The Philosophers' Cocoon

Race equality work in Philosophy @Sheffield (Guest post by Tareeq O. Jalloh)

By Tareeq O. Jalloh (PhD Student, University of Sheffield)

There is an astounding lack of demographic diversity in philosophy, especially academic philosophy. BAME–Black, Asian and minority ethnic–students make up 8.6% of philosophy postgraduate students in the UK (Pozniak, 2020). In the US, 2.5% of philosophy PhD recipients and 4% of philosophy faculty are black (Schwitzgebel, 2021). Many other disciplines encounter the same lack of diversity. This is especially true for disciplines in the arts and humanities. For instance, whereas BAME students make up 22.3% of UK postgraduates, they only make up 11.5% of humanities postgraduates and 9.2% of arts postgraduates in the UK (Pozniak, 2020).

This lack of diversity in turn tends to centre dominant perspectives in academic disciplines. History, for instance, often centres a very narrow and constrained view of British history where black history is relegated to the margins (Arday, Brachu, & Boliver, 2022). Further, topics in race and ethnicity often seem to be marginalised and taught as add-on or specialist modules as opposed to being a fundamentally integrated part of the curricula (Arday, Brachu, & Boliver, 2022). BAME students engage with curricula that don’t reflect their socialisation, history or lived experience.

There are multiple benefits to improving the demographic and conceptual diversity of disciplines. For instance, improving demographic diversity will lead to students interacting with a variety of different people, and interacting with diverse peers leads to gains in cognitive abilities such as critical thinking (Pascarella & Loes, 2012). We might think improving critical thinking skills would be good for all university students, but this especially rings true for students in disciplines like philosophy, where critical thinking is an integral part of philosophising well. Another reason demographic diversity is necessary is that it exposes people to members of a commonly stereotyped social group who don't fit stereotypes–countersterotypical exemplars. The exposure to counterstereotypical exemplars helps reduce implicit bias (Holroyd & Saul, 2018).

Teaching Mill's Colonialism (and Other Great Mistakes of Great Philosophers)

By Sam Duncan

I made a mistake in my ethics class this semester: I canceled John Stuart Mill. To be quite honest it wasn’t entirely Mill’s history as an administrator for the East India Company or the fact that he was the author of an unsuccessful defense of the company and its (mis)deeds in the wake of the Indian rebellion that made me drop him from the syllabus. Mill’s Utilitarianism was on the bubble. Mill has an ability to turn a phrase yes, but students are often confused by the meandering presentation of Utilitarianism where he spends much more time arguing with an imagined opponent than presenting the theory itself, and it is hard to overstate how much the higher/lower pleasures stuff muddies the water while also solving no problems whatsoever. But Mill's history as a colonialist and defender of colonialism pushed Utilitarianism over the line for me. The fact that J.S. Mill spent most of his working life involved in a project of injustice and oppression and devoted some of his considerable intellectual and literary gifts to defending that project seemed to settle what would otherwise be a close call. In retrospect, I realize that Mill’s colonialism is actually a powerful reason to keep him on the syllabus. He made huge mistakes, and if someone wants to tear down statues of him I won’t argue against that. But like many mistakes made by great philosophers, and Mill is certainly that, there is much to learn from his mistakes. By dropping him from our syllabi we would deprive students of the opportunity to do just this.

Trans/Non-Binary Philosophers on the Academic Job Market: A Resource Guide (2022)

By Perry Zurn, Blake Hereth, Christina Friedlander,
Tamsin Kimoto, Amy Marvin, and Andrea Pitts

The following is a collection of advice from members of the American Philosophical Association’s Committee on LGBTQ People in the Profession, the Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy’s LGBTQ Advocacy Committee, and the Trans Philosophy Project. Questions were culled from email and social media outreach to trans and non-binary philosophers on the job market. Responses—which are not answers in any classical sense, but rather a collection of recommendations, reflections, reports on past experience, musings, and moments of thinking-with—were generated by members of said committees based on their experience either being a trans/non-binary jobseeker in professional philosophy or advising those who are.

While committee members’ advice is rich and multi-faceted, the bottom line in every response is this: it depends. It depends on the job, the department, and the school to which you are applying. It depends on your field(s), specializations, and competencies, and how you want to develop as a scholar-teacher. It depends on your values, your comforts, and your needs. It depends on other social positions you occupy, especially with respect to class, disability, and race or ethnicity. And it depends on your stage in the job market (are you fresh from your PhD, do you have another year or two on a postdoc or VAP, or are you already on the tenure track somewhere?). The goal of this document is to help you think things through as you develop your own style of jobseeking as trans/non-binary.

The Diversity Reading List

Ten-Herng Lai (University of Melbourne), a volunteer at the Diversity Reading List, writes in:

I am writing to promote the diversity reading list.

https://diversityreadinglist.org

The diversity reading list is an organisation dedicated to promoting diversity in philosophy by collecting information on articles written by authors from diverse backgrounds, and articles discussing issues that are of a diverse nature. The organisation also has a “Reading group blueprint” program

https://diversityreadinglist.org/blueprints/

where volunteers compile several articles fit for a reading group. Recent additions include 

• Statues and monuments
• People and proofs
• Race and aesthetics

Just to name a few. The blueprints provide invaluable opportunities for students in philosophy to discover important information outside their current curriculum.

I believe that it would be awesome if the diversity reading list can be promoted on the philosophers’ cocoon. The diversity reading list is calling for article information to be added to the organisations database, and for volunteers to compile new and useful reading lists. 

I think this is a fantastic resource!

Fall CUSP Graduate Workshop Applications Open

CULTIVATING UNDERREPRESENTED STUDENTS IN PHILOSOPHY

—DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY AT PENN STATE—

Our Fall CUSP Graduate Workshop application is now open. The workshop will take place October 23-26, 2022 in person. Selected students will be brought to campus for the institute (all expenses paid). Click here to visit the Fall CUSP eligibility criteria.

The application for Summer CUSP is now closed. Please check back regularly for more information coming soon!

WHAT IS CUSP?

The Philosophy Department at Pennsylvania State University organizes two distinct CUSP (Cultivating Underrepresented Students in Philosophy) programs each year. These programs are directed toward prospective graduate students in philosophy from traditionally underrepresented groups (including African Americans, Chicano/as and Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asian Americans).

The Summer Institute is intended for rising undergraduate sophomores or juniors who are considering pursuing an academic career in Philosophy and wish to learn more about what it means to be a part of the discipline; and the Fall Graduate Workshop, for college seniors, recent graduates, and working professionals who want to continue their graduate education in philosophy and are currently working on their graduate applications for the following Fall term.

Does hybrid conferencing "degrade" the conference experience?

I am grateful to the APA for their decision to implement (at least as a test) the proposal that Philosophers for Sustainability launched to have one of the divisional conferences go virtual. They agreed to implement our proposal starting 2025.

I think this is a step in the right direction. Academic flying culture excludes many people from conference participation and is also harmful for the environment. Our individual actions alone will not solve the climate crisis, but can mitigate it. 

So it was with some disappointment that I saw the letter for the CFP for the APA Pacific divisional conference in San Francisco next year which says up front that videoconferencing and remote participation won't be available. Note that between that time and the implementation of 2+1 there will be two years that people will not be able to attend an APA remotely, except for a few exemptions. Here's the relevant excerpt:

Up front: Videoconferencing and remote participation are not available

While it might seem easy in theory to offer remote presentation to anyone who requests it, the technological logistics of doing so would be complex and costly for a number of reasons. Meeting rooms would have to be equipped with extensive A/V packages and hard-wired internet connections that are not standard in most hotel meeting rooms, which would cost tens of thousands of dollars at a minimum. Moreover, if too many participants present remotely, not only will the overall in-person meeting experience be degraded, but also the APA will incur large financial penalties for failing to meet its contractual obligations to the meeting hotel. As a result, offering remote presentation on a large scale would make the entire meeting unviable.

For these reasons, remote presentation will be offered in only two situations: government travel restrictions and accessibility accommodations. More details may be found on the APA website.

Good audiovisual material for teaching?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a UK postdoc asks:

I would like to assign some audiovisual material to students in addition to 'normal' readings, but I am having trouble finding appropriate material. Is there a database of some sort where I can find videos, podcasts etc? Or what are other people's strategies?

Hmm...good questions! I sometimes use YouTube videos while teaching, which I've found to be a good resource, particularly because many videos appear to meet accessibility requirements (viz. transcription, etc.). Beyond this, though, I wouldn't call myself much an expert on finding good AV material. So, I'd love to hear from readers.

Is there any kind of useful database for finding this kind of content for teaching? And, more generally, how do you use AV material in your teaching, and how do you go about finding good content?

Norms for writing, research, and citations

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

It is a probably basic question about academic norms. When you write a paper, concerning any train of thought (claims, arguments, etc.), should you simply think about it on your own and write it out as your own plus a reference to similar work if you do find such work, *or* search the literature and try to find if someone else makes similar claims, arguments, etc., and then simply explain this person's idea in your paper, not claiming it to be your own even if you come up with it yourself? I intend this to be a very general question---the choice in question can occur any number of times when writing a paper. Thanks in advance.

This is a great query, and it echoes a set of questions raised by NK in this thread a few months ago:

I wonder if it might be worth starting a more general discussion here about the *point* of citation. I, for one, would be interested to hear others' views on when, and why, one *ought* to cite a given work.

One suggestion made above is that you ought to (try to) cite everything relevant. Another (to which I take Helen to have objected, though the following is an attempt to describe it a bit more charitably) would be that you ought to cite relevant work that you think is good/worth reading and engaging with. These obvious differ in at least one important way: on the latter proposal, citations would be prestige-markers; on the former, they wouldn't.

Are there other options? And what is there to be said for and against each option?

I'm also curious what others think of the following sociological hypothesis: when you cite "low-prestige" work (whatever exactly that means), you thereby lower the perceived prestige of your own (i.e., the citing) work, in the sense that others are going to be less likely to read your work and/or take it seriously (if/when they take note of the character of your citations).

N.K.'s last point (that citing "low-prestige work" can lower the perceived prestige of your own) is one of the main reasons that I think authors are under an obligation to do some basic research--via doing some simple searches for key words in PhilPapers and Google Scholar--before writing, and to cite and/or discuss explicitly up front any relevant precursors (including similar arguments) to the one they intend to write about.

Tips and resources for philosophers with ADHD?

We recently had a request from a philosopher who has ADHD for any tips, resources, etc. How can you flourish as a grad student, undergrad, or faculty member with ADHD in philosophy?

If you can talk about personal experience and what helps you, or otherwise know of resources, this would be much appreciated! You can put this in the replies to this post.

The in-person conference quandary

This June I went to my first in-person conference in over two years. It was in UMSL, which is in the town I'm currently based in (St Louis), so it was an easy transition. And it was lovely--exhausting but lovely. I also have a couple of more events lined up this fall. After a hiatus of in-person conferencing,  there's a general sense for many academics that "it's endemic now." We can't really expect improvements in vaccine effectiveness or transmission rates, so basically we have to do life under these circumstances. And academic life involves (for many of us) in-person conferences.

But I worry that this creates disparity in opportunities and professional development, exacerbating disparities that already exist in many cases, such as for disabled and chronically ill people. 

I got Covid in late April 2022 after being very cautious for over two years, and was quite sick for several weeks (sicker I thought I would be given that I got the full vaccination and a booster.) For the few weeks after recovery I reckoned I was OK in terms of immunity and went to a few events that I normally still deem to risky, such as a lovely dinner organized by the local Jesuit training center which is associated to SLU. It was a great event and the food was great, but it was also a very poorly ventilated area with so many people.

Scholarships for disabled grad students?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Tomas Albergo writes:

Are there any significant scholarships for disabled graduate students? I kind of fell apart over the last year because of my neuropathic pain (in my dominant arm and hand, sustained from a surgical error 12+ years ago) and am concerned I’m eventually going to need to take medical leave. But I can’t really afford to do that (re insurance) given my medical situation. I’m likely going to have a serious operation in the next few weeks to fix or remove a broken implanted spinal cord stimulator. Ideally I want to stay in school so that I can catch up on things and have the good insurance I’m currently lucky to have through Pitt. If my situation doesn’t improve, I doubt I’ll be able to catch up adequately once my teaching responsibilities begin again.

This is an excellent question. Do any readers know of any scholarships like this or otherwise have any helpful tips?

Tips for navigating high-profile, public-facing opportunities as an introvert?

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

I am writing for a friend. Really, though! I have a friend who is a wonderful philosopher at a private R2. When they received tenure (recently), they were recognized by several of their external letter writers as doing “cutting-edge” work in their subdiscipline. They are starting to get requests from high-profile, mainstream venues to talk about their work and even collaborate (think: interviews at fancy interdisciplinary journals, books distributed by Harper Collins, requests to work with what I think are called “internet personalities” (lol), and an offer of funding to start a research center in their subdiscipline). Insofar as my friend wants their work to be widely read and impactful, this is all great! Except, my friend is strongly introverted. As such, navigating the high-profile and high-stakes social dynamics in these contexts is both overwhelming and intimidating. Which has me wondering if there is someone who can help with this part of the job.

Do some academics have agents? Or maybe professional assistants? Someone who can help navigate public-facing work and engagement?

As a shy introvert myself, I think this is a great query! My sense is that some philosophers who do high profile, public-facing work do have agents, I don't know much beyond that. So, I think it would be great to hear answers to the OP's questions. Do any readers have any helpful tips or experiences to share?

An Online Accessibility Pledge

Philosophers for Sustainability has a new Online Accessibility Pledge that anyone can sign which holds:

The recent spread of virtual research events and meetings has shown us that philosophy can be more sustainable, accessible and inclusive, both globally and locally. Online accessibility makes it possible to include more fully a host of philosophy stakeholders whose participation is eminently desirable. Among them are low-income, disabled, neurodivergent, international, and migrant philosophers, caregivers, philosophers with dietary restrictions, and students and scholars with limited access to travel funds. Finally, online-accessible meetings make our practices of gathering to discuss academic ideas more sustainable by reducing expensive and environmentally harmful travel.

Going forward, we philosophers pledge wherever possible to organize online-accessible research meetings. Such meetings may be organized either fully online or using a hybrid (online/in-person) model. In both cases, we will aim to make them accessible remotely by anyone who wishes to take part in them while fulfilling other requisite criteria, e.g. has had their paper accepted for a particular meeting, is a scholar in the relevant disciplines etc. We will offer such online accessibility to both presenters and participating audiences, from the start and for all academic presentations or aspects of the event. In doing so, we will take advantage of the accessibility features the online medium affords, such as closed captions, transcriptions etc. Finally, we will require no justifications or explanations of anyone who expresses their wish to take advantage of such online accessibility, nor will we charge unreasonable fees for their online participation.

I strongly support the spirit of this pledge, and I am strongly inclined to sign it with one minor caveat: namely, that in the case of hybrid online/in-person conferences, organizers should probably be able to set aside a particular number of in-person presentation slots (which, to be equitable, should plausibly--whenever possible--be equal in number to the number of remote-presenting slots on the program) and require submissions to indicate which type of slot they are applying for. This is because organizers of in-person events typically need to reserve conference venues, hotels, etc., and so may need assurances well in advance of the conference that some number of in-person presenters will attend (or else place themselves at serious financial risk, potentially violating vendor contracts, etc.). But this caveat aside, the pledge seems to me a very good one for sustainability, accessibility, and inclusivity reasons. 

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Funding to Start Mentoring Programs for Underrepresented Undergraduates

By Wes Siscoe (Postdoc, University of Cologne)

Philosophy has a “leaky pipeline” problem. Even though the racial and gender diversity of philosophy undergraduates has been increasing, underrepresented students are still far less likely to complete graduate study in philosophy. From 2000 to 2016, the percentage of philosophy majors who identified as Black rose steadily from 3% to 13%, but the percentage of philosophy PhD recipients who identified as Black only rose from 1.5% to 4%. During that same time, the percentage of philosophy majors who identified as women rose from 35% to 45%, but the percentage of philosophy PhD recipients who identified as women remained below 35%. Thus, although the number of minority students within undergraduate philosophy programs is increasing, this growth has not shown up to the same degree at the graduate level. There is a leak in the pipeline that runs from undergraduate philosophy to philosophy PhD programs.

In order to combat this leaky pipeline, Lauren Willson and I are now accepting proposals to create seed chapters of the Minorities and Philosophy Mentoring Program.  Through funding provided by the APA, selected applicants will receive a $1,000 stipend, prepared mentoring materials, and year-long consulting sessions to support their work in launching and developing their programs.  Applying Program Directors must be graduate students in philosophy during the 2022-2023 academic year in order to be eligible (M.A. and PhD students are both welcome to apply).  The PhilJobs posting about this opportunity can be found here.

The original chapter of the MAP Mentoring Program was founded at Florida State University during the 2020-2021 academic year.  Original program staffing included one Program Director and 14 graduate student mentors.  The Program Director was responsible for overseeing all elements of the program, including expanding institutional support for the program, scheduling meetings to inform all team members of upcoming responsibilities, and troubleshooting any problems that arose during the creation of the program. Mentors were responsible both for forming a relationship with students in which mentees felt comfortable sharing some of the challenges and obstacles they face within philosophy and helping them reflect on and pursue various academic and career opportunities.

Contesi on linguistic inclusion in philosophy

Filippo Contesi (postdoc, University of Barcelona) draws my attention to his recent iai news article which contends that:

Given the tendency of native Anglophone analytic philosophers to remain monolingual, the discipline is losing out on philosophical perspectives that are afforded by competence in languages other than English...majority Anglophone countries house only about 6% of the global population. Philosophical discussion is consequently deprived of a huge pool of philosophical talent. Given the tendency of native Anglophone analytic philosophers to remain monolingual, the discipline is additionally losing out on those philosophical perspectives that are afforded by competence in languages other than English.

I'm all for this in principle, as I often come across interesting philosophy articles in other languages and would love for it to easier to find and read such articles (one can always put a document into Google Translate, for example, but in order to find an article in the first place one may need to be able to read the title!). So, I'm curious: how might Contesi's proposal best work? Contesi suggests a number of options, including the 'Barcelona Principles for a Globally Inclusive Philosophy', which hold (among other things) that journals should evaluate submissions on the basis of ideas rather than fluency and seek to include (whenever possible) non-English speakers on editorial boards, etc. I wonder how far this could go, however. Obviously, there are so many languages fluency in more than a few of them can be difficult, and of course it would seem formidably difficult to ensure that journal editorial boards represent most languages on Earth (and find reviewers, etc.).

So, I wonder whether Anglophone journals might instead consider submissions that are translated into English via Google Translate, and then explicitly notify reviewers that this is the case (noting the original language of authorship), instructing reviewers to not hold translation issues or other English-writing infelicities against the submitter. Then, when publishing the eventual article, perhaps the journal could publish it simultaneously in its original language alongside an English translation. Anyway, I'm curious: what do you all think? 

Penn State Summer CUSP Institute

SUMMER CUSP INSTITUTE (This Institute will take place in person at the Penn State University Park campus.)

PENN STATE UNIVERSITY - DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY

JUNE 6-10, 2022

APPLICATIONS ARE DUE APRIL 14TH

Summer CUSP Institute is held in the summer for undergraduates who are normally in their second or third year of study and are considering pursuing a career in Philosophy. For a week, students will attend seminars designed to cultivate the skill sets necessary to excel in the field in Philosophy.

If you are interested in applying, please review the application components and fill out our online application when your materials are ready.

The goals of the CUSP Summer Institute are to:

• Increase the knowledge of, and interest in, doctoral-level training in philosophy.
• Provide one-on-one meetings with faculty focused on strengthening philosophical writing and presentations; seminars and workshops to refine students' critical reading and writing skills.
• Enhance students' knowledge of the graduate application process, negotiating the academic rigors and professional and personal challenges encountered in graduate school, and developing an academic career in philosophy.  
• Provide long-term mentoring and networking opportunities with faculty members and graduate students at Penn State.

You are eligible to participate in the Summer Institute if:

• You are a member of a traditionally underrepresented group (including African Americans, Chicano/as and Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asian Americans).
• You are available from June 6th, 2022 to June 10th, 2022.

During the selection process, preference will be given to current undergraduate sophomores or juniors; however, others are still encouraged to apply.

Please visit our website to learn more about application criteria, previous cohorts, and our Fall CUSP program: https://sites.psu.edu/cusp/

Summer Program for the Advancement of Women in Philosophy (UC San Diego)

A reader wrote in about the following Summer Program for the Advancement of Women in Philosophy (SPAWP) at UC San Diego:

SPAWP is a ten-day program for undergraduates who are interested in pursuing graduate study in philosophy while promoting gender inclusivity. SPAWP is hosted by the UC San Diego Philosophy Department, and features philosophy seminar courses taught by visiting and UC San Diego faculty, along with a variety of workshops taught by faculty and graduate students — all geared towards providing an engaging philosophical learning experience and helpful preparation for applying to and succeeding at graduate school in philosophy and beyond.

Readers should note that "this year's SPAWP 2022 will be held remotely via Zoom." The application deadline is February 15th.

Talent and Bias

By Sam Duncan

In this post I want to dig more deeply into some points about the deeply worrying effects of our belief in talent on our students made by Allison Gopnik and Eric Schwitzgebel. As Gopnik notes there’s good reason to think that there is some causal relationship between the fact that philosophy puts so much stock in talent and our lack of gender and racial diversity. And Schwitzgebel paints a very plausible picture of one way that this likely plays out in practice; as he notes it’s a lot easier for a young white guy to get away with various ploys that allow him to seem smart than it might be for a woman or a member of a minority group (It’s also a lot less risky). However, I think there are deeper ways that a belief in talent sets up bias in our field.

Let me begin with a question: When you look at student papers or consider how to respond to student comments, questions, and challenges in class do you think about whose paper it is or who made the comment? I’m betting that you do. If you make much of an effort to know who your students are it’s hard not to do this, and to a great extent this is part of getting to know our students. But this also opens up a danger of bias and believing that talent determines success in philosophy makes this danger much worse.

Inferential model on women in philosophy

Katharina Nieswandt (Associate Professor of Philosophy, Concordia University) alerted me to this new study on the gender ratio in philosophy. To the best of the researchers' knowledge, it provides the first inferential-statistical model of the causes of gender-inequality in the profession. Their primary findings?:

Overall, our findings provide (of course defeasible) evidence for the claim that students choose philosophy because they perceive a good fit between philosophy, qua requiring brilliance, and themselves, qua being brilliant, combative, systematizing, and indifferent towards “worldly rewards,” like family-life and money.

Future research should investigate whether these factors are causes of the gender gap or perhaps partly the result of a self-serving, stereotypical image that philosophy students develop after choosing philosophy as their major (perhaps reinforced by the discipline’s culture).  More research is also needed of the relations between combativeness, systematizing, and the sense of belonging in philosophy:  Is combativeness really the driving factor behind gender differences on these variables, as our research suggests?  In addition, it would be important to test to what extent our results generalize to comparisons between philosophy and other fields than psychology.

Philosophical readers will ultimately be most interested in interventions. Foundational research rarely licenses pragmatic steps directly, of course, but the following two inferences appear justified:  First, there probably is no quick fix for philosophy’s unequal gender ratio, since that might be part and parcel of a general social perception of certain abilities, character traits and life priorities as female or male.  Second, pre-university interventions might be necessary, given the well-replicated finding that gender stereotypes develop early...

To OnlyFans or Not to OnlyFans?

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

I am an early graduate student with two perhaps controversial questions, one more empirical and one normative. The first is: would it hurt (or even destroy) one’s chances on the job market if they were to pursue a part-time career in sex work while in grad school (specifically, starting an OnlyFans)? The second is: if yes, are such norms justified?

When I think of older academics on a search committee (lets broadly say “baby boomers,” particularly those with anti-porn sentiments), my intuitions tell me if someone were to find out it would likely be disqualifying. When I think of people like Amia Srinivasan and many younger philosophers, I feel like it might not be a big issue at all (but I’m really far from sure).

Finally, part of me is wondering whether I should even make decisions based on how they might affect my chances on the job market. If my chances of succeeding are already so low, part of me feels like I ought to just do what I want to do and hope for the best. Another part of me desperately wants to play the game perfectly and avoid any possible misstep, even though so many people who do this still get screwed over (I am at a top 20 university with decent placement, so getting a TT job is not completely off the table, just unlikely). In 4-5 years when I am on the job market, will I have regretted playing this game (or not)?

This a fascinating query, and I am curious to hear readers' answers to all three of the OP's questions:

1. Would it hurt (or even destroy) one’s chances on the job market?
2. If yes, are such norms justified?
3. In 4-5 years when I am on the job market, will [the OP] have regretted playing this game (or not)?

In answering/discussing them, I ask readers to focus on the professional issues involved: that is, on whether sex work (such as an OnlyFans page) would in fact hurt (or "even destroy") the OP's chances on the job-market, what the professional norms are here, and whether those norms are justified. In line with this blog's safe and supportive mission, I am going to require readers to refrain from 'sex-shaming', and I will not approve comments of that sort. For again, the OP is asking for professional advice, not commentary on their preferences, values, etc. Bearing this in mind, allow me to briefly share some thoughts, and then open things up for discussion.

Mental Health & Disability Network for phil grads

Alexandra Gustafson (PhD candidate, University of Toronto) has drawn my attention to a new initiative with Parker Rose (graduate student, UCLA): a Mental Health & Disability Network open to all philosophy graduate students. Here are the invitation and contact details:

To whom it may concern,

We're writing on behalf of the Mental Health & Disability Network, a new student-led initiative for philosophy graduate students, with an invitation for the students in your department! What is the Mental Health & Disability Network? It's a multi-university network devoted to bringing together philosophy graduate students who are dealing with significant mental and other health challenges. Hosted primarily over Discord, the Mental Health & Disability Network has three aims: 1) to maintain a friendly, accommodating, and non-judgmental space in which peers can share their experiences and support one another; 2) to be an advocacy force that will assist in ongoing improvements to make our field an ever-kinder space conducive to everyone’s well-being; and 3) to work toward the broader de-stigmatization of mental health and disability in academia. Any current philosophy graduate is welcome to join, no formal (or informal) health diagnosis necessary.

Interested students should contact Alexandra Gustafson (Toronto) at a.gustafson@mail.utoronto.ca or Parker Rose (UCLA) at parkerrose@humnet.ucla.edu for a secure link to join.

I think this is a wonderful (and much-needed) endeavor, hope it flourishes, and hope it proves to advance its very admirable aims!

Principles for a globally inclusive philosophy?

Filippo Contesi (University of Barcelona) writes in drawing my attention to this nice endeavor he has launched:

BARCELONA PRINCIPLES FOR A GLOBALLY INCLUSIVE PHILOSOPHY

We acknowledge that English is the common vehicular language of much contemporary philosophy, especially in the tradition of so-called “analytic” or “Anglo-American” philosophy. This tradition is in large part based on the idea that philosophy should adopt, as far as is appropriate, the shared and universalistic standards of science. Accordingly, the analytic tradition has now spread worldwide, far beyond the countries where English is the majority native language^* (which constitute only about 6% of the world’s population). However, this poses a problem since non-native English speakers, who have not had the chance to perfect their knowledge of the language, are at a structural disadvantage. This disadvantage has not yet been sufficiently addressed. For instance, the most prestigious journals in the analytic tradition still have very few non-native English speakers on their editorial boards, have no explicit special policies for submissions from non-native English speakers, and continue to place a high emphasis on linguistic appearances in submitted papers (e.g. requiring near-perfect English, involving skim-based assessment etc.). (See Contesi & Terrone (eds), “Linguistic Justice and Analytic Philosophy”, Philosophical Papers, 2018.)

Handling pregnancy in a postdoc?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a postdoc writes:

I have a one-year postdoc with teaching responsibilities both semesters. I recently learned that I'm pregnant and will be due to give birth about a month before the spring semester ends. I'm super excited! But I don't know exactly how to approach the department/university about this. I don't have a TT and so I can't propose to take the entire semester as "research leave" or something. It's not a huge department and I would find it unfair to ask someone to cover my classes for several weeks. This is complicated by the fact that my spouse lives in a different state several hours away (where I live too when not teaching) and I would much prefer to give birth there. I'd really like to teach my class and I'm hoping I can work something out where I can go online after Spring Break and lecture virtually/have a TA lead in-person discussion sections while I'm gone. But I'm not sure if that's bureaucratically infeasible or just a bad idea. Has anyone been through a similar situation, especially as a postdoc, or been in a department that's had this come up? The university's official policy on maternity leave basically seems to be "work it out with your department," so that's not too much of a help. Thanks so much!!

A great and important question (and a big congrats on the postdoc and soon-to-be new member of your family!). Neither my spouse nor I (obviously) have been a similar position, so unfortunately I'm not the best person to ask here (though I have served as a department chair for several years). That being said, given that the university's policy seems to be "work it out with your department", I guess I'd be inclined to suggest the OP speak to her chair, letting them know just what they wrote above: that they are entirely willing to teach their courses, but that they'd like to teach remotely around and after their due date. See what the chair says. Hopefully, the chair is a good chair, and a reasonable, sympathetic, and accommodating person.

But again, I'm probably not the most well-situated person to give advice here. What do you all think? It would be great to hear from postdocs and faculty who have been in similar situations, as well as from department chairs and others who have been in these situations on the other side of things.

Philosophy of disability reading list (by AH Rheaume)

On Twitter, A.H. Rheaume shared the following reading list in philosophy of disability and Crip theory, and kindly offered to allow me to share it here:

• Feminist, Queer, Crip by Allison Kafer
• Brilliant Imperfection by Eli Clare
• Foucault and the Feminist Philosophy of Disability by Shelley Tremain
• Foucault and the Government of Disability by Shelley Tremain
• Ableist Rhetoric: How We Know, Value, and See Disability by James L. Cherney
• Fantasies of Identification by Ellen Samuels

A Black Studies Reading List for Philosophers (by Nicholas Whittaker)

Nicholas Whittaker (PhD candidate, CUNY Graduate Center) put together a cool and informative Black Studies Reading List (For Philosophers), and kindly offered to share here on the Cocoon. I hope readers find it helpful, and check out works on the list if you haven't already. Also, seeing as Whittaker (understandably!) describes the list as "non-exhaustive", I think it would be great if readers share additional works to check out in the comment section below!

Social & academic initiatives for conversations regarding mental health?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Javier writes:

There have been many posts about isolation, anxiety and mental health issues, and professional instability, all due to covid or not, and mostly between graduate students. Does anyone know of online social initiatives that are created to bring people together and have a conversation on this issues? Or of initiatives for people in academia who wish to just have a conversation with each other and might not have peers to do so at their uni?

This is an excellent and important query. In response to last week's thread on the question of whether it is a good idea or too risky to be open about one's mental health (particularly as an early-career scholar), Alex Bryant (PhD student, McMaster) posted a related thread on Twitter:

Thinking a lot this morning about a conversation I had with @biopoliticalph yesterday: It may be that there are many working philosophers who are in fact disabled are "in the closet," so to speak. But what changes will be made to make it viable for disabled philosophers to come out of the closet about disability (including those like bipolar)?

CFN - Distinguished Woman Philosopher (E-SWIP)

The Eastern Society for Women in Philosophy (E-SWIP) is now accepting nominations for the 2021 Distinguished Woman Philosopher Award.  The Award has historically recognized outstanding accomplishment by women philosophers in a wide range of philosophical subfields, including metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, social and political philosophy, and philosophy of science.  We have also recognized the efforts of women philosophers to support other women in the field, through teaching, mentoring, or other means.

Nominations should include at least two letters of recommendation describing (a) the candidate’s contributions to the field of philosophy and (b) the candidate’s work supporting women in philosophy.  Please send all nomination materials to ESWIPGeneral@gmail.com .  Nominations are due by August 1, 2021 and the winner will be announced in October 2021.  (A list of past winners is available on our website: https://www.eswip.org/ )

Regards,

The E-SWIP Officers (Louise Antony, Alice Crary, Anna Bjurman Pautz, Haley Schilling, Esha Senchaudhuri, Charlotte Witt)

Why Low-Income Students Leave Academic Philosophy (Guest post by Rosa Vince & Anna V. Klieber)

By Rosa Vince & Anna V. Klieber (Phd Candidates - University of Sheffield)

In this piece we explain some of the barriers to succeeding in academia for people with less money. This is not a theoretical work; we explain some things that students with more money may overlook, and problems that simply may not occur to staff members and institutions. That said, if you are currently, or have recently been, a postgraduate student with limited financial resources, then much of this will already be familiar.

When speaking of ‘low-income’ students in the following, we mean those who do not have a financial ‘safety net’, and who do not have well-off family members to lend/give them money if they do not independently have enough money to pay their fees, rent, or other bills that might come up. This is in contrast to students who do not need to worry if their rent and bills will be met throughout and immediately after their degree - although talking to most academic philosophers, you might get the impression that students who do need to worry about these things don't exist.

This essay does not cover the advantages of private, public, and grammar schools or the advantages of having parents with a university education, though these issues are all important and intertwined. Further, while here we will first and foremost discuss material financial barriers to access, safety, and success in academia, it is important to note that a person's financial and class positions are not independent of other social categories like race, disability, gender or age. This means that the financial barriers described in the following can be worsened, reinforced, or caused, by existing structures of racism, sexism, transphobia, ableism, xenophobia or ageism in, and outside, academia.

In what follows, we will discuss the following aspects: Time, Activities, Health, Teaching Work and Volunteering, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Committees, and summarize with some notes on Emotional Energy. This list isn’t exhaustive, but rather provides a discussion of a few very common financial barriers that block access, safety, and success in academia. 

Grappling with interpersonal discouragement?

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

I'd benefit a lot from discussions of graduate students dealing with interpersonally discouraging experiences (e.g. a faculty underestimated them, treated them differently compared to others, being mistaken as someone else, etc). My colleague and I (both women) struggle with feeling discouraged from experiences like those, and I'd be curious if minority philosophers feel this way more often. Do people have coping strategies?

This is a really good and important query, and I am sorry to hear that the OP and her colleague are feeling so discouraged. I grappled with discouragement from some interpersonal experiences early in my career, and frankly I didn't deal with it very well: I isolated myself from others and turned to all kinds of non-academic distractions. The only things that helped me through it were finding a support group (which I found in a supportive dissertation reading group) and working hard to become a better philosopher (which made me feel more competent as my work seemed to improve). But I'm don't know how helpful these experiences are for readers in the OP's situation. 

What do you all think? Have you had interpersonally discouraging experiences in graduate school? If so, have you found any good coping strategies? Any strategies that didn't work (or otherwise backfired)? Following the OP's suggestion, I think it could be good to hear from readers in general, but particularly from minority philosophers.

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)?