Over 500 philosophers have signed on to the boycott of University of Illinois, initiated after it rescinded Steven Salaita’s job offer. Already, the boycott has affected the university’s department of philosophy. David Blacker (Delaware), cancelled a talk he was to give there that was co-sponsored by the philosophy department. Eric Schwitzgebel (Riverside) reports that he has withdrawn from presenting a talk and a keynote address at a mini-conference on experimental philosophy there in December. And Mark Van Roojen (Nebraska) has let me know that he, too, has pulled out of talk he was scheduled to give there this term.

One of the moral difficulties with boycotts is that they sometimes involve the attempt by one party to get a “guilty” second party to do something by harming or imposing a cost on an “innocent” third party. In this case, hundreds of philosophers, along with thousands of other academics, are attempting to get the administration at the University of Illinois to respect the free speech rights of Steven Salaita, and are doing so by imposing costs on faculty and students there. These faculty and students are being deprived of interaction and opportunities for the development of intellectual community at their institution with visiting scholars. Plans are disrupted, and presumably the attractiveness of the department to prospective students and employees suffers as the boycott goes on.

A question to ask in light of this is whether we ought to do something to make up for the undeserved harm we are visiting upon University of Illinois philosophy students and faculty. (For example, we could make special efforts to include them in events held elsewhere.) Yet, a concern is that to do so would be to make the boycott less painful, and so, less effective. What, if anything, should we do? I welcome discussion of these and related issues.

UPDATE: UIUC Philosophy Department votes no confidence in Chancellor Wise and Board of Trustees (via John Protevi). The statement:

Whereas the recent words and actions of Chancellor Phyllis Wise, President Robert Easter, and the Board of Trustees in connection with the revocation of an offer of employment to Dr. Steven Salaita betray a culpable disregard not only for academic freedom and free speech generally but also for the principles of shared governance and established protocols for hiring, tenure, and promotion, the faculty of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign declares its lack of confidence in the leadership of the current Chancellor, President, and Board of Trustees.

In “What is the State of Blacks in Philosophy?” a recent article in Critical Philosophy of Race, authors Tina Fernandes Botts (Michigan), Liam Kofi Bright (Carnegie Mellon), Myisha Cherry (John Jay College), Guntur Mallarangeng (San Francisco), and Quayshawn Spencer (San Francisco) “introduce into philosophical discussion the preliminary results of an empirical study on the state of blacks in philosophy.” Among their findings:

- Blacks make up just 1.32 percent of the total number of people professionally affiliated (as grad students or faculty) with U.S. philosophy departments.

- Approximately 0.88 percent of U.S. philosophy Ph.D. students are black.

- Approximately 4.3 percent of U.S. tenured philosophy professors are black.

- Of black philosophy Ph.D. students in the U.S., half are female. That is about double the rate of the U.S. philosophy Ph.D. student population as a whole.

- The distribution of black female Ph.D. students across philosophy Ph.D. pro-grams is much lower than black males. Specifically, 69 percent of black female Ph.D. students are at Penn State.

- The top areas of specialization for U.S. black philosophers are (1) Africana, (2) Race, (3) Social and Political, (4) Ethics, and (5) Continental philosophy.

The article contains more data, along with figures and commentary, and is accessible here.

Carrie Ichikawa Jenkins (British Columbia) and Rebecca Kukla (Georgetown) have informed me that they have created a new, private, “Philosophers’ Ethical Non-Monogamy Group” on Facebook.

This is a group for the exploration of political, personal, disciplinary, and theoretical issues surrounding ethical non-monogamy. We welcome those who identify as professional philosophers (or philosophers-in-training) and who are sustaining, building, or attempting to build ethical non-monogamous relationships.

By ethical non-monogamy, we mean participation in romantic and/or sexual unions that are consensual, critically and consciously constructed, and do not fit into the traditional exclusive dyadic form.

This is a discussion group, not a dating group. It is not, under any circumstances, to be used for hook-up attempts. It is also not, at this time, for allies, nor is it for those who are skeptical of whether ethical non-monogamy is possible or those who are merely interested in talking about it.

Joining the group constitutes your consent to keep its membership and discussions completely confidential. Violating the privacy and confidentiality of any member of the group will result in immediate expulsion.

To join, you can contact either of the organizers by private message on Facebook, or by email at conceptualtruth@gmail.com (Jenkins) or rkukla@gmail.com (Kukla).

1. A symposium at Boston Review called “Against Empathy,” featuring Paul Bloom, Peter Singer, Nomy Arpaly, Barbara Fried, Jesse Prinz, and others.
2. “Imagine that women are proportionately represented in the journals we are discussing…. Could there be any reason for ensuring that more papers by women are published in these journals? Possibly, yes, for two reasons,” says Meena Krishnamurthy (Manitoba), at Philosop-her.
3. Brian Leiter (Chicago) discusses the Salaita case on the television show, “Chicago Tonight.”
4. I don’t know what’s up with Forbes and all of their articles on philosophy lately but here’s another one, this time on philosophy of biology, focusing on the work of Peter Godfrey-Smith (CUNY).
5. “My view is that… all children should, without exception, be encouraged to think critically – and thus philosophically – even about the moral and religious beliefs they bring with them into the classroom. Religious parents should not be able to opt out.” Stephen Law on philosophy and religion in public schools.
6. Joshua Foa Dienstag (UCLA) on pessimism in True Detective.
7. While we’re on television, here’s a piece on Machiavelli, Plato, and Socrates in Game of Thrones.
8. How to avoid annoying your professor (should we send this to our students?).
9. “I take joy very seriously, and partying is the formal pursuit of celebration itself.” Andrew WK and the philosophy of partying.
10. Summer vacation for academics.

As I pressed the “publish” button on the “Philosophical Topics of Interest to Women?” post, the old Saturday Night Live commercial for “Chess for Girls!” popped into my head. It was a warning, but one that I allowed to go unheeded. In part this was owed to exhaustion, in part to distraction, in part to what might be a less-than-optimal amount of conscientiousness about certain things, and in part because the person whose inquiry was featured in the post is, in fact, a good and smart person who I know to be sincerely concerned with improving the climate for women in philosophy, and so I did not have my guard up.

A minute after I published the post, criticisms started rolling in—via instant message, email, Facebook, and eventually in comments here at Daily Nous. I headed off to a full-day philosophy workshop, finding time here and there to approve each comment in the growing pile of objections. It was nice to be forced away from the blog for much of the day as this was going on. But now the workshop is over. I have reread the comments here, the post at Feminist Philosophers about it, and can now share my thoughts, in case you’re interested.

First, let me thank those of you who have written to me about this, either privately or in comments here or on Facebook or on other blogs. I’m grateful for the criticisms, and see them as chances for learning. I’m also grateful for the charity that most commentators have extended to me while making their objections, in regard to my intentions (and also to the professor whose question I posted, in regard to his intentions). And I am also appreciative of those who included kind words about Daily Nous when presenting their objections.

Second, it should have been rather clear to me that the question, as presented, embeds some explicitly sexist assumptions and lends itself easily to a further sexist read apart from those assumptions. Also, my posting of it placed a burden of explanation on those who already have their hands full dealing with and fighting sexism elsewhere. So, even though the ensuing discussion was really very interesting and I think quite useful, I apologize for posting it as I did. It was a mistake to post something so sexist.

Third, let me address the call that some people made for me to delete the post. I did not do this for a few reasons. Mainly, it felt like a cheat—an attempt to revise the record. Better, I thought, to not try to hide the mistake, but rather to use it as a learning opportunity, for me and for the readers. I’m kind of Millian about these things, and have the hope (perhaps unfounded) that, generally (generally, not always), further discussion of problematic issues is better than silence.

Fourth, just to be clear, I’d like to say what I would do if I could do it all over again. I would post it again, but, first, I would have edited the query before posting it, eliminating the sexist examples, and eliminating any language that assumes that there are “topics that are more likely to be of interest to women than other topics.” Second, I would have added some editorial remarks that indicate explicitly that, along several dimensions, the value of asking this question is up for discussion. Third, I would have added remarks that stress that acceptable answers to the query will be based on data and people’s real teaching experiences and not on sexist assumptions and speculation. And finally, I would have made some remarks about how even data-based generalizations about students’ preferences may be of little use, and may reinforce harmful and limiting stereotypes.

Let me again thank everyone for taking the time to comment on these matters, and apologize for posting the question as I did. I recognize that Daily Nous is a kind of public space for the profession, and that I need to exercise wisdom in tending it. I am still working on the wisdom thing, though, and so I appreciate you all stepping up to help when I need it.

Justin

P.S. Today is another travel day, so comments may be slow to appear.

An associate professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado, Bradley Monton, is being investigated by the university.

Associate professor Brad Monton is the subject of a report by Denver-based attorney David Fine for university administrators…. CU declined to provide the Camera with the results of Fine’s investigation and would not disclose the nature of the probe, citing confidentiality around personnel matters.

The rest of the story is in The Daily Camera.

A philosophy professor sends in the following inquiry for discussion:

One way to try to make introductory-level philosophy courses more appealing to women is to include more articles written by women on the syllabus.  I have seen a good deal of discussion and suggestions about this.  Another way might be to try to include more topics that are more likely to be of interest to women than other topics.  I have not encountered any useful discussion of this possibility and wonder what your readers think and whether they know of any useful resources I might consult.  There are a few obvious examples within ethics and political philosophy since they involve pregnancy (e.g., abortion, commercial surrogacy) and one can come up with other examples in these areas along similar lines, but I’m curious about whether there is anything useful that can be said beyond that relatively narrow range of cases.  Are there less obvious topics in the values area that are particularly good at generating interest among female undergraduates?  Topics in other areas such as metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, etc?  I would be particularly interested in any concrete data on this topic, but merely anecdotal evidence would also be appreciated.  Thanks.

Suggestions and comments welcome (though they may take a while to appear, owing to travel). 

UPDATE: I am taking a beating in the comments for posting this. At the moment I do not have time to write a substantive reply, but let me just say a few things: (1) criticism of the decision to post this is welcome; feel free to add or elaborate, as I appreciate the feedback, and I think it is perfectly worthwhile to ask whether this is a question we should be asking at all; (2) if you do wish to provide an answer to the reader’s inquiry about topics, please base your answer on data or your experiences, and not on speculation or guesswork; (3) I will post a reply tonight or tomorrow, if not sooner. Thanks.

UPDATE: I make additional comments about this post here.

Gerald Dworkin on philosophical one-liners.

I would like to comment on two quite different, but ultimately related, areas of neglected environmental analyses that demand immediate attention. The first is the general problem of not having anything like an overall normative framework, involving ethics as well as science, that could serve as the basis of debates and discussions on policy recommendations. Despite the ubiquity and the reach of environmental dangers, a general normative framework for the evaluation of these dangers has yet to emerge. The second is a much more specific problem: the failure to develop a framework for assessing the comparative costs of different sources of energy (from fossil fuels and nuclear power to solar and renewable energy), inclusive of the externalities involved, which can take many different forms.

Amartya Sen (Harvard) has a long and wide-ranging article in the New Republic discussing issues related to the environment, energy, and poverty.

UPDATE: In the comments, dmf points us to a response by Wes Alwan at The Partially Examined Life, describing Sen’s piece as “a lengthy and repetitious series of platitudes… [that] doesn’t possess any substantive merits or demerits. What interests me is how terrible this article is as an attempt by an intellectual to communicate with the general public.”

1. “Scientists that talk philosophy down are simply superficial: they have a philosophy (usually some ill-digested mixture of Popper and Kuhn) and think that this is the “true” philosophy, and do not realize that this has limitations,” says scientist.
2. The Phaedo may be missing some painful, convulsive, gasping.
3. The Critique is a site that aims to bring philosophy to bear on a variety of current events, from police brutality to the Emmy awards.
4. A series of posts on philosophy and a basic income.
5. “How to solve the hardest logic puzzle ever in two questions” and the four other most-downloaded articles from Analysis this year are now available free of charge.
6. Feminist Philosophy Quarterly, a new online, open access journal, is now accepting submissions.
7. “Not all interactions with fellow humans are positive” — on the advantages of robot graders.
8. Philosophers of art, this is great but I don’t know why.
9. The bias towards the past.

It does not appear that the University of Illinois will be altering the decision to rescind Steven Salaita’s job offer. From a post at the “Chancellor’s Blog”:

The decision regarding Prof. Salaita was not influenced in any way by his positions on the conflict in the Middle East nor his criticism of Israel….

We are a university built on precisely this type of dialogue, discourse and debate. What we cannot and will not tolerate at the University of Illinois are personal and disrespectful words or actions that demean and abuse either viewpoints themselves or those who express them. We have a particular duty to our students to ensure that they live in a community of scholarship that challenges their assumptions about the world but that also respects their rights as individuals…

A Jewish student, a Palestinian student, or any student of any faith or background must feel confident that personal views can be expressed and that philosophical disagreements with a faculty member can be debated in a civil, thoughtful and mutually respectful manner. Most important, every student must know that every instructor recognizes and values that student as a human being. If we have lost that, we have lost much more than our standing as a world-class institution of higher education.

The rest of the post is here (via Michael Otsuka). A separate article reports:

Wise’s message was followed up later in the day by one signed by University of Illinois trustees, President Robert Easter, University Senates Conference Chair Donald Chambers and several top-level administrators.

The authors of the letter endorsed Wise’s statement and stated they “write today to add our collective and unwavering support of Chancellor Wise and her philosophy of academic freedom and free speech tempered in respect for human rights – these are the same core values which have guided this institution since its founding.”

People have been experimenting on journal referees and have learned some useful information. First off, whatever you do, don’t ask Professor Procrastinate to referee for you. He cannot be trusted. Second, shorten deadlines. Third, offer cash rewards or publicize how long the referees took to do the work.

We randomly assign referees to four groups: a control group with a six-week deadline to submit a referee report; a group with a four-week deadline; a cash incentive group rewarded with $100 for meeting the four-week deadline; and a social incentive group in which referees were told that their turnaround times would be publicly posted. We obtain four sets of results. First, shorter deadlines reduce the time referees take to submit reports substantially. Second, cash incentives significantly improve speed, especially in the week before the deadline. Cash payments do not crowd out intrinsic motivation: after the cash treatment ends, referees who received cash incentives are no slower than those in the four-week deadline group. Third, social incentives have smaller but significant effects on review times and are especially effective among tenured professors, who are less sensitive to deadlines and cash incentives. Fourth, all the treatments have little or no effect on rates of agreement to review, quality of reports, or review times at other journals.

The article, “What Policies Increase Prosocial Behavior? An Experiment with Referees at the Journal of Public Economics,” appears in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, and can be accessed here. (via Lewis Powell)

Most academic philosophy departments see themselves primarily as housing a specialized academic discipline, and contributing only incidentally here or there to a university’s general education curriculum. The priority needs to be reversed. Frankly, there is little or no need for specialized academic philosophy; if it disappeared overnight, the only ones who would notice would be the practitioners themselves. But on the other hand, despite the occasional iconoclastic polemic saying otherwise, there is a widespread recognition that philosophy provides a valuable contribution to the mind of an educated person, even if the person is not working toward a degree in the field. Philosophy professors need to see their primary job as enriching the mental lives, values, and discourses of non-philosophers. For almost everyone, we should be a side dish rather than the main course. That is where our societal value lies.

Charlie Huenemann (Utah State) argues that the primary job of philosophers should be to “enlighten masses,” and that the training of philosophers and the attitudes prevalent in the profession need to change to recognize this. Philosophy should “move out of the tower and back into the agora.” You can read the whole post at his blog, Huenemanniac. 

1. What should we think about the ice bucket challenge?
2. Al Mele (Florida State) and Eddy Nahmias (Georgia State) talk about free will and science at Philosophy TV.
3. The challenges for an analytic feminist philosopher of religion.
4. Free for you to use: a Prezi tour through the history of Western philosophy, by Mark Alfano (University of Oregon).
5. Why a philosopher teaches about privacy, in Forbes (via Robert Long), and a forum in the NYT about your possible violations of your children’s privacy.
6. The connection between “love for humanity” and human agency.
7. The potential condescension of informed consent.
8. A video installation based on Plato’s Timaeus. Watch it in the dark.
9. Against authenticity, part 8729. (via Colin Farrelly)
10. Feel better about your job, instantly. (via Molly Gardner)
11. Don’t philosophize like my brother! Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers, take up epistemology.

Jonathan Glover (KCL) can add “crime-fighter” to his list of accomplishments. The Hampstead & Highgate Express reports: 

A fraudster is facing jail after a bungled attempt to dupe a world-renowned philosopher into handing over his bank cards. Nishathur Chowdhury was arrested at the Primrose Hill home of Professor Jonathan Glover, a best-selling author and leading moral philosopher, who alerted police after realising he was being “taken for a ride”. By the time Chowdhury, 28, arrived at the philosopher’s house in Chalcot Square – posing as a courier sent by the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) – plain clothes police officers were waiting to pounce.

How did Glover know he was the target of an attempt at fraud? He figured it out while “I was in a half-suspicious, half-naive state,” he said, providing an apt description of the usual philosophical mindset. The rest of the story is here.