Nice how what was presented as a principled stance is thrown overboard just as soon as an opportunity for self-aggrandizement presents itself. Way to go!
SPEP should not be in the business of endorsing any rankings, period. Hopefully, most philosophers will understand that the 118 members who voted to support the "independent work" of Pluralist Guide only represent a fraction of the 2,000 plus SPEP members.
The ca. 120 or so people who remained in the sweltering business meeting after everyone left for their dinner reservations (there were over 750 in attendance of the conference in addition to over 2000 members) were actually the only folks voting at the time. Those 120 are hardly representative of the "membership of SPEP" mentioned in the resolution as you might imagine.
I'm sorry, the last comment doesn't pass the smell test.
The climate for woman section of the pluralist's guide contains information everybody knows to be false. The refusal to take it down at this point constitutes a gross abdication of professional responsibilities, lying to female undergraduates in an attempt to funnel them into SPEP affiliated departments. And the lies could very well damage the well being of students, getting them to go to departments where their job chances will be less and where the climate for women is actually toxic (as opposed to the climate at some of the places they criticize).
In this context the silence of tenured professors at the recommended departments is deafening. And until at least some of them denounce the climate guide publicly, the rest of us have every right to view the vote as representatives of SPEP.
With the issue of the APA's non-discrimination policy and the issue of the Synthese scandal, prominent philosophers spoke vocally against the injustice, in the first case starting on-line petitions, which dozens of very prominent philosophers signed.
It's just basic morality that if you are benefiting from some egregious wrong that it is within your power to right, then you have an obligation to right that wrong.
If the vote is really that unrepresentative, then the other 1800 members of SPEP should start a petition condemning it.
And if your response is that they don't care that much about it, then that is equally damning. They don't care about lying to our female students? This is so shameful, that again, barring such a petition we have every right to take the vote to be representative of SPEP.
[Full disclosure: I did some outraged posts about this at Newapps while it was happening. I've since removed them. They are now up at my old blog with an explanation for why they were removed at http://drjon.typepad.com/jon_cogburns_blog/2011/10/the-following-three-posts-originally-put-at-newapps-now-taken-down-just-infuriated-some-dear-friends-and-led-to-some-unfort.html#more .]
It's a little odd to read a petition that contains faulty calculations (SPEP has more than 11,800 members?) and which the author him or herself hasn't signed. It looks a little suspcious to me...
@12:58 Not sure what you're talking about. I count three signatures on there and I don't see any "calculations" -- only a reference to 118 people voting in favor of the resolution.
Anon 12:58 here. When I looked at it the petition had no signatures, and contained the claim that the 118 votes represented less than 20% of people at the conference and less than 1% of all SPEP members.
That claim's now been deleted, and I guess we can infer that Justin Marquis is the author, since he is the first signatory.
But it would be nice to know that this is true before considering whether to sign. If Justin Marquis is reading this blog, could he attest to the correction, and his/her authorship, if that's the case?
I am the author of the petition. I prefer to remain anonymous. You should be able to submit feedback to me through the petition site. This goes directly to my personal e-mail.
The SPEP should put out its own rankings, but qualify them as directed at a specific orientation of philosophy. I don't see anything wrong with trying to build an alternate infrastructure to Leiter's co-optation of continental philosophy. He's already more influential on Nietzsche and Foucault than the entire SPEP put together. Why not just stop tip-toeing around and make a strong claim about the validity of the organization?
Observations from an old cranky jerk who happens to be a professional philosopher. Occasionally philosophical, most often just vulgar. Sometimes focused on sober points of logic and issues in political theory, but more frequently fixed on nonsense. Bad metal bands, crappy guitarists, stupid lyrics, celebrities, pop "culture," telemarketers, irrationality, and other annoyances. Always misanthropic. Anti-religious. Not particularly amusing, either. Some might say insulting. Strange mail. Kook magnet. Doom. Comments from other cranky jerks, young and old.
14 comments:
Nice how what was presented as a principled stance is thrown overboard just as soon as an opportunity for self-aggrandizement presents itself. Way to go!
Thanks, SPEP, for confirming the worst of what the profession at large thinks of us.
5:30pm just nailed it.
SPEP should not be in the business of endorsing any rankings, period. Hopefully, most philosophers will understand that the 118 members who voted to support the "independent work" of Pluralist Guide only represent a fraction of the 2,000 plus SPEP members.
But they have t-shirts, coffee mugs and more!
The ca. 120 or so people who remained in the sweltering business meeting after everyone left for their dinner reservations (there were over 750 in attendance of the conference in addition to over 2000 members) were actually the only folks voting at the time. Those 120 are hardly representative of the "membership of SPEP" mentioned in the resolution as you might imagine.
I'm sorry, the last comment doesn't pass the smell test.
The climate for woman section of the pluralist's guide contains information everybody knows to be false. The refusal to take it down at this point constitutes a gross abdication of professional responsibilities, lying to female undergraduates in an attempt to funnel them into SPEP affiliated departments. And the lies could very well damage the well being of students, getting them to go to departments where their job chances will be less and where the climate for women is actually toxic (as opposed to the climate at some of the places they criticize).
In this context the silence of tenured professors at the recommended departments is deafening. And until at least some of them denounce the climate guide publicly, the rest of us have every right to view the vote as representatives of SPEP.
With the issue of the APA's non-discrimination policy and the issue of the Synthese scandal, prominent philosophers spoke vocally against the injustice, in the first case starting on-line petitions, which dozens of very prominent philosophers signed.
It's just basic morality that if you are benefiting from some egregious wrong that it is within your power to right, then you have an obligation to right that wrong.
If the vote is really that unrepresentative, then the other 1800 members of SPEP should start a petition condemning it.
And if your response is that they don't care that much about it, then that is equally damning. They don't care about lying to our female students? This is so shameful, that again, barring such a petition we have every right to take the vote to be representative of SPEP.
[Full disclosure: I did some outraged posts about this at Newapps while it was happening. I've since removed them. They are now up at my old blog with an explanation for why they were removed at http://drjon.typepad.com/jon_cogburns_blog/2011/10/the-following-three-posts-originally-put-at-newapps-now-taken-down-just-infuriated-some-dear-friends-and-led-to-some-unfort.html#more .]
Cogburn: those posts were appropriately outraged and I wish you hadn't taken them down.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/spep-members-against-the-advocacy-committee-resolution/
It's a little odd to read a petition that contains faulty calculations (SPEP has more than 11,800 members?) and which the author him or herself hasn't signed. It looks a little suspcious to me...
@12:58 Not sure what you're talking about. I count three signatures on there and I don't see any "calculations" -- only a reference to 118 people voting in favor of the resolution.
Anon 12:58 here. When I looked at it the petition had no signatures, and contained the claim that the 118 votes represented less than 20% of people at the conference and less than 1% of all SPEP members.
That claim's now been deleted, and I guess we can infer that Justin Marquis is the author, since he is the first signatory.
But it would be nice to know that this is true before considering whether to sign. If Justin Marquis is reading this blog, could he attest to the correction, and his/her authorship, if that's the case?
No, Mr. Marquis is not the author.
I am the author of the petition. I prefer to remain anonymous. You should be able to submit feedback to me through the petition site. This goes directly to my personal e-mail.
The SPEP should put out its own rankings, but qualify them as directed at a specific orientation of philosophy. I don't see anything wrong with trying to build an alternate infrastructure to Leiter's co-optation of continental philosophy. He's already more influential on Nietzsche and Foucault than the entire SPEP put together. Why not just stop tip-toeing around and make a strong claim about the validity of the organization?
Post a Comment