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. Wynship W. Hillier, M.S.'s avatar

    I first met Professor Hoy when I returned to UC Santa Cruz in Fall of ’92 to finish my undergraduate…

  2. Justin Fisher's avatar

    To be worth using, a detector needs not only (A) not get very many false positives, but also (B) get…

  3. Mark's avatar

    Everything you say is true, but what is the alternative? I don’t think people are advocating a return to in-class…

  4. Deirdre Anne's avatar
  5. Keith Douglas's avatar

    Cyber security professional here -reliably determining when a computational artifact (file, etc.) was created is *hard*. This is sorta why…

  6. sahpa's avatar

    Agreed with the other commentator. It is extremely unlikely that Pangram’s success is due to its cheating by reading metadata.

  7. Deirdre Anne's avatar

SPEP Proposes Resolution In Support of “Pluralist’s Guide” (Kukla) UPDATED

Rkukla

BREAKING NEWS 10/21: Cathy Kemp writes: Informal report of results for SPEP resolution in support of "'Pluralist' Guide": 118 yes 24 no 5 abstentions.

(In other news: eminent philosopher Jon Cogburn forced to eat hat.)

*   *   *   *   *

I firmly intended not to guest-blog about the "Pluralist's Guide", as I considered the issue sooooo July 2011, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster seems to have different plans for me.  It was just brought to my attention that SPEP members will be voting on a proposed resolution in support of the guide at their annual meeting this coming weekend.  Here is the full text of the resolution:

I  The membership of the Society of Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy supports the independent efforts of the new Pluralist’s Guide to Philosophy to:

1) provide new sources of information on areas of philosophy that remain underrepresented in most doctoral programs in the discipline and 

2) provide information on the conditions for women and minorities in graduate philosophy programs. The membership of SPEP has long championed pluralistic approaches to philosophy, as well as increased diversity in a field that continues to have the lowest representation by women and people of color compared to all other disciplines in the humanities and social sciences.  

II.  We commend those committed to providing enhanced information about doctoral programs in philosophy in the US, as well as those working to promote diversity in the profession. While we appreciate those who have engaged in constructive dialogue about the Guide and its production, we condemn the incivility that has marked some criticisms, especially ad hominem attacks on the Guide’s organizers and contributors as well as on SPEP and its membership despite the latter's independence from the construction of the Guide.  We are grateful to the authors of and contributors to the Pluralist’s Guide for their work. Philosophy currently faces unprecedented marginalization within the academy; we support efforts to move past archaic divisions and find common ground.

Comments welcome; same groundrules as before.

Leave a Reply to Jon Cogburn Cancel reply

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

26 responses to “SPEP Proposes Resolution In Support of “Pluralist’s Guide” (Kukla) UPDATED”

  1. N.J. Jun

    I am a proud member of SPEP, and I support everything in this resolution except item (2).

    In my view, the "climate" portion of the Pluralist's Guide–which is otherwise a worthy effort–has very serious problems (and that is being charitable).

    As such I will not support this resolution.

    Reply
  2. Junior scholar who is not in any position to burn bridges

    What's most remarkable about this pointless exercise in symbolism is that the statement says nothing at all about any of what may have come out of this "constructive dialogue", instead hiding behind the claim that SPEP "supports the [Guide's] efforts" to provide needed information and encourage diversity (for who could be opposed?!). When I first came across it and started reading, I assumed that they would sound at least some word of caution about the methodology, but apparently the "incivility" of some of the PG's critics (and I agree that there was some of this), plus the nobility of the authors' aspirations, excuse their having made vague and unsubstantiated claims about the conditions for women and minorities at various departments.

    Common ground, indeed!

    Reply
  3. Jason

    When faced with allegations of cronyism and incompetence, an organization can either: A) Respond to the charges directly and vindicate itself by providing contrary evidence (in this case, by releasing the raw data), or B) Propagate a "resolution" voted on by its own members which supposedly accomplishes the same end.

    One of these things is not like the other.

    Reply
  4. Jon Cogburn

    It's clearly a venal and idiotic resolution, in no small part because it implicates outrageous things about all of the philosophers such as Professor Kukla who worked so assiduously to get the perpetrators of the "climate for women" travesty to walk things back. Given all of the important issues concerning the climate for women in our profession, all of this does need bright light.

    This being said, we should in no way tar all of SPEP with this! Bad people have every freedom in the world to put forward stupid resolutions in organizations, but the majority of SPEP members are informed people of good will who know exactly what really did go down and also how sexist and dangerous is the climate guide. Given this, I just can't imagine even a small plurality would vote to pass such a dishonest resolution, and one in the service of something so damaging to both our field and the fight for feminist reform.

    I want to say that if it actually passes, then every single one of us who defends SPEP to Brian (when he engages in what we take to be caricatures) will have been shown to be utter fools. However, that may be too strong, as I don't know how democratic the voting mechanisms are. However, if it passes due to voting irregularity (there have been these kinds of allegations concerning the insular way candidates are proposed for elections in SPEP) I guess that too would also make those of us who defend SPEP look like idiots. . .

    In any case, I am going to make a prediction. This thing will not pass.

    Finally, as far as I can tell this whole issue is mostly the result of some Baby Boomers still trying to fight mostly irrelevant culture wars from thirty years ago and being intellectually poisoned to the point of incoherence by the victim mentality engendered by those wars. Even in spite of the odd gerrymandered nominating processes, the previous leaders in this same group are on the very edge of being cast aside in SPEP power dynamics by two younger generations of continental philosophers who just are not vituperatively hostile to analytic philosophy. Independent of how destructive (and libelous for that matter) the climate guide is, this generational battle inside of SPEP is as far as I can see *the* primary subtext of the whole sad affair, the older ones like dictators everywhere trying to keep the populace in line by blaming outsiders for their own incompetence. But, as we all know, the Arab Spring isn't containing itself in North Africa.

    The secondary subtext is just how wrong Tolstoy was about the morally redemptive power of oppression. Quite often instead of things that would actually improve our lot, you get crappy identity politics in the service of corrupt power structures within the ghettoized community, which ends up reinforcing the ghettoization! The transparent move of keeping three of the top ranked Leiter schools in the "bad for women" section against very strong evidence to the contrary (and the issue of Oklahoma and Oregon shows how little evidence was applied in the other cases too), is nothing more than a clear case of this.

    Again though, *every single* person I know who is very supportive of a non-analytic type Leiter Reports (and who has a different definition of pluralism than does Brian) has been absolutely horrified by the climate section and more so by the embarrassing truculence, dumbness, and dictatorial demeanor displayed by some of the older SPEP bigwigs (people we cherish and learn from in other contexts) who presume to speak for the rest of us. I just can't imagine for a second this atrocious bit of newspeak passing.

    Reply
  5. Rebecca Kukla

    Thanks for that, Jon. Your insider's view is really interesting and helpful here, and I appreciate the support too. Do you know if the results from the vote will be available immediately? I would really appreciate it if you (or someone else) could let us know whether the resolution passed.

    Reply
  6. Jon Cogburn

    Just to be clear, I'm not a member. I read stuff by and talk philosophy with enough members to have a view about what's really going on and the likelihood that the proposition will fail.

    Given the power dynamics in the group, not being a member (plus tenure) makes it a lot easier for me to publicly say what I did above and here. But it also makes it more likely that I'm misreading things. I hope I'm not, because it would be so depressing if something so insulting to good people trying to improve our discipline like the above did pass.

    One more insider's bit of information. It's important to note that SPEP itself doesn't sanction the pluralist's guide, and their own presentation of non-analytic departments explicitly eschews Leiter style rankings. The background of all this that I don't think has been made public is that Alcoff actually tried unsuccessfully for years to get SPEP to support the endeavor, and she couldn't get official support. So she went ahead and did it on the cheap with some other powerful SPEP type people who were sympathetic. Again, given this background and what every one of my SPEP member interlocutors is saying, I just can't see the proposition passing, unless the incompetence of their voting procedures (SPEP could use some good decision theorists to keep them honest here) allows people in favor of the resolution to game the system. But the kind of incompetence that is alleged by disgruntled continental philosophers involves the way office holders are nominated, not the way the votes are actually taken. However, it is remotely possible that the rot there might spread and affect who actually gets to vote on the damned thing.

    Reply
  7. Rebecca Kukla

    Wow it is fascinating that this hasn't come out until now. Thanks! It seems to me that this back story makes it clear that while the 'Pluralist's Guide' is not technically produced nor uniformly supported by SPEP, it was particularly duplicitous of those who produced the guide to act shocked and offended by Brian Leiter's suggestion that the two were closely allied.

    I've all along been less interested than Brian is in what formal or de facto connection there is between the two, but the fact that this history was covered over is obviously disturbing.

    And – good for SPEP! I will be interested to see how this vote turns out.

    Reply
  8. Kenny Easwaran

    I notice this remark near the end: "Philosophy currently faces unprecedented marginalization within the academy." Is there really any evidence for that? I thought there was all sorts of evidence in the last few years that at universities nationwide, enrollment in philosophy majors has been rising, and there seems to be a decent amount (even if still not enough) of exchange between philosophers of language, mind, and science at least with their colleagues in cognate disciplines.

    Reply
  9. Cathy Kemp

    I want to second Jon Cogburn's caution about tarring all scholars affiliated with SPEP with the "'Pluralist' Guide" brush, but add that I am less optimistic about the vote itself. I've attended a lot of SPEPs, I was a member for years (no more), and I've been in the business meetings where they take these votes. My memory is that resolutions like this generally went through by acclamation, at least first round. People who show up make up a small proportion of the members attending the conference. Depending on how they're spinning this proposal and how widely they're talking it up, it may be that only friends and supporters of the people and schools with a stake in the issue will show up in numbers. Also, graduate students especially dependent on their advisors' favor are often brought in for these votes. It's important, too, to look at the satellite groups present, and at the institutional affiliations of their speakers etc., to see that there are philosophical areas and parties beyond SPEP with an interest in the success of the "Guide" who can help bring the numbers up on the side of passing the resolution. If it looks like it might not pass in the meeting, I'd bet they'll table it, rather than risk defeat.

    Reply
  10. A SPEP-ish scholar with already rickety bridges

    Some of the back story may not even be so private. This year's program (http://www.spep.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/2011ProgramFINALweb.pdf) describes Alcoff and Wilkerson lobbying SPEP for support for the guide, as described in the minutes of last year's business meeting (p. 45):

    "Linda Martin Alcoff and Bill Wilkerson announced that “The Pluralist Guide to Philosophy”
    should be up and running by 2011 and encouraged members to link their sites to the guide
    website."

    Reply
  11. Brian

    There can be no serious dispute that the section of the fake "Pluralist [sic] Guide" on Continental philosophy is just the SPEP view of the field. I was clear about this from the start, and this new information, while interesting, is actually irrelevant to that point. I set out the reasons for calling it the SPEP Guide quite clearly here:

    http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2011/07/yet-more-on-the-spep-guide-to-graduate-programs.html

    No one is fooled, except perhaps the folks who drafted this silly resolution. Apart from the misleading name for the SPEP/SAAP Guide to philosophy programs, and the Cliamte for Women section, the whole guide is a good idea, which is what I said from the start! But I never dreamed that Alcoff et al. would be so stupid as to dig in their heels on the Climate for Women travesty.

    Reply
  12. Jon Cogburn

    What Brian said.

    Reply
  13. Cathy Kemp

    Informal report of results for SPEP resolution in support of "'Pluralist' Guide":
    118 yes
    24 no
    5 abstentions.

    Reply
  14. Jon Cogburn

    I just wanted to note to anyone reading this. (1) My hat doesn't taste too bad with a little Tabasco sauce. (2) I can't help see this as a humongous setback for all of us on the outside that took SPEP to even have a minimal commitment to (a) the genuine pluralism that comes from people with different perspectives interacting with good will, (b) the well being of women in the profession, (c) not being evil.

    I mean Alcoff et. al.'s reaction to Kukla and others (including a letter signed by the female graduate students of one of the institutions they libeled) was clearly unhinged. But that's only one person. So what. But this is truly outrageous.

    I'd be very happy if someone could convince me that I'm overreacting. Maybe it's a really good thing that 24 people voted against it. Are they going to quit SPEP now? Should they? Can some of those 24 write in here and help those of us who are appalled at the organization sanctioning this bit of Orwellian depravity.

    Reply
  15. Cathy Kemp

    What Jon said. Not overreacting, in my view.

    Reply
  16. Justin Marquis

    (Disclaimer: I am a member of SPEP) This is really too bad. My take on it is this (and perhaps I shouldn't be making this public because I'm on the job market, but oh well…): some SPEP members have a chip on their shoulder because they feel that they are not taken seriously as philosophers by the rest of the profession in North America. Instead of making their case philosophically in a truly pluralist way, i.e. through dialogue that attempts to bridge any gap there might be in methodology and style of communication, certain members attempt to aggrandize departments that are friendly to their style of philosophy. This is already cynical, but not outside of what you'd expect or even all that morally problematic. What is beyond merely cynical and actually bordering on reprehensible is that important issues of justice (in this case the climate for women in professional philosophy) are taken hostage in order to make SPEP-y philosophy appear more respectable (setting aside whether or not it is deserving of respect, which I think it is in many cases).

    I think there is some good philosophy done by SPEP members and some bad, but I do agree with the view that philosophy done at SPEP departments and by SPEP members is unfairly often not taken seriously. It seems to me that this battle is best waged through doing good philosophy and calling people out when it is not taken seriously as good philosophy, not by using issues of justice that no one can disagree with to make it appear that SPEP-y departments are among the only places where a woman can study philosophy in a welcoming and supportive environment.

    Perhaps this is all stating the obvious, but it should be said.

    Reply
  17. Peter Gratton

    Well, not to joint the fray, but I should note, for the record, that the statement was amended, with full support of the committee that wrote the resolution, to include a statement in support of the APA's upcoming overview of Ph.D. departments, including data on % of woman, graduation rates, placement, etc. Moreover, the statement is already quite clear: SPEP members at the meeting were not voting in favor the guide, but merely noting that SPEP itself was attacked as part of the pushback on the Pluralist Guide, though its efforts were independent, and that it supports work, including the APA's, to provide a wider variety of information to students looking into graduate programs.

    Reply
  18. Junior scholar who is not in any position to burn bridges

    Peter Gratton's comment is incredible. Of course there is no moral equivalence here, but the very same kinds of things could be said of e.g. a Congressional resolution noting that Israel has been attacked and then saying vague things about the importance of the Israeli state and its right to defend itself. Of course such a resolution doesn't *explicitly favor* any particular "defensive" actions, but the subtext is clear enough, just as it is here.

    Phenomenologists are supposed to be good at looking below the surface, aren't they? And surely they know that we've learned about these things from Grice.

    As I suggested above, the most galling aspect of this statement is its sheer evasiveness, which permits those who endorse it to hide behind absurd rationalizations like these ones. Orwell would be horrified.

    Reply
  19. Jon Cogburn

    First, let me note that I have a tremendous amount of respect for Professor Gratton, both his scholarly work and all of the fantastic things he does for his students.

    This being said, his points would be compelling to me if SPEP also voted in a proposal censuring Alcoff and her defenders for all of the manifestly horrible things they've done with respect to the climate guide. Barring this, it just should be clear to everyone that "Junior scholar. . ." is exactly right about the proposal, which provides cover to Alcoff, says "&*%$ you" to Brian Leiter, slanders the good work of many people like Kukla who actually care about the plight of female students in our field, and will prove to be concretely harmful both to female students and to graduates of SPEP programs trying to get jobs in non SPEP dominated departments (do not underestimate how destructive this will be).

    What's appalling and beyond shameful is that first Alcoff and company and now SPEP itself are so willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of female students in an effort to coral them into SPEP dominated departments. And now they have sacrificed job prospects of their own students.

    I can't tell you how furious this makes me. Honestly, I can't remember being so disgusted with so many of my fellow philosophers.

    Reply
  20. N.J. Jun

    SPEP is a large organization. Not everyone in SPEP attends the annual conference, and among those who do attend, not everyone goes to the business meetings. 118 members do not speak for all of us–not by a long shot.

    That said, a resolution made in the name of the organization does reflect on all its members, and I happen to think this resolution is a huge mistake for all the reasons cited by Professor Cogburn, et al. This is very unfortunate.

    From beginning to end the whole affair has just been very disappointing to me, since I have and continue to have enormous respect for the key players as scholars and human beings. I am saddened and confused by the way it has been handled.

    Reply
  21. Steven Crowell

    Since SPEP is an institution that I've been pretty deeply involved with over the years, and which has been negatively characterized often over the years by Brian Leiter and others (often, in my view, unfairly), I wanted to comment on this vote. I don't intend to comment on the Pluralist Guide itself or the debate that ensued in July and after. I spoke against the Resolution at the business meeting for two reasons: first, I don't think that it serves SPEP's interests to take a stand for or against this or any other ranking, or to raise charges of incivility and the like. Second, and more importantly, I believe that SPEP's voting procedures are not appropriate for handling such Resolutions, of which this was not the only one voted on at this meeting. The voting procedures go back to when SPEP was a very small organization and had mainly to decide on a few issues having to do with an annual meeting. A simple majority of those attending the Business Meeting can carry the day. SPEP has a membership of close to 2000 people. Over 750 people attended the conference at which the Resolution was passed. Only a small fraction of those were at the Business Meeting. I cannot confirm the unofficial numbers (118 in favor, 24 opposed, 5 abstentions), but they are certainly close. And thus it is clear that the vote cannot simply be read as expressing the will of the membership, or even of those attending the conference itself. It might express that will (I personally doubt it), but the numbers themselves provide little evidence for that. I don't think that it is simply the sort of "generational" problem that Jon Cogburn describes either — there are plenty of us older SPEP members who are not stuck fighting the culture wars, and plenty of younger ones who seem very anxious to start them again.

    Reply
  22. Mitchell Aboulafia

    Steve is surely correct to point out that those attending SPEP's business meeting do not necessarily represent the views of the members of the organization. Similar concerns lie behind the way that The Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy has handled the issue of the "Pluralist Guide" ( http://www.american-philosophy.org/index.htm). SAAP has always been a genuinely ecumenical organization regarding different philosophical traditions and has for years enjoyed the participation of people with analytic as well as continental backgrounds, a distinction that might be lost on readers still thinking of the “Pluralist Guide” as the "SPEP/SAAP Guide." Unfortunately, another source for confusion emerged this year: SAAP cut its ties to “The Journal of Speculative Philosophy” as its official journal in 2009. SPEP announced this past August that it has arranged for the publication of its proceedings in “The Journal of Speculative Philosophy,” making it the official organ of SPEP.

    Reply
  23. Dissertation Writing Grad Student

    I have a concern regarding Jon’s point about how this vote will effect “graduates of SPEP programs trying to get jobs in non SPEP dominated departments (do not underestimate how destructive this will be).” As a factual description of the environment at hand, I don’t doubt that this is true. Surely, it is.

    I worry about the effect of passing on this diagnosis without calling into question how problematic it is. I think one problem (pointed out by Rebecca on this thread http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/10/proposal-for-spep-118-anthem.html#comments ) is that the description might be misconstrued as prescription or that it might sanction a currently existing stance toward graduate students (and their job applications) from certain programs. (Brian quite accurately describe the job market situation of graduates of SPEP programs in this past post: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2011/07/the-new-spep-guide-to-philosophy-programs.html ).

    It seems to me that there are two ways that students can get stuck paying for the faults, foibles, and shortcomings of their faculty: (1) it is assumed that graduate students in a program share the same “political” views vis-à-vis the academic philosophical community; or, (2) it is assumed that the philosophical concerns, methods, and merits of the graduate student's work map in some neat way on to those of their faculty members.

    I would say that both practices are unfair. The first is flagrantly so, while the unfairness of the second point is more contestable and your assessment of it will depend on how much you think grad students really reflect and are miniature versions of their faculty. The unfairness of the first point is hard to contest—at least as far as I can tell. Sticking graduate students with the political misdeeds of their faculty who they (a) might not even work with in their program or (b) might work with but have sharp disagreements on such issues is surely problematic.

    Finally, I think we have to be quick not to assume that all students coming out of graduate programs fit some caricatured type . In “SPEP” grad programs, e.g., there are students who: (a) do not specialize in continental philosophy at all, (b) work in continental philosophy but are not members of SPEP, or (c) work in continental philosophy and are members of SPEP, but have distaste for the old cultural wars and are actively seeking out (with faculty blessing or not) new philosophical paths that embrace diverse philosophical traditions. And, surely others don’t fit these categories. (Corey Dyck raises a similar concern about pigeonholing students on the same newapps thread above.)

    I guess all of this amounts to a caution to not let Jon’s likely accurate diagnosis of a problem become cover for already existing or future unfair treatments of specific students. The prescription that I would derive from my reading of his diagnosis is simple: read a graduate student’s (or recent graduate’s) work, evaluate their job application, and talk to them at a conference without assuming they are the clones of faculty who you have philosophical or political beefs with. There’s no more respect you can show to a young member of the academic community than reading their work and taking the time to tell them what you think, even when you think it falls short.

    Reply
  24. Mark Lance

    Two small points. First, in case others don't follow Jon's blogging, he is as out-front as anyone in combatting the sorts of biases that DWGS refers to here.

    Second, while I agree with all that DWGS says, I'm afraid his final paragraph is insufficient. Philosophical biases operate at all sorts of psychological levels. Refusing to read someone's work or explicitly assuming they share something with their teacher is only the most crude form of bias that gets in the way. The truth is that what we owe each other in this process is to read fairly, with an open mind, trying to understand the project from the inside, while bracketing our own controversial positions. This is hard, even when there are no politically and socially charged issues at stake. I have, on many occasions, received referee reports on a paper that were wildly, diametrically opposite – one heaping praise, the other completely dismissing. I am confident that in many cases both referees were, in all traditional senses, professionally competent. This sort of thing happens all the time in the sorts of divides at issue here. People will read work, honestly believing that they are reading it fairly, and come to the conclusion that it is crap – even if it isn't.

    That's all to reiterate the familiar point that rooting out well ingrained biases is hard. There is no algorithm, and no easy fix. But fwiw, as I've said before, the times they are a'changin'. Your fathers' hell is looking more and more quaint and silly to a new generation of philosophers. So if we can just get a few folks to get out of the new road…

    Oh God. Time to stop and get more coffee. No doubt the point is still visible somewhere in there.

    Reply
  25. Tim the Ph.D. student

    Two points:

    1. The SPEP resolution does seem to be a reactionary politic against a mainstream Anglophone philosophy that has derided the more speculative and literary-influenced elements of the field. In other words, it's a petty exercise.

    2. If the Gourmet report had originally been a little more respectful of the field as a whole, and included less politically central programs that worked on post-structuralism and the like (this doesn't mean they would have even had to be ranked), there would have been some disagreement but not as big of a field-wide fracture. There's no doubt that programs with track records as strong as Stony Brook or Emory deserved strong mention for continental philosophy training and placement even among analytic programs. Why they were left out, it's been concluded by the members of SPEP, was due to party politics.

    That said, the current report is immanently useful and indeed a great sociological tool for the field as a whole, including continental philosophers. It's a shame to up and coming students like myself that it's come to this back and forth. And come on, Derrida wasn't that bad–even Quine read him with interest, even if he didn't agree. You'd think this moment would be one for philosophers to band together to fight the instrumentation of the humanities into business schools. Instead we have this, the slow disillusion of the field, part from neoliberal policy-making, part due to self-emasculation.

    BL COMMENT: A factual correction: the PGR has, on more than one occasion, included Stony Brook, Emory and other SPEP programs in the surveys, and Stony Brook is even included for 20th-century Continental philosophy to this day in the specialty rankings. But the fact is that even Continental specialists did not rate these programs very highly.

    Reply
  26. Peter Gratton

    Here is the actual proposal as voted upon by the SPEP membership:

    Proposal for Resolution for SPEP Members (Accepted, with amendments)

    I The membership of the Society of Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy supports the independent efforts of the new Pluralist’s Guide to Philosophy to:

    1) provide new sources of information on areas of philosophy that remain underrepresented in most doctoral programs in the discipline and

    2) provide information on the conditions for women and minorities in graduate philosophy programs.

    The membership of SPEP has long championed pluralistic approaches to philosophy, as well as increased diversity in a field that continues to have the lowest representation by women and people of color compared to all other disciplines in the humanities and social sciences.

    II. For the same set of reasons, the membership also supports the new APA-sponsored Guide to Graduate Study in Philosophy, which complements the Pluralist’s Guide by providing a comprehensive survey of all Ph.D. and M.A. graduate programs in the U.S. It includes concise information on women and people of color among faculty and graduate students as well as figures on average number of years to completion of the degree and placement data, while furnishing a profile of departments’ distinctive emphases.

    III. We commend those committed to providing enhanced information about doctoral programs in philosophy in the US, as well as those working to promote diversity in the profession. While we appreciate those who have engaged in constructive dialogue about both Guides and their production, we condemn the incivility that has marked some criticisms, especially ad hominem attacks on the Pluralist’s Guide’s organizers and contributors as well as on SPEP and its membership despite the latter’s independence from the construction of this Guide. We are grateful to the authors of and contributors to both Guides for their work. Philosophy currently faces unprecedented marginalization within the academy; we support efforts to move past archaic divisions and find common ground.

    BL COMMENT: Not much better than the original in my view. The APA Guide is not a guide to graduate programs at all, just their demographics. And the only truly uncivil act I have seen is the Guide's fact-free libel of three departments. And, assuming the drafters of the resolution know what an "ad hominem" is, what ad hominems are they referring to? I haven't seen any, but maybe I've missed something.

    Reply

Designed with WordPress