On my response to the APA Statement

Several people have suggested privately and publicly that my previous post in which I agreed with some of Brian Leiter's criticism of the APA statement on "pervasive incidents of bullying and harassment" can be interpreted as (i) defending anonymous bullying (or worse) and/or (ii) offering blanket criticism of those that criticize anonymous bullying. This is unfortunate because I do not hold (i-ii).

It would be great if those professional philosophers that visit anonymous blogs (or hear about particular instances of online harassment) would publicly speak out against the abuse and harassment found there, and would defend or reach out to particular victims of such abuse. On the public side this happens too rarely, and undoubtedly some folk are justly intimidated by the fact that if they speak up, they, too, may become targeted by anonymous blogs--this is not a mere possibility, but has already happened (recall also my post on anonymous push-back). This generates a collective action program, and so it makes sense that our collective professional association would step up to the plate (and speak on behalf of the profession while giving everybody cover).

Even so the APA made a mistake to invoke norms of civility in its attempt to go on record. Some of my friends have denied that the APA appealed to civility, but it did appeal to "civil disagreement," and that falls under the norms of civility. Here, I do not repeat my concerns over such invocations in politicized contexts. 

Rather, when the APA goes on record in condemning abuse, it should be explicit about particular cases and the reasons for doing so--as it did with clarity in the case of Professor George Yancy in the very same statement. In fact, the APA has a special obligation to be specific and detailed because it has no credibility in such affairs. It lacks credibility because for many decades it has been silent on all the known cases of harassment by powerful folk in the discipline; it is silent on the blatant conflicts of interest that exist in bits of the discipline (bioethics, business ethics, etc.), and it is silent on the lack of professionalism that still exist in some (many?) of our journal practices, etc. (See also this powerful piece by Leigh Johnson.) 

Now, by not providing specifics and by invoking norms of civility, the APA looks like it is either engaging in symbolic politics or trying to discredit views it does not like in virtue of these emanating from a vile part of the internet. In so doing, it has opened to door to well-meaning and hostile critics to suggest that the APA represents a faction rather than the general interest. It has also generated a terrible precedent in which 'civil disagreement' will be invoked by some moralizing or powerful faction to silence critics in the future. This is why I note my dissent from the APA's statement even if I can find myself in agreement with the concern over the abuses it registers.

civil disagreement

 

Comments

[David Sobel]

Eric,
I have not been following the general discussion on this topic but I disagree with your reading of the APA statement. The statement targets esp. "bullying and harassment that target a person’s race, gender, class, sexual orientation or other status". It goes on to say that such action undermine civil discourse and has no place in the profession. It does not imply, as I read it, that it condemns all uncivil discourse.

[Mark lance]

I agree with your worries here, but disagree about the statement. You say it is looks like either symbolic politics or criticizing views it doesnt like. is the latter not trivial? In any event, i take it to quite obviously be symbolic. The apa has no hierarchical authority and is not organizing. It is putting out a symbolic call. But so what? There should be more, but symbols matter.

You say there is a danger of hypocritical misapplocation. Sure. So is there with any principle however formulated.

And you point to previous failures of the apa. I largely agree but dont see how that makes this an unhelpful intervetion. Far from perfect institution, but the professional organization of philosophers calling on folks to not be racist, sexist, etc dicks is a good thing.

[Eric Schliesser]

Mark, if you agree with my worries (about civility/civil disagreement), then I do not see what's left of the APA's statement. In effect, the statement would be a good thing if it were not so badly worded.
On the other stuff, I guess we disagree a bit.