Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

Now that Marx is back, it's time for some class warfare...

...directed at the actual dominant class.  Actor Ed Asner narrates; it's nicely done and sums up the Reagan era in the U.S., in which we still live, rather well.

Paul Krugman re-discovers Marx

What took him so long?  Krugman has been such a relief to those of us in the United States, because the public culture is so bereft of critical perspective, but the fact remains that he's an apologist for the capitalist system, just not as bonkers as some of the others.  I quote from his recent posting on the implications of the displacement of human labor power by robots, which means profits go to those who own capital, not those who actually work:

Better education won’t do much to reduce inequality if the big rewards simply go to those with the most assets. Creating an “opportunity society”, or whatever it is the likes of Paul Ryan etc. are selling this week, won’t do much if the most important asset you can have in life is, well, lots of assets inherited from your parents. And so on.

I think our eyes have been averted from the capital/labor dimension of inequality, for several reasons. It didn’t seem crucial back in the 1990s, and not enough people (me included!) have looked up to notice that things have changed. It has echoes of old-fashioned Marxism — which shouldn’t be a reason to ignore facts, but too often is. And it has really uncomfortable implications.

The public culture of the United States is obviously an embarrassment, so I don't want to knock Krugman too  much, since he's been the most visible voice for civilization in recent years...BUT look what he wrote:  "the capital/labor dimension of inequality....didn't seem crucial back in the 1990s."  He at least does a mea culpa, so kudos to him for that.   Now that the Repugs have been trounced in the latest national elections, we need a real revival of the labor movement in this benighted country to recapture a larger portion of capital from its current heirs, and insure that it meets human needs in the decades ahead.

UPDATE:  The Ed Asner video, produced by the California teachers' union as I understand it, is timely.

ANOTHER:  More from Krugman.  The awakening continues!

Major Appointments for Birmingham

It wasn't long ago, with the departures of two professors--Helen Beebee (metaphysics) to Manchester and Alex Miller (philosophy of language, metaethics) to Otago--that the situation looked dicey for philosophy at Birmingham.  But things have really turned around since the appointment of Scott Sturgeon to a Professorial position from Oxford, apparently with a good deal of administrative support for building the program.

At the senior level, Birmingham is appointing six Distinguished Visiting Research Professors, and it is a distinguished line-up indeed:  Paul Boghossian (NYU), Hartry Field (NYU), Kit Fine (NYU), Stephen Neale (CUNY), Susanna Siegel (Harvard), and Ralph Wedgwood (Southern California).  Each initial appointment is for three years, with the expectation of renewal.  Each visitor will supervise postgraduate research for at least four weeks each year in Birmingham, and will also present their own work in seminars and be the focus of colloquia and workshops led by postgraduates. 

In addition, the Department of Philosophy has been able to appoint three faculty to "Birmingham Fellowships"--the first five years of the appointment for research (in residence at Birmingham, of course), followed by a permanent teaching post on the faculty--and they have recruited a very impressive group of younger philosophers:  Justin Clarke-Doane (meta-ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of mathematics), Nicholas Jones (metaphysics), and Jeremy Williams (ethics, applied ethics, political philosophy).  (I will add as a point of personal privilege that Clarke-Doane, whom I wrote for but did not teach, strikes me as one of the handful of truly outstanding young philosophers on the job market in the last couple of years.)

Most remarkable of all, perhaps, is that Professor Sturgeon tells me that Birmingham will be filling "multiple" additional permanent open-rank, open-area positions in the current international job cycle.

It's nice to see that at a time when some departments are cutting back in philosophy, a leading research university is making a major investment in the field.

UPDATE:  Alison Jaggar (political philosophy, feminist philosophy) from the University of Colorado at Boulder has also been appointed a Distinguished Research Professor.

Sorabji's "Great Achievement"...

...recognized.

(Thanks to Dirk Baltzly for the pointer.)

So much for science-by-committee

A scathing indictment from a psychiatrist of DSM-V.

More triumphs of the free market

Harvard faculty are cheap, but the important people aren't!

Referee boycott of Mind

Jonathan Weisberg (Toronto) has started a petition protesting what he describes as unacceptable editorial practices.  I have heard similar anecdotes, though I have not personally refereed for Mind, certainly not during the tenure of the current EIC, Tom Baldwin (York).  I willl be happy to post a response from Professor Baldwin or others involved with Mind to the concerns raised by the petition.  I am also opening comments for signed comments from others (full name, valid e-mail address required; comments without these will not appear).

Philosophy rock 'n' roll...

...makes it to the New York Times.

(Thanks to Jerry Dworkin for the pointer.)

Plutocracy Watch: Michigan Edition

The attack on the basic rights of workers to organize to defend their interests continues.

Notre Dame's Gary Gutting...

...at 3AM.

Florida State's Al Mele is the featured philosopher...

...at the free will blog.

Many thanks to APA Executive Director Amy Ferrer...

...for guest-blogging last week.  If you missed her contributions, and the many productive comment threads that ensued, you can view them all here.

I'm in the process of scheduling some other guest bloggers for the New Year.  I can confirm already that we'll have one returning blogger, philosopher Rebecca Kukla from Georgetown, in March.  More details closer to the time.

Dowell, Sobel from Nebraska to Syracuse

Janice Dowell (philosophy of language and mind, metaphysics, meta-ethics), Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, and David Sobel (ethics, political philosophy), Chambers Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and the Moral Sciences, also at Nebraska, have accepted senior offers from the Department of Philosophy at Syracuse University, where they will start in fall 2013.  (Sobel will take up the Guttag Professorship in Ethics and Political Philosophy previously held by Michael Stocker, now emeritus at Syracuse.)  Syracuse now has an especially strong cohort of younger philosophers working in and around issues in ethics and meta-ethics.

Libertarianism meets some facts...

...and some good arguments too.

Judge Posner did not like Akhil Amar's book

The latest installment in our series of scathing book reviews:

THE CONSTITUTION of the United States has its passionate votaries—none more so than Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School—as does the Bible. But both sets of worshippers face the embarrassment of having to treat an old, and therefore dated, document as authoritative. Neither set’s members are willing to say that because it is old, and therefore dated, it is not authoritative. Some say it is old but not dated; they are the constitutional and Biblical literalists. But most of the worshippers admit, though not always out loud, that their holy book is dated and must therefore be updated (without altering the text) so as to preserve its authority. They use various techniques for updating....

Amar’s method of updating, which is also the one the Catholic Church applies to the Bible, is supplementation from equally authoritative sources. The Church believes that a Pope receives divine inspirations that enable him to proclaim dogmas that are infallible and thus have equal authority with the Bible. Jesus Christ’s mother does not play a prominent role in the New Testament, but she became a focus of Catholic veneration, and in 1854 the Pope proclaimed the dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception (that is, that she had been born without original sin). This and other extra-Biblical Catholic dogmas, such as the Nicene Creed, which proclaimed the consubstantiality of the Son and the Father, form a kind of parallel Bible, equal in authority to the written one, which reached its modern form in the third century C.E.

This is the line taken by Amar. Alongside the written Constitution is an unwritten constitution. They are consubstantial. The Constitution, like the teachings of the Catholic Church, is a composite of a founding document and a variety of supplementary practices and declarations (many of course in writing also). No matter how wild Amar’s constitutional views may seem, he claims that they are in this two-in-one constitution; that he did not put them there.

Actually, despite the book’s title, it is not two in one—it is twelve in one. There is not just one unwritten constitution, in Amar’s reckoning; there are eleven of them. There is an “implicit” constitution, a “lived” constitution, a “Warrented” constitution (the reference is to Earl Warren), a “doctrinal” constitution, a “symbolic” constitution, a “feminist” constitution, a “Georgian” constitution (the reference is to George Washington), an “institutional” constitution, a “partisan” constitution (the reference is to political parties, which are not mentioned in the written Constitution), a “conscientious” constitution (which, for example, permits judges and jurors to ignore valid law), and an “unfinished” constitution that Amar is busy finishing. All these unwritten constitutions, in Amar’s view, are authoritative. And miraculously, when correctly interpreted, they all cohere, both with each other and with the written Constitution. The sum of the twelve constitutions is the Constitution.

One is tempted to say that this is preposterous, and leave it at that.

Needless to say, Judge Posner does not leave it at that, and the criticisms seem to me mostly quite sound.

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow praises the study of philosophy and history

Good for her.

(Thanks to Mark Couch for the pointer.)

Advocating for philosophy and its public perception

All too often, philosophy is seen by the public, the government, and colleges and universities themselves as expendable—easy targets for funding cuts. This belief is misguided and sets us down a troubling path.

For one thing, philosophy and the humanities give schools a lot of bang for their buck. Most philosophy departments do not require the large research funds and expensive equipment that other fields may need, so their budgets can reasonably be significantly smaller than departments needing such resources. And yet with those smaller budgets, philosophy departments make a sizeable impact. Philosophy teaches students the hallmarks of a quality education: critical thinking, problem solving, writing, analysis, and argument construction, to name a few. Philosophy considers the biggest questions there are—and what is the academy for if not for asking big questions? And philosophy students routinely outperform students of nearly all other disciplines on standardized tests for postgraduate education such as the GRE and LSAT. Colleges and universities that see philosophy and the humanities as expendable are sorely mistaken.

Unfortunately, attacks on philosophy and the humanities are sometimes cover for attacks on tenure, when universities see it as more expeditious to eliminate an entire department rather than go through the required process for reducing their number of tenured professors. This too, is dangerous, as it is certainly not expeditious to deprive students of crucial fields of study in the name of purportedly saving a few bucks or taking advantage of an administrative loophole. (And we’ve already discussed the important role of tenure in supporting academic freedom and guaranteeing due process.)

When philosophy departments are threatened, the APA responds, as we did earlier this year when the University of Northern Iowa threatened deep and damaging cuts. Depending on the situation, we can offer public statements of support, connect with those at the department in question to provide resources and assistance, and reach out to those proposing such cuts to advocate for the continuation of these important programs. We will do whatever we know to do to protect philosophy and the humanities against such attacks.

And we also participate in national-level advocacy for philosophy and the humanities. The APA is a member of the National Humanities Alliance and each year sponsors the NHA’s Humanities Advocacy Day in March. NHA is currently planning its advocacy for the new Congress and newly re-elected Obama administration, and I invite you to join the APA in participating in those efforts—you should expect to hear from me with opportunities to make your voice heard on Capitol Hill.

But advocacy has to happen from the bottom up as well. Philosophers must fight for philosophy at the university level, not only for program funding but also to improve the perception of philosophy for students not intending to be philosophy professors. We all know the immense benefits philosophy offers its students—benefits that are applicable and advantageous no matter what career a student pursues. These benefits are sadly lost on many students and their parents—and, unfortunately, sometimes school administrators—which leads to lower demand for philosophy courses. What about public awareness campaigns to demonstrate philosophy’s value? What about marketing philosophy courses more widely? What about educating administrators about the benefits of philosophy before programs are threatened?

What else can we—the APA and the philosophical community—do to advocate for philosophy?

As is standard practice on this blog, signed comments only:  full name preferred, valid e-mail address required.

---

As this is my final guest post, I want to take a moment to express my thanks to all those who have read my posts and shared feedback with me, both in comments and off the blog. I look forward to continuing these discussions throughout my time with the APA. And thanks, once again, to Brian Leiter for the opportunity to be a guest on his blog this week.

"Happy Birthday Noam Chomsky"

In The New Yorker.

BBC Program on Bertrand Russell

Here.

(Thanks to Dirk Felleman for the pointer.)

"Why Tolerate Religion?"

At the Carnegie Council in New York City and in The New Statesman, where British political theorist John Gray says the book is, "A model of clarity and rigour and at points strikingly original, this is a book that anyone who thinks seriously about religion, ethics and politics will benefit from reading."  The former event was an address to an educated audience in New York (lawyers, doctors, bankers, etc.), but not a group of academics.  Gray's generous review does make one error worth noting towards the end, namely, that he treats the characteristics of religion I identify individually, whereas the account is conjunctive (I quite agree with the points he makes about some of the characteristics considered in isolation).

Fighting for non-tenure track faculty

Earlier today I wrote about tenure, but many of the philosophers working today do not have tenure, and a good number of these philosophers may never get tenure. In this post, I’ll be talking about the situation for non-tenure track (NTT) faculty. Note that here I’m including not just visiting assistant professors and other similar short-term appointments but—importantly and perhaps primarily—adjunct faculty. There are arguments to be made about discussing these separately, but for the purposes of this conversation, I’m going to set those aside.

There is, unfortunately, a real lack of tenure track jobs for philosophers right now. In light of that fact and the changing face of the academic workforce, what can we do to support NTT faculty in philosophy and throughout academia?

A survey of contingent faculty by the Coalition on the Academic Workforce (CAW), of which the APA is a member, found that

Of the nearly 1.8 million faculty members and instructors who made up the 2009 instructional workforce in degree-granting two- and four-year institutions of higher education in the United States, more than 1.3 million (75.5%) were employed in contingent positions off the tenure track, either as part-time or adjunct faculty members, full-time non-tenure-track faculty members, or graduate student teaching assistants.

And

The median pay per course, standardized to a three-credit course, was $2,700 in fall 2010 and ranged in the aggregate from a low of $2,235 at two-year colleges to a high of $3,400 at four-year doctoral or research universities. While compensation levels varied most consistently by type of institution, part-time faculty respondents report low compensation rates per course across all institutional categories.

Further, “Over 80% of respondents reported teaching part-time for more than three years, and over half for more than six years,” so non-tenure track positions are not, by and large, temporary employment. Whether NTT faculty think of their employment as temporary—or whether they realize upon taking NTT positions that the arrangement will end up being a long term one—is another question.

(Members of the coalition are now conducting a survey on online teaching working conditions. And the Academic Workforce Data Center has a survey on workforce conditions along with data on NTT faculty at individual institutions. I strongly encourage readers to participate in these data-gathering efforts.)

Some CAW member organizations have issued recommendations on standards for contingent faculty, and the APA teaching statement includes a bit on the non-tenure track faculty as well. The MLA, for example,

recommends minimum compensation for 2012–13 of $6,920 for a standard 3-credit-hour semester course or $4,610 for a standard 3-credit-hour quarter or trimester course. These recommendations are based on a full-time load of 3 courses per semester (6 per year) or 3 courses per quarter or trimester (9 per year); annual full-time equivalent thus falls in a range of $41,490 to $41,520.

These recommended compensation levels are virtually unheard of, which means that most tenure track faculty are being underpaid, sometimes below a living wage.

But perhaps even worse than the pay rate is the lack of job security for non-tenure track faculty. When faculty can’t plan more than a few months ahead because their employers can simply decline to renew their contracts each semester without notice, how can they be expected to put their energy into educating students rather than worrying about how they’ll pay their bills?

It’s also important, in light of all this data, for the philosophical community to consider whether, if the majority of college classes are going to be taught by people without tenure, we want those classes taught by struggling young professionals without resources or support, or whether it’s time to consider solutions for sustainable non-tenure track teaching careers.

The APA, as part of CAW, advocates for contingent faculty rights and improved working conditions, including longer term contracts, more professional support and resources, and better compensation. And our Committee on the Defense of Professional Rights of Philosophers can also provide assistance in individual cases where professional rights are at stake. But beyond this, we want to do more for our NTT members directly. What do you think needs to change to support NTT faculty, and what would you like to see the APA do in that regard?

And there’s yet another issue for those not on the tenure track: what are the opportunities outside academia? We know, anecdotally, that many with philosophy degrees—from baccalaureate to doctoral—end up in non-academic careers, whether by actively choosing an alternate path or as a result of the lack of opportunities within academia. There is little data on this demographic (we are exploring ways to get such data), but there is certainly more the APA can do to offer support—whether by providing resources to those exploring non-academic career options or providing those already working outside academia with avenues to maintain a connection to the philosophical community. The APA, and in particular our committee on non-academic careers, is eager to know what kinds of resources might be helpful to those philosophers considering leaving academia and those who have already left.

Please share your thoughts in the comments. As is standard practice on this blog, signed comments only: valid e-mail address required, full name preferred.

Supporting tenure

For those looking for academic employment, there are two main options: tenure track and non-tenure track. Check back for the latter in my second post of the day, when I’ll be writing about the issues facing non-tenure track faculty, especially adjuncts. But in this post, I’ll focus on issues related to tenure.

Tenure is a hallmark of the academic profession. It has long existed to provide safeguards for those entrusted to examine the hard issues and research questions that may not be popular or even popularly understood. It guarantees a right to due process before dismissal from employment. And our society would be much worse off without such protections.

But tenure has gotten a bad rap. According to much of public opinion, and unfortunately according to some in power in universities and our nation’s legislatures, tenured professors are paid too much to work too little, and can’t be removed from duty even if they’re doing a terrible job. Little attention is paid to the ways that tenure advances our society, and the public message instead focuses on the myths about the tenure system. As a result, lawmakers and university leaders have, at times, taken to undermining tenure, whether because they believe the myths about it or as a shortsighted financial “solution” in a bad economy.

The APA stands with other academic associations and disciplinary societies in supporting tenure and working to preserve this important practice. For philosophers who feel their tenure rights have been violated, our Committee on the Defense of Professional Rights of Philosophers can be an excellent resource and ally. The APA, like the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), censures institutions when “conditions for academic freedom and tenure are unsatisfactory at a college or university”; these institutions are also marked in Jobs for Philosophers so that applicants considering employment with such institutions can be aware of their censured status.

Unfortunately, I don’t anticipate that attacks on tenure will go away anytime soon, but so long as we are around to do so, the APA will continue to fight for the institution of tenure and for our tenured members’ rights.

How a hiring department should handle a call-back

Spiros has some good advice that will make life more pleasant for job candidates and make the visit more productive.

Making the job market experience more bearable

Searching for a job, especially in this economy, isn’t a picnic for anyone. But the academic job market is unique, and uniquely challenging. Academic jobs for philosophers, especially tenure-track positions, have become scarcer, yet the number of philosophy degree-earners has not similarly dropped. As a result, the jobs that are available—even those that might have been less desirable in years past—are more competitive. And this is to say nothing of the stresses that have always come with the philosophy job market (building a placement file, interviewing for positions, and so on).

The APA has long served an important role in the job market, and as times change and the job market evolves, we are committed to continuing to provide value and resources to our members and the profession.

We’ve already put in significant effort in building the new, more fully featured, online-only Jobs for Philosophers, and we will continue to take user feedback into account as we develop it further. We also this year partnered with Interfolio to offer complimentary free trials of their Dossier service for candidates and ByCommittee service for hiring committees to all APA members. We’re reexamining the APA’s placement service at divisional meetings, looking for ways to improve the experience for candidates. And as you know, in response to member feedback, the Eastern Division meeting will soon be held in early January rather than the last week of December.

The APA task force on membership and member services last year made a number of recommendations related to the job market, including studying the relative merits of in-person and electronic (i.e., Skype) interviews and clarifying the role of the meeting receptions to the effect that these receptions are not to be used for supplementary or additional interviewing. Michael Bratman, chair of the board of officers, has been tasked with assigning these recommendations to APA committees for review and implementation as part of our efforts to improve the job market experience for all involved.

We at the APA are thinking carefully right now about how to sustain our important relationship to the job market—that is, how we can continue to provide safeguards for candidates, such as our non-discrimination policy and prohibitions against inappropriate interviewing practices, and a comprehensive clearinghouse for jobs that makes the application process easier—in light of the ways the job market is evolving. We strongly believe that the APA can and should continue to serve this important role; we believe we have a duty to the profession to do so.

The job market in philosophy is complex and changing rapidly. And while we don’t have all the answers, we’re working hard to make a difficult process at least a little bit easier for all involved.

11 Dogmas of "Analytic" (i.e., armchair) Philosophy

According to naturalist Paul Thagard (Waterloo).

John Haldane (St. Andrews) interviewed...

...at 3AM.

More on the compensation of University Presidents

Noticing last week's item on the eye-popping compensation of disgraced Penn State President Spanier, reader Blake Taylor calls my attention to the Harper's Index which reports this gem:

• Percentage increase since 2000 in the compensation of full professors at the fifty wealthiest
       private U.S. universities : 14
• In the compensation of the presidents of those universities : 75

What can we do about diversity?

To begin by stating the obvious: philosophy is one of the least diverse humanities fields, and indeed one of the least diverse fields in all of academia, in terms of gender, race, and ethnicity. Philosophy has a reputation for not only a lack of diversity but also an often hostile climate for women and minorities. There have been, in recent years, a number of efforts to bring awareness to and address this lack of diversity, including the well-known blogs Feminist Philosophers, What is it like to be a woman in philosophy?, and What We’re Doing About What It’s Like. These efforts have drawn attention to important issues that have often gone unacknowledged, but they alone cannot suffice to transform the discipline of philosophy into the diverse and inclusive field it should be. And of course, these efforts focus on gender, and while efforts to improve the climate for women in philosophy may help the situation for other underrepresented populations, there must be more focus on how to improve the climate specifically for people of color, LGBT people, people with disabilities, and other minority groups.

Increased diversity is needed throughout all levels of philosophy: undergraduates, graduate students, faculty, and professional leaders. Increased diversity is needed in publication in philosophy: a recent piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education indicated that philosophy is one of the five fields with the largest gender gaps in publishing, and though publication of women in philosophy is rising, these numbers are increasing at a slower rate than other fields, so philosophy is still losing ground. And more inclusive representation at philosophy conferences is also needed (see the Gendered Conference Campaign).

Now is the time for philosophy to put in the hard work necessary to improve the climate for underrepresented populations and increase the number of women and minority philosophers. There is no one right answer as to how to do so, but there are at least a few key strategies we at the APA see as promising.

Mentoring programs can help people of color, women, and other minorities who are already in philosophy to feel comfortable and supported, to respond to incidents of discrimination and fight bias (including internalized prejudices), and to overcome the often challenging climate with which they are faced. A pilot program for mentoring junior female faculty in philosophy—one that the APA has been proud to support this year and last—is, I hope, just one of many such efforts to come aimed at supporting philosophers from underrepresented communities.

It is also essential that students in philosophy courses see themselves in the discipline—in the instructors and in the authors of the materials taught. Building more inclusive curricula and increasing diversity among teachers of philosophy can go a long way toward helping young minority students continue their study in philosophy.

Improving the climate for women and LGBT people in philosophy also means addressing the very serious problem of sexual harassment. The APA board of officers has recently charged an ad hoc committee on sexual harassment to focus specifically on this issue, and we strongly encourage individual departments to investigate and address sexual harassment as it affects them. One excellent resource for departments will be the APA Committee on the Status of Women’s forthcoming site visit program (loosely modeled on a similar program by the American Physical Society's Committee on the Status of Women in Physics), which will be piloted in 2013.

And perhaps the most powerful tool we have to increase diversity in philosophy is data collection: there are many good ideas about how to make philosophy a more welcoming place for minorities and women, but we have no way of knowing whether our efforts are effective if we cannot measure their impact. And there are minorities about which we have little or no data: the prevalence of LGBT philosophers and disabled philosophers, for example, has rarely been tracked, so it’s very difficult to know how philosophy compares to other fields on inclusiveness in these areas. The APA has already begun collecting data on our members and on philosophy programs (see the just-relaunched Guide to Graduate Programs in Philosophy) and additional data collection efforts are in the works as well.

We have a long road ahead of us as we work to increase philosophy’s diversity, and we need the full cooperation of philosophy programs and our members to make these efforts as comprehensive as possible, so I hope that you will join with us in these efforts and contribute to their success.

Better technology, more communication

Communications and technology are paramount for any modern organization, and the APA can do much better in these areas than we have in the past. And I promise you, it’s my mission—and the mission of the APA board of officers, the association’s main policy-making body—to do better.

First, the big news. As we announced just before the Thanksgiving holiday, the APA is seeking a new logo and branding, in conjunction with a new website. We’ll be developing that new website as part of our transition to an association management system that will offer much of what so many people have been demanding: online membership application and renewal, online meeting registration, and more resources and functions for users. The new website should launch in the spring.

We’re also preparing to join the 21^st century with a Facebook page and Twitter profile so that you can communicate with us more directly. And if you’re a member, you may have already noticed that you’re receiving emails from us just a little more often—we won’t flood your inbox, but we want to make sure you’re getting the information you need and want from us in a timely manner.

We’ve got more ideas for the longer term—an APA blog, more interactive online communities, and mobile applications, for example—but we’re taking care of the basics first.

We’re also working on new approaches to our publications, including moving more of them online. We know that many of you aren’t satisfied with the current delivery method for the Proceedings & Addresses (that is, by snail mail), and we’re working on plans to provide that content to you in new and more useful ways. We aim to highlight the content in our newsletters more prominently, and we’re reviving defunct and out-of-date publications (the Guide to Graduate Study in Philosophy, for example) and contemplating new ones (such as email bulletins).

The board of officers is now considering proposals from publishers for an APA journal, and we are in the process of setting up a committee to develop the journal’s editorial structure and nominate its inaugural editor(s). The journal will aim to address a number of issues for the profession, not the least of which will be to increase conversation across the dividing lines and sub-disciplines of philosophy, providing an opportunity for better communication not only between the APA and the philosophical community but also within the profession itself.

These modes of communication are largely new to the APA. Our goal is simply to provide the best services that we can to our members and the philosophical community. I hope you’ll continue to communicate with us as these efforts move forward. You’ve shown a lot of patience with the APA (though I know many of you lost that patience long ago), and I can’t fully express how much we appreciate your continued interest in and support of the APA’s work. We take very seriously these efforts to prove ourselves to you all over again.

We welcome your feedback—we want to know what kinds of communications and technology you want to see from the APA.

As is standard practice on this blog, signed comments only:  full name and valid e-mail address required.

Press ethics in Britain

Philosopher Rae Langton (MIT) calls my attention to the Leveson Inquiry into press ethics in the U.K., coming on the heels of various scandals involving the tabloids and their intrusive and sometimes illegal techniques for acquiring "information." Interestingly, as Professor Langton pointed out to me, several philosophers and political theorists gave evidence during the Inquiry, including Jeremy Waldron, Onora O'Neill, John Tasioulas, Jennifer Hornsby, Susan Mendus, Rowan Cruft, Neil Manson, John Thompson, as well as Professor Langton.   Professor Hornsby comments on some of the issues raised by the Inquiry here.

By way of introduction

As the new executive director of the American Philosophical Association, I am acutely aware that there are many pressing issues facing both the discipline of philosophy and the APA itself. I am committed to ensuring that the APA is a leader in addressing the problems facing philosophy and philosophers, and I am guest blogging at Leiter Reports this week in an effort to open more lines of communication between the APA and the philosophical community. This blog has been the venue for many discussions about issues in the profession, but the APA has not participated enough in those discussions; I aim to change that. Many thanks to Brian Leiter for offering me this opportunity and sharing this space with me this week.

To start, I would like to introduce myself.

As you likely know, I joined the APA as executive director this past August. Unlike my predecessors, I come to this position not as a philosopher by training, but as a nonprofit administrator.

Immediately before joining the APA, I was the associate director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, a national organization advocating for civil liberties in the context of post-9/11 national security policies. My work there and at other past organizations included communications, technology, diversity, and development.

I also have a bachelor’s degree in women’s studies and a master’s degree in public policy and administration, both from the University of Massachusetts Amherst. While at UMass, I served on a faculty search committee and a department diversity committee, and got experience in both research and teaching.

You may have noticed, at this point, that I haven’t yet mentioned philosophy. That’s because, prior to joining the APA, my connection to philosophy was not professional but personal: my husband is a philosopher. I met him during the ABD phase of his pursuit of his Ph.D., which he earned early this year. Together, we watched as the economy collapsed, just as he was preparing to go on the job market for the first time. We reviewed many issues of Jobs for Philosophers together, frustrated at both the lack of opportunities for him and the technology’s limitations. I attended the Eastern Division meeting, offering what moral support I could to both him and our friends in similar circumstances. And I supported him as he searched for adjunct positions, trying to maintain his connection to the profession—and his financial security—as the job market failed to recover.

When the APA began its search for a new executive director last year, it was my husband who noted that the board was looking primarily for an administrator—someone who was familiar with the profession of philosophy but who had the experience to run a national organization—and suggested that I might be the right person for the job. And now, here I am.

All of this is simply to say that while I am not a philosopher by trade, I am keenly aware of and prepared to take on the issues facing the profession: the lack of diversity, the struggling job market, the attacks on tenure and tenuous situation for those without it, the need for improved technology and communication, pluralism in the discipline… the list goes on. I look forward to having a conversation this week—one that will continue throughout my time at the APA—looking closely at what the APA and philosophy as a profession can and must do to make things better. And I look forward to having more conversations in other venues as the APA works to broaden and improve the ways we communicate.

[Please note: My appearance on this blog does not constitute an endorsement by the APA of the blog or its content.]

Log-rolling in our time: the Nagel/Plantinga saga

Mohan Matthen (Toronto) comments on the peculiar spectacle of Thomas Nagel and Alvin Plantinga trading laudatory reviews of their recent anti-naturalist books in different high-profile publications, especially when at least one of the books (Nagel's) is obviously not very good (I have not read Plantinga's, though I'm not optimistic given what I've read about it).  (Commenting on Professor Matthen's post, the distinguished Oxford philosopher of physics David Wallace offers the amusing quip:  "I was initially shocked to find that two such distinguished philosophers were so remarkably ignorant of basic science. It totally violated my common sense.  Then I realised that in that case, it couldn't be true. So that's okay.")

Plantinga's review begins on a remarkably disingenous note; he informs his readers that:

NAGEL IS NOT AFRAID to take unpopular positions, and he does not seem to mind the obloquy that goes with that territory....Nagel has endorsed the negative conclusions of the much-maligned Intelligent Design movement, and he has defended it from the charge that it is inherently unscientific. In 2009 he even went so far as to recommend Stephen Meyer’s book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, a flagship declaration of Intelligent Design, as a book of the year. For that piece of blasphemy Nagel paid the predictable price; he was said to be arrogant, dangerous to children, a disgrace, hypocritical, ignorant, mind-polluting, reprehensible, stupid, unscientific, and in general a less than wholly upstanding citizen of the republic of letters.

I suppose it testifies to the influence of this blog that most of Plantinga's sarcastic aside clearly references criticisms levelled at Nagel on this blog (and other authors to whom I linked).  But Plantinga's silliness aside, let's be clear why Nagel earned the criticism:

1.  There is no scientific controversy about Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.

2.  There is no evidence for Intelligent Design or any other religiously motivated alternative.

3.  As good fallibilists, we can acknowledge that, despite (1) and (2), Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection might turn out to be false.  But fabrications, confusions, and bone-headed philosophcial speculations give us no reason to be skeptical.

4.  Given 1-3, it's an outrage to try to encourage high schools to teach children anything other than Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection as part of the standard biology curriculum.  The raison-d'etre of the Discovery [sic] Institute and its paid shills like Stephen Meyer are to perpetrate this outrage.

No one doubts that Nagel and Plantinga are capable philosophers, who have done high quality professional work during their careers.   Plantinga at least has the excuse of his religion to explain his more doubtful philosophical forays.  But neither can be excused for trying to legitimate the hucksters at the Discovery [sic] Institute and the Intelligent Design scam.  This really isn't a hard issue, and one can predict with certainty that both Nagel's and Plantinga's trafficking with this nonsense will not redound to their credit over the long haul.

Advice for job-seekers in North America looking at positions overseas?

MOVING TO FRONT FROM NOV. 27 IN THE HOPE THAT MORE READERS WILL CONTRIBUTE

Philosopher Corey Dyck at the University of Western Ontario writes:

In light of this recent article in the Washington Post (the spouse of the author is a philosopher in Hong Kong) I wonder whether you might open a thread seeking advice from philosophers employed overseas for job-seekers who might be considering such a position in the months to come? I would be particularly interested in hearing feedback--what should candidates take into consideration before accepting those positions? what institutional differences might they expect?--regarding positions in the relatively fast-growing Middle Eastern (Egypt, UAE, Lebanon) and Asian (Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong) markets.

Thoughts/advice from readers?