New APPS

Art, Politics, Philosophy, Science. Mostly Philosophy.

recent posts

about

    This is not about the PGR

    UPDATE : The post has been slightly edited, for reasons I can clarify if people get in touch with me directly.

    ======================

    In his response to the ‘Statement of concern’ made public yesterday by Sally Haslanger and David Velleman, Brian Leiter is now presenting the issue as a ‘crusade’ against the PGR by long-term critics of the PGR. In light of this suggestion, a few clarifications seem in order.

    There may be many reasons why something like the PGR is good for the profession; but I can think of no good reason why it should run by someone like Brian Leiter (despite the fact that he is the originator of the PGR). He systematically resorts to aggressive, offensive and intimidating behavior against those who dare express views different from his own, both in public and in private correspondence, often targeting junior colleagues and others who can't 'compete' with his power and influence. We are talking about a pattern here, not isolated events. Now, it is partly through the PGR that Brian Leiter has become such a powerful figure in the profession, and he has arguably been misusing his position of power and influence to target colleagues who he disagrees with on a number of issues.

    The question is then whether (given these frequent displays of disrespectful behavior) he is suited to run an initiative that has become so influential as the PGR. A related question is whether he is not misusing the power and influence he has acquired through the PGR and his blog to impose his views and positions by resorting to intimidation and other silencing maneuvers. More generally, I (and others) feel it is important to send the signal that his aggressive behavior is simply unacceptable; it conveys a very disturbing message, if one of the most powerful members of the profession goes around insulting people with no consequences for himself. And why are there no consequences? Arguably, because most people are too scared of him to speak up, especially as they fear PGR-related repercussions.

    So no, this is not primarily about the PGR; it's about what many of us perceive as Leiter's inappropriate behavior on a large number of occasions. As many others, I am in principle not opposed to the continuation of the PGR (as a service to graduate students, for example, or as an instrument for hiring negotiations with the university administrators), but *not* in its current structure, i.e. as a one-man-show run by someone prone to intemperate reactions. This is why I voted ‘No’ at the poll currently being held on the question: “Should we proceed with the 2014 PGR?” My own position is that the PGR should be thoroughly reformed, in particular put under new leadership (preferably, a group of people rather than a single person), if it is to be continued. In sum, I have no objections to a reformed 2015 PGR. 

    This being said, Leiter has been running the PGR diligently for years (even if one can quibble with the reputation-based methodology used), and for this he should be thanked (at least by those who think that the PGR has had an overall positive effect on the profession, and there seem to be many such people). It should also be recognized that he has acted admirably on a number of occasions when issues in the profession arose, and perhaps it is also worth noting that none of what I am saying here pertains to his scholarly work, which is (or so I am told) of the highest quality.

    Posted in ,

    17 responses to “This is not about the PGR”

    1. anonymous prof Avatar
      anonymous prof

      I agree entirely with this post. I was tempted to vote ‘yes’ on Leiter’s poll because I really do like the PGR and don’t want it to go away. I suspect that many of the yes votes were cast with this thought in mind. The poll would have been better if there were three options: (i) should the PGR continue as it currently is, (ii) should it continue with someone else (or several others) in charge, (ii) should is not continue at all.
      For what it is worth, I’m currently at a conference and everyone I have spoken to shares Catarina’s views. These are not radical feminists or SPEP proponents. It is a group of metaphysicians, epistemologists, and philosophers of mind from diverse departments including several that are highly ranked in the PGR.

      Like

      Reply
    2. anon Avatar
      anon

      In our department we have been petitioning against perceived imbalances in both the faculty list and the breakdown of specialisms within the subject. A PGR 2015 under new direction would be the ideal solution all round.

      Like

      Reply
    3. r Avatar
      r

      I concur almost entirely with this post. The only quibble I would have is: the thing that strikes me as most objectionable about Leiter’s behavior is not the ill-tempered insults, but rather the threats of (ludicrous) legal action and the insinuations of other potential retaliation. It seems to me that it is a suitable matter of argument whether ill-tempered insults are categorically inappropriate, but that by contrast there is no real argument over whether the assorted threats are categorically inappropriate.

      Like

      Reply
    4. anon Avatar
      anon

      well put. thankyou for this post.

      Like

      Reply
    5. Eric Winsberg Avatar
      Eric Winsberg

      Perfectly said.
      In fact, I would argue that even someone who thought that his blogging and correspondence were acceptable for an ordinary member of the profession, should agree that they create at least the appearance of a conflict of interest when they come from the person who runs the PGR. You simply can’t be the person who single handedly takes it upon themselves to orchestrate the rankings of departments that we all live under AND go around calling some departments “sh*t departments.” Imagine if the editor of a prominent restaurant guidebook was known to get embroiled in vitriolic and personal spats with particular restaurant owners. Who would abide that?

      Like

      Reply
    6. M Avatar
      M

      Where have you been for the last 11 years? Brian Leiter has always spoken this way to and about those who he takes to be in culpable error about matters of real concern. Did it really take that long to decide that this is really a pattern worth preventing? Or is it possible that this was all taken to be perfectly fine until more cherished members of the profession were the targets of these jabs?

      Like

      Reply
    7. N.J. Jun Avatar
      N.J. Jun

      This could be a watershed moment for the profession. I really hope it doesn’t pass us by. (Then again, I am so cynical these days that I won’t be holding my breath.)

      Like

      Reply
    8. Anon Avatar
      Anon

      This gets it exactly right. I would sign my name but I am scared of retaliation from Brian, which is precisely the point.

      Like

      Reply
    9. RR Avatar
      RR

      I’m still shocked as to why anyone ever took the rankings Leiter tried to peddle to the profession seriously in the first place. And if you happen to have an AOS that Leiter looks down upon then the PGR is incredibly useless. The PGR clearly privileges certain types of philosophy. Leiter’s ongoing personal threats were so believable, and the profession is so small, people were/are actually scared to say anything about his behavior or the PGR out of fear that it could hurt their careers. That’s really sad.

      Like

      Reply
    10. j/k Avatar
      j/k

      In what sense is the PGR a “one man show”? Anyway, Leiter is a jerk, and I agree that it would be better if he was not the face of the profession. I wish someone else ran the PGR and the unofficial official philosophy blog. But it is hard to see how my preferences, even if they are shared by most other philosophers, entail that there is any substantive reason for Leiter to step down as the editor of the PGR. I have read a bunch of these blog posts on the PGR and Leiter, and I have yet to see any specific accusation, plausible or not, of how he has manipulated the rankings to get even with someone or anything like that. What are these “PGR-related repercussions” that people are worried about?

      Like

      Reply
    11. Eric Avatar
      Eric

      Let’s see: he opens comments on the PGR, solicits 25 mostly strongly in favor of him and lauding him for being a super-duper awesome dude and hero to the profession, and then shuts down comments because he’s too busy to moderate.
      Then he calls the philosophy profession a ‘circus’ this morning because people are ‘smearing’ him for his behavior towards others. He did this immediately after slipping in an ad hominem about a notorious law blog troll being 40 and single.
      Diogenes of Sinope would have a field day with this.

      Like

      Reply
    12. M Lister Avatar
      M Lister

      if one of the most powerful members of the profession
      This is a claim that I see a lot and do not understand. In what sense is Leiter “powerful”? He is a well-respected scholar in two areas that are far from central to mainstream philosophy. His opinion on work in those areas caries weight (as it should) but that’s not unusual and again, they are far from central areas. He has a blog that’s widely read, but then, so do many other people, including the people here. Many people regularly and publicly disagree with the blog. Insofar as it provides “power”, it’s because people agree with it, but then, that’s not such a big deal. He started the PGR, and edits it, but it’s a huge, multi-person operation (the ‘one man show’ remarks several people have made are strange and obviously wrong) and reflects the judgment of a wide range of the profession. People pay attention to it, because it reflects that wide range of judgment. To the extent they pay attention to Leiter because of it, they are just making a mistake.
      There is a tendency to treat Leiter as if he were some sort of Svengali, manipulating the profession from behind the scenes. Grad students act like its his fault they have trouble getting jobs. Less good departments think they’d be better thought of if only he didn’t exit. It’s silly. He is person with strong opinions who expresses them. Sometimes people accept them, sometimes they don’t. My impression is that when they are expressed overly strongly or aggressively, they are less likely to be accepted. (One catches more flies with honey than vinegar after all.) The idea that he is especially “powerful” and so need to be taken down strikes me as obviously wrong.

      Like

      Reply
    13. Reinhard Muskens Avatar
      Reinhard Muskens

      Anon @8, whatever is there to be afraid of? BL may have had some power, but by now he has obviously lost it. Who cares what he says or does now? It’s irrelevant. I guess you will find more and more people using their own name when signing their posts in the coming days.

      Like

      Reply
    14. Richard Heck Avatar
      Richard Heck

      @MLister First of all, as far as PGR goes, Leiter has long had his finger on the scales. Yes, there is a board, but Leiter is firmly in charge. I honestly do not know how anyone could think otherwise. He has decided in advance that Emory is a “shit department”, right? What’s the point of ranking it?
      Second, although PGR was the original source of Leiter’s power, that power now emanates primarily from his blog, which is far and away the most widely read blog in our profession. (How many others do you know that have advertising?) This provides a platform from which Leiter can air his opinions not just on general issues in the profession, but also on specific philosophers. Does he still speculate about how X’s move from Y to Z will affect their rankings?
      Third, if PGR shows anything, it is that people in this profession care enormously (to my mind, pathologically) about reputation. (PGR is a “reputational survey”.) So, when Carolyn Dicey Jennings wrote:
      “…[W]when your post ends with ‘This does raise a serious question about her judgment,’ you appear to be making a claim about my mental capacities, in general. …You may not have meant to make such sweeping claims, but many of your readers will be happy to accept your authority on such points as they are stated. …That could obviously be damaging to my career.”
      she was not being unreasonable.

      Like

      Reply
    15. Max Avatar
      Max

      As an graduate I can only say that it is astonishing that the profession as a whole has tolerated Mr Leiter’s behaviour for so long. As pathetic as his behaviour has been, it is almost as sad to see that the profession reacted only when a more famous and well-connected member came under attack, namely Professor Jennings-Ichikawa. And it took two of the most famous philosophers to finally shed light on his legal threats via email. Equally sad is that so many well-known philosophers have agreed to further his position by guest-blogging or commenting on his site as it is, as you said, his webpage that constitutes his bully pulpit. It is so obvious that Mr Leiter has a proclivity to kick against the weak and waning in influence.
      Thank you, Professor Heck, and the people at the choiceandinference-blog who have stood up to say how bogus and biased the rankings are and that reputation is not at all a good measure. As I have experienced myself, it is often the Junior-faculty without great reputation that are really helpful advisors. I have seen it myself that those students with them as advisors flourish most.
      Many people in the profession want to rescue the ranking but I think that graduate students need to understand that the most important measures, quality of teaching, student-teacher-exchange and climate are things that are almost impossible to measure let alone rank. Send an email to matriculated students, read the work of philosophers that interest you, but dont pay attention to rankings in a discipline where quality is not as easily judged as it is in mathematics or the hard sciences where money for reaserch facilities is an excellent guide
      The ranking has in my opinion the detrimental effect that young students often think that they have to work on the work (and agree) with those most famous in the profession, something that is so counterproductive to philosophy and critical thinking. Besides that, I have learned that those most famous are often those with the most outlandish of claims. Try telling someone outside philosophy that those regarded as the best put forward theses that just cannot be true (modal realism) and then combine it with the thought that philosophers aim at truth.

      Like

      Reply
    16. r Avatar
      r

      Although I agree that Leiter has behaved very badly, and I understand the impetus to have him step down, I also agree with @10 that I’ve seen no evidence even offered that he’s acted in his editorial capacity to punish the ‘enemies’ he apparently sees around every corner. It still may be the best course of events if he steps down. But the line about PGR-retaliation seems like an unsubstantiated attack–after all, isn’t the ranking process governed not only by him, but by the extensive (and we suppose for this exercise laudatory) editorial board, and with a public methodology to boot? There may be something I’m missing, but as of now I don’t get it.

      Like

      Reply
    17. A graduate student Avatar
      A graduate student

      I apologize at the outset for a very long comment here! Like others, I appreciate and agree with this post entirely. But I might go even further. Leiter’s poll asks only whether the PGR should proceed this year, not whether it should be discontinued. So I think arguments (which I have seen all over recently) for conducting it in 2014 on the basis of any general good it does the profession are misguided. The question isn’t so much whether the PGR as an institution has done, and perhaps may continue to do, good for the profession; it is whether doing a 2014 one, right now, is good for the profession. So it seems more appropriate that the possible benefit of doing a PGR in 2014 (leaving aside all debate about whether in fact there is any) needs to be weighed against the possible harm (again, leaving aside any the PGR itself may do) of doing it when
      (a) many philosophers, including very many who would normally participate in the survey, have signed a letter pledging not to participate in it with Leiter at the head, which is already guaranteed to reduce whatever benefit it might otherwise have,
      (b) the reasons for (a) are very good and are independent of the merits of the PGR itself, and
      (c) a very large portion of the profession currently seems opposed to a 2014 PGR in general, if we believe the recent poll.
      Given all this, I think there is very, very good reason to believe that the potential harm of a 2014 PGR will outweigh any potential good that it could do. But (here is where I might go further than the post) I also think there is reason to believe that this is so regardless of who would be running it. Ironically, Leiter’s own attempt to separate the PGR from his personal situation is part of the reason for this. Had he not posted a poll soliciting the profession’s opinion about a 2014 PGR, item (c) here might arguably not be in play right now. But now we have both an open letter declaring no confidence in Leiter as editor and a poll declaring no confidence in any 2014 PGR, and that means that even if we did grant that this “is about the PGR,” as he has urged, we would have a problem.
      Now that both of these outcomes are out in the open, the profession needs to take time to sort out the relationship between them. It may be true (even obvious) that the merits of Leiter as the PGR’s editor are different, to at least some extent, than the merits of the PGR, but it is not at all obvious precisely what this difference is or how to articulate it, and I don’t see any reason to think that the matter can be sorted out satisfactorily in the next few weeks. Whether the poll has been manipulated, or whether all of the people who participated in it were “qualified” to do so, does not matter. The poll’s outcome is being perceived by a significant portion of the profession as indicative of the profession’s “general will,” and that constitutes a serious legitimacy problem for a 2014 PGR.
      But I would go beyond the original post (and I don’t mean to suggest that the author would necessarily disagree!) in one further way. All of this seems to suggest that it is very bad that the profession’s most visible and authoritative measure of academic and institutional reputation is controlled by any group of people working in a private capacity, i.e. without formal accountability to some body that the profession as a whole perceives as representing it. It will be a liability for any ratings system to be structured in this way, no matter how temperate in character its custodians may be, because there will be a limit to the perception (and thereby to the reality) of its legitimacy for as long as a large portion of the profession does not have a real stake guaranteed by a say in how it is conducted. I really hope this question of who has a stake in the ratings, and what kind of stake, will be clarified before another PGR is released, and that it gets an answer of an entirely different kind than it has had up to now. As things stand, every time the PGR needs to be passed off to anyone else for any reason, the entire profession will effectively have to go through a feudal succession crisis. We put governments under the management of officials rather than (even angelic!) lords for just this reason, so I don’t see why we shouldn’t at least consider doing so with the PGR.
      I think it should be possible in principle to reach consensus around something like this regardless of the underlying particulars of the Leiter case. It is precisely because the issues that the case raises are so important–issues of fairness both to Leiter and to the others involved, and of the profession’s ability effectively to evaluate and govern itself and to withstand crises like these in the future–that we should not waste the opportunity to permanently improve the way we do what the PGR is supposed to do (if indeed we are committed to doing that).

      Like

      Reply

    Leave a comment