An afterthought, or two.

I have closed discussion on these posts (here and here) about the 'McGinn affair.' (It is extremely time-consuming to monitor such discussions and I believe most salient points have been aired by now.) While at times the discussions got rather heated and, in my opinion, too focused on less significant details, I want to emphasize two features:

First, I am very heartened by the fact that people who detest features of the old status quo -- including many (like me!) who have benefited from it and, perhaps, have not been as courageous as we could have been in the past -- are willing to state their names and explain why we as a professional discipline must get our act together, while the folk who have trotted out most of the tired cliches that minimize and belittle sexual harassment argue anonymously. This suggests that we're reaching a tipping point in the discipline on what is thought acceptable. I am hopeful that new norms will help improve our collective behavior.

Second, it is important to be reminded of the extent of the anguish and anger that the existing status quo in professional philosophy has generated among our peers--many of whom have survived a variety of types of harrassment. (See here for an excellent post by Heidi Howkins Lockwood on identifying 'red flags'.) Professional philosophy is a very competitive environment with a lot of talented people chasing scarce jobs and (and paid in an even rarer currency) status. We have made a difficult, beautiful, and noble calling uglier than it should be, by letting harassing behavior, which disfigures us all, fester. We have lost a lot of talent and so reduced our opportunities for shared intellectual enquiry.