Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

New Books in February

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

Understanding Ethics, 3rd edition by Torbjorn Tannsjo (Edinburgh University Press, 2013).

A World Without Why by Raymond Geuss (Princeton University Press, 2014).

 

In addition to Title IX action, Northwestern student has filed a lawsuit against Peter Ludlow personally in state court

There is a brief account here, I have not yet seen a complaint in this matter.

UPDATE:  A bit more information here.

ANOTHER:  A link to the Illinois Gender Violence Act, which the prior story describes as (at least part of) the student's basis for a cause of action against Ludlow.

AND ANOTHER:  The Northwestern student newspaper has the most detailed report so far.

ANU's Daniel Stoljar interviewed...

...at 3AM.

O'Callaghan from Rice to Wash U/St. Louis

Casey O'Callaghan (philosophy of mind, metaphysics), Associate Professor of Philosophy at Rice University, has accepted a senior offer from the Department of Philosophy and the Program in Philosophy-Neuroscience-Psychology at Washington University, St. Louis.  This will further consolidate Wash U's status as one of the two or three best programs in philosophy of cognitive science in the Anglophone world.

Why study philosophy?

An interview with philosopher and novelist Rebecca Goldstein.

Chalmers & Clark interviewed at...

...New Philosopher.

(Thanks to Dirk Felleman for the pointer.)

Oxford philosopher accused of harassing behavior...

...and the philosophy graduate student who was its target ended up committing suicide after a number of difficult personal events, though it is hard to tell from this account (bear in mind it is The Daily Mail) what role, if any, the harassment played in the horribly tragic outcome.  In this case, the philosopher, Jeffrey Ketland, was, according to the news account, issued a police warning under the UK's Harassment Act.  If other news reports appear, please send them to me.  (Thanks to Luke on Twitter for the pointer.)

UPDATE:  Several readers have kindly sent this account from the Telegraph.

ANOTHER:  Useful Guardian item on "harassment warnings" under UK law.

AND STILL MORE:  Here, here and here.  (Thanks to Robert McGarvey for the links.)

AND MORE ON 'HARASSMENT WARNINGS':  A philosopher in the U.K. writes:  "I'm no friend of the British police and I can quite see the potential for them to tar someone's name without due process here. But anyone overseas who gets the impression that there's an epidemic of unjust applications of such warnings would be getting the wrong idea. In fact, in cases of which I have knowledge, it was very difficult to prod the police to do anything at all. That's also consistent with the general reluctance of law enforcement to help women in cases of domestic violence etc."

MARCH 2 UPDATE:  Paula Boddington, a philosopher at Oxford, writes:

As someone - one of the few - who attended the inquest into the death of Charlotte Coursier, I can tell you that the most accurate report of the evidence presented at the inquest is actually to be found in the Daily Mail although of course any report is only a part of all the evidence presented. It should be carefully noted that the newspaper reports are reports of what was presented as evidence at the inquest, and should not be read as attempts to provide a 'full picture' of circumstances around Charlotte's tragic death. The Daily Mail report is taken more or less straight from the evidence presented at the coroner's court. Readers often assume that the 'quality' papers must be giving the best reports, but this is not always true, because they are often shorter, and if readers look carefully, they'll see that some reports are signed by named reporters, and some are  merely agency reports.

These reports should also be read very carefully, noting that they are reports of the evidence presented at inquest, as indicated by the use of quotation marks, and of phrases such as 'the inquest heard'.

Readers should also bear in mind the purpose of an inquest under UK law, which is very limited. It is restricted to coming to a conclusion about the identity of the deceased, the date and place of death, and the cause of death. A coroner is specifically not allowed by law to make further conclusions and in particular, an inquest does not assign blame or legal liability. An inquest is not adversarial, so evidence presented is not tested in the same way as it would be in a criminal or civil case, although interested parties do have a right to question witnesses, which however did not as a matter of fact occur in this inquest.

Evidence is thus presented which the coroner considers relevant to reaching a verdict about the cause of death. In the case of Charlotte Coursier, this included medical evidence as well as evidence from various witnesses including persons known to her in a personal capacity and a police officer. This is all a matter of public record. Inquests are open to members of the public. Evidence from witnesses in an inquest will be taken under oath. In the case of a suicide, evidence will obviously include evidence about a person's state of  mind. In this case, it was obvious that Charlotte had had a number of difficult events to cope with. The police attending did not find a note.

I hope that might help to clarify this complex and tragic case.

Sexual harassment in philosophy, once again

An interesting post by philosopher Heidi Lockwood.

Walton to visit at Stanford in Spring Quarter for three years

Kendall Walton, a leading figure in philosophy of art who is currently emeritus at Michigan, will be the Bonsall Visiting Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Stanford University for the Spring quarters of 2015, 2016, and 2017.

"Thinking the unthinkable"

A discussion that includes philosophers Mark Rowlands (Miami) and Simon Saunders (Oxford), among others.

Transferring from a foreign to a North American PhD program as an advanced student

A student in a PhD program in Europe, who has completed a BA (three years) and MA (two years), and is now in the third year of a PhD program and in his/her mid-20s writes:

Being dissatisfied with my program, I am looking for ways to transfer my Ph.D. abroad or even to start a new one and I am planning to apply for some Ph.D. programs in the US as well.  I am aware that my choice is not going to be looked on favorably by everyone and, from what I heard, some American universities would consider me too "academically old", so to say (I am already in my third year of Ph.D.).

Therefore, I would like to know whether you and your blog readers think this issue is going to be considered as a real drawback in my application and whether there are any universities where this is not going to be a problem instead.

Thoughts from readers, including students who may have made a similar transition from a European PhD program to a US PhD program?

"The Truth is Terrible"--hopefully final version...

...or penultimate until copy-editing.  A few significant revisions to this version in light of excellent feedback received at UC Riverside a few weeks ago.

Colorado Site Visit Committee was given access to ordinarily confidential sexual harassment complaints

Some members of the Philosophy Department are not happy about it.

Oppression of the ugly?

Johnny Thakkar comments.

I succumb...

...I'm on Twitter, for the time being, and after much urging.  I'm not sure how much use I'll make of it.  Advice welcome.

"It's tragic and embarrassing"

It sure is.  Disgraceful is more like it.

Northwestern answers complaint in Title IX lawsuit

I have been sent a copy of Northwestern's answer to the Title IX lawsuit noted earlier.  (Filings in lawsuits like this are public documents.)  Note that the admissions in the lawsuit represent Northwestern's position, not Professor Ludlow's.  According to the answer:

1.  Northwestern admits that it "substantiated some, but not all, of [the plaintiff's allegations against Ludlow]; found that Ludlow had violated the University's policy against sexual harassment; and imposed several disciplinary sanctions and other corrective actions against Ludlow."  More on each of these, below.

2.  The allegations that Northwestern admits finding include that "Plaintiff e-mailed Ludlow information regarding an art event in Chicago, informed him that she was planning to attend, and suggested that he should attend as well"; that "Plaintiff and Ludlow drove in Ludlow's car to Chicago and attended one or more art exhibits"; that "Plaintiff and Ludlow went to a restaurant at which either Plaintiff or Ludlow ordered Plaintiff an alcoholic beverage"; that "either Plaintiff or Ludlow ordered Plaintiff alcoholic beverages during the course of the evening"; that "Ludlow and Plaintiff visited Ludlow's apartment during the course of the evening"; that "Ludlow engaged in unwelcome and inappropriate sexual advances towards Plaintiff by initiating rubbing her back and kissing her"; and that "Plaintiff woke up in Ludlow's bed at approximately 4:30 am with Ludlow's arms around her".  Northwestern "did not find that Ludlow groped Plaintiff's breast and buttocks."  Northwestern's answers omits any mention of a finding of sexual assault, just a violation of the sexual harassment policy.

3.  The investigation, conducted by Joan Slavin, Director of Sexual Harassment Prevention at Northwestern, involved review of "documents and other information" (e.g., e-mails, I infer) and interviewing "Plaintiff, Ludlow, and several other witnesses."

4.  Northwestern admits it "imposed...disciplinary sanctions and corrective action" against Ludlow including, for example, "precluding him from receiving a raise for the 2012-13 academic year"; "rescinding his appointment to an endowed professor position"; "requiring him to complete a multi-session, individualized sensitivity/harassment-prevention training program with an outside consultant"; "directing him not to have any contact, whether in person or by any other means [including social media], with Plaintiff";  and "officially warning him that any similar behavior in the future or failure to comply with specified disciplinary sanctions or other corrective actions would subject him to further sanctions, up to and including separation from the faculty."

5.  Northwestern "denies that any University committee ever determined that Ludlow should be terminated or that the University ever ignored such a decision or recommendation."  Northwestern also admits that "Ludlow appealed the multiple disciplinary sanctions" and "that a six-person faculty Committee on Cause unanimously approved the disciplinary sanctions...and that the Committee on Cause could have suggested additional sanctions against Ludlow but did not do so."

Northwestern's admissions do not bind Ludlow and may, in fact, be denied by Ludlow in whole or in part.  I will post any additional statement I receive from Ms. Case, Professor Ludlow's attorney, regarding Northwestern's answer.

Pickard from Oxford to Birmingham

Hanna Pickard (philosophy of mind, philosophy of pyschiatry), currently Wellcome Trust Biomedical Ethics Clinical Research Fellow at Oxford University, will take up a half-time Readership in Philosophy at the University of Birmingham, effective January 2015.  She will continue with the other half of the time her work as a clinical therapist.

Historian and philosopher of science Cecelia Watson interviewed...

...at 3AM.

Barnes, Cameron from Leeds to Virginia (UPDATE: and Walter Ott from Virginia Tech)

Elizabeth Barnes and Ross Cameron, both Associate Professors of Philosophy at the University of Leeds, and both leading young figures in metaphysics, have accepted tenured offers from the Department of Philosophy at the University of Virginia, where they will start this fall.  That's a big investment in metaphysics for UVA and, given its existing strengths, will likely push UVA into the U.S. "top ten" in metaphysics, among other areas. 

UPDATE:  UVA has also appointed, with tenure, Walter Ott (early modern philosophy), who is currently Associate Professor of Philosophy at Virginia Tech.  He will join several other faculty at UVA who work primarily or partly in early modern philosophy.

Roger Scruton, paid shill for the tobacco industry?

Bizarre.

UPDATE:  Faux Philosophy News to the rescue!

ANOTHER:  David Gordon points out to me that this is an old news story, not current. 

First there was the sensationalistic UK tabloid "The Daily Mail"...

...and now there is "The Philosopher's Mail."

(Thanks to Rob Tempio for the pointer.)

A new open access journal: "Science, Religion & Culture"

Here.  A timely topic, as readers of this blog will know, and an impressive editorial board (which is why I was honored to be asked to join). 

More philosopher videos: Stephan Hartmann

Once again, courtesy of the Humboldt Foundation.

A statement from U of Colorado female faculty in the Philosophy Department

Here; I would highlight one bit in particular:

We faculty women strongly believe that none of our currently untenured male colleagues or current male graduate students has engaged in sexual misconduct (nor, indeed, have most of our tenured colleagues).

UPDATE:  A related article from a Boulder newspaper.  I have heard multiple reports about what's going on in Boulder, and it is pretty clear that the offenders (and there were real offenders) were all tenured faculty:  at least two, at most four (two were clearly involved in sexual harassment).  I have to chat with my lawyer about naming them here, but putting that issue to one side, the female faculty are to be commended for stepping forward to exonerate, correctly, the untenured faculty and the graduate students from any suspicion in the wake of the publicizing of the report.

ADDENDUM:  I am not going to be posting any names at this time, partly due to liability issues, partly due to additional factual complications about who has done what. 

Nicholas Kristof on academics

This is funny.

Social epistemology case studies: the Kitty Genovese myth

Interesting.  Many readers will be too young to remember Abe "I'm writing as bad as I can" Rosenthal, a classic product of New York Times in-breeding, who rose to be editor and then brainless and barely literate columnist.  He combined the insight of David Brooks with the literary talent of Thomas Friedman!

In Memoriam: Israel Scheffler (1923-2014)

A longtime member of the Harvard faculty, Professor Scheffler passed away yesterday.  He was well-known for his contributions to the philosophy of science and the philosophy of education.  His Harvard page has some additional information.  I will link to memorial notices as they appear.

UPDATE:  A memorial notice from the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Last week's discussion of the Site Visit Committee report: a poll

Since last week's post highlighting some criticisms of the Site Visit Committee's report about Colorado, I have been struck by the divergent reactions, both in comments, in e-mail, on Facebook, and on some other blogs.  Some readers appeared to think the criticisms never should have been aired at all; others thought it was salutary to air the criticisms, and agreed with many of them, but were afraid to say so in public; still others thought it was useful to air the criticisms, and to permit effective rebuttals of them.

I am curious what the sentiment is among philosophers about all this, hence the poll.  I realize the three choices may not correspond to all possible positions, but since the poll is anonymous, try to fit your view into one of the three.  For example, if you thought some of the criticisms had merit, but others didn't, you should still choose the first option.  But if you thought most of the criticisms were without merit, then choose the second option.  And if you think these criticisms, overall, should not have been "dignified" with a forum and responses, choose the third option.

 

create online surveys

 

UPDATE:  So with about 1240 votes cast, 644 or 52% voted for the first option (the discussion was worth hosting, and the criticisms had some merit), 375 or 30% voted for the second option (the discussion was worth hosting, but the criticisms did not have any merit), while 225 or 18% chose the third option (the discussion should not have been hosted at all).  I am relieved that 82% of readers thought the discussion was worth having, since I had heard, somewhat disproportionately (though not surprisingly, I guess) from what turns out to be the censorious minority.  I do think it is worrisome, though, that so many, albeit a minority, would deem the criticisms not worth airing at all.  As to the substance of the criticisms, opinion appears to be evenly split, with the caveat that some (maybe most or all) who selected the first option might well agree that most of the criticisms were without merit.

Philosopher videos: Michael Forster

A charming piece on my colleague and friend Michael Forster, courtesy of the German Humboldt Foundation.  (For background, see here.)

Missing Platonic Dialogue found: "On Dirt"

Details here.

(Thanks to Phillip Horky for the pointer.)

Hopkins from Sheffield to NYU

Robert Hopkins (aesthetics, philosophy of mind, also Nietzsche), who had been vistiing at New York University from the University of Sheffield, has now officially accepted a permanent post there.  That will make NYU just one of a handful of top departments with a senior scholar working in aesthetics.

New preface to the forthcoming paperback edition of...

...Why Tolerate Religion? (Princeton University press, cloth edition 2013, paper edition forthcoming 2014).

Pigliucci on Plantinga's recent NY Times blog interview

Here.

If you thought nothing stupider could possibly be written about the gender problems in professional philosophy...

...you were wrong.  As far as I know, this is the only document in existence that concludes that Linda Alcoff's objections to the PGR (which are, indeed, utterly specious and self-serving!) shouldn't be taken seroiusly because I hate Republicans.

Baudelaire:  "anywhere out of this world."

Ludlow sues several news organizations for defamation for falsely reporting that he had been accused of rape

Scroll down to the UPDATE for corrections to Ms. Schuman's misrepresentations

I was sent the complaint but, unfortunately, can not upload it (this has been an ongoing typepad problem recently, anyone with advice, I would welcome it).  But the case is, or at least ought to be, a "slam dunk," since, as we noted previously, there was never any allegation of rape.  My guess is that all the defendants will settle quickly, as they should.

Somewhat relatedly, I was sent, earlier today, a Facebook posting by a graduate student saying roughly that "Rutgers has hired someone who sexually assaulted an undergraduate" and then encouraging people to e-mail named Rutgers officials to protest the hiring.

Anyone who posts on Facebook something like that is asking to be sued:  for libel (Ludlow was alleged to have engaged in conduct that may constitute sexual assault), for tortious interference with contract, and perhaps other torts.  Don't go there, folks.

The allegations are, as Ludlow's lawyer said, serious.  If they are true, Northwestern and perhaps Peter Ludlow face very serious consequences, and correctly so.  But if they are false, or only partially true, then serious wrongs may have been done to those who are the target of the allegations, which themselves will warrant legal remedies.

As every reader knows, Peter Ludlow was a guest-blogger here in the past.  He was invited to guest-blog because of his philosophical work and his other work in the public domain, especially related to cyberspace.  I've met Peter Ludlow on two or three occasions, and he participated in a conference here on "Moral Disagreements" a few years ago.  I have no insider information about this case.  When the story broke, I e-mailed Peter, expecting he would defer to his lawyer, which he did (and which was the correct thing to do).  His lawyer has supplied me with a statement, and Peter has supplied me with a copy of the complaint against the news organizations that have almost certainly defamed him.  Beyond that, I have no special knowledge, except enough knowledge of law and how litigation goes to recognize some of the imprudent or false things some others have been saying.

UPDATE FEBRUARY 24:  I have sent the following e-mail to Emily Bazelon, the editor responsible for the article by Rebecca Schuman:

Dear Ms. Bazelon:

Ms. Schuman identifies you at her blog as the editor supervising her article from today about sexual harassment allegations against philosopher Peter Ludlow.  That article includes the following paragraph:

[W]hy are influential voices in the philosophy community giving Ludlow a pass? University of Chicago professor Brian Leiter, for example, posted on his influential philosophy blog this statement from Ludlow’s attorney, with no corresponding statement from the student’s lawyer, and is cautioning his readers not to jump to conclusions. Sure, that’s always good advice, but what about the public findings of Slavin’s office?

Ms. Schuman here recklessly misrepresents my positions in this matter in the following respects:

1.  The plaintiff's attorney did not send me a statement, Ludlow’s attorney did.  (I did not even know who the plaintiff was at this time, since she had not been named in the news reports.)  If the plaintiff's attorney had sent me a statement, I would have posted it, but for obvious reasons, the plaintiff’s attorney probably concluded that reaching an audience of philosophers was not as important for her.  (Ms. Schuman never bothered to inquire with me about any of this.)  More importantly, and unnoted by Ms. Schuman, I had linked repeatedly and described in detail news articles reporting the plaintiff's account of Ludlow’s conduct:  the plaintiff’s allegations had been extensively covered on my blog at the point at which Ludlow’s attorney sent me her statement.  I also provided a detailed description of the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint and, when Northwestern’s answer finally appeared (after the posts Ms. Schuman links to, but before her article appeared), I provided a detailed account of Northwestern’s admissions.

2.  At the time I correctly cautioned readers “not to jump to conclusions” (in response to a false statement that Ludlow had “sexually assaulted” the student), the only account of the “public findings of Slavin’s office” were contained in the plaintiff’s complaint, which I had noted at the time.  (Slavin’s office did not confirm the sexual assault allegation, as you know.)  For the obvious reasons, allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint do not constitute “public findings.”  Once Northwestern’s Answer appeared, confirming Ms. Slavin’s findings, I noted that on the blog, but this happened subsequent to the post Ms. Schuman links to (but, again, prior to her article appearing).

3.  If Ms. Schuman had done any research at all, she would have not only discovered that the timeline of my postings does not support her insinuations, but also that my blog has been making an issue of sexual harassment problems in the profession for years now.  She might also have found out that I have been involved off-line in advising and helping victims of sexual harassment at other universities.  That sexual harassment is a serious problem in professional philosophy is consistent with responsible and thorough coverage of the allegations in the Title IX lawsuit against Northwestern, which I have provided, but Ms. Schuman has not.

It is manifestly false that I have given “Ludlow a pass,” and Ms. Schuman’s misrepresentations in support of that falsehood are particularly reckless and malicious given that her article did not appear until February 24, well after all the other relevant postings on this matter appeared, as noted above.

I hope you will see to it that her article is promptly edited to remove the falsehoods and misrepresentations about my views and conduct in this matter.

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

(Ph) 773-702-0953

(Fax) 773-702-0730

Homepage:  http://www.brianleiter.net/

Statement from Peter Ludlow's Attorney regarding the lawsuit against Northwestern

Scroll down to the UPDATE for corrections to Ms. Schuman's misrepresentations

Kristin Case, Prof. Ludlow's attorney, sent me the statement to which The Daily Northwestern article alludes.  I post it below in its entirety, but have replaced the plaintiff's name with "P" for plaintiff.

Mr. Ludlow denies P's allegations that he sexually harassed or assaulted her. Mr. Ludlow is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit or any lawsuit by P. That, alone, speaks volumes about this case. The authorities have never notified Mr. Ludlow of any criminal complaint nor has he ever been contacted by the police. He certainly has never been charged with any crime, now or ever. Moreover, to our knowledge, there has never been any recommendation by any Northwestern "committee" that Mr. Ludlow be terminated.

Mr. Ludlow did not assault P nor did he engage in any inappropriate conduct. We have corroborating evidence that P propositioned Mr. Ludlow. He refused her advances.

We are in possession of communications which show that P initiated friendly communications with Mr. Ludlow the day after and then again four and five days after the date on which she now alleges he assaulted her. Some of these communications were via social media. We also have text messages which show that P was very friendly with Mr. Ludlow on February 15, 2012--five days after the alleged assault--and that she, in fact, asked him to meet with her in person and then came to a conference he was attending, asking him to talk with her. At that time, Mr. Ludlow told her, as he had in the past, that he did not want to be romantically involved with her.

On April 24, 2012, P's previous attorneys sent a letter to Mr. Ludlow requesting a "settlement." Mr. Ludlow refused to enter into any type of settlement because he had done nothing wrong. We heard nothing more from P until we learned of the lawsuit she had filed against Northwestern.

We encourage the press and people reading the articles arising out of this complaint to remember that there are two sides to every story. We also encourage the press to engage in responsible reporting and not to inflame an already difficult situation. These allegations are very serious and will be dealt with in due course through the litigation process.

Ms. Case may be contacted at The Case Law Firm, LLC here in Chicago, 312-920-0400.

UPDATE FEBRUARY 24:  I have sent the following letter to Emily Bazelon, the Slate editor supervising Ms. Schuman's article.

Dear Ms. Bazelon:

Ms. Schuman identifies you at her blog as the editor supervising her article from today about sexual harassment allegations against philosopher Peter Ludlow.  That article includes the following paragraph:

[W]hy are influential voices in the philosophy community giving Ludlow a pass? University of Chicago professor Brian Leiter, for example, posted on his influential philosophy blog this statement from Ludlow’s attorney, with no corresponding statement from the student’s lawyer, and is cautioning his readers not to jump to conclusions. Sure, that’s always good advice, but what about the public findings of Slavin’s office?

Ms. Schuman here recklessly misrepresents my positions in this matter in the following respects:

1.  The plaintiff's attorney did not send me a statement, Ludlow’s attorney did.  (I did not even know who the plaintiff was at this time, since she had not been named in the news reports.)  If the plaintiff's attorney had sent me a statement, I would have posted it, but for obvious reasons, the plaintiff’s attorney probably concluded that reaching an audience of philosophers was not as important for her.  (Ms. Schuman never bothered to inquire with me about any of this.)  More importantly, and unnoted by Ms. Schuman, I had linked repeatedly and described in detail news articles reporting the plaintiff's account of Ludlow’s conduct:  the plaintiff’s allegations had been extensively covered on my blog at the point at which Ludlow’s attorney sent me her statement.  I also provided a detailed description of the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint and, when Northwestern’s answer finally appeared (after the posts Ms. Schuman links to, but before her article appeared), I provided a detailed account of Northwestern’s admissions.

2.  At the time I correctly cautioned readers “not to jump to conclusions” (in response to a false statement that Ludlow had “sexually assaulted” the student), the only account of the “public findings of Slavin’s office” were contained in the plaintiff’s complaint, which I had noted at the time.  (Slavin’s office did not confirm the sexual assault allegation, as you know.)  For the obvious reasons, allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint do not constitute “public findings.”  Once Northwestern’s Answer appeared, confirming Ms. Slavin’s findings, I noted that on the blog, but this happened subsequent to the post Ms. Schuman links to (but, again, prior to her article appearing).

3.  If Ms. Schuman had done any research at all, she would have not only discovered that the timeline of my postings does not support her insinuations, but also that my blog has been making an issue of sexual harassment problems in the profession for years now.  She might also have found out that I have been involved off-line in advising and helping victims of sexual harassment at other universities.  That sexual harassment is a serious problem in professional philosophy is consistent with responsible and thorough coverage of the allegations in the Title IX lawsuit against Northwestern, which I have provided, but Ms. Schuman has not.

It is manifestly false that I have given “Ludlow a pass,” and Ms. Schuman’s misrepresentations in support of that falsehood are particularly reckless and malicious given that her article did not appear until February 24, well after all the other relevant postings on this matter appeared, as noted above.

I hope you will see to it that her article is promptly edited to remove the falsehoods and misrepresentations about my views and conduct in this matter.

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

(Ph) 773-702-0953

(Fax) 773-702-0730

Homepage:  http://www.brianleiter.net/

 

A more detailed statement by Ludlow's attorney...

...as reported in The Daily Northwestern:

Ludlow released a statement through his attorney, Kristin Case, on Thursday afternoon disputing the student’s allegations. Ludlow denies he sexually harassed or assaulted the student, Case said in the statement.

“We have corroborating evidence that (the student) propositioned Mr. Ludlow,” Case said in the statement. “He refused her advances.”

Case said she and Ludlow are in possession of social media communications and text messages showing the student initiated “very friendly” contact with Ludlow the day after the reported assault and again in the week following it. The student asked to meet with Ludlow in person and came to a conference he was attending, Case said.

“At that time, Mr. Ludlow told her, as he had in the past, that he did not want to be romantically involved with her,” Case said in the statement.

The statement comes a day after the student’s attorney released his own statement including a copy of an email Joan Slavin, director of the Sexual Harassment Prevention Office, wrote to the student. In the email, Slavin says after an investigation, she concluded Ludlow made “unwelcome and inappropriate sexual advances” toward the student.

Case said Ludlow had never been contacted by police nor notified of any criminal complaint.

“Mr. Ludlow is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit or any lawsuit by (the student),” Case said in the statement. “That, alone, speaks volumes about this case.”

U Conn's Susan Schneider interviewed...

...at 3AM.

Florida State's Al Mele wins 2013 APA Sanders Book Prize...

...for a book in philosophy of mind, metaphysics, or epistemology.

Michigan's Ruetsche and Oxford's Wallace Win 2013 Lakatos Award in Philosophy of Science

A colleague at LSE asked me to share this announcement:

The London School of Economics and Political Science announces that the Lakatos Award for an outstanding contribution to the philosophy of science, has been won jointly by Laura Ruetsche of the University of Michigan for her book Interpreting Quantum Theories (Oxford University Press, 2011) and by David Wallace of Oxford University for his book The Emergent Multiverse (Oxford University Press, 2012). Each will win a prize of £7500.

The Lakatos Award is given for an outstanding contribution to the philosophy of science, widely interpreted, in the form of a book published in English during the previous five years. It was made possible by a generous endowment from the Latsis Foundation. The Award is in memory of the former LSE professor, Imre Lakatos, and is administered by an international Management Committee organised from the LSE, but entirely independent of LSE’s Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method.

The Committee, chaired by John Worrall, decides the outcome of the Award competition on the advice of an international, independent and anonymous panel of Selectors who produce detailed reports on the nominated books.

Another school with "climate" problems across departments?

From The Yale Daily News:

On the corner of Trumbull and Hillhouse, nine protesters held signs and handed out fliers about reports of sexual misconduct at Yale. Protesters demanded stiffer punishments, including expulsion, for both faculty and student offenders. Several of the protesters’ placards named the Divinity School, Philosophy, Physical Sciences, Pharmacology and Egyptology departments as harboring alleged perpetrators of sexual misconduct.

“We wouldn’t be making these claims without hard evidence,” said protester [and philosopher] Heidi Howkins Lockwood GRD ’09....

Lockwood said previous faculty offenders have been given generous six-figure severance packages while victims have allegedly been financially incentivized to remain silent through non-disclosure agreements. While she added that other schools have issues with sexual misconduct, Lockwood claimed Yale was unique because of its “culture of silence"....

According to a press release from the protestors, Yale’s previous response to sexual misconduct on campus has been inadequate. Further, they are asking for administrators to publicly apologize for asking victims to sign nondisclosure agreements....

Lockwood said one department at Yale saw four faculty members accused of sexual misconduct in the past five years. One of those faculty members remains employed by the University today.

ADDENDUM:  Worth remembering that Yale entered a "Resolution" in 2012 to resolve Title IX complaints about sexual harassment issues.  (Thanks to Kate Norlock for the pointer.)

Do babies have an innate moral sense?

There must be more to the "science" than what is described here:

They begin with a puppet show. In this show, a gray cat is seen trying to open a big plastic box. The cat tries repeatedly, but he just can't open the lid all the way. A bunny in a green T-shirt comes along and helps open the box. Then the scenario is repeated, but this time a bunny in an orange T-shirt comes along and slams the box shut before running away. The green bunny is nice and helpful. The orange bunny is mean and unhelpful.

The baby is then presented with the two bunnies from the show. A staff member who doesn't know which bunny was mean and which bunny was nice will offer both bunnies at the same time to the baby. The baby's mother, who is usually present during the study, closes her eyes so as not to influence the baby in any way.

Which bunny do the babies choose? More than 80% of the babies in the study showed their preference for the good bunny, either by reaching for the good bunny or staring at it. And with 3-month-olds, that number goes higher, to 87%.

As described, the result is obviously equally compatible with the hypothesis that babies are born with an innate sense of self-interest.  So what's the real story here?  Additional links welcome.  (Thanks to Mark Couch for the pointer.)

Derek Parfit wins 2014 Schock Prize in "Logic and Philosophy"

Details here.

UM-St. Louis's Piccinini receives 2014 Herbert Simon Award...

...for his work on philosophy and computing.  Missouri/St. Louis has had one of the top terminal MA programs in the country for many years now.

The complaint in the lawsuit against Northwestern

A colleague elsewhere sent me the complaint, and I thought it would be worth noting a few points:

1.  There is no allegation of rape in the complaint.  (I note this since one newspaper headline used the word "rape.")

2.  There are allegations of egregious misconduct by Ludlow towards the plaintiff that would probably constitute sexual assault and, even if they did not, would constitute sexual harassment.  The complaint alleges that a university official (Ms. Slavin) concluded, "based on the totality of the evidence...that Ludlow engaged in unwelcome and inappropriate sexual advances toward Plaintiff on the evening of February 10-11, 2012. In particular, Ms. Slavin found that Ludlow initiated kissing, French kissing, rubbing Plaintiff’s back,and sleeping with his arms on and around Plaintiff on the night of February 10-11, 2012. She also found that Plaintiff 'was incapacitated due to heavy consumption of alcohol purchased for [Plaintiff] by Respondent [Ludlow], and [was] therefore unable to offer meaningful consent to this physical touching that night. I also find that Respondent told you [the Plaintiff] he thought you were attractive, discussed his desire to have a romantic and sexual relationship with you, and shared other personal information of a sexual nature.'"

3.  There is an allegation that Ludlow threatened to sue the plaintiff for defamation over her allegations.  If the allegations are not true, they would be defamatory, though recovery by a public figure (I am guessing Ludlow would be one) for defamation is difficult in the U.S.

4.  The complaint states that "on information and belief," the plaintiff believes a university committee recommended termination of Ludlow.  "On information and belief" means, roughly, that the plaintiff has reason to believe this is so, but does not know it to be so at this stage in the litigation. 

5.  The complaint alleges that the university's failure to take remedial measures exacerbated the substantial psychological and emotional harm to the Plaintiff, which is described in some detail.

6.  The complaint does ask for punitive damages, i.e., damages to punish the university for its alleged wrongdoing in failing to take appropriate remedial action, in addition to monetary damages compensating the plaintiff for her suffering, medical expenses, and related costs.

ADDENDUM:  I was surprised to see on Facebook and some blogs the suggestion that there was somethign strange about the reaction to last year's case involving Colin McGinn at Miami compared to this case involving Peter Ludlow at Northwestern.  I haven't done a careful study of reactions, but to the extent that reactions are different (allegedly more critical of McGinn, less critical of Ludlow [not among my Facebook friends!]), it surely is due to the fact that the facts in these cases became public at very different times:  in the McGinn case, things only became public when McGinn had already agreed to resign after allegations of inappropriate conduct with a student; in the present case, things have become public only at the stage of allegations (in the form of a lawsuit), with all the evidence in the public record indicating that the 'accused' denies all wrongdoing.

ANOTHER (FEB. 12):  The latest from The Daily Northwestern, including that:  (1) the plaintiff did file a criminal complaint, and (2) Ludlow's lawyer does not know of any criminal charge filed against him.

More on the reception of the Beatles

Jonathan Dancy (Texas/Reading) sends along this quite interesting review by William Mann, the senior classical music critic of the Times of London, that appeared on December 27, 1963:

The outstanding English composers of 1963 must seem to have been John Lennon and Paul McCartney, the talented young musicians from Liverpool whose songs have been sweeping the country since last Christmas, whether performed by their own group, the Beatles, or by the numerous other teams of English troubadours that they also supply with songs.

I am not concerned here with the social phenomenon of Beatlemania, which finds expression in handbags, balloons and other articles bearing the likenesses of the loved ones, or in the hysterical screaming of young girls whenever the Beatle Quartet performs in public, but with the musical phenomenon. For several decades, in fact since the decline of the music-hall, England has taken her popular songs from the United States, either directly or by mimicry. But the songs of Lennon and McCartney are distinctly indigenous in character, the most imaginative and inventive examples of a style that has been developing on Merseyside during the past few years. And there is a nice, rather flattering irony in the news that the Beatles have now become prime favourites in America, too.

The strength of character in pop songs seems, and quite understandably, to be determined usually by the number of composers involved; when three or four people are required to make the original tunesmith's work publicly presentable it is unlikely to retain much individuality or to wear very well. The virtue of the Beatles' repertory is that, apparently, they do it themselves; three of the four are composers, they are versatile instrumentalists, and when they do borrow a song from another repertory, their treatment is idiosyncratic - as when Paul McCartney sings Till There Was You from The Music Man, a cool, easy, tasteful version of this ballad, quite without artificial sentimentality.

Their noisy items are the ones that arouse teenagers' excitement. Glutinous crooning is generally out of fashion these days, and even a songs about 'Misery' sounds fundamentally quite cheerful; the slow, sad song about 'This Boy', which features prominently in Beatle programmes, is expressively unusual for its lugubrious music, but harmonically it is one of their most intriguing, with its chains of pandiationic clusters, and the sentiment is acceptable because voiced cleanly and crisply. But harmonic interest is typical of their quicker songs, too, and one gets the impression that they think simultaneously of harmony and melody, so firmly are the major tonic sevenths and ninths built into their tunes, and the flat submediant key switches, so natural is the Aeolian cadence at the end of Not A Second Time (the chord progression which ends Mahler's Song of the Earth).

Those submediant switches from C major into A flat major, and to a lesser extent mediant ones (eg the octave ascent in the famous I Want To Hold Your Hand) are a trademark of Lennon-McCartney songs - they do not figure much in other pop repertories, or in the Beatles' arrangements of borrowed material - and show signs of becoming a mannerism. The other trademark of their compositions is a firm and purposeful bass line with a musical life of its own; how Lennon and McCartney divide their creative responsibilites I have yet to discover, but it is perhaps significant that Paul is the bass guitarist of the group. It may also be significant that George Harrison's song Don't Bother Me is harmonically a good deal more primitive, though it is nicely enough presented.

I suppose it is the sheer loudness of the music that appeals to Beatle admirers (there is something to be heard even through the squeals) and many parents must have cursed the electric guitar's amplification this Christmas - how fresh and euphonious the ordinary guitars sound in the Beatles' version of Till There Was You - but parents who are still managing to survive the decibels and, after copious repetition over several months, still deriving some musical pleasure from the overhearing, do so because there is a good deal of variety - oh, so welcome in pop music - about what they sing.

The autocratic but not by any means ungrammatical attitude to tonality (closer to, say, Peter Maxwell Davies's carols in O Magnum Mysteriumthan to Gershwin or Loewe or even Lionel Bart); the exhilarating and often quasi-instrumental vocal duetting, sometimes in scat or in falsetto, behind the melodic line; the melismas with altered vowels ('I saw her yesterday-ee-ay') which have not quite become mannered, and the discreet, sometimes subtle, varieties of instrumentation - a suspicion of piano or organ, a few bars of mouth-organ obbligato, an excursion on the claves or maraccas; the translation of African Blues or American western idioms (in Baby It's You, the Magyar 8/8 metre, too) into tough, sensitive Merseyside.

These are some of the qualities that make one wonder with interest what the Beatles, and particularly Lennon and McCartney, will do next, and if America will spoil them or hold on to them, and if their next record will wear as well as the others. They have brought a distinctive and exhilarating flavour into a genre of music that was in danger of ceasing to be music at all.

Statement from Rutgers Philosophy Department regarding the allegations against Ludlow

I have been asked to post the following on behalf of the Rutgers Department:

Rutgers University and the Department of Philosophy learned of the allegations against Peter Ludlow on Monday February 10.  The University and Philosophy Department take these allegations extremely seriously.   The university administration is actively looking into the matter.

Why was the Colorado report made public?

I am now told (by a reliable source) that an "open records" act request was made for the Colorado report, and that is why the university decided to release it "officially" (it was going to become public anyway, in other words).  It is not hard to imagine why, in a department with climate problems, there would be individuals (either inside or outside the department) keen to see such a report made public.  That may mean that, at least at state universities, even confidentiality agreements will be of no use most of the time.  Private universties are not subject to open record laws, however, and confidentiality agreements between the APA Committee and the university should contractually insure confidentiality.

And some philosophers think aesthetic judgments are not subjective!

The 1964 reaction to The Beatles.  Just to be clear, I enjoy the Beatles and I don't think any of these folks are wrong (or right).