On the two gender-equity petitions

I'd like to weigh in briefly on the debate about the two petitions making the rounds on gender equity in philosophy. For those of you who might not know the back story, Eric Schliesser and Mark Lance have been seeking support for a petition that, among other things, asks its signatories to refuse to accept offers to give a keynote address at any conference where all of the other keynote speakers are male. In response, Brian Leiter and others objected to this "bizarre quota", implying that it is absurd to ask people to refuse keynote offers in all such cases -- especially when only around 16% of senior philosophers are female. Consequently, a new gender-equity petition has been circulated by Jennifer Saul which drops the quota in favor of a general statement that philosophers "should take affirmative steps" in ensure fair representation of female philosophers and other underrepresented groups.

I'd like to explain why I support -- and have chosen to sign Schliesser and Lance's petition -- but not the new one. The way I see it, in general, in order to effect real social change, vague pronouncements are not enough; one must stick one's neck out and set determinate, concrete standards. Here's a simple example from ordinary life. Suppose my wife and I agree that we should spend more time together. So, we sit down and agree, "We will spend more time together." I'm sure those of you with spouses or partners know how this sort of thing usually turns out. We might spend a bit more time together for a couple of weeks -- but in no time there we are, spending time in front of the television instead of spending time together. Why? The answer is simple: without determinate, concrete standards -- as in, "We will spend two hours together every night, no television, etc" -- it's easy to conveniently forget about the agreement.

The way I see it, the same is true of social change. A petition that says, "Philosophers should take steps to ensure fair representation", sets no real standards. Anytime anyone is organizing a conference, they can -- either explicitly or implicitly -- justify an all-male lineup by saying things like, "Well, only 16% of senior figures in this field are female, so finding a female speaker was just too hard." Or, anytime anyone is mulling whether to accept a keynote at an all-male lineup, one can say, "Oh, it's understandable that they don't have a female speaker. After all, only 16% of senior figures in this field are female." This, I propose, is precisely one of the many reasons why so much gender inequity in philosophy persists. It is simply not enough to say that women and other underrepresented populations should be more fairly represented. Saying it accomplishes very little, because in practice -- for all kinds of reasons -- women continue to be underrepresented. In order to get people to actually take steps to achieve greater equity, there must be a commitment to determine, concrete actions. Schliesser and Lance's petition does just that. The new petition doesn't. Also, S&L's petition actually requires people to commit themselves to bear personal burdens for the sake of equity. The new petition does not. Justice is not cost-free. The fact that S&L's petition requires perhaps-uncomfortable sacrifices is not a reason not to favor it. It is a reason to favor it.

Anyway, these are the reasons I support S&L's petition over the new one. I am more than happy to reconsider my position in light of further discussion.

Comments

[Jenny Szende]

Although the official _petition_ from the Gendered Conference Campaign (GCC) may offer fewer practical suggestions than the NewAPPS petition, I would suggest that the accompanying campaign offers many useful practical suggestions that reach far beyond the NewAPPS petition. In addition, while it's a nice thought that some prestigious allies of the campaign might turn down invitations to serve as keynote speakers, the problem with this suggestion is that it is not available to non-prestigious (i.e. non-tenured and unlikely to be invited to provide a keynote) philosophers. The GCC offers several practical suggestions for conference organizers, conference participants, and even concerned observers in the philosophical community. So, I think that the campaign organizers might agree with your decision not to sign. The GCC pre-dates - and inspires - both of the petitions. But it also offers many of the practical solutions you are looking for.

The timeline and the components of the GCC is well explained here:
http://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/gendered-conference-campaign/

I haven't signed either petition, and wouldn't want to push you into signing a petition you are uncomfortable with, but in this case I don't think the work is ultimately being done by the petitions. The awareness factor seems to me to be the central thrust of the GCC, and to that end, you are doing a great job of going beyond signing any of the petitions by posting here. Thank you for the post, thank you for the opportunity to respond, and thank you for thinking through the need for practical solutions that go beyond signing a petition.

[Curious]

I haven't kept up with the debate so I don't know the particulars. Uninformed as I am, I have this question: How can conference organizers ensure representation of minorities/women if the conference implements a blind review process?

[Marcus Arvan]

Curious: the petitions refer to the composition of invited keynote speakers, not the main program (of submitted papers). Because keynotes are invited, the blind review issue doesn't apply.

Jenny: I'm all for the GCC -- but I just don't think awareness and suggestions are good enough, any more than they are good enough for combatting climate change. In most cases when people fail to act en masse to solve a problem, they usually do so not out of malice but by simply failing to notice what they're doing when they do it. Drawing attention to all-male lineups (as has been the case so far) may raise awareness, but I don't expect it will really lead to change. For every time someone puts together an all-male lineup the tendency is to rationalize it ("there are so few women in our subfield", etc.). The best way to combat biases is *immediately* when they arise, not after the fact. This can be done by a common commitment to refuse to participate in all-male lineups, which is why I favor the NewAPPS petition. The other petition (in my humble opinion) is just too open to too many "outs" (i.e excuses and oversights) to really lead to appreciable progress.

[Virginia Valian]

There is a third petition, intended to reach across the disciplines:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/commitment-to-gender-equity-at-scholarly-conferences.html

There is an accompanying Q&A: http://forgenderequityatconferences.blogspot.fr/

[anongrad]

So, I think it's fairly clear that within the category of petitions which require you to "stick your neck out", there are more and less reasonable proposals. That is, there might be absolutely no risk involved (decline acceptance if the conference has over 100 speakers and no women), or there might be too much (decline acceptance if the conference has a single male speaker).

The problem with the wording of the "quota" petition is that it might just veer too far to one side of this spectrum. It is clear that in order for change to occur, speaker lineups at major conferences should be more than 16% female. Examples need to be set, action needs to occur, all reasonable parties agree on that. Maybe 25% or 33% are good numbers, so if the petition had explicitly limited the committment to refusing to go when there are 3 or 4 male keynotes, there might have been less worrying from Leiter et. al. Yet, as I understand it, the petition actually requires you (qua older male speaker) to decline when there are *two* keynotes and both are male (presumably, you are one of them).

As someone who's organized a couple of conferences, I am quite sure that this will result in a large number of "false positives": conferences punished for being sexist despite having made a genuine effort to be inclusive.

[conservative feminism]

Gender equality concerns everybody....Fair representation of female philosophers is important issue.Just wanted to say great job with the blog today is my first visit here and I have enjoyed reading your post so far.