Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

Job ad specifies candidate sought for the position

A job seeker (not the one named in the ad) calls this funny ad to my attention:

PLS, Visiting Assistant Special Professional, Bugyis, Eric-Preferred Candidate

Institution:

University of Notre Dame

 

Location:

Notre Dame, IN

 

Category:

• Faculty - Liberal Arts - Philosophy
• Faculty - Liberal Arts - Religious Studies and Theology

 

Posted:

01/14/2019

 

Type:

Full-Time

 

PLS, Visiting Assistant Special Professional, Bugyis, Eric-preferred candidate

Location: University of Notre Dame
Open Date: Jan 11, 2019
Deadline:

Description:Teaching in:4:4 course load in PLS, Philosophy, and Theology.

Qualifications:

To apply, visit https://apply.interfolio.com/59442

This appointment is contingent upon the successful completion of a background check. Applicants will be asked to identify all felony convictions and/or pending felony charges. Felony convictions do not automatically bar an individual from employment. Each case will be examined separately to determine the appropriateness of employment in the particular position. Failure to be forthcoming or dishonesty with respect to felony disclosures can result in the disqualification of a candidate. The full procedure can be viewed at https://facultyhandbook.nd.edu/?id=link-73597.

Equal Opportunity Employment Statement
The University of Notre Dame seeks to attract, develop, and retain the highest quality faculty, staff and administration. The University is an Equal Opportunity Employer, and is committed to building a culturally diverse workplace. We strongly encourage applications from female and minority candidates and those candidates attracted to a university with a Catholic identity. Moreover, Notre Dame prohibits discrimination against veterans or disabled qualified individuals, and requires affirmative action by covered contractors to employ and advance veterans and qualified individuals with disabilities in compliance with 41 CFR 60-741.5(a) and 41 CFR 60-300.5(a).

jeid-08c2583cef6ab14fb02971d32a8b0723

Making decisions...

...in The New Yorker, discussing the views of philosophers Agnes Callard (Chicago) and Laurie Paul (Yale), among others.

Jeff McMahan (Oxford) on "no-platforming"

This is timely; it appears in a new philosophy series at The New Statesman run by Aaron Wendland.

Philosopher Bence Nanay (Antwerp) discusses "The Fractured Mind"...

...at the recent HowtheLightGetsIn conference.

Oxford political theorist Sophie Smith on the Finnis case

Although she comes down on the right side of the question, she too manages to muddy the core academic freedom issue--you can't punish faculty for the offensiveness of their published research, full stop.  But I'm sympathetic with some of her frustration at the responses by other legal philosophers.  I don't think she or anyone needs to engage "respectfully" with Finnis's writings on homosexuality or most other matters:  he is a Catholic philosopher, the dogma determines the answers, and the arguments are awful or absurd unless you start with the dogmatic premises he accepts.  Ignoring that work is the best policy unless one is working within the Catholic tradition.  (Academic freedom also protects the rights of Catholic philosophers!)  Is Finnis a "legal giant"?  His corpus testifies to the bankruptcy of his version of natural law theory, his main arguments having been demolished so many times as to make the exercise tedious.  (If natural law theory has any hope qua theory of law it will be in Mark Murphy's work, which clearly recognizes the faults in Finnis's arguments.)  Finnis is a giant of Catholic philosophy, an excellent expositor of the natural law tradition and of Aquinas in particular, and he was the first such philosopher to meaningfully engage the post-Hartian tradition in legal philosophy:  kudos to him for all of that.  (I teach Chapter 1 of Natural Law and Natural Rights all the time, but like everyone else, I explain why that argument fails to challenge the positivist approach to jurisprudence--indeed, I often have students read Murphy's concise explanation of this point!)

Professor Smith writes, "Academic freedom is a principle worth defending, but it is foolish to ignore its costs, and who (disproportionately, quietly) bears them."  But there are no costs to the principle in this case, unless one thinks that knowing that Oxford employs an emeritus professor with reactionary Catholic views to do some teaching is harming someone.  But how could one seriously think that?  To quote another Oxford professor of jurisprudence, John Gardner:  "That something offends you, or more generally makes you feel bad, does not show that it does you any harm. We all feel bad about something most days and come out of it unscathed, just as we come out of most physical pain unscathed. Of course there may be harms that are consequences of offence and pain. Torture harms people by the use of pain. Upset may turn to depression and may then be disabling."   Knowing that an emeritus professor holds loathsome views is precisely the kind of "harm" Millian liberals did not want to countenance.  So the talk of "costs" (like Professor Smith's talk of "hate speech"--there is no statutory prohibition on hate speech I am aware of that would encompass Finnis's writings) is just a distraction from the core, and simple, academic freedom issue:   a university that respects academic freedom does not remove someone from the classroom because their research expresses offensive views (that is true whether they are a "giant" or "midget").  The only folks trying to present the issue as "complicated," I fear, are those who don't really care that much about academic freedom.

Virtual Dissertation Groups, once again

Joshua Smart (Ohio State) asked me to share this announcement, which I'm happy to do:

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 signups through Sunday, January 20th [Afterwards, new dissertators are accepted conditional on available spots]

The situation for women in economics

It sounds worse than in philosophy (where things, at least, have gotten better in the last decade).

Blog traffic and the rise and fall of blogs

I see a lot of references, both in cyberspace and sometimes in traditional media, to the decline of interest in blogs.  This is attributed to two main factors:  the current popularity of Twitter and the growth of Facebook, which many users treat as de facto blogs.  Certainly in philosophy, relatively few blogs have survived the long haul, and in academic law, many once popular blogs have closed entirely.

Meanwhile, we trudge along.  Traffic is, I'm pretty sure, somewhat down from the highs of 2012-2013--peak blog readership generally--but unfortunately I had to change stat counters in 2015 as the old one ("sitemeter" I think) went beserk, so I no longer have official, comparble stats from then.  Here's the yearly data on visits from 2015 through 2018 according to the new StatCounter; note that "returning visits" can only be measured for readers who visit from the same computer, which no doubt many do, but many others don't.  But since StatCounter (click on "public stats" at the bottom of the left column) includes those figures, I include them here (note that 2017 was the first year I began my reduced summer blogging schedule, although its effect on traffic was only slight):

	Returning Visits	Unique Visits	Page Views
2015	1,686,680	3,686,038	4,972,397
2016	1,768,696	3,564,079	4,835,466
2017	1,651,053	3,455,946	4,747,474
2018	1,688,305	3,566,762	4,860,347

Returning visits in 2018 topped the 2015 figure, but missed the 2016 high.  Unique visits in 2018 were higher than the prior two years, but lower than in 2015--and the same for page views.  All the changes were surprisingly small year-in and year-out.

Anyway, I owe thanks to you loyal readers, some of whom I know have stuck with the blog for many years!

A list of Trump's made-up conversations he never had

It's quite a list, although I don't find it unsettling, since it is of a piece with his pathological lying about everything.

Philosopher Alex Byrne (MIT) on the idea of "gender identity"

MOVING TO FRONT FROM MORNING OF JANUARY 11, IN CASE PEOPLE MISSED IT

Since he picks it apart pretty thoroughly, he will no doubt be added to the list of wrong-thinking villains like Kathleen Stock, Leslie Green, and mild-mannered me.  Fortunately, since those who keep lists of wrong-thinking villains are increasingly the objects of the ridicule and obstracization that they had tried to inflict on others, we can expect that Professor Byrne's list will soon be the "place to be."

Great moments in obscure rock 'n' roll: Sir Lord Baltimore, "Hard Rain Fallin'," 1970

Brooklyn-based proto heavy metal band, this song comes from their debut album, which just barely cracked the Billboard top 200.

 

Nihilistic password security questions

These are very funny; a sampling:

What is the name of your least favorite child?

In what year did you abandon your dreams?

At what age did your childhood pet run away?

In what city did you first experience ennui?

What sports team do you fetishize to avoid meaningful discussion with others?

On what street did you lose your childlike sense of wonder?

Poetry from the past: "Recidivism"

Back in 2011.  A reader kindly called this to my attention as a poem he particularly liked.  My father was 78 when he wrote that poem, and will turn 86 next week.

The Democratic challengers to the monster-child, an update

As everyone knows, Senator Elizabeth Warren has declared, and now Representative Tulsi Gabbard.  I'd vote for either, and am happy they are in the game.   But since presidential elections are now heavily influenced by the garbage media (e.g., Fox) and the brainless Internet, the real question is who will manage this environment the best?   And, of course, who will beat the monster-child?   Ocasio-Coretz, the newly elected Representive from the Bronx/Queens has been driving the right-wing crazies even crazier, so Senator Warren and Representative Gabbard should take pointers from her.

I'm actually slightly hopeful for America that these folks are on the national stage.  The real value of life has nothing to do with congressional elections, or interest rates, or the stock market, or immigration policy:  it has to do with creating space for human beings to be human beings, and realize their endlessly fascinating capacities.   I'm generally pessimistic about how much this can happen under capitalist relations of production, but maybe some of these folks can push off the inevitable catastrophe that is capitalism?  And maybe they can push it off long enough for an alternative to be found?

Philosopher Peter Boghossian at Portland State facing possible sanction for "research misconduct" in connection with the "grievance studies" hoax

MOVING TO FRONT FROM JANUARY 9--UPDATED

IHE has the details .(Earlier coverage here).  This twitter thread by someone knowledgeable about IRB and research ethics makes a pretty good case that what he did does not fall within the purview of the IRB at his institution, which does seem to me the crucial question.  The University would be within its rights to take account of how Professor Boghossian is spending his time with respect to promotion and merit salary increases--it's not obvious that the expose of "grievance studies" is what he was hired to do (but I simply don't know what the professional expectations are for his position)--but it's far from clear this new Sokal hoax constitutes research misconduct, however obnoxious it may have seemed to the affected journals.  (The original Sokal hoax did not result in any charges of research misconduct against Professor Sokal, a physics professor at NYU, presumably because it was obviously not part of any research he actually does--it was, at best, extramural speech, protected by his contractual right to academic freedom.  The only difference I can see is that Professor Boghossian and colleagues pulled off more hoaxes, but, like Professor Sokal, they took the hoax to reveal something about some of the feebler parts of the humanities.)

(Thanks to Jeffrey Roland and Owen Schaefer for pointers.)

Readers with more knowledge about IRB rules are free to weigh in in the comments, but submit your comment only once, it may take awhile to appear.

JANUARY 11 UPDATE:  This informative article makes a good case that Professor Boghossian did require IRB approval.  (Thanks to Craig Larson for the pointer.)

Open U's Sophie-Grace Chappell interviewed...

...at 3AM.

Blast from the past: what is philosophy, again (Peter Hacker's take, with discussion)

Back in 2013.  (Vide Ken Taylor's reaction.)

Uncomplicated

Here's something that's not complicated:  Justin Weinberg (South Carolina) has been a consistent opponent of academic freedom and freedom of speech, from the case of Laura Kipnis at Northwestern to the case of John McAdams at Marquette.   As the cyber-cheerleader for the New Infantilism, he consistently favors punishing people for speech offensive to the children, the law and principles be damned.  The Finnis case is only the latest in that series.

Philosopher on "Jeopardy"

Back in 1985, it's Jay Rosenberg, late of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Blast from the past: recommenders should probably include explicit comparisons in their letters

Back in 2010.

Is the tide finally turning on the New Infantilists and "thought police" in academic philosophy?

I get an increasing number of messages like the following (in this case from a recently tenured philosopher), which are a hopeful sign I think:

I have been meaning for a while now to write you to say that I owe you an apology for some disparaging things I've said about you in the past, and that I think you have been almost invariably correct in your recent posting at Leiter Reports about the state of the profession.

I let this thought sit for longer than I should have, but now that Justin Weinberg has described as "morally and practically complicated" the question of whether an internationally respected scholar should be prohibited from teaching required courses on the grounds that he has described as "evil" certain things that people do in their private lives, the message needs to go out.

This is madness, and it is making a joke of the profession I've given my life to. Thank you for being one of the few philosophers out there with the courage to tell it like it is. Your blog has become for me, and for many others I know, a haven of escape from the hand-wringing wokeness that is eating our profession up from the inside.

UPDATE:  Here's something that's not complicated:  Justin Weinberg (South Carolina) has been a consistent opponent of academic freedom and freedom of speech, from the case of Laura Kipnis at Northwestern to the case of John McAdams at Marquette.   As the cyber-cheerleader for the New Infantilism, he consistently favors punishing people for speech offensive to the children, the law and principles be damned.  The Finnis case is only the latest in that series.

"Legal Positivism as a Realist Theory of Law"

Rough draft here, ultimately forthcoming in The Cambridge Companion to Legal Positivism.

John Finnis and Hastings Rashdall

Some interesting (and amusing) observations from legal philosopher Les Green (Oxford).

I have one small disgreement, I think, with Green.  He writes:

Consider whether, when Hastings Rashdall retired from New College, Oxford, they should have gone looking for a replacement to defend his articulate, philosophical form of racism, or whether they should have kept Rashdall on an occasional basis, to ensure that students of the ‘lower races’ would have some controversial views to take on.  (It was 1910—philosophical racism was still a thing.)  If such a case could be made, it would have appeal to something like intellectual diversity or pluralism. (‘We need someone to stand up for racism around here!’) But it couldn’t be advanced on grounds of academic freedom:  that protects those who have an academic role, it doesn’t tell us who should have an academic role in the first place.  If there is an objection to not replacing (or re-hiring) racists or sexists or homophobes, it is not an objection from academic freedom.

I agree that the university has no obligation to find a permanent member of staff to defend philosophical racism or anti-gay bigotry, but I do believe it is improper to deny Rashdall or Finnis appointment to post-retirement teaching that they would otherwise be invited to do on the basis of their published work.  Academic freedom ought to apply even to those who have no regular post at the university, other than that of temporary or sessional appointment.  I'm not sure Professor Green disagrees with that point.

International Society for Nietzsche Studies at Brown May 31-June 1: less than a week to submit a paper!

Details on the CFP here.

Blast from the past: philosophers on their conception of "philosophy"

Back in 2010.

Quantum physics and objective reality

Philosopher Chris Timpson (Oxford) and physicists discuss.

Another day, another group of students with open contempt for academic freedom

Oxford students, apparently having discovered that legal philosopher and reactionary Catholic John Finnis has written foolish and sometimes quite ugly things about gay people for years, are now demanding that he be removed from teaching.  Finnis would, in his teaching, have to abide by anti-discrimination rules and law, but there is no allegation that he has violated any of these.  Instead, the students wish to sanction him for his published writings.   Perhaps the Oxford BCL course of study should require a mandatory course on academic freedom, so that these students would not disgrace themselves and their university.

(Thanks to Stuart Goosey for the pointer.)

Fascist Bolsonaro's foreign policy will be anti-Wittgensteinian!

Who would have guessed?

(Thanks to Chris Bertram for the pointer.)

Erik Olin Wright

A sociologist and social theorist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison for many years, he has also been an important contributor to "analytical Marxism," and makes available much excellent material on his webpage.  But what prompts this particular post is that, as I've learned from many friends and colleagues, he is dying of leukemia, and writing about it here.  It is quite remarkable. "The truth is terrible."

Blast from the past: Gutting on the "analytic" and "Continental"

Back in 2012.

Improving peer review

Philosopher Leora Dahan Katz (currently a Polonsky Fellow at the Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem, soon to join the Hebrew U faculty) writes:

It has been my experience that submission rejections (in philosophy and legal philosophy journals) that are not accompanied by reviewer comments are not only frustrating but also highly inefficient. Clearly whomever decided on the rejection had a reason for doing so, and yet blank rejections encourage resubmission without editing given that the author has no information about why the piece was rejected (e.g. whether it was a matter of quality or journal mismatch). It seems to me it would be fairly easy and low cost to relay the relevant information thereby both helping the author and preventing repetitious resubmission of pieces whose fault is obvious to editors.

For example, the disciple might adopt a list of basic reasons for rejection, one of which would be marked on any given rejection.

I have little experience editing the but the list might include some of the following:

1. Quality of the piece found wanting
2. Argument doesn’t work
3. Not for our journal
4. Too long
5. Too broad
6. Not ambitious enough
7. Doesn’t engage relevant literature
8. Not original/ No contribution to field 9. Badly written 10. Unclear 11. Not publishing paper of this kind at this time 12. Other

The final category of “other” would be necessary to keep the practice low-cost where the reason for rejection is non-standard. But authors would be no worse off than now, and in all those cases where rejection is for a “basic” reason, they would be far better off; as would the journals, since they would presumably receive less re-submissions of papers that should surely have been edited/submitted elsewhere/repurposed before resubmission.

I’m sure I’m not the first to have thought of this, but I do wonder why we don’t already have such a practice.

Readers?

JHP article prize to Quebec's Perinetti

Philosopher Jack Zupko (Alberta), editor-in-chief of the Journal of the History of Philosophy, 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 56 of the JHP to Dario Perinetti for "Hume at La Flèche: Skepticism and the French Connection," JHP 56.1 (January 2018): 45-74.

Dr. Perinetti is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Université du Québec à Montréal.

Great moments in obscure rock 'n' roll: Trapeze, "Touch My Life," 1970

It's been awhile since we've featured this British blues/rock band; here's another good number from their second album Medusa:

New Senator Sinema from Arizona, who is openly agnostic, declines to take her oath of office on the Bible

A small symbolic gesture, but a good one, since religion (usally some orthodox brand) stands behind all the evil and stupidity in this benighted country.

Nichols from Arizona to Cornell

Shaun Nichols, a leading figure in moral psychology, philosophy of cognitive science, and experimental philosophy at the University of Arizona, has accepted a senior offer from the Department of Philosophy at Cornell University, where he will start this coming fall.  That's a big catch for Cornell!

More on USC's portal

Someone from IT at USC kindly reached out to me to report that they had identified the issue affecting some submissions, and fixed it, so that my letter (and others) went through.   Recommenders:  do let schools know if you encounter problems with on-line systems, they do happen!  Kudos to USC for addressing the issue in a timely way.

Raja Halwani has a blog

A philosopher at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, his blog is here.

Tushar Irani (Wesleyan) talks with Andy Fitch about Plato and the art of argument...

...at the Los Angeles Review of Books.

Don't wish Antonio Gramsci a "happy new year"

This is delightful.  An excerpt:

Every morning, when I wake again under the pall of the sky, I feel that for me it is New Year’s Day.

That’s why I hate these New Year’s that fall like fixed maturities, which turn life and human spirit into a commercial concern with its neat final balance, its outstanding amounts, its budget for the new management. They make us lose the continuity of life and spirit. You end up seriously thinking that between one year and the next there is a break, that a new history is beginning; you make resolutions, and you regret your irresolution, and so on, and so forth. This is generally what’s wrong with dates.

(Thanks to Rob Tempio for the pointer.)

A great opportunity for someone, or some institution, in the Midwest to acquire philosophy of science journals

Gregory Mayer, a biologist at the University of Wisconsin at Parkside, writes:

For various reasons, the library here at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside has been discarding it's journal collection. Isis, Philosophy of Science, and the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science are among those that have been discarded. The biology department took in the discarded copies of those journals, and has held them on behalf of our philosophy department, because we had shelf space in a lab where we could keep them, but this space has now been lost, and our philosophy department still cannot house them. I am hoping to find a library or person who would want them, as an alternative to putting them in a landfill.

There are long runs of all three journals, mostly bound in buckram, but some in the cheaper board binding, and some loose issues; the early volumes of Isis are on microfilm (although there is also a long print run of later issues). I can, of course, provide details of which volumes are present (which, roughly, are complete sets of all three up to the 2000's).

I would be happy to give these to a philosopher, graduate student, or library. Pickup or drop off in the Chicago area should be easily arrangeable.  Of course, outside the Chicago area shipping would be needed, so there would be some cost to the recipient in such a case.

If you're interested in this great opportunity, please contact Professor Mayer at mayerg-at-uwp-dot-edu.

A profile of the great British popularizer of philosophy Bryan Magee...

...in The New Statesman.  This appeared last year, but I only just came across it.  Many of his interviews are here.

3% of the American population owns 50% of the guns...

...and it's not just any 3% either.

More on university on-line portals for letters of recommendation

So some have had the same problems with USC, while others report no problems:  it appears to depend on the day!   Without a doubt, the best on-line portal is University of Toronto's:  the link takes you directly to the page where you upload the letter, and you're done.  No answering meaningless questions, filling in extra information, let alone having to create an account, as most of the Oxbridge colleges require.  Every school should follow Toronto's lead.   And the Oxbridge colleges should abandon graduate education until their portals join civilization.

UPDATE:  Matt Kramer, Professor of Legal and Political Philosophy at Cambridge University, tells me that he regularly e-mails his letters of reference, even when there is an on-line portal.   He has done this even for applicants to Cambridge graduate programs.  When he gets the predictable response--we won't accept letters via e-mail--he sends the following brilliant letter, which he kindly gave permission to share:

You people have accepted references from me through e-mail numerous times over the past two decades.  The most recent such instance was in 2017. As I have said to you people on the few past occasions when you have initially balked at accepting my references through e-mail, the transmission of references through e-mail is far more convenient for the sender than is the submission of references through the Web.  Given that the recipient of a reference benefits from receiving it whereas the sender of the reference does not benefit from sending it, the convenience of the latter takes priority over the convenience of the former.  If you think otherwise, then you must regard your time as far more valuable than mine.

If you can convince me that your time is far more valuable than mine, then I will go ahead with the submission of my reference through the Web.

However, at present I am decidedly unconvinced.

They accepted his letter via e-mail.

Some courageous U.K. university needs to follow the lead of Ghent...

...in reducing bureaucracy and putting academic talent front and center.

Michigan's Elizabeth Anderson profiled...

...at The New Yorker.  It does a pretty good job on her ideas!

(Thanks to Phil Gasper for the pointer.)