Usually known as the AAAS, every observer knows what it mostly is, as conveyed in the title of this post: it is friends electing friends for "honor" ostensibly for their academic contributions. The AAAS is not meaningless, to be sure, and its sins are mostly ones of omission, as I've remarked previously, as well as current fashions. Past philosophy members of the AAAS, no doubt eminent and well-connected in their time, include Harry Berger, Francis Bowen, John Cobb, Jr., Irwin Edman, John Fiske, Levi Hedge, Laurens Hickock, Henry Mansel, James McCosh, James Pratt, James L. Walker, Richard Whately, and James H. Woods, among others that are probably unknown to most contemporary philosophers.
Elections to the Academy follow certain patterns. For example, in 2012, MIT's Stephen Yablo was elected to the Academy. The following year, his MIT colleague Rae Langton (now at Cambridge) was elected. Two years later, Langton's friend and former colleague, and Yablo's spouse, Sally Haslanger at MIT was elected. Haslanger (well-known, of course, for her commitment to diversity [vide Reed for an explanation]), quickly joined the selection committee for Philosophy, and that year only one white man (in his 70s) was elected while two prominent feminist philosophers were among the small number of honorees. The latter is hardly suspicious: I've observed the same patterns over the years with formal philosophers, with epistemologists, and with Kant scholars--once one gets in, others in that sub-field are admitted in the subsequent years. As one AAAS member wrote to me a couple of years ago: "newly admitted members are often energized to make nominations," and, unsurprisngly, they invest that effort in their friends and colleagues.
But if there was ever a "popularity contest," it would be the AAAS, in which existing members vote on possible new members on a scale of 1-5 (just like the PGR scale for whole faculties!). Ballotting proceeds in two stages. Any two members can nominate someone for election to the Academy of Friends, and after an initial round of voting, 8-10 candidates are submitted to the membership for final votes. The "panel" is, I'm told, bound by the votes of the existing members, except when there are "diversity" considerations. The current panel consists of Susan Wolf (North Carolina, the chair), Julia Annas (Arizona) Sally Haslanger (MIT), Dan Hausman (Wisconsin), Beatrice Longuenesse (NYU), and Stephen Stich (Rutgers). The Chair of the panel must ultimately negotiate with chairs of other humanities committees over how many philosophers get to be put forward for membership.
A current Academy of Friends member sent me the list of the current first-round candidates. This was against the rules, but I suspect that s/he was concerned about the way things have been going. I will not name any of the nominees.
Recent Comments