The Philosophers' Cocoon

Query on diversity statements

In our October "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

How long should a diversity statement be for R1 jobs and postdocs? Many of these job ads ask for one, but none of them specify length.

Good question. I understand that some universities have detailed rubrics for diversity statements, in which case I'm guessing the answer is: the statement should be as concise as possible while aiming to satisfy as many things in the rubric as possible (given the applicant's background). Do all universities that require diversity statements have similar rubrics? If so, it might be good to hear about how similar or different they are to the one outlined above. It might also be good to hear from search committee members on how long effective diversity statements tend to be, and as a general rule what is too short or too long. Finally, it could be good to hear from search committee members on some "do's" but also some "don'ts" (i.e. things that candidates sometimes write in diversity statements that don't come off very well). Anyone with experience and insight willing and able to weigh in?

Listing pro-life publications on a CV?

In our "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks: 

Suppose you have 3 publications. 2 in one area, 1 in another area. But suppose that the 1 publication identifies you as being pro-life. Is it better to keep this publication on your CV, outing you as being pro-life, or is it better to leave it off, thereby looking less accomplished and depriving yourself of an area of specialization?

My concern here is that this position (pro-life) is not only unpopular, but appears to be frowned upon in lots of philosophy circles. For example, Elizabeth Harman recently said on the blog of the APA (!) that she considers most opposition to abortion *sexist*. So, if she knows someone is pro-life, this makes it pretty likely that that person's application will be thrown out. (Would you hire a sexist?) It seems that Harman's views aren't idiosyncratic. So, which strategy is more advantageous?

Interesting questions, and I'm not sure what the answers are. I tend to think that when you're on the j0b market, you should be honest, rolling with your actual accomplishments and who you really are. Sure, some people may not want to hire someone who's pro-life. But surely there are some people at some places (e.g. Christian universities) who do. Would you really want to work somewhere where people would discriminate against you, or where you feel like you need to hide your views? Suppose you do get hired. Sooner or later, people there are likely to find out about your pro-life views and work. What then? Wouldn't it be better for you to get a job at a university where people do value what you do? I understand the job market is awful and it's natural to want any job rather than no job at all. But I've also known people get jobs at universities they are miserable at and trying (mostly in vain) to leave. Better, I think, to get the right job to begin with.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

BPA/SWIP-UK Mentoring Scheme for Women in Philosophy

Aness Webster (Nottingham) has drawn my attention to the BPA/SWIP-UK Mentoring Scheme for Women in Philosophy. Here is a brief description of the project, which is not just for job-market mentoring but for "all women from first-year PhD level onwards who are students of philosophy or employed on teaching and/or research contracts (including fractional contracts) in universities in the UK or Ireland." Here's a brief description of the program:

Women are under-represented in UK philosophy at all levels, from Masters students to professors. The British Philosophical Association and the Society for Women in Philosophy (UK) have produced a comprehensive report, Women in Philosophy in the UK, which includes some recommendations and suggestions that individuals, departments, conference organisers and so on can follow in order to increase the representation of women at all levels.

Mentoring is a key mechanism by which women can gain valuable skills, advice, perspective, and experience that will help them to realise their potential and develop their academic careers. Studies have shown that women in male-dominated fields often receive far less mentoring than their male colleagues. With this in mind, we have developed a national scheme so that all women in philosophy from first-year PhD to Senior Lecturer are able to take advantage of the benefits that mentoring has to offer, if they wish to do so.

The aims of the scheme are to:

• increase self-confidence and reduce isolation of women philosophers in what is still a male dominated environment;
• encourage more women to continue within philosophy and to take on more senior roles;
• provide women opportunities to discuss the problems they face;
• offer women informed advice about their personal career development;
• raise the profile of women in philosophy.

Professor Webster can be reached at aness.webster@nottingham.ac.uk, and the Mentoring Scheme address is swipbpamentor@gmail.com.

Ageism on the academic job-market?

In our June "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I am an older graduate student (circa 40) who, in the coming years, expects to go on the academic job market. In your experience, is it true that older candidates are often looked at less favorably than younger candidates? Is there some sense that, with a younger candidate, it is more likely that "her best work is ahead of her"? To the extent that this age bias is prevalent, are there ways for older candidates to mitigate its impact? More specifically, are there particular worries about older candidates that they might be able to address in their application materials?

These are important questions. We had a discussion about ageism and grad program admissions a while back. However, to my recollection we've never had a discussion about ageism and the job-market. On the one hand, I'm tempted to say--on the basis of our grad program discussion and my own experience on search committees--that I don't think ageism (particularly against someone in their 40s) is likely to be a big issue. On the other hand, ageism in job-markets in general is (sadly) well-established. Further, it would not surprise me much if age discrimination is highly implicit, with those who engage in it not able to reliably introspect their own motives. 

Anyway, I'm curious what readers think, both about the existence of ageism in academic job-markets and about what applicants might do to mitigate its potential impact. Anyone have any experience or insights here?

Must job-candidates list every publication?

In our job-market discussion board, a reader writes:

I wasn't sure where to post this, but I hope someone sees it. I have a somewhat sensitive question related to the philosophy job market. I have a masters in religion and am published in that field. I was wondering if committees typically require *all* publications to be disclosed, or whether it's my prerogative to include them or not in the job application. Which leads me to the more sensitive question: unlike other candidates who have an interdisciplinary background in science, math, etc., there may be departments where, though the candidate is strong in the area of philosophy, the department may be intentionally hostile or unwelcoming to candidates with religious backgrounds, particularly candidates who studied at conservative institutions within religious academia; the religious background offsets an otherwise strong or merely promising candidate. Though I have no examples in mind, I'm wondering how common or unheard of it is for departments to be, either openly or less transparently, inclined to reject a job candidate who discloses such a background on their CV. I would be sincerely grateful for honest answers. Thanks in advance!

One reader initial followed up, saying:

I think taking publications off your CV is totally your discretion. That said, I've noticed a few people in the past few years getting R1 jobs with papers on philosophy of religion (particularly philosophy of Christianity). So I'm not sure it would hurt you.

However, another reader then weighed in:

There is one big risk if you take things off your c.v., like publications. If a committee member happens to find things - through a google search - then you look really deceitful. No one wants you then - even if someone on the committee was backing you, they will drop you like a hot potato, on the risk that you are hiding more or are just a big fat liar. So I would be more forthright with where you are coming from. There are people who are anti-religious. That is the reality. But even if you were hired at a place with such people you would probably find it a very hostile place to work. I saw similar thing happen, but [with] respect to a political piece.

I'm inclined to think the second reader is right on both counts. First, search committees interested in a candidate are likely to do their homework, looking up the candidate online. If they find a candidate has publications they didn't report in the application, that could very much make the candidate look deceitful--which is really the last way you want to appear as a job-candidate. Second, do you really want to work at a place where your colleagues will discriminate against you on the basis of your religious identity or views? 

But these are just my thoughts, and they don't answer the original poster's main question: namely, how common is it for departments to either openly or less transparently reject a job candidate who discloses a religious background on their CV?

Diverse intro texts on 'what is philosophy?'

In our July "how can we help you?" thread, JR writes in:

I have a teaching question and request for recommendations from readers: I regularly teach the introductory philosophy course at my institution, which is required as part of the core curriculum for all undergraduates and is generally taken fall or spring semester of the students' first year. Given that this is typically their first exposure to philosophy, I have found it helpful to begin the course with a unit on "What is Philosophy?". For this unit, I have had great success using Midgley's "Philosophical Plumbing" essay, and Russell's "The Value of Philosophy" (chapter from Problems of Philosophy), but I'm looking for some different texts of this sort, ideally from more diverse voices and perspectives: short, discussion-generating takes on what philosophy is or why it is important that take a stronger stand than the usual bland introductions from textbooks, but also do not presuppose much background or use a lot of technical terms

Great question! Although it's not very short, the paper that immediately comes to my mind is Kristie Dotson's, "How is this paper philosophy?". Do any readers have any suggestions?

Tips for recruiting majors & promoting diversity

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, ABD Philosophy Student writes:

In the recent 'What do first-round academic philosophy job interviews look like?' it's suggested that there are two common questions one might get: (1) How would you recruit majors? and (2) How would you promote diversity in the classroom and/or on campus?

I'm wondering: (1) How does one recruit majors? and (2) How does one promote diversity?

Not just, what can I say? But, what are genuinely effective tactics for these projects?

Good questions, and I am curious how readers would answer. I will share just a few things I did, my department has done, and which I have seen work well.

In terms of recruiting majors, when I was in a non-TT position I took it upon myself to put together a detailed informational packet on philosophy and the major, which I then took to my department. The packet included information on the major itself, including how easy it is to double major, as well as information on graduate school test scores, employment and salary statistics, examples of successful, real life people in all different kinds of fields who majored in philosophy (focusing on diversity too), and so on. In the years after distributing that flyer, our major numbers more than doubled, and 60% of our majors are consistently women and historically-marginalized minorities. I also coached an Ethics Bowl team each year, which seemed to recruit some diverse majors, and one of my junior tenure-stream colleagues has been very active and creative in relaunching our Philosophy Club, organizing club meetings around philosophical issues related to hot topics in pop culture and the news. We also began a series of 'lightning talks', featuring philosophers from nearby universities who give 10-15 minute philosophy talks on their research to the club, followed by discussion--which I think attracts and interests students in philosophy far more than, say, a traditional 30-60 minute colloquium talk. Finally, this year we began the fall by putting together a "meet UT's philosophers" event (with food!) where new students, majors, and potential majors could meet each other and the faculty--and we even started a department Instagram page (thanks to the suggestion of several students).

In terms of diversity, when I was still in a non-TT position, I also took it upon myself to create and c0-organize an annual human rights conference with a sociologist, which not of featured diverse academics but also representatives of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, Enterprising Latinas, the League of Women Voters, the CARIBE Program for refugees, and many other organizations. These conferences were advertised all around the university, and attended by a diverse body of students.

Anyway, these are just some things we/I have done at my university, and I don't think there's any one way to do (1) and (2). But my advice is simple: be proactive and get creative. Talk to other people inside and outside of your department, brainstorming about things you could do. Chances are, you'll come up with something, and as they say, nothing ventured, nothing gained! Do any of you have any tips of your own, including things graduate students might do (since the OP mentions they are ABD)?