Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Fool's avatar
  2. Santa Monica's avatar
  3. Charles Bakker's avatar
  4. Matty Silverstein's avatar
  5. Jason's avatar
  6. Nathan Meyvis's avatar
  7. Stefan Sciaraffa's avatar

    The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…

Smoking Habit a Liability on the Job Market?

Brian Leiter

A candidate on the teaching market writes:

I am a cigarette smoker (at least one pack a day), and it occurred to me that this fact, when known, very well could play a role in a hiring decision. I was wondering if you or your readers had any thoughts about this.

Please, if posted, refrain from using my name. I am actually trying to quit, but job-market stress is making it hard.

Interesting question, given how much norms about smoking have changed among professionals, including academics, over the past 25 years–and in the U.S. especially.  I’m opening comments.  Smokers with pertinent experience who would like to post anonymously may do so, though please include a real e-mail address (that won’t appear).

Leave a Reply to anon Grad Student Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

39 responses to “Smoking Habit a Liability on the Job Market?”

  1. David Velleman

    If your correspondent can use this concern to help him quit smoking, I don't think anyone should disabuse him. So, yes, smoking can definitely be a disadvantage on the job market.

    Reply
  2. Brian Burtt

    I'm currently looking for a non-faculty job. In this process I've read a lot of books on job-seeking skills. One of the things I've read regularly is that smokers–even if they don't smoke on the day of the interview–are likely to smell of smoke to a degree that is noticeable to, and off-putting to, non-smokers.

    As a non-smoker who grew up in a family of smokers, I can confirm this. So maybe it is affecting–perhaps even unconsciously–his job prospects.

    Reply
  3. Mike

    I wonder if there is a similar problem with not being a vegetarian. I remember over the years having several on campus interviews where I was worried about opting for non-vegetarian meals because I thought it might displease the (all too vocal) vegetarian philosophy mafia. Personally, I hate the idea that someone on a hiring commitee might hold some purely personal choice like this against a candidate. It smacks of the worst sort of childish behavior that better fits the behavior of teens in high school cliques. But, I suspect the woory about smoking is not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

    Reply
  4. e sharp

    So is this one more silly thing that us grad students who do Continental and found ourselves in non-Phil-Gourmet-worthy departments have to worry about? Well, I won't, at least. But maybe those who actually think doing philosophy and worrying about the academic job market are in any way related might.

    Reply
  5. dankaufman!

    when i first starting going to APAs (late-ish '90's), smoking was allowed in the hotels, and plenty of 'non-smokers' (you know who you are) would have a cigarette and a drink in the hotel bar with their smoking friends. that golden age is long-gone. now smokers have to take their habit outside, and this (in conjunction with the fact that many (including me! that's right.) have quit, etc.) makes smoking at the APA a decidedly less social behavior than it was in the past.

    so, smoking job-seekers, picture this: you, in your only suit/fancy outfit, alone, outside in a cold, cold city in the end of december, smoking.

    despite this picture, i cannot say with any confidence that smoking will hurt you on the job market. i did ok, and i was a hardcore, shameless smoker both times i went on the market. in fact, i think i smoked *more* at the APA and on campus visits than i did at home. that being said, i *can* say with some confidence that smoking *will* hurt you in every other way.

    unfortunately, if you're on the job market, you're probably too stressed out to quit any time soon. i wish you the best of luck on the market *and* quitting smoking (when things calm down).

    Reply
  6. Brian Leiter

    Mr. Sharp's comment, above, is the kind I ordinarily don't post (there aren't many like this), but I thought it might be useful in this instance. Mr. Sharp writes:

    "So is this one more silly thing that us grad students who do Continental and found ourselves in non-Phil-Gourmet-worthy departments have to worry about?"

    Actually, there is no correlation between graduate students interested in post-Kantian Continental philosophy and cigarette-smoking, except in the marginalized SPEP-affiliated departments where doing "Continental" philosophy is more a matter of affect and pretence, than philosophy or scholarship. Students in such departments have much more to worry about than whether they smoke: not knowing much philosophy, or having much skill at philosophical argument, ought to loom much larger as concerns.

    Mr. Sharp continues:

    "Well, I won't, at least. But maybe those who actually think doing philosophy and worrying about the academic job market are in any way related might."

    As it happens, many of those who would like to "do philosophy" would also like to be able to earn some income doing so. Obviously, there are those who exist above the fray of mere material interests. They may, accordingly, smoke themselves to death.

    I won't invite a 'dialogue' on this particular subject. There isn't one worth having.

    Reply
  7. Scott Wilson

    I recall one of my grad advisers (who shall remain nameless) telling us that no serious philosopher could be a non-smoker and expect to get any work done. And I know many other academics who have expressed thoughts less severe than this, but along the same lines.

    Reply
  8. Chris

    As a vegetarian-American of Italian descent, I'm a prime candidate for the vegetarian mafia. Still, no word. . .

    When I was on the market, I did wonder if being a vegetarian would be held against me. I thought that it made me seem difficult so I didn't do anything else that might confirm that view. In the end, being a vegetarian proved useful but not for the reason Mike thinks. I never received a job offer from a committee with a vegetarian on it. What I could do, though, was gauge what people were like by how they responded. Some challenged me and, so long as I kept my ultimate purpose in view, we had a good conversation. Others sympathized because they were a minority in a different respect. Some were a little ugly about it. I tried to take them in stride, moved the conversation somewhere else, and hoped that others noticed that I could work with difficult people.

    My advice to a smoker would be this: take your best guess as to what will annoy people about your habit (see Brian's comment), try to minimize it, and if it comes up, use it. It's a chance to learn how they think and show them how you work.

    Reply
  9. Sarah

    I'm a lifelong vegetarian, and lactose-intolerant (so practically vegan), with no particular ethical commitments in this regard. I usually have a lot of trouble finding anything to eat at formal dinners in academic settings, and this has on some occasions provided fuel for conversations which have been entertaining and interesting, depending both on my mood and the people there with me. On others, it's been extremely awkward. Dietary quirks can be an icebreaker in the right company, and like Chris, I tend to find that other people's reactions often help me gauge things about them (though it's hard to discount changes in my own behavior).

    I think smoking taboos make it harder for it to serve the same purpose, but one thing not mentioned in the comments so far is that it can lead to conversations with fellow-pariahs on the host committee which non-smokers might not have.

    Reply
  10. Old prof

    Years and years ago when I was a smoker I was delighted at an APA interview to find that the chair was a smoker. My nerves were calmed, and we both puffed away during a wonderful interview. I was invited to an on campus interview, and by the time I arrived the chair had quit. He wasn't pleased that I still smoked. I didn't get the job.

    Reply
  11. Corey Dyck

    Since we are on the topic of whether we should tailor our personal habits towards success on the job market, I wonder whether being a vicious person, morally speaking, is generally regarded as a liability for landing a position? Do committees consider moral character in making their decisions, and if so, are we better off cultivating good habits, or just disguising our bad ones?

    Reply
  12. Rob Tempio

    Perhaps the APA should consider changing the name of "The Smoker," to "The Non-Smoker."

    Reply
  13. doris

    My slightly paranoid take is this:

    In the US, smoking is a highly moralized behavior. I would therefore assume that you will instigate prejudice, whether explicit or implicit, if you show up at an interview smelling of stale smoke. Especially given the evidence suggesting the convention interview is not particularly diagnostic, my speculation is that being perceived as a smoker could adversely impact interview outcomes.

    So, if you must smoke in convention or interview contexts, I suspect it is in your interest to smoke as discreetly possible (whether or not you believe this state of affairs is a just one).

    David Velleman is of course right: quit, yesterday, and don't quit trying to quit.

    But being on the job market does not present the optimal circumstances for beating a notoriously difficult habit, so you may be advised to wait until after the market stress. (of course, then there's moving stress, and tenure stress . . ..).

    It is possible that your smoking will endear you to some smokers on hiring departments (although most smokers are likely dissonant, meaning they want to quit). It is also possible that you'll strike up a conversation that showcases your philosophical acumen over a friendly smoke with one of the hiring smokers. But my guess is that smoking is more likely to have a negative effect, and one of the foundational principles of interviewing is, "first, do no harm." (Btw, with suitable adjustments, I'd give similar advice regards all but the most polite use of alcoholic beverages.)

    So, on the plausible projection you will continue to smoke on the market: If at all possible, get smoking hotel rooms and smoke there, in private. Unless you don't mind looking like the kid hanging out at the mall, you might avoid huddling in hotel doorways, sucking a nail. If you smoke during the day during a convention where you are interviewing, don't do it in your interview clothes or they'll start to stink, and try to wash hands and face afterward (your hands stink). Some subset of the rabid anti-smokers will have alarmingly keen noses, so you really want to avoid the ashtray perfume.

    As I've said, this is likely more than a little paranoid. But unless you're one of the very lucky ones, you're going to be paranoid about all sorts of things when on the market, many of them no more substantial than this.

    Good luck to all! — on the job market, and ending your donations to tobacco executives and their summer homes.

    –doris

    Reply
  14. My wife would be mad at this characterization, but…

    My wife is one of the most akratic people on Earth. She smoked from 14 until mid 30s. I begged her to quit and she couldn't…try after try. A student of mine smoked and I told him he shouldn't. He then quit with the help of Chantix. My wife then used it to quit. My mother, a two pack a day, smoker for 30 plus years, used Chantix to quit. I NEVER thought my mother and wife would quit (and my mother lives with a smoker and still quit). Then a friend of mine used it to quit. Four people I know used Chantix to quit. Check it out people. It is an amazing drug, and if you don't have insurance, it only cost $100. Save yourself and quit.

    I think smoking will hut a person, and I know being a vegetarian can be a problem since twice in the market people on the committee with power were a pain about my veg status.

    Chantix and Tofurkey — check it out!

    Reply
  15. L.W.

    Call me a cynic, but I still think the departments are most interested in hiring the best candidate (relative to fit with the department). I seriously doubt smoking or eating habits would generally factor into hiring decisions. I am a vegetarian and a smoker, have gone on the market twice, and gotten jobs on both occasions. So, if you manage to avoid chain-smoking while eating a veggie burrito during the interview, I think you can smoke worry free. Plus, if there happens to be a smoker among your interviewers (say on-campus), there is plenty of opportunity for smokers-bonding…bring along some Nicorette in case you feel awkward trying to sneak off for a smoke.

    Reply
  16. Mark S.

    An example of irony:

    I quit the legal profession and initiated a move towards entering academia in philosophy (by pursuing an M.A. degree with the intention of entering a Ph.D program) largely due to a disenchantment with the moralizing social demands and practices associated with the professionalization of law, i.e. I don't like wearing suits, behaving formally, disguising my "deviant" preferences regarding sex, diet, enhancement, etc. (I also find the subject matter of philosophy more stimulating than law). My preference for academic philosophy was based on the supposition that philosophers were thoroughly "unprofessional" (in the deeper sense of the level of socialization/normalization of their character and habits vis-a-vis life and work) and that the lifestyle of the philosopher was similar to the highly desirable (from my perspective) traits and habits of a Sartre, Foucault, Deleuze, etc. To give a crude sociological generalization, there was a vague impression on my part that philosophers were "artists" in their character and habits, as opposed to "scientists". Indeed, on some level, my whole conception of "doing philosophy" is inextricably connected with advocating and practicing behaviors which are transgressive of social norms (a conception that finds a home in some ancient pre-Socratics like Diogenes of Sinope as well as some recent "continental" theorists). Thus, I considered philosophy a unique opportunity to unify my life and my "work", where both are infused with the same values and ideals which I had personally cultivated thus far.

    Of course, my experience in getting my M.A. (and witnessing numerous dialogues like this thread) has disabused me of this notion entirely.

    Reply
  17. Chuck Cross

    In 23 years of being on one side or the other of the interview table I have never detected any sign that the outcome of an interview was affected by the applicant's having or not having such personal habits as being a smoker or a vegetarian. I would urge the person who posed the question simply to observe the usual norms about when and where to smoke and concentrate on being prepared for the substantive business of a philosophy job interview.

    Reply
  18. SC

    No one has given any clear motivation for someone on a hiring committee being dissuaded from hiring an applicant based on the suspicion that the applicant is a smoker. Is it just supposed to be that they have prejudices against smokers–which is clearly non-rational–or is it that smoking in today's world indicates a weakness in instrumental reasoning? After all, it's all but been proven that smoking shortens your life. It seems that if the reason someone might not want to hire an applicant to teach philosophy is that the applicant's powers of instrumental reasoning are weak, this isn't quite so unreasonable.

    Reply
  19. Ben Hale

    It's probably true that there may be some subconscious bias against smokers on the part of the interviewers — maybe against the stale smell of smoke — but it seems to me that the biggest problem will be with the smoker's demeanor if the smoker is self-conscious about her smoking. In other words, just as some of the folks above mentioned that they were nervous about their vegetarianism, it was probably their nerves more than their vegetarianism that betrayed them. In this respect, a smoking habit may be more like a receding hairline or gappy teeth, undermining one's chances on the market not through an implicit bias on the part of the interviewer, but through the self-wrought anxiety of the interviewee.

    Reply
  20. Allan Hazlett

    I'd concur with what a few people have said: your comfort level as a candidate is really important, if you're going to be able to perform in the artificial setting of the interview, against the surreal backdrop of the Eastern APA.

    I'm not sure if this is always prudent, but for my part I'd advise candidates to "be themselves" whenever possible. I bet that means that, if you're a smoker, keep smoking; if you usually eat steak, then keep eating steak. This may depend on the extent to which your identity is tied up with your addiction. I can't help but think that this same question could be asked about one's sexual orientation, political alignment, religion, etc. Should I hide my unpopular orientation/politics/religion? And the answer (for many people) is probably that while it might be prudent to do so, it would be too great a sacrifice of one's dignity. Now being a nicotine addict is not quite the same as these things, but in the face of irrational bias, some choose to shake their (nicotine-stained) fists in defiance.

    Reply
  21. Former Interviewee

    I'm a vegan who recently went through the job search. I went on approximately six on-campus interviews and I don't recall any trouble at all about my veganism. However, I did advise the people coordinating the interviews at each school ahead of time that I am a vegan so that they could choose estabilishments that easiy accommodate vegans. (People did ask questions, but the conversations were philosophical in nature because I'm pretty familiar with the philoosphical literature on this topic.) This eliminated any possibility of the department being aken by surprised and thus being unprepared and prevented what could be very uncomfortable situations. I wonder if it wouldn't behoove smoking candidates to do the same. This way no one on the committee will be surprised when the candidate arrives smelling of smoke and the need for a cigarette can be accommodated during the interview.

    Reply
  22. Baffled

    I am a smoker and, so far, I do not think that this has influenced by job chances (albeit in the UK, rather than US).

    If smoking is a problem, I presume that this is either as the result of deliberation on the behalf of hiring committees or some bias.

    Why would the fact that someone smokes be taken into consideration in deliberation? SC suggests that search committees might be legitimately biased against smokers as their actions involve a failure of instrumental reasoning. This seems wrong on two counts. First, I don't see why the fact that someone displays a failure of instrumental reasoning with regard to smoking means that they will fail in the types of planning and reasoning necessary to fulfill their professional duties. I may just be self-deluded here (as I am sure many smokers are), but I do not think that I am any more likely to produce bad papers, to fail to mark my students' essays, to not turn up to meetings and so on, than are my non-smoking colleagues. Perhaps there is some evidence on this topic, but in its absence, SC's assumptions seem rather premature. Second, someone might quite reasonably decide that smoking is likely to shorten his/her lifespan but decide that a shorter life-span with more pleasure is preferable to a longer life-span with less. I realise that, given the values of most academics, this is quite unlikely – Prof Velleman's assumption that your correspondent should quit is telling here – but, I cannot see any reason why smoking necessarily involves a failure of instrumental reasoning. I suppose there might be grounds to think that it displays a failure of practical reasoning, but that is a different story.

    So, if people do take smoking habits into account in conscious deliberation over who should receive a job, then they seem to be to be making indefensible assumptions. Given that philosophers aren't stupid, I suspect that the real problem is an unconscious bias against smokers (a vague, moralised sense that smokers are imprudent people). Of course, other people's unconscious biases may provide one with good reasons to change one's behaviour. For example, the fact that people associate a particular accent with being stupid might be a good reason to change your accent. However, I would also assume that advice that someone should take others' biases so seriously should be offered with a shake of the head at mankind's stupidity, rather than in the tones of some of the comments above.

    I seem to have made rather heavy weather of this, but, in short, I am amazed at how moralistic this discussion has become.

    Reply
  23. tired of blogs

    I suspect that the only way, in most cases, that a smoking habit would be a problem during a job interview is if you (the smoker) were to continuously ask for ten minutes between scheduled interviews so that you could nip outside for a smoke. In other words, you should expect when interviewing that if you choose to make special requests that you will be intruding upon other people's time — people whom you're asking to give you a job — and it would be both impolitic and not particularly sensible to do so. Also, for better or worse, many college campuses are beginning to ban smoking altogether, even outside buildings, and it may entail a considerable walk to smoke. Bringing Nicorette would not be a bad idea, though gum-chewing in an interview context might not be the best plan, either. Perhaps the patch? (I have no idea how hard it is to get one of those.)

    On the subject of dietary restrictions, vegeterianism is of course not the only restriction, and it happens to be one that is sometimes a matter of conviction rather than necessity. But I found while interviewing a few years ago that almost all of the places I visited inquired about allergies (a matter of necessity) or other dietary restrictions (necessity or choice), so I was not, typically, forced to raise dietary issues myself. Still, I think that in most cases you'd be safer bringing up food issues — even if a matter of preference — than smoking.

    Perhaps relevantly, I found myself in a similar situation with the opposite "moral" spin. I do not drink, not out of any particular conviction or for any health reason, but basically because I never got around to picking up the habit. And I suspected that a job interview context was not the right place to start. Fortunately for me, many institutions bar their personnel from purchasing or serving alcohol while on duty anyway, but there were schools where I felt a bit uncomfortable about the personal tone of questions asked about my preference. As some have noted above: probably just polite interest and a desire to find something to talk about on their part, but it made me nervous (at least the first time), and nerves aren't conducive to a good interview.

    Reply
  24. One Whom Smoking Helped

    When I first went on the market early this century I had to cancel an early morning interview on the last day because it was essential I get out of town before a big snowstorm hit town. I went to the smoker the night before to see if there was any way I could talk to the interview team that night instead. Half the interview team was not there. The other two turned out to be smokers who said, sure, we could talk if we could do so out in the hall where we could smoke (this was back in the day when there was still a place to smoke inside). I said, that'd be great, then I can smoke too. I was a smoker at the time. We proceeded to have a few smokes … and the best interview of my life. The next morning, stuck in the snowed-in airport, I received a call asking if I could come to campus. A month or so later I had the job. So, my advice is to quit smoking. But until then, find schools with smokers on the interview committee and talk philosophy with those people over a smoke or two.

    Reply
  25. JPE

    Campus culture matters. Attitudes toward smoking vary a great deal from school to school. Many colleges have policies that stringently discourage smoking. Quite a few colleges ban smoking on campus. See the following report from USA TODAY:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-01-colleges-smokefree_x.htm.

    My conjecture is that smoking will hurt job seekers' chances at these restrictive colleges more than it will hurt them elsewhere.

    Job seekers also should pay attention to *why* their potential employers have the policies that they have. For example, I expect that smoking would be very disadvantageous on campuses where anti-smoking policies are motivated by religion. (Of course, attitudes toward smoking vary considerably even across religious schools.) Finally, it'd be good for job seekers to know whether their potential employers are in the midst of heated debate about smoking policy, as the Indiana University system was (see the aforementioned USA TODAY report).

    Reply
  26. John Gardner

    I'm not a smoker or a vegan (and the connection between the two escapes me) but I'm drawn to comment by Mark S's post. Probably I'm lucky, but the last time I felt the pressure to conform socially (in my work as an academic) was when I imposed such pressure on myself at my first job interview at Oxford a couple of decades ago. When I met the assorted loonytunes on the other side of the table (no offence, folks) the pressure lifted. Since then – even in the more conservative environment of US universities, even, indeed, in US law schools – I have never once felt I had to wear a suit on an ordinary working day, never once felt under pressure to behave formally other than on some special formal occasion, and never once thought that my multitude of deviances, including my tendency to have a snooze on the floor of the library in the afternoon, did my reputation or career any harm at all. But maybe I'm just not deviant enough? Or maybe now that I've come out, my professional standing is about to take a nosedive? I don't think so. Come on, Mark. If you want to be a certified freak and get paid good money for it, there's no better work than work as an academic philosopher.

    Reply
  27. Mark S

    John,

    I just don't see academic philosophers today (in general) in the US leading the charge in terms of changing social, moral or legal norms (either in their work, or their own personal habits and practices, much less where the two are or should be–as I see it–indistinguishable). On the contrary, I mostly see varying levels (in terms of "sophistication") of a rearguard apologism for our "normal" intuitions, accompanied by relatively harmless and banal forms of eccentricity (like "sleeping on the floor of the library" as you put it).

    For example, can anyone imagine American philosophers today lending their intellectual weight to an abolition of the the age of consent laws and decriminalization of consensual relations between minors and adults (something that Foucault, Derrida and numerous others petitioned for in the late 70's)? Or, on the flip side, can anyone picture (allowing for changes in technology) a young Deleuze at the Sorbonne reading this blog and reflecting seriously on his smoking?!

    Maybe I'm naive or some kind of jackass, but it strikes me as quite problematic for the philosopher as social gadfly to have any kind of careerist inclinations, i.e. such inclinations would seem to both actually and necessarily inhibit the full functioning of this role (assuming of course, that one endorses this particular role).

    Sorry if this strays too far from the original subject of this post.

    Reply
  28. Brian Leiter

    I would hope that the highest aspiration of the philosopher as "gadfly" is not advocacy for the legalization of pedophilia. But be that as it may, I do agree with Mark S. that there is no meaningful sense in which academic philosophers in the United States today (and in most other parts of the Anglophone world) are anything other than "professionals" who deviate a bit, but not substantially, from the norms of other bourgeois professions (though as John G. notes, academic philosophy is more tolerant of non-bourgeois behavior than many other learned professions). This is precisely why something like the PGR is both necessary and possible.

    Reply
  29. John Gardner

    I'm sorry, Mark. I thought your original post was raising the question of whether professional philosophers would tolerate your pursuit of la vie philosophique (ah oui), not whether they would join you in it (mais non).

    Reply
  30. Dustin N.

    "You're a philosopher? You don't even smoke!" (seen on a Bertrand Russell t-shirt)

    As a 23 year old philosophy student – and ex-smoker of about 5 months – I can say that one of the hardest things about quitting was precisely this pernicious and insidiously pervasive notion of the 'smoking philosopher'. I like to call it The Sartre Effect.
    But for what it's worth to all those smoking philosophers out there: Nietzsche didn't smoke and often repudiated it (I take this much to heart). Also, Deleuze should have reconsidered his smoking – he committed suicide by throwing himself out of a window. Why? In an attempt to force air into his lungs, which had been ravaged by emphysema.

    Reply
  31. anonymous grad

    Mark S. I think does introduce a very important topic, though I think I would disagree with some of his conclusions. Forty years ago, Noam Chomsky wrote `The Responsibility of Intellectuals' (available to read right here) inviting a host of interesting questions about precisely what academics ought to be doing with their time when not doing research. I think Professor Chomsky would disagree with what Mark S. seems to imply, that challenging social norms is an essential part of the right-living academic peculiar to philosophers. Also, like Professor Leiter, I think many of us would think that some norms are representative of progress and not worth challenging. But I do find it interesting that, as I become more acquainted with philosophy, I rarely hear discussion that considers a view like Professor Chomsky's.

    The typical grad student I meet talks about wanting to write books, get tenure, teach, and live a happy professor's life. But I wonder if it is true that saying something like "I hope to get tenure some day so that I can criticize our society without fear of losing my job." is just as much of a turn-off to many hiring committees as smoker's breath. It is somewhat upsetting that many entering the field today seem to long so much for being ensconced in the ivory tower rather than trying to use their position to enact positive social change, and this apolitical attitude seems to produce far greater hiring success. And few ever seem to, like Professor Leiter does occasionally with his blog, make any attempt at all to make their political opinions known once tenure is awarded unless they are more or less in line with one of the major political parties. Am I correct about this? Does it worry anyone else? Has it resulted from a pervasive sort of moral relativism within academia?

    Reply
  32. Derek

    Why think philosophers or academics are (or should be) especially well placed to be "leading the charge in terms of social change?"

    For one thing, it's not at all obvious that such leadership is compatible with playing the Socratic gadfly. The gadfly ought to expose to strict scrutiny not only prevailing norms, but also the norms and plans of those who seek change. Just sticking to the case of Socrates: what social changes did he lead the charge in bring about? Or, taking a more historical view, how many successful social movements were lead or directly inspired by philosophers or academics – and of those, how many would we take as a model to be emulated?

    Reply
  33. anon Grad Student

    Derek, Socrates was directly responsible for the formation of the first Academy (Plato's). He taught and influenced least two of the famed Thirty Tyrants, Alchibiades and Critias. He inspired the lives and works of the stoics and the cynics, both of which were more or less influential social movements. And whatever we may think of him in hindsight, the Athenians deemed his influence upon the youth such a threat to the social fabric that they were willing to condemn him to death for it, which was quite remarkable for ancient standards of social tolerance and justice.

    Reply
  34. Antti Kauppinen

    33 comments in a discussion about, inter alia, vegetarianism in the profession, and nobody has said that this gives a whole new meaning to the phrase 'Philosophical Gourmet Report'? Have we lost our taste for obvious puns?

    Reply
  35. John Gardner

    Derek inspires me to say what I was originally going to say to Mark: I'm all for philosophers doubling as political activists. I've done a bit of it myself over the years, with occasional alarming successes, and I've sometimes used my job as a philosopher of law to get extra leverage or access. But of course I don't think that being a philosopher of law REALLY gives me any standing to be an activist. It's just that I'm opinionated enough to want to be an activist AS WELL AS a philosopher of law and I'm unscrupulous enough to be willing to take advantage of other people's misunderstandings of what I do for a living to lend spurious authority to what I say. That's politics, folks.

    Reply
  36. Derek

    Anon Grad Student,

    I don't doubt that Socrates has influenced and inspired many – indeed, why else would we still be talking about him. But, so far as I can tell, none of the things you mention seem to be things that Socrates could reasonably be described as "leading the charge" or advocating for. The Socrates of the Apology opines that if he hadn't conscientiously stayed out of politics he would have been killed much earlier and so have been of much less use as a gadfly. And in the Republic Plato's Socrates suggests that a philosopher who finds himself in an unjust society should retire to a life of private contemplation. Whatever influence such a philosopher is able to exert, it will not be in the form of leadership or direct advocacy for social movements.

    At any rate, we're now quite far from the topics of smoking and being on the job market. I just wanted to make the modest point that it shouldn't be taken as antecedently obvious that philosophers ought also to be social activists.

    Reply
  37. anonymous

    Have their actually been empirical studies on the ineffectiveness of trying to quit during a time of stress? Or is this just something everyone says? Also, does it seem to anyone else that worrying about his smoking habit is a major *contributor* to our student's stress?

    In any case, here's something I learned when I finally quit smoking: it can't be a merely "intellectual" endeavor. For example, it's not enough to think to yourself 'smoking will give me cancer'. You have to "feel" the cancer spreading in your lungs each time you think about smoking. In other words, you've got to get your emotional reactions to things inline with your intellectual reactions to them. The same thing is true, I found, when trying to quit eating meat. In both cases my tactic was the same: as often as I could, I exposed myself to graphic images and stories of the ill effects of smoking/meat-eating.

    Reply
  38. Dr. Delaney Kirk

    I tell my undergrads to consider quitting smoking before going on the job market. Smokers are not a protected group as far as employment discrimination laws. I can tell when a student comes into my office if they are smokers from the smell. Many people are sensitive to smoke or just feel that smokers present a higher cost for the company's health insurance.

    Reply
  39. heuschnupfen

    I remember over the years having several on campus interviews where I was worried about opting for non-vegetarian meals because I thought it might displease the vegetarian philosophy mafia. Personally, I hate the idea that someone on a hiring commitee might hold some purely personal choice like this against a candidate.

    Reply

Designed with WordPress