Thursday, November 19, 2009

APA Adopts New Anti-Discrimination Policy

The APA has adopted the following anti-discrimination policy.

The American Philosophical Association rejects as unethical all forms of discrimination based on race, color, religion, political convictions, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identification or age, whether in graduate admissions, appointments, retention, promotion and tenure, manuscript evaluation, salary determination, or other professional activities in which APA members characteristically participate. This includes both discrimination on the basis of status and discrimination on the basis of conduct integrally connected to that status, where "integrally connected" means (a) the conduct is a normal and predictable expression of the status (e.g., sexual conduct expressive of a sexual orientation), or (b) the conduct is something that only a person with that status could engage in (e.g., pregnancy), or (c) the proscription of that conduct is historically and routinely connected with invidious discrimination against the status (e.g., interracial marriage). At the same time, the APA recognizes the special commitments and roles of institutions with a religious affiliation; and it is not inconsistent with the APA's position against discrimination to adopt religious affiliation as a criterion in graduate admissions or employment policies when this is directly related to the school's religious affiliation or purpose, so long as these policies are made known to members of the philosophical community and so long as the criteria for such religious affiliation do not discriminate against persons according to the other attributes listed in this statement. Advertisers in Jobs for Philosophers are expected to comply with this fundamental commitment of the APA, which is not to be taken to preclude explicitly stated affirmative action initiatives.


Details here. Thanks to Charles Hermes for drafting the petition, and to Alastair Norcross for presenting the petition to the APA this spring. And to the APA for doing the right thing.

--Mr. Zero

58 comments:

Anonymous said...

So what's the deal, is the bit about religion at the end of the policy just a 'paper tiger' with no real bite since it seems as if religious affiliation is not allwed to trump the other considerations listed at the outset? Something like, so long as religious affiliation does not matter to all the above considerations, then it can be considered? That's fine by me. Am I mis-reading things?

lance said...

It would be so much easier to just say that schools can higher whoever they want, even bad spellers. So much energy to change a policy that won't change outcomes in the slightest.

Anonymous said...

I believe that the APA has better things to do than to institute a witch-hunt.

I can feel your electricity when it comes to the possibility of enforcing a anti-discrimination policy and yet in every other possible context all I ever hear about in this forum is the radical incompetence of the APA to do anything productive. I think that we need to chill out.

Anonymous said...

It means, for example, that a baptist school could decide, for reasons pertaining to their purpose as a baptist school, to only admit and hire baptists, but could not exclude any baptists because of their race, color, etc.

Anonymous said...

This strikes me as an excellent solution. It respects the unique mission of some religious institutions (by respecting their right to only hire members of their religion), while also respecting the rights of sexual minorities and condemning discrimination that goes beyond the mission of some religious universities.

I also want to re-emphasize a point that needs to be hammered over and over again. The APA does not have legislative authority. It cannot force institutions to change their hiring practices. What it *can* do is increase the amount of information conveyed in job ads placed in its own publications.

This solution accomplishes that. It gives homosexuals needed information about which schools discriminate against them, and it will save them time in preparing applications for these schools. It will also be a time-saver for search committees at universities that discriminate. Presumably, they will no longer have to wade through applications from unacceptable candidates, and can get right down to reading those from the appropriate acolytes.

zombie said...

Awesome.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 1:29:

I was also wondering whether the last clause undermines the provision that religious institutions can require that candidates belong to a particular religion. I don't think it does. On my reading, it means something like this: A school is free to require their faculty to "belong to religion X" as long as their criteria for "belonging to religion X" do not include, say, heterosexuality. So a Baptist school can't say, "We know that you attend a Baptist Church, profess to be a Baptist, etc., but you're gay, so you're not a real Baptist." (I have no idea whether Baptist schools would say such a thing. But if one did, it would get a wag of the finger from the APA.)

Anonymous said...

Of course the appropriate response to:

"We know that you attend a Baptist Church, profess to be a Baptist, etc., but you're gay, so you're not a real Baptist."

is

"You know that I have gay sex, profess to be gay, etc., but I'm a Baptist, so I'm not a real homosexual."

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:17, this is 1:29. That was my first reading as well. But as things are written I'm not sure it would have to get the wag of the APA finger. The proposal seems just ambiguous enough to allow for discrimnination, provided a case could be made that a religion in question endorsed (as a part of its religion) some sort of ordinarily frowned upon discrimination. I just wish things of this nature were a bit more clear in the actual wording of the proposal. There is more wiggle room than I'd like to see.

And sure the APA doesn't have legal enforcement powers, that is always good to keep in mind. But as a due paying member I want schools censured that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The rebuke is meaningful even if it lacks much ability to enforcement. They can enforce the school not being deem as accepable by the standards of the membership, and that's fine by me.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:17 here.

I think the degree of "wiggle room" depends on how you read 'so long as'. The policy says that schools may "adopt religious affiliation as a criterion...so long as the criteria for such religious affiliation do not discriminate against persons according to the other attributes listed in this statement."

If you read 'p so long as q' as a 'p if and only if q' or as 'if p, then q' (i.e., q is a necessary condition for p), then the policy implies that if the criteria for some religious affiliation do discriminate against persons according to the other attributes listed in this statement, then schools may not adopt that religious affiliation as a criterion for admissions or hiring.

If you read 'p so long as q' to mean 'If q, then p' (i.e., q is a sufficient condition for p), then the previous implication doesn't hold.

Since I take the former two readings to be more natural (at least in this context), I'm inclined to think that the policy doesn't leave much wiggle room. I'm sure the logicians among us will correct me if I've misread 'so long as'.

Anon 9:57:

To quote Zombie, "Awesome."

Bobcat said...

Here's something I don't quite get. The first part of the policy reads, "The American Philosophical Association rejects as unethical all forms of discrimination based on race, color, religion, political convictions, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identification or age, whether in graduate admissions, appointments, retention, promotion and tenure, manuscript evaluation, salary determination, or other professional activities in which APA members characteristically participate." To highlight what I take to be relevant, the APA takes discrimination based on religion to be unethical. On the other hand, later on in the policy we find, "it is not inconsistent with the APA's position against discrimination to adopt religious affiliation as a criterion in graduate admissions or employment policies when this is directly related to the school's religious affiliation or purpose, so long as these policies are made known to members of the philosophical community and so long as the criteria for such religious affiliation do not discriminate against persons according to the other attributes listed in this statement [one of which is religion]."

In other words, it's unethical to discriminate on the basis of religion, but it's permissible to adopt religious affiliation as a criterion in employment policies if such affiliation contributes to the religious mission of the school.

So, does this mean that a school is not allowed to say "no atheists"? I should think not; at most, I imagine, a school is only allowed to favor people who are in line with the religious mission of the school, but it is not allowed to outright reject people who don't cotton to the school's mission. If this is right, I take it that a school couldn't have a manadorily signed statement of faith while remaining unflagged in JFP?

Mr. Zero said...

Bobcat,

'Discrimination' in this context is the application of an irrelevant criterion. The APA is recognizing that some schools have a religious mission, and that for those schools the use of a religious criterion would not be irrelevant. But race is not a legitimate criterion even in schools with a religious mission, and even in schools whose religious mission has a racial component. Race remains an irrelevant criterion in such schools. Racism is wrong, even if you think God is a racist.

I think you're right to see tension in this view. My own preference would be to flag schools whose religious mission prohibits the hiring of atheists. But I suspect I'm in the minority here, and I see the value in the compromise, even if the resulting policy cannot be defended on general principle. (I also see the value of the compromise that allows non-compliant schools to advertise in the JFP, even though I really think they ought to go jump in a lake.)

Anonymous said...

OK, say a school says that you have to be a Christian and support Christian values -- pretty vague, no signed statement of faith or anything. According to this policy, can that school higher you and then later fire you if you start saying things that rub many Christians the wrong way (e.g. that Jesus never really rose from the dead, for example, something that at least some *Christian* scholars actually affirm)? -- Because this is basically what I plan on doing.

Anonymous said...

That's pretty funny. Christians who support Christian values should not be judging anyone, so firing you would be out of the question

And likewise if you're an atheist they should be twice as happy to have you since you're a lost sheep.

So I don't think there's any need to worry about Christians who support Christian values doing such things.

Bobcat said...

If the Christian university were to ask you to support Christian values, but was vague about them, and didn't have you sign a statement of faith, I don't think that the school would be able to fire you. I've attended Catholic universities where a sizable minority, half, or almost all of the faculty were atheists. I think consciously trying to undermine Christianity--say, using your classroom to say that Christianity is the only religion that has nothing good going for it, and that anyway one is rationally obliged to be an atheist--would probably mean that you joined the university in bad faith, but again, I've heard tell of a faculty member at a Catholic university who I'm told did just that.

Anonymous said...

In CU Colorado's own hiring practices, they actively discriminate against candidates who are not from top schools. They hire Princeton ABDs over candidates with the PhD in hand, but from a lower tiered institution. Now, the caliber of school you graduated from (or will graduate from) is not widely considered a suspect category. But if where you go to school reflects your socioeconomic status, particularly your starting point (a result of the natural lottery of where you are born, what family you are born into, how wealthy your family is, etc.), which is beyond your control, why should it count against you? Perhaps being gay is not entirely a choice, but it is more of a choice than the socioeconomic status of your family. And the socioeconomic status of your family is a strong indicator of what caliber of schools you will attend. So, it seems that CU Boulder is engaging in a kind of discrimination that is worse than the kind which its faculty member has been so enthusiastic about punishing other institutions for (or getting the APA to punish them for). Perhaps this is just a red herring. CU Boulder can draw attention away from its own questionable hiring practices by making us suspicious of others'.

Dr. Killjoy said...

Anon 8:59, I suspect that Colorado's hiring practices excluded you because they preclude hiring complete fucking morons.

Look, if you want to make that lifestyle choice, that's cool, but don't hold it against Colorado for considering relevant whether or not a candidate is a gibbering loon incapable of constructing even the most minimally decent of arguments required for being a shit-bag comment troll.

Suck it.

Anonymous said...

8:59's comment is libelous. Good thing (for him) he posted it anonymously.

(And no, the blog owners are not legally responsible for libelous comments.)

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:59 is a troll, and a bitter repetitive homophobic one at that.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:59, Anon 8:59, my, my. . .

Did the ABD have pubs the PhDs in question did not? Could a "low-tier" PhD--or even ABD--have trumped the fresh Princeton of belle airs with better pubs? Yes. Is that likely? Perhaps not. But such considerations level the playing field. But speaking of "perhaps", really--"Perhaps being gay is not entirely a choice, but it is more of a choice than the socioeconomic status of your family." More of a choice? Really? By what criterion--"perhaps" Libertarian assumptions within some absurd context of a Christian idea of original sinfulness that should nonetheless allow people so inclined to resist their inherent desires? Should the APA have recognized THAT assumption in drawing up its policy?

If you are a philosopher, then I sincerely hope your God helps your students. You certainly won't.

zombie said...

Anon 8:59 -- by the same token, is not Princeton discriminating against potential students from a lower socioeconomic status by not admitting them? And school boards that allow poorer neighborhoods to have worse schools? At what point do we start to call it discriminatory? And at what point does socioeconomic status become destiny for possible philosophers?

While I personally couldn't afford to go to a top tier school, and so went to State U, and therefore will undoubtedly be passed over for many jobs, I wouldn't say my middle class childhood qualifies me as being particularly disadvantaged. I also was lucky enough to go to public school in a pretty good school district as a kid, and I went to public school in an extremely racially and economically integrated school district. I chose not to go into debt to pay for grad school, and so worked my way through it, and took a very long time doing it. So, assuming I was otherwise qualified to go to Princeton, but couldn't afford it, would Princeton be discriminating against me if it told me "tough luck"?

I'm not trying to defend hiring practices that favor the Ivies and Leiterrific schools. I think they're dumb and lazy hiring practices, but they are pretty much the norm in academia. You've got to be pretty damn exceptional to break through that glass ceiling. And a case could be made that the Princeton grad got a better education than I did. Maybe. That doesn't mean Joe Princeton is going to be a better educator than I am, which is why pedigree is not necessarily the best way to hire people.

I think schools ought to disclose their hiring "preferences," although I guess most of us (at least the second year we're on the market) know what we're up against. I'm not going to be hired by a Leiterrific research school. I can live with that, as long as SOMEBODY hires me.

zombie said...

According to Leiter Reports, schools that do not declare themselves in compliance with the nondiscrimination policy will have a flag placed next to their job ads.

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/

Anonymous said...

"They hire Princeton ABDs over candidates with the PhD in hand, but from a lower tiered institution. Now, the caliber of school you graduated from (or will graduate from) is not widely considered a suspect category"

I went to the lowest tiered institution, so fuck you. I have way more to bitch about than you do, but I wouldn't take this short of shitty, cheap shot at someone.

The difference between being ABD and having the PhD in hand is minor. Having crossed that line is nothing to brag about. You publish anything that's any good? If not, who gives a shit if you've managed to get your PhD. The guy from Princeton got his, too. I'm guessing that everyone knew he was going to get it in short order.

As for that socioeconomic argument, I know some poor kids who did their graduate work at elite programs. I know some poor kids who are doing their graduate work at the most elite programs. They were undergrads at the crap state school that I did my graduate work at. This is just dumb, dumb, dumb.

If that guy from Princeton you're so obsessed with didn't get the job, someone else with a bigger CV would have.

Elizabeth said...

I've noticed before that conservatives only seem concerned about how poor kids will pay for college when they feel they can use that "concern" as a bludgeon against affirmative action.

It seems our Anon 8:59 is very concerned about elitism in hiring. I wonder how far that concern extends when it's not the latest weapon in his right-wing populist homophobia...

Benjamin Hale said...

Anon 8:59:

As a faculty member at CU Boulder, I think I might serve as a counter-example to your allegation that Boulder engages in discriminatory hiring practices. My PhD granting institution (Stony Brook) isn't even on Leiter's radar. In fact, it's quite disparaged by Leiter himself.

Nevertheless, I am a tenure-track assistant professor at Colorado. I think I'm even reasonably well-regarded by my colleagues. It's true that I have a specialized philosophical niche which is sometimes treated as "less serious" than other philosophical work, but that's a discipline-wide prejudice. It is also true that I have several affiliations, including the environmental studies program, but I am still very actively engaged in the philosophy department. As a putative outsider of low-caste, I take umbrage with your claim. My colleagues here are quite open to people of varying pedigree.

To add further weight to this case, there have been several recent searches in which we have interviewed and even flown out candidates of low- or non-Leiter pedigree. They've done remarkably well.

Alastair himself, I might add, is a Syracuse grad. While Syracuse is a fine graduate institution, it's not the cream of the Leiter crop.

The charge that Colorado is discriminatory in its hiring practices, I think, is a canard.

Anonymous said...

Look, the fact that someone is ABD from Princeton and gets hired over someone who has a Ph.D. from some other school does not mean they got hired *because* they went to Princeton.

Aside from the obvious fallacies of reasoning, you seem to think that having a Ph.D. in hand is so much better than being ABD that it's going to take a lot to compensate for that, and so if pedigree is playing a role (big *IF* here...I notice you didn't say anything about what his writing sample was like, what his teaching portfolio looked like, and so forth. Why? Because YOU DIDN'T SEE HIS APPLICATION), it must be that it's playing a large role, unfairly large. But the thing is that Ph.D. vs. ABD doesn't make a huge difference to many people. In my department (a research department), it's not even a factor: it's assumed that the people we hire will get it done in short order, and trust me, you can tell from an application if a person is genuinely close to finishing. From our point of view: why miss out on someone amazing because hiring season happened to come four months before they were finished? If we'd jump at the chance to hire them in four months, we should jump at the chance to hire them now.

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure I know the person you're talking about, and he really is an amazing philosopher and teacher. I'm pretty sure that Colorado made the right decision. So knock it off.

(I should add: It's really too bad that jobs are so scarce. I feel like there wouldn't be such lashing out at others if jobs were more plentiful, so I do lament that they're not, and hope that everyone here can build a career that satisfies them.)

Anonymous said...

As for that socioeconomic argument, I know some poor kids who did their graduate work at elite programs. I know some poor kids who are doing their graduate work at the most elite programs. They were undergrads at the crap state school that I did my graduate work at. This is just dumb, dumb, dumb.

Seriously. While some of the students at the elite programs are from privileged backgrounds, I'd hesitate to call it even a majority, and someone who has worked their way up from an average middle class (or lower!) background won't be uncommon. Plus, Princeton, like the other elite programs, provides tuition remission and stipends and teaching for its graduate students, so I'm not sure what "I couldn't afford to go to Princeton" means in this context.

Moreover, everyone knows, or everyone should know, that the job market is not a pronouncement on one's merit as a philosopher or a person, given all of the other considerations that come into play (area, fit, what year you happen to get your PhD, area of the country, etc.) Why the sudden certainty here that one has perfect epistemic standing to judge one little search where all one actually knows is that a guy from Princeton was hired?

Justin Sytsma said...

"Perhaps being gay is not entirely a choice, but it is more of a choice than the socioeconomic status of your family."

No: It is exactly as much of a choice as the socioeconomic status of the family that you are born into (i.e., not a choice at all).

Anonymous said...

"Libertarian assumptions within some absurd context of a Christian idea of original sinfulness that should nonetheless allow people so inclined to resist their inherent desires?"

Who the hell writes this sort of thing? You are an idiot. Get those evil libertarian Christians! Get 'em!

Fuck you and your self-righteousness.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:43

I'm gay and I chose to be. Do you have any plans for tonight?

What if I was in the competition with that Princeton ABD for the position at CU Boulder? I have my Ph.D. in hand, but the committee members have heard of my reputation as a flaming fag. How do I know they did not choose the Princeton ABD over me because he is heterosexual and I'm not? Having the Ph.D. in hand should count for something. Having a good writing sample should also count for something. But whether you prefer ass or vagina should not.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:59: wow, your argumentative prowess is simply overwhelming! From a failure to grasp the conflict of received inclination against a contestibly intelligible freedom of choice right to puerile guttermouth! St. Glenn Beck must be so proud of you!

Actually I love stupid people; I just hate stupidity--just as you love the sinner but hate the sin.

So thanks for loving me because I sinfully think that sexual orientation is simply a non-moral issue--but I still hate stupidity.

Anonymous said...

So what's the deal, why did this thread stop? Was it the comment about one's preference for vagina or ass? Or was it the squabble between 6:59 and 10:33? I think that it was pretty funny how, when 8:59 really hit the nail on the head about how arbitrary it is to zone in on sexual discrimination rather than discrimination based on socio-economic status, all of the CU Boulder sympathizers started lashing out with ad hominems ('troll' 'moron' etc.) rather than good arguments, as if CU Boulder's policies were immune to criticism. Decisions to hire Princeton ABDs over candidates from lower-tiered schools with Ph.D. in hand are just distressing because they show how people in power (dept chairs and search committee members) make rules (e.g. those with the Ph.D. in hand will be preferred) and then break them, as well as rationalize breaking them (e.g. there is little difference between an ABD and a Ph.D.), to satisfy their colleagues (e.g. colleague X has a former professor at Princeton who wants his student to have a job next year). Homosexuals and people with Ph.D.s from lower-tiered schools, unlike Princeton ABDs, rarely get that special treatment. May we all be so courageous to speak truth to power!

Anonymous said...

CU Boulder is to Princeton as UT Austin is to ...?

Anonymous said...

The reason is that we have evidence that people discriminate against homosexuals (i.e. schools explicitly saying that they do), but no evidence for discrimination on the basis of socioeconomic status. If you have some evidence for that, let us all know and we'll take up arms!

Anonymous said...

Moral of the story: there is nothing wrong when institutions discriminate against gays and people with disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds when hiring so long as these institutions do so without making it a policy. Now I feel a lot better!

Mr. Zero said...

Please stop being stupid. It's not anti-poor discrimination to hire a Princeton ABD instead of a Ph.D. from a lower-ranked school. Having your Ph.D. in hand counts for something, but not much. This is not evidence of unfair hiring practices. This is sour grapes.

Anonymous said...

6:27,

Moral of the story: you need to read more carefully. It was an epistemic point. We have evidence that discrimination against gays is going on (very strong evidence: an explicit policy). We don't have evidence that socioeconomic discrimination is going on ("people from Princeton get hired" doesn't count as good evidence for a lot of reasons, one obvious one being that it's not even clear that people from the Princeton Ph.D. program come from advantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, relative to those from other Ph.D. programs). If you provide some evidence for it, we will listen. The evidence does not need to be in the form of citing an explicit policy. But it has to be good evidence.

Note, for example, that people have been very interested in trying to figure out what to do about gender discrimination, and the impetus for that was not explicit gender discrimination policies -- it was evidence based on statistics, studies, etc. So people pretty clearly do care about discrimination other than that against gay philosophers. The reason that no one is picking up on your point is that no one is yet convinced that socioeconomic discrimination exists. But, like I said, give me some evidence that it does, and I'd love to talk about whether there's something we can do about it!

Anonymous said...

7:45,

So your point is that the burden for proving discrimination is on the people who belong to the class that is being discriminated against? And where is the evidence that there is discrimination against gays? That is a recipe for preserving the status quo. The burden is on the institution that is accused of discriminating to prove that they are not engaged in discriminatory hiring practices. Check with your institution's EOP office if you want further clarification on this point. I'm sure that you're a heterosexual WASP who would gain full advantage from this alternative arrangement.

Mr. Zero said...

So your point is that the burden for proving discrimination is on the people who belong to the class that is being discriminated against?

I find this "burden of proof" stuff to be less than useless. But if you want to make the case that somebody is engaging in unfair discrimination, you need to do more than prove that you have a Ph.D. and the guy they hired was ABD. It's easy for me to imagine that there would be excellent reasons to hire the ABD CU hired instead of 8:59.

The burden is on the institution that is accused of discriminating to prove that they are not engaged in discriminatory hiring practices.

CU has obviously met that burden in this case. Since they hire from all over the leiter report, they clearly don't have a high-rank bias.

And where is the evidence that there is discrimination against gays?

One need look no further than the Hoekema letter, discussed on this blog ad nauseam, in which he admits that Calvin College engages in anti-gay discrimination, if not in their hiring, then in their retention & promotion policies.

Anonymous said...

CU has obviously met that burden in this case. Since they hire from all over the leiter report, they clearly don't have a high-rank bias.

And even if they did have a high-rank bias, that's not enough to show that they have a bias against the poor. (Nor do we all agree a high-rank bias is a bias they shouldn't have, as discussed ad nauseum on this blog.)

Anonymous said...

So your point is that the burden for proving discrimination is on the people who belong to the class that is being discriminated against?

No, but the burden of providing any evidence whatsoever is on someone.

Anonymous said...

Again, the rule then is as follows: if discrimination is explicitly stated in a policy, then prosecute; otherwise, ignore it. The most dangerous kind of discrimination is that which is done surreptitiously. This is the APA's equivalent of the Army's Don't Ask, Don't Tell, just in reverse...Don't Tell and We Won't Ask (for you to stop it).

Anonymous said...

I heard that CU and several schools like it repeatedly and unjustly discriminate against the untalented, insisting on hiring "the best candidate for the job" with no regard for how this will make "lesser" candidates feel.

Anonymous said...

I hear that CU and other schools prefer to hire people like themselves: heterosexual white people who have had all the advantages of an upper middle class lifestyle (including education) and none of the disadvantages of being poor non-white, and in some cases homosexual. What are the statistics for the number of homosexuals hired by CU in the past 5 years? I suspect that they have hired none. No stated policy, but still discrimination.

Anonymous said...

8:15,

I don't know why I'm even taking your bait, but a very quick search of the CU website reveals at least two non-white philosophers hired in the last 5 years. Unfortunately, most people have declined to list their sexual preferences and parents' income on their profiles, so I can't reply in full to your idiotic claim.

Anonymous said...

Diversity Report for CU Boulder tenured/tenure-track faculty:

19 white males (73%)

4 white females

1 Asian male

1 Asian female

1 black male

Diversity?

Anonymous said...

"What are the statistics for the number of homosexuals hired by CU in the past 5 years? I suspect that they have hired none. No stated policy, but still discrimination."

I hope that's a funny, funny joke that I'm not getting. Suppose CU hired 0 homosexuals during the past 5 years. That fact tells us what? We don't know how many homosexuals applied, how qualified homosexual applicants were when compared to other applicants competing for the same post, and the number of hires over a 5 year period in a philosophy department gives you an absurdly small sample to determine whether a department engages in discriminatory hiring practices.

Anonymous said...

Diversity?

Sadly, for a philosophy department, the answer is "yes."

Anonymous said...

I think it's worth saying that gender diversity and racial diversity are exactly the areas in which people should be, and in fact are, concerned. (Socioeconomic diversity, too, if the person who brought it up can find any evidence of it.)

Mr. Zero said...

No more of this shit. There is literally no evidence whatsoever that CU engages in any discriminatory hiring practices. And even if they did, it would have anything to do with the APA's new anti-discrimination policy. This is a completely irrelevant non-issue. If you want to whine and cry because CU did not hire you, start your own blog.

Anonymous said...

There is no one who dislikes the CU philosophy department more than I. But to talk about whether they discriminate is like grabbing one random person from the street and beginning a discussion about whether he/she's a bigot. Weird and dumb.

Anonymous said...

right on, Mr zero.
can we now whine about cancelled searches? concordia and leeds just notified of theirs...

Anonymous said...

What we all want to know is if Mr. Zero is gay...he seems to be taking this all a bit too personally.

Applicantus said...

Hello Mr Anon 12:40.

As with every other kind of discrimination, one merely needs to be human to take it very personally.
What a shame you aren't!

Sincerely,
Applicantus
(Neither gay, nor of color, btw).

Anonymous said...

I have a theory. Mr. Zero is gay and this talk of a spouse in previous posts is just a deception. A 'beard', if you will. A beard for someone who posts under a pseudonym and whose identity isn't known to us.

That's my theory. It's not quite as stupid as various theories about CU I've seen here, but it's plenty fucking stupid.

Good luck with the market everyone, stay sane. Here's a tip. If you're a grad student or non-TT, your health insurance probably covers visits to a shrink. My first job paid for two free visits and it was about $25 after that. There was a time in the not so distant future where I thought I was going to need to end it all or check myself in for help and take a semester off. I had one visit with a therapist who told me that my depression was situational. The cause was the objective fact that my life sucked. She reminded me that that's not how things had to be. She said my problems (personal and professional) were easily rectified given a moderately short period of time and the clouds broke. That was the end of that. If you're feeling stressed, depressed, thinking about doing something drastic, not thinking about doing something drastic, go use the free health care you probably get to talk to someone. It's amazing what a difference it makes. My $.02.

Anonymous said...

Look, what so many rich kids have been dismissing here--socio-economic status--is being discussed seriously over on the Leiter blog. It's about time.

Anonymous said...

This solution accomplishes that. It gives homosexuals needed information about which schools discriminate against them, and it will save them time in preparing applications for these schools. It will also be a time-saver for search committees at universities that discriminate. Presumably, they will no longer have to wade through applications from unacceptable candidates, and can get right down to reading those from the appropriate acolytes.

I resent the implication that only homosexuals should not apply to such schools. Homosexuals and any liberals who deserve the honorific "straight ally" should not apply to such schools.

gwern said...

Anyone has time for a little exercise.

20 pushups when you wake up, for example. You get enough to prevent you from turning into the Staypuff marshmallow man, and you may even save time through the exercise waking you up faster.