{"id":8145,"date":"2014-02-08T05:19:11","date_gmt":"2014-02-08T05:19:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2014\/02\/08\/still-more-on-the-colorado-situation\/"},"modified":"2014-02-08T05:19:11","modified_gmt":"2014-02-08T05:19:11","slug":"still-more-on-the-colorado-situation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2014\/02\/08\/still-more-on-the-colorado-situation\/","title":{"rendered":"Still More on the Colorado Situation"},"content":{"rendered":"

Laughing Philosopher<\/a> talks sense.  I've corrected some typos, added a hyperlink, and intercalated some comments (in blue.)    Excerpt<\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
I applaud the move to end sexual harassment seriously in the discipline. However, there are many ways in which the APA committee\u2019s report seems extremely problematic. While I don\u2019t know the nature of the alleged harassment or alleged inappropriate sexualization at Colorado, I find it very hard to believe that many of the report\u2019s recommendations are necessary to prevent such behavior even if the report were factually accurate<\/em>. Following those recommendations will, however, almost certainly damage the department and put it under the control of the administration in precisely the way Benjamin Ginsberg has warned us about in his must-read book,  The Fall of the Faculty<\/a>.  In particular:<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
1. The report is overtly hostile to the dialectical\/democractic model and demands that it be replaced with blatant dictatorship. <\/span>The department is told to \u201c[d]issolve all departmental listservs. Emails should be used for announcements only, as one-way, purely informational, communication. Any replies need to be made in person\u201d (p.6). Since the department chair has now been ousted and replaced at the administration\u2019s discretion for an indefinite period with no apparent opportunity for review at any point in the future (as urged by the report), this effectively cedes all departmental autonomy, in perpetuity, to the administration. There will be no clear avenues for discussion or dissent, and the restrictions on department members meeting outside of working hours helps to limit the ability of any faculty or students in the department to formulate dissenting views together: they may not meet to do so in the evenings or on weekends, and they may not do so via email.  Moreover, the very act of reasoning or deliberating about policy is taken by the report as a sign of inappropriate resistance, according to the anti-philosophical views of the report (\u201cTheir faculty discussions\u2026 spend too much time articulating (or trying to articulate) the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior\u2026 they spend significant time debating footnotes and \u201cwhat if\u201d scenarios\u2026\u201d \u2013 p.7)<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
2. The report uses terms like \u2018family friendly\u2019 in bizarre ways to restrict productive and innocuous department activities whose elimination would significantly harm collegiality, departmental morale and the learning experience of graduate students. In a \u2018Special Note\u2019 on p.12, the report discusses and prohibits the department\u2019s planned spring retreat. This retreat was to involve a combination of philosophical talks and \u2018unscheduled time\u2019 in a scenic mountain area over a weekend. It is difficult for me at least to imagine an event I would more like to bring my children to \u2014 what family wouldn\u2019t love some unscheduled time outdoors in a beautiful natural area? But bizarrely enough, the very fact that this event was to take place on the weekend makes it \u201can examplar for a family-unfriendly event,\u201d according to the report. The justification for this absurd claim is that \u201cUnder no circumstances should this department (or any other) be organizing the social calendars of its members.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
3. The report claims that no philosophy department should, under any circumstances, ask its members to attend events outside of the hours of 9-5, Monday to Friday. On p.12 of the report, we are told that \u201cIf there are going to be social events, then they need to be managed such that members of the department can opt out easily and without any penalty. (Please note that best practices for family-friendly speaker events include taking the speaker out to lunch instead of dinner so that participants may have their evenings free to attend to other obligations)\u201d. In particular, we are told that \u201call events, including retreats, need to be held during business hours (9-5) and on campus or near campus in public venues.\u201d Please try to imagine what departmental life would be like under such a rule.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
4. The report categorically prohibits all critical discussion of feminist philosophy by all members of the department, even in a private, off-campus conversation between two graduate or undergraduate students. \u201dRealize that there is plurality in the discipline.  If some department members have a problem with people doing non-\u00ad\u2010feminist philosophy or doing feminist philosophy (or being engaged in any other sort of intellectual or other type of pursuit), they should gain more appreciation of and tolerance for plurality in the discipline.  Even if they are unable to reach a level of appreciation for other approaches to the discipline, it is totally unacceptable for them to denigrate these approaches in front of faculty, graduate or undergraduate students, in formal or informal settings on or off campus.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
BV:  This (the quoted statement) is unbelievably obtuse and an excellent example of political correctness gone wild.  First of all, critical discussion is not the same as denigration even if the critical discussion is trenchant and leads to rejection of the approach criticized.  To take but one example, academic philosophers rightly criticize Ayn Rand's Objectivism.  Much of that criticism is harsh but on target. It is not the same as denigration or dismissal.  Of course, some do  denigrate and dismiss it.  Well, it is their considered opinion that it ought to be denigrated  and dismissed.  Surely they have a right to their view, as offensive as it is to Objectivists.<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Second, while there is a plurality of approaches and views in philosophy, that fact does not insulate any view from examination and criticism.  Toleration is not to be confused with approval.  I can tolerate your view while rejecting it.<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Third, a plurality of views is not to be confused with a plurality of equally tenable views.<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Fourth, toleration is not to be confused with appreciation.  I tolerate the views of eliminative materialists but I don't appreciate them.  Note also the confusion in the quoted statement of appreciation of plurality with appreciation of the different views constituting the plurality.  One can appreciate that there is plurality in the discipline both in the sense of acknowledging it, and in the sense of thinking it a good thing;  but this is obviously distinct from approving of each of the views that constitute the plurality.<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Finally, what the authors say is "totally unacceptable" must be accepted.  Some views deserve denigration, as should be obvious. Suppose someone were to maintain that no woman should be allowed to study philosophy beyond the undergraduate level.  That is a view that deserves denigration.  So denigrate it, and give your reasons.<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
5. The report relies in part on clearly biased survey findings. On p.15, for instance, we find that subjects were asked whether they agree or disagree with the following statement: \u201cI am confident that if I were to raise a complaint about sexual harassment or discrimination, the judicial process at my university would be fair.\u201d 38% of respondents felt confident about this, which seems very high for any department! Most members of most departments would have no good grounds for confidence either way. Why doesn\u2019t the survey ask instead whether subjects are confident that the process would be unfair? More tellingly, why doesn\u2019t it simply ask whether subjects agree or disagree with the statement, \u201cIf I were to raise a complaint about sexual harassment or discrimination, the judicial process would be fair,\u201d and allow the responses \u2018Agree\u2019, \u2018Disagree\u2019 and \u2018Not sure\u2019? Particularly among philosophers, \u2018confident\u2019 entails a very high epistemic standard. While it isn\u2019t clear whether the committee intended to skew the results by asking such questions or whether they simply didn\u2019t take care to prepare a fair survey, the survey is misleading at best and politically motivated at worst.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
6. The report mentions, and then completely ignores, very serious graduate student concerns about damage to the department\u2019s reputation; and in the process, it reduces the likelihood of future reporting of sexual harassment. \u201cThey [some graduate students] are worried that they will be tainted by the national reputation of the department as being hostile to women.\u201d (pp.3-4). As a result of this, it was essential for the report to take steps to ensure that word about the department\u2019s problems be carefully managed while steps are taken to eliminate the problem. At the very least, the report needed to ensure that the release of the report not be made into a worldwide media event. However, the report contains nothing of the sort and, as a result, the worst fears of the graduate students have now been realized (I, for one, had never heard a single negative thing about this department). This merits serious attention: if the price of reporting sexual harrassment is the destruction of one\u2019s department\u2019s reputation worldwide and the blackening of one\u2019s own name by association with it, how many departmental members (student or faculty) would ever take the suicidal step of reporting it? By mindlessly neglecting these concerns, the committee\u2019s report has surely had a dampening effect on reports of sexual harassment in departments around the world.<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
7. The report\u2019s standards of \u2018family friendliness\u2019, while tangentially connected with sexual harassment, show a complete lack of understanding of philosophical work and culture. On p.6 of the report, the committee\u2019s view on best practices is expanded upon: we are told that \u201c[e]vents should be held during normal business hours (9-5) and should be such that you would feel comfortable with your children or parents being present.\u201d Indeed, as we are told on p.12, children should be positively welcome at departmental events. I\u2019m not concerned here with the disruptions that would be caused by young children at colloquia, but rather with how this might affect the content of philosophical talks. I, for one, would not feel comfortable discussing abortion, circumcision, sexual harassment and rape, cruelty to animals, pornography, torture, or the existence of God in front of someone else\u2019s children. Should it follow from this that I should not present a colloquium paper on such a topic? What if my philosophical work deals entirely with such issues: should I never present my philosophical work in an open forum?<\/span><\/div>\n

While we should all applaud genuine, careful and viable efforts to eliminate sexual harassment, my view (unless persuaded otherwise) is that we should certainly not endorse the actions of this committee. Instead, I think, we should quickly work out ways to prevent this from ever happening again. But I anticipate disagreement and would love to hear and engage opposing reasons.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\nRelated articles<\/legend>\n
\n
\"\"<\/a>Something Fishy in Colorado<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>CU-Boulder reports pervasive sexual harassment within philosophy department<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>The Philosophers' Stones<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Ex-chair feared CU-Boulder would dissolve philosophy department if sexual harassment report leaked<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Popular Conceptions and Misconceptions of Philosophy<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Should You Go to Graduate School in Philosophy?<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Laughing Philosopher talks sense.  I've corrected some typos, added a hyperlink, and intercalated some comments (in blue.)    Excerpt: I applaud the move to end sexual harassment seriously in the discipline. However, there are many ways in which the APA committee\u2019s report seems extremely problematic. While I don\u2019t know the nature of the alleged harassment or alleged inappropriate … Continue reading “Still More on the Colorado Situation”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[52,394],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8145","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-academia","category-feminism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8145","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8145"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8145\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8145"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8145"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8145"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}