MOVING TO THE FRONT FROM OCTOBER 31 (Follow the links here for background. Still no corrections of the errors or public apology for this scandal.)
...and Oregon is still "strongly recommended." There is still no disclosure of the underlying data on which the recommendations are allegedly based (and still on explanation for the disappearance of Oklahoma), but we are now told that, "For each particular school, we cannot be sure that any current students at that school were consulted in the creation of our report [!!!]," and then we are given this bit of nonsense by way of justification:
Our report is based on what some social scientists refer to as a “reputational survey,” meaning that it surveys the reputations of departments among some leaders in the field. In this way, departments can find out what their reputation is, surely useful information, and in this respect it is no different from other reputational surveys; it merely covers a different area of reputation. It is a way of making public the information that will likely be passed to at least some students who ask faculty for recommendations of where to apply to graduate school.
There is a world of difference between asking philosophers for their opinion about something about which they have information and first-hand knowledge (e.g., asking a Kant specialist about the quality of work done on Kant at a particular department, say) and asking philosophers for their opinion about something about which they may have no first-hand knowledge, indeed no knowledge at all. And what can it possibly mean to say that the Guide surveyed "leaders in the field": what field? The field of detecting "climate for women"? The list of those surveyed (and we still don't know how many even responded with respect to any particular department) is so heavily skewed towards SPEP members as to be no one's conception of even "leading" philosophers.
There then follows a long excuse for the poor quality of the information, which doesn't warrant comment.
UPDATE: A philosopher elsewhere writes:
Notice that the justification for leaving Oregon up there without comment comes, in coded form, here: " The difference between departments is not likely to be whether there are discriminatory practices or attitudes, but whether there are offsetting sources of support, such as mentors and allies, institutional signals of support, recognition and encouragement."
This is basically a prettied-up version of Bonnie Mann's claim that there is sexual harassment everywhere, it's unimaginable not to have it, but Oregon is still good because they teach feminism and have feminists. So disappointing that her outrageous line is the one they chose to plump for!
ANOTHER: Another "recommended" program for its "Climate for Women" has a dubious history as well.
Recent Comments