I've heard this suggestion more than once over the last few weeks, in light of the scandalous and utterly fraudulent "Climate for Women" report she was instrumental in circulating and now defending. Should someone involved in such public misconduct assume a leadership position in any professional organization of philosophers?
The three smeared departments--smeared on the basis of hearsay rather than first-hand testimony--are all part of the Eastern Divison of the APA; it is quite clear that there are other departments in the Eastern APA with a good climate for women that have been omitted from the SPEP/SAAP Guide due to the irresponsible methodology for compiling it. And then there is the fact that some departments are "strongly recommended" in the SPEP/SAAP Guide that are, in fact, inhospitable to women as scholars and professionals.
Professor Alcoff's first response to the very cogent and reasonable criticisms of the "Climate for Women" part of the Guide is here, and it is quite fairly summarized by Matt Smith (Yale) as follows:
1. We admit that we made a bunch of unwarranted charges against a variety of departments, and that we might even have labeled some departments as safe when in fact they were predatory.
2. But this started a very useful discussion!
3. So, let's keep those unwarranted (and often false) charges and endorsements up there. (Also: No apologies - you should *thank* us!)
Her second response was no better.
Traditionally, philosophers were elected as "President" of an APA division based on their scholarly reputation in the field. About 30 years ago, philosophers associated with SPEP staged a procedural revolt in the Eastern Division in order to insure that a SPEP candidate was elected every other year. That's fine, of course: people can vote for whom they want. Except for its hosting of the hiring convention, the Eastern Division of the APA has already become the least relevant of the three Divisions, but should the President-Elect of even the Eastern be someone involved in such a scandalous affair as the "Climate for Women" guide? That's the question.
For obvious reasons, my e-mail in-box probably over-represents those who think Alcoff ought to resign given this affair. What do readers think?
UPDATE: With folks on all sides mobilizing votes, it seemed best to stop the poll, with more than 800 votes cast. 41% thought Professor Alcoff's involvement in the "Climate for Women" scandal irrelevant to her fitness to be President of the Eastern Division; 50% thought it relevant, with 34% thinking it disqualifying, and an additional 16% thinking if she apologized and withdrew this anonymous slander from the Internet, it would be OK if she served. The remaining votes were undecided. Some critics of the Guide have expressed unease with a vote on this question, but I have received so many e-mails on the subject, it seemed some poll of professional sentiment might be useful. I continue to be surprised by the willingness of philosophers to excuse professional misconduct by a quasi-elected officer of the APA, but clearly there are strong differences of opinion among philosophers on this subject.
Recent Comments