Digressions&Impressions

How to reduce retaliation?

We are thankful to those who have spent a significant amount of their time and energy making philosophy a more inclusive space, as well as to those who are working to support victims. However, we recognize that if the progress they have made is not to be lost, rights to report concerns of sexual misconduct and retaliation must be protected, and that protecting these rights has to be a community effort.

As things currently stand, there are very substantial professional and personal risks associated with addressing sexual misconduct either informally or through formal university channels—including, as we have now seen, the risk of being sued for defamation. Moreover, these risks accrue not only to victims but to those who try to support them in seeking to have their grievances addressed. Unsurprisingly, many victims have felt as if they have no recourse, many who might otherwise have supported them have remained silent; and the culture of silence understandably contributes to the impression that there are really very few within our profession who are much concerned either about the prevalence of sexual misconduct within our discipline or about the risks associated with seeking to have it addressed. "An Open Letter of Support," John Greco, Don Howard, Jonathan Kvanvig, Mark Murphy, and Michael Rea [HT DAILYNOUS]

What is to be done about legal and personal strategies by our peers that generate "the very substantial professional and personal risks associated with addressing sexual misconduct either informally or through formal university channels—including, as we have now seen, the risk of being sued for defamation?" This "open letter of support" articulates the problem eloquently and accurately (and it expresses my own sentiments). But, alas, it does not point the way to a response to the problem--it is more a cri de coeur than a road-map to the future.  Some of us (recall my post and, more elaborately, Jennifer Lackey) have called attention to the need for more elaborate indemnification policies by universities to support accusers and the faculty/friends that help them. But even if universities adopt such a (costly) strategy, the risk of being sued in a court of law will reduce people's willingness to step forward and, thereby, reinforce the "culture of silence."

As bystanders we should be very clear that in the context of disciplinary cases (involving rape,  sexual assault, harassment, etc.), the professional community draws a sharp distinction between suing one's university and suing one's peers or accusers. We all recognize that university tribunals have their own problems (most of these involving partiality toward faculty) and that victims and accusers alike ought to have some recourse to outside courts. But, as a profession we have a community interest (not to mention common decency) in ensuring that the targets of such a law-suit are employers (that is, universities and their officers) not colleagues and students accusers. 

So, what can we done?

Quite a bit given that there are no controversial epistemic issues involved. It is public knowledge when somebody sues a student or colleague in the context of an rape/assault/harassment (etc.) case. As a community we should treat such legal strategies with aversion. Again, to be clear: it's fine to sue one's employer and its officers; it's intolerable to sue peers and students in rape/assault/harassment (etc.) cases. So, here's a proposal (open to discussion): such a person should not expect job offers from other institutions, be invited to colloquia, special issues, handbooks and all other forms of professional honor we bestow on each other EVEN if s/he wins the ensuing court case. To be clear, this proposal falls short of professional shunning (i.e., not publishing and not citing--recall this post on the Arthur Koestler problem). This approach is also compatible with other, private acts of friendship and support (and outreach). In addition, it also takes no stance on the legal merits of individual cases.

On Firing a Philosophy Professor

When I was a PhD student my first interactions with the Dutch philosopher of science, Ton Derksen, were unpleasant; I thought he was dismissive of my research, aloof in that annoying, European professorial way,  and -- undoubtedly this colored my later memory -- slow in reimbursing my (considerable) travel expenses. Yet, from a distance I have come to admire Derksen greatly because of his very finely developed sense of justice and his willingness to speak up on behalf of unpopular causes; he used his professional authority and expertise in evidential arguments to expose systematic miscarriages of justice in the Dutch legal system through years of diligent research and public advocacy. Whenever he appears in public media, I feel an entirely unjustified pride (in ways aptly described by Hume) in knowing that he is 'on my professional team.'

David Barnett, a philosopher who publishes regularly in the best journals,* is about to be fired by CU--Boulder. According to the Daily Camera, his lawyer presents him as a courageous whistle-blower who "became convinced that [CU-Boulder's] ODH [Office of Discrimination and Harassment] had intentionally and systematically manipulated the evidence in order to support a finding of guilt" against a male graduate student (subsequently hired temporarily as an instructor). The lawyer is reported as implying that Barnett was "unofficial mentor" to the male student (now elsewhere).

In the very first piece I posted on Boulder's philosophy department I noted that even the American Philosophical Association Committee's on the Status of Women (CSW), Site Visit Program's "report clearly states that Boulder's Administration is "not providing (sufficient) support or resources for the Philosophy Department to address these issues" (p. 10--the whole report is a litany of administrative failings)."" Barnett's stance fits the pattern of mistrust toward Boulder's Administration that I have noted in earlier posts ([see this]; see especially this eloquent testimony by Annaleigh Curtis, which suggests this mistrust is fully deserved and that Boulder has much room for improvement in its institutional procedures and attitude.)

Even so, it's extremely striking and utterly unnerving that unlike this eloquent response, several of the most outspoken male philosophers at Boulder have been incapable of expressing even the possibility that they may, in fact, be part of an environment that is sometimes less than respectful to some of their female peers. Given that I reported that I had independent evidence of problems at Boulder from what I still take to be an impeccable source, I have been utterly baffled that rather than seeing more searching self-examination, we have been exposed to what look more like political talking points reminiscent of the 'culture wars,' even political campaigns (recall here and here). What I found shameful about, say, Michael Tooley's arguments is the utter lack of warmth toward possible victims. Yet, a few months later, even Barnett's lawyer "acknowledged that rumors about the victim were circulating in the department, but said those rumors were not started by his client." From context it's clear that those rumors involved the victim's sexual behavior. Even if it turns out that the victim was -- contrary to ODH's findings -- not the victim of sexual assault by that male graduate student, such rumors alone qualify, I think, as workplace sexual harassment.

Responding to the Weekly Standard and National Review...(I)

The argument for ostracism has a certain element of political justice.--Aristotle.

The simple explanation is that most women aren’t very interested in philosophy, at least the variant that academics now pursue. It’s the most abstract and mathematics-like of the humanities disciplines, and abstract thinking is something at which men seem to excel. The razor-sharp distinction-drawing and brutal, courtroom-style inquisitions that typically take place in philosophy classrooms aren’t much to many women’s taste, either. That’s the simple explanation. The preferred and politically correct explanation is that it’s all the fault of men. And that’s where the “systematic exclusion” and “culture of harassment, sexual predating, and bullying” to which Schliesser alluded comes in. And also, the ascendency of feminists frustrated by the fact that 40 years of affirmative action, diversity preferences, and sexual-assault grievance procedures on campuses—often deliberately designed to favor accusers over the accused—have done almost nothing to change the sex disparity in philosophy departments.--CHARLOTTE ALLEN, The Weekly Standard, June 30, 2014. [HT Dailynous]

When Michael Tooley, a philosophy professor of distinction at the University of Colorado Boulder, stated on his website that he had not witnessed discrimination against women in philosophy — and, indeed, had witnessed discrimination in their favor — another philosopher [that would be Eric Schliesser--ES] denounced his “inability to ‘see’” as a “disgrace.” I have spoken with other philosophers who say they agree with Tooley but feel that expressing those views before their peers is, at best, more trouble than it’s worth, and, at worst, a liability.

In addressing the problem of sexual harassment, philosophers should resist the temptation to adopt cosmetic demographic-engineering policies whose ill effects have been well documented. Above all, in making philosophical careers appeal to women, philosophers compromise the freedom of thought and objectivity that have made philosophy an alluring field in the first place.--Spencer Case,  The National Review, July 5, 2014. [HT Dailynous]

As a male Chicago graduate, who has expressed modest sympathy for Straussianism, and who publishes regularly about Adam Smith and the Chicago school of economics, I could have reasonably hoped, if I had any expectations, that my scholarship would attract the attention of The Weekly Standard and The National Review. Instead I get lumped together with the politically correct and frustrated feminists! There is no justice!

Kidding aside, the The National Review identifies Case as "a philosophy graduate student at the University of Colorado." He is one of us, and I admire his willingness to speak up under his own name and express what undoubtedly many others feel. In the larger context of his piece, Case implies that I am willing to ridicule Tooley's eye-witness testimony purely on political grounds. Case ignores the first thing I wrote when I started blogging about the situation at Boulder:

A year ago, I was approached over drinks by a member of Boulder's philosophy department. "I hear you are trying to recruit to Ghent?" That's right, I said, you know somebody?" "Yes, me." -- Boulder was a department one moved to, not a place to recruit from. -- "But why?" I said, trying to sound nonchalant.  "I want out. We have a culture of sexual harrassment." I think I said a bit too loudly: "crap!" 

I couldn't take it in. Boulder, that's where my best friend -- the best man at my wedding -- lives. Boulder, that's scenes from Mork & Mindy; hiking, skiing, fresh foods, and a department full of fantastic philosophers. The good life. Boulder, a place where I would love to be a regular visitor. I missed some of what my interlocuter, who was describing the active steps some (but not all) colleagues were taking to right the place,  said.  It dawned upon me that I was hearing not just about exhausting bureaucratic maneuvering; I was hearing of women who were denied the possibility to flourish in philosophy due to a very hostile work-place environment; of indifferent men; and of well meaning men that were caught between conflicting loyalties--between the desire to focus on their philosophical development and the demands of justice. 

I did nothing. I did even not reach out to my other acquaintances (male or female) at Boulder. I have effortlessly avoided thinking about the victims at Boulder.

Crap, indeed.

- See more at: http://digressionsnimpressions.typepad.com/digressionsimpressions/2014/02/the-irretrievable-shame-of-professional-philosophy.html#more

A year ago, I was approached over drinks by a member of Boulder's philosophy department. "I hear you are trying to recruit to Ghent?" That's right, I said, you know somebody?" "Yes, me." -- Boulder was a department one moved to, not a place to recruit from. -- "But why?" I said, trying to sound nonchalant.  "I want out. We have a culture of sexual harrassment." I think I said a bit too loudly: "crap!" 

I couldn't take it in. Boulder, that's where my best friend -- the best man at my wedding -- lives. Boulder, that's scenes from Mork & Mindy; hiking, skiing, fresh foods, and a department full of fantastic philosophers. The good life. Boulder, a place where I would love to be a regular visitor. I missed some of what my interlocuter, who was describing the active steps some (but not all) colleagues were taking to right the place,  said.  It dawned upon me that I was hearing not just about exhausting bureaucratic maneuvering; I was hearing of women who were denied the possibility to flourish in philosophy due to a very hostile work-place environment; of indifferent men; and of well meaning men that were caught between conflicting loyalties--between the desire to focus on their philosophical development and the demands of justice. Digressionsnimpressions, February 3, 2014

Michael Tooley, sees no evil, hears no evil

A few days after I published this post, a tenured member of UC Boulder's philosophy department wrote me (in strict confidence) to complain about (in his words) "the hatchet job" performed by the American Philosophical Association’s Committee on the Status of Women in its report on the site visit to Boulder (hereafter 'the report'). I was a bit surprised by his note because in that post I had written about my experience of meeting another tenured member of the philosophy department at Boulder at a conference a year ago, who had shared with me testimony about the culture of sexual harassment at Boulder. The otherwise unfruitful exchange between us made clear something that is also very clear from the report itself (and from subsequent news accounts--see, especially, this piece by Annaleigh Curtis): Boulder's administration is not a trusted partner and almost certainly part of the problem (see also this earlier account of how it deals with sexual harassment in engineering).

The report itself does not name names nor does it offer statistical evidence of the climate problems at Boulder; it's not a document prepared either to prosecute or exonerate individuals. It's also not a brief in preparation for a lawsuit. Rather, it makes a lot of detailed, context-specific suggestions on how to move the department forward. The lack of specificity on the offenders and offenses has caused the men in the department obvious reputational damage; it’s no surprise that they would fear that they are viewed as active or complicit sexual aggressors. In fact, this prompted six senior female faculty to release a statement that "none of our currently untenured male colleagues or current male graduate students has engaged in sexual misconduct (nor, indeed, have most of our tenured colleagues)." It does not take an advanced degree in logic to understand that it follows from this letter that some of the tenured folk at Boulder are seen by their very colleagues as a source of grave problems.

But not according to Michael Tooley [HT Leiterreports]. Tooley is incapable of even acknowledging this minimal fact.  I have never met Tooley, but I have read some of his papers (on laws and (ahum) on infanticide) and I know that he is a distinguished senior,  professional philosopher. If we are going to make professional philosophy, a welcoming, inclusive place to all, it's folk like him that are going to have to be part of the solution. Here's what he writes:

Self-loathing in Philosophy

Under no circumstances should this department sponsor or be affiliated in any way with an event that includes alcohol. (Report  on  Site  Visit Conducted  by The  American  Philosophical Association  (APA) Committee  on  the  Status  of  Women  (CSW), p. 12.)

Last night I was reminded of the passage above. I heard a story about a prominent philosopher that I admire, who had groped a graduate student while under the influence of alcohol. I wondered if there was a pattern or a one-off. A few weeks earlier, before the Peter Ludlow story hit the media, the philosopher Abe Stone, asked on his facebook page, "why do philosophers drink so much alcohol in professional contexts?...Even if this had no bearing at all on the issue of sexual harassment (though clearly it does have some!) it would be something we ought to discuss." I think Stone is right about the phenomenon: there is a problematic, drinking culture in philosophy. In some departments it is passed on from one generation to the next. I always found it remarkable that my supervisor preferred Chinese food over beer.  (I am pretty confident that was one of the many subtle reasons why I gravitated toward him.)

This is no surprise, of course. There is a lot of drinking in the societies in which professional philosophy is embedded. But the problem is notable in professional philosophy because it has extremely fluid boundaries between work and not work. (This is a field that has, of course, low tolerance for the very intelligibility of ontological vagueness.) So, even if one were to ban alcohol from all sponsored events (not just the Boulder department, the APA smoker, etc.), the alcohol related problems, including sexual harassment, would not disappear in professional philosophy. (This is no criticism of the CSW Report at Boulder!) For, alcohol is one of the social glues of our profession (which, after all, has a legitimate professional fondness for conversation). For example, I edited a volume where in his acknowledgments, my co-editor promised me a drink.

The Irretrievable Shame of Professional Philosophy

AND LET'S REMEMBER THIS PROBLEM ISN'T JUST AT COLORADO:  There are other "Colorado's" out there, and we have all heard the stories.  Indeed, parts of the report, sad to say, reminded me of the situation in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin, at least back in 2008, which is when I left.--Brian Leiter

"We're reaping the unhappy harvest of an effort to do the right thing," said CU philosophy professor Michael Zimmerman. "We were acting in good faith to identify the concerns (within the department) and address the concerns, which is why we invited those people to come down in the first place.

It wasn't our intention to have a public spectacle. Had we foreseen this, we never would've invited those people to come."--Daily Camera

A year ago, I was approached over drinks by a member of Boulder's philosophy department. "I hear you are trying to recruit to Ghent?" That's right, I said, you know somebody?" "Yes, me." -- Boulder was a department one moved to, not a place to recruit from. -- "But why?" I said, trying to sound nonchalant.  "I want out. We have a culture of sexual harrassment." I think I said a bit too loudly: "crap!" 

I couldn't take it in. Boulder, that's where my best friend -- the best man at my wedding -- lives. Boulder, that's scenes from Mork & Mindy; hiking, skiing, fresh foods, and a department full of fantastic philosophers. The good life. Boulder, a place where I would love to be a regular visitor. I missed some of what my interlocuter, who was describing the active steps some (but not all) colleagues were taking to right the place,  said.  It dawned upon me that I was hearing not just about exhausting bureaucratic maneuvering; I was hearing of women who were denied the possibility to flourish in philosophy due to a very hostile work-place environment; of indifferent men; and of well meaning men that were caught between conflicting loyalties--between the desire to focus on their philosophical development and the demands of justice. 

I did nothing. I did even not reach out to my other acquaintances (male or female) at Boulder. I have effortlessly avoided thinking about the victims at Boulder.

Crap, indeed.