In my exchange with Brian yesterday over the merits, if any, of the "Climate for Women survey" I pointed out that "It is by no means unfair that top PGR departments face extra scrutiny. (They gain a lot from being top PGR departments!)" I want to save this point from the particulars of this survey. I will do so in terms of a very useful piece by Jennifer Ouellette that Brian linked (by way of LA Paul). The crucial point for my current purposes is this: "(3) Foster top-down change. Leadership, especially male leadership, needs to set the tone for what is and is not acceptable in a community. The 2007 APS report quotes Virginia Tech’s Patricia Hyer on this: “The voices of male heads … can carry great weight in moving forward an institutional change agenda, especially if they use their access to institutional leaders and personal prestige to make the case for gender equity.” (Richard Dawkins, are you listening?)"
One reason to single out top PGR departments is that if leadership on these matters is promoted there, the discipline may finally turn a decisive corner on gender relations. (Of course, this would not be the end of the matter--it's never as simple as that.) This is said not in the spirit of excusing sloppy methodology. But rather to point to the simple fact that professional philosophy lacks leadership from the top (on a lot of such issues), despite evidence of encouraging trends at Rutgers. All too often, our very best philosophers -- as recognized by their peers and institutional affiliation -- act like boys.
Recent Comments