Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

South Florida's Thomas Williams interviewed by Richard Marshall...

...at 3:16 am.

Moral psychology with Nietzsche, at the LARB

Yesterday Plato's moral psychology, today it's my turn to talk to Andy Fitch at the Los Angeles Review of Books.

Plato's moral psychology

Philosopher Rachana Kamtekar (Cornell) talks with Andy Fitch at the Los Angeles Review of Books.

The crisis of the humanities: it's the lack of jobs, not "white privilege" that's the problem

Andrew Kay, who earned a PhD in English but could not secure a job, wrote a memorable and much-discussed essay a couple of weeks ago about the disconnect between goings-on at the annual meeting of the Modern Languages Association and the disastrous job market for new PhDs.  As if to confirm his point about the depraved and delusional condition of the English profession, four assistant professors of English wrote a piece denouncing him for his white, male privilege (I'm not kidding, read the piece), the same white male privilege that left him unemployed, while these four embarrassments have tenure-stream positions.  Happily, Anastasia Berg, a young philosopher currently in a post-doc at Cambridge has written a brilliant (both in substance and style) rejoinder. An excerpt:

The authors are right that Kay’s essay is saturated, like a blood-drenched rag, with pained longing. But in asserting that what Kay is nostalgic for is the whiteness, maleness, and colonial chauvinism of Peak English, they once again draw inferences about what he does not say and ignore what he does. Kay says very clearly what he misses about his life at the university: talking to and reading poetry with an adviser he admires, doing work he cares about, and being part of a community that could provide him with the opportunity to talk about literature with those who share his love for it. This fantasy is the fantasy of those who wish to dedicate themselves to a life of the mind. It is mine.

Here, apparently, lies Kay’s real sin. It is not his unwitting bigotry. Ultimately, the scandal of his piece has little to do with his adoring descriptions of his academic adviser or his sartorial observational satire. His sin is that he fails to embrace his own sacrifice as well justified, fails to see his own loss as the "very necessary unsettling of white male dominance," fails to welcome the "cleansing flame." The problem is not what Kay says but that he dares to speak of his own predicament — that he dares to want publicly anything at all.

"What is a woman?"

Philosopher Kathleen Stock (Sussex) discusses the topic at Philosophy Bites.

(Thanks to S. Wallerstein for the pointer.)

Two philosophers elected to the American Philosophical Society

They are:  Jonathan Lear (Chicago) and Judith Jarvis Thomson (emerita, MIT).

The Good: Relative or Objective?

Philosophers Paul Boghossian (NYU), Naomi Goulder (New College of the Humanities), and Michael Ruse (Florida State) discuss.

What are "conspiracy theories"?

Philosopher Quassim Cassam (Warwick) comments.

Hair discrimination as race discrimination

Philosopher and lawyer Nicholas Serafin (Michigan) comments.

Philosophy at night at the University of Chicago

A nice write-up in the Chicago Tribune about my colleague Agnes Callard's very popular "Night Owl" series for undergraduates.

Montana's Paul Muench interviewed by Richard Marshall...

...at 3:16 AM.

Irish President, presenting young philosopher award: "we [do not] exist to be made useful"

The Irish President is an admirably humane person: 

Ireland needs to guard against a reengineering of the education system under the assumption that “we exist to be made useful”, President Michael D Higgins has said.

Attending the Irish Young Philosopher Awards 2019 at UCD’s O’Reilly Hall, the President said “talk of a knowledge society and the demand to enable our young people to meet its needs has at times in the discourse on education, come to dominate our view as to the ultimate aim of a secondary school education. We need to be careful”.

Alas, under capitalism, we do all exist only "to be made useful," and if we're not, we are discarded.  Some of us--in virtue of job, or wealth, or even sometimes the society in which we live--manage a partial insulation from the market's demand to deliver "value."  One may only hope that President Higgins can really make Ireland such a society.

Leaving the Mormon Church

A fascinating account from philosopher Spencer Case, which sheds interesting light on the techniques of indoctrination, although they didn't work in his case.

Another one bites the dust

Feminist Philosophers, the second-oldest major philosophy blog (after this one), will be closing down after 13 years.  (We turn 16 in August.)  Over the years, I've linked many times to useful items at the FP blog (most recently, but see also, further back, here and here and here and here; back in those days, I even wrote a petition for the FP blog concerning gender diversity in conferences [an alternative to this idiocy]--at the time, Prof. Saul asked me not to disclose my role in writing it, so I didn't then).   Unfortunately, as the profession began to crack up in 2014 and thereafter, some FP bloggers played an active role, and their sanctimonious hypocrisy attracted less favorable notice here.  Professor Saul, in her farewell notice (linked above), says that she has become "pessimistic about the potential for internet-based discussions of difficult issues to help us make philosophical and real-world progress."  I suspect the correct translation is that:   internet-based discussions exposed the venal vindictiveness and dishonesty of so many who pretend they are motivated only by noble concerns.

I'll say something I've said previously:  the sins of the FP blog, which alas over time became many, should not be visited on feminist philosophers, most of whom have had nothing to do with it.

Error theory: I can't believe it!

Philosopher Bart Streumer (Groningen) comments.

The unfolding disaster for higher education and research in Brazil under the fascist Bolsonaro

An informative thread (in English) from a Brazilian philosopher currently teaching in Europe.  If you're on Twitter, please do share it with others.

New LSE philosophy podcast, "Out of the Vat"

Episode 1 features philosopher of physics Steven French (Leeds).

An episode of HiPhi nation on the transgender debates in the UK

[LINK FIXED]

It begins, unfortunately, with some silly sociology, which reports the breathtaking discovery (who would have guessed?) that the public is more concerned with trans women entering female-only spaces, than with trans men entering male-only spaces.   Now one might have thought everyone knew that we have sex-segregated spaces importantly, but not only, for the protection of women from men, i.e,. people with penises, because rape and sexual assault is overwhelmingly done by people with penises.   We certainly needed social "science" for that discovery! (As this first part of the show proceeds, it becomes obvious that these social "scientists" are ideologues and activists.)  The two philosophers--Holly Lawford-Smith (Melbourne) and Robin Dembroff (Yale)--come in around 18 minutes, if you want to skip ahead.

Some questions raised by the "white paper" on "publication ethics [sic]"

From a post-doc philosopher elsewhere, concerning the latest mischief:

1) Some of the authors have actively worked to marginalize the view that transracialism can be similar to transgenderism. What can we do to protect, engage with, and make more visible views that are marginalized by marginalized groups?

2) Apparently, there is such a thing as writing "like a white male," something marginalized scholars apparently do not do or do at the price of not being authentic. How do white males write?

3) "Nothing about us without us." It seems that originally this phrase meant that members of marginalized groups should advocate for themselves and have a seat around the table when decisions regarding them are made. How did it become an imperative that covers all utterances? Why does anyone have a right to speak with me when I speak about them?

Twitter "believe it or not," part 4: juvenile jackass confronts adult on-line

This episode is unusual only because an adult, the philosopher Leslie Green (Oxford & Queen's U) intervened after this grad student at Queen's had the outburst, below, after he insulted me out of the blue on Twitter and I blocked him:

Mr. Jokic deleted his stupid tweet when confronted by an adult.  But the real question is why more faculty aren't stepping up and doing the same thing?  I realize many aren't on Twitter, but many are.   And even if you're not on Twitter, you might want to inform yourself about how your students are behaving, if not self-destructing, on social media.   Remember that twitter, which is full of a lot of clueless folks, tends to reinforce the worst behavior:  someone who is ruining his or her reputation even as a graduate student may be getting the message from the Twitterati that they're funny, wonderful, etc.  

On citation ethics and other topics from the "white paper" on "publication ethics [sic]"

Philosopher Mohan Matthen (Toronto) writes:

It seemed that one aim of the White Paper exercise was to widen the scope of ethical concern, whether or not the authors were searching for vindication of the petitioners’ behaviour re Tuvel (though at times it was hard to resist the impression that this exactly was the aim.) But they were out of luck. The focus groups just wouldn’t take the bait. They just wouldn’t spontaneously say that there’s a natural place for ethnic or gender identity in publishing ethics. 

So, the main result was some spectacularly silly remarks about citation practices—e.g., excessive self-citation could be construed as misconduct, one editor said. (As if you could retract a paper on these grounds!) I have to say that I find some of the views on citation that people float for serious discussion are really crazy, “inclusive citation” for example. The ethics of citation in our discipline have, for a very long time, been that you must cite people who explicitly, and more or less uniquely, hold or reject views you discuss. Additionally, citation provides sources of further information. (That’s one reason why there is less citation in philosophy than in the sciences: there is less “further information.”) It’s never been the norm that you should discuss everybody who holds tangentially related views. But now, it seems, citation has come to be viewed not as a means of acknowledging priority, but as a practice that bestows fame, and the argument seems to be that fame should be an equal-opportunity commodity. What else could justify the guideline like that your citation list must include at least two women, at least one of whom is cited for her views on somebody who isn’t male? I find this preoccupation faintly (actually more than faintly) ridiculous. Philosophy and fame don’t really belong in the same thought (unless, of course, a negation is thrown in).

Out of curiosity, I looked up some papers by members of the advisory board. I didn’t get the impression of great generosity. I didn’t always find two women cited (excluding self-citations). Most importantly, I found that in many cases, there were restrictions on the areas thought relevant to the topic under discussion.  Now, to be clear, I don’t object to this. But I don’t see why it isn’t just a different, though equally insidious (or equally harmless), version of the “Is it philosophy?” question.

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."

More from attorney/philosopher John Bogart on the "white paper" on "publication ethics [sic]"

UPDATED WITH SECTION 3 MAY 9, 2019

Many thanks to Dr. Bogart for taking the trouble to write up the following, which he kindly gave permission to share:

I have organized my comments into three categories: (1) Administrative issues, (2) Methodological Issues, and (3) Substantive Issues.

1. Administrative Issues:

            There is no information on the selection of the Team or of the Advisory Board.  The respective roles are left obscure.  What are the responsibilities of the Advisory Board, for example?

            The demographics of the Advisory Board are not reflective of the membership of the APA or of the broader philosophical community.  The demographics are not representative along lines of gender, sex, areas of specialization, experience, geography, employment histories.  It is unclear if there is any ideological diversity on the Board.  Too many of the members of the Team and Advisory Board have known, highly controversial views on the instigating events of the project, in particular regarding the Tuvel/Hypatia controversy.  The project thereby appears political slanted and ideologically tainted. 

It is unclear where competence lies with respect to the methodology employed by the Team.  The project here is not an intra-institutional project, but one directed at a wide range of outsiders.  It may that the consultant has experience with similar efforts, but it is not apparent from the webpage. 

The Team is somewhat suspect on other grounds.  The inclusion of the Executive Director of the APA is troubling.  The project is not sponsored by the APA, yet its Executive Director is a central player and the APA released an Press Statement about the Project, quoting the Executive Director.   The Press Release nowhere says that Ferrer is acting on her own or that the APA is not involved in the project, or otherwise clarifying relationship between the APA and the project.  It strikes me as inappropriate for the Executive Director to have such a role because it creates a host of conflicts and problems that cast doubt on the integrity of the Project, when the involvement is not approved by the APA governing board.

           

2. Methodological Issues.

            There is too little information about the people who actually participated in the focus groups.  While the initial outreach was appropriately wide, that is of no help if those who actually showed up were not representative of journal editors in philosophy.  Without such information, the reporting at least sounds, if not is, merely anecdotal.  Even if there is some reason not to identify the actual participants, or the journals represented (I do not see why anonymity would be important here, but there may be reasons), other indicia of an adequately representative set should have been provided.

APA Member-at-large candidates for the Board of Officers: voting is now open

A philosopher elsewhere writes:

Voting is now open at the APA. I saw this list of three candidates for member at large:

https://www.apaonline.org/page/atlrg2019

I was wondering if you had an insight about which candidate would be best for those of us (who are I think in the majority) who don’t like what the APA blog does, don’t like what Amy Ferrer is doing to our profession, and want to return to things like, you know, encouraging journals to at least try to be blind reviewed. I guess I was wondering if you had an “endorsement,” and if so whether you’d consider stating in on your widely-read blog. I also wondered if anyone reliable knows which of the positions up for election, if any, have any chance of making a dent in the trajectory of the APA, which I think most philosophers perceive to be spiraling downward. (I was assuming member at large is the main one to keep an eye on, but my assumption isn’t based on much.) If you had information on that, I think it’d be very useful to post. 

I don't know any of them well enough to have a view.  I don't think any were involved, e.g., in the harassment and defamation of Rebecca Tuvel, so that's good.  Professor Powell has been involved with the APA Blog as I recall.  I invite civil comments from readers; if you want to be very critical, please post with your real name.  Links to information about these candidates are also welcome.

The "white paper" on "publication ethics [sic]" eviscerated

This is amusing; an excerpt:

If you liked the Thieves’ Guild’s guide to the ethics of personal property, and if you found yourself moved to tears by the Arsonist’s Society’s guide to the ethics of firefighting, you will adore the Put-the-Shiv-in-Rebecca-Tuvel Gang’s guide to publishing ethics. Yes, three out of five of the authors of the “white paper” on publishing ethics were signatories to the now-infamous “open letter” calling on the feminist journal, Hypatia, to recall Rebecca Tuvel’s paper on transgenderism/transracialism, after it had been published. [1]  A fourth serves on its advisory board, the whole of which reads like a who’s-who of the woker-than-woke-crowd who have been doing their busy best to turn our once-distinguished, highly respected discipline into an intellectually lightweight, identity-obsessed laughing-stock; the delight of YouTube trolls and right wing political commentators everywhere and fodder for every miserable conservative state-legislator looking for a reason to slash humanities and liberal arts budgets in “red” states and counties across the country.

A new paper on Foucault, genealogy, politcial realism, and the epistemic status of the human sciences

It's a descendant of a much older, unpublished paper, but this new and expanded version will appear in an issue of Inquiry on "Genealogy and Political Philosophy"; the abstract:

Foucault’s corpus is animated by an ethical or political impulse, namely, to liberate individuals from a kind of oppression from which they suffer. This oppression, however, does not involve the familiar tyranny of the Leviathan or the totalitarian state; it exploits instead values that the victim of oppression herself accepts, and which then leads the oppressed agent to be complicit in her own subjugation. Foucault’s critque also depends, crucially, on a skeptical thesis about the epistemological authority of the social sciences that is supposed to be supported by his genealogies of those sciences. It is this conjunction of claims—that individuals oppress themselves in virtue of certain normative claims they accept because of their supposed epistemic merits—that marks Foucault’s uniquely disturbing contribution to the literature whose diagnostic aim is, with Max Weber, to understand the oppressive character of modernity, and whose moral aim is, with the Frankfurt School, human liberation and human flourishing.

Foucault is also a kind of “realist” in his approach to the project of emancipation: he does not offer moral arguments to persuade people that they ought to behave differently than they do, but instead shows people the actual history of the institutions and norms to which they subjugate themselves. Some realists ground their diagnosis in claims about human nature (think of Thucydides, Machiavelli, Nietzsche and Freud); Foucault is closer to Marx on this score, eschewing explanatory invocations of human nature, in favor of broadly-speaking “material” considerations (although not simply economic ones) to diagnose our institutions and norms.

This essay explains Foucault's critical and realist project, and concludes with some critical reflections on its plausibility.

Some more interesting comments on the "white paper" on "publication ethics [sic]"

John Bogart, an attorney who also has a PhD in philosophy, kindly gave permission to share his quite interesting and revealing comments about the "white paper," which he read through:

There's not enough information about the composition of the focus groups to assess the value of the reported comments. It is not, e.g., the number of journals contacted but who in fact showed up. I hoped for more transparency on that point. It would also help to understand how the Team was selected and how the Advisory Board was selected. Neither looks like the APA membership or the wider profession. The project seems vague on whether it aims at an "Ethics" of publishing or a set of "Best Practices." They are not the same. Actual review processes got short shrift, e.g. “we did not make peer review a focus of our conversations.” It would be helpful to know why. The Paper gives the impression that the project is really about institutionalizing the view that demographic diversity in authors should be a primary concern of journals, that philosophical work touching on (it is hard to discern exactly what the standard is) matters of concern to marginalized or vulnerable groups should be vetted by members of such groups, and that there should be a post-publication process of discipline or sanctions. The latter receives far too little discussion. E.g., what sort of error in argument is like misstating the data? They are all three controversial, so I expected some defense or explanation of their centrality to the Paper and its recommendations. The recommendations re citation reviews reminded me the equally enlightening symposium on citation in law reviews:
https://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/1305MicroSymposiumonOrinKerr.pdf

Oxford's "Very Short Introduction" series

A graduate student writes:

Apropos this post on your blog about Peter Singer's Marx: A Very Short Introduction. I wonder which titles relevant in philosophy in the same series are the best ones to read? Or maybe which titles to avoid? (Maybe Simon Critchley's Continental Philosophy?) Perhaps you and the readers of the blog could suggest some?

The Critchley volume in that series is also weak and should be avoided.   The only other volume I know on a philosophical figure is the one on Nietzsche by Michael Tanner, which also cannot be recommended.  (This book will be the best competent and genuinely introductory book on Nietzsche, when it finally appears--the book was finished more than a year ago, but the publisher has been dragging its feet--I gather it will be out this year.)   I've read a number of books in the series, but not on philosophical topics:  some seem quite good, others a bit flaky.  Readers familiar with philosophy titles, please weigh in with volumes you would recommend as worth reading as introductions:  full name in the signature line please, and a valid e-mail address, which will not appear.  Submit your comment only one, it may take awhile to appear.

In Memoriam: Ruth Anna Putnam (1927-2019)

A longtime member of the philosophy faculty at Wellesley College, where she was emerita, she was best-known for her work on various important figures in American pragmatism.  There is a brief obituary here.  I will add links to other memorial notices as they appear.

(Thanks to David Guberman for alerting me to her passing.)

Open letter to the fascist in Brazil from the American Philosophical and Sociological Associations (and others)

The letter is here.  Of course, everyone understands the letter is being addressed to a fascist and a moron, but the hope is that at some point adverse publicity for these moves leads to reconsideration for whatever actual reasons influence such a "leader."

Twitter "believe it or not" part 3: the Twitter kids can't figure out why no one is taking them seriously

I won't embarrass this individual, who seems more clueless than malevolent, but from this philosopher's Twitter feed I learned that Keyvan Shafiei (yes, the person who launched the out-of-the-blue verbal assault on feminist philosopher Holly Lawford-Smith, and who prefers the pronouns "they/their," which I honor in what follows) actually had the audacity to stand up at a panel on diversity at the Pacific APA two weeks ago to ask about the "harassment" [sic] of "junior" scholars by "senior" scholars (referring to my noting  their misconduct although presumably without mentioning their declaration that Prof. Lawford-Smith was a "vile fucking human").   The member of the Twitterati recounting the story reported, with astonishment, that no one on the panel took this part of the question seriously or responded to it. 

It did not seem to occur to this Tweeter that this is because it is not "harassment" to criticize people's gross misconduct on public social media platforms.  If you're really having trouble understanding this, try looking at this and this.  Or to quote the otherwise absurd Rebecca Kukla:  "Calling people out for their shitty behavior is not rude [or harassment]; it's morally necessary."  She apparently didn't notice that's what Professor Green did, however.

New Books in April

Authors and/or publishers kindly sent me these new books this month:

Saving People from the Harm of Death edited by Espen Gamlund & Carl Tollef Solberg (Oxford University Press, 2019).

Happiness by Alain Badiou (Bloomsbury Academic, 2019).

Medieval Philosophy:  A Multicultural Reader edited by Bruce V. Foltz (Bloomsbury Academic, 2019).

The Future of Academic Freedom by Henry Reichman (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2019).

Philosophy of Sex and Love:  An Opinionated Introduction by Patricia Marino (Routledge, 2019).

A New Modern Philosophy:  The Inclusive Anthology of Primacy Sources edited by Eugene Marshall & Susanne Sreedhar (Routledge, 2019).

Why Free Will is Real by Christian List (Harvard University Press, 2019).

Converts to the Real:  Catholicism and the Making of Continental Philosophy by Edward Baring (Harvard University Press, 2019).

 

Open letter protesting the defunding of philosophy and sociology in Brazil

It is available for signatures here. I have signed, and I encourage readers to sign as well.

(Thanks to Sergio Tennenbaum for the pointer.)

One philosopher among 2019 Carnegie Fellows

JeeLoo Liu (Cal State-Fullerton) has won support for a project on Confucian robot ethics.   The full list of 2019 fellows is here.

Ontario goes crazy, sets out to destroy its excellent universities

The Canadian province of Ontario has some of Canada's, and the world's, most successful research universities, including the University of Toronto, Queen's University in Kingston, McMaster University, York University  in Toronto, and the University of Western Ontario.  But the provincial government has now been taken over by neoliberal yahoos, and this is their plan for destroying the universities:  60% of funding will be tied to "performance metrics" that don't measure performance in research or teaching, but probably do track the class status of the student body and the geographic location of the university in the province.  Philosopher Rachel Barney (Toronto) has given an apt assessment on FB which she kindly gave permission to share:

Over the next three years up to 60% of Ontario govt funding to universities will be taken out of the traditional grant-per-student system and shifted into SMA's: Strategic Mandate Agreements, one for each institution. And those Agreements (which have been around for a while, but just as planning exercises with no real money or enforcement attached) will be organized around a list of ten 'performance metrics'.

Why is this terrible?

1. None of these 'metrics' actually measures how well we educate, because that would be hard. Instead they're a pig's breakfast of Stuff Govt Likes: unis will be assessed on things like our graduates' incomes (don't ask me how), partnerships with industry, experiential learning (a good in itself apparently, rather than something that could be done well or badly), and graduation rates (so don't flunk any more students, please -- and you'd better not admit any who might face financial or other obstacles and drop out).

2. So we are being incentivized to do a lot of really stupid stuff. And collecting all these garbage stats and formulating them in managerial-speak every year will obviously be a hugely expensive exercise, so that's yet more money pulled away from the classroom and set on fire. But that's far from the worst:

Stanford University to stop subsidizing its university press

IHE has the details.  The IHE article says, bizarrely, that philosophy is one of the leading areas SUP publishes in, but that's rather obviously not true.  The only notable publication in that area I can think of are new English translations of Nietzsche's collected works, which have been slowly trickling out.

More anti-intellectual mischief from the Brazilian fascist Bolsonaro

He plans to stop providing federal funding for the study of philosophy and sociology.

2019 Rescher Medal in Systematic Philosophy to Columbia's Philip Kitcher

I was asked to share the following announcement, which I'm pleased to do:

The University of Pittsburgh announces its award of the 2019 Nicholas Rescher Medal for Systematic Philosophy to Philip Kitcher, the John Dewey Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University.

Philip Kitcher has published extensively in the philosophy of science, the philosophy of biology, the social reception of science, and the place of science within democratic society.  His work also includes books on naturalistic ethics and philosophical themes in literature and music.

The Nicholas Rescher Medal was established by the University of Pittsburgh in 2010 in honor of a distinguished philosophy professor who has served the institution for over fifty years.  It is awarded biennially and previous recipients are Ernest Sosa of Rutgers University, Alvin Plantinga of Calvin College, Jürgen Mittelstrass of the University of Konstanz, the late Hilary Putnam of Harvard University, and Ruth Millikan of the University of Connecticut.

The 2019 Rescher Medal lecture and award ceremony will be held at the University of Pittsburgh on February 7, 2020.  For more information, please contact Thomas Berry at tberry@pitt.edu.

 

Philosopher Sophie Allen (Keele) on Gender Critical Feminism and a recent confused critique in the popular media

This is a really good essay, heads-and-shoulders above the sneering nonsense from the "narcissistic half-wits" on social media (to borrow Professor Stock's apt description).  It's been nearly a year since I first called attention to some of Professor Stock's writing, and there has literally been only one remotely serious and (mostly) substantive response--although, to be sure, there has been a lot of hand-waving about "the literature," content-free mockery, and moral indignation at verboten thoughts.   This, in itself, is revealing:  for some reason, the opponents of Gender Critical Feminism seem unable to successfully defend their views philosophically.

DePaul University students embarrass themselves with frontal assault on academic freedom

DePaul philosophy professor Jason Hill is a serial right-wing provocateur, who is, predictably I suppose, to the right of Likud when it comes to Israel and the Palestinians.  The response of some DePaul students is, alas, standard New Infantilism and "thought police" in one serving:

We, the students of DePaul University call upon the administration to censure Professor Hill for his heinous statements against marginalized communities. His comments create unsafe and uncomfortable spaces for everyone, especially Palestinian and Muslim students who now all refuse to enroll in a class that is taught by Professor Hill. We are not only seeking censure, but for Professor Hill to commit to racial sensitivity training and to release a public apology for his immoral conduct.

Palestinian students should probably approach his classes with caution, although what is "heinous" about Professor Hill's views has nothing to do with their target being "marginalized" (which rather understates the situation of the Palestinians).  (Professor Hill is himself a Black immigrant from Jamaica, so he can join the marginalized sweepstakes here, I suppose.)   No "space" at DePaul is now "unsafe" because of Professor Hill's heinous views: the students might visit, say, Gaza to see what an actual "unsafe" space is like.  No doubt some students are made "uncomfortable" by Professor Hill's views, but no doubt some students are "uncomfortable" with some of the views of every faculty member and every student on campus.   And although Professor Hill has no discernible scholarly competence in the topics on which he is opining, his speech is plainly extramural speech on a matter of public interest, for which he enjoys contractual protection against censure, discipline or sanction as a matter of academic freedom.

DePaul, of course, has a terrible history when it comes to academic freedom, as some readers will recall.  Here, so far, the University is holding firm.  No doubt the fact that the target of criticism is not Israel has helped firm up their commitment to academic freedom.

The future of the philosophy profession?

Reader Alex Parrish, observing recent shenanigans covered on the blog, writes with the following amusing observation:

Years from now, when Philosophy departments include The Collected Tweets of Rachel McKinnon on their syllabi, older generations of philosophers are going to look like fools.

Why did Judith Jarvis Thomson ever present a defense of abortion? Wouldn’t it have been better to just say that she can’t be expected to do the emotional labor of explaining why pro-lifers were wrong?

Why did Rawls ever engage with Nozick when Nozick’s speech constituted literal violence against the poor? Nozick clearly didn’t deserve to be treated like a normal member of the profession.

Some more pieces by philosophers on transgender and related issues

One by Kathleen Stock (Sussex); an excerpt:

On one hand, many women feel blindsided by the argument that trans women should be considered literal women, and question the effect of the trans movement on female sex-based rights and protections, as they have come to define them. On the other, many trans people are aghast at what they feel are attempts to block their political advancement toward equal social and legal status.....

To understand what’s at stake, it’s helpful to delineate two argumentative positions at play: (1) sex eliminationism, which argues for the abolition of the recognition of biological sex as a meaningful category; and (2) gender eliminationism, which argues for the abolition of gender. As a feminist and philosopher who finds herself stuck between these two positions and their passionate advocates, I see it as a defining challenge of our complicated modern times to carve out some pragmatic middle ground: to find a narrative and set of policies protective of both the rights of trans people in a gender-conforming society, and those of females in a misogynist society. In attempting this, we should recognize that many on both sides of the dispute share at least some common ground. Specifically, they both share a deep discomfort with the sociocultural norms and stereotypes associated with being a woman or a man. I believe that this common ground may provide some basis for rapprochement.

And another by Leslie Green (Oxford & Queen's U); an excerpt:

Some reactions from professional philosophers to the on-going saga of grad students behaving stupidly on social media

This was the most recent incident, but only the most recent.  Since the Twitterati tend to encourage each other in juvenile behavior, it might be worth sharing some representative  correspondence I've gotten.

From a senior philosopher at a top 25 PhD program:  "Great work on calling out the idiots in our profession (and elsewhere) in the TERF wars.  Stunning to observe, and mind-boggling in much the same way as watching our kakistocracy operate!"

From another senior philosopher at another top 25 PhD program:  "The current climate makes me nostalgic for [Georgetown's] Mark Lance's nastiness and virtue signaling; can one responsibly do otherwise than to strongly warn potential PhD students against considering Georgetown?"  Though as this philosopher added, it's a "shame" since "there are serious people there."

Exhibit on Nietzsche's influence on art...

...at the National Gallery of Canada.

(Thanks to Andrew Sneddon for the pointer.)

American Academy membership election process

Only recently has the AAAS disclosed the election process to the Academy on its website.  An excerpt (I've bolded some bits):

• Preliminary Evaluation Ballot – The first round of voting is the Preliminary Evaluation Ballot (PEB), which includes the names of all eligible nominees in a given section and is distributed to all voting members of that section. Section panels, comprised of usually 5-10 members, review the PEB results and select approximately 12 candidates (not including candidates for International Honorary Membership) in their sections to advance to the next round.

• Appraisal List – The second-round ballot, usually consisting of 350-400 names, is distributed to all voting members in the winter. Once again, on the basis of the ballot results, the Academy’s five class committees recommend approximately 6 candidates in each section for election plus suggestions for International Honorary Members.

• Election - The Academy’s Council and Board of Directors are responsible for reviewing and approving the slate of candidates recommended for election.  Results are announced in mid-April.

The primary criteria for election are excellence in the field and a record of continued accomplishment. The section panels and class committees are also responsible for recommending a representative and diverse slate of candidates in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, institutions, geography, disciplines and balance of fields that includes both practitioners and scholars.

This suggests what I have been told in the past, namely, that the selection panels for each section have a real impact on the final results, and are not strictly bound by the vote of the membership.  That means, of course, that the composition of the section panel is quite important.   (Also notable here is the mention of institutional diversity:  last year, the University of Chicago had 15 faculty elected, this year just 4.  It appears they are taking this more seriously than in the past.)

There's grad students behaving badly on social media...

...and then there's criminal misconduct, which appears to be what this CUNY PhD student is facing.  (NYT account here.)

(Thanks to Stephen Krogh and Gregory Mayer for the pointers.)

Five philosophers elected to the American Academy of Arts & Sciences

They are:  Anita Allen (Penn), Nancy Fraser (New School), Clark Glymour (Carnegie-Mellon), Brad Inwood (Yale), and Tommie Shelby (Harvard).  This is a more reasonable outcome than one might have expected given the issues noted last fall, although I can report that many at least as worthy candidates on the inital ballot were not elected this time around (of those, one was a woman [but not a feminist philosopher, but clearly a leader in her field], while the others were all men).  (The new way the AAAS is listing the newly elected members is much harder to decipher than in the past; I hope they'll fix it!)

ADDENDUM:  Enrique Dussell (UNAM) was also elected, although it's unclear whether it was for his work in theology or in philosophy--philosophy is conjoined with "religious studies" as a section of the Academy.  My recollection is that he was not on the philosophy ballot from the fall, but I may be wrong.

Wolff on "The Future of Socialism," Part Three

Here.

What crime did British jihadists commit?

Philosopher Cecile Fabre (Oxford) comments.

In praise of a good philosophical fight

A very amusing essay by my colleague Agnes Callard.