Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

Prof or hobo?

Take the quiz.

NY Times on the Critical Reception of Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos"

The Times has a nice write-up, with lots of links.  Berkeley's Alva Noe has the distinction (of sorts) of being the only philosopher in the mix to sort of come to Nagel's defense.  He is also quoted as saying, oddly, that Nagel "is questioning a certain kind of orthodoxy, and they [all the other philosophers and scientists] are responding in the way the orthodox respond," which hardly describes the actual and detailed critical arguments against Nagel that have been put forward.  It would have been just as apt to say that Nagel "is questioning knowledge on the basis of falsehoods and confusions, and the knowledgeable are responding the way the knowledgeable respond," i.e., with evidence and counter-arguments.  But that's less clever-sounding, of course!

UPDATE:  And here's a good example of the mischief the intelligent design creationists will make with the book:  it is invoked here as evidence that there is a serious "scientific critique" of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection!  But as we have noted long ago, this is the standard strategy of the ID proponents.

AND YET ANOTHER critical assessment.

Shocking attack on academic freedom at McMaster by Edwin Mellen Press?

In the earlier thread discussing the survey about philosophy publishers, Leslie Green (Oxford) posted the following startling comment, which deserves separate notice, so I'm reposting it here (with the links restored, they didn't come through in the comment apparently):

The Edwin Mellen Press may well, as this survey suggests, have the worst quality philosophy list but it tops the league in disgraceful conduct in defense of its dismal reputation. 

A professional librarian at McMaster University’s library complained, in a 2010 blog-post, that Mellen was a poor publisher with a weak list of low-quality books, scarcely edited, cheaply produced, but at exorbitant prices.  Librarians are expert at making such judgments; that’s what universities pay them to do.  And the post made a key point about the public interest: ‘in a time when libraries cannot purchase so much of the first-class scholarship, there is simply no reason to support such ventures.’ 

No one likes bad reviews; but Mellen’s approach is not to disprove the assessment, pledge to improve its quality, or reconsider its business-model.  It is to slam McMaster University and its librarian with a three million dollar lawsuit in the Ontario Superior Court, alleging libel and claiming massive aggravated and exemplary damages.  The matter is pending.

The lawsuit is threadbare.  With respect to the parts of Mellen’s list with which I am familiar, the librarian’s statements noted above are all true and the quality judgments are correct. (And this survey suggests that would be a common assessment.) Moreover, on the facts in this situation, it is obviously fair comment, and public policy considerations strongly suggest that university librarians enjoy a qualified privilege with respect to their assessments of the quality of the books they consider buying for their universities.  It would be a disaster for universities, students, researchers and the taxpayer if aggrieved publishers were permitted to silence discussions of the quality of their publications by threats of lawsuit.

McMaster University’s response to this appalling tactic has been surprising.  Public silence.  No one at McMaster has spoken in defense of the librarian or the University; no University administrator has pushed back against the crude threat to academic freedom that this represents. (But then the President of McMaster’s list of  the seven ‘McMaster Principles’ omits mention of academic freedom.)  Are the McMaster faculty, administration, and faculty associations already so cowed by libel-chill that they are afraid to speak up?  Or are they unaware of Mellen’s attack? Or—and this is just as worrying—is it that McMaster values its professional librarians so little that it is willing to let them bear the brunt of such harassment, so long as the University itself can avoid vicarious liability?

Let’s hope someone at McMaster forcefully says ‘enough’ to this sort of bullying.  Universities have a negative duty not to abridge the academic freedom of their members; they also have a positive duty to see to it that others do not do it either.  

I do hope some of the reporters who cover higher education who read this blog will investigate.  The conduct by Mellen Press described here is just appalling and the apparent silence, so far, of McMaster University troubling.

UPDATE:  Useful links here (scroll down) to earlier cases where Edwin Mellen Press sued or threatened to sue critics.  In the case of Lingua Franca (now defunct, for unrelated reasons), the Press lost its libel action.

ANOTHER:  More information here, including the "notice of action."

New York Mayor Bloomberg also backs Brooklyn College

Some details here.  Will the other miscreants from Dershowitz to City Councilman Fidler now recant?  They've been whacked by both the Mayor and the New York Times, as well as the rest of the civilized world.

UPDATE:  More on Mayor Bloomberg's remarks here, which are apt and funny.

ANOTHER:  An interesting piece on Professor Dershowitz's hypocrisy on these issues.

Fascists on the march in Greece

This video is pretty scary.

"Letters of Note"

This is quite an entertaining site.  Check out Norman Mailer's letter to New York Review of Each Other's Books editor Robert Silvers, or Einstein on religion, or Mark Twain's letter to "an idiot of the 33rd degree."

Templeton Awards $3.5 Million to Study "Varieties of Understanding"...

...in a project being directed by epistemologist Stephen Grimm at Fordham University.

Best philosophy publishers in English

So with almost 550 votes cast, and voting have slowed dramatically, here are the results of our latest poll.

First, there are the "big seven" who dominate all others on the list:

1. Oxford University Press  (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)

2. Cambridge University Press  loses to Oxford University Press by 384–81

3. Harvard University Press  loses to Oxford University Press by 428–39, loses to Cambridge University Press by 388–78

4. Routledge (Taylor & Francis)  loses to Oxford University Press by 455–30, loses to Harvard University Press by 243–211

5. Princeton University Press  loses to Oxford University Press by 445–29, loses to Routledge (Taylor & Francis) by 229–217

6. MIT Press  loses to Oxford University Press by 452–26, loses to Princeton University Press by 223–197

7. Wiley-Blackwell  loses to Oxford University Press by 461–19, loses to MIT Press by 221–199

After these seven, there's a big gap before University of Chicago Press and the rest of the "top 20"

8. University of Chicago Press  loses to Oxford University Press by 455–25, loses to Wiley-Blackwell by 303–121

9. Hackett Publishing  loses to Oxford University Press by 447–17, loses to University of Chicago Press by 196–159

10. Yale University Press  loses to Oxford University Press by 454–11, loses to Hackett Publishing by 180–143

11. Cornell University Press  loses to Oxford University Press by 450–15, loses to Yale University Press by 153–147

12. Columbia University Press  loses to Oxford University Press by 446–14, loses to Cornell University Press by 151–140

13. Palgrave Macmillan  loses to Oxford University Press by 455–12, loses to Columbia University Press by 167–154

14. Springer  loses to Oxford University Press by 453–11, loses to Palgrave Macmillan by 168–141

15. Continuum  loses to Oxford University Press by 449–17, loses to Springer by 171–151

16. Rowman & Littlefield  loses to Oxford University Press by 445–8, loses to Continuum by 159–128

17. Polity Press  loses to Oxford University Press by 427–10, loses to Rowman & Littlefield by 139–110

18. Ashgate  loses to Oxford University Press by 435–5, loses to Polity Press by 118–110

19. Edinburgh University Press  loses to Oxford University Press by 431–9, loses to Ashgate by 113–109

20. McGill-Queen's University Press  loses to Oxford University Press by 422–5, loses to Edinburgh University Press by 115–77

Top twenty is an artifical cut-off, since Broadview Press lost to McGill-Queen's by only 100 to 97, and Indiana University Press lost to Broadview by only 106 to 101.  And as readers pointed out, some presses inadvertently omitted, like Brill and Open Court, might well have been in the top 20 as well.  (By the way, Continuum has now been acquired by Bloomsbury, but I imagine most readers would not have known that.)

Finally, at the very bottom of the list of 34 were Peter Lang, which lost to Oxford 412-3 (and lost to Rodopi by 63-52), and then Edwin Mellen Press, which lost to Oxford 407-1, and to Peter Lang by 73-39.  I don't know much about either, but both do publish a significant number of philosophy titles.

Thoughts from readers?  Signed comments strongly preferred.

More change we can believe in...

...a forthright defense of the right of the President of the United States to execute citizens without due process of law.

Queens U's C.G. Prado...

...3AM.

It's Derk Pereboom month at...

...the Flickers of Freedom blog.

Is this the best job talk advice ever?

Spiros thinks so.

A turning point: the NY Times comes out for academic freedom and repudiates Dershowitz and those who police discourse on Israel

It's a new day.  But it's about time!  The key quote:

The sad truth is that there is more honest discussion about American-Israeli policy in Israel than in this country. Too often in the United States, supporting Israel has come to mean meeting narrow ideological litmus tests. J Street, a liberal pro-Israel group that was formed as a counterpoint to conservative groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has argued for vibrant debate and said “criticism of Israeli policy does not threaten the health of the state of Israel.” In fact, it is essential.

Student involvement in faculty hiring?

MOVING TO FRONT FROM THIS MORNING TO ENCOURAGE MORE COMMENTS

A graduate student in philosophy writes:

It seems like there are vast differences in the ways and amounts that students, especially graduate students, are involved in the process of hiring. I thought it might be something interesting to discuss on your blog.

I am a PhD student, and my department is in the midst of hires this year. Last year, we also hired more than one person. It was not the policy of the department to allow graduate students to attend the job talks, but when the graduate students asked, the department changed its policy and allowed us to attend. 

The undergraduate institution that I attended not only allowed graduate and undergraduate students to attend, but there were representatives for undergraduates and graduate students on the hiring committees, from writing the job call to selecting the on campus candidates. They even got to vote on the final decisions.

As I see it, some involvement is good, allowing graduate students to see the process of hiring first hand before they go on the market. On the other hand, involving graduate students to be central in decisions could be problematic for several reasons. They are not long term members of the department; they might see more of the underbelly of the department in the hiring process; and they might hear discussions highlighting the faults of a candidate that will, the next year, be their professor. 

I raise this issue as I have heard of different graduate students lobbying for more involvement in the process (up to voting), but I have my reservations about the practical implications of such a move. It would be interesting to hear what you and your readers have to say on the topic.

Thoughts from readers?  What are practices at your departments?  I have to say I had never heard before of a department that excluded graduate students from a job talk, but I'm curious to hear whether other places have such an approach and the reasons for it.
 

The petition in support of academic freedom at Brooklyn College...

...deserves your support.  There are already 300+ signatures, but there should be 3000.  Use the "comments" to add institutional/professional identification.

Excellent letter in support of academic freedom from recent Brooklyn College alumna and Rhodes Scholar

A propos the attack on academic freedom at Brooklyn College, longtime reader Ruchira Paul passes on this letter sent to President Gould from Zujaja Tauqeer '11, and Ms. Tauqeer kindly gave her permission for me to post it on the blog.  By way of background, Ms. Paul notes that, "Zujaja Tauqeer belongs to the Ahmadiyya Muslim community and came to the US from Pakistan with her parents. The state of Pakistan sanctions legal and social persecution of Ahmadis."

Here is Ms. Tauqeer's letter: 

Dear President Gould,

I hope this letter finds you well. As a Brooklyn College alumnus, a Rhodes Scholar, and the commencement speaker and class representative for the 2011 graduating class, I urge you to continue upholding the principles of academic freedom and to allow the Political Science Department to co-sponsor, as originally planned, the panel discussion on the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement that has been scheduled to take place at BC.

As you and Provost Tramontano are aware, I know all too well how fragile freedom of speech can be. As a beneficiary of political asylum by the US, I am horrified to see the kinds of perverse tactics used to marginalize minority communities and viewpoints in less developed countries being introduced in an American public educational institution for the express purpose of stifling the freedom of speech, and therefore the freedom of conscience, of students and faculty. Elected officials and trustees who hold the public trust are now trying to force you to join them in betraying that very trust. They are seeking to deprive the Political Science Department of its right—and responsibility—to sponsor discussions that may conflict with the convictions of those in a position of power.

As a Rhodes Scholar selected from Brooklyn College, I have tried my utmost to represent my alma mater as a progressive institution whose commitment to freedom and toleration vindicate the sacrifices students and alumni like myself have made to pursue a liberal arts education here. Though in the past BC has stumbled in its effort to preserve civil liberties on campus, I am confident that as president you will capably show that academic freedom, so crucial to critical scholarship and democratic citizenship, is non-negotiable.

I recall at this time the motto of our school—nil sine magno labore. We cannot ensure for future students and faculty the freedoms promised to them as citizens of this country if we as an institution back down from the effort needed to uphold those very freedoms now when they are threatened by vested interests. If I can support you in any way in helping to make this case to my fellow alumni, our elected officials, and our donors, please do not hesitate to call upon me.

Sincerely,

Zujaja Tauqeer ‘11

As Greenwald reports, city officials are now explicitly threatening to withhold funding to the College if the event goes forward.  As Greenwald also notes, this is rather obviously unconstitutional.

A useful bit of advice for job seekers regarding campus visits

A philosopher at a university presently hiring writes:

One of the best ways for candidates to display their interest in a department's program and especially their graduate program (if it has one) is to be sure to talk to the students themselves about their interests and research plans, and to find opportunities to pay attention to them during the visit. Many departments take student opinions about visiting candidates very seriously (especially graduate students), and may well solicit their input on hiring.  Most candidates know this, or have heard this, or indeed may have thought this themselves during a candidate visit to the program they are in. But it is worth being reminded of it, since it is easy to forget during the visit itself. One doesn't want unintentionally to create the wrong impression.

The attack on Brooklyn College by those who police discourse about Israel continues

Glenn Greenwald has a good column on it; here's what seems to me the key bit:

In sum, the ugly lynch mob now assembled against Brooklyn College and its academic event is all too familiar in the US when it comes to criticism of and activism against Israeli government policy. Indeed, in the US, there are few more efficient ways to have your reputation and career as a politician or academic destroyed than by saying something perceived as critical of Israel....

But this controversy has now significantly escalated in seriousness because numerous New York City elected officials have insinuated themselves into this debate by trying to dictate to the school's professors what type of events they are and are not permitted to hold. Led by Manhattan's fanatical pro-Israel "liberal" Congressman Jerrold Nadler and two leading New York mayoral candidates - Council speaker Christine Quinn and former city comptroller William Thompson - close to two dozen prominent City officials have signed onto a letter to college President Gould pronouncing themselves "concerned that  an academic department has decided to formally endorse an event that advocates strongly for one side of a highly-charged issue" and "calling for Brooklyn College's Political Science Department to withdraw their endorsement of this event." As a result, the "scandal" has now landed in The New York Times, and - for obvious reasons - the pressure on school administrators is immense.

Imagine being elected to public office and then deciding to use your time and influence to interfere in the decisions of academics about the types of campus events they want to sponsor. Does anyone have trouble seeing how inappropriate it is - how dangerous it is - to have politicians demanding that professors only sponsor events that are politically palatable to those officials? If you decide to pursue political power, you have no business trying to use your authority to pressure, cajole or manipulate college professors regarding what speakers they can invite to speak on campus.

These elected officials are cynically wrapping themselves in the banner of "academic freedom" as they wage war on that same concept. They thus argue in their letter: "by excluding alternative positions from an event they are sponsoring, the Political Science Department has actually stifled free speech by preventing honest, open debate." But if that term means anything, it means that academia is free of interference from the state when it comes to the ideas that are aired on campuses.

The danger posed by these politicians is manifest. Brooklyn College relies upon substantial grants and other forms of funding from the state. These politicians, by design, are making it mandatory for these college administrators to capitulate - to ensure that no campus events run afoul of the orthodoxies of state officials - because obtaining funding for Brooklyn College in the climate that has purposely been created is all but impossible....

That's the nature of politics in general: it requires subservience to empowered factions and majoritarian sentiment. That's what politicians do by their nature: they flatter and affirm convention. That's exactly the reason politicians have no legitimate role to play in influencing or dictating the content of academic events. It's because academia, at least in theory, has the exact opposite role: it is designed to challenge, question and subvert orthodoxies.

That value is utterly obliterated if school administrators live in fear of offending state officials. That is exactly what is happening here, by intent: making every college administrator petrified of alienating these same pro-Israel factions by making an example out of Brooklyn College. That's why anyone who values academic freedom and independence - regardless of one's views of the BDS movement - should be deeply offended and alarmed, as well as mobilized, by what is being done here.

The primary defense being offered by these would-be censors - we just want both sides of the issue to be included in this event - is patently disingenuous. In his lengthy email exchange with me yesterday - printed in full here - Dershowitz told me that his objections were not to the holding of the event itself, but to the sponsorship of it by the Political Science Department, especially given the lack of any BDS opponents. For those reasons, Dershowitz claims, "it is crystal clear that the political science department's co-sponsorship and endorsement of these extremist speakers does constitute an endorsement of BDS."

But nobody proves the disingenuousness of this excuse more than Dershowitz himself. Like the BDS movement, Dershowitz is a highly controversial and polarizing figure who inspires intense animosity around the world. That's due to many reasons, including his defense of virtually every Israeli attack, his advocacy of "torture warrants" whereby courts secretly authorize state torture, his grotesque attempt to dilute what a "civilian" is and replace it with "the continuum of civilianality" in order to justify Israeli aggression, and his chronic smearing of Israel critics such as author Alice Walker as "bigots".

Despite how controversial he is, Dershowitz routinely appears on college campuses to speak without opposition. Indeed, as the Gawker writer who writes under the pen name Mobutu Sese Seko first documented, Dershowitz himself has spoken at Brooklyn College on several occasions without opposition. That includes - as the college's Political Science Professor Corey Robin noted - when he was chosen by the school's Political Science department to deliver the Konefsky lecture in which he spoke at length - and without opposition. He also delivered a 2008 speech at Brooklyn College, alone, in which he discussed a wide variety of controversial views, including torture. As Professor Robin noted, when Dershowitz agreed to speak at the school, "he didn't insist that we invite someone to rebut him or to represent the opposing view."

Nor did any of the New York City politicians objecting to this BDS event as "one-sided" object to Dershowitz's speech given without opposition. Why is that?

In fact, it is incredibly common for academic departments to sponsor controversial speakers without opposition. I speak frequently at colleges and universities, and always express opinions which many people find highly objectionable. As but one example, I spoke at the University of Missouri School of Law last September, in an event sponsored by the law school itself. As this news account from the school's newspaper notes, I spoke at length about the highly controversial ideas in my last book, and that speech was followed by a panel discussion of like-minded civil liberties and civil rights advocates.

The way that happens is exactly how it happened here: a student group decides it wants to invite speakers or host an event and then seeks organizing support from one of the school's departments. That does not remotely connote departmental agreement with all or any of the ideas to be aired; it simply reflects a willingness to help students organize events they think will be beneficial. As Professor Robin told me about the BDS event: "The student group explicitly asked us if we would like to 'endorse' or 'co-sponsor' the event; we explicitly opted for 'co-sponsor.'"  

I hope readers will take a moment to e-mail Brooklyn College President Gould (klgould@brooklyn.cuny.edu) urging her to continue to stand firm for academic freedom and the First Amendment.  In situations like this, academic leaders need to know that if they cave into craven politicians that will cost them standing in the academic world, and that by standing firm, as President Gould has done so far, she has earned respect and recognition for her integrity from the academic community.  I would also urge all departments at Brooklyn College to join as co-sponsors of this event, as a way to make clear that the integrity of the university is at stake.   (Ordinarily, I would not encourage a Philosophy Department to co-sponsor an event featuring Judith Butler, but...she does have a PhD in philosophy!  And, from what I've read, she's more articulate and interesting on this topic than on most topics she writes on.)

UPDATE:  Here, as a sample which anyone is free to borrow, amend etc, is what I wrote to President Gould:

Dear President Gould,

I know I speak for many in the academic community in congratulating you on your strong and principled stand in defense of academic freedom at Brooklyn College.  Yours is undoubtedly the morally and legally correct posture, and I hope you will feel free to call on me and others for support in light of the campaign of political intimidation now being waged against you and your institution.  You should feel free to share this correspondence, as you deem appropriate, with others.

My father, now 80, graduated from Brooklyn College more than a half-century ago, where he studied philosophy.  He is as appalled by this disgraceful campaign against the College as I am.

Please remain firm in your commitment to principles central to the integrity of the academy.

Sincerely yours,

Brian Leiter

Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence

Director, Center for Law, Philosophy & Human Values

University of Chicago

1111 E. 60th Street

Chicago, IL 60637

ANOTHER:  My father Maurice, Class of 1954 from Brooklyn College, writes:  "Thank you for mentioning me.  You are correct in describing me as appalled by what is taking place.  Our
public forums are infested with ignoramuses whose malicious conduct would make any fascist proud."

How the Plutocracy Works: U.S.A. edition

An entertaining and apt presentation by Larry Lessig (Harvard).  (Actual presentation begins about 4 minutes in.)

Thompson from Toronto to British Columbia

Evan Thompson, a leading contributor to philosophy of mind and cognitive science at the University of Toronto, has accepted a senior offer from the Department of Philosophy at the University of British Columbia, effective July 1, 2013.  That's a quite major appointment for UBC, which will likely establish it as the top department in Canada in these areas (where Thompson will join Murat Aydede and Eric Margolis, among others), as well as one of the leading programs in North America in these fields.

UPDATE:  Professor Thompson writes that, in addition to philosophy of mind and cognitive science, "I am increasingly doing work in cross-cultural philosophy, with a focus on bringing Indian philosophy into active exchange with philosophy of mind and cognitive science. So I'll also be working to build bridges between Philosophy and Asian Studies at UBC. And I'm excited to be joining a department where there is a strong presence in history and philosophy of science, as well as early 20th century European philosophy, which dovetails with my work on the Phenomenological tradition."

Which are the best book publishers in philosophy in English?

We haven't run one of these in awhile (I won't link to earlier ones, so as not to prejudice the voting), so here's another poll.  I've expanded the list of publishers substantially--nearly three dozen in all.  I hope there aren't 'outrageous' omissions, but we'll focus on the top 20 in the final results.  Have fun!

Please try and rank order as many as possible, rather than just voting for your 2 or 3 favorites. 

ADDENDUM:  The University of California Press, which used to have a strong philosophy catalogue, stopped publishing in that area a number of years ago, which is why it is not on the list.

ANOTHER:  Brill should have been included, since they maintain an important catalogue in history of philosophy.  Open Court is another omission that is certainly competitive with many of those in the top 20ish range.

An on-line reading group of Hobbes' Leviathan...

...at The Atlantic. (Thanks to Dirk Felleman for the pointer.)

Why study philosophy?

A North Carolina resident responds to her ignorant Governor.

Neuroscience & Philosophy Videos

Here, featuring Susanna Schellenberg (Rutgers), Eric Schwitzgebel (UC Riverside), and others.

(Thanks to Carolyn Dicey Jennings for the pointer.)

On the value of a liberal arts degree

Philosopher Andy Cling calls my attention to this paper by his colleague Nicholaos Jones (Alabama/Huntsville), which makes lots of good points.