News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.
My former colleagues at another university in Middle East have also been moved to online teaching indefinitely, with the students…
If much of the interest of high-quality papers lies between the lines—in the metaphorical fire that a paper lights in…
I would also recommend that potential grad students make inquiries into how far the compensation package actually goes towards cost…
It’s a mix. I’m still in the UAE with my family, and we feel safe. But some students and faculty…
In the above comment, Michel wrote: “As an aside, every once in a while I check out how the chatbots…
I could imagine LLMs having saved me a *ton* of time in graduate school–e.g., by having supplied reasonable answers to…
The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…
See here, and for some further detail, the end of the 2018-19 report. The latter seems to suggest it has something to do with the fact that so many legal philosophers are not in philosophy departments, but other units (like law schools, but not only there). Does anyone know what the story is?
(Thanks to Michael Sevel for the pointer.)
I served on this committee a few years ago. Perhaps others with more detailed and authoritative knowledge will know, but what I heard (can't remember where) was that the original purpose for the committee was to connect philosophy to law, and particularly to those working in law and at law schools. As philosophy of law became a more central part of the curriculum and the subfield came to have better representation within philosophy departments, and as the committee's focus shifted away from connecting to legal professionals and to the practice of law, it became less clear why there should be a standalone committee for this subfield. And it is true that most of the events had come to be focused just on substantive events within philosophy of law, rather than about bringing philosophy into the profession or teaching of law, or bringing lawyers into conversation with philosophers, etc.
I am not sure what the impetus was for streamlining committees or getting rid of committees like this one, but it might make sense for structural reasons to have it as a "group" rather than a "committee" for purposes of APA program scheduling and so on. I'd be curious to hear more about that part of the decision, too.
I was the (outgoing) chair of the APA Committee on Philosophy and Law when this decision was made. As background, I'll note that I had been a committee member for two (or 3? – I'm not actually sure now) years, and then vice-chair of the committee for a year, and then committee chair for three years when the decision was made. Also, I'd been an APA member (student, international associate, or normal) member every year since at least 1995. I, and most of the committee members, had put a lot of work into making the APA, and philosophy, better.
The decision to eliminate the Committee on Philosophy and Law (and also, at the same time, the Committees on Philosophy and Computers and, I think, Philosophy and Medicine, though I might be miss-remembering the last one) was sprung on us with no warning at all. We simply got an email message saying that the Board had met and voted to wind down our (and these other) committees, no later than 2020. We had not been asked for input, hand not been asked to prepare a presentation, and were both not consulted and not asked to take part in or advise on the decision at all. We were given very little information on the reasoning. When pressed, we were provided with reasoning that is something like what Alex Guerrero notes – the idea that the committee wasn't needed because there was no need for it anymore. This seems to me to be extremely short-sighted.
Compared to disciplines like history and economics, and even political science and sociology, philosophy is significantly under-represented and under-appreciated in law schools, both in the US and in the world more generally. A very significant percentage of US law schools do not have any faculty members with advanced training in philosophy in them, and many of them offer no jurisprudence courses with serious philosophical content and few or no advanced classes with philosophical content. This is in clear contrast with other humanities and social sciences. This already shows that there is still a strong need to develop ties between the study of law and philosophy. One clear way to do this is to present high-quality conference sessions that invite, interest, and include both philosophers and law professors. This, in tern, helps promote high-quality research that is of interest to and relevant for both groups. Doing this is important for philosophy for a number of reasons. For one, it offers important employment opportunities for philosophers, something that all philosophers, no matter what their interests, should care about. Secondly, it encourages people in parts of universities outside of philosophy to think that philosophy has value and something to add to their own disciplines. When this is done, philosophy will be in a stronger position in universities. Finally, it exposes a large number of people who will have significant influence on society – future lawyers – to philosophy, hopefully helping them think better, and also hopefully helping them be interested in and sympathetic to philosophy. While it is not, strictly speaking, necessary to have a dedicated committee to meet these goals, this did ensure that there was a group of people who, for each APA meeting, were focused on these goals. Additionally, the committee members were ones with a background in the relevant areas, and who could ensure that good work was promoted. Given that the committee had, essentially, no cost to the APA beyond allowing it (us) have two sessions at each division meeting, this seems like a highly cost-effective use of resources.
Because the APA board decided to make its decision without seeking the input of the committee members, we were not able to present any of these arguments, or to hear and try to rebut counter-arguments. We did present these arguments in the form of a letter, signed by all then-current committee members and the past three committee chairs, after the decision was communicated to us. The response to our letter was minimal. We were allowed a pro-forma discussion with the Board Chair, but were told before hand that the decision was made and would not be revisited.
As noted at the start of this note, I had been an APA member for more than 20 years at the time this took place, and had devoted significant time to trying to make the APA, and philosophy, better. In response to most complaints about the APA I heard, I pointed out to people that the -they- were the APA, and that if they wanted it to be different or better, they should be active and work to improve it. Doing this was the main reason I had joined the Committee on Philosophy and Law in the first place. This episode proved me wrong. Even though I had worked hard in this area, the Board decided that it would make this decision without even consulting – without even warning – those with the relevant experience and interest to best consult on the matter. When we did respond, we were met with disdain. It was extremely disheartening. I decided to let my membership laps, and to not renew it, at least not if there is not a significant change in leadership. I should note, finally, that it's not the substantive decision here that lead me to this decision, even though I think it was clearly wrong. Rather, it was the high-handed way that the decision was made, without consultation with or respect for those working for and with the APA. That, to me, seemed completely unreasonable, and not something I wanted to have to do with.
The Philosophy and Law newsletter was the only one of the twelve that I used to read regularly. Another reason why I am no longer a member of the organization (joined in 1977).
—–
KEYWORDS:
Primary Blog
Leave a Reply