New APPS

Art, Politics, Philosophy, Science. Mostly Philosophy.

about

The September Statement: Some Numbers (Updated 10/10/2014)

October 10, 2014

By Carolyn Dicey Jennings

–out of 643 signatures* from philosophers at 290 departments, 33% are women (roughly 2 times the percentage of women who are full-time faculty in philosophy according to one source, and almost 1.5 times the "percentage of women on tenured/tenure-track appointments at Top-51 Doctoral Programs in Gourmet Report" according to another source).

–for all of the departments in the top 50 of the 2011 worldwide PGR, a mean 17% faculty signed the document**. (I am attaching the Excel spreadsheet I used here.)

–there is little to no correlation between PGR rating and the percentage of faculty who signed for departments in the top 50 of the 2011 worldwide ranking (-.11). Of these departments, those with greater than 17% faculty signatures include: ANU, CUNY, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Indiana, King's College London, MIT, Northwestern, Rutgers, Syracuse, UCL, UCSD, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Leeds, U Mass Amherst, Michigan, Oxford, UPenn, Sheffield, USC, St Andrews/Stirling, UVA, Wisconsin.

*I updated the list at approximately 2:45 p.m. PDT , October 10th, 2014.

**I did not match the names of the signers to the names of members of faculty, but compared the number of people who signed the document claiming a particular affiliation to the number of faculty listed in the current PGR faculty lists. It is possible that persons not included in the PGR list for a department signed the document with that department's affiliation, which would potentially lower this percentage as well as the percentage for that particular department.

Update (October 1st, 2014): Nottingham is the first department to ask not to be evaluated by the PGR, due to these events.

Update (October 3rd, 2014): John Protevi is hosting the "October Statement."

Update (October 6th, 2014): Sheffield is the second department to announce that it is not cooperating with the PGR this year. The October Statement has 111 signatures, as of October 4th. (I have not worked out how much overlap exists between these statements, so it would not be correct to say that these statements together constitute 745 signatures–the number is smaller than this, but I don't yet know by how much.)

Update (October 10th, 2014): Signatures on the September Statement have closed, and an announcement has been added, as below.

"The September Statement, signed by twenty-one philosophers on September 24, 2014, and its addendum, signed by six hundred twenty-four philosophers in the weeks following, was a pledge not to provide volunteer work for the Philosophical Gourmet Report under the control of Brian Leiter.

On October 10, Leiter publicly committed to stepping down from the PGR following the publication of the 2014 edition, which will be produced with Leiter and Berit Brogaard as co-editors. After its publication, Leiter will resign as editor, and become a member of the PGR's advisory board. (See Daily Nous's account here.)

The September Statement did not specify the conditions under which the PGR is considered to be "under the control of Brian Leiter". It is up to each individual signatory to decide whether it is consistent with the pledge to assist with the 2014 PGR with Leiter as a co-editor, or with future editions with Leiter as a board member.

We are grateful for the support of the philosophers who signed the September Statement, as well as that of those who worked in other ways to make clear that this kind of bullying behaviour is unacceptable in professional philosophy."

Posted in Carolyn Dicey Jennings

46 responses to “The September Statement: Some Numbers (Updated 10/10/2014)”

Chris Frey

September 30, 2014

It would be nice if Berit Brogaard made some sort of public statement explaining why she decided not to sign this statement and instead went in the opposite direction and agreed to be a co-editor of PGR while BL remains an editor. I have seen some comments she has made on facebook, but that isn’t really the best forum for this sort of thing.
I can understand why she might not want to do so. I imagine whatever explanation she provides will be heavily criticized. And I’m certainly not a part of a mob that wants to make her the focus of any sort of attack. But I think it is important in the present context for her to explain to the philosophical community she aims to serve through this decision why she thinks her choice is not in fact supporting (and tacitly endorsing) the sort of behavior that BL engages in.

LikeLike

Reply
Chris Frey

September 30, 2014

To be absolutely clear, I’m not trying to put Brogaard in the crosshairs, as it were. It is just that hundreds of her peers have reflected on the present situation and have concluded that the best course of action is to sign the September statement. I’m sure there are many others that agree with the statement but, for one reason or another, have nevertheless declined to sign it (many are wary of putting their name out there). Perhaps the last line of my above comment is already unfair. I’m really not trying to make accusations or to speculate. I’m just genuinely curious why she thinks that so many of us have erred in concluding that the appropriate response to everything that has happened is to no longer participate in the PGR as long as BL retains his position as (co-)editor. What are we all missing?

LikeLike

Reply
Befuddled

September 30, 2014

And it would seem that, based on those kind of numbers in the campaign, and Rosenberg’s arguments about the continued validity of the survey with self-selected respondents removed (at DailyNous), the PGR will go ahead almost exactly as planned, with the same author plus a new co-author and a largely replaced editorial board. And therefore the direct aims of the campaign will not have been achieved. Accurate?

LikeLike

Reply
Roberta Millstein

September 30, 2014

“I’m sure there are many others that agree with the statement but, for one reason or another, have nevertheless declined to sign it (many are wary of putting their name out there).”
Just a side note to your main points (which I agree with), I have talked with a few people who didn’t sign because they felt as though the letter supported the continuance of the PGR (albeit in a Leiter-less form), whereas they thought that it ought to be eliminated altogether. Assuming the few that I talked to represent others, they are also not served by BB’s decision.

LikeLike

Reply
P

September 30, 2014

Your request strikes me as an entirely appropriate one. Thank you for making it.

LikeLike

Reply
anon p

September 30, 2014

A general question. What is supposed to be the special significance of BB — as compared to any other well-regarded, mainstream-ish philosopher — taking on co-editorial duties with BL? Or is it a misimpression to think that many observers are attaching such significance to her taking on this role?

LikeLike

Reply
M

September 30, 2014

Some may judge that while Leiter’s behavior is obnoxious, it does not rise to the level of serious injustice, and given Leiter’s successful running of the PGR and its value, it is not best to refrain from cooperating with him in that project. Everybody who is sensible agrees that there is some level and kinds of objectionableness that fellow members of one’s profession can exhibit that one should not treat as reasons for not cooperating with him or her in worthwhile projects. I think some folks think that while Leiter is a loudmouth, this is not at the level of serious injustice.
Some may also judge that the September Statement involves an alliance of those who reasonably reject cooperating with Leiter with those whose rejection is unreasonable, politically-motivated in a pejorative sense, and so forth. Some may judge that it bespeaks bad faith that Leiter’s behavior became too much to take only when more-favored members of the profession were the object of his wrath. (The idea it is the pattern that folks are objecting to suggests that the pattern of Leiter’s behavior was only really well-established when Carrie Jenkins became its target. I mean, really. Seriously? That is not plausible.)

LikeLike

Reply
Chris Frey

September 30, 2014

M, you say, “Some may judge…”. I am simply curious as to whether Brogaard is among this `some’. I would prefer not to speculate about her deliberations or to provide reasons on her behalf. I happen not to be persuaded by what you offer here. But it is not the only reasoning one could employ to justify participation in the PGR with BL’s continued presence. I’d rather not engage with merely possible justifications but with the justifications Brogaard actually endorses.

LikeLike

Reply
Carolyn Dicey Jennings

September 30, 2014

I would be happy to host such a statement, if Brit would like to make one. On the other hand, she is in a different position from the rest of us, in having been asked to be co-editor. Perhaps she thinks there is more good to be done in accepting that role than in signing the statement, which is not a decision anyone else has been forced to make.

LikeLike

Reply
Carolyn Dicey Jennings

September 30, 2014

I disagree. This appears to be the direct aim of the statement (which resonated with me, personally):
“The effects of this on Professor Jenkins since July have been very serious, impacting her health, her capacity to work, and her ability to contribute to public discourse as a member of the profession. In the light of this recent incident on Professor Leiter’s public Twitter feed, we feel compelled to act. We are now standing with Carrie publicly, as colleagues and friends.”
The explanation continues: “Professor Leiter has the power to have this kind of impact on Professor Jenkins in part because of his control over the Philosophical Gourmet Report. We don’t find what has happened to our colleague acceptable, and don’t wish voluntarily to help provide Professor Leiter the power that makes it possible. It is up to each of us individually to decide what we will volunteer to do. The undersigned members of the philosophical community have decided to decline to volunteer our services to Leiter’s PGR. While we recognise that there are other ways to condemn Professor Leiter’s behaviour and to support our colleague, we think the best choice for us involves publicly declining to assist with the PGR.”
One can “condemn” bad behavior and “support” a colleague (which I take to be the direct aims of the statement) without anyone else doing so. On the other hand, the indirect aim of encouraging others to support Carrie has been successful, in my opinion, even if the support is not universal.

LikeLike

Reply
Roberta Millstein

September 30, 2014

“Some may judge that it bespeaks bad faith that Leiter’s behavior became too much to take only when more-favored members of the profession were the object of his wrath. (The idea it is the pattern that folks are objecting to suggests that the pattern of Leiter’s behavior was only really well-established when Carrie Jenkins became its target. I mean, really. Seriously? That is not plausible.)”
I thought this comment on the Feminist Philosophers blog (see http://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/the-rational-high-ground/#comment-128449 ) addressed this concern well:

…there may be a sense in which what happened to Carrie Jenkins was the straw that broke the camel’s back, as it were – since the email to her was incredibly harsh and prompted by something she did that one has to read incredibly, almost willfully uncharitably to view as ‘an attack’. Her colleagues rallied around her when they saw the harm done to her and produced the September Statement. But most of the philosophers signing on to the statement have signed on to the addendum, which is worded very carefully as follows:
“On September 24, the people listed above, motivated to decline to volunteer services to the PGR by these specific incidents impacting Carrie, signed this statement.
Others may also be similarly moved by these incidents, or may know of other relevantly similar incidents, and thus may not wish to participate in the PGR while it is under the control of Brian Leiter.”
So it’s not that people are only reacting to what happened to Carrie – far from it. Most of the people I know who signed the statement signed because they are concerned about a longstanding pattern of behavior, of which the treatment of Carrie is only one instance.

The pattern was clear well before Carrie Jenkins; no one has suggested otherwise.

LikeLike

Reply
j

September 30, 2014

“I’m sure there are many others that agree with the statement but, for one reason or another, have nevertheless declined to sign it (many are wary of putting their name out there).”
In addition to wariness about “having our names out there”, there are those of us in the philosophical community who disapprove of Leiter’s behavior but decline to sign because of the nature of their program or university. I’m one such example. Though I’m a philosophy professor, I am at an institution that lacks a major, let alone any sort of graduate program. My promising to withhold support for the PGR is essentially meaningless, since there would be nothing for me to do even if I were so inclined. Furthermore, it wouldn’t mean much, if anything, for me to tell my students to ignore the PGR when considering graduate school in philosophy, since no student is seriously considering graduate work in philosophy.
What’s more, I worry that my signature would allow Leiter (or those sympathetic to him) to point to persons such as myself as disingenuous hangers-on from unranked departments, rather than the serious folk who are genuinely interested in the PGR. This characterization is nonsense, of course, but I don’t wish to add fuel to the fire.
In short, I think it reasonable to assume that acceptance of something along the lines of, “I disapprove of Leiter’s actions; He has acted unacceptably/unprofessionally/unethically, and he should be removed from association with the PGR as a result,” is broader within the philosophical community than just the signatories of the statement.

LikeLike

Reply
Bill Wringe

September 30, 2014

For what it’s worth, I’m in (what I take to be) a similar position to j – I teach in the non-anglophone world, and there’s no chance that Leiter’s going to ask my opinion about anything. I’m hesitant about signing the September statement for similar reasons to j, but I agree with him in finding Leiter’s actions unacceptable.

LikeLike

Reply
ck

September 30, 2014

j, the point is well-taken, and probably many signatories agree with you in spirit.
but, geez, leave it to philosophers to nitpick a distinction and hamstring themselves from effective coordinated action.
the effect of the sept statement seems to me mostly equivalent to the statement from your last paragraph that you say you would sign were it out there. it’s not logically equivalent in fine detail, yes, but this isn’t a seminar room.
if your view is in broad terms that leiter should remove himself from pgr editorship (and you want to call on your colleagues to hold him to this), then sign the damn thing.
that one doesn’t presently have a job at a leiter-rific department or a department sending students to leiter-rized departments (a concern i shared when i weighed whether or not to sign) might after all be part of the point: framing a refusal to sign by appealing to the bizarre but entrenched standards set by the pgr is part of the problem we are dealing with here and so not a good justification for not signing. (of course one might have other good reasons.)

LikeLike

Reply
B

September 30, 2014

j and Bill, others have said that they sent emails but their names were not added. So it seems that if the organizers think it will help them, they’ll add it, and if not, they won’t. No harm, I think, in emailing.

LikeLike

Reply
Chris Frey

September 30, 2014

Again, “Perhaps she thinks…”. As it stands, we have no idea.

LikeLike

Reply
M

September 30, 2014

I am sorry, it is not at all plausible that the treatment of Jenkins is being viewed as ‘just one instance’ — of no more or no less concern than any other, but just happening to be the precipitating event. It just happened to be when it was a high-profile female full professor that the camel’s back got broken? Color me skeptical.
Because it seems obviously not to be just a straw breaking a camel’s back, one is led to suspect that there are other biases at work. The fact that suddenly everyone cares about a disease when it makes a celebrity sick would make one rightly suspect that the public concern may be disproportionate to the danger. Similarly, when everyone cares about Brian’s demeanor the moment he is writing a harsh e-mail to Carrie Jenkins, and not some conservative law student, makes one suspect that the response may not be proportionate to the stimulus.

LikeLike

Reply
Anon

September 30, 2014

One of Leiter’s targets was finally lucky enough to have some colleagues who were willing to speak up in public, instead of brushing the problem under the rug and looking away. Their courage inspired other people to stop looking away.
I agree that the response may not be proportionate to the stimulus. It may be far less than what would be appropriate to the gravity of the problem and how long it has been going on.

LikeLike

Reply
grad

September 30, 2014

I don’t know Professor Jenkins. I’ve never read anything she’s written. I wouldn’t be able to pick her out of a crowd at the APA. Before all this, I could have told you she was at UBC. But that’s about it. I feel no special concern for her, even after the September Statement. Nonetheless, I feel BL’s emails to her and to McAfee were the straw that broke the camel’s back. Given the wide–wide–diversity of AOSs among those who signed the statement, I imagine others feel the same as I do.

LikeLike

Reply
Roberta Millstein

September 30, 2014

Please see the response given by #18 Anon, which captures well what I was going to say in response.
These things need a certain amount of momentum to get going. The UBC department provided that. I’d heard people toss around the idea of similar letters in the past, but no one took the lead to get them going. UBC is to be commended for not only standing up for their colleague but also for providing a way for those who were concerned about prior actions to register their concern.

LikeLike

Reply
Eric Winsberg

September 30, 2014

If one reads through the comments below my “fracas” post, there is at least prima facie evidence that Carrie Jenkins herself might not be terribly inclined to disagree with the point that “M” is making about her role vis a vis the camel. Further, I think Anon@18 is also surely right, and I will add to that that Jenkins was also “lucky” enough that her colleagues were well-enough connected to some of the other folks who signed, and to our own Catarina who got the addendum going.
But other than the fact that this shows that we as a profession show poor spirit in rising to collective action for those who first deserve it, and only come to our colleagues aid when that colleague is one of the “cool kids,” I’m not sure what else is supposed to follow from any of that. I certainly don’t see why it shows that the movement is in bad faith, any more than the example in 17 does. I can think of lots of cases where a disease is ravaging the abject poor in Africa and no one cares until a westerner gets the disease. but I dont see how that shows that the reaction to the disease is disproportionate to its danger.

LikeLike

Reply
anon p

September 30, 2014

“I can think of lots of cases where a disease is ravaging the abject poor in Africa and no one cares until a westerner gets the disease. but I dont see how that shows that the reaction to the disease is disproportionate to its danger.”
Various commenters (at least two) on different sites have tried to make a point that seems relevant and significant. Given your own example, this point would be that the very differential response seems to indicate — and likely does indicate — that some lives are valued more than others. The disease, of course, could be no less dangerous to Westerners than to Africans; and the Western reaction might be proportionate to the danger. Such rejoinders, though, seem intent on not taking seriously the point about morally problematic dynamics of differential response. Taking these dynamics seriously does not entail believing that no action against BL at this time, for the cumulative reasons, is warranted.

LikeLike

Reply
anon

September 30, 2014

If you are going to defend BL, you might want to avoid analogies in which you compare him to a disease.

LikeLike

Reply
M

September 30, 2014

I could just as easily compared him to current bizarre overreaction to the chances of one’s child being endangered by playing in the park without an adult caretaker present. I trust philosophers to understand what is relevant in an analogy and what isn’t.
Nothing in my remark was meant to suggest that this shows that this response to BL was inappropriate. Only this: that if one thinks that the response to BL seems over-the-top, there is a ready explanation available for why so many of one’s philosophical colleagues seem now so incensed when, even now, they do not seem much concerned about the numerous past targets of Leiter’s bile.

LikeLike

Reply
anon grad student

September 30, 2014

I’m glad that the “no signers” list has been deleted from the post, but it’s worrisome that it was there in the first place. In general, I find troubling this kind of attempt to pressure people into publicly declaring their allegiance to the right cause of the day. As Tom Nagel once said (‘Concealment and Exposure’) in the context of decrying the antiliberal tendencies of the new left, ‘the demand to stand up and be counted’ is an invasion of privacy and an attempt to control the common social space.

LikeLike

Reply
Carolyn Dicey Jennings

September 30, 2014

I agree with you that one might have read that point as an attempt to pressure people in those departments to sign the September Statement. As I say elsewhere, I had other intentions. But to avoid putting illicit pressure on members of those departments, I removed the point. As to the other claims: I am not enough familiar with that work to comment.

LikeLike

Reply
Roberta Millstein

September 30, 2014

Who are these “philosophical colleagues [who] seem now so incensed when, even now, they do not seem much concerned about the numerous past targets of Leiter’s bile”? I have not talked with anyone who was incensed over CJ who wasn’t also incensed over BL’s previous and similar actions – and I have talked with a lot of people.
Perhaps if you understood that, in all likelihood, every single one of the signers is concerned about BL’s past actions as well as his most recent one’s, then you would better understand why nothing in that letter is a “bizarre overreaction” or “over-the-top” — although frankly, even if this were the first such incident I still wouldn’t see the letter as “bizarre” or “over-the-top”. The letter is really quite mild, all things considered; as I noted above, too mild for some people I know to sign it.

LikeLike

Reply
Bill Wringe

October 1, 2014

M:
I think that this kind of response to BLs behavior could only happen when the person on the receiving end of it was in a position to give a fairly public signal that they were ok with it. I reckon that makes it much more likely that the person concerned would be established and well-connected.
A colleague and friend of mine was the target of some comparatively small-scale nuisance-making from BL a while back. His reaction was just to keep quiet and hope the whole thing would blow over – not because he thought the behavior was OK, but because if the conflict had escalated, it would have been massively asymmetrical.
I suspect that may be a fairly common reaction. I certainly found it instantly comprehensible.
If so, it’s not especially surprising that it would take someone relatively secure in their professional standing and well-connected to be the person to push back publicly. So I don’t find it either surprising our suspicious that that’s what’s happened.

LikeLike

Reply
Crimlaw

October 1, 2014

Some departments presumably have a higher percentage of faculty with a significant online presence than others. This might contribute to explaining some of the departmental differences being discussed. I asked five colleagues over the past few days whether they had any thoughts about these issues. Four of the five had not even heard about the issue.

LikeLike

Reply
a

October 1, 2014

Can anyone confirm that this is true? If so it strikes me as deeply troubling.

LikeLike

Reply
anon

October 1, 2014

I’ve seen one or two grad students added, so I doubt it.

LikeLike

Reply
anon

October 1, 2014

Let’s just suppose that Leiter ignores this campaign and somehow continues on with PGR, working with those philosophers who will serve on the advisory board.
Obviously, such a PGR will have reduced credibility. The philosophers who produce it will be self-selectingly those who for whatever reason were not sufficiently moved by Leiter’s behavior to alter their own involvement with the PGR. But I’m worried that, since there is no alternative, such a PGR will nevertheless manage to limp along, serving more or less the same role it does now.
What then are our best next steps to prevent this? Should Leiter ignore the campaigns and continue with PGR, how can we further limit the usefulness of the survey?
Is it correct that departments have to themselves agree to be evaluated by PGR? I seem to recall reading somewhere that not all departments are evaluated (please correct if I’m confused about this). Is there any possibility of departments deciding to opt out of PGR evaluation, thus even further crippling the meaningfulness of the PGR? If this is an option, it would be great to see an NYU or an MIT or other leiterrific departments boycotting the PGR in this way.

LikeLike

Reply
Crimlaw

October 1, 2014

Departments do not have to agree to be evaluated by the Gourmet Report or any other evaluator.
I’ve also not yet seen any indication that those Advisory Board members who signed the Chalmers/Stanley/etc statement intend to leave the Advisory Board if their suggested change is not made. I may have missed something.

LikeLike

Reply
Philip Kremer

October 1, 2014

“Is it correct that departments have to themselves agree to be evaluated by PGR?” I’m pretty sure that my friends and I can get together, look at faculty lists on departmental web pages, and publish a ranking based on our impressions regardless of whether those departments agree to this.

LikeLike

Reply
anonymous prof

October 1, 2014

What Crimlaw says is right. The letter from the advisory board recommended that BL no longer participate as editor of the PGR. Adding a coeditor is not a way to accept the board’s recommendation. It is totally unclear though whether this was simply a recommendation that BL can either accept or reject without any consequences, or whether, if BL chooses to not accept it (which it looks like the path he is taking), then the signees will no longer serve on the advisory board. I guess we will have to wait and see. I’m not really sure why the letter hasn’t been made public yet. But patience is a virtue.

LikeLike

Reply
B

October 1, 2014

Then I’ll give a bit more context. This was either on a DailyNous post or on the CHE article. Two commenters said that they had PhDs in philosophy but were not currently teaching in philosophy departments (one is not in academia, one is in another department), and they sent emails and their names were not added.

LikeLike

Reply
bob

October 1, 2014

UIC (Illinois/Chicago) is a top 40 department and 18% have signed this.

LikeLike

Reply
Anonymous3

October 1, 2014

“I seem to recall reading somewhere that not all departments are evaluated (please correct if I’m confused about this).”
It’s certainly the case that not all departments are evaluated. In fact, LESS THAN HALF of the PhD granting departments in the English-speaking world are evaluated. Not ranked, evaluated – their faculty lists aren’t given to the evaluators to be rated.
Based on this fact alone, that anyone thinks that the PGR is representative of “the profession”, “philosophy”, or “doctoral programs in the English-speaking world” is completely baffling to me.

LikeLike

Reply
Anonymous3

October 1, 2014

Correction, that should read:
“In fact, LESS THAN HALF of the PhD granting departments in the English-speaking world are evaluated. Not ranked, evaluated – the faculty lists of those departments not evaluated aren’t given to the evaluators to be rated.”

LikeLike

Reply
Suggestion

October 1, 2014

Maybe UBC should lead the way on this? You might be able to get buy-in from the other Canadian departments – there’re quite a lot of signatures up there.

LikeLike

Reply
Carolyn Dicey Jennings

October 1, 2014

Thanks for this…I think it is not in the worldwide top 50. I should have extended this to all departments ranked by the PGR, but I focused on the worldwide top 50 because it was late and I already had information on those departments from the placement data.

LikeLike

Reply
bob

October 1, 2014

I see. I didn’t notice. Thanks for doing this.

LikeLike

Reply
Another suggestion

October 2, 2014

On the broader topic of smaller things to do to decrease Leiter’s ‘de facto spokesman status’ in the profession (presuming that that is what is in part disconcerting about his being both ed. in chief of the PGR and someone who threatens and degrades others in the profession): Leiterreports is still on the blogroll on the left of this page. Why not remove it?

LikeLike

Reply
Rachel

October 2, 2014

“Only this: that if one thinks that the response to BL seems over-the-top, there is a ready explanation available for why so many of one’s philosophical colleagues seem now so incensed when, even now, they do not seem much concerned about the numerous past targets of Leiter’s bile.”
This is very easily demonstrably false, as is very clearly evidenced in how people reacted when BL went after me, Matt, and an anonymous grad student (and again when he went after Carolyn). Much outrage was registered and voiced in those cases as in the more recent cases of Carrie and Noelle.

LikeLike

Reply
David Wallace

October 10, 2014

Since this has been updated and brought forward, I want to stress Caroline’s footnote **. It isn’t simply ” possible” that not all signatories are faculty, it is certainly the case. I checked Oxford a week ago: about 1/3 of signatories are non-Faculty. If that ratio is true worldwide, 17% would become 12%. I have no reason to believe it does hold worldwide, but equally I have no reason to assume Oxford is anomalous.

LikeLike

Reply
anon

October 11, 2014

great suggestion!!!! I second.
I am also personally boycotting leiter reports. This means I don’t regularly or rely on it for philosophy news. I will only read it to confirm inflammatory, important things he’s said, for the purpose of constructively responding to those things.

LikeLike

Reply