Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

Daniel Kaufman (Missouri State) talks with Oliver Traldi (Notre Dame)...

...at Meaning of Life TV,  although it is misleadingly titled as "Leftism in Academic Philosophy" (the title was not chosen by Kaufman):  the current "identity politics" mania afflicting parts of philosophy has nothing to do with "leftism," which concerns human liberation.  Vide Marx, "On the Jewish Question."  Things get quite salty in the interview around the 1:05 point in the dialogue.

UPDATE:  Prof. Kaufman succeeded in getting a more appropriate title for the dialogue.

BJHP announces 2018 Article prize

Philosopher Alix Cohen (Edinburgh), Deputy Editor of the BJHP, asked me to share the following announcement:

The committee made up of all the editors of the British Journal for the History of Philosophy has awarded the Rogers Prize for 2018 for the best article published in the BJHP last year to Michael Gill (Arizona) for ‘Shaftesbury on life as a work of art’, published in volume 26.6 of the journal.

This Prize, awarded for the first time in 2012, was established in honour of Prof. John Rogers, the Founding Editor of the journal. It is worth £1000, and will be announced in the next issue of the journal.

The runner-up is Kathryn Tabb (Columbia) for her paper ‘Madness as Method: On Locke’s Thought Experiments about Personal Identity’, published in volume 26.5.

Congratulations to them both!

 

In Memoriam: Gary Gutting (1942-2019)

I was quite sorry to learn, via Martin Kusch, of the passing of Professor Gutting, a longtime member of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, where he was emeritus.  He was, of course, best-known for his excellent work on Foucault, as well as on French philosophy of the 20th-century more generally, although his philosophical interests and publications ranged widely and across traditions.  In addition, he founded and edited with great integrity and care Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, which has become the most important source for book reviews in academic philosophy.  He had recently agreed to write the volume on Foucault for my Routledge Philosophers series, which was about to go under contract.   You can find out a bit more about his work here.  I will add links to memorial notices as they appear.

UPDATE:  An announcement has gone out to the editorial board of NDPR (of which I am a member) from Professor Gutting's widow, who has also been co-editor of NDPR in recent years:

I am sorry to be the bearer of sad news, but I need to let you know that late on Friday evening Gary passed away. The end came much faster than anyone had expected but was peaceful, and he was surrounded by his family.

There will be a memorial service at the Sacred Heart at Notre Dame, and I will forward further details as soon as they are available.

In the circumstances, I have decided to suspend publication of reviews for a minimum of one month.

I will post details of the memorial service when they are available.

ANOTHER:  A remembrance by philosopher John Schwenkler (Florida State) at Commonweal.

Conference on the work of Bernard Williams at Lund this June

I'll be talking about Williams and Nietzsche, at what is shaping up to be a very interesting conference:  further program information is here (including about how to register, for free).

Hackers discover Gettier

A hacker wrote a piece on the Gettier problem, which then generated a big discussion in the hacker on-line community!

(Thanks to Vincent Abruzzo for the pointers.)

Wittgenstein's letter of recommendation for "Mrs. Geach" (i.e., Anscombe)

Amusing.

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

UPDATE:  More details on how the erroneous ad got placed here.

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]

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.)

Sylvain Bromberger (1924-2018) in the NYT "Lives They Lived" issue for 2018

Here.

ADDENDUM:   There's more about how the Bromberger family was saved by the remarkably courageous Aristides de Sousa Mendes, including remarks from Professor Bromberger, here.  (Thanks to David Velleman for the pointer, who tells me that his father's story is also available at the same site.  Prof. Velleman notes that his father's "'testimony' wasn't written for the De Sousa Mendes website. It was written for our children when they were young -- which explains some of the condescending parenthetical explanations.")

What is it like to be a philosopher: Ken Taylor edition

Here.

In Memoriam: Isaac Levi (1930-2018)

Professor Levi, a leading figure in decision theory and epistemology, was emeritus at Columbia University, where he had taught since 1970.  He passed away on December 25.   He earned his PhD at Columbia and taught at Case Western Reserve University, before returning to his alma mater.  I will add links to memorial notices when they appear.

(Thanks to Charles Parsons for the information.)

UPDATE:  A brief obituary at the NYT.  (Thanks to David Rosenthal for the pointer.)

Stanley replies to Ludlow

Here, a propos this.

Philosophy and cognitive science catch up with Nietzsche, part 242

Philosopher Peter Carruthers explains that "conscious thought is an illusion," as that German fellow knew.

Philosophers behaving badly, an ongoing saga

Witness this tirade of abuse by philosopher Rachel McKinnon (Charleston) against a famous lesbian athlete.

(Thanks to Daniel Kaufman for the pointer.)

Tilburg's Sander Verhaegh talks about Quine and naturalism in an interview...

...at 3AM.  I was amused to learn that the orignial subtitle of "Epistemology Naturalized" was "The Case for Psychologism."

More on philosophy at Hull...

...in  The Guardian.

Ludlow on Stanley on "How Fascism Works"

It's fair to say that "Peter Ludlow did not like Jason Stanley's book," but I'm not sure what excerpt would be adequate to the substantive issues raised.

More on the situation of philosophy at Hull

Philosopher Nick Zangwill, who holds the Ferens Chair in Philosophy at Hull, writes with more information:

The current situation in Hull is that the final decision concerning whether or not to suspend the Single Honours Philosophy program has not yet been made, but will be made some time in the new year. Nevertheless, many of our programs (combinations of Philosophy with other subjects) have already been slashed, which will hit recruitment and create problems in the future. The university seems not to grasp the different roles of modules and programs. It is reasonable that a module has a minimum number on it, but a program is a matter of what combinations of subjects students do, and smaller numbers on programs should be acceptable, since modules can service a wide variety of programs. They have just cut English and Philosophy, quite a popular combination with seven applicants. The motivation seems not to be financial since this is throwing away at least 200k pounds. Last year they cut Philosophy and Religion which threw away even more. Philosophy pays its way, more than most other subjects, and we have a good NSS (the National Student Survey), and recruitment for the few remaining programs is good, certainly by comparison with other subjects. (The university will not allow a Philosophy REF (research) submission, which will hit recruitment in the future.) Little evidence or justification is given for any of the decisions, which all seem to be ways of losing money for the University. The only claim that is floated is the incredible one that students don’t like a wide choice of programs, which is contrary to or not supported by all sources of evidence (including UCAS, DataHE and NSS). Students who cannot do the combination of subjects they are interested in at one institution will go to another that does. (Local competitor institutions are currently expanding in philosophy, picking up our potential students.) The decision-makers seem to be making rash decisions, perhaps so as to be seen to be doing something, when these measures will obviously make things much worse. Certainly, Philosophy is under threat in Hull from these irrational measures. We are very grateful for the support we have received from philosophers around the UK.

We've seen administrators-run-beserk in the UK before--recall the King's College, London case where, thanks to international outcry, the administration backed down.

A conversation with Charles Taylor...

...at Harvard, led by Michael Rosen.   Taylor is one of those thinkers who enjoys a better reputation outside Anglophone philosophy, than within:  partly it is a matter of his philosophical and intellectual sympathies (e.g., his interest in Hegel, his antipathy to naturalism), and partly a matter of the quality of his arguments when he engaged on territory familiar to analytic philosophers.  Not quite thirty years ago, we philosophy PhD students at Michigan prevailed upon the skeptical faculty to invite Taylor as the "Nelson philosopher in residence," and watching this conversation, with Taylor's open and engaging manner, reminded me of exactly how he was with we students back then.

Academic hierarchy watch: which will be the "top" American philosophy departments of the 2020s...

...assuming the monster-child doesn't kill us all, of course.

In the 1950s, Princeton became a major presence in American philosophy, while Yale and Johns Hopkins entered periods of decline.

In the 1960s, Pittsburgh and MIT arrived on the scene, and so did Rockefeller at the end of the decade.

In the 1970s, Rockefeller shuttered mid-decade, while Arizona became a significant presence, as did Illinois/Chicago.

In the 1980s, things held steady until Rutgers emerged as a powerhouse at the end of the decade.

In the 1990s, Rutgers and then NYU emerged as dominant forces in the field, UC San Diego and UC Irvine jumped, while Harvard, Cornell, Chicago, Illinois/Chicago and others declined (relative to their prior positions in the profession).

In the 2000s, USC (Southern California) became a major department, Yale recovered fully from the catastrophe of the 1950s, and NYU and Rutgers continued their ascension.

In the 2010s, USC and Yale have solidified their place in the "top ten." 

What will the 2020s hold? 

Paul Russell (UBC/Lund) on Bernard Williams...

...as part of the TLS "Footnotes to Plato" series.

An open letter in support of philosophy at Hull from the British Philosophical Association and Department Heads around the UK

Here.

(Thanks to Joe Morrison for the pointer.)

Philosophy at SUNY-Fredonia under threat

Philosopher Neil Feit (SUNY Fredonia) writes:

SUNY Fredonia President Virginia Horvath has identified our BA program in Philosophy, my department's only major, as a candidate for elimination as a cost savings measure. If you are willing to post something about it on your blog, we would be grateful. Here are some links with recent developments:

Here is an article that appeared yesterday in our local paper, the Dunkirk Observer:

http://www.observertoday.com/news/page-one/2018/12/suny-fredonia-faculty-criticize-administration-possible-cuts/

Here is a petition that one of our current majors just launched:

https://www.change.org/p/students-of-fredonia-save-the-philosophy-department-at-suny-fredonia

As the Dunkirk article makes clear, the Administration is planning on wiping out many other majors as well.  This seems utterly unworthy of a campus that is supposed to be part of the State University system in New York.

Jeffers on Du Bois

Philosopher Chike Jeffers (Dalhousie) talks about Du Bois over at Elucidations.  Professor Jeffers is writing the volume on Du Bois for my Routledge Philosophers series, and I anticipate it will become an essential resource for scholars and students.

Philosopher of education John White (UCL) interviewed...

...at 3AM.

Saudia Arabia to now offer philosophy in secondary school

Hassan Alsharif, a Ph.D. Candidate in Philosophy at the University of Kansas, writes:

I'm originally from Saudi Arabia. Teaching Philosophy in Saudi Arabia has been absent in all levels of education for some religious reasons. [Earlier this week] was a historical day over there. The government decided to allow teaching one course of philosophy for secondary school. 

I'm the first Saudi Student who is doing PhD in Philosophy, and I'm so happy that my country is getting more open-minded to other intellectual works, especially philosophy. I thought I should let you know about this so you can shed some light on it in your website. I have been interviewed by a well-know TV channel, Rotana, today to talk about this issue. Here is the link.

https://twitter.com/Alsharif_HS/status/1070702780682305538

Here is a link from UNESCO that mentioned that Saudi Arabia don't teach philosophy. Notice that almost the other countries are islands. 

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001541/154173e.pdf​

Return of the XPhil blog

Justin Sytsma (Victoria U-Wellington) writes:  "Joe Ulatowski, Dan Weijers, and I have recently revived the x-phi blog under the auspices of the Australasian Experimental Philosophy Group: xphiblog.com. Edouard has recently put up a post on the Geography of Philosophy project. And other new content is lined up over the next week."