...as reported on the newish blog that we have noted before.
The first, and most striking, thing to my mind is the sheer number of incidents that constitute, rather clearly, illegal sexual harassment: for example, here, here, here, and here (this is just a small sampling!).
This bears emphasizing: illegal sexual harassment. The perpetrators and their supervisors (Chairs and Deans), not to mention their institutions, are asking to be named defendants in law suits for the kind of misconduct described. Let me repeat: that includes in many cases the Chairs of the Department, or the Deans of the unit in which such behavior occurs. Supervisors can be liable for permitting an environment in which illegal sexual harassment takes place and failing to act when put on notice of possible misconduct (as this post notes). The immediate perpetrators in some of these stories could be terminated for cause even if they have tenure. It's quite clear that the individuals engaged in the described misconduct lack the moral judgment or decency to do better, so perhaps the realization that their conduct is illegal, and could endanger their careers and their financial well-being might make an impression on them. If you, as a perpetrator, are sued (and some of those surely deserve to be sued), your university is not going to foot the bill for your legal defense.
Not all the items on the new blog rise to the same level of seriousness. There are the many accounts of sexist crudity or rudeness, for which the only sanctions are informal. Perhaps by airing examples, and holding them up for scrutiny from the community, they will raise consciousness among those responsible for the misconduct. That strikes me as one of the most valuable things about the site, namely, that it holds up to a mirror stupid and demeaning conduct that perpetrators may not realize is such.
Other items on the blog are, I think, less compelling. This item, for example, strikes me as not credible (my impression, which I know is shared by others, is that there is less, not more, sexism, and less, not more sexist, attitudes expressed openly when "only men" are around--this subsequent post confirms the point, but obviously this is all anecdotal). But that's minor, and it is still useful to air these perceptions, even if we might dispute their salience.
On the other hand, it does seem to me a mistake to think that opposition to sexual harassment and commitment to gender equality mandates that all philosophers take feminist philosophy seriously, as several items seem to imply. I know philosophers who do not take Marxism seriously, and while I think them seriously mistaken, I don't think it means they are not necessarily concerned with equality or justice. Nothing is more familiar to philosophers than the diversity of opinion about what kinds or styles of philosophy are worthwhile, and what kinds are not. (The idea that a suitable professional climate for women requires that feminist philosophy be taken seriously was one of the mistakes apparently underlying the "Climate for Women" fiasco in the fake "Pluralist Guide" to graduate programs.) This is only a minor theme, fortunately, on the What is it like blog.
Overall, and based on conversations I've had with a variety of philosophy faculty and students at many schools, it seems to me the What is it like blog has had a significant and constructive impact on the profession. One thing that still needs to happen is for the legal ramifications of illegal sexual harassment to be felt by some high-profile perpetrators. If readers hear of legal cases, please let me know.
UPDATE: A well-known female philosopher (not one who works, or has much interest, in feminist philosophy) writes:
I'm just not clear on what the problem with [skepticism about] feminist philosophy is supposed to be. It's one thing to argue that (1) people are dismissing feminist philosophy because of sexism. It's another to argue that (2) if people are dismissing feminist philosophy, it must be because of sexism. It's right to ridicule the second claim. It's wrong to ridicule the first one. In particular, if (1) is occurring, this needs to be clearly articulated, given more attention and, ideally, documented. I am concerned that when (2) is rightly trashed as based on poor thinking, that some people hear this as an objection to (1). And then they think that (1) is being unfairly ridiculed and rejected.
Recent Comments