It’s well known (to people who follow such things) that philosophy stands out among academic disciplines in its shortage of women.
For years, many philosophers have been frustrated by the status of women in the discipline, which remains male-dominated in many ways, even as other humanities fields have seen more women advance into leadership positions. Various efforts have focused on issues that range from sexual harassment to questioning traditions that make many women uncomfortable.
Oh gosh, that sounds familiar. What does that remind me of? Oh yes, I remember now.
Let’s follow the link on sexual harassment, shall we? What do we find? It’s Inside Higer Ed again, Scott Jaschik again. What’s the story?
Let’s say there is a scholar in your field who is known to harasswomen. Maybe you witnessed an incident. Maybe you heard from friends who were his victims. Maybe you heard from friends of friends. The person is known (among women at least) as someone to avoid, but he continues on in a professorship at a top university, serving on influential editorial boards, turning up on the programs of all the right conferences.
If the man has never been convicted by a judicial body or punished by a university (at least not that you know of), is this just a case of “innocent until proven guilty”? Or does this suggest disciplinary negligence — or tolerance of serial harassment?
Oh gosh, that sounds super-familiar too. Isn’t that amazing? In fact it sounds kind of…identical. Top dude, known to harass, known among women as someone to avoid, still invited to all the things.
I wonder if the next part is about the president of Yale or Harvard rebuking women for talking about this issue. [reads on] No, I don’t see that. Strange.
The comments are very familiar though. Fanaticism, medieval persecution, McCarthyism, witch hunts – it’s all there.