Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

New Books in June

Authors and/or publishers kindly sent me these new books this month:

Manhunts:  A Philosophical History by Gregoire Chamayou, trans. by Steven Rendall (Princeton University Press, 2012).

The Responsibility of the Philosopher by Gianni Vattimo, trans. by William McCuaig (Columbia University Press, 2012).

When is True Belief Knowledge? by Richard Foley (Princeton University Press, 2012).

The Law and Ethics of Medicine by John Keown (Oxford University Press, 2012).

The German Historicist Tradition by Frederick C. Beiser (Oxford University Press, 2011).

Plotinus Ennead IV.8:  On the Descent of the Soul Into Bodies translated and introduced by Barrie Fleet (Parmenides Publishing, 2012).

A Stranger's Knowledge:  Statesmanship, Philosophy & Law in Plato's Statesman  by Xavier Marquest (Parmenides Publishing, 2012).

The mystery of June blog traffic

Usually as summer starts, blog readership declines, but not this month--as of this morning, the blog had already had over 300,000 unique visits and over 445,000 page views during June, compared to figures, respectively, of 283,000 and 421,000 a year ago.  (June traffic is double what it was four years ago, but that is part of a general trend in the readership.)  June traffic this year has been higher than September 2011 traffic, also surprising.  One thing I've noticed is that as the number of philosophy blogs has increased in recent years, overall readership here has gone up--my best guess is that the increasing number of philosophy-related blogs brings more readers with philosophical interests on-line.

Anyway, whatever the explanation, thanks for reading!

Speaking of people who should be disenfranchised...

....right-wing crazies react to the Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Care Act.  It would be funny if there weren't millions out there in this benighted country who "think" [sic] this way, many of whom vote, and many of whom are no doubt armed.  (#6 is in error, however.)

Proof that it's the dog days of summer...

...Spiros is on holiday (sigh).

Judge Posner on the Supreme Court's Affordable Care Act Decision

He is, in many ways, a "conservative," though not when compared to the current crew on the Supreme Court!

Texas Taliban Platform for 2012...

...otherwise known as the platform of the Texas Republican Party.  Many readers have sent it, and it's an appalling read as always.  These people should be disenfrancised and put under adult supervision until they grow up.  A few gems:

Rights Versus Products -- We oppose calling welfare and other income and product redistribution schemes "rights" or "entitlements". We know that fundamental human rights are inherent to individuals and are granted by God and are protected by the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. They are not products of others labor. Unalienable rights, such as life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, property rights, free speech, religious freedom, self-defense, etc. do not impose on others rights whereas income and product redistribution invariably do so...

Religious Symbols - We oppose any governmental action to restrict, prohibit, or remove public display of the Decalogue or other religious symbols....

American English - We support adoption of American English as the official language of Texas and of the United States.

Flag Desecration - Any form of desecration of the American Flag is an act of disregard for our nation and its people and penalties should be established for such....

Confederate Widows Plaque - We call for restoration of plaques honoring the Confederate Widow’s Pension Fund contribution that were illegally removed from the Texas Supreme Court building....

We believe in the sanctity of marriage and that the integrity of this institution should be protected at all levels of government. We urge the Legislature to rescind no-fault divorce laws. We support Covenant Marriage....

We strongly support women who choose to devote their lives to their families and raising their children. We recognize their sacrifice and deplore the liberal assault on the family....

We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. 

Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle, in public policy, nor should "family" be redefined to include homosexual "couples." We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values....

...We are opposed to genocide, euthanasia, and assisted suicide....

Because of the personal and social pain caused by abortions, we call for the protection of both women and their unborn children from pressure for unwanted abortions. We commend the Texas Legislature for the passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act, a law requiring abortion providers, prior to an abortion, to provide women full knowledge of the physical and psychological risks of abortion, the characteristics of the unborn child, and abortion alternatives....

We urge the FDA to rescind approval of the physically dangerous RU-486 and oppose limiting the manufacturers’ and distributors’ liability.

Morning After Pill - We oppose sale and use of the dangerous "Morning After Pill"....

We support legislation that requires doctors, at first opportunity, to provide to a woman who is pregnant, information about the nervous system development of her unborn child and to provide pain relief for her unborn if she orders an abortion. We support legislation banning of abortion after 20 weeks gestation due to fetal pain.

Unborn Victims of Violence Legislation - We urge the State to ensure that the Prenatal Protection Law is interpreted accurately and consider the unborn child as an equal victim in any crime, including domestic violence....

We unequivocally oppose the United States Senate’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child....

We support eliminating bureaucratic prohibitions on corporal discipline and home schooling in foster homes....

We support an immediate and orderly transition to a system of private pensions based on the concept of individual retirement accounts, and gradually phasing out the Social Security tax....

We demand the immediate repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which we believe to be unconstitutional....

We support the availability of natural, unprocessed foods, including, but not limited to, the right to access raw milk....

All adult citizens should have the legal right to conscientiously choose which vaccines are administered to themselves or their minor children without penalty for refusing a vaccine. We oppose any effort by any authority to mandate such vaccines...

 We believe the current teaching of a multicultural curriculum is divisive. We favor strengthening our common American identity and loyalty instead of political correctness that nurtures alienation among racial and ethnic groups. Students should pledge allegiance to the American and Texas flags daily to instill patriotism.... 

We recommend that local school boards and classroom teachers be given more authority to deal with disciplinary problems. Corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas....

We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind....

We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority....

We recognize parental responsibility and authority regarding sex education. We believe that parents must be given an opportunity to review the material prior to giving their consent. We oppose any sex education other than abstinence until marriage....

We support school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded and which form the basis of America’s legal, political and economic systems. We support curricula that are heavily weighted on original founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and Founders’ writings.

We urge legislators to prohibit reproductive health care services, including counseling, referrals, and distribution of condoms and contraception through public schools. We support the parents’ right to choose, without penalty, which medications are administered to their minor children. We oppose medical clinics on school property except higher education and health care for students without parental consent.

U.S. Department of Education – Since education is not an enumerated power of the federal government, we believe the Department of Education (DOE) should be abolished....

 

 

 

 

 

Best "Joint Authorship" Names on an Article or Book?

Jerry Dworkin (UC Davis) submits this candidate from law:

    Perish, Shook, & Wiebelhaus-Brahm on Transitional Justice and the Arab Spring (posted on SSRN)

He suggests a philosophy contest.  Readers?

 

A few comments on the Supreme Court Decision Regarding the Affordable Care Act

In the end, it was less bad than many had feared.  Of the on-line commentary, I recommend this interview with Pam Karlan (Stanford) as a good place to start.  A few quick comments of my own, with the caveat that while I keep up with parts of constitutional law, I haven't taught it since 1995. 

(1) As most readers will know, the Court upheld the key provision of the act, the individual mandate, on the grounds that it was a proper exercise of Congressional taxing power, but five justices, including the Chief Justice (who endorsed the taxing power theory, thus providing the key fifth vote for upholding) agreed that the mandate was not justified as an exercise of the commerce power (this was based on what must surely be the most significant appearance of the act/omission distinction in the history of American constitutional law--if you fail to purchase insurance, that's not commercial activity, so can't be regulated, even though that omission has obvious and massive consequences in aggregate on the national health care market).  Readers not familiar with constitutional law may be surprised to learn that a huge amount of federal social legislation, including many of the most famous civil rights laws of the 1960s (such as those prohibiting private businesses, like restaurants and hotels, from discriminating on the basis of race), were justified as exercises of the Commerce Clause power, on the grounds, e.g., that race discrimination in restaurants affects interstate commerce.  Starting in the 1990s, as the Court shifted further to the right, resistance began mounting to the expansive use of the commerce power, and in some cases, the Court actually invalidated Congressional action as overreaching the commerce power, which had not happened since the 1930s.    Five justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, very clearly signalled that they are willing to endorse a new conceptual trick for blocking federal legislation, namely, when it tries to regulate an omission, not an action.

(2)  Why did Chief Justice Roberts join the four "liberal" justices in voting to uphold the Act?  My best guess is that he figured the political fallout for the Court from wiping out this legislation on the basis of silly arguments would be too much--the Roberts Court has already done huge damage to democracy and settled precedents, but this would have been a much more serious case of right-wing activism.

(3) The limitation on the expansion of Medicaid raises some more complex issues--the Court basically says the provision is constitutional unless the federal government threatens to withold existing [CORRECTED] Medicaid funds from states that fail to comply, in which case it becomes unconstitutionally coercive (the federal government could withhold new funds).  The coercion question is a subtle and vexed one in constitutional law; there is an interesting discussion by my former colleague Mitch Berman (Texas) here.  This does raise the prospect that citizens in some states won't benefit from the expansion of Medicaid coverage (basically coverage for the poor) thanks to their reactionary/Tea Party governors.  But I may write more about this once I get a chance to learn more about it.

UPDATE:  This piece by Bruce Ackerman (Yale) is also apt.

On the road yesterday and today...

...so I won't have anything till late on the decision of the super-legislature regarding the Affordable Care Act here in the U.S.  Under existing precedents, it is clearly constitutional, but whenever the super-legislature takes a case in which that is true, trouble is afoot!

Giving to charity by philosophy students...

...and others.  The assumption is that this has something to do with "generosity," which it might.

UVA Board Meets Soon to Discuss Possible Reinstatement of President Sullivan

You can watch the proceedings live here, unless the Board votes to close the meeting, which it could do.

(Thanks to Matt King for the pointer.)

UPDATE:  So Sullivan is reinstated as President, and Rector Dragas voted with a unanimous Board to reinstate her--so it's clear they got the Governor's message!   The Board also voiced its support for Rector Dragas, a predictable move given her need to reverse course.  The endless talk about "integrity" was a bit nauseating:  integrity requires more than not taking bribes, it means excercising considered judgment, and there was a failure to do so by Dragas and others that can't be covered up by saying "she meant well."  Dragas did have a funny line about the e-mail she's getting, so I'll give her credit for that!  (Briefly, but my recollection probably isn't as good as the original:  she was using some garden metaphors to describe supportive e-mails she had received, and then added, "But I also had a good deal of fertilizer in my in-box.")

The other remaining unknown is whether the Governor reappoints Dragas--we'll know in a few days.

Systematic Data on Turnaround Time for Philosophy Journal Publishing?

A Dean elsewhere writes:

With regard to journal publishing in the humanities and social sciences there is a significant body of data on the situation in economics which is mostly gloomy.  I know of several universities where because of the long time between submission and acceptance economics departments are now urging faculty to stop the tenure clock through a leave (paid or unpaid).  One faculty member reported that economics is the worst offender with respect to turn-around time, often between 1.5 and 2 years.  Anecdotally I have been told that a similar situation exists in Philosophy (we have one member of the dept who has taken a year leave to get the tenure clock stopped).  Do you know of any data on the turn-around time between submission and acceptance for Philosophy journals (when I looked at articles in Mind and Nous I was unable to find such dates) and if this is having an impact on the tenure process. 

I know we've discussed these issues previously, but I can't recall whether there is a centralized source of information about these issues.  And are there cases of the tenure process being affected by the slow turnaround?

Your United States Supreme Court at work...

...and for sale.

Gray on Zizek

This is pretty damning.  Is it fair?  Substantive replies only; full name in the author line and a valid e-mail address required.

NRC Report on Research Universities

Longtime reader Roger Albin, a neurologist at the University of Michigan Medical School, writes:

The National Research Council (arm of the National Academy) issued a report on research universities.  The main focus is on science and technology but among their recommendations are increasing Federal research funding, increased state funding of universities, and increased autonomy for universities. There is a strong editiorial from the chair of the committee that assembled the report, the former head of DuPont, in this week's Science. The report is published by the National Academies Press (http://www.nap.edu/).  Interested readers should be able to download the report or at least its executive summary from that site, though the link doesn't seem to be working properly today. 

Like many of these reports, this one was requested by important Congressional figures, who will probably not understand it.  The short term impact of things like this will probably be negligble but there may be beneficial long term effects. 

UPDATE:  Anne Jacobson (Houston) points out that there is also a video related to the new report, which you can see here.

"Kool Kandy Kantian" at 3AM

And she invokes the priority of the first-person point of view in practical deliberation (a sneaky Kantian thing to do, of course).

Are there countries where the philosophy job market is growing?

Reader Nicholas Rebol writes:

My question, that I was hoping you could post to your readers, is how the job market in Philosophy in the USA compares to any other nations. Are there places where the field is growing? I understand that this may be way too simplistic a question for how complicated the job market situation is. I can't help but ask; I am considering my future in Philosophy and am not necessarily limiting it by location.

I hope the far-flung readerhsip can weigh in about how the academic job market for philosophers is looking in their part of the world.  And also, within the U.S., are there states where there are signs of growth, additional funding for higher education, etc.?

Plutocracy Watch: The Case of Sheldon Adelson

Here.

On the Egyptian election

Historian Juan Cole (Michigan) is informative.

Virginia Governor Enters the Fray

The natural way to read this threat is that Dragas is finished.  I suppose it's possible that he really just wants Board unanimity, but given that there's almost no support for the Dragas position, that seems unlikely.

UPDATE:  Dragas replies.  Wow!  And she is now indirectly disparaging Sullivan.  One can only hope her head is handed to her before long.

Faculty/Administration Dynamics at One Non-Flagship State University

Instructive, I suspect, about problems familiar elsewhere.

(Thanks to Steven James for the pointer.)

Possible 10% Cut to NEH Funding Making Its Way Through Congress

Details here.  Perhaps it will fare better in the Senate.

(Thanks to Mark Couch for the pointer.)

Cecile Fabre (Oxford)...

...at 3AM.

John Perry and Ken Taylor's "Philosophy Talk" Radio Honored...

...deservedly so.

UVA Board to Meet Again to "Reconsider" Decision on Sullivan

It looks like the forces opposed to the coup now have the upper hand.

UPDATE:  Board Rector Helen Dragas issues statement defending the decision.  This one has content--identifying problems facing the university--but does not indicate how President Sullivan was failling to address them.  It also confirms that the dingbats on the Board were, indeed, obsessed with on-line gimmickry, among other things.

ANOTHER:  Neil Sinhababu (NUS) calls to my attention that it looks like Dragas's statement was, in fact, written by a PR firm!

I have to agree with Spiros...

...NDPR shouldn't publish this kind of junk.  But a quick glance at the editorial board will tell you who is responsible for it, and it isn't me or Gary Gutting!  

ADDENDUM:  It does raise a question how the NY Times picked such a hack to 'moderate' a blog column on philosophy, though.

UVA Psychology Prof to the Board: A Grade of "F"

Here.

ALSO a strong editorial by the Virginia student newspaper.

How the American plutocracy works

The U.S. Supreme Court, over nearly forty years, gets a lot of the blame.

UC Davis vs. UVA: or What a President Has to do to Get Fired These Days

Robert May, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and Linguistics at the University of California at Davis, writes:

I think there is an interesting contrast between the University of Virginia situation and that of Linda Katehi, chancellor here at UC Davis.  We now know from the Reynoso report  (discussed here) of Katehi's complicity in the violent act against the innocent students, and her mendacity about her role in the pepper spraying incident; for this she does deserve to be, and ought to be, fired from her position.  Yet nary a word to this effect has been heard from the UC Board of Regents nor the President of UC.  The campus Academic Senate did finally censure Katehi, but stopped short of calling for her to be fired, which had been recommended by the Senate's committee that had looked into the incident.  As we head off this week to our summer vacations, it is apparently business as usual in the Chancellor's office.

Now if she had been involved in pepper-spraying on-line students, that would have been different!

UVA Board of Visitors Issues "Declaration"...

...with some help from Kieran Healy.  The spear of satire was never better wielded.

(Thanks to Matt Lister for the pointer.)

And on a more hopeful note...

...UVA's Larry Sabato tweets that this isn't over yet.   So there's still a chance that Dragas is canned, and Sullivan restored to the throne!

Members of the UVA Board of Visitors were, indeed, as dumb as we suspected

A nice piece of reporting by IHE:

E-mail messages were flying among leaders of the Board of Visitors of the  University of Virginia in the weeks leading up to the ouster of Teresa A.  Sullivan as president of the university. The e-mail messages show that one  reason board leaders wanted to move quickly was the belief that UVa needed to  get involved in a serious way with online education.

The board leaders traded articles in which various pundits suggested that  online education is the only real future for higher education -- and the e-mail  messages suggest that board members believe this view. On May 31, for example,  Helen Dragas, the rector (UVa-speak for board chair) sent the vice rector, Mark  Kington, the URL for a Wall Street Journal column  about online education. Dragas's subject line was "good piece in WSJ today -- why we can't afford to wait." The column, a look at the MOOC (massively online  open course) movement in higher education, has the subhead: "The substitution of  technology (which is cheap) for labor (which is expensive) can vastly increase  access to an elite-caliber education."

The column argues that the MOOCs have the potential to change the cost  structure in higher education, as long as institutions are willing to replace  some in-person education with online education. "[I]n this way, college X might  have its students take calculus, computer science and many other lecture courses  online from MIT-Harvard (or other suppliers), and have them take other classes  with their own local professors for subjects that are better taught in small  seminars. College X can thus offer stellar lectures from the best professors in  the world — and do locally what it does best, person to person," the column  says....

[T]he e-mail records suggest  both Dragas and Kington are committed to a major push into online education.

Both took time to comment on a major donor's e-mail in which he suggested  that university leaders study the way Stanford and Harvard Universities, among  others, were having success online. The donor wondered in his e-mail if these  developments are "a signal that the on-line [sic] learning world has now reached  the top of the line universities and they need to have strategies or will be  left behind." Dragas replied: "Your timing is impeccable -- the BOV is squarely  focused on UVa's developing such a strategy and keenly aware of the rapidly  accelerating pace of change."

Another article -- this one forwarded from Kington to Dragas -- was the "The  Campus Tsunami," by the New York Times columnist David Brooks,  predicting massive change from the MOOCs, and also predicting that the new model  will involve much more learning from professors who are not at the college or  university a student attends.

So there you have it:  these glorified shopkeepers were taking their cues on the future of higher education from David Brooks.  UVA is doomed if these bozos aren't gone, quickly.

UVA Board's Vice-Rector (one of the miscreants) Resigns

I guess he can see the writing on the wall, and prefers this to being removed from office or having to answer to the legislature.  I suspect Dragas's turn is coming.  One may hope so.

"University Professor" Bill Wulf at UVA, Former President of National Academy of Engineering...

...abruptly resigns in protest over misconduct by the UVA Board.  Wow!  What an embarrassment this has become for UVA, and it keeps getting worse.

(Thanks to Jim Nichols for the pointer.)

Helen Dragas Translated into Plain English

Here.

ADDENDUM:  The inevitable Facebook page, though she earned it!

AND ONE MORE:  The original site has a fairly rude--but not inapt under the circumstances--summary of the BOV's choice for Interim President:

So, there was a meeting was held in secret in response to widespread anger about the BOV’s new habit of doing things in secret, in which they selected an old, white man who runs a business school and has a degree in “Strategic Management” to take over the presidency of the university. It’s difficult to see how the universal condemnation of the BOV’s actions have resulted in an outcome that is in any way different than the one envisioned by Rector Helen Dragas last October, when she set this plan in motion.

ANOTHER billionaire meddler involved in this fiasco?

 

Revenge of the "Vagina" in Michigan

Here.

Will the Virginia legislature get involved?

Possibly.

UVA Rector Helen Dragas Issues Empty Statement (*UPDATED* with President Sullivan's first public statement)

Maybe this kind of fluff flies in parts of the business world, but she certainly seems to be heading for disaster with an academic community where people actually care about reasoned analysis and explanation.

UPDATE:  The first comment on the student newspaper site about this fluff is very apt:

I don’t know if this breathless, cloying statement will impress people in Virginia, but please rest assured everyone outside Virginia can see this for the shallow PR tripe it is.  All the classic corporate cliches are here: references to the lawn, the family, “we’ve heard you,” etc.  I suppose the consultants the university hired (at no small penny) helped dream this up.  Transparency at UVA might begin by accounting for that. Meanwhile, however, this stinks of paternalism at best (“we have y

our best interest at heart, bunnies!”) and cover up at worst.  The more the Visitors try to talk their way around the issue, and avoid coming clean on what their real agenda is (Goldman Sachs Online, anyone?) the more this will damage UVA’s reputation.

ANOTHER:  Larry Sabato, a prominent political science professor at UVA, is really slamming the Board and the Governor on his Twitter account.

PRESIDENT SULLIVAN SPEAKS:  Here is the text of her remarks to the Board of Visitors; it's a rather aggressive statement, appropriately so, and unlike Rector Dragas's fluff, it has real content; a few excerpts:

I have been described as an incrementalist. It is true.   Sweeping action may be gratifying and may create the aura of strong leadership, but its unintended consequences may lead to costs that are too high to bear.  There has been substantial change on Grounds in the past two years, and this change is laying the groundwork for greater change. But it has all been carefully planned and executed in collaboration with Vice Presidents and Deans and representatives of the faculty. This is the best, most constructive, most long lasting, and beneficial way to change a university.  Until the last ten days,
the change at UVA has not been disruptive change, and it has not been high-risk change.

Corporate-style, top-down leadership does not work in a great university.  Sustained change with buy-in does work.  UVA is one of the world's greatest universities....

The faculty must also believe that they can do their best work here.   They must believe in the future here. At any great university, the equilibrium – the pull between the desire to stay and the inducements to leave – is delicate.   Rapid change rapidly upsets this delicate equilibrium.

Already in the last ten days we have lost faculty to other universities.  Fortunately, we are well past the usual hiring season in most disciplines. But deans and provosts at every peer institution are setting aside funds now to raid the University of Virginia next year given the current turmoil on our
campus....

The academic mission is central and must be protected. Strategic cutting and large-scale cost savings have therefore been concentrated in non-academic areas, and these areas have become notably leaner and more efficient....

We have taken similar initiative with respect to faculty compensation. We found funds for a 2% faculty pay raise last year — not enough, but the first raise of any kind in four years. Equally important, we instructed deans not to give a 2% raise across the board, but to allocate all raise money on the basis of merit. This rewards our most valuable faculty and improves the incentive structure for all faculty.

A dramatic top-down reallocation in our general fund, simply to show that we are “changing,” or that we are not “incremental,” seems to me fiscally imprudent, highly alarming to faculty, and unfair to students who expect to get a broadly inclusive education here. I have chosen a lower-risk and more conservative strategy, because I am accountable to the taxpayers and the tuition payers.

If we were to embark on a course of deep top-down cuts, there would also be difficult questions regarding what to cut. A university that does not teach the full range of arts and sciences will no longer be a university. Certainly it will no longer be respected as such by its former peers.

Faculty collaborate both within disciplines and across disciplines. In the nature of things, many of these collaborations are not even known to the central administration. If we cut from the top down, without consulting the affected faculty, a cut in one department may have wholly unintended consequences in another department that we are trying to build up.

Nor can we always predict which kind of knowledge will be of greatest import in the future.  Before September 11, few of us understood just how important Arabic and other Middle Eastern and Central Asian languages would become — to our students, to the nation, and to national security.  Suppose we had eliminated some of those languages because of low enrollment or other fiscal considerations before 2001. We would be scrambling to recreate them now....

There is room for carefully implemented online learning in selected fields, but online instruction is no panacea. It is surprisingly expensive, has limited revenue potential, and unless carefully managed, can undermine the quality of instruction....

Fundraising takes time. A new President first has to meet donors and establish trust and rapport. Instability is as alarming to donors as it is to faculty and in the last few days you are already seeing the impact....

I want to turn to the issue of trust.  The community of trust is not merely a term to describe a Code that applies to our students. We equally need a community of trust between faculty and administration and among our leadership teams.  Trust does not mean an absence of disagreement. But it requires that disagreements be frankly discussed. No matter how accomplished he or she may be, a president cannot read minds.  When you choose a new president, tell him or her what you are thinking.Terms and Conditions

This is a strong statement, which will be read, I expect, by Boards of Trustees nationwide with some interest.  Hopefully they will learn from it.  It's also a statement that makes clear that no rapprochement between President Sullivan and this Board will be possible.  She makes quite clear that Dragas et al. are incompetent fools and meddlers, so unless they go, Sullivan's tenure is probably truly at its end.  Will the Governor or some other political actors step up to the plate and can the miscreants?

The importance of doing unfavorable tenure reviews

A senior philosopher writes:

You recently ran a post on Leiter Reports about tenure reviews, asking just how many one should take on in a given year.  But there was an issue which came up in that post which is particularly important, and I hope you'll run a separate post addressing that issue.

One writer offered the following opinion: "I do think it's really important to not agree to do it unless you think there's a non-trivial chance you will be able to recommend the candidate."   Another suggested that this principle is too weak: one shouldn't take this on unless one thinks it probable that one will write a positive evaluation.  I have certainly met others who subscribe to a still stronger principle.

I really think this is appalling.  While this sort of principle seems appropriate for letters of recommendation, where one is being asked by an individual to write a letter of support for that very person, external evaluations for tenure and promotion are a different thing altogether.  One is being asked by a department (or a university) to offer an opinion on the quality of a person's work.  Surely it is legitimate for institutions to try to determine the value of a faculty member's scholarly work.  And I take it that we can all agree that not everyone's work is of equal value; some individuals who come up for tenure or promotion have not done work which merits advancement.  It is one of the responsibilities we have as faculty members to provide honest reviews of candidates so that philosophy departments and universities can make responsible decisions about tenure and promotion.  Those who refuse to write negative reviews, or who refuse to take on reviews where they think there is some risk of writing a less than enthusiastic review, make it difficult for departments and universities to make responsible decisions.

I have written letters of evaluation which have not been positive.  At times, this keeps me up at night.  The thought that I have played some role in a negative tenure decision, with all the pain that inevitably causes, weighs very heavily on me.  I understand the desire to spare oneself this sort of thing.  But this is no excuse for undermining a legitimate system of evaluation, and this is exactly what one does when one refuses to evaluate candidates one cannot support.

I have not posted these remarks in response to the earlier comments both because I believe this issue deserves a post of its own, but also because I wish to remain anonymous.  I do not usually ask for anonymity on controversial issues, but in this case I am concerned that making my views on this matter public, given the other views on this issue, will only make it likely that I receive many more requests for external evaluations in cases where a negative opinion is called for.  I do not want to become a magnet for controversial cases, or worse, for cases which are uncontroversially weak.

This seems to me exactly right.  I would add that the willingness of members of the profession to write an unfavorable tenure letter is essential to defending the institution of tenure. 

I'll permit anonymous comments on this thread, since those who agree with my correspondent will no doubt share the concerns in the final paragraph; I will ask, however, that commenters include a valid e-mail address, but that will not appear.  (By agreeing in public with my correspondent, I do not think I run much additional risk, since as readers know, I am not hesitant about expressing critical opinions, even in public.)

The money starts to talk at UVA...

...and it's on the same side as the faculty, students and many other alumni.  That really could be the end of Dragas & Co.

UPDATE:  Other important voices weigh in against the Board.  It seems to me not inconceivable that before this is over Dragas & Co. resign from the Board and President Sullivan is reinstated.

ANOTHER:  Faculty meet with Dragas, then call for her resignation.

In Memoriam: H.E. Mason (1925-2012)

Professor Mason was a longtime faculty member in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis-St. Paul.  An obituary is here.

(Thanks to Jeff Johnson for the pointer.)

Helen Dragas: A Mortal Threat to UVA's Future as a Serious Academic Institution

She's the head of the Board and was a key figure in engineering the coup that ousted President Sullivan.  Stephen Parsley, a UVA alum and now a law student there, summarized the latest revelations well: 

There's a good chance you've already seen this, but according to a very in-depth article from the Washington Post, one reason the UVA Board wanted Sullivan out was that they felt "Sullivan lacked the mettle to trim or shut down programs that couldn’t sustain themselves  financially, such as obscure academic departments in classics and German."

I never thought I would see the day when the leadership of an elite, two centuries old school wants to eliminate core humanities programs that have fewer than a dozen faculty members for "budgetary reasons" and, according to many reports, use our reputation to legitimize for-profit online classes. There is still plenty of first-rate liberal education going on at the school, but if Sullivan gets replaced with a crony of the Board, I don't see how that will continue.

Virginia residents would do well to contact their representatives to seek the ouster of this inane and destructive meddler.

UPDATE:  It turns out Dragas's term expires on July 1, at which point the Governor must decide whether to re-appoint her.  If he does so in the wake of this fiasco, it can only succeed in making him complicit in it.

UPDATE (JUNE 19):  The latest here.

In Memoriam: Juha Sihvola (1957-2012)

Professor Sihvola was the former Director of the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, a leading scholar of the history of Greek philosophy and philosophy of religion, and Professor of History at the University of Jyväskylä.  He was also a respected public intellectual in Finland, and did much to raise the profile of Finnish humanities scholars on the international stage.

"Strategic mumblespeak"

A good write-up on the UVA fiasco.

The Google-Trolley Problem

This is a curious one!  (Background:  Google has invented a driverless car.)

"Vagina" in trouble in Michigan

Is Michigan the next Texas?  Yikes.

In Memoriam: Alan Saunders (1954-2012)

Host of the popular and well-done "Philosopher's Zone" radio program in Australia, Mr. Saunders died suddenly on June 15, apparently from pneumonia.

(Thanks to Nick Best for the pointer.)

Peter Kiernan, the Narcissistic "Hedge Fund" Manager Behind the UVA Fiasco?

A commenter in the earlier thread linked to the informative CHE piece (subscription access) on the unfolding UVA fiasco, in which a key player was former Goldman Sachs partner Peter Kiernan, who is now one of the idle, busybody rich (having retired with his fortune in his mid-40s!); an excerpt:

The e-mail, which Mr. Kiernan sent to fellow Darden board members, suggested Ms. Sullivan's resignation would usher in a fast-paced series of unspecified changes.

"The decision of the Board of Visitors to move in another direction stems from their concern that the governance of the university was not sufficiently tuned to the dramatic changes we all face: funding, Internet, technology advances, the new economic model," Mr. Kiernan wrote in the e-mail, which was published in several Virginia newspapers. "These are matters for strategic dynamism rather than strategic planning."

...

So what is "strategic dynamism," and who are its practitioners? Quite the opposite of the methodical, long-term visions found in most universities' strategic plans, strategic dynamism implies a near-constant "stirring of the pot" within an organization, explains Donald C. Hambrick, a professor of management at Pennsylvania State University's main campus.

That could mean wild changes in asset allocation within a company's investment portfolio or a radical alteration of a business's marketing approach. Proponents of strategic dynamism value the potential rewards of substantial, fast-paced change more than the stability of a gradual strategic evolution, Mr. Hambrick says.

There's another thing about executives who embrace strategic dynamism: They're totally in love with themselves, Mr. Hambrick says. In 2007, Mr. Hambrick co-authored a study that found a strong correlation between a chief executive's level of narcissism and his or her penchant for making frequent changes consistent with strategic dynamism.

The study used five indicators to measure a chief executive's narcissism, including the prominence of the executive's photographs in a company's annual report, the frequency of the executive's name in company news releases, the disparity between the chief executive's compensation and that of the company's second in command, and the frequency with which the chief executive uses first-person-singular pronouns in interviews.

For those keeping score, Mr. Kiernan's e-mail to Darden trustees contains 19 first-person pronouns...

Unless someone reins in fools like Mr. Kiernan, there could be tough times ahead for UVA.

Gila Sher on Quine, naturalism, logic, mathematics, and the nature of philosophy...

...all in one interview!

North American Kant Society Awards Sellars Prize to Georgia State's Eric Wilson

Details here.

(Thanks to Jim Nichols for the pointer.)