Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

New Books in April

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

In Defense of Moral Luck:  Why Luck Often Affects Praiseworthiness and Blameworthiness by Robert J. Hartman (Routledge, 2017).

The Beginning of Politics:  Power in the Biblical Book of Samuel by Moshe Halbertal & Stephen Holmes (Princeton University Press, 2017).

Glimpse of Light:  New Meditations on First Philosophy by Stephen Mumford (Bloomsbury, 2017).

The Routledge Handbook of Franz Brentano and the Brentano School edited by Uriah Kriegel (Routledge, 2017).

A few notes on FERPA, the law protecting the privacy of the educational records of students, and other issues related to the Kipnis book

MOVING TO FRONT FROM THE EVENING OF 4/28--A COUPLE OF UPDATES/CLARIFICATIONS

Several philosophers have written me this week asking about the references to FERPA in both the letter from the Northwestern graduate students and in Prof. Kipnis's reply.  In particular, the Northwestern students noted:

Students have rights not only under Title IX but also under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act [FERPA], and some of the material Kipnis discusses appears to be part of our colleague’s educational record. But regardless of whether this amounts to any formal violation of her privacy rights, there are clear reasons to be concerned about broadcasting very private details about an individual’s life without having or seeking her authorization to use that information, or offering the opportunity to comment.

I preface this by noting that I am not admitted to practice law in Illinois, and my knowledge of privacy law is very limited.  I discussed the FERPA issues with an Illinois privacy lawyer (who does not specialize in FERPA) and with a law professor in Illinois who specializes in privacy, but not specifically FERPA.  Based on that and my own reading, I offer a few comments that do not constitute legal advice (as nothing here ever does--I offer lots of prudential advice of course).

There is a tort, recognized in Illinois (and many other jurisdictions), of invasion of privacy.  Here's an important Illinois case on the subject.   In America--which has a highly "libertarian" regime of free speech (meaning sociopaths, Nazi lunatics, creepy misogynists, Canadian defamers of American "public figures" etc. have a lot of leeway), the invasion of privacy tort has an uncertain constitutional status, but a key to it almost everywhere is whether the revelation of private facts is "highly offensive to a reasonable person."  Hiring private detectives to unearth "dirt" about an otherwise private individual probably qualifies (see the case linked above).  I am skeptical that anything in Kipnis's book qualifies as invasion of privacy vis-a-vis the student complainants against Ludlow given the existing public records about these matters.

The more serious issue is FERPA.  You can see the full text of the statute here.  Prof. Kipnis is quite correct that FERPA does not create a private right of action:  it imposes obligations only on educational institutions to protect the privacy of student educational records.   A university in violation of FERPA could, in principle, face a world of grief, including financial grief (i.e., loss of federal funds, a bit like violating Title IX).   A university, however, could also almost certainly discipline a faculty member who violated FERPA. 

Great moments in obscure rock 'n' roll: Quicksilver Messenger Service, "3 or 4 Feet From Home," 1969

Quicksilver was part of the late 1960s psychedelic scene in San Francisco--they enjoyed more commercial success than Moby Grape, but not nearly as much as the Jefferson Airplane or Grateful Dead.   To the extent one hears them on "classic rock" radio these days, it's usually for "Fresh Air" from their third studio album in 1970.  This tune comes from their second album, Shady Grove (1969): 

 

Allen from Indiana to Pitt

Colin Allen (philosophy of biology and cognitive science, animal behavior and cognition), Professor of History and Philosophy of Science and of Cognitive Science at Indiana University, Bloomington has accepted appointment as Distinguished Professor in the History and Philosophy of Science Program at the University of Pittsburgh, effective this fall. 

Toronto's Cheryl Misak interviewed...

...at 3AM.

Medina from Vanderbilt to Northwestern

Jose Medina (philosophy of race and gender, political philosophy, social epistemology, philosophy of language & mind), Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University, has accepted a senior offer from the Department of Philosophy at Northwestern University, where he will start this fall.  (Prof. Medina earned his PhD at Northwestern not quite twenty years ago.)

Religious liberty and anti-discrimination law

A new series on YouTube from philosopher John Corvino (Wayne State).  (This is related to themes from his recent co-authored book that is advertised currently on the left on this blog.)

Blast from the past: rise of the cyber-mobs in philosophy

March 2014, the first signs that the philosophy profession was going off the rails.

LePen is not Trump...

...and other thoughts on the French election, which seems to have been oddly reported in the U.S.  One of the weirder ones is the idea that the election was a revolt against "the Establishment." Yet Establishment candidates got 60% of the vote--Macron having been a leading figure in the Socialist party and government until running under his own party banner just recently.

A good bit of news from the dysfunctional state of Illinois

Governor Bruce "country club" Rauner has withdrawn the utterly unqualified hack he nominated for the State Education Board. Readers may recall philosopher Christopher Pynes's post about this some time ago.

Raising moral robots

I'm not sure the author (philosopher Regina Rini [NYU]), knows a lot about raising children, but I like her discussion of the "Celestial" and "Organic" views of morality.

Sports and national identity

Philosopher David Papineau (KCL/CUNY) comments.

Daniel Bonevac (Texas) on his (lonely) support for Trump in academia

A nice  write-up in THES.

Top U.S. Research Universities, 2017

I've produced these lists before, using the reputational data from U.S. News surveys.  This year, they did new surveys of humanities and social science fields (as well as the professional fields).  In the past, I gave more weight to breadth of strength; this time I've used a weighting system that gives more weight to depth (i.e., really top programs).  We looked at sixteen areas:  Business, Law Medicine (Research), Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Earth Sciences, Economics, English, History, Math, Philosophy, Physics, Political Science, Psychology, Sociology.  Universities were scored as follows:  5 points for #1 programs, 4 points for programs ranked between second and fifth, 3 points for programs ranked between sixth and tenth, 2 points for programs ranked between eleventh and fifteenth, and 1 point for any additional program in the top twenty.  The results are not that different than in previous iterations, though I've not gone much beyond the top twenty since the metric, being weighted towards top programs, does a poor job distinguishing between research universities with considerable breadth, but few if any top ten programs. 

1.  Stanford University (69 total; ranked in the top ten in all 16 areas; six #1 programs)

2.  Harvard University (64 total; ranked in the top twenty in all 16 areas; 15 top ten programs; six #1 programs)

3.  University of California, Berkeley (61 total; ranked in the top ten in 15 areas [no medical school at Berkeley]; six #1 programs)

4.  Yale University (49 total; ranked in the top twenty in 15 of 16 areas; 11 top ten programs; three #1 programs)

5.  Princeton university (48 total; ranked in the top fifteen in 13 of 16 areas [no medical, law, or business at Princeton]; 11 top ten programs; four #1 programs)

6.  Massachussetts Institute of Technology (46 total; ranked in 11 of 16 areas [no medicine, law]; 10 top ten programs; six #1 programs)

6.  University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (46 total; ranked in the top twenty in all 16 areas; 10 top ten programs; one #1 program)

8.  Columbia University (45 total; ranked in the top twenty in all 16 areas; 11 top ten programs; zero #1 programs)

9.  University of Chicago (40 total; ranked in the top twenty in all 16 areas; 8 top ten programs; one #1 program)

10. University of California, Los Angeles (37 total; ranked in the top twenty in all 16 areas; 6 top ten programs; zero #1 programs)

I'm done at this point posting excerpts from Kipnis's book or reviews of the book...

...and while I have commented at various places about inaccuracies or dubious innuendo in Kipnis's account that I had noticed, I do plan to have a bit more to say about aspects of her account that appear to be inconsistent with other evidence.  That will come over the next week or two, so that we can try to have a more balanced public record of what has transpired in this case that is of significant interest to members of the academic community.

2017 Templeton Prize for intellectuals friendly to religion goes to Alvin Plantinga

He is certainly an appropriate choice given the Templeton Prize criteria, and the press release gives a nice description of his work related to religion, but I was surprised by this claim:

Alvin Plantinga, an American scholar whose rigorous writings over a half century have made theism – the belief in a divine reality or god – a serious option within academic philosophy.

As I noted years ago (reported in no less disreputable a rag than the NYT), Christian philosophy is a growth field, due to the increasing number of Christian and religious people in the community from which philosophers come.  And Plantinga certainly gave them dialectical cover for professing their religious belief, and many of them are extremely good professional philosophers.  But the vast majority of philosophers are atheists, since supernatural beings don't exist, and Plantinga's attempt to rationalize religious belief has had, as best I can tell, no impact at all on those outside the relevant sectarian groups of religious believers.  

Given the Templeton Prize's mission, Plantinga is an excellent choice, and perhaps in future years they will also recognize Robert M. Adams, another distinguished Christian philosopher.   But no one outside philosophy should think that the work of these dialectically clever and acute philosophers has actually had any effect on the consensus view among philosophers, and post-Enlightenment folk generally, that God still does not exist.  Of course, consensus is no proof of anything, but here at least it is rather clearly truth-tracking!

Professor Kipnis responds to the letter from the Northwestern graduate students

She sent me a copy and gave permission to share it; she is responding to the letter noted here.  This is her response in its entirety:

In response to the letter about my book, Unwanted Advances: Sexual Paranoia Comes to Campus, posted by the Northwestern Philosophy Graduate Student Association:

I understand these are painful subjects to air, but it’s also important to keep in mind that a professor lost his career over these allegations, and has been effectively blacklisted in the philosophy discipline. The graduate student’s story has already been ratified as the official story. It wasn’t my goal to retell that story, I was reporting on what got left out. As far as exposing private information, the grad student I call Nola Hartley in the book (a pseudonym), has herself exposed and discussed much of this information publicly, in an interview with reporter Robin Wilson (“A Professor, a Graduate Student, and 2 Careers Derailed.” http://www.chronicle.com/article/A-Professor-a-Graduate/231007 .) The discrepancies between that account and documents I had access to (including her own texts and emails) are a legitimate avenue of inquiry.

If the portrait I draw in the book is dissonant to her colleagues, perhaps it’s because private and public behavior aren’t always consistent.

I’d also like to remind the Graduate Student Association that Hartley (and a fellow grad student in your department) not long ago brought me up on Title IX complaints for writing eight words about her. To suggest that she or her friends would have been eager to speak to me about her relationship with Peter Ludlow—and I should have sought them out for interviews—is disingenuous at best.

As far as FERPA, once again, philosophy grad students seem awfully eager to bend federal power to silence someone with views they don’t approve of. The Supreme Court ruled in Gonzaga University v. Doe in 2002 that FERPA creates no personal rights to enforce. The Department of Education would have to make the determination as to whether FERPA applies here, and since I used pseudonyms throughout the book, it’s less than obvious it does. Still, it would be the basis for an interesting First Amendment case.

In Memoriam: Hubert Dreyfus (1929-2017)

MOVING TO FRONT--ORIGINALLY POSTED APRIL 22

He spent most of his career at the University of California, Berkeley, where he was emeritus.  Best-known for his interpretations of Heidegger and Foucault, as well as his (Heidegger-informed) critiques of artificial intelligence, he trained many prominent scholars in the field during his roughly half-century of teaching at Berkeley.  I will add links to memorial notices as they appear.

UPDATE:  Here's Dreyfus (many years ago) talking with Bryan Magee about Husserl and Heidegger.  (Magee gives a nice introduction to Husserlian phenomenology too!)

ANOTHER:  Prof. Dreyfus's twitter account notes his passing.  (Thanks to Ed Barreras, a former student of Prof. Dreyfus, for the pointer.)

AND ANOTHER:  This from the Berkeley Department:

It is with deep sadness that we record the death of Prof. Hubert Dreyfus, who passed away on April 22, 2017. Bert had been a member of the Berkeley philosophy department since 1968, and he will long be remembered by us for his groundbreaking work on Heidegger, his extraordinary teaching and mentoring, and his unswerving commitment to the welfare of our students. We are happy that he was able to carry on with all aspects of his work right up to the end, and the intellectual openness and sense of excitement which pervaded his teaching will continue to serve as an inspiration for us.

There will be a memorial event from 9.30-11.30 on Wednesday, May 24 at Alumni House on the Berkeley campus. The event is open to everyone, and you are warmly invited to attend.

MORE:  The University's memorial notice.

IN ADDITION:  A charming personal remembrance from Robert Paul Wolff.  (Thanks to Matt Lister for the pointer.)

Blast from the past: the "Pluralist [sic] Guide" to PhD programs and the fraudulent "climate for women" section

Back in 2011: first, second, third.  

Philosophical Gourmet Report, 2017-18

I'm very pleased to report that philosopher Christopher Pynes (Western Illinois)--familiar to readers here for his many guest-blogging stints--has agreed to join Brit Brogaard as co-editor of the PGR for 2017-18 (and subsequent iterations).   Professor Pynes will bring good philosophical values and moral and intellectual backbone to this demanding undertaking.  I am grateful to him and to Prof. Brogaard for their willingness to continue to make this resource available to students and to the profession.

Professor Pynes is already at work on revisions to the draft faculty lists for the 2017 surveys; I hope to post a draft in the next couple of weeks for feedback (which should go directly to him at cpynes-at-gmail-dot-com).   I will post other announcements from Professors Brogaard and Pynes once they have settled on a timetable for the next PGR.

ADDENDUM:  Christopher, like Brit, still has posting privileges here, so he will probably post the draft faculty lists himself when they are ready and then moderate comments to get corrections.  So watch for that in the next couple of weeks.

3rd annual meeting of the International Society for Nietzsche Studies at Birkbeck, University of London March 16-17, 2018: Call for Papers

I'm pleased to report that the call for papers is now open for the third annual meeting of the International Society for Nietzsche Studies that will take place in London next March.  Once again, we will be able to cover the airfare and lodging for those whose papers are accepted during the blind review process.  In each of the first two meetings, two graduate students had their papers selected for presentation and subsequent publication in Inquiry, so once again we encourage submissions from graduate students, as well as faculty.

The most important Western philosophers of all time?

So our poll got over 1160 votes (even more than the one eight years ago); in the final 48 hours there was a surge of voting by pro-metaphysics philosophers, leading Hegel to overtake Nietzsche (though he still did not fare as well as previously), Aristotle to overtake Plato, and David K. Lewis to crack the top 30.  Here are the results:

1. Aristotle  (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)

2. Plato  loses to Aristotle by 458–455

3. Kant  loses to Aristotle by 678–256, loses to Plato by 623–312

4. Hume  loses to Aristotle by 721–203, loses to Kant by 606–273

5. Descartes  loses to Aristotle by 801–105, loses to Hume by 463–365

6. Socrates  loses to Aristotle by 720–146, loses to Descartes by 417–332

7. Locke  loses to Aristotle by 855–45, loses to Socrates by 420–237

8. Wittgenstein  loses to Aristotle by 826–94, loses to Locke by 366–313

9. Aquinas  loses to Aristotle by 848–33, loses to Wittgenstein by 380–322

10. Leibniz  loses to Aristotle by 853–43, loses to Aquinas by 337–304

11. Hobbes  loses to Aristotle by 853–37, loses to Leibniz by 332–257

12. Marx  loses to Aristotle by 837–72, loses to Hobbes by 318–302

13. J.S. Mill  loses to Aristotle by 854–47, loses to Marx by 322–283

14. Spinoza  loses to Aristotle by 846–53, loses to J.S. Mill by 300–274

15. Augustine  loses to Aristotle by 841–41, loses to Spinoza by 296–276

16. Frege  loses to Aristotle by 848–48, loses to Augustine by 307–281

17. Hegel  loses to Aristotle by 839–55, loses to Frege by 362–277

18. Nietzsche  loses to Aristotle by 851–77, loses to Hegel by 344–303

19. B. Russell  loses to Aristotle by 850–54, loses to Nietzsche by 358–334

20. Kierkegaard  loses to Aristotle by 836–54, loses to B. Russell by 294–289

21. Berkeley  loses to Aristotle by 844–35, loses to Kierkegaard by 284–258

22. Quine  loses to Aristotle by 855–48, loses to Berkeley by 304–226

23. Epicurus  loses to Aristotle by 825–33, loses to Quine by 236–224

24. Rousseau  loses to Aristotle by 842–31, loses to Epicurus by 204–194

25. Kripke  loses to Aristotle by 848–37, loses to Rousseau by 215–199

26. Rawls  loses to Aristotle by 859–27, loses to Kripke by 209–202

27. Carnap  loses to Aristotle by 841–36, loses to Rawls by 241–213

28. Bacon  loses to Aristotle by 828–21, loses to Carnap by 188–176

29. Bentham  loses to Aristotle by 842–19, loses to Bacon by 172–164

30. D.K. Lewis  loses to Aristotle by 835–39, loses to Bentham by 201–181

31. Democritus  loses to Aristotle by 818–27, loses to D.K. Lewis by 175–174

32. Heraclitus  loses to Aristotle by 821–29, loses to Democritus by 155–141

Democrticus and Hercalitus were close to the top 30, so I included them as well.  Ordinal order aside, it's interesting how farely stable the top 20 has remained.  My own top ten (not in exact order) included Plato, Nietzsche, Marx, Hume, Kant, Mill, Schopenhauer, Socrates, Aristotle, and Hobbes.  Feel free to list yours, but do it with your name attached, since it's not interesting to anyone what an anonymous person thinks are the "top ten" or thereabouts.

A new war on the Korean peninsula...

...would be ghastly.

Letter from some Northwestern graduate students in philosophy about the Kipnis book

Here; an excerpt:

Kipnis dedicates a chapter of her book to questioning a sexual assault allegation our fellow graduate student brought against a faculty member. Kipnis questions this allegation on the basis of a limited set of evidence, without consulting with our colleague or those close to her to check a number of important details in the case. Moreover, Kipnis reinforces her claims with unsubstantiated speculations. Her construction of the narrative is, as a result, irresponsible. We feel compelled to express how dissonant Kipnis’ retelling of these events is with our first-hand experiences of them and with the people involved in them, and to express our concern for Kipnis’ conduct, both as an author and as a faculty member at NU.

The claims Kipnis makes about our colleague compose an image of her that is often unrecognizable to us. For instance, the conjecture that our colleague’s Title IX filing against a faculty member in our department was motivated by a desire for revenge is implausible to all of us who have gotten to know this compassionate, conscientious and diligent student. Those of us who are close to her know that it was only after much hesitation and deliberation that she gave a confidential statement to the Title IX office, and that she did so because she thought it was her moral obligation in light of an ongoing lawsuit.

The second paragraph is the only concrete example of a misrepresentation on Kipnis's part.  It is true, as I noted in an earlier posting, that the student only came forward with her complaint in the wake of the lawsuit by the undergraduate against Ludlow.  I do not recall Kipnis implying that the student was motivated by a desire for revenge, however; the implication, if there was one, was that having dumped Ludlow in favor of her longterm boyfriend, to whom she subsequently got married, her memory of events two years earlier may have been colored by the complicated emotions, the changed relationship status, and the passage of time.  (Kipnis, by the way, did try to contact one graduate student close to the complainant, but she declined to speak with Kipnis.  [This student tells me she was only contacted by Kipnis regarding the Title IX complaint.])

In general, it is fair to say that responses to Kipnis would be more compelling if they were able to offer concrete examples of mistakes, rather than blanket assertions without supporting evidence.

UPDATE:  A reader points out, correctly, that much later in the Kipnis book (pp. 237-238), Kipnis does speculate about whether revenge might have played a role.  The speculation isn't very plausible on the evidence adduced, and it is not the impression her actual chapter on the case gives, fortunately.  I remind readers of the NYT apt summary of the Kipnis book.

Stop Chelsea Clinton!

This is funny and apt.  Bill Clinton was the first Democratic President of the Reagan era, who did more to destroy the Roosevelt vision of the Party than anyone else.   Hilary Clinton was one of the most inept Presidential candidates since, well, Mike Dukakis.  Their progeny needs to be deposited in the dustbin of history with them.

Kipnis on the undergraduate student's case against Ludlow

A philosopher at a university with some experience firing tenured faculty sent me a useful summary of Kipnis's account of the initial case against Ludlow, the one that resulted in his being driven from the classroom by the mob:   

[T]he undergraduate who complained about Ludlow, "Eunice Cho," filed a lawsuit against him, and Kipnis quotes from the deposition in that case (chapter 1). The student claimed that she was so traumatized by Ludlow that she tried to kill herself by jumping into Lake Michigan in February. Someone on the shore saw her and called out to her, whereupon she swam out of the lake, went back to the dorm, waited outside for an hour for her clothes to dry off, then went inside and called two of her professors. In the deposition, she can't recall whether there was ice in the lake (in fact, there was a lot, and it was extremely cold on that night). Then there is this exchange:

Cultural revolution, Middlebury edition

But is the apology enough?  Perhaps he should wear a hair shirt?

9 questions for Martha Nussbaum

This is a fun read.

Judge Gorsuch's first corpse

No doubt more to follow.

Great moments in obscure rock 'n' roll: Love, "You Set the Scene," 1967

Love emerged from the Southern California folk-rock scene in the mid-1960s, though never achieved the fame of others in that milieu, such as the Byrds or Buffalo Springfield.  This song comes from their splendid 1967 album Forever Changes:

 

Bruce "country club" Rauner's campaign to destroy public higher education in Illinois

He's doing a terrific job.

The latest on the CEU's battle for survival in Hungary

Philosopher Katalin Balog writes:

Not much has changed in the situation concerning CEU. The anti-CEU law has passed and is in place. After some early signs that it is considering compromise, and in spite of near continuous street demonstrations, the government is back to issuing crazy statements about CEU (and Soros, who, according to them is leader of a “world empire”); it is also not responding to requests for negotiations. Next week the EP and EC will discuss “lex CEU”, and CEU’s Rector, Michael Ignatieff will be in Brussels to round up support. He urges supporters to write to their representatives. If you are a US citizen please write to your representatives in Congress in support of an American university overseas. You’ll find a sample letter at the bottom of this page:

https://www.ceu.edu/node/17842

A bit later, she added:

Here is an update on the latest mischief against NGO’s the FIDESZ is planning – autocracy at work....If the government doesn’t suspend the law, CEU will be out of business by next January (at least, not able to admit new students..)

http://hungarianspectrum.org/2017/04/19/the-hungarian-parliament-debates-the-anti-ngo-bill/

Comments are open for more information, ideas, links etc.

Most important Western philosophers of all time?

MOVING TO FRONT ONE MORE TIME--ALMOST 700 VOTES NOW, PLEASE VOTE IF YOU HAVEN'T--THESE POLL RESULTS TEND TO BE OF SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST FOR YEARS AFTER THE FACT

We haven't done one of these polls in nearly a decade, so here goes:  87 choices (you don't have to rank them all, and you can choose "no opinion" as well), we'll report on the top 30.  Have fun!  (Poll now fixed.)

Will the U.S. Supreme Court put an end to the partisan gerrymander?

This is a really, really, really important case.  My law school colleague Nicholas Stephanopoulos is responsible for the theory that prevailed in the lower courts; if he succeeds at the super-legislature, this would be, as Dopey Donald Chump would say, "huge."

Islamic terrorists for LePen

They cast their vote, early.

U.S., China, North Korea

This is informative (as is the whole site).

Silicon Valley's flirtation with philosophy

This is curious, and clearly proof that these folks have money to burn!  (The government should really confiscate more of it, and use it to meet human needs.)  Embedded in the article is the bizarre claim that philosophy is the 89th most popular major, which presumably is based on counting majors at schools that don't even offer philosophy.

(Thanks to Evan Goodwin for the pointer.)

Funding of public higher education in 2016

Two-thirds of states saw increases in funding, one-third saw a decline, and Illinois was an outlier (massive decline) due to our noxious Governor Bruce "country club" Rauner.

"Communism for kids"

In English, at last.  Thanks to the ranting and raving of the right-wing crazies, it's turning into a best-seller!

(Thanks to Jacob Blumenfeld, co-translator of the English edition from MIT Press, for the pointer.)

The poll will be coming...

...first time I omitted Kant, second time I got Kant back in, but lost Hume!  Will fix in a bit!  Sorry for the confusion.

Latest Trump mischief on visas will accelerate the flight of foreign students AWAY from American universities

CHE has a useful account of the risks.

Hellie on "the atmosphere of fear" in academic philosophy

Another apt set of observations from philosopher Benj Hellie (Toronto):

The moment seems right for me to make a little speech on behalf of 'peace, love, and understanding' -- so here goes.

Since Sunday morning, I have received (independently, and without solicitation) PMs from philosophers at a wide range of career stages, attesting the feelings of at least half a dozen members of the field; Jess[ica Wilson] has received still more. These are all people whom I hold at a very high level of esteem: excellent, crisp philosophers from whom I have learned a great deal. None of them are 'political' types: instead, they busy themselves in regard to philosophical matters doing fantastic work, to all of our collective benefit. Each communication offered warm appreciation for my and Jess's social media activities in recent days, for which we are humbly grateful.

But a darker current pervaded the various communications. In each case, the writer wished they could offer public support for our activities, but did not do so, out of *fear*.

Let that sink in, please: an atmosphere of *fear* pervades the internal political conversation in the field of philosophy.

The intensity of this fear is high enough that level-headed, responsible, first-rate performers at a wide range of career stages felt unable to perform such an anodyne gesture as 'Liking' some remark Jess or I makes on a comment thread. In consequence of this fear, each of my communicants expressed *guilt* at their sense of inability to publicly express support; and felt moved, for this reason, to apologize for not doing so.

Lots of junior appointments in philosophy announced...

...over at PhilJobs.

Live in a "campus carry" state?

This ad is for you.

Trump's sad face upon being elected President

This is interesting. 

(Thanks to Howard Berman for the pointer.)

Accessing the PGR

Reader Skef Iterum kindly wrote the following to me and Brit:

The secure HTTP version of the philosophical gourmet site:

https://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/

currently has a non-matching TLS certificate, which will prevent it from displaying in most browsers unless the user enters an exception.  The certificate itself is valid, but can only be used to authenticate  a site with a domain name matching *.blackwellpublishing.com.

The non-secure version of the site is working properly [http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com], but googling "philosophical gourmet" provides a link to the secured version, so it's probably best not to ignore this problem for long.

Brit will take this up with Wiley-Blackwell.  For now use the http: version of the site.  I'll have more news about PGR business next week, including announcement of a new co-editor who will work with Brit on the 2017-18 edition; more announcements from the editors will follow.

Turkey now an authoritarian state

Ataturk's dream is dead.  The threat to universities in the new executive powers is quite serious.  Any reason for optimism here?

Passover seder with the Kushner family

Were it only so self-aware in reality!

(Thanks to Jerry Dworkin for the pointer.)

The "photographic eye" of Melania Trump

This is a clever analysis.

Philosophers react on social media to the Kipnis book

There is a remarkable thread on a public Facebook post by Jennifer Lackey (Northwestern), in which she and her colleague Sandy Goldberg voice support for the "substantial character and high integrity" of their graduate student who accused Peter Ludlow of nonconsensual sex; this is in response to the dissection of the case by Laura Kipnis in her now much-discussed book.  (In fact, I think it is possible the graduate student has substantial character and high integrity even if most things Kipnis says are absolutely correct:  there are failures of memory and misleading nuances of recollection that are not the product of bad faith, bad character or dishonesty, especially in an emotionally charged situation like this one).   The usual and familiar perpetrators of group polarization show up in the thread, as well as the two philosophers who have been leading the charge for honest discussion of the Ludlow case against the herd, Benj Hellie and Jessica Wilson.  In the course of the exchange, Hellie delivers a set of remarks that encapsulate the pathology of the social media portion of the profession of philosophy these days; they are so apt and so damning they deserve to be memorialized here:

Look, you [David Sobel, not Lackey or Goldberg] and your comrades set out on a cause you took to be righteous. In the course of it, the field was agitated into an angry mob against Ludlow. In consequence, Ludlow was driven out of his job, and out of philosophical society; lost his house and savings, and wound up with no source of income. Now, that is not a nice thing to happen. Thinking about it makes the heart ache. Of course, if it happens to a bad guy who deserves it, then instead of heartache, time to clink the champagne.

So of course that is what people want to believe. Moreover, your group has made this a big rallying point: a shibboleth, if you will, by the ritual recitation of which people recollect their big success and restore group solidarity. So you and your crowd really have it as a big part of your self-identity that Ludlow got what he deserved.

I add also that the group sees itself as setting the moral tone for philosophy as a whole: I think Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa made a point to that effect the other day, about how it is important not to let outsiders (like me, I guess) define philosophy's response to this debacle. I acknowledge the success of your campaign: there is truly a chilling effect, where almost no one is willing to challenge your verities in public; and perhaps some of the causes the group stands for are to the good (set that aside).

Now comes Laura Kipnis. The world is paying close attention; and the judgement of the world is that this very central rallying point of your group is a grave mistake. Within the group, it does not seem that way, but that is really very blinkered: a great many folk out there think your shibboleth is a false god.