Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

Petition to "Save the Journal of Political Philosophy"

Here.  Sensible demands and concrete proposals.  Anyone working in political philosophy/theory and cognate areas (including ethics and philosophy of law) should sign.

 

Reader question: DEI litmus tests for appraisal and promotion?

MOVING TO FRONT FROM APRIL 26--MORE COMMENTS WELCOME

A reader in the UK writes:

The latest trend is academic appraisal and promotion criteria designed to reward DEI enthusiasts and disadvantage those with heterodox views. Several readers have sent me examples from a set of appraisal guidelines under consideration at an unnamed University. The proposed guidelines would require deans and department heads to grade academics based on whether they ‘champion initiatives to promote diversity and fairness’, ‘embed and develop inclusive teaching practices’, and work for ‘fairer outcomes’.

Certain more elite institutions are bucking this illiberal trend. Oxford Magazine ( Download Oxford EDI Article copy) last year related the V-C’s ‘unequivocal’ stand against this new fashion for policing the thoughts of scholars. Since then, Oxford has reportedly ditched a plan to require DEI statements from job applicants. Proposals to add ideological standards to appraisal and promotion guidelines there are likewise thought to be dead in the water.

In the comments, please ask your readers to share what is afoot in terms of incorporating ideological criteria into appraisal and promotion guidelines elsewhere (U.S., U.K., Australia, etc.). It would also be good to know about similar experiences in other institutions.

Recall that the Academic Freedom Alliance has opposed the use of "diversity statements" in appointments.  And Professor Matthew Finkin, an expert on academic freedom at the University of Illinois College of Law, has recently authored an excellent critical analysishttps://www.journaloffreespeechlaw.org/finkin.pdf of related proposals at his own university, from which there is much to learn for those facing these attacks on academic freedom elsewhere.

Comments are open for readers to report what's going on at their universities.  Use a valid email address, and identify the university, even if you do not use your full name.

Dumb and dumber: Twitter on the OUP/Byrne fiasco

Dr. Rebecca Colesworthy, an acquisitions editor (!) at SUNY Press (authors, take note!), thinks a pattern of possible editorial decisions based on an author's controversial viewpoint is not worrisome, but "nonsense"!  (She was prompted, it appear, by Alex Bryant's clueless comments on the earlier post [Mr. Bryant, another benighted PhD student, was last seen demanding that Kathleen Stock be excluded from a volume].)

Mr. Bryant's tweet also inspired Professor Benjamin McKean, a political theorist at Ohio State, to offer this profound insight:

Fascists appointed to New College of Florida Board of Trustees reject tenure bids of five faculty...

...for no reason at all, except that the Board members are fascists and plan to "remake" the college.  I hope the faculty who are victims of this political purge--that's what it is--will sue for violation of their constitutional rights.  They are being punished for their actual or perceived "viewpoint" in violation of the First Amendment.

What's going on in Florida generally is the most serious attack on academic freedom and free speech in the U.S. right now, far more important than infantile pseudo-leftists preventing conservative judges from speaking on campus (that's idiotic too, but does not compare in terms of ruining lives and chilling speech).  The fact that the right-wing press isn't up in arms about this tells you everything you need to know about their actual interest in free speech and academic freedom.

North Carolina vs. Alaska

NC Supreme Court says legislators can pick their voters, while Alaska Supreme Court says voters should pick their representatives.   So democracy in elections for the House of Representatives is over in North Carolina, but secured in Alaska.

Is there anyone left at Journal of Political Philosophy?

My original correspondent writes this morning:   "Overnight, it seems that nearly all of the board has quit (including me)."   Wiley has really done something remarkable, taking the best journal in its subfield (political philosophy) and destroying it.  What a tragedy.  The only way out, as far as I can see, is for them to restore Goodin with a succession plan approved by the editors.

Comments are open, but once again, a full name is required, as is a valid email address (which will not appear).

More on Wiley as a journal publisher

There's a stunning comment on the earlier thread from Professor Anna Stilz, a political philosopher at Princeton who is the EIC of Philosophy & Public Affairs, that deserves wide notice:

I am also a member of JPP's Editorial Board who wrote earlier today to resign. But I'd like to share my perspective as well as Editor-in-Chief of Philosophy and Public Affairs, another Wiley-owned journal. P&PA has experienced escalating unreasonable demands from Wiley, including a demand that we massively increase the number of articles per year that we publish, essentially abandoning our editorial judgment and our control over the quality of our content. A few years back we only succeeded in getting Wiley to back down from this demand by threatening to file a lawsuit. I have heard from Editors at JPP that they were experiencing similar unreasonable demands from Wiley. That's all to say that whatever difficulties in communication there may have been between Wiley and Bob Goodin, those difficulties weren't occurring in a vacuum. All political philosophers and theorists who care about the health of the journals in our field have an interest in showing Wiley that it can't get away with this. I suggest we need to create sufficient negative publicity around the JPP affair so that any academic with a decent reputation who is approached to edit JPP in the future will feel considerable social pressure to refuse. Wiley will then either have to come back to the Co-Editors of JPP and allow them to run their journal on their terms, or it will own a much less valuable journal going forward.

Comments are open, but will be moderated as always.  Full name preferred, and valid email address required.

Crisis at Journal of Political Philosophy: Wiley (the publisher) ousts longtime editor Bob Goodin (MULTIPLE UPDATES--INCLUDING A REPLY FROM WILEY)

MOVING TO FRONT FROM EARLIER TODAY

A member of the editorial board writes:

Wiley has decided to remove Bob Goodin as Editor as of the end of this year and not replace him with any of the co-editors who were part of the journal's succession plan.  Bob notified the editorial board yesterday, and now several prominent members have resigned [6 as of this morning, including Jeff McMahan and Philip Pettit (an Associate Editor)].  I wrote Wiley for an explanation but they did not give one other than to say that the decision was not taken lightly.  It's a phenomenal journal -- the most influential in political philosophy, I think -- so they are really messing with success. I personally have not decided whether to resign from the board but am following this closely.

JPP's success is, by every account I've heard, due to Goodin's excellent editorial stewardship, and the huge amount of time he personally has invested in offering editorial feedback to authors.  So this is simply bizarre.  Wiley will have to offer a real explanation before this journal goes down in flames.  Comments are open for readers with knowledge about what's going on; comments particularly welcome from current or former Board members.   Full name preferred, and valid email address required (it will not appear).

UPDATE:  Anthony Appiah and Tommie Shelby are also among those resigning from the Board now.  The number is beyond six resignations.

MORE:   Amia Srinivasan (Oxford), an Associate Editor, has resigned, and she tells me she was not consulted before Wiley announced the decision to remove Goodin.  Sally Haslanger and Anne Phillips, also Associate Editors, have also resigned.  Other members of the Editorial Board who have resigned, beyond those already noted, are:  Derrick Darby, Bruce Ackerman, Jon Elster, Victor Tradros, Patrick Tomlin, Jane Mansbridge, Chiara Cordelli, Jonathan Quong, abd Pablo Gilabert.

ANOTHER:  Jeff McMahan kindly shared his resignation letter to Wiley, which is below the fold:

Death may be near, but there's still living to do

Philosopher Paul Woodruff writes about his experience:

My death is close at hand...because of a lung condition called bronchiectasis, and I am on oxygen day and night. But I do not think of myself as dying. I am living each day with as much life as I can put into it. For me, that means going to bed each night planning at least one project for the next day — something worth getting out of bed and living for. As I think of dying, I make each day a time for living, for having something to live for.

What kind of project is worth living for? Not a project I could complete today. Worthwhile projects spread out over time. Writing this small essay and finding someone to print it will take at least a week, and today is only the first day. I will make sure that the last day for this essay will be the first day for something else. Thinking of death, I want to live every day as if it were the first for something.

(Thanks to Michael Sevel for the pointer.)

Trinity College's library will no longer be named after Bishop Berkeley...

...because he owned slaves.  Unlike Aristotle, he did not justify slavery, so one might have thought that would count in his favor.  More seriously, at the time he owned slaves, it was hardly uncommon for individuals of his class.  (Contrast the case of honoring Calhoun!)  Will this de-naming make the world a better place?   Was anyone in doubt in Dublin that chattel slavery was wrong?  Will scholars of Berkeley now apologize for writing about him?

Marx, ever the optimist, thought that things would be very different when we live in a "human" world, in which there are neither chattel- nor wage-slaves, in which people were not locked in life-and-death struggles for existence, and in which the human interest in creative work was allowed to express itself.  That must surely be right, but one might imagine that in such a humane world no one would care about dishonoring those who were otherwise great intellectual innovators because they were creatures of their times, because they acted exactly as their class position required.

Aly Corey, "Associate Director for Inclusive Learning" in the DEI office at Williams College, has apparently resigned from my fan club

Admittedly Dr. Corey must have led an exemplary life if having an undergraduate degree from the University of Chicago in music is the most embarrassing thing they have ever done.  Good to know "diversity" at Williams is in the hands of such a mature, balanced individual!

 

No more "logic" requirement at Yale, instead "formal methods"

Philosophers on Twitter have been abuzz with this news:

Yale philosophy has officially replaced the grad program “logic requirement” with a broader “formal methods requirement.” Students can choose which course to take (logic, probability, stats, game theory, etc.)

This seems like a sensible move.  When philosophy of language dominated Anglophone philosophy, logic seemed more important than it probably is today for many areas of the discipline.  Thoughts from readers?

F.I.R.E. report on attempts to sanction scholars for their speech or work, 2000-2022

Informative, and it shows, sadly, a marked increase in recent years.  From the "executive summary":

The key findings of this report include:
▪ 1,080 scholar sanction attempts occurred between 2000 and 2022.
▪ The annual number of attempts has increased dramatically over time, from four
in 2000 to 145 in 2022.
▪ Almost two-thirds of attempts resulted in sanction, including 225 terminations
(698 of 1,080, or 65%).
▪ Nearly three-quarters of terminations involved untenured, rather than tenured,
scholars (165 of 225, or 73%).
▪ More than one-third of attempts were initiated by undergraduates (402 of
1,080, or 37%).
▪ In 2021, 213 sanction attempts occurred, more than in any other year. This was
partially due to Turning Point USA calling on parents and students to contact
the institutions of 61 professors featured on their Professor Watchlist website.

 

Neurophilosopher Patricia Churchland profiled in El Pais

Here (in English).

James Madison University needs a new Provost

Provost Heather Coltman has just been the target of a damning resolution by the JMU Faculty Senate (more than 90% voted in favor of the resolution):  Download Jmuamendedresolutionofcondemnationmar30

American exceptionalism: guns and economic inequality...

...yields this:  "The average American my age, in his mid-to-late 30s, is roughly six times more likely to die in the next year than his counterpart in Switzerland."

 

 

Richard Marshall interviews Heinrich Heine...

...at 3:16 AM.

Free will and addiction in the NYT...

...discussing the work of philosophers Hanna Pickard (Johns Hopkins) and Chandra Sripada (Michigan).

Some happy news in the Benighted States of America

Fox News has fired Tucker Carlson.  Now they need to fire Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and a few others, and they might actually be able to pose as a news network.

Big investment in PPE at Buffalo

The Department of Philosophy at the University at Buffalo, State University of New York, has made a half-dozen senior and junior hires this year, with a particular eye to building up in PPE.  Here are the lateral hires, senior and junior:

Stewart Duncan (early modern) from the University of Florida, Gainesville, coming in as Professor.

Justin Bruner (social & political philosophy, PPE), currently Associate Professor of Political Economy and Moral Sciences at the University of Arizona will be joining Buffalo as Associate Professor.

Alexandra Oprea (political philosophy, PPE) currently Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, will be joining as Assistant Professor of Philosophy.

Daniel Stephens (Chinese and comparative philosophy, moral philosophy), currently Assistant Professor at Duke Kunshun University, will be joining Buffalo as an Assistant Professor.

A second senior professor reports an experience similar to Byrne's with Oxford University Press

I have now heard from one other philosopher who had a trade book (not about transgender issues) rejected from OUP after consultation “with my editorial and marketing colleagues.” Despite “the manuscript [being] readable, accessible, lively, and interesting in the way that a book for a non-academic readership needs to be,” the worry was about the “controversy and sensitivity.” 

The only relevant difference here was that the professor did not have a contract before submitting the manuscript, unlike Byrne.  But the letter does sound similar to the one Professor Byrne received, except the "colleagues" consulted explicitly included those in "marketing" as well as others on the editorial side.  This professor's book was also picked up by another major academic press. 

I should have permission to release more information about this case in a couple of months.   But a worrying pattern--starting with this incident in 2019--is emerging here.

Marx was right, part 722

From Legislative Studies Quarterly:

This essay examines the relationship between legislators' class backgrounds and their votes on economic policy in the House of Representatives during the twentieth century. Like ordinary Americans, representatives from working-class occupations exhibit more liberal economic preferences than other legislators, especially those from profit-oriented professions.

 

St. Cloud State University to cut six majors, and nearly two dozen faculty positions...

...including, alas, the philosophy major.  This blood-letting began several years ago.  I suspect they are not done, either, barring some change to their funding model.  Comments are open for more information and links.

(Thanks to John Collins for the pointer.)

Alex Byrne's rejection email from Oxford University Press

Given the unpleasant speculation circulating on social media, philosopher Alex Byrne kindly agreed to share the rejection email he got from Oxford University Press after submitting the manuscript that was based on the proposal that OUP had put under contract.  Professor Byrne stated, in his original essay, that OUP rejected the book for the sole reason that the book "does not treat the subject in a sufficiently serious and respectful way.”  Subsequent public information suggested that the manuscript was rejected based on the reports of the four referees (see the descriptions of the reports here,), which led the skeptics to declare that this was all just sour grapes by Professor Byrne, not a case of publishing decisions being determined by political considerations.

In fact, the email rejecting Professor Byrne's manuscript makes clear that it was rejected not based on the referee reports (which are mentioned as an afterthought that might be helpful to Byrne) but based on consultation with OUP "colleagues" and "advisers" who--the email strongly implies--were not the "academic readers."  Here is the rejection email (with email addresses removed):

From: Peter Momtchiloff
Date: Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 12:43 PM
To: Alex Byrne
Subject: Trouble With Gender

Dear Alex

Thank you for sending me the manuscript for Trouble with Gender.  I have now read it, and consulted with advisers and colleagues.  I regret to say that OUP will not be able to publish your book.  I am sorry to have to give you a negative response.  I’m afraid our judgement is that the book does not treat the subject in a sufficiently serious and respectful way.  The same kinds of problems that I found with the introduction we now find continue throughout the book.

I am forwarding a copy of the manuscript which I have annotated.  I hope that these comments might be helpful to you.

I shall also forward comments from four academic readers.   Whatever you decide about the book, I hope that these will be useful to you.  It may be that another publisher would not agree with OUP in finding this treatment of the subject inappropriate, and would be happy to be able to publish the book.  Perhaps the comments I send may then prove to be useful to that end.

I am sorry to have to write to you with this decision, since you are a valued OUP author. 

With best wishes

Peter

Great moments in (somewhat) obscure rock 'n' roll: Savoy Brown, "Made Up My Mind," 1969

We've mentioned the Savoy Brown Blues & Boogie Band before (several members went on to fame and fortune in Foghat in the 1970s), but this is one of my favorite numbers that one never hears on the radio:

 

Taylor from Vanderbilt to UCLA

Paul C. Taylor (philosophy of race, aesthetics, social-political philosophy), currently Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University, has accepted appointment as the inaugural Presidential Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Will the attack on tenure unite the Republicans and the "diversity" Democrats

There's a real risk it will, as this report about the Texas Senate vote to abolish tenure for new hires suggests:

A little more than a year after Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick declared war on faculty tenure at the state’s public universities, the Texas Senate approved a bill Thursday that would bar schools from granting the benefit to newly hired professors.

Senate Bill 18 passed 18-11, largely along party lines, with Sens. Brian Birdwell and Kevin Sparks absent. Notably, Sen. César Blanco, D-El Paso, broke from his party to join Republicans in supporting the measure, arguing that tenure is a historical and discriminatory barrier for professors of color and pointing to racial disparities among faculty awarded tenure at Texas universities.

“I cannot and I will not defend the status quo to maintain the historic discriminatory barrier that tenure is within higher education for minorities,” he said.

Perhaps Senator Blanco will come to his senses, if he has any.

A propos nothing..."Baby Ryan" performs AC/DC's "Thunderstruck"

This struck me as pretty funny when I came across it on Facebook (the original, which has become a staple of sporting events these days):

 

Alex Byrne on Peter Momtchiloff's response to David Wallace (and related matters)

Philosopher Alex Byrne kindly shared these thoughts (in response to yesterday's post, including my suggestion that he share the referee reports):

On to the possibility of sharing the comments on the first draft of my book, I do not think that readers’ reports solicited (and paid for) by a publisher are mine to share. Moreover, one reviewer simply supplied a pdf of the manuscript marked up with some (minor) helpful and constructive comments. Peter did likewise. (Most of those were incorporated in the version that will appear in print.) Another report consisted of Peter’s notes from a discussion with a reviewer. 

There was very little to respond to anyway. No mistakes or argumentative flaws were identified. One reviewer was very complimentary; another was laboring under various confusions which could easily have been cleared up. I have to admit that the book will irritate some people in mainstream feminist philosophy. (N.B. the book is not a scholarly monograph; it is aimed at a general audience interested in the topic of sex and gender. There’s not all that much “philosophy” in it anyway.)

I have nothing to hide (apart from the manuscript, since I want you all to buy my book, if only to commit it to the flames). OUP has my permission to release whatever comments it likes.

Enoch to take up Chair in Philosophy of Law at Oxford

David Enoch, currently Professor of Law and Philosophy at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, will take up the Professorship in Philosophy of Law at Oxford University (noted here) starting in 2023-24.  (Although Enoch will be full-time at Oxford, he will retain an affiliation with Hebrew University and continue to do some teaching and supervision there.)  This is certainly a strong appointment, although it does solidify Oxford's turn away from general jurisprudence in favor of moral philosophy and normative jurisprudence more generally.

2023 Lebowitz Prize from APA and PBK awarded for "Norms of Attention”

Philosophers Kristie Dotson (Michigan) and Susanna Siegel (Harvard) will present their contrasting views at the 2024 Central APA.

OUP's Peter Momtchiloff replies to David Wallace

Here is Peter M's reply to David Wallace's missive regarding the Byrne manuscript; I thank David for sharing it, and Peter for giving permission to share it:

Dear David 

Thank you for your message, and for your kind words about OUP.

You will understand that I can’t discuss the details of a specific review process, as this is a confidential matter.  I can confirm, however, that the decision not to proceed with Alex’s book manuscript was editorial in nature.  By way of clarification, let me assure you that the manuscript underwent peer review, and Alex was given comments on the manuscript from me and from four expert readers.  On the basis of these assessments, my judgement was indeed that the work was not appropriate for publication by OUP.   And Alex’s submission for the Handbook also went through a process of review by expert readers.

Feel free to share this reply if you wish.  I just ask that, if so, you share all of it.

Best wishes

Peter

Everything now depends on the content of those reports.  One possibility is they contained meritorious criticisms; far more likely (given Byrne's extremely high level of competence in analytic philosophy) is that they contained ideologically motivated critiques related to Byrne's conclusions rather than the quality of his arguments.  I hope Alex Byrne will share the reports; assuming they are anonymous, I see no harm in his doing so, especially since what's at stake here is the integrity of the editorial review process at OUP.

David Wallace's letter to OUP editor Peter Momtchiloff regarding Alex Byrne's expose

MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY--MANY INTERESTING COMMENTS (SEE ESP. TIM WILLIAMSON'S REMARK)

As usual, philosopher of science David Wallace (Pittsburgh) has a sensible take on the matter noted earlier today, and I thank him for sharing this letter.  (Professor Wallace focuses on OUP's decision not to honor a contract to publish a book by Professor Byrne on gender issues, also discussed in his essay.)

Dear Peter,

I'm writing to express my very grave concern about the recent article by Alex Byrne (published in Quillette, linked to on Justin Weinberg's and Brian Leiter's blogs) about his recent experience with OUP, especially (but not only) the abrupt cancellation, apparently with essentially no explanation, of his contracted book, "Trouble with Gender". (I won't try to summarize further: the details are easy to find online and you probably know them already.)

Perhaps there is another side to the story. But at face value it is very hard to avoid the conclusion that OUP cancelled Byrne's contracted book, outside the normal process of peer review and iterated feedback, because for whatever reason it does not want to be associated with a certain constellation of views on one side of the very heated debate on trans issues and trans rights.

Seven philosophers elected to the American Academy of Arts & Sciences

They are:  Linda Martin Alcoff (Hunter College/CUNY), Henry Allison (UC San Diego, emeritus), John Campbell (Berkeley), Derrick Darby (Rutgers), Catherine Elgin (Harvard Grad School of Education), Susanna Siegel (Harvard), James Van Cleve (Southern California).

I'm glad to see a longstanding omission finally corrected (Henry Allison, who turns 86 next week:  see, e.g.).  I'm utterly shocked that someone like Alcoff, with an extraordinary record of misconduct and damage done to the discipline, could be elected to any supposedly "honor" society.  But, as I've noted before, this is too often the "American Academy of Each Other's Friends in the Arts & Sciences," compounded by the relentless "diversity" push of recent years (Professor Alcoff is Latina, and as I've been told by several members, the selection committee is not bound by the vote of the membership in "diversity" cases--which matters here because, given the current make-up of the philosophy section of the AAAS, she would not have garnered majority support).

ADDENDUM:   This appears to be the first year that "Philosophy" has been divorced from "Religious Studies," which are now each separate categories.

ANOTHER:  A senior philosopher I respect, but don't always agree with, writes (and kindly gave permission to post):

Illinois makes bid for Schwenkler at Florida State (UPDATED)

MOVING TO FRONT FROM MARCH 2--UPDATED

The Department of Philosophy at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign has voted out a senior offer to John Schwenkler (philosophy of action, philosophy of mind, ethics & moral psychology [philosophical and empirical]), Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University.  PhD students considering either program will want to keep an eye on what happens.

UPDATE:  Professor Schwenkler has accepted the Illinois offer!

Editors of over-priced Elsevier neuroscience journal resign and restart...

...an open access journal on the same topic.  An interesting strategy. Are there any Elsevier philosophy journals that might warrant such a transformation?

Censorship of philosophy at Oxford University Press

Alex Byrne recounts the disgraceful tale.  Note that Professor Byrne, a philosopher at MIT, has previously published a philosophical monograph with OUP, and has contributed many essays to OUP volumes, as one would expect given the quality of his work over many years and his prominence in the profession.  There is only one explanation for what he recounts in this new essay, and it is telling about the rot of ideological corruption in academic philosophy these days.  An excerpt, regarding just one of the incidents:

I received an invitation to contribute a chapter on pronouns for the Oxford Handbook of Applied Philosophy of Language. The format, I was told, is “very flexible,” and that “it would be wonderful” if I could find time to write the chapter. As it happened, I had been thinking about pronouns for my book, and taking some time out to research the topic more thoroughly seemed like a good idea, so I accepted.

There are more than 1,000 Oxford Handbooks (published by OUP)....An invited handbook chapter on one’s CV is not as valuable as a peer-reviewed paper in a journal, but academics accept these invitations because publication is practically guaranteed. The bar for an acceptable chapter is not particularly high, and the reviewing process is usually cursory.

The handbook had two editors, Ernie Lepore, a respected senior philosopher, and Luvell Anderson, a philosopher about whom I knew little. (It’s worth mentioning that Lepore’s friends would hardly describe him as “woke.”) I wrote to Lepore, “Just to be clear on the assignment. This is an entry about issues like: whether (or why) we should call Demi Lovato ‘they’, or Elliot Page ‘he’; whether we should call everyone ‘they,’ etc.? … Obviously I’ll try to keep it respectful but I should warn you in advance that any balanced and frank discussion of this topic is bound to annoy some people. (I won’t be offended if you want to reconsider.)” Lepore replied, “All systems go. Thank you for agreeing to this.”

Why economics today is like British food in the 1980s

An amusing essay; an excerpt:

In 1986, I left my native South Korea and came to Britain to study economics as a graduate student at the University of Cambridge.

Things were difficult...[b]ut the most difficult thing was the food. Before coming to Britain, I had not realised how bad food can be. Meat was overcooked and under-seasoned. It was difficult to eat, unless accompanied by gravy, which could be very good but also very bad. English mustard, which I fell in love with, became a vital weapon in my struggle to eat dinners. Vegetables were boiled long beyond the point of death to become textureless, and there was only salt around to make them edible. Some British friends would argue valiantly that their food was under-seasoned (err… tasteless?) because the ingredients were so good that you oughtn’t ruin them with fussy things like sauces, which those devious French used because they needed to hide bad meat and old vegetables. Any shred of plausibility of that argument quickly vanished when I visited France at the end of my first year in Cambridge and first tasted real French food.

Socialist philosopher Susan Neiman is not "woke"

Of course not.

(Thanks to Joshua Selby for the pointer.)

In Memoriam: William Newton-Smith (1943-2023)

MOVING TO FRONT FROM APRIL 14--SOME VERY NICE AND EVOCATIVE REMEMBRANCES, MORE WELCOME

Well-known for his work in philosophy of science, Dr. Newton-Smith spent almost his entire career at Balliol College, Oxford, from which he also earned his D.Phil.  He also briefly served as one of the founders of the Central European University.  (The CEU memorial notice is here, and there is a brief notice form Balliol here.)  Comments are open for remembrances from those who know Dr. Newton-Smith, or who wish to comment on the significance of his work.  Links to additional memorial notices are also welcome.

The legislation that will "blow up" Texas universities

Academic freedom expert Keith Whittington reviews the pending legislation.

(Link now fixed.)

Not everyone is thrilled with Ken Griffin's $300 million naming gift to Harvard's Graduate School of Arts & Sciences

(Link now fixed)

Amusing and not surprising, since it is an embarrassment:

Theda R. Skocpol, a Government and Sociology professor and former GSAS dean, slammed the decision in an email to The Crimson.

“I am absolutely disgusted at the sale of the GSAS name to a multi billionaire who works in US politics today to undermine the foundations of liberal civil society, including free speech, and to eviscerate the essential trans partisan features of fully representative US democracy,” she wrote.

“This is a shocking and unnecessary sell out by Harvard and FAS leaders who, at the same time, claim to be worried about Harvard College’s acceptance of slavery in the 1700s,” Skocpol added. “Feel free to quote me.”

The new Israeli Spinoza documentary...

...and its relevance today.  (Earlier coverage.)

(Thanks to Curtis Franks for the pointer.)

Tentative deal reached to end Rutgers strike

News here.  The strike began Monday, and was primarily an effort by the tenure-stream faculty to secure better wages and working conditions for the non-tenure-stream faculty.

UPDATE:   The AAUP-AFT chapter representing the Rutgers workers has sent out the following email to membership regarding the "framework" for a final agreement:

Crucially, this Framework is not a full “Tentative Agreement”—the term for the full agreement on contract changes covering wages, benefits, and working conditions, subject to the up-or-down vote of union membership. Rather, it is a set of 18 Tentative Agreements on select union contract provisions, covering many of our core issues.

Great moments in obscure rock 'n' roll: Spooky Tooth, "Hangman Hang My Shell on a Tree," 1969

The concluding number of this terrific, but under-recognized British hard/progressive rock band (with one American, Gary Wright, of later "Dream Weaver" fame in the 1970s), this is the concluding number of their best album, Spooky Two:

 

Richard Marshall interviews Steven Hales...

...at 3:16 AM, and they discuss Nietzsche, relativism, luck, and more.

Crowdfunding campaign to support efforts by UCU members to challenge the mismanagement of the UK academic pension scheme in court

Philosopher Jason Konek (Bristol) writes:

As I'm sure you know, the University and College Union (which represents a large number of academic staff at UK universities) has engaged in a number of industrial actions over pension cuts since 2018. Some members of UCU (Dr Neil Davies, Dr Ewan McGaughey) have managed to secure a hearing in the Court of Appeal to give pension beneficiaries a derivative claim. If successful, this would allow us to sue the trustee directors and managers for mismanagement of the scheme. It is important that UCU members prevail in this. But that requires funding to cover legal costs. There is a crowdfunding campaign to cover these costs. We're getting rather close to the deadline and still about 128k short. I thought you might be willing to advertise this and perhaps help push it over the line. Details here: https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/save-pensions-and-planet/.

Georgia secedes from civilization

The Governor has signed a law permitting folks to carry handguns without a license or a background check.  That should work out really well!  Apparently if the Constitution had mentioned a "right to drive," there would be no licensing requirement for drivers either.

America is doomed.

"Seeing fast and thinking slow"

An informative review of Ned Block's latest book by psychologist Chaz Firestone and philosopher Ian Phillips (both Johns Hopkins).

One reason why it is hard to take the American Philosophical Association seriously...

...is that it still has on the books a "Code of Conduct" that violates the First Amendment rights of faculty at public universities and the academic freedom rights of all faculty.   Perhaps current leadership will rectify this professional embarrassment, and repeal this Code and enact a normal one, like most other professional organizations.