Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

New books in January

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

New Television:  The Aesthetics and Politics of a Genre by Martin Shuster (University of Chicago Press, 2017).

Kafka:  In Light of the Accident by Howard Caygill (Bloomsbury, 2017).

The Routledge Handbook of Collective Intentionality edited by Marija Jankovic & Kirk Ludwig (Routeldge, 2018).

Social and Political Philosophy:  A Contemporary Introduction, 2nd edition by John Christman (Routledge, 2018).

Scarlet A:  The Ethics, Law & Politics of Ordinary Abortion by Katie Watson (Oxford University Press, 2018).

Science Unlimited?  The Challenges of Scientism edited by Maarten Boudry & Massimo Pigliucci (University of Chicago Press, 2017).

On Being Awesome:  A Unified Theory of How Not to Suck by Nick Riggle (Penguin Books, 2017).

Alienation and Freedom by Frantz Fanon, ed. by Jean Khalfa & Robert J.C. Young, trans. by Steven Corcoran (Bloomsbury Academic, 2018).

Philosophers on War edited by Eric Patterson & Timothy J. Demy (Stone Tower Books, 2017).

Academic job searches with "hidden" search criteria

My latest "Academic Ethics" column at the Chronicle of Higher Education.

UPDATE:  A senior philosopher elsewhere writes:

Just wanted to tell you that your latest CHE piece really resonated with me. Back when I was first on the job market I had an APA interview with my undergrad alma mater [University X]. Of course, I felt confident going in—I knew the school, the culture, the students, the area. As the end of the interview, the (sole) interviewer said, “Well, it’s been a real pleasure talking to you. But I have to be honest. The Dean said we are hiring a woman or the position won’t exist. This was a courtesy interview because you are an alum.” They hired some woman whose name I now forget, although I know she left [University X]. 

ANOTHER:  Just to be clear (since this has come up in correspondence with some readers), everything I say in this column is compatible with affirmative action (even if I don't think "diversity" is the best reason for the latter):  the "hidden criteria" searches are, one hopes, only a small subset of affirmative action-related practices, and it is only they that seem to me especially hard to defend.

Democratic backsliding: the case of Poland

Some readers may find this of interest.

Philosophical "fads"?

MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY--MANY INTERESTING COMMENTS, MORE WELCOME

Friday's poll generated a lot of interest--nearly 850 votes!  Here, in the opinion of readers, were the "top five" current "fads" in philosophy to which readers were plainly not sympathetic:

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

2. Experimental Philosophy  loses to Epistemic injustice by 379–302

3. Critical Race Theory  loses to Epistemic injustice by 326–308, loses to Experimental Philosophy by 340–328

4. Effective altruism  loses to Epistemic injustice by 401–280, loses to Critical Race Theory by 349–261

5. Grounding  loses to Epistemic injustice by 395–268, loses to Effective altruism by 326–299

 I confess that apart from "effective altruism" and "grounding," this doesn't look much like my top 5, which also included "formal epistemology" (I've yet to see a paper in this genre that did not involve preposterous idealizations and assumptions with the result that it was useless for epistemology), and non-naturalist normative realism (naturalistic normative realism failed, but true to their conservative nature, analytic philosophers then went for a position some of us had thought was, deservedly, dead and buried).   I forget my 5th!  It is probably true that people are overplaying the "epistemic injustice" meme (as injustices go under capitalist relations of production, it's far down the list), but the core idea is an interesting one, or so I thought.  Hostility towards experimental philosophy is not surprising, but I'm optimistic it will stick around, given its close ties to the cognitive sciences.

Reader comments on "fads" welcome, including possible fads not in the poll.  Feel free to explain your own choices (or to defend some of the possible "fads" against the charge).

On the phenomenology of illness

Philosopher Havi Carel (Bristol) comments.

JHP article prize goes to KCL's Clare Carlisle

Philosopher Jack Zupko (editor of JHP) writes:

The Board of Directors of the Journal of the History of Philosophy has awarded the prize for the best article to appear in volume 55 of the JHP to Clare Carlisle for "Spinoza's Acquiescentia," JHP 55.2 (April 2017): 209-236.

Dr. Carlisle is Senior Lecturer in Philosophy and Theology and AKC Programme Director at King's College London.

Details here (upper right corner, under 'Announcements'): https://sites.ualberta.ca/~jhphil/.

Philosopher Asa Kasher is not bringing credit to philosophy...

..with rationalizations like this.  On the one hand, Israel is an intellectually and culturally vibrant country that has survived two wars of aggression; on the other hand, it is currently holding millions of Palestinians effectively prisoner.  Philosophers should not try to rationalize what is required for the latter, even if Trump is President.

(Thanks to Joe Cairns for the pointer.)

America is doomed, part 392: democracy requires mutual toleration and forebearance

And ever since the rise of Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News, both have been in short supply; Trump is just the latest installment.  It's a shame the authors don't lay the blame squarely where it belongs, but they are right that the Democrats are now copying the Repulican strategeties.   I'm hopeful it won't come to civil war, but I do think secession and separation is in the American future.

Russell's half-time Sweden appointment moving from Gothenburg to Lund

Paul Russell (Hume, free will) has moved his half-time appointment in Sweden from the University of Gothenburg to the University of Lund, effective this month.  (He continues to be half-time at the University of British Columbia.)  His free will and moral responsibility project will continue to have some activities at Gothernburg, as well as activities now at Lund.

Great moments in obscure rock 'n' roll: Lovin' Spoonful, "Till I Run With You," 1969

The band's last album, recorded after the departure of the driving creative force John Sebastian who had written their famous hits of the mid-1960s, included one moderately well-known single, but this tune was always my favorite:

 

Copenhagen's Dan Zahavi interviewed...

...at 3AM.

Steve Bannon is coming to campus (here at U of Chicago) at the invitation of a well-known economist (Luigi Zingales), and now controversy ensues

UPDATED BELOW!

The details behind the controversy are described here.  I'll return to my own view at the end, but first, my colleague Anton Ford asked me to share this letter from Samantha Eyler, who works (in a non-academic but editorial position) at both the Stigler Center here and ProMarket, a publication of the Stigler Center.  Ms. Eyler writes:

As Senior Editor at the Stigler Center and its publication ProMarket, and one of six members of the ProMarket editorial board, I have opposed since its inception the proposal by my colleague Luigi Zingales to provide a platform to Steve Bannon at the Stigler Center, as well as the use of ProMarket to promote the provision of that platform, on grounds that it normalizes white nationalism and implicates us in the concrete violence wrought on American lives every day by that ideology.

When my objections were overruled, I requested on grounds of ethics to recuse myself from any involvement with the Bannon event. Although Zingales accepted my recusal on its face, within hours he began to instruct me to promote his event-related statements on ProMarket and to provide him with research in advance of the Bannon event. I immediately sought advice from Chicago Booth Human Resources to determine the level of protection the University provides to its staff in such cases, and was informed that, while Bannon and Zingales themselves are protected under the University’s stated principles of freedom of expression, University of Chicago staff are not, and perceived insubordination could be grounds for termination of my employment.

With this information established, it is clear that I can no longer continue to sit on the ProMarket editorial board alongside tenured faculty whose speech is more protected than my own. This fact transparently makes it impossible to debate on equal terms with my board colleagues such urgent matters as our responsibilities as editors in facing the growing threat of white nationalism in America.

For this reason I hereby resign from my post on the ProMarket editorial board and as acting editor-in-chief responsible for content development at ProMarket. I will carry on as the Stigler Center’s senior editor, reporting to Zingales, and as executive editor of ProMarket, reporting to the remaining members of the editorial board. But I am no longer able to undertake content development functions for which lateral equality between editorial board members is a necessary precondition.

I invite the ProMarket board to use this occasion as an opportunity to clarify in a more formal way whether ProMarket is editorially independent of the Stigler Center. And I invite all members of the University of Chicago community to critically assess the merits of a free speech absolutism that has justified the provision of a platform to a famed white nationalist while failing to protect UChicago’s own staff seeking to exercise our right to protest the fact that such a platform has been provided. My situation is only the latest example of the ubiquitous reality in this country whereby the de jure notion of an absolute right to freedom of expression conceals a de facto reality in which the right to free expression of the powerful is enforced at the expense of that of their subordinates.

The last sentence is naive and false, but put that to one side.   I agree that in her role as an editor she ought to be able to freely disagree with her co-editors; on the other hand, it sounds like Prof. Zingales views her more as employee, with editorial responsibilities.  I do not know what is really the case.  What I do know is that none of us, including the faculty, enjoy free speech rights that would interfere with discharge of our core professional responsibilities; nor do any of us, including faculty, enjoy rights of conscientious objection to our core professional responsibilities.  The only question here is what Ms. Eyler's are, and that I do not know. 

Philosophical "fads"? A poll

This poll lists some currently "hot" topics/areas/methods in philosophy; some of these may be of lasting importance to the field.  But I've also heard all of them described pejoratively as "fads," that will (or ought to) fade away.  What do readers think?  Rank order them from the "most" to the "least" faddish (the most faddish items ought to fade away, lack real philosophical merit in your judgment etc.).  Have fun!

 

A propos nothing

(Thanks to Alan Soble for the pointer.)

Blast from the past: when the philosophical community mobilized, successfully, to defend Professor Torcello's academic freedom at RIT.

Back in 2014.

Lasonen-Aarnio from Michigan to Helsinki

MOVING TO FRONT FROM THIS MORNING--A BRIEF UPDATE

Maria Lasonen-Aarnio (epistemology), previously Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, has taken up a position as Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Helsinki.

ADDENDUM:  Professor Lasonon-Aarnio will also be an Adjunct Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Southern California, where she will teach half of each fall semester.

On defending the vulnerable and the powerless, and giving them a voice

I have always defended philosophers (and others) who have been victims of wrongdoing, and have often given them a voice and a platform:  Rebecca Tuvel, Lawrence Torcello, Crispin Sartwell, Steven Salaita, the philosophers at King's College, London, and many, many others.  Earlier this week, I did the same for Alan Soble.  Alan Soble spent most of his career at the University of New Orleans, and post-Katrina has been an adjunct professor at Drexel University.  Without a fancy perch or pedigree--no Canada Research Chair, no post at one of the world's leading research universities--he developed through hard work an entire subfield, the philosophy of sex and love.  Carrie Jenkins, holder of a Canada Research Chair at the University of British Columbia, devoted an entire section of a published journal article on philosophy of love to criticizing (indeed mocking) an undergraduate paper that she found on the Internet and that she wrongly attributed to Alan Soble, a leading figure in the field.   Her defense was “everyone makes mistakes."  But not everyone makes mistakes of this magnitude, and her response to being criticized by the victim of her carelessness was to revert to her usual self-absorption and self-pity.   As I noted, Prof. Soble wrote to me last week puzzled by the on-line outpouring of sympathy for Jenkins after his "angry" response to her when he had not been heard from.  I offered to share his actual response and objections to the reckless mistreatment to which he had been subjected.  Although most readers know who is in the right here (Soble was justifiably angry to have had undergraduate work attributed to him and mocked in a professional journal), I've been (only mildly, I confess) surprised by the minority who apparently would minimize the wrong done to Prof. Soble, ignore the vast power differentials between the victim and the wrongdoer here, and prefer that the victim remain unheard.

The revolt against "Academic [sic] Analytics" grows

The latest from CHE.  Earlier coverage of this disgraceful enterprise that should really be called "Garbage Analytics."

What is it like to be a philosopher? Dan Kaufman edition

Here. 

(Clifford Sosis kindly asked me to nominate someone for one of these, so I suggested Dan.  Thanks, Clifford!)

Trout from Loyola/Chicago to IIT

J.D. Trout (philosophy of science, mind and cognitive science), previously Professor of Philosophy at Loyola University, Chicago, has taken up an endowed chair in philosophy at the Illinois Institute of Technology, also in Chicago.  That's a big loss for Loyola/Chicago!

JHP book prize goes to Illinois/Urbana's Shelley Weinberg

Philosopher Debra Nails, the Book Review editor of Journal of the History of Philosophy, wrote to let me know that the winner of the annual $5,000 book prize for the best book published in the history of philosophy published the previous year is Shelley Weinberg's Consciousness in Locke (OUP, 2016). Weinberg is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

23 days, 11 school shootings

Welcome to America in 2018.

Repeal the Second Amendment.

More than 70 Israeli philosophers call on the government to stop the deportation of African refugees

Philosopher David Enoch (Hebrew U) asked me to share his translation of this statement originally drafted, in Hebrew, by him and his colleagues at the Open University, Amir Horowitz and Yuval Eylon; you may download the full statement here:   Download Israeli philosophers again the deprtation of refugees

UPDATE:  Philosopher Sergio Tenenbaum (Toronto) calls to my attention that there is "a petition from Jewish academics around the world endorsing the letter from the Israeli philosophers and joining them in calling to stop the deportation.  All Jewish academics are invited to sign it. The link is here."

 

Academic freedom under attack in Hong Kong

The latest, at IHE.

Fixing the undergraduate economics course

Friedman, Hayek, Coase, Keynes, Marx and more.

"Philosophy Paperboy"

A relatively new (free) service that keeps subscribers up-to-date with new articles in philosophy (they cover a very wide range of journals).

Historic house built for USC philosophy professor in Hollywood Hills goes on sale

A mere $1.75 million!

(Thanks to Evan Goodwin for the pointer.)

What is it like to be a philosopher? Kate Manne edition.

Here.

An ex-bank robber reads Kant

A curious story.

(Thanks to Mark van Atten for the pointer.)

Carrie Jenkins, Alan Soble, and the "chasm of crap"

Last summer, we noted the curious spectacle of an article on philosophy of love by Carrie Jenkins published in a peer-reviewed journal, Ergo, criticizing views attributed to the well-known philosopher of love Alan Soble, but basing those views on an unsigned document found on the internet (that turned out to be an undergraduate paper, one that was criticizing Alan Soble!).  (The journal, Ergo, did not discharge itself honorably in this matter.)  When I first learned of this, I tried e-mailing Prof. Soble, but did not hear from him at the time (I may not have used the correct e-mail address).  However, late last week, I did hear from Prof. Soble, who had discovered the various Internet discussions of the affair, including my own.  Prof. Soble kindly shared with me the original correspondence with Prof. Jenkins.   First, her e-mail to Prof. Soble regarding her "mistake":

 On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Carrie Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Alan (if I may?)

Raja Halwani (copied here) has let me know that I misattributed a draft paper to you in my Ergo paper 'Modal Monogamy.'

I am so sorry for this. I can only imagine how frustrating and annoying it must be. I don't have any excuses to make in this email: I wanted to acknowledge the error, send my sincere apologies, and let you know that I am already in touch with the journal about issuing a correction. 

I have also posted on my blog about the mistake (as sometimes journal corrections go unnoticed, and I want to make sure people know).

Do let me know if there's anything else I can do. 

Best wishes,

Carrie

Professor Soble's rather amusing reply to Professor Jenkins follows:

In your  published essay I found:

Soble, Alan (unpublished manuscript) What Is Romantic Love? Retrieved from http://forums.catholic.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9934&d=1300009573 Accessed March 13, 2011.

Mistake Number 1: If indeed it is an unpublished article of mine (or anyone's), you have a duty to drop me (or someone) a note asking if you may refer to it or quote from it, as well as asking if a more recent version exists, with different lemmata. Can you spell "Chutzpah"?

Mistake Number 2:  You do cite my 1987 piece on love, properly, but why would a genuine Research-Scholar-Chair ignore my further and different take on exclusivity (and other themes) in my 1990 The Structure of Love? Why tie the stones of a superseded article around my neck? (Or anyone's.) At least mention that this guy that you are here picking apart may have had more reasonable views flowing through his brain. Do you teach "Straw Person" in logic or critical reasoning?

Mistake Number 3:  I fail to understand the stupidity involved in possessing that paper and then assuming, despite the absence of the name of
an author, that it was written by me (or anyone else). This  routine passes muster at Trinity? You know the dangers of the www/internet, yet you fall right into the chasm of crap. 

Think slowly, cautiously: As soon as you type it -- "Soble, Alan (unpublished internet manuscript)" -- doesn't a bit of humble conscience bleat in your ear, "oh, really?" And "why do I  bother to rely on a stinky 'net unpublished essay, anyway?"  (Even if the only other piece I, or anyone, wrote on love was the 1987.)

Mistake Number 4:  No, you may not presume to be on such terms with me that you may address me as "Alan." Who or what do you think you are, Dr. Professor Jenkins? Sheesh. More pomposity.

Mistake Number 5:  Failing to read my "Bad Apples: The Influence of Politics on Scholarship," Philosophy of the Social Sciences 29:3 (1999), pp. 354-88.

Mistake Number 6:  "I can only imagine how frustrating and annoying it must be."  Whence "frustrating"? Annoying, yes, but how have I been frustrated? You throw words around (thoughtlessly dash them off). And no, you have absolutely no idea, not a clue, about how annoying your sophomoric mistakes are, for me, in my mind.  Your power to imagine the experiences of others is profoundly limited, if not mauled, by your grandiose self-vision.

For those who have followed Professor Jenkins's shenanigans on-line over the last several years, it's quite clear Professor Soble "has her number," which might explain her self-pity meltdown in the wake of his response.  Below the fold, Prof. Soble's e-mail to me last week upon his discovery of this whole matter:

Great moments in obscure rock 'n' roll: Frank Marino & Mahogany Rush, "I'm a King Bee," 1978

The "Canadian Jimi Hendrix," Frank Marino, and his band Mahogany Rush were moderately well-known in the 1970s, but never really made it to superstardom, which was a shame, since Marino really was a fabulous guitar player; this clip is representative:

 

Trinity College Dublin's Peter Simons interviewed...

...at 3AM.  A striking bit:

Following Christian Wolff, Edmund Husserl and Donald C. Williams, I think metaphysics has two parts. One is the theory of the forms and highest categories of objects: Husserl called that formal ontology. The other is the general inventory of all that is, which I call metaphysical systematics. It’s through systematics that the formal theory reaches out to be applied to reality. That’s why I think metaphysics is the real theory of everything: nothing is off its remit. This extreme generality makes it harder to secure feedback about the truth or otherwise of its theories, so there are always many fiercely competing views, some quite extreme, and with no obvious best one even of the less extreme views. Every so often, in fact several times in the history of the subject, this has given rise to a sceptical backlash, with that of logical positivism that you mention being one of the most sustained and radical.

It turned out that the criticisms of the positivists went too far: they were self-undermining. There is a genuine place and need for metaphysics, and if it is suppressed for long, that need makes itself felt. When philosophers avoid it, others spring into the breach: philosophically interested scientists, as well as all kinds of gurus and false prophets. After several decades in the mid-part of the last century when metaphysics was criticised and largely avoided, it gradually began to revive, at first in the guise of the semantics of natural and artificial languages, what I call Metaphysics-Lite. Since semantics can be done in so many ways, eventually metaphysics was bound to be taken up again for its own sake. It was an interesting development, because a large number of philosophers moved in the same direction independently at the same time. By the 1980s it was making a strong comeback, and since then it has flourished, especially in analytic philosophy. Not so many years ago I was saying we were living in a golden age for metaphysics. Unfortunately, the rediscovered freedom has again led to some pretty extreme and crazy theories, so another wave of sceptical criticism has followed as surely as day follows night. There has been a return of concern about whether metaphysical disputes are genuine, and a new name for metaphysical reflections on the status of metaphysics: “metametaphysics”. It’s dismaying to find metaphysics through its own excesses being compelled to retrace the steps to legitimation that it so recently took. I hope the excitement about extreme views dies down and a more level-headed realism returns, but I am not betting on it. Extreme views attract comment both imitative and critical, while metametaphysics tends to undermine the drive for first-order truth. Both divert energies from the serious business of getting metaphysics right.

I very much doubt there is a "genuine place and need for metaphysics," but these are, nonetheless, interesting observations.  Informed thoughts welcome.

Philosophy professor (and Hegel specialist!) runs for Congress in Georgia

Richard Winfield from the University of Georgia.  A write-up from The Nation.  I hope he wins!

(Thanks to Alejandro Bárcenas for the pointer.)

Virtual Dissertation Groups, once again

Joshua Smart asked me to share the latest announcement:

Virtual Dissertation Groups

VDG is a free service that connects graduate students to provide feedback on dissertation work. Members are grouped with two others working in the same general area of philosophy. About once a month, one member sends some work (3-6K words) to the others, who return feedback and comments in a week or so.

While advisors and committees are important, it can be incredibly helpful to discuss one’s work with peers in a lower-stakes environment, and it can be particularly enlightening to do so with those who take a different approach, outlook, or focus. Not only that, but there is evidence from psychological research that thinking about problems in relation to persons who are geographically distant can increase creativity. With students in programs from many states, countries, and every continent with a philosophy Ph.D. program, Virtual Dissertation Groups is a great way to capture some of these benefits!

You can sign up to participate here. Open sign-ups go through February 1st. (Later sign-ups are conditional on there being available groups.)

Philosophical Gourmet Report, 2017-18, forthcoming

I know Christopher and Brit have sent most of the materials to Wiley-Blackwell, which is now readying them for the web--so probably by the end of this month, most of the new Report will be live--plus Wiley-Blackwell has proposed a snazzy redesign of the site, which I suspect readers will like.  After the new Report goes live, I'll have more to say about some of the results, especially in the specialty areas.

Is Trump a racist? And does it matter?

Robert Paul Wolff comments.

Pakistani man denied asylum for failure to recognize Plato as a "humanist" philosopher

This is bizarre, there must be more to it.  (It's especially bizarre because, as a certain German philosopher said, "Christianity is Platonism for the people").

(Thanks to John Dupre for the pointer.)

Dawn of a new era

I now have an iPhone (I even learned, thanks to Alex Guerrero and Patricia Greenspan on FB, that it's not spelled "I-Phone").  I realize I am the last member of the bourgeois professoriate to acquire one; indeed, I am the last person in my family.  I pledge not to post to the blog or to twitter from my iPhone.  But I may now have to retreat to a cloistered place for a few days to figure how to use it.

After the Affordable Care Act?

Philosopher Daniel Hausman (Wisconsin) comments.  The idea that the values he mentions will really count for anything with Repugs in control is a bit absurd, but the rest of his analysis is sensible.

"Baltimore Sun" covers the gifts to Johns Hopkins Philosophy

Here.  A couple of additional things I told the reporter that didn't make it in to the story, as inevitably happens.  First, I gave her an example of a program that went from the low 40s to the top 10, over a period of a decade, and without a $75 million donation (though quite a lot of university money), namely, University of Southern California.  Second, I noted that a distinctive, and to my mind admirable, feature of the Johns Hopkins Department is that it takes history of philosophy seriously, and already has a leadership position in, for example the study of modern philosophy through Kant and post-Kantian German Idealism.  I hope that's a feature of the program they will sustain going forward.  Third, I ventured the opinion that they will be at least a top 20 department in ten years of they grow from 13 to 22, while maintaing the current level of faculty quality; the fact is, it's a small department relative to other major research universities, which often have 20 or more faculty members, rather than Hopkins's 13.

California wises up on vaccinations

They used to have an extremely lax "personal belief exemption" from vaccination, with predictable results (outbreaks of easily preventable diseases, including measles); in 2016, they eliminated that exemption, with also predictable results.

$75 million gift to the Philosophy Department at Johns Hopkins

Wow!  This really will be transformative for the department:

Miller's gift will help grow the department within 10 years to 22 full-time faculty members from its current 13. It will create an endowed professorship for the chair of the department, eight other endowed professorships, and endowed support for junior faculty members.

The gift will add $10 million to endowed support for philosophy graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. The university also aims to attract more undergraduates to the study of philosophy, in part through new introductory courses and additional interdisciplinary tracks, like the existing minor in bioethics.

"Speaking as someone who presents as a man..."

Les Green (Oxford) comments.

Margaret Atwood, "bad feminist"

She's interested in fairness.  (I had not heard of the Galloway case before, but apparently a court exonerated him after the University of British Columbia "convicted" and fired him.)  It's hardly surprising who is in favor of unfairness and against Atwood.

Attention PhD students doing work where law study might be helpful

The University of Chicago Law School is once again offering a fully funded (including living stipend) one year M.L.S. degree, allowing a student to spend a year here taking courses, seminars and workshop in the law school that will complement and facilitate your dissertation work.   The application information is here and more information about the program is here.  At the time of application you should be done with or finishing your coursework and embarking on a dissertation proposal for which deeper knowledge of law would be helpful.  Feel free to shoot me an e-mail if you have questions not answered by the preceding documents.   Note that if you decide you want to earn a J.D., you will not be able to count any of your MLS coursework towards the JD (this is an American Bar Association rule, not a rule of our law school).

(Almost) 10 books and/or articles on Nietzsche you should have read in the last 10 years

At my Nietzsche blog.

The sexual harassment scandal at Rochester and its conclusion

Last year, there was an extraordinary public, Internet campaign against the University of Rochester and a faculty member in Brain and Cognitive Sciences (BCS), Florian Jaeger, accused of various forms of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct.  The University of Rochester President, who recently stepped down, had defended the University's handling of the case; after the public campaign, the University hired Mary Jo White, a former federal prosecutor and a partner at a major New York law firm, Debevoise & Plimpton, to investigate both the allegations against Jaeger and the University's handling of the matter.   That report is now public.  From the introduction:

Despite [Jaeger] being labeled as a 'sexual predator' by his accusers, there have never been allegations of sexual assault, unwanted groping, any use of force, or exhibitionism outside of consensual relationships, and we have found no evidence of such behavior ever occurring.

Unfortunately, this is typical of the careless use of language that has become familiar in these kinds of cases.  From the conclusion of the report:

Over the past three and a half months, we have conducted a thorough and objective independent investigation. Our investigation has substantiated a number of allegations in the complaints, not substantiated others and refuted some. This Report gives a full accounting of our work, findings and recommendations. It was a very difficult, and at times wrenching, undertaking. We credit that some BCS students were negatively impacted by the professor's conduct earlier in his career at the University. Partly as a result of that conduct, but also because of the broad dissemination of the often exaggerated descriptions of that conduct, the esteemed BCS faculty has been fractured and the University's reputation has been harmed. This case illustrates once again that a community can be damaged when public discourse on important issues fails to separate rumor from fact, to distinguish between different levels of wrongful conduct, and to apply a sense of proportionality in the consideration of how prior conduct should be remediated.

This will obviously remind philosophy readers of some of the issues that arose regarding the Peter Ludlow case at Northwestern.

Meanwhile, Professor Jaeger has issued a statement through his lawyer.

Interviews with philosophers and political theorists at the Los Angeles Review of Books

Andy Fitch has done a lot of interesting ones, which you can find here, and scroll down.  Interviewees include Nick Bostrom, Melissa Lane, Jonny Thakkar, and others.

Great moments in obscure rock 'n' roll: James Gang, "Stop," 1969

Here's another number from their forgotten debut album from 1969, their great rendition and jam on "Stop" (we featured another version here, though I much prefer the James Gang take):

 

Oxford's Alexander Paseau interviewed...

...at 3AM.