More mischief afoot at the APA: there's a vote to change the membership rules, giving the Executive Director Amy Ferrer authority to admit non-philosophers to the APA

A philosopher elsewhere writes:

Thanks for the post on the APA elections. I wouldn’t have known they were occurring otherwise!  It turns out, however, that the voting is not just about officers. There are also several proposals for changing the APA’s Bylaws. One of the items proposes to open up APA membership to people who may have no qualifications in philosophy, but who are simply interested in philosophy.  Here is the current bylaw:

4.2. Qualifications for Regular Membership.

1. Regular membership in the American Philosophical Association shall be limited to:
2. Persons whose training in philosophy has been advanced and systematic enough to make them competent to teach the subject at the college or university level;
3. Persons whose achievements in philosophy are sufficient to warrant their affiliation with the association.
4. The authority to pass on an individual's qualifications for regular membership in the association rests with the board, which shall normally delegate it to the executive director.

And here is the proposed Amendment

4.2. Qualifications for Regular Membership.

1. Regular membership in the American Philosophical Association shall be open to persons professionally interested in the scholarly study of philosophy.
2. The authority to approve an individual’s application for regular membership in the association rests with the board of officers, which shall normally delegate it to the executive director.

This would leave it to the Executive Director (Amy Ferrer) to decide who can become an APA member (and she, herself, is not a philosopher). One wonders why this change has been proposed. Maybe the APA needs money due to declining membership?  But another possibility is that it would facilitate the admission into the APA of ideological allies of the current push to  "diversify" and politicize the discipline. Given recent trends at the APA about which you've written, I worry that this is the real purpose of this proposed change to the bylaws. 

I had, in fact, missed this proposed change to the bylaws.  If your'e an APA member, you'd better vote this down, or the organization will soon be unrecognizable.  The idea that a non-philosopher--a true believer in any and all "diversity blather" (vide her role in the already discredited "publication ethics" project)--will be deciding who gets to join the APA, without regard for qualifications, is beyond belief.

UPDATE:  Philosopher Julia Staffel (Colorado) writes with a useful contrary perspective on this proposed change:

I noticed your post about the APA bylaws change. I was surprised to see you so strongly opposed. For those of us who have co-authors in other disciplines, this change is very welcome. One year, I ended up not submitting to the APA, because my computer scientist co-author wasn't a member, and both authors need to be members for the paper to be submitted. He felt it would be wrong to register even though it was against the bylaws, and we didn't have time at that point to inquire further before the deadline. Given that many philosophers do great interdisciplinary work with psychologists, linguists, biologists, etc., this bylaws change seems entirely sensible and necessary.

I would feel more confident this is the (sensible) purpose such a change would serve if the change were more specific about who is eligible (e.g., co-authors with APA members) and discretion were not vested in a non-philosopher.

ANOTHER:  As some folks have pointed out to me on FB, given the cost of joining the APA, it seems like this is primarily a money-making move, and nothing else.  My initial perception of it, as well as that of my correspondent, has no doubt been colored by the prominent role given to the Executive  Director in this new process, coming on the heels of that same person's involvement in the disgraceful "white paper."