On Twitter, philosopher Brandon Warmke noted that just in the last 48 hours, six jobs were posted seeking philosophers with AI-related interests. As I wrote on Twitter, this seems to me “a foolish waste of philosophy lines, no doubt partly a result of administrators hopping on the bandwagon and pressuring departments to find warm bodies.” Why not give the lines to specialists in the post-Kantian Continental traditions, which are a magnet for students (see also) and in whom interest is strong across disciplines?

UPDATE: A philosopher at a PhD program writes:

If I may, I think your view of the matter is shortsighted. My university no longer has departmental “lines”. We compete with other departments for everything. 

The strategic situation is not well described as “why did you choose a Philosopher of AI over a Marx scholar?” In nearly all cases, and I suspect in the exact cases Warmke references, it is: “why did you choose to hire a Philosopher of AI over nothing”. I’m also confident that in these cases, the resulting hires will probably be people who bring a lot more to the table. 

Now, I could understand your post better if your audience were the dean class, and you wanted to urge them to refrain from chasing trends and signature initiatives. But the impression is that your critique is unlikely to get to them.

As I lead my department at a time where philosophy is facing an existential crisis, I might continue to object to the game we are forced to play in the right forums, but at the same time I will play that game as aggressively as I can to strengthen my philosophical community. 

These are fair points. Curious to hear if others are facing similar situations. Please indicate your department/university (e.g., private SLAC, public research university with a PhD program, etc.).