News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.
I’d like to pose a question. Let’s be pessimistic for the moment, and assume AI *does* destroy the university, at…
Hear hear
I agree with all of this. The threat is really that stark. The only solution is indeed in-class essay exams,…
I’m not sure I’d yet go so far as to call LLMs an existential threat to universities. But I do…
My big problem with LLMs at the present time, apart from being potentially the epitome of Foucault’s panopticon & Big…
I’m also at a British university (in a law school) and my sentiments largely align with the author’s. I see…
If one is genuinely uninterested in engaging with non-human interlocutors, it is unclear why one continues to do so—especially while…
The MLA code is here, and seems unobjectionable, though one wonders what difference it actually makes. (Does anyone know? Any examples?)
I've been a member of the MLA for twenty-five years and this is the first I've heard of its code of conduct. Then again, the sort of scandal that has beset philosophy would be unheard of in English, so perhaps it works.
The MLA code seems unduly focused on duties to graduate students, who constitute a very small proportion of the students members of the MLA (or APA) teach. There's also a striking (but unsurprising) lacuna that I hope the APA code fills. There is no mention of a duty to pursue continual and high quality professional development around curriculum development and instructional skills. This is especially striking because i) most of us have no initial training; ii) for most of us it is the part of our job that pays the bills; iii) people who select in to the profession are those who did well under (and therefore tend to approve of) existing practices, which may not suit the vast majority of students who do not select into the profession; and iv) despite ii), there's hardly any material incentive to improve as a teacher unless you are really bad (and maybe not even then).
My guess is that the benefits of a code are not in having it, but mostly in the discussions and debates in the profession around it as it is being developed.
I would think of this as something that could be used in various ways. E.g, to start a department discussion, to remind someone they are in danger of making a serious breach of professional ethics, as the basis for praising some, etc, etc. it might be part of grad student training, and so on.
The medical profession takes "First do no harm" very seriously, but not just because it is written down somewhere.
We'd need to find ways to integrate the code into how we describe the profession. I don't know how that could be done, but people who think philosophy has some huge problems might give some thought to this, In fact, I'm program chair for the 2015 CSW conference and I think a round table discussion of this might be very good.
Leave a Reply to Jonathan Cancel reply