Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

Woods to Leave Stanford and Return to Indiana

Allen Wood (Kant, 19th-century philosophy) will retire from Stanford University at the end of this academic year, and return to the full-time faculty at Indiana University, Bloomington in summer 2011.  Rega Wood (medieval philosophy) will also take up appointment at Indiana as Professor of Philosophy.  The last PGR surveys were done when the Woods were previously on the Indiana faculty, so this move means the results from those surveys can still be considered reliable currently for Indiana and Stanford.

Philosopher Shelly Kagan: Youth Idol in China!

Really!

(Thanks to John Behan for the pointer.)

Howard University Philosophy Department Under Attack

Several readers have forwarded me this e-mail from philosopher Richard Jones at Howard:

Dr. Sidney Ribeau, president of Howard University, is recommending that Howard University’s Philosophy Department be eliminated.  Would you be kind enough to help support those of us who see this as a strategic mistake in the struggle for Black equality.  In showing support would you write a letter to Dr. Ribeau giving your opinions on the historic centrality of the Philosophy Department at Howard University and the reasons why you believe it should be continued.  This will be a tough fight and Dr. Ribeau will make this decision final December 1, 2010.

Please write to: Dr. Sidney Ribeau, President, Howard University, 2400 6th Street NW,     Washington, DC 20059

I've been trying to find out whether there is a reason an e-mail address was not included as well, but have not yet gotten a response.  For the time being, you may e-mail Dr. Ribeau at [email protected].

Howard is (I believe) the nation's oldest "historically Black" university, that has played a major role--through its faculty and its alumni--in promoting equality for African-Americans in the United States.  Faculty and/or alumni include Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, Nobel Laureates Ralph Bunche and Toni Morrison, and the distinguished American philosopher Alain Locke, among many others.

That what is arguably still the nation's premier historically Black university would contemplate eliminating the core discipline that is the hallmark of any serious research university qualifies as nothing less than appalling.  Alain Locke must be spinning in his grave.  Let us hope Dr. Ribeau reconsiders.   

CORRECTION:  Carl Seaquist writes:   "For what it's worth, I believe Cheyney University of Pennsylvania is the oldest HBCU (Historically Black College and University) in the nation, founded in 1837.  Lincoln University calls itself the 'first degree-granting historically black university,' going back to 1854.  Howard gives their founding as 1867."

In Memoriam: Claude Lefort (1924-2010)

The French political philosopher and student of Merleau-Ponty has died.  A brief obituary (in French) from Le Monde. 

(Thanks to John Protevi for the pointer.)

Political philosophers are feeling left out...

...especially because Rawls wasn't included in the other poll, but, after all, he is a political, not moral, philosopher (a clear and obvious distinction!).  So who are the most significant political philosophers of the 20th-century?   Late greats only (or in the case of Strauss, late fakes).  Probably should have included Carl Schmitt, but, alas, too late now.

UPDATE:   With more than 100 votes cast, several folks have ranked Strauss #1.  Those readers must immediately leave the blog and not return!

ERROR ALERT:   The "Charles Macpherson" on the survey should really be "C.B. Macpherson."  Sorry for that error!

ANOTHER:  I've decided to shut down this poll, which has clearly been invaded by a lot of non-philosophers (one need only look at the detailed ballot reporting on Leo Strauss, for example!).   These results seem to me more idioscynratic than illuminating, but with nearly 650 votes, here's the top ten:

1. John Rawls  (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)

2. Michel Foucault  loses to John Rawls by 347–202

3. Hannah Arendt  loses to John Rawls by 365–165, loses to Michel Foucault by 277–216

4. Tied: Theodor Adorno  loses to John Rawls by 360–169, loses to Hannah Arendt by 259–204 Isaiah Berlin  loses to John Rawls by 410–108, loses to Hannah Arendt by 286–199

6. Robert Nozick  loses to John Rawls by 451–59, loses to Theodor Adorno by 261–236

7. John Dewey  loses to John Rawls by 394–116, loses to Robert Nozick by 246–226

8. Antonio Gramsci  loses to John Rawls by 368–166, loses to John Dewey by 232–223

9. G.A. Cohen  loses to John Rawls by 422–86, loses to Antonio Gramsci by 231–226

10. H.L.A. Hart  loses to John Rawls by 431–54, loses to G.A. Cohen by 240–189

I'm mystified by the strong showing of Dewey and Berlin, but perhaps it's related to why Strauss came in 20 instead of dead last.

 

Who are the most significant moral philosophers of the 20th-century?

The passing of Professor Foot, and my (uncontroversial) description of her as one of the "towering figures" of post-WWII moral philosophy, led to some interesting correspondence with various readers about late great figures in moral philosophy from the preceding century.  So the only way to adjudicate such weighty matters, of course, is with a poll.  Have fun!  And note:  I've included only late greats, no living greats in the poll. 

UPDATE:  So with more than 500 votes cast since yesterday, here is the current top ten:

1. Bernard Williams  (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)

2. G.E. Moore  loses to Bernard Williams by 240–224

3. G.E.M. Anscombe  loses to Bernard Williams by 296–158, loses to G.E. Moore by 280–164

4. Philippa Foot  loses to Bernard Williams by 316–134, loses to G.E.M. Anscombe by 238–196

5. R.M. Hare  loses to Bernard Williams by 318–130, loses to Philippa Foot by 253–178

6. W.D. Ross  loses to Bernard Williams by 307–125, loses to R.M. Hare by 204–193

7. John Dewey  loses to Bernard Williams by 340–88, loses to W.D. Ross by 223–152

8. Richard B. Brandt  loses to Bernard Williams by 351–39, loses to John Dewey by 192–126

9. Charles L. Stevenson  loses to Bernard Williams by 367–43, loses to Richard B. Brandt by 150–143

10. H.A. Prichard  loses to Bernard Williams by 359–41, loses to Charles L. Stevenson by 160–140

I'll open comments for discussion of the results either later this week or next week.

 

More Peculiarities of the NRC Rankings: The More Women and Minorities, the Worse the Program!

David Hilbert (Illinois/Chicago) writes:

You're probably sick of NRC email but this seemed interesting enough to be worth sharing.  I've been playing around with the NRC spreadsheet trying to understand the basis of our ranking.  There's two interesting features of the R-rating that I haven't seen discussed yet (although perhaps I missed it). 

I was interested in the coefficients used in constructing the rankings.  If you look at the variables tab in NRC  spreadsheet they give the plus and minus one standard deviation for the coefficients on each of the variables used in both the R- and S-ratings (for the discipline of interest).  The coefficients in the S-rating are pretty much what one would expect to emerge from a survey of faculty with the publications variable receiving the most weight.  One variable has a negative coefficient, the time to degree variable, which makes sense since larger numbers here are widely thought to show something bad about a program.

If one looks at the coefficient distributions for the R-rating system on the other hand there are two things that immediately stand out.  First, there are several variables for which both the plus and minus one standard deviation coefficients are negative.  That means higher scores on these variables are likely to have lowered a program's ranking (both at the 5th and 95th percentile).  If one looks at percent female faculty, for example, the coefficients are -0.062 and -0.034.  The negative signs on these coefficients means that having a higher percentage of female faculty members will tend to lower a department's R-rating. Given the way these coefficients were determined this makes sense if those departments that were higher in the sample representational ranking (that is not reported in the data) tended to have a lower percentage of female faculty.  There were five variables for which the plus and minus 1 SD were negative: percent faculty interdisciplinary, percent non-Asian minority faculty, percent female faculty, percent first year students with external funding, and percent completing within six years.  Doing better in any of these areas will tend to lower a program's position within the R-ranking. It's particularly striking that the two equal opportunity factors ended up hurting rather than helping in this ranking system. The problem here is that the one that Ned Block pointed out prospectively, the failure to distinguish between signs of quality and determinants of quality.

The second thing I was struck by was the low weights given to two out of the three variables relating to faculty quality in the R-ranking.  Both the productivity measure and the percent faculty with grants count for less than does, for example, average student GRE or the average number of PhDs produced per year.  If the R-rating were to be taken seriously and the coefficients held fixed then programs would have more effect on their rating by granting more PhDs than by increasing faculty productivity.

Since I imagine others have, by now, had a chance to digest the data, I invite other signed comments on the NRC data.  I am particularly curious to hear how administrators at your school are responding to the NRC report.  The University of Chicago appears to have been the only major research university to not issue a press release touting its performance, because of the devastating analysis of the value of the results by the statistician Stephen Stigler here.  (Some of Stigler's points about the way the R-Ranking was constructed based on only partial reputational surveys may bear on the odd bias noted by Professor Hilbert.)

On footnotes

Jo Wolff (UCL) has some amusing reflections.

In Memoriam: Philippa Foot (1920-2010)

Professor Foot, one of the towering figures of post-WWII Anglophone moral philosophy, passed away yesterday.  I am sure many obituaries and memorial notices will appear, so check back for updates.

UPDATE:  A remembrance from Larry Solum (Illinois).

ANOTHER:  An obituary from The Telegraph.  This strikes me as less informative than the typical biographies of philosophers in English newspapers.  In particular, it really does no justice to the range of important papers in the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s that were later collected in Virtues and Vices, which I suspect will remain her most influential contribution to the discipline.

AGAIN:  A rather more illuminating obituary from The Guardian.  (Thanks to Simon Kirchin for the pointer.)

ONE MORE:  Well-informed obituary in the New York Times.

AND ANOTHER:   Quite philosophically substantive, from The Independent.   (Thanks to David Gordon for that reference.)

Impending Catastrophe at Louisiana State University?

Philosopher Jon Cogburn (LSU) has details and suggestions about what readers can do to help.

The school formerly known as the State "University" of New York at Albany

They're wiping out just about all their programs of language study, and the tenured faculty with them.  What a disgrace.

UPDATE:  Reader Bécquer Medak-Seguín has forwarded to me a letter from Brett Bowles, an Associate Professor of French Studies at Albany:  

Today the seven members of the French faculty at SUNY--Albany (all tenured) were informed that by presidential decision, ostensibly for budgetary reasons, the French program has been "deactivated" at all levels (BA, MA, PhD), as have BA programs in Russian and Italian. The only foreign language program unaffected is Spanish. The primary criterion used in making the decision was undergrad majors-to-faculty ratio. We were told that tenured faculty in French, Russian, and Italian will be kept on long enough for our students to finish their degrees--meaning three years at the outside. Senoir faculty are being encouraged to take early retirement. The rest of us are being urged to "pursue our careers elsewhere," as our Provost put it.

Needless to say, the decision is personally devastating to those of us affected, but it is also symptomatic of the ongoing devaluation of foreign-language and other humanities program in universities across the United States. I'm writing to ask for your help in spreading the word about this decision as widely as possible and in generating as much negative media publicity as possible against SUNY--Albany and the SUNY system in its entirety.

There is much background to add about how this decision was reached and implemented, too much for me to explain fully here. Suffice it to say that the disappearance of French, Italian, and Russian has resulted from an almost complete lack of leadership at the Albany campus and in the SUNY system. Our president, a former state pension fund manager, holds an MBA as his highest degree, has never held a college or university teaching position, and has never engaged in any kind of scholarship.

More disturbing still, due process was not followed in the decision-making process. The affected programs were not consulted or given the opportunity to propose money-saving reforms. Our Dean and Provost simply hand-selected an advisory committee to rubber stamp the president's decision. The legalities of the situation remain to be discussed with our union, UUP, but in the meantime I welcome any advice you may have.

Fortunately, there does appear to be a faculty union; one hopes the union will file a lawsuit and seek to enjoin the faculty terminations.

"Thinking about a major? Major in thinking"

Here's a great poster that philosopher Christopher Pynes (Western Illinois University) prepared, which I saw last week when I was visiting his department.   I asked if he would share it with readers of the blog, and he kindly agreed:


Professor Pynes is happy to have other departments borrow the idea.  He writes:

What do Search Committees think of Interfolio?

A philosophy job seeker writes:

I was wondering if you might get a discussion going on your blog about what search committees think about Interfolio.  I am on the job market and debating about whether or not to use it.  It makes things much easier for us applicants, but I have heard that some search committees don't like how Interfolio sends dossier materials.  It would be valuable to hear people's opinions on this.  

Comment are open.

A Former Department Chair's Perspective on the NRC Fiasco

This is representative of a number of e-mails I've gotten from philosophers about the NRC, though this is particularly interesting as the perspective of a former Chair of a Department at the time the NRC data was being gathered:

First, I’m sure I speak for many people when I say that I’m very grateful to you for the posts and the links. Departments across the country are going to be asked by their administrations to speak to their rankings in the NRC report and I’m sure they’re very grateful for the information and analysis that you’ve provided yourself and that to which you’ve provided links.

Second, I understand that some of your analysis is influential beyond philosophy – my wife tells me that you were quoted on the IHE web site the day that the NRC report was released.  It’s in that connection that I’m writing now. 

I really think that someone needs to point out one implication of the fact that the rankings are – as you put it – a fiasco.  The implication is that an enormous amount of faculty and administrative time was simply wasted at the data-gathering stage.  I was department chair at that stage and spent hours exhorting my colleagues to fill in their surveys, filling in my own faculty survey and filling in the departmental survey. 

Chairing an academic department is, as you know, extremely burdensome.  I never minded doing the kind of work that was legitimately needed to maintain and build a department.  But asking people to spend squander so much of their time providing data for a report that is ultimately valueless is simply unconscionable.  The people who ran the survey ought to be embarrassed at the product.  They ought to be ashamed of the process that led to it.  I hope that at some point, you’ll use your platform to make that point.

More Stuff Coming on the Weekend...

...I have been occupied having a good time, philosophically and socially, with the folks at Western Illinois University today and yesterday.