Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

New books in March

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

How Physics Makes Us Free by J.T. Ismael (Oxford University Press, 2016).

The Philosopher:  A History in Six Types by Justin E.H. Smith (Princeton University Press, 2016).

Action, Knowledge & Will by John Hyman (Oxford University Press, 2015).

Nietzsche on Mind & Nature edited by Manuel Dries & P.J.E. Kail (Oxford University Press, 2015).

Anger and Forgiveness:  Resentment, Generosity, Justice by Martha Nussbaum (Oxford University Press, 2016).

"If 100 people lived on earth"

This is a nice way of visualizing the distribution of resources, opportunities, living conditions, and cultures on the planet:

 

More on the standard of proof in Title IX

There's a lively debate in the comments between Jamie Dreier and others regarding the standard of proof question at the FP blog.  I linked in my original piece to the arguments of my colleague Geoffrey Stone, but let me quote his analysis here, since I think it states the case clearly and thus identifies the issues those on the other side of the question need to dispute:

To justify its insistence on the preponderance of the evidence standard, the Department of Education draws an analogy to civil actions in court. In the typical civil law suit for damages, whether the issue is a car accident, a breach of contract, or an assault, the standard is preponderance of the evidence. But this is a bad analogy.

For a college or university to expel a student for sexual assault is a matter of grave consequence both for the institution and for the student. Such an expulsion will haunt the students for the rest of his days, especially in the world of the Internet. Indeed, it may well destroy his chosen career prospects. This is especially likely, for example, for law students.

Moreover, the procedures used in these disciplinary hearings do not come close to those employed in civil actions, which involve judges, juries, rules of evidence, lawyers, discovery, and a host of other procedural protections designed to enhance the reliability of the proceedings. Even at their best, college and university disciplinary proceedings are a far cry from civil actions in terms of fairness to the accused.

Thus, although the Department of Education may well be right that “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is unnecessary in these circumstances because there is no risk of imprisonment or a formal criminal record, it is completely unfair, in my judgment, for a college or university to suspend or expel a student on the ground that he committed a sexual assault if the institution is only 51 percent confident that he did so.

The influence of Rawls

Via Bob Talisse comes this photo, apparently taken from a bathroom in Auburn.

UPDATE:  Bob writes with a proposed caption: “Jack is solving the problem of dirty hands, one man at a time.”

Say goodbye to New York, Miami, Shanghai, and Sydney...

...within a century or so.

Why do women leave philosophy at the undergraduate level?

A new study.  (Thanks to several different readers for sending this along.)

What "philosophy" looks like when it ceases to be a Wissenschaft...

...and becomes a set of sophomoric slogans and confusions.  Quite amazing, as we've had occasion to note before.

Fitelson from Rutgers to Northeastern (with visiting posts as well at Munich and Amsterdam)

Branden Fitelson (formal epistemology, logic, decision theory, philosophy of science), formerly Professor of Philosophy at Rutgers University at New Brunswick, has accepted appointment as Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Northeastern University, along with Visiting Professor posts at both the University of Munich and the University of Amsterdam.

The rise of philosophy of race

In talking with the CHE reporter for the article about Penn State, one question that came up was how seriously philosophy of race was taken at top PhD programs.  (This did not make it into the article, alas, but it is perhaps of interest, since Penn State churning out PhDs in the area is not going to have the same impact as top PhD programs investing in the area.)  I did a little investigating, and was struck by the fact of how many top PhD programs have added senior faculty in philosophy of race over the last decade:  NYU, for example, appointed Anthony Appiah from Princeton; Michigan hired Derrick Darby from the University of Kansas; Harvard Philosophy cross-appointed Tommie Shelby from its African and African-American Studies Department; Columbia hired Robert Gooding-Williams from the Political Science Department here at Chicago; the CUNY Graduate Center hired Charles Mills from Northwestern (Mills also had an offer from Yale) (Hunter College also appointed Linda Alcoff, who works partly in philosophy of race, from Syracuse, and she also now as an appointment at the Graduate Center); and Wash U/St. Louis added Ron Mallon from Utah.  A number of PGR-ranked PhD programs also added junior faculty who work in whole or in part in philosophy of race during this period.   Prior to this investment, there was relatively little work being done in philosophy of race at top PhD programs:  Howard McGary at Rutgers, Bernard Boxill at North Carolina (now retired), Appiah at Princeton, Sally Haslanger at MIT, Michael Hardimon at UC San Diego, and I think that was it.

We may now be at the point where philosophy of race is better-represented at the leading PhD programs in the U.S. than feminist philosophy (let alone Marxist philosophy, itself very telling), an interesting development.  Of course, philosophy of race, feminist philosophy, and Marxist philosophy are all dwarfed by the investment of leading PhD programs in, for example, metaphysics!  I suspect that, given the shape of the job market, and where the jobs are, that approach is going to prove unsustainable.

ADDENDUM:  Elliott Sober (Wisconsin) writes with "an additional detail about philosophy of race":  "Many philosophers of biology, myself included, include a discussion of race in their classes on philosophy of biology."

Has the Continuum Hypothesis been solved?

Philosopher Chris Gifford (Bristol) writes:

I have been hearing some interesting news about developments in the philosophy of mathematics.  Can you do a thread on your blog on the question: "Has the Continuum Hypothesis been Solved?  If, so, who solved it?  If not, what has been the best attempt?". 

Informed readers, please educate us!

Still more on the AAUP report on the abuse of Title IX

There is an interesting, mostly substantive, but, alas, quite misleading post about the recent AAUP report over at the FP blog which deserves some comment. 

The author is not a lawyer, and this shows in the one glaring mistake, which someone not reading carefully might not realize is not a point made either by Catherine Lahmon, the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the Education Department, or by Prof. Nancy Cantalupo of Barry University Law School, both of whom are quoted in other parts of the post.  The author writes:

[I]f Title IX complaints were held to a higher standard than a preponderance of the evidence when other civil rights claims are adjudicated by exactly that standard, then it would follow that complainants would be held to a higher standard, i.e., disadvantaged, on the basis of sex, i.e., they would be subject to sexual discrimination.

As I noted originally, under Title VII, employment discrimination claims are adjudicated by a preponderance of the evidence standard, so it is true that until 2011, Title IX complainants about sexual violence and assault did have to satisfy a higher standard of proof.  But it is absurd to suggest that constitutes sex discrimination, since the application of the standard is completely gender neutral, just like Title IX itself. (Men are also victims of sexual violence, after all, and have the same standing to bring Title IX complaints as women.)  The difference in standard is justified not on the grounds of the sex or gender of the complainants, but on the grounds that the penalties are much more like criminal penalties than civil damages, especially (but not only) in terms of stigma.  

Prof. Cantalupo's piece does not really confront the latter point.  She argues that the preponderance standard "is the most equal of all standards of proof" and gives two reasons:  first, it "allows [alleged] survivors to prevail on their allegations as long as just over fifty percent of the evidence supports their allegations"; second, the higher "clear and convincing" standard gives a "heavy presumption in favor of the accused."  The first point is irrelevant:   it just states the preponderance standard (a bit inelegantly:  it's not that 50% of the evidence must support the allegations, it's that the allegations must be more likely than not true, regardless of the distribution of evidence), but gives no explanation as to why this kind of equality ("51% equality"!) is relevant or desireable.  That it makes it easier for alleged victims to prevail is neither here nor there absent an argument for a presumption in favor of complainants.  The second point Prof.Canatalupo makes is correct, but she doesn't consider the reasons why such presumptions in favor of the accused are warranted:  namely, when the penalties, including the stigma attached to a finding of fault, are severe.  It is, of course, true that Title IX is framed as a civil rights statute, but unless one think definitional choices settle the hard questions, that's irrelevant:  the question is whether a finding of fault for sexual assault or violence by a university is more like a civil penalty or more like a criminal one.  My law school colleague Geoffrey Stone makes a good case for the higher standard of proof here, and I'm largely in agreement with what he says on this issue. 

A nice piece on empirically-informed philosophy

Here.  (Link fixed now.)

Marquette University is also a disgrace...

....though for different reasons than the U of Califorrnia!  The University, which has been persecuting a political science professor for his lawful extramural speech, decided not to fire him, but only to suspend him for awhile, but also demanding that he do a mea culpa.  That is simply bizarre.  Why not demand that he wear a scarlet letter for the next year?  Or wear a cone of shame?   Anyone should think twice before taking a job at Marquette. 

(Thanks to Alan White for the pointer to the recent news account.)

"Five Books on Nietzsche"

A reader recently wrote to ask some questions about this interview from a few years back, and since, on re-reading it, I still agree with it, I thought I'd post it again for interested readers.

Ruth Marcus would have been livid...

...if she had lived to see this.  Ruth told me years ago that Butler had great difficulty passing the logic requirement in the Yale PhD program in philosophy, and finally, Ruth took pity, and gave her a pass.  I had the sense she later regretted that.  On Butler, Martha Nussbaum got it right many years ago.  Critical Theory has been in a downward spiral for a long time now, but that an obscurantist posturing faker like Butler should be deemed its heir...oy veh.

CHE article on Penn State's efforts to recruit and graduate African-American philosophers, especially women

The article is here.  As often happens, it doesn't quite record what I said accurately.  I pointed out that a lot of scholarship has been done on the racism of the canonical philosophers, but the value of doing that, which is clear, is a different issue from whether an undergraduate class should spend time on Kant's racism or his views about masturbation: it's the latter that is obviously an absurd waste of pedagogical time.  Kant is not worth reading because of his racism or his views on masturbation, and classroom time should be devoted to the aspects of an author's work that make the author worth engaging.

Many thanks to Darlene Deas and Christopher Pynes for guest-blogging last week!

You can visit their contributions by clicking on their "guest blogger" links, below.  I've given them both an open invitation to continue posting when they have the opportunity.

Average salaries by field...

...from IHE.  Philosophy, as usual, is lumped with religious studies, but still does somewhat better than other humanities fields.

How much effort/time should a journal referee expend on a paper?

A senior philosopher elsewhere writes:

Like many readers of this blog, I am frequently asked to referee journal submissions.  Though I recommend acceptance only very rarely, I feel duty-bound to work as hard on something I agree to referee as I would on something I read for my own scholarship, trying to puzzle through the details of the central arguments and to figure out exactly where those arguments go wrong (when they do).  As a result, I would guess that I usually spend 3 hours on a paper I'm refereeing, though often enough it is more than that, and I generally find myself with about two single-spaced pages worth of comments.  I have never served on an editorial board, and so I have never been in a position to see a large number of referee reports.  Reports that I've received on my own submissions suggest a wide variation in the time and effort other people put into refereeing.  I'd be interested to hear from journal editors and other readers about what they think constitutes a conscientious effort.

My sense is this sounds like a responsible refereeing effort.  But it would be useful to hear what others think.

 

AAUP issues critical draft report on the current abuse of Title IX by the Dept of Education's OCR since 2011

The full document is available here, though the Executive Summary is quite accurate as to the contents.  Apart from a largely irrelevant fixation on the "corporate university," it's an informative report, one that makes clear how the Assistant Secretaries for Civil Rights in the Department of Education have badly overreached their authority since 2011.  The report argues, correctly in my judgment, that the OCR had no authority to simply change the standard of proof from "clear and convincing evidence" to "preponderance of evidence."  (Note that the latter is the standard of proof in civil litigation, and also in the Title VII employment discrimination context.  But without going through the normal "notice and comment" process for substantive changes to administrative regulations, the OCR should not have altered the standard unilaterally.   Since findings of fault for sexual harassment and related misconduct is much more like findings of criminal liability, the standard of proof should not have been lowered in my view--especially given that the investigative and adjudication procedures are largely amateur affairs to begin with.)

The other important point the report makes is that the OCR has demonstrated a shocking indifference to First Amendment and academic freedom values in its promulgation of regulations and enforcement actions.  We saw this most clearly, of course, in the disgraceful Kipnis affair at Northwestern.

Yale's Bruno Whittle interviewed...

...at 3AM.

"What is a liberal?"

Robert Paul Wolff comments.

The University of California is a disgrace

Even the New York Times, a usually reliable apologist for the double standards that govern discourse about Israel in America, has to report that what the UC system has done is suspect.  It's enough to make one a full supporter of the BDS movement.

Happy Easter...

...from the Antichrist.

Great moments in obscure rock 'n' roll: Red Dirt, "Song for Pauline," 1970

 

NYU's Michael Strevens interviewed...

...at 3AM.

Funny NY Times column on the crazies running for the Republican nomination for President

From Gail Collins:

One thing that all these guys have in common is a desire to put themselves in charge of the reproductive rights of the entire female half of the country. Trump used to be pro-choice, but he “evolved” at some undisclosed point in the 21st century. Ted Cruz opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest. John Kasich is willing to allow a troubled teenager to get an abortion if she’s seduced by her father, but not if the seducer is the next-door neighbor. This is why Kasich’s the moderate.

Everybody knows you can’t believe in abortion rights and win the Republican nomination. But then the candidates ought to be eager to make family planning services accessible, right? The best way to reduce abortion is to limit unwanted pregnancies.

Ted Cruz made his position on contraception clear while campaigning in Iowa. It’s so charming that I am going to quote it in full: “Last I checked, we don’t have a rubber shortage in America. Look, when I was in college, we had a machine in the bathroom; you put 50 cents in and voilà. So, yes, anyone who wants contraceptives can access them, but it’s an utterly made-up nonsense issue.”

Women whose family planning needs go beyond a vending machine will have to fend for themselves. Cruz is opposed to requiring employers to include contraception in their health care plans. He hates Planned Parenthood so much that he wanted to shut down the federal government to end its funding. Said government funding pays for contraceptives as well as myriad other health services, none involving abortion except for the part where the contraceptives help avoid unwanted pregnancies.

John Kasich isn’t much different. His state has been in a war against Planned Parenthood that has closed down health clinics, cutting off everything from family planning to programs for at-risk expectant mothers. Kasich has said that there are “many different entities” that can take care of the women who were cut adrift. Last year, legislators who supported the defunding put together a list of those entities. They turned out, on second glance, to include senior centers, dentist offices and a food bank....

The only Republican presidential candidate who has acknowledged the invaluable role Planned Parenthood plays is Donald Trump. (“Millions and millions of women — cervical cancer, breast cancer — are helped by Planned Parenthood.”) Of course, he’s also said that it should be defunded. (“I mean if you look at what’s going on with that, it’s terrible.”) And when asked if he would be willing to shut down the government in pursuit of the cause, Trump declined to answer “because I want to show unpredictability.”

UCSD's Jonathan Cohen interviewed...

...at 3AM.

The latest in religious right ugliness: transgender people and bathrooms

Appropriately scathing commentary from law professor Tobias Wolff (Penn).

Comedy Central's complete Trump v. Sanders debate

At last!

(Thanks to Theo Nyreröd for the pointer.)

In Memoriam: Justin Leiber (1938-2016)

At the time of his death, he was Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Florida State University, and also taught for many years at the University of Houston.  There is more information about his work here.

(Thanks to John Schwenkler for the information and links.)

This is funny...

...but strictly for "mature" readers with an adolescent sense of humor.

Girls, Women, and Philosophy

Some of you may remember that when I blogged here last fall, I ruffled some feathers with my women and philosophy post. My primary criticism was that the discipline isn't doing a good job of reaching out to and encouraging young girls and women who may be interested in studying philosophy. 

But, rather than having that discussion all over again, I'd like to share a 1.5 minute video I created that promotes philosophy to girls and young women.

One thing to keep in mind with these promo videos is that they're not designed to teach philosophy, so it's a good idea to make the content a bit more user-friendly. If you want to give it a try on your own, here are two quick tips:(1) shorter is almost always better and (2) stick with a limited color and style palette. Also, consider tossing around ideas with a non-philosopher and have them review your videos--a lay person's perspective will more closely match that of your intended audience. 

As with the two videos I posted earlier this week:

1. This video is shared under the creative commons copyright. Please feel free to use or modify it, but if you do so, please make it available to others. 
2. You can download the video, saved as mp4, here. 
3. The video was created with VideoScribe. If you have the software, you can download the raw file (file extension scribe) here. 

As I mentioned in the last post, I'm willing to donate my time to help anyone interested in creating some cool 30-second promos. You can reach out to me directly at the following email address: mycoffeepotproductions at gmail dot com. If you don't want to email me, but you have some ideas to share, use the comments! 

 

 

Have you been bullied or harassed by Mark Lance (Georgetown) on social media?

I don't plan on getting into the habit of following the lead of the APA, but I've heard now from several graduate students and junior faculty that they've been bullied and harassed by philosopher Mark Lance (Georgetown) on various social media platforms, especially Facebook, that I thought it was time to raise the issue in public.  He apparently has a particularly bad habit of intimidating vulnerable people (students, untenured faculty) if they happen to post a link to something on this blog.  If you've been a victim of Lance's bullying, please take a screen shot and pass it on me, I'll prepare a dossier perhaps for future publication here (I'm happy to remove identifying information, of course).

UPDATE:  Several readers have pointed out that philosopher Rebecca Kukla--Lance's colleague, co-author and friend--assured others on Facebook that the reports of Lance bullying and harassing junior faculty and grad students on social media were not true--though she then admitted that "Mark can argue hard and come down harshly or even dismissively at times."  Alas, sometimes the targets experience that as bullying, especially when the "hard" and "harsh" arguer is a tenured full professor.  Unsurprisingly, the bully's friends didn't notice.

ANOTHER:  Professor Kukla writes:  "I agree that what is experienced as bullying is partly a subjective affair that can't be fully determined from the outside, and I don't wish to make any statements about Mark's capacity to bully. What I specifically found absurd, knowing him, was the idea that he picked junior 'targets' or that he especially had it out for people who sent things to your blog."  Almost all of this is consistent with my initial post:  it is quite possible that Lance is not conscious of the pattern or of his bullying behavior.  However, as anyone who has encountered Lance on social media knows, he is quite clearly obsessed with me, and never misses an opportunity to insult or defame, also doing the same to those who do not share his view.

AND YET ANOTHER:  An alert reader points out that before I posted either update, above, Prof. Kukla had already responded to the initial post on Facebook as follows:

Rebecca Kukla  My new plan is to bombard him with screenshot after screenshot of me typing things like go fuck yourself Brian and mind your own fucking business Brian and what the ever-living fuck are you even talking about Brian.

Goodness, such tough and scary talk; so surprising that the e-mail she sent me, by contrast, was so benign.  I'm sure the APA ombudsperson will get on this abuse and harassment right away.

BEYOND PARODY:  Apparently some anonymous person somewhere in cyberspace made vulgar sexist remarks about Prof. Kukla after she posted in defense of Lance on Facebook.  According to the moral genius Mark Lance, this is my fault.  Really.  Let me quote the explanation:  "Leiter, of course, knew that this was the predictable reaction...just as Trump knows perfectly well what the results of his incitements will be."  You can see examples of Trump inciting violence here (it starts at about 3:40).  And after viewing them, you will see that "obviously" the post, above, is exactly analogous.  Really.   His Holiness Monsignor Lance said so.

FINAL UPDATE:  Thanks to a couple of folks who wrote about their experiences with prissy Mark; I agreed that posting the FB exchanges would risk exposing them, and since they are, in contemporary lingo, "vulnerable" people, they asked me to refrain--and I can hardly blame them, given what a sanctimonious jackass Lance has shown himself to be on more than one occasion.    The good news is that my original post appears to have put a stop to his bullying behavior.

Evaluating Philosophy Programs: A Cautionary Tale about the IBHE

The Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE) requires that state universities report annually on what used to be called “low productivity programs” in compliance with the Illinois Public Act 097-0610. They then use this information to determine if the contribution of each program is “educationally and economically justified.” The IBHE has no regulatory authority over universities to tell them what programs to offer or eliminate, but the IBHE does make budget recommendations. So university administrators want to appease them.

You might be wondering what constitutes a “low producing” program in Illinois. Here are the IBHE standards (from page 8 of the October 2015 report):

Associate’s Degrees: 12 graduates
Bachelor’s Degrees: 6 graduates (25 enrolled majors)
Master’s Degrees: 5 graduates (10 enrolled majors)
Doctoral Degrees: 1 graduates (5 enrolled majors)

So if a program doesn’t have these averages for enrolled students and graduates over a rolling five-year period, it is considered low producing. When that happens, the IBHE recommends the following actions:

A shrewd diagnosis of the pathologies of the juvenile "left" in universities from a young person committed to its objectives

Here; an excerpt:

I used to endorse a particular brand of politics that is prevalent at McGill and in Montreal more widely. It is a fusion of a certain kind of anti-oppressive politics and a certain kind of radical leftist politics. This particular brand of politics begins with good intentions and noble causes, but metastasizes into a nightmare. In general, the activists involved are the nicest, most conscientious people you could hope to know. But at some point, they took a wrong turn, and their devotion to social justice led them down a dark path. Having been on both sides of the glass, I think I can bring some painful but necessary truth to light.

Important disclaimer: I passionately support anti-oppressive politics in general and have only good things to say about it.,,,

There is something dark and vaguely cultish about this particular brand of politics. I’ve thought a lot about what exactly that is. I’ve pinned down four core features that make it so disturbing: dogmatism, groupthink, a crusader mentality, and anti-intellectualism. I’ll go into detail about each one of these. The following is as much a confession as it is an admonishment. I will not mention a single sin that I have not been fully and damnably guilty of in my time.

First, dogmatism. One way to define the difference between a regular belief and a sacred belief is that people who hold sacred beliefs think it is morally wrong for anyone to question those beliefs. If someone does question those beliefs, they’re not just being stupid or even depraved, they’re actively doing violence. They might as well be kicking a puppy. When people hold sacred beliefs, there is no disagreement without animosity. In this mindset, people who disagreed with my views weren’t just wrong, they were awful people. I watched what people said closely, scanning for objectionable content. Any infraction reflected badly on your character, and too many might put you on my blacklist. Calling them ‘sacred beliefs’ is a nice way to put it. What I mean to say is that they are dogmas.

Thinking this way quickly divides the world into an ingroup and an outgroup — believers and heathens, the righteous and the wrong-teous. “I hate being around un-rad people,” a friend once texted me, infuriated with their liberal roommates. Members of the ingroup are held to the same stringent standards. Every minor heresy inches you further away from the group. People are reluctant to say that anything is too radical for fear of being been seen as too un-radical. Conversely, showing your devotion to the cause earns you respect. Groupthink becomes the modus operandi. When I was part of groups like this, everyone was on exactly the same page about a suspiciously large range of issues. Internal disagreement was rare. The insular community served as an incubator of extreme, irrational views.

Promoting Philosophy

As the spouse of a philosopher, I often find myself acting as a sort of ambassador for you lot. People don’t know what you do, what it is, or why it’s important.

And, while it’s fantastic that a group of cool kids write pieces for the NYT, those people I mentioned above—the ones who don’t know about you or your discipline-- are most likely not reading the NYT.

I don’t know how to solve that problem, but last fall when I was guest blogging here, I had some ideas for easy-to-digest promotional philosophy videos that I kept meaning to create and share. Brian's recent invitation to blog here again provided the right motivation to finally complete that little pet project. 

I'm sharing two very short (30 second) promotional videos with you. I hope to have a third by week's end that focuses on female philosophers and promoting the discipline to young women and girls. There is a fourth, but I doubt I’ll get to it this time around.

Here’s what you need to know: 

• The videos are intended for prospective students, although one could also target a general audience.
• The videos are shared under the creative commons license. Please feel free to use or modify these videos, but if you do so, please make them available to others. 
• You can download the videos, saved as mp4s, here. 
• The videos were created with VideoScribe. If you have the software, you can download the raw files (file extension scribe) here. 

And here's the important part: because I love philosophy, I'm willing to donate my time to help anyone interested in creating some cool 30-second promos. You can reach out to me directly at the following email address: mycoffeepotproductions at gmail dot com 

If you don't want to email me, but you have some ideas to share, use the comments! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An interview with CUNY's Jesse Prinz

Here, and it's very interesting along a number of dimensions.  One excerpt:

Almost everything that I do involves the idea that experience can transform human minds.  We are, by nature, unnatural. I am wary of biophilia—that is, of uncritical efforts to explain human universals and differences by appeal to fixed biological traits.

Experience shapes all of our beliefs, values, thinking styles, behavioral dispositions, ways of seeing, and ways of feeling. We share much as a species; however, our extraordinary malleability distinguishes us from each other and from other animals. No aspect of human activity remains untouched by enculturation and experience. The way that we sit, stand, walk, breath, the volume at which we speak, speech itself, the way that we dress and live, the foods that we crave, the arts that we love, and the structure of our relationships are learned scripts to some degree. It boggles the mind to think about that. Philosophers who emphasize biological contributors are neglecting our most important trait. Although finding biological universals is valuable, it is like studying bedrock instead of buildings.

Academic philosophy is very white...

...but this seems to me an unlikely explanation, because it isn't how work is actually evaluated (at least not in the fields I've worked in over the years).  Armchair speculation like this, unhinged from actual evidence, and especially when circulated in the popular media which thrives on nonsense like this, doesn't seem very helpful for the field in terms of remeding the situation.  This is also relevant, though not philosophy-specific.

The Role of State and Regional Philosophical Associations

The American Philosophical Association (APA) has taken a beating the last few years in the philosophy blogosphere for a variety of reasons. In particular, there have been lots of objections and concerns about the role, influence, experience, and priorities of the current APA leadership.

As the new President of the Illinois Philosophical Association (IPA), I want to shift the discussion and talk about the role of state and regional philosophical associations. Particularly I want us to discuss expanding the role of these groups beyond just organizing conferences to promoting the interests of philosophy and philosophers in our particular states and regions. Additionally these state and regional organizations can play a bigger part in informing and reporting to the APA what the state and regional members need from the national organization.

The rich get richer, 2016 edition: the 30 richest research universities in terms of the "per student" value of their endowments (at end of 2015)

Here are the 30 richest research universities (i.e., schools with PhD programs in multiple fields) in term of the "per student" value of their endowments; the per student value follows in parentheses (rounded to the nearest thousand).

1.  Princeton University ($2,809,000)

2.  Yale University ($2,073,000)

3.  Harvard University ($1,736,000)

4.  Stanford University ($1,323,000)

5.  Massachussetts Institute of Technology ($1,190,000)

6.  California Institute of Technology ($995,000)

7.  Rice University ($839,000)

8.  University of Notre Dame ($703,000)

9.  Northwestern University ($501,000)

10. University of Chicago ($495,000)

11. Duke University ($491,000)

12. University of Pennsylvania ($476,000)

13. Washington University, St. Louis ($470,000)

14. Emory University ($453,000)

15. Brown University ($335,000)

Half of women in U.S. now have "very unfavorable" view of Trump...

...up from 40% not long ago.  That's a hopeful development.  Now all we need is a constitutional amendment to disenfranchise white men, and we can stop worrying.

Growing, Improving, and Diversifying Philosophy, Part 3

I want to begin by thanking Professor Leiter for letting me blog on his platform, and as I did in the fall, I will entertain discussions. I finished last fall with two posts and said there would be a third. I’ll get into some topics later this week that will explain why my attention was diverted away from this third post until now.

If you haven’t read Part 1 or Part 2 of this series, I recommend you get started there. In this post, I am going to discuss ways we can grow the philosophy profession: lobbying/advocacy, public relations/advertising, cultural influence ideas, and using philosophy allies.

(4) Lobbying and Advocacy
The APA needs to have a lobbyist (or lobbying firm) to promote the professional interest of APA members both in federal and state government, but also to lobby university and college accrediting agencies for philosophy related concerns. See this IHE story on accreditation and assessment if you haven’t already done so. At the state level promoting philosophy in high schools as part of the common core solution for college and career readiness is one idea. Promoting the Philosophy Learning and Teaching Organization (PLATO) and groups like Sphere is another. Promoting philosophy is one major reason why development (as discussed in Part 1) and maintaining an active APA membership base is so important—MONEY!

Blast from the past: most important/influential philosophical articles of the 20th-century

Here.

Moral philosophy and empirical psychology

Tamsin Shaw (whose fine work on Nietzsche I've written about here and here) had an essay in the NYRB that discussed recent work in moral psychology by psychologists (some of it spectacularly and notoriously confused, like Joshua Greene's stuff) and the involvement of Martin Seligman and the "Positive Psychology" movement in the CIA's torture program.  This was unfair and misleading, I thought, a kind of slippery guilt by association.  Two psychologists, Jonathan Haidt and Steven Pinker, now reply, and Shaw replies to them (same link).   I'm not a big fan of Haidt or Pinker (though they've each done interesting work, though both fall short in interpreting the philosophical import of their own results), but I think their position in this debate is the slightly stronger one here.  I'll write something more substantive at a later date, but I thought readers here might find the back and forth interesting. 

The Economist's "top ten" global risks includes...

...Trump being elected President.

Georgetown's Jason Brennan sticks his hand back in the adjunct hornet's nest

Story at IHE.  The responses quoted in the story there are a bit feeble, I'm sure philosophers can do better. Head over to the comments!

A breakthrough against antibiotic-resistant bacteria

Good news.

Even Berkeley law school graduates have contempt for due process

Pretty shocking.

In Memoriam: Hilary Putnam (1926-2016)

MOVING TO FRONT FROM MARCH 13--UPDATED

One of the great figures of post-WWII "analytic" philosophy, Professor Putnam made seminal contributions to the philosophies of science, mathematics, language, and mind.  He earned his PhD at UCLA with Hans Reichenbach, and taught at Northwestern, Princeton, MIT and for most of his career at Harvard, where he was emeritus.  I will add links to memorial notices as they appear.  (Addendum:  I'm told by a friend of Putnam's that he died of mesothelioma.)

FUNERAL INFORMATION:  The funeral will be Monday at 12:30 p.m. at Levine Chapel, 470 Harvard Street, Brookline. Burial will be immediately after at the Crawford St. Cemetery at 776 Baker Street, West Roxbury.

ANOTHER:  A memorial from Martha Nussbaum.

AND ANOTHER:  An obituary from The Guardian.  (Thanks to Richard Baron for the pointer.)

A BRIEF MEMORIAL from the Harvard Department, with links to others.

AN OBITUARY from The New York Times.  (Thanks to Steve Gross for the pointer.)