In order to preserve the confidentiality of my colleagues, I have attached a screen shot of only that section of the Report that centers on me and the incident that Stevens has blogged so much about. Please feel free to share it and this note with your readers if you find it illuminating.
...about his kind of empiricism and anti-realism...and rock-climbing. It's an interesting read. Bear in mind that van Fraassen is a religious believer (but not when it comes to the unobservable features of the physical world!).
Prof. Tillery kindly wrote to me and gave permission to share the following, which gives a more illuminating statement of what has transpired than I have seen in the media accounts:
I am writing to thank you for your very fair-minded blogging about the Jackie Stevens matter at Northwestern. I saw that Sara Monoson had an exchange with you already, and I was wondering if you had any questions for me or would like me to share any of the documents that I have about my interactions with Professor Stevens. Contrary to Professor Stevens's portrayal of these events, she has not been removed from campus because of the strange interaction that occurred in my office. Instead, she was removed because the investigation that she called for so that she could gain indemnification from the university against my legal actions turned up issues that triggered some of Northwestern's security protocols. I never asked for Professor Stevens to be removed from campus. Instead, I asked that my office be relocated to a different building so that I could get about my work and avoid her, just as I did when I was not serving in the departmental administration. I actually initiated legal action against Professor Stevens because I worried that the university would not act to punish her for spreading false claims against me. And, yes, the claims have been demonstrated to be false, and Professor Stevens knows that. I would also like to stress that my great alarm about Professor Stevens is not about micro-aggressions--they were just an extra bit of unpleasantness--but about the conspiracy element of her personal experience. In short, I felt threatened by Professor Stevens because (1) she believes that she is living out some sort of espionage novel; (2) thinks that I am part of the team against her; (3) falsified a complaint against me, which multiple witnesses (including her own) have now refuted; and (4) suggested that a young man volunteered to harm me on her behalf. So, I wanted to leave my office and go someplace else because I was not eager to see how that espionage novel--with me as the villain--was going to end. And, one just has to read her blog to see that it is an ongoing narrative for her, except, that is, when she needs the university to pay her legal bills.
The website has been updated so that it is searchable in various ways. Unfortunately, there's still no distinction between the kinds of tenure-track jobs graduates secure, but perhaps that will come. (See, e.g., this.) Still, there is useful information here, including about AOS by department. A caveat: I've not double-checked any of this for accuracy, but perhaps someone will.
Professor Sara Monoson, Chair of the Department of Political Science at Northwestern, writes:
Given that Prof. Stevens has chosen to publicize what might have remained a confidential personnel matter, I can offer an unadorned timeline that will illuminate what set the university's action in motion. Prof. Stevens' research and political activity had nothing to do with it whatsoever.
Back in March 2016, Prof. Stevens filed a formal complaint against associate chair Prof. Tillery alleging verbal abuse. Prof. Tillery engaged an attorney to demand that she retract the false and defamatory accusation. She refused. She asked the university for indemnification. The university engaged an independent investigator whose credentials both parties approved. The investigator’s report concluded that indemnification was not warranted. That report also placed her behavior towards Prof. Tillery in the broader context of her pattern of uncivil and threatening conduct towards multiple faculty, staff and students in the department. The university is now dealing with this information according to established procedures. Prof. Stevens is doing her thing.
I hope you will ask more questions. For instance, why would she ask a university she claims to be persecuting her for indemnification?
I did ask that question in reply, and a couple of others, and will report further, probably later today.
UPDATE: I queried Prof. Monoson about whether there were other complainants and about other examples of threatening behavior by Prof. Stevens. Prof. Monoson replied:
MOVING TO FRONT FROM SEPTEMBER 2--I BELIEVE THIS IS NOW THE FINAL VERSION
"Top 20" for these purposes also includes three programs sometimes in the top 20, always on the cusp: Chicago, UC San Diego, and Wisconsin. PhD programs are ranked by the number of graduates in UNTENURED tenure-track jobs at these "top 20" programs for 2016-17. (As with the PGR reputational surveys, these results amalgamate philosophy and HPS programs and graduates.) After the school name, the schools at which the graduates teach are listed (if there's more than one graduate at the school, that number is listed in brackets); that is followed by the programs PGR rank in 2006, 2009 and 2014, since many of those in tenure-tracks now were choosing programs as much as a decade ago. The correlation with overall PGR rank is, obviously and unsurprisingly, quite strong (though not perfect). (E-mail me about any mistakes please!)
Here, then, are the top producers of tenure-track faculty at the U.S. "top twenty" departments in 2016-17:
1. New York University (9, at Pittsburgh, Stanford , USC , Columbia , UCLA) (#1 in 2006, 2009 PGR & 2014 PGRs)
2. Princeton University (6, at Harvard, Berkeley, UCLA, MIT, North Carolina, Wisconsin) (#3 in 2006 & 2009 PGRs, #2 in 2014 PGR)
2. Rutgers University, New Brunswick (6, at Stanford, Columbia, UCLA , Cornell, Notre Dame) (#2 in 2006, 2009 P& 2014 PGRs)
2. University of California, Berkeley (6, at Michigan, Pittsburgh , Columbia , Chicago) (#12 in 2006 PGR, #9 in 2009 PGR, #10 in 2014 PGR)
2. Massachussetts Institute of Technology (6, at Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Texas, Brown, UC San Diego) (#7 in 2006 PGR, #5 in 2009 PGR, #13 in 2014 PGR)
6. Yale University (5, at Columbia, Berkeley, MIT, North Carolina, Wisconsin) (#16 in 2006 PGR, #8 in 2009 PGR, #5 in 2014 PGR)
7. Harvard University (4, at Princeton, Yale, Pittsburgh, Texas) (#7 in 2006, PGR, #6 in 2009 & 2014 PGRs)
8. Columbia University (3, at NYU, Pittsburgh, Chicago) (#10 in 2006 PGR, #13 in 2009 PGR, #10 in 2014 PGR)
8. University of Texas, Austin (3, at Notre Dame, Chicago, Wisconsin) (#13 in 2006 PGR, #20 in 2009 PGR, #17 in 2014 PGR).
10. Stanford University (2, at Berkeley, Stanford) (#6 in 2006 PGR, #9 in 2009 PGR, #8 in 2014 PGR)
10. University of California, Los Angeles (2, at Stanford, Cornell) (#7 in 2006 PGr, #9 in 2009 PGR, #10 in 2014 PGR)
10. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (2, at Pittsburgh, UC San Diego) (#3 in 2006 PGR, #5 in 2009 PGR, #4 in 2014 PGR)
10. University of Pittsburgh (2 [both Pitt HPS], at Columbia, Chicago) (#5 in 2006 PGR, #4 in 2009 PGR, #6 in 2014 PGR)
14. Catholic University (1, at Notre Dame) (not ranked overall, but ranked in specialty of PhD)
14. Cornell University (1, at Michigan) (#16 in 2006 PGR, #17 in 2009 & 2014 PGRS)
14. University of Arizona (1, at Wisconsin) (#13 in 2006, 2009 & 2014 PGRs)
14. University of California, San Diego (1, at Wisconsin) (#20 in 2006 PGR, #21 in 2009 PGR, #23 in 2014 PGR)
14. University of Maryland, College Park (1, at Pittsburgh) (#27 in 2006 PGR, #30 in 2009 PGR, #31 in 2014 PGR; also ranked in specialty of PhD graduate)
14. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (1, at UCLA) (#10 in 2006 PGR, #9 in 2009 PGR, #13 in 2014 PGR)
14. University of Oklahoma (1, at Harvard) (not ranked)
14. University of Wisconsin, Madison (1, at Harvard) (#24 in 2006 PGR, #23 in 2009 PGR, #21 in 2014 PGR)
Philosopher Neil McArthur (Manitoba) comments. He notes that he will be writing regularly for VICE "on sexual ethics and on sex and the law" and would welcome "thoughts about issues/debates in that area" that readers think should "get some media attention." You can reach him at mcarthun-at-gmail-dot-com.
Professor Clarke, who taught for many years at University College Cork, was best-known for his work on Descartes. From an e-mail forwarded by a colleague in Ireland:
Professor Desmond Clarke, one of Ireland's leading philosophers, died on 4 September.
He is best known for his work on Descartes, including Descartes: A Biography (Cambridge University Press, 2005) and Descartes’s Theory of Mind (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003).
His most recent book appeared this year: French Philosophy, 1572-1675 (Oxford University Press, 2016). He published widely on the 17th Century, in particular on theories of science, the work of Blaise Pascal, and women in philosophy, including: The Equality of the Sexes: Three Feminist Texts of the Seventeenth Century, trans. Desmond M. Clarke (Oxford University Press, 2013) and 'Pascal’s Philosophy of Science' in The Cambridge Companion to Pascal (Cambridge University Press, 2003).
Des Clarke was co-editor of the Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy series. Apart from history of philosophy, he published widely on political philosophy, human rights and legal theory, including the highly influential Church & State (Cork University Press, 1984.) In 2015 he was awarded the Royal Irish Academy Gold Medal in recognition of his outstanding contribution to the Humanities.
He is survived by his wife, the philosopher Dolores Dooley, two daughters and grandchildren.
The funeral will be held at 11am on Wednesday 8 September at Newlands Cross Crematorium. Further details here.
A number of folks have been flagging this story: this version is free (but heavily dependent on Stevens), while the CHE story (which is much more informative) is behind a paywall. Briefly, Prof. Stevens has been barred from campus pending a psychological evaluation by a psychiatrist retained by the university. This grows out of complaints from her colleagues, in particular, an incident with the Associate Chair of Political Science, Alvin Tillery. Professor Stevens's account is here and Prof. Tillery's account is here. From the CHE article:
The university reviewed Ms. Stevens following a run-in she had in March with Alvin Bernard Tillery Jr., associate chair of political science. After the incident, each accused the other of screaming and shouting.
Mr. Tillery says Ms. Stevens’s behavior has felt "creepy" ever since he arrived at the university three years ago. He says she has screamed and sobbed in his office, spun tales of conspiracy theories — including charging the university with tapping her phones — and denigrated his scholarship in African-American studies. All of that, says Mr. Tillery, has made him worry that Ms. Stevens is unstable.
Then there was the confrontation in his office last March. "Do I think she might shoot me?" he asks. "Absolutely. It happens all over the country."
Although Prof. Stevens reports having an attorney at her webpage (which is wise!), it's not clear that her defense was reviewed by the attorney, since it fits rather too well with the allegation of spinning "tales of conspiracy theories." Of course, it may be she is correct to be paranoid and suspect a conspiracy, but on the evidence so far, it is very far from clear what is going on. This may be a case of Northwestern retaliating against an outspoken professor or it may be a case of a faculty member behaving very badly, to the point that an African-American colleague of hers fears for his safety. (Longtime readers may recall that Prof. Stevens championed the cause of the undergraduate complainant against Peter Ludlow several years ago, claiming that Ludlow had engaged in "criminal" mimsconduct. While the University found Ludlow in violation of the university's rules about sexual harassment, they did not find against him on any of the allegations that might have been criminal, and no criminal charges were ever filed.)
Readers with more information, preferably from parties other than those central to the dispute, should feel free to e-mail me more information.
UPDATE: A friend of mine who knows Prof. Tillery "reasonably well" calls him an "extraordinarily nice guy" who "treat[s] people with a lot of respect," which is consistent with the outpouring of support from former students on his Facebook page.
MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY--MORE COMMENTS WELCOME
A senior philosopher elsewhere writes:
Over the summer, this blog hosted a brief discussion of how journals choose their editors-in-chief. As a follow-up to that discussion, I would be interested in learning more about the selection and duties of associate editors and members of editorial boards. I believe that associate editorships can be quite burdensome, since I'm told that the associate editors of at least some journals read and comment on a significant number of papers every year. But to be named an associate editor of a top journal is also significant professional recognition, and is therefore an honor. It would be interesting to know how various journals decide upon whom to confer it. And are members of editorial boards also expected to read and comment on submissions, or are positions on editorial boards entirely honorary? How are members of those boards chosen?
Please submit comments only once, they may take awhile to appear.
The JD/PhD combination is less common in the U.K., even for jurisprudence scholars, where the first degree is a law degree and a DPhil or PhD is typically earned in jurisprudence or legal theory or legal philosophy. Oxford continues to dominate the U.K. (and Anglophone world) jurisprudence scene, unsurprisingly, but there is a very strong and large cluster of faculty at King's College, London, in particular.
But perhaps of special interest is that the University of Surrey, heretofore best-known for faculties in technology, engineering, medicine and other "practical" fields, has recently made a huge investment in law & philosophy, appointing Veronica Rodriguez-Blanco (previously at Birmingham) as a Professor (and Head of the School of Law), and hiring a slew of JD/PhDs, including many of the best younger candidates on the market recently, including (just the ones I know about) Hrafn Asgeirsson (PhD, Southern California), Ira Lindsay (PhD, Michigan; JD, Yale), abd Alex Sarch (PhD, U Mass/Amherst, JD, Michigan). This is a remarkable investment for any institution to make in law & philosophy in a single year, and it is gratifying to see a school recognize the importance of the field.
UPDATE: A colleague at Harvard tells me another new lecturer there, Marie Newhouse (JD, Washington; PhD, Public Policy, Harvard), who also works on philosophical topics, is also "excellent."
It's now on-line, and will be taking me to to the cities/towns of Hamilton, Vienna, Belgrade, Toronto, Syracuse, Tel-Aviv, Haifa, Jerusalem, Durham (North Carolina), Iowa City, and Ann Arbor, among other places--sometimes to law faculties, sometimes to philosophy, sometimes both. I look forward to meeting readers I may not have met previously! Please introduce yourselves.
Continental Philosophy Farhang Erfani, a philosopher at American University, provides a useful set of links to news, events, interviews, reviews, videos, etc. related to "Continental philosophy" (broadly construed)