Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Philosophy: Good Practices Guide

Strange that it need be said, but yes, diversity, equity, and inclusion are good things. I can understand some of the backlash against efforts perceived as too heavy handed, but let's not forget:

In diverse institutions and societies, more ideas and perspectives collaborate, compete, and cross-pollinate, to the advantage of all.

In equitable institutions and societies, people and ideas can thrive without unwarranted disadvantage and suppression, again to the advantage of all.

In inclusive institutions and societies, alternative perspectives and people with unusual backgrounds are welcomed, fostering even better diversity, with all the attendant advantages.

Since 2017, I've been involved in the creation of a Good Practices Guide for diversifying philosophy, originally under the leadership of Nicole Hassoun (other co-directors include Sherri Conklin, Bjoern Freter, and Elly Vintiadis). We began with two huge sessions at the Pacific APA (each with over 20 panelists) in 2018 and 2019, published a portion of the guide in Ethics in 2022 (Appendix J), and received feedback from literally hundreds of philosophers and all of the diversity-related APA committees, ultimately being endorsed by the APA Committee on Inclusiveness. Don't expect perfection: It's genuinely a corporate authorship, with many compromises and something for everyone to dislike. I'd be amazed if anyone thought we got the balance right on all issues and all dimensions of diversity.

Still, perhaps especially in this moment of retrenchment in the U.S., I hope that many people and organizations will find valuable suggestions in it.

Our guide appeared in print last week in APA Studies on Philosophy and the Black Experience (vol 24, no 2).

[image of title and preface]

Writing Short Fiction: Suggestions for Academics

I've published fifteen short, philosophically-themed science fiction stories in pro and semi-pro magazines, including in some of the most prestigious venues. Recently, a colleague asked my advice for academics interested in publishing short fiction. I figured I'd oblige with a blog post.

Write and Discard

You're a beginner. You're a beginner with a head start, because you can already write decent academic prose. But still, you're a beginner. Don't expect your first few efforts to be a publishable stories. So don't work on them too hard; don't get too invested in them; don't devote months to them and then abandon the whole enterprise when they aren't published.

Instead, write quickly. Write part of a story as a sketch. Write a whole draft, give it to someone who will provide honest feedback, and learn from that feedback. Then move on to a different story.

Most short fiction writers have large "trunks" of unpublished stories: early efforts, creative experiments, stories that didn't quite work out, stories they couldn't publish.

Writing is a process of discovery. In the course of writing, as the story takes shape, you find out how good the idea really was.

You'll find your voice better, and you'll cook up more interesting ideas, if you write lots and fast than if you belabor and belabor the same few pages.

Cherish and Protect Your Joy in Writing

If the thought of writing and discarding discourages you, ask yourself: Do you want to write? Or do you want, instead, to be someone who has written? If it's mainly the latter, then your approach might be too instrumental. You'll find it difficult to practice and to cultivate the traits that will set you apart.

Writing fiction should be a joy, for three main reasons:

First, if it's a joy, then if you discard many of your efforts, well, at least you enjoyed yourself!

Second, if you write joyfully, your writing will carry your distinctive voice and style. We are more distinct and memorable in our joys than in our forced labors.

Third, joy is intrinsically good, and the instrumental value of your writing fiction is at this point (let's be honest with ourselves) probably dubious. So whatever joy you derive is the most secure ground of value here.

Writing joyfully doesn't mean that you need to wait to write until inspiration strikes. I accept the standard "butt-in-chair" writing advice: Planting yourself in a seat before a blank page for an hour or three at regular intervals can do wonders. So yes, you might need to needle yourself a bit to get rolling. But then, when the words start to flow, follow your joy.

Writing joyfully doesn't mean writing only for yourself. It doesn't mean not valuing publication. Just don't let instrumentality poison your process.

[from my author page at Clarkesworld]

Write for the 10%

I don't care for mariachi music. The world contains, I'm sure, many great mariachi bands -- but however great they are, I won't enjoy them. Your writing is mariachi music.

Most of your friends won't like your writing enough to want to read it. (Maybe they'll politely read one story and say something encouraging.) Forget them. Don't try to please them. Ignore advice from the majority of people. Instead, find the mariachi lovers -- the people who like the particular, narrow type of thing that you are doing -- and notice their reactions. Otherwise, you'll be like a mariachi band taking musical advice from a country-music fan.

Far, far better to write something that 10% of readers will love than something that 70% of readers will think is okay.

The worst is to read some writing guide, or take some writing course, then follow the advice to the letter, trying to write some generic "good" story according to a formula. How depressing. You might as well set ChatGPT on the job. Be weird. Have fun by being different, expressing your quirky self.

Expect Rejection; Where to Submit; Critiques

Expect many rejections. Leading fiction magazines have rejection rates far worse than leading academic journals, often well over 99%.

Notice where short stories you like have been published. Potentially more helpfully, notice other venues -- maybe less prestigious -- where authors you like have also recently published.

You might be interested in my annual ranking of the most prestigious science fiction and fantasy magazines -- a good list for starting to think about venues in that genre. I also highly recommend the Submission Grinder.

If you're interested in exchanging critiques with amateur aspiring writers, Critters Writers Workshop is a good resource. Once you've made your first "pro" sale (at the SFWA qualifying rate or at least $100 cumulatively), Codex Writers Forum is invaluable for community, critique-trading, news, and information.

The Emotional Rollercoaster of Fiction Writing

Writing academic prose is hard. Sometimes I think my stuff is great. Sometimes I grumpily cut and discard, feel disappointed with my work, restart. It varies considerably with mood. (And actually I think the mood fluctuations can be helpful.)

In writing fiction, the ups and downs are -- for me and most others, I think -- substantially more intense. Take heed.

This, plus the rejection, makes cultivating the joy both harder and more important. It can be easy to feel like everything you do is mediocre and you've wasted your time. Avoiding instrumentality is the most reliable cure. To repeat myself: Try to love the writing at least as much as the having written.

Also, look, even if it's bad, there's a lot to be said for the value of bad art, enjoyed by one or a few. I plan to write a post on this topic, but in the meantime, consider my daughter's art car and The Vengefull Kurtain Rods.

The Rhythm of Stories and Articles:
initial hook → engagement of interest → developing trust → satisfying resolution

You're already familiar with the intellectual arc of an academic article. Your title is your initial hook. Your introduction builds up interest. By several hundred words in, your reader should feel they are in competent, trustworthy hands, headed along the path of a worthwhile argument or exploration. By the end, the reader should feel that you've presented a satisfying overall package.

For a short story, you need to transpose that knowledge into a different key.

Initial hook: The initial hook of a story is the title and the first few sentences. You can't yet emotionally engage the reader, but you normally (1.) convey something about the style, tone, and topic of the story, (2.) give the reader a little something to be curious about.

On 1: If it's a humorous space comedy, that should be evident right away. Same if it's an emotionally dark story of witchcraft. Of course you can't convey everything immediately and shouldn't overburden those sentences. But readers judge by their first nibble. If the first nibble doesn't match the overall meal, then readers who like that nibble might not like the whole story, and those who would have liked the whole story might not get past the first nibble.

On 2: Although you can't really emotionally engage readers in the first paragraph, you can draw them along by piquing their curiosity. This could be a bit of action you've dropped them in the middle of or an unusual social or physical event that has begun to unfold. Or it could be a more intellectual curiosity: an intriguing term, idea, event, or action they don't quite understand.

Engaging interest: The title might be great, but if the introduction isn't promising, you'll give up on reading an academic article. Same with a story. By about the end of the first page, the reader should move from initial curiosity to engaged interest.

In fiction-writing circles, you'll often hear advice to start the story in the middle. This isn't really necessary, though there's nothing wrong with it. Beginners often make the mistake of opening with not-especially-interesting background or scene-setting. Starting in the middle is one way to avoid this error -- and if it's slightly confusing as a result, that can actually serve as a bit of a curiosity hook.

The first page of your story serves some of the same purposes as an academic introduction. It's not of course an overview, but it is a promise. The reader should think, "Interesting, let's see where this goes."

Developing trust: By about page three or four of an academic article, the reader should feel that they are in good hands. It should be clear how the author is building toward the essential moves. Otherwise, you won't trust the author enough to give them more of your valuable reading time.

Analogously, in a short story by about page three or four the reader must feel emotionally invested or intellectually intrigued. They should trust your storytelling. They should feel the arc building. They should care about what happens next, due to engaging characters or fascinating ideas. If and only if they care by page three or four will they read to the end.

Reach a satisfying conclusion: Of course! Every scene, every thread, should come together by the end -- ideally, but not necessarily, with some development or revelation, not out of the blue but neither entirely expected, that suddenly shows the beginning and middle in a new light. Unless, of course, you don't want to.

University of California Has Endorsed the "Principles for Online Majors and Programs" That I Co-Authored

I have now been serving for a year on the University of California Systemwide Committee on Educational Policy.  One of the committee's first tasks last fall was to begin drafting up principles governing the approval and implementation of online undergraduate majors and programs.  This is such an important issue for the future, and the chance to help shape policy for the world's leading public university system seemed like exactly the point of serving on a committee of this sort, so I volunteered to take the lead in drafting the recommendations, along with Manoj Kaplinghat of UC Irvine.

After almost a year of drafts, revisions, feedback, and consultations, the final set of recommendations was approved by UC's Academic Council and made public.  Here it is!  I hope that it proves useful not only across the University of California but also for other universities confronting the issue of how to evaluate proposed online majors.

Two broad principles guided my thinking in drafting up these recommendations.

First, we should be looking not only for equality of opportunity but also for equality of outcome.  Online students might, in principle, have the same opportunity to, say, meet with professors about research or engage in academic discussions with peers, if they go the extra mile to make it work; but unless the academic program is set up so that students actually take advantage of those opportunities at rates similar to students in comparable in-person programs, online programs will in fact be of inferior quality.

Second, we should think broadly about what aspects of university life make in-person programs valuable -- not only performance on tests but also personal engagement with instructors and peers, student activities, opportunities for research, access to career resources, advising, informal interactions, and access to academic tools and resources.  Students who perform reasonably well on academic tests but lack these other aspects of university life are not receiving a comparable education to in-person students.

The public version of the document is available here.  Below the break is the same document formatted as a blog post.

------------------------------------------------------------

UCEP Recommendations for Online Undergraduate Majors and Programs

During the 2022/23 academic year, members of UCEP discussed and developed a set of values essential to provide a rigorous education in an environment that benefits from new online technologies.  Ongoing budget cuts and the development of billion-dollar industries devoted to helping students cheat [1] present significant challenges to all modes of education. Although the concepts described here are provided in the context of newly developing online majors, it is important to note that these principles apply equally to in-person degree programs that use online tools.  As courses increasingly become blended with assignments and exams administered electronically and hybrid degree programs develop to include online courses, faculty and administrators should be proactive in adapting new technologies in ways that ensure rigor, engagement, and academic integrity.

A. PRINCIPLES FOR ONLINE MAJORS AND PROGRAMS

Engagement.  The coursework to fulfill the major requirements and the interactions of students with their peers and faculty are some of the most important and defining educational experiences for a bachelor’s degree candidate. Students in online majors must engage with their peers and faculty in ways that are comparable to what exists in traditional majors. The 2020 Online Undergraduate Degree Program (OUDP) task force report [2] and a subsequent study by UCEP in 2022 [3] highlighted that the engagement of students with research-active faculty is a critical component of UC instruction and degrees, and this must play a central role in the design and implementation of online majors. The UCEP study also noted that small class size correlates with better outcomes.  Small classes offer the benefit of increased opportunities for student/faculty interaction compared to large classes.  The most successful online degree programs maintain a class size of fewer than 50 students per faculty member (see US Dept of Education College Scorecard [4] and US News rankings [5]). It is also important to note that if the interaction between instructors and students is limited, is not regular and substantive, and is primarily initiated by the student, then such a program would not meet the requirements of a distance education program as outlined by the Accreditation Agency WSCUC Substantive Change Manual [6], based on Federal Regulations [7].

Online assessment.  Assessment is key to maintaining the quality of instruction.  Assessing student learning online in a robust manner is a subject of great debate. Coursework should allow students to demonstrate mastery of concepts, not simply their ability to copy from the internet.  It is possible for online assessments (e.g., proctored online exams) to be carried out with limited occurrences of academic dishonesty but the measures required are expensive and often risk violating student privacy (e.g., third party software, surveillance, and room inspections ruled unconstitutional [8]). In addition, not all students have the same physical space, privacy, or equipment, which makes synchronous, proctored online assessment an inherently inequitable method. Meeting these challenges may require new modes of assessment that could minimize cheating (in-person exam rooms, use of test question banks to prevent student teams from sharing answers, shorter and more frequent quizzes, open book exams, open-ended papers; etc.). It will require more resources and a concerted effort at each campus and perhaps even systemwide.

Equity.  Studies of online degree programs have shown mixed results [9].  Although some studies have shown improvements in time to degree with the addition of online courses to in-person degree programs, degree completion rates for fully online programs and learning outcomes of online courses remain a concern.  The Public Policy Institute of California studied one million online courses [10].  They found a significant performance gap: “younger students, African Americans, Latinos, males, students with lower levels of academic skill, and part-time students are all likely to perform markedly worse in online courses than in traditional ones…. The gap is largest for Latino and African American students (15.9 and 17.9 percentage points, respectively).”  Students from under-resourced backgrounds may have their own set of challenges with online education, which should be taken into account when designing an online major.  It is important for online major programs to ensure that all their students can engage online (good laptops, peripherals, and internet connectivity).  An additional concern is the potential creation of two classes of students: one in-person (privileged) group and one online (second-class) group who might be working toward the same degree.  Finally, online courses should allow for face-to-face interactions within a diverse population of students; this is important in challenging biases that students might have when entering the university.  

Quality.  Students in online programs should have the same quality of instruction, advising, engagement with peers and program faculty, and support services as others in traditional majors.  Beyond providing the same opportunities, online programs should be designed to ensure that the outcomes in terms of educational goals, research goals, and career placement for their students are equivalent to those in closely related in-person programs.  Online programs should not be seen as something inferior by students, faculty, and the outside community.  For this purpose, the design and implementation of the online programs must prioritize and emphasize the high quality of education and multi-varied experiences (peer interactions, learning communities, research, interactions with faculty, etc.) that will be available to their students. 

Based on the issues centered around engagement, assessment, quality and equity, we advocate the following principles for the design of online majors and other online programs.

1.     All instruction must provide a high level of rigor and academic integrity in meeting learning goals, examinations, assessments, and program outcomes.  The learning goals for the courses and the expected program outcomes should inform the online format for the program.  Admission requirements to graduate programs should also be considered in designing the curriculum (for example, a recent survey found that 41% of Medical Schools would not accept an undergraduate online course toward their required courses [11]).

2.     Programs offering online instruction should ensure that students have the same level of engagement with instructors, including research-active faculty, as in other closely related in-person programs.   

3.     Online instruction should be designed so that students will have similar levels of involvement in scholarship and research with faculty members in the program and complete projects of similar quality as students in other closely related in-person programs.   

4.     Online instruction should be designed to ensure that students interact with each other to the same extent as students in similar in-person programs to build a sense of belonging (for example, through peer mentoring and study groups).  Students should be able to participate in student societies that exist on campus and have the same opportunities to live on campus, if they choose to do so.  The ability to live on campus is particularly important to enable the undergraduate research needed for admission to many graduate programs.

5.     Students in online programs should have similar access to trained counselors as other students in in-person programs within the same school or college.  Programs should have a comprehensive and equitable plan for student advising and remediation.   

6.     Students in an online program should be eligible for the same level of financial aid as in-person students.  They should be able to get timely career advice and have access to job fairs conducted on campus.

7.     Programs should ensure that their students have equitable access to tools to connect and learn in an online environment.  They should provide administrative support to students at the same level as they do for in-person programs.  They should plan to provide support to instructors regarding technology issues related to teaching and learning online.   

8.     Graduation rates of students in online programs are expected to be equivalent to similar in-person programs, and students in an online program should be able to transfer to other majors or add minors in the same way as they would have if they were in an in-person major.

9.     Programs should plan for systematic collection of data to assess the program outcomes of the online programs, addressing all the principles above.  Peer review of online courses is highly recommended in addition to student evaluations.

10.   Admissions requirements to online programs should not be lower than admissions requirements to in-person programs.  Online students should be UC quality students ready to handle demanding UC quality instruction.

 

B. EVALUATING PROPOSALS FOR NEW DISTANCE EDUCATION PROGRAMS 

Both the Accreditation Commission (WSCUC) and Federal Regulations maintain requirements that are specific to Online courses (defined as 50% or more instruction online).  For this reason, it is recommended that UC Divisions track their online course offerings including the engagement activities in those courses.

Accreditation of the University to educate students in California is performed by the Western Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC; formerly WASC).  They define an online course as one where 50% or more of instruction/interaction is online [6].  Online courses must “support regular and substantive interaction between the students and the instructor or instructors, either synchronously or asynchronously.”  UC courses that include 50% or more of instruction/interaction online should be designated as online courses for the purpose of WSCUC accreditation review.  Degree programs have a similar threshold of 50% [6]: “Institutions must obtain (WSCUC) substantive change approval for programs in which 50% or more of the (degree) program (units for completion of the program) will be offered through distance education.”  For UC students who started as freshmen, the “program” refers to their UC degree.  In the case of a transfer student, the “program” consists only of the courses taken at UC to complete a degree (online courses take prior to transfer are not considered in the 50% calculation).

Federal financial aid rules require at least two engagement activities for online instruction [7].  If requested, an institution should be able to provide a list of courses with online instruction and their engagement activities.  

Correspondence courses are defined as having online instruction but do not have sufficient engagement activities.  For example, a course that posted recorded videos without an engagement activity specific to that content could be called a Correspondence Course.  Federal financial aid cannot be given to students who take more than 50% of their units (credits) as Correspondence Course format [12].

Program Review/Audit:  WSCUC accreditation review occurs every 10 years. However, once a campus starts to offer degree programs online, it is the campus responsibility to submit a “Substantive Change Proposal” to WSCUC – regardless of the time since the last accreditation review.  Federal Financial Aid audits occur every year.

UC faculty value student engagement in learning.  Approved programs should be models of excellence in online education that aim to create a positive reputation, so that if someone learns that a student completed an online program at UC, they do not suspect that the student received an inferior education.

When planning an online major, the following recommendations (based on the principles described previously) should be discussed in consideration of a distance education degree proposal. 

1.     The need for the online format should be motivated in the proposal by the course-level learning goals and the expected program outcomes.  Proposals that simply transfer courses online with minimal modifications should not be approved.  

2.     The prevalence of academic dishonesty in online testing is a well-known issue and resolving it frequently runs into student privacy and technical issues exacerbated by economic inequalities. Proposals should demonstrate that they are able to measure student learning in a robust and equitable manner while respecting student privacy.   

3.     Proposals should contain examples of online courses that are expected to be part of the required online program for which there is evidence that the online format leads to learning outcomes for students that are as good as the in-person format.  

4.     Proposals should have plans to ensure that students have levels of engagement (including one-on-one interactions, advising, and oversight) with instructors (including research-active faculty) that are much the same as those in otherwise similar in-person programs, bearing in mind that online students might lack the informal in-person interactions that in-person students often receive. Instructor-to-student ratios should be low to ensure the delivery of the high-level of education expected from a UC program.   

5.     Engagement with students should be faculty initiated and include activities that are more than just pre-recorded lectures. Examples of engagement activities can be found on page 11 of the WSCUC Substantive Change Manual [6] and defined under Federal Regulation 600.2 (see “Academic Engagement” and “Distance Education” sections 4-5 [7]). 

6.     Proposals should demonstrate that program faculty will devote as much time to mentoring students doing research projects as is typical in otherwise similar in-person programs. 

7.     Facilitating high levels of interactions among students inside and outside of the online classroom will require significant support from faculty and staff, and it may require different modes of interaction online.  Proposals should demonstrate that their program can be successful in this goal.   

8.     Proposals should have a plan for how the faculty members involved in the program will be trained to deliver and assess high quality education and to engage with students online.  Programs are strongly encouraged to collaborate with an instructional design team to design their programs and include the report created by this design team in the proposal.  

9.     Proposals should demonstrate that students in the online program will not be disadvantaged if they decide to change majors, compared to students changing from in-person majors.  

10.   Proposals should demonstrate that the technological requirements will not exacerbate existing inequities in the educational system.  

 

References

 

1]        This $12 Billion Company Is Getting Rich Off Students Cheating Their Way Through Covid. Available from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2021/01/28/this-12-billioncompany-is-getting-rich-off-students-cheating-their-way-throughcovid/?sh=4553ad32363f.

2]        2020 Senate Task Force Report. Available from:

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/mg-senate-review-onlinedegree-task-force-report.pdf.

3]        UCEP 2022 OUDP White Paper. Available from:

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/sc-ucep-white-paper-onlinedegrees.pdf.

4]        Department of Education College Scorecard. Available from:

https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/search/?page=0&sort=threshold_earnings:desc.

5]        US News Rankings. Available from: https://www.usnews.com/education/onlineeducation?rv_test7_control.

6]        WSCUC Substantive Change Manual. Available from:

https://wascsenior.app.box.com/s/6oju46p2b6mklgigo2om.

7]        Code of Federal Regulations, Part 600. Available from: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title34/subtitle-B/chapter-VI/part-600.

8]        Case: 1:21-cv-00500-JPC Doc #: 37 Filed: 08/22/22. Available from:

https://bbgohio.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/MSJ-decision.pdf.

9]        Fischer, C., et al. Increasing Success in Higher Education: The Relationships of Online Course Taking With College Completion and Time-to-Degree. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 2021; 355-379]. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/01623737211055768.

10]    Johnson, H., et al. Online Learning and Student Outcomes in California’s Community Colleges. Public Policy Institute of California 2014; Available from:

https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/content/pubs/report/R_514HJR.pdf.

11]    Cooper, K.M., et al. Diagnosing differences in what Introductory Biology students in a fully online and an in-person biology degree program know and do regarding medical school admission. Adv Physiol Educ 2019 Jun 1; 221-232]. Available from:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31088159.

12]    Correspondence Course Financial Aid Restrictions. Available from:

https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/fsa-handbook/2020-2021/vol2/ch4-auditsstandards-limitations-cohort-default-rates.

Draft Good Practice Guide: Sexual Harassment, Caregivers, and Student-Staff Relationships

The Demographics in Philosophy project is seeking feedback on a proposed "Good Practice" guide. Help us make this document better!

[cross-posted at Daily Nous]

This is part one of several.

--------------------------------------------------------

Good Practice Policy: Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment can be carried out by persons of any gender, and persons of any gender may be victims. Although harassment of students by staff is often the focus of discussions, departments need to be aware that power differentials of this sort are not essential to sexual harassment. Sexual harassment may occur between any members of the department. Departments should attend equally seriously to harassment committed both by students and by staff, as both can have dramatically negative effects on particular individuals and on departmental culture. Departments should also be aware that sexual harassment may interact with and be modified by issues of race, ethnicity, religion, class and disability status.

There is good evidence that the proportion of incidents of sexual harassment that get reported, even informally, in philosophy departments is very low, and that this has created serious problems for some staff and students. We therefore urge even those staff who do not believe that harassment is a problem in their own departments to give serious consideration to the recommendations below.

The US defines ‘sexual harassment’ as unwanted sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment

Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as a basis for employment decisions affecting such individual

Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

Institutional definitions of ‘sexual harassment’ differ greatly from one another. Some institutional definitions focus solely on sexual conduct, while others include also include non-sexual harassment related to sex.

While departments need to attend to their institution’s definition of ‘sexual harassment’, and to make use of institutional procedures where appropriate, this is not the end of their responsibilities. Where sexist or sexual behavior is taking place that contributes to an unwelcoming environment for underrepresented groups, departments should act whether or not formal procedures are possible or appropriate.

We note that sexual harassment in philosophy can be present even when it does not meet the formal definitions above. Sexual harassment involves conduct of a sexual nature with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. This includes both harassment related to sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity (e.g. hostile and dismissive though not sexual comments about women, gay, lesbian, transgender, or nonbinary people) and harassment of a sexual nature. Note that sexual harassment is not limited to one-to-one interactions but may include, for example, general comments made in lectures or seminars that are not aimed at an individual.

General Suggestions

1. All members of the department—undergraduates, graduate students, academic and non-academic staff—should be made aware of the regulations that govern sexual harassment in their university.

a. In particular, they should know the university’s definition of ‘sexual harassment’ and who to contact in possible cases of sexual harassment.

b. They should also know who has standing to file a complaint (in general, and contrary to widespread belief, the complainant need not be the victim).

c. They should be made aware of both formal and informal measures available at their university.

d. Departments may wish to consider including this information in induction sessions for both students and staff, and in training for teaching assistants.

Where the University or Faculty has a list of Harassment Contacts (see e.g. www.southampton.ac.uk/diversity/how_we_support_diversity/harassment_contacts.page), all staff—including non-academic staff—and students should be made aware of it. If no such list exists, the department should consider suggesting this approach to the university. It is very important for department members to be able to seek advice outside their department.

2. All members of staff should read the advice given at www.oed.wisc.edu/sexualharassment/guide.html on how to deal with individuals who approach them to discuss a particular incident.

3. All of the information listed above should be made permanently available to staff (including non-academic staff) and students, e.g. through a stable URL and/or staff and student handbooks, rather than only in the form of a one-off email communication.

4. The department head and others with managerial responsibilities (such as Directors of Graduate and Undergraduate Studies) should ensure that they have full knowledge of university procedures regarding sexual harassment.

Departmental Culture

1. Seriously consider the harms of an atmosphere rife with dismissive or sexualizing comments and behavior, and address these should they arise. (It is worth noting, however, that the right way to deal with this may vary.)

2. Cultivate—from the top down—an atmosphere in which maintaining a healthy climate for all department members, especially those from under-represented groups and including non-academic staff, is considered everyone’s responsibility. What this entails will vary from person to person and situation to situation. But at a minimum it includes a responsibility to reflect on the consequences (including unintended consequences) of one’s own behavior towards individuals from underrepresented groups. It may also include a responsibility to intervene, either formally or informally. (For more on the range of responses available, see Saul, op. cit.)

3. Ensure, as far as possible, that those raising concerns about sexual harassment are protected against retaliation.

4. Offer bystander training either to staff, or to staff and graduate students, if this is available or can be made available by the institution. This can help bystanders to feel comfortable intervening when they witness harassing behavior. (See the Good Practice website for more information.)

--------------------------------------------------------

Good Practice Policy: Care Givers

Staff members and students with caregiving responsibilities—whether parental or other—face constraints on their time that others often do not. There are simple measures that departments can take to minimize the extent to which caregivers are disadvantaged.

General Suggestions

Departments should adopt an explicit policy concerning caregivers, which covers as many of the following points as is practically possible:

1. Schedule important events, as far as possible, between 9 and 5 (the hours when childcare is more readily available). When an event has to be scheduled outside of these hours, give plenty of advance notice so that caregivers can make the necessary arrangements. Consider using online scheduling polls to find times that work for as many as possible.

2. Seriously consider requests from staff of any background for part- time and flexible working. (This is largely, but not exclusively, an issue for caregivers—requests from non-caregivers should also be taken seriously.) Also be receptive, as far as possible, to requests for unpaid leave.

3. As far as possible, account for caregiving commitments when scheduling teaching responsibilities. 4. Be aware that students, not just staff, may have caregiving responsibilities. Have a staff contact person for students who are caregivers. Take student requests for caregiving accommodations seriously.

5. Ensure that students and staff are made fully aware of any university services for caregivers.

6. Ensure that staff have an adequate understanding of what caregiving involves. (E.g., don’t expect a PhD student to make lots of progress on dissertating while on parental leave.)

7. Ensure that parental leave funds provided by the university are actually used to cover for parental leave, rather than being absorbed into department or faculty budgets.

8. Those involved in performance evaluations should be fully informed about current policies regarding output reduction for caregivers and take caregiving responsibilities into account where possible.

--------------------------------------------------------

Good Practice Policy: Staff-Student Relationships

Romantic or sexual relationships that occur in the student-teacher context or in the context of supervision, line management and evaluation present special problems. The difference in power and the respect and trust that are often present between a teacher and student, supervisor and subordinate, or senior and junior colleague in the same department or unit makes these relationships especially vulnerable to exploitation. They can also have unfortunate unintentional consequences.

Such relationships can also generate perceived, and sometimes real, inequalities that affect other members of the department, whether students or staff. For example, a relationship between a senior and junior member of staff may raise issues concerning promotion, granting of sabbatical leave, and allocation of teaching. This may happen even if no preferential treatment actually occurs, and even if the senior staff member in question is not directly responsible for such decisions. In the case of staff-student relationships, questions may arise concerning preferential treatment in seminar discussions, marking, decisions concerning graduate student funding, and so on. Again, these questions may well emerge and be of serious concern to other students even if no preferential treatment actually occurs.

At the same time, we recognise that such relationships do indeed occur, and that they need not be damaging, but may be both significant and long-lasting.

We suggest that departments adopt the following policy with respect to the behavior of members of staff at all levels, including graduate student instructors.

Please note that the recommendations below are not intended to be read legalistically. Individual institutions may have their own policies, and these will constitute formal requirements on staff and student behavior. The recommendations below are intended merely as departmental norms, and to be adopted only where not in conflict with institutional regulations.

General Suggestions

The department’s policy on relationships between staff and students (and between staff) should be clearly advertised to all staff and students in a permanent form, e.g. intranet or staff/student handbooks. The policy should include clear guidance about whom students or staff might consult in the first instance if problems (real or perceived) arise.

Undergraduate Students

1. Staff and graduate student teaching assistants should be informed that relationships between teaching staff and undergraduates are very strongly discouraged, for the reasons given above.

2. If such a relationship does occur, the member of staff in question should:

a. inform a senior member of the department—where possible, the department head—as soon as possible;

b. withdraw from all small-group teaching involving that student (in the case of teaching assistants, this may involve swapping tutorial groups with another TA), unless practically impossible;

c. withdraw from the assessment of that student, even if anonymous marking is used.

d. withdraw from writing references and recommendations for the student in question.

e. It should be made clear to staff and students that if an undergraduate student has entered into a relationship with a member of staff (including a TA), while the responsibility for taking the above steps lies with the member of staff concerned, the student is equally entitled to report their relationship to another member of staff (e.g. Head of Department, if appropriate), and to request that the above steps be taken.

Graduate Students

1. Staff and graduate students should be informed that relationships between academic members of teaching staff and graduate students are very strongly discouraged, especially between a supervisor and a graduate supervisee.

2. If such a relationship occurs between a member of staff and a graduate student, the member of staff should:

a. inform a senior member of staff—where possible, the department head—as soon as possible;

b. withdraw from supervising the student, writing letters of recommendation for them, and making any decisions (e.g. distribution of funding) where preferential treatment of the student could in principle occur;

c. in the case of graduate students, withdraw from all small-group teaching involving that student, unless practically impossible;

d. in the case of graduate students, withdraw from the assessment of that student, even if anonymous marking is used.

e. As much as possible, the Department should encourage a practice of full disclosure in the case of such relationships’ continuance. This avoids real or perceived conflicts of interest, as well as embarrassment for others.

Academic Staff

Between members of academic staff where there is a large disparity in seniority (e.g. Associate Professor/Lecturer; Head of Department/Assistant Professor):

1. Disclosure of any such relationship should be strongly encouraged, in order to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest.

2. Any potential for real or perceived conflicts of interest should be removed by, e.g., removal of the senior member of staff from relevant decision-making (e.g. promotions, appointment to permanent positions).

Evening the Playing Field in Philosophy Classes

As I discussed last week, overconfident students have systematic advantages in philosophy classes, at least as philosophy is typically taught in the United States. By confidently asserting their ideas in classroom -- even from day one, when they have no real expertise on the issues -- they get practice articulating philosophical views in an argumentative context and they receive the professor's customized feedback on their views. Presenting their views before professor and peers engages their emotions and enhances their memory. Typically, professors encourage and support such students, bringing out the best in them. Thus, over the long run, overconfident students tend to perform well, better than their otherwise similar peers with more realistic self-assessments. What seems to be an epistemic vice -- overconfidence -- ultimately helps them flourish and learn more than they otherwise would have.

I like these overconfident students (as long as they're not arrogant or domineering). It's good we encourage them. But I also want to level the playing field so that less-overconfident students can gain some of the same advantages. Here's my advice for doing so.

First, advice for professors. Second, advice for students.

Evening the Playing Field: Advice for Professors

(1.) Small-group discussions. This might sound like tired advice, but there's a reason the advice is so common. Small-group discussions work amazing magic if you do them right. Here's my approach:

* Divide the class into groups of 3 or 4. Insist on exactly 3 or 4. Two is to few, because friends will pair up and have too little diversity of opinion. Five is too many, because the quietest student will be left out of the conversation.

* Give the students a short, co-operative written task which will be graded pass / no credit (be lenient). For example, "write down two considerations in favor of the view that human nature is good and two considerations against the view". Have them designate one student as "secretary", who will write down their collaborative answer on a sheet of paper containing all their names. This should start them talking with each other, aimed at producing something concrete and sensible.

* Allow them five minutes (maybe seven), during which you wander the room, encouraging any quiet groups to start talking and writing.

* Reconvene the class, and then ask a group of usually quiet students what their group came up with.

* Explore the merits of their answers in an encouraging way, then repeat with other groups.

This exercise will get many more students talking in class than the usual six. (Almost no matter the size of the class, there will be six students who do almost all the talking, right?) The increased talkativeness often continues after the exercise is over. Not only do normally quiet students open their mouths more, but they gain some of the more specific benefits of the overconfident student: They practice expressing their views aloud in class, they receive customized feedback from the professor, by having their views put on the spot they feel an emotional engagement that enhances interest and memory, and they get the feeling of support from the professor.

Why it works: It's of course easier to talk with a few peers than in front of the whole class, especially when necessary to complete a (low-stress) assignment. Speaking to a few peers in the classroom and finding them to be nice about it (as they almost always are) facilitates later speaking in front of the whole class. Furthermore, when the professor calls on a small group, instead of on one student in particular, that student isn't being confronted as directly. They have cover: "This is just what our group came up with." And if the student isn't comfortable extemporizing, they can just read the words written on the page. All of this makes it easier for the quieter students to gain practice expressing their philosophical views in front of others. If it goes well, they become more comfortable doing it again.

(2.) Story time. Back in 2016, I dedicated a post to the value of telling stories in philosophy class. My former T.A. Chris McVey was a master of philosophical storytelling. He would start discussion sections of my huge lower-division class, Evil, with personal stories from his childhood, or from his time working on a nuclear submarine, or from other parts of his life, that related to the themes of the class. He kept it personal and real, and students loved it.

A very different type of student tends to engage after storytime than the usual overconfident philosophy guy -- for example, someone who has a similar story in their own lives. The whole discussion has a different, more personal tone, and it can then be steered back into the main ideas of the course. Peter [name randomly chosen from lists of former students], who might normally say nothing in class, finds he has something to say about parental divorce. He has been brought into the discussion, has expressed an opinion and has been shown how his opinion is relevant to the course.

(3.) Diversify topics and cultures. Relatedly, whenever you can diversify topics (add a dimension on religion, or family, or the military) or culture (beyond the usual European / North American focus), you shift around what I think of as the "academic capital" of the students in the class. A student who hasn't had confidence to speak might suddenly feel expert and confident. Maybe they are the one student who has had active duty in the military, or maybe their pre-college teachers regularly quoted from Confucius and Mencius. Respecting their expertise can help them recognize that they bring something important, and they will be readier to commit and engage on the issues at hand.

(4.) Finger-counting questions. Consider adding this custom: The first time a student raises their hand to speak in class, they raise one finger. The second time, two fingers. The third time, three fingers, and so on. When multiple students want to contribute, prioritize those with fewer fingers. When a student raises four fingers, hesitate, looking to see whether some lower-fingered students might also have something to say. This practice doesn't silence the most talkative students, but it will make them more aware of the extent to which they might be crowding other students out, and it constantly communicates to the quieter students that you're especially interested in hearing from them, instead of always from the same six.

This advice aims partly at enhancing oral participation in class, which is a big step toward evening the playing field. But to really level the playing field requires more. It's not just that the overconfident student is more orally active. The overconfident student has opinions, stakes claims, feels invested in the truth or falsity of particular positions, and takes the risk of exposing their ideas to criticism. This creates more emotional and intellectual engagement than do neutral, clarificatory oral contributions. My first three suggestions not only broaden oral participation in general but non-coercively nudge students toward staking claims, with all the good that follows from that.

Evening the Playing Field: Advice for Students

Your professor might not do any of the above. You might see the same six students dominating discussion, and you might not feel able to contribute at their level. You might be uninterested in competing with them for air time, and you might dislike the spotlight on yourself. Do yourself a favor and overcome these reservations!

First, the confident students might not actually know the material better than you do. Most professors in U.S. classrooms interpret students' questions as charitably as possible, finding what's best in them, rather than shooting students down in a discouraging way. If a confident student says something you think doesn't make sense or that you're inclined to disagree with, and if the professor seems to like the comment, it might not be that you're misunderstanding but rather that the professor is doing what they can to turn a weak contribution into something good.

Second, try viewing classroom philosophy discussions like a game. Almost every substantive philosophical claim (apart from simple historical facts and straightforward textual interpretations) is disputable, even the principle of non-contradiction. Take a stand for fun. See if you can defend it. A good professor will both help you see ways in which it might be defensible and ways in which others have argued against it. Think of it as being assigned to defend a view in a debate -- a view with which you might or might not agree.

Third, you owe it to yourself to win the same educational benefits that ordinarily accrue disproportionately to the overconfident students. You might not feel comfortable taking a stand in class. But so much of life is about reaching beyond your comfort zone, doing new things. Right? If you care about your education, care about getting the most out of it by putting your ideas forward in class.

Fourth, try it with other students. Even if your professor doesn't use small discussion groups, you can do this yourself. Most people find that it's much easier to take a stand about the material in front of a peer than in front of the whole class. Outside of class, tell a classmate about your objection to Kant. Bat it around with them a bit. This will give you already a certain amount of practice and feedback, laying the groundwork for later expressing that view, or some other one, in a class context. You could even say to the professor, "My friend and I were wondering whether Kant..." A good professor will love to hear a question like this. Thus students have been arguing about Kant outside of class! Yay!

------------------------------------

Related:

"How to Diversity Philosophy: Two Thoughts and a Plea for More Suggestions" (Aug 24, 2016)

"Storytelling in Philosophy Class" (Oct 21, 2016)

"The Parable of the Overconfident Student -- and Why Academic Philosophy Still Favors the Socially Privileged" (Mar 14, 2022)

[image source]

The Parable of the Overconfident Student -- and Why Academic Philosophy Still Favors the Socially Privileged

If you've taken or taught some philosophy classes in the United States, you know the type: the overconfident philosophy student. Our system rewards these students. The epistemic failing of overconfidence ultimately serves them well. This pattern, I conjecture, helps explain the continuing inequities in philosophy.

It's the second day of class. You're starting some complex topic, say, the conceivability argument for metaphysical dualism. Student X jumps immediately into the discussion: The conceivability argument is obviously absurd! You offer some standard first-pass responses to his objection, but he stands his ground, fishing around for defenses. Before today, he knew nothing about the issues. It's his first philosophy class, but suddenly, he knows better than every philosopher who thinks otherwise, whose counterarguments he has never heard.

[image from the classic Onion article "Guy in Philosophy Class Needs to Shut the Fuck Up"]

It's also Student Y's first philosophy class. Student X and Student Y are similar in intelligence and background knowledge, differing only in that Student Y isn't irrationally overconfident. Maybe Student Y asks a question of clarification. Or maybe she asks how the author would deal with such-and-such an objection. More likely, she keeps quiet, not wanting to embarrass herself or use class time when other, more knowledgeable students presumably have more insightful things to say.

(I've called Student X a "he", since in my experience most students of this type are men. Student Y types are more common, in any gender.)

What will happen to Student X and Student Y over time, in the typical U.S. classroom? Both might do well. Student Y is by no means doomed to fail. But Student X's overconfidence wins him several important advantages.

First, he gets practice asserting his philosophical views in an argumentative context. Oral presentation of one's opinions is a crucial skill in philosophy and closely related to written presentation of one's opinions.

Second, he receives customized expert feedback on his philosophical views. Typically, the professor will restate Student X's views, strengthening them and fitting them better into the existing discourse. The professor will articulate responses those views, so that the student learns those too. If the student responds to the responses, this second layer of responses will also be charitably reworked and rebutted. Thus, Student X will gain specific knowledge on exactly the issues that engage and interest him most.

Third, he engages his emotions and enhances his memory. Taking a public stand stirs up your emotions. Asking a question makes your heart race. Being defeated in an argument with your professor burns that argument into your memory. So also does winning an argument or playing to a draw. After his public stand and argument, it matters to Student X, more than it otherwise would have, that the conceivability argument is absurd. This will intensify his engagement with the rest of the course, where he'll latch on to arguments that support his view and develop counterarguments against the opposition. His written work will also reflect this passion.

Fourth, he wins the support and encouragement of his professor. Unless he is unusually obnoxious or his questions are unusually poor, the typical U.S. professor will appreciate Student X's enthusiasm and his willingness to advance class discussion. His insights will be praised and his mistakes interpreted charitably, enhancing his self-confidence and his sense that he is good at philosophy.

The combined effect of these advantages, multiplied over the course of an undergraduate education, ensures that most students like Student X thrive in U.S. philosophy programs. What was initially the epistemic vice of overconfidence becomes the epistemic virtue of being a knowledgeable, well-trained philosophy student.

Contrast with the sciences. If a first-year chemistry student has strong, ignorant opinions about the electronegativity of fluorine, it won't go so well -- and who would have such opinions, anyway? Maybe at the most theoretically speculative end of the sciences, we can see a similar pattern, though. The social sciences and other humanities might also reward the overconfident student in some ways while punishing him in others. Among academic disciplines as practiced in the U.S., I conjecture that philosophy is the most receptive to the Overconfident Student Strategy.

Success in the Overconfident Student Strategy requires two things: a good sense of what is and is not open for dispute, and comfort in classroom dialogue. Both tend to favor students from privileged backgrounds.

It's ridiculous to dispute simple matters of fact with one's professor. The Overconfident Student Strategy only works if the student can sniff out a defensible position, one rich for back-and-forth dispute. Student X in our example immediately discerned that the conceivability argument for dualism was fertile ground on which to take a stand. Student X can follow his initial gut impression, knowing that even if he can't really win the argument on day two, arguments for his favored view are out there somewhere. Students with academically strong backgrounds -- who have a sense of how academia works, who have some exposure to philosophy earlier in their education, who are familiar with the back-and-forth of academic argumentation -- are at an advantage in sensing defensible positions and glimpsing what broad shapes an argument might take.

And of course speaking up in the classroom, especially being willing to disagree with one's professor, normally requires a certain degree of comfort and self-assurance in academic contexts. It helps if classrooms feel like home, if you feel like you belong, if you see yourself as maybe a professor yourself some day.

For these reasons -- as well as the more general tendency toward overconfidence that comes with social privilege -- we should expect that the Overconfident Student Strategy should be especially available to students with privileged backgrounds: the children of academics, wealthy students who went to elite high schools, White students, men, and non-immigrants, for example. In this way, initial privilege provides advantages that amplify up through one's education.

I have confined myself to remarks about the United States, because I suspect the sociology of overconfidence plays out differently in some other countries, which might explain the difficulty that international students sometimes have adapting to the style in which philosophy is practiced here.

I myself, of course, was just the sort of overconfident student I've described -- the son of two professors, raised in a wealthy suburb with great public schools. Arguably, I'm still employing the same strategy, opining publicly on my blog on a huge range of topics beyond my expertise (e.g., Hume interpretation last week, COVID ethics last month), reaping advantages analogous to the overconfident student's four classroom advantages, only in a larger sphere.

Coming up! Some strategies for evening the playing field.

------------------------------------------

Related: "On Being Good at Seeming Smart" (Mar 25, 2010).

Diversity and Equity in Recruitment and Retention

by Sherri Conklin, Gregory Peterson, Michael Rea, Eric Schwitzgebel, and Nicole Hassoun

[cross-posted from The Blog of the APA]

How philosophers hire, tenure, and promote faculty in the U.S. likely contributes to philosophy’s low overall demographic diversity. For example, a recent study shows that the proportion of women in tenure track positions is lowest in the most prestigious positions and programs, and women are especially underrepresented at the highest professorial ranks (Conklin, Artamonova, and Hassoun 2019; see also the Academic Placement Data and Analysis site). The underrepresentation of Black and disabled philosophers on the tenure track is even greater (Tremain 2013; Botts et al. 2014). Such disparities reflect a structural problem in the discipline: The fundamental questions of philosophy are of just as much relevance to people depending on their race, sex, ability, and so forth; and we believe that people in academically underrepresented groups have lots of value to contribute.

Although the APA and other organizations are pursuing active initiatives in the United States and abroad to improve the diversity of the discipline, for example through diversity grants and workshops, little has been done discipline-wide that focuses directly on improving faculty recruitment practices in the U.S. (See for example, MAP, the BPA/SWIP Best Practices Scheme, and the APA’s Diversity Resources Page.)

The Demographics in Philosophy project has collected and collated data on underrepresentation in the discipline since 2015. Here we detail a list of potentially diversity-enhancing faculty recruitment and retention practices. We developed this list of suggested practices from a review of the literature, surveys and other relevant data, and panel discussions on diversity during and after the 2018 and 2019 Pacific APA meetings.

So far, we have:

●        Collected and analyzed data on underrepresentation of women faculty in philosophy at 98 institutions between 2004 and 2020.

●        Conducted a survey of 75 philosophy departments to evaluate current hiring and recruitment practices.

●        Collaborated with the APA Committee on the Status of Women to host an open meeting at the Pacific Division APA with the department chairs and representatives from 19 philosophy departments to discuss existing practices and possible improvements.

●        Organized a series of blog posts on diversity in philosophy departments at The Blog of the APA.

Changing the hiring, tenuring, and promotion practices in even of a few dozen influential philosophy departments might have a large impact on the discipline. Improvements in diversity in graduate recruitment must be matched by corresponding improvements in tenure-track career opportunities and subsequent career advancement.

We invite you to collaborate with us in discovering and supporting practical and effective methods of improving the diversity of faculty in academic philosophy.

Practices to Consider for Improving the Diversity of Philosophy Departments

 

1. Diversify hiring and tenure committees to include more people from underrepresented groups.
• Appoint a diversity officer who will be responsible for ensuring each applicant is reviewed equitably.
• Commit to inclusion with influence. However, also be cautious about creating disproportionate burdens on members of underrepresented groups, especially if those burdens do not come with public recognition. So, consider relieving diversity officers, and members of underrepresented groups, of correspondingly difficult committee related obligations in asking them to take on these roles or otherwise compensate them for their efforts.

 

2. Reconsider what constitutes a “well-rounded” department. What topics, approaches, and interests have been neglected but deserve representation?
• If your department is unfamiliar with a desired research area, reach out to experts in other philosophy departments, or in other disciplines, for feedback on assessing candidates.

 

3. Hire faculty using approaches and evaluation methods that encourage and appropriately value applicants who would contribute to your department’s diversity.
• Advertise positions in areas likely to attract a wide diversity of applicants.
• Include language in the job description signaling interest in applicants who contribute to the department’s diversity.
• Encourage application from diverse candidates, including reaching out to people in diversity-relevant venues such as the Up-Directory and other diversity focused blogs and associations.
• Use clear criteria of evaluation that minimize the likelihood of bias and favoritism.

 

4. Create post-docs aimed at recruiting philosophers from underrepresented groups or philosophers who work in underrepresented areas of philosophy, for the purpose of supporting their academic development and eventually competing to hire them.
• Provide the requisite mentorship.
• Make your commitment to a potential hire explicit.

 

5. Re-evaluate your department’s perception of prestige.
• Refine the notion of prestige by getting a clearer understanding what counts as the top journals or conferences in the subfield relating to the applicant’s specialty.
• Instead of focusing on prestige, focus instead on the quality of the applicant’s work, how interesting or relevant it is to their sub-specialty, and how relevant it is to the job description requirements.

▪          Consider removing markers of prestige when making hiring and tenuring decisions.

 

6. Agree in advance about what the department is looking for when hiring new faculty.
• Evaluate whether your conception of “core philosophy” and/or the mission of your philosophy program needs updating and discuss what you are looking for in a “good candidate”.

▪          These definitions should include expectations about, for example, the number and quality of publications to prevent holding different applicants to different standards.

• Before considering applications, identify how items in the job description will be weighted for each applicant.
• Develop clear guidelines for the evaluation criteria and adhere to them.
• Take special care to ensure that any non-anonymous parts of the review process do not omit, or unfairly disadvantage, applicants from underrepresented groups.
• Attend to your regional context as well as the overall global context (e.g. the importance of including adequate geographical and indigenous representation in your department).
• Re-evaluate applications with high diversity ratings to determine whether bias played a role in excluding the applicants from getting an interview or in the interview process.

 

7. Consider giving diversity-related contributions more weight when evaluating applicants.
• Keep in mind that being a member of an underrepresented group in philosophy can require additional labor, burdens, stressors, and expectations, which is often not recognized.
• Keep in mind that philosophers from underrepresented groups are often expected to take on a disproportionate amount of service work in addition to their research.
• Consider requiring and scoring diversity statements.

 

8. Sustained efforts to increase diversity in your department may be required.
• Use each new hire and new tenure case as an opportunity to increase diversity in your department.
• Revise your practices until you adopt practices that work for your university and department context.

 

9. Develop formal policies for managing the needs of diverse groups.
• Ensure appropriate disability related accommodations are in place.
• Support mentoring and provide support networks for people you hire from underrepresented groups.

 

10. Learn about the issues that underrepresented colleagues typically face so that you can advocate more effectively with difficult colleagues for faculty retention and promotion.
• Diversity and excellence are not divergent aims.  Diversity is a component of excellence.
• Practices employed by hiring and tenuring committees likely play a substantial role in the problem of underrepresentation in philosophy.
• Keep in mind that managing underrepresentation in philosophy will help with philosophy’s relevance at a time when the value of the humanities is contested.

 

11. Collect data on diversity relevant hiring practices, e.g. applicant and hiring rates for members of underrepresented groups, tenure and retention rates, hiring committee composition, etc., and track progress in increasing diversity in your department.

 

12. Evaluate progress at regular intervals and revise practices accordingly.
• Work with researchers to isolate and implement evidence-based practices that increase diversity in academic philosophy departments.

 

13. Officially adopt and implement these diversity-promoting practices to move from good intentions to good practice.
• Widely publicize your department’s targets and commitment to promoting diversity.
• Inform all committee members and bind future committee members to uphold these standards.
• Publicly and explicitly adopt diversity-promoting practices, helping to create a culture of concern that enhances the department’s reputation for welcoming diversity, attracting more diverse applicants.

We hope that departments will pledge to increase diversity in our profession, but even if we are able to recruit a more demographically diverse faculty, recruitment is not enough. Philosophers from underrepresented groups must be valued and supported no less than philosophers who fit more comfortably into the mainstream culture and demographics of academic philosophy, and they must be given the support and resources necessary for them to flourish despite potentially greater burdens and obstacles, including potentially higher service and mentoring demands that follow from being called upon to represent their group.

The perception that diversity and quality are competing considerations can be especially toxic, inviting the perception that some people are hired primarily because of their contributions to diversity despite being lower quality. Better is a view on which “quality” is not always defined by contributions to what is currently mainstream and on which part of what constitutes group-level quality in a department is diversity and difference in viewpoint, interest, methods, and life experience.

Promoting diversity, if done well, will expand the pool of job candidates and the range of perspectives represented in your department. It should reduce provincialism and groupthink, add new sources of fertile ideas, provide a broader range of models for students, and extend the reach and relevance of academic philosophy.

Suggestions, objections, and contributions welcome at dataonwomen@gmail.com. More data on women in philosophy are available here: http://women-in-philosophy.org.

[image source]