Hill, who accused Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of workplace sexual harassment during his confirmation hearing back in 1991, said she has seen “firsthand what happens when such a process is weaponized against an accuser and no one should have to endure that again.”
Then a law professor at the University of Oklahoma, Hill testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that she had been sexually harassed by Thomas when she worked with him at the Education Department and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Thomas denied the allegations and he was confirmed to the bench.
is it possible that the guys/politicians will even have the sense that they’re just doing the same thing again?
from an earlier report in the Washington Post;
The examples are useful.
Sexism in a woman’s state of birth and in her current state of residence both lower her wages and likelihood of labor force participation, and lead her to marry and bear her first child sooner,” they find. Even more striking, the prevalence of sexism in a woman’s birth state seems to affect her later earnings and outcomes even if she moves to a place with less sexism.
The article maintains that political views and state-based sexism can diverge, which is certainly true in my recent experience. That is, liberal guys in sexist states can be less supportive or tolerant of female assertiveness and disagreement. OR so it seems to me.
Would that people thinking of jobs had the luxury of thinking of a state’s sexism.
Julie Libarkin has compiled a remarkable database of known sexual harassers in academia. Her criteria for inclusion are strict.
The database only includes cases in which there is “an institutional finding of some sort of sexual misconduct,” Libarkin said. She finds the cases in news reports and by combing through Freedom of Information Act results from media outlets, among other sources.
NOTE: I’d welcome discussion of the methodology used to assemble this list. I’ve always argued against trying to do something like this because I thought it was too hard to get it right.
I expect the title comes from an NYT editor, but the article is by aJoyce Manard, who llived with Salinger for close to a year starting when she as 18 and he VERY much older.
He dismssed her at the end. She understood that she was expected to keep mum about the famous recluse. And she did for 25 years, until she didn’t. The sky fell on her.
That season, at a rare literary event to which I had been invited, an entire row of writers I respected greatly rose from their seats en masse and, as I took the stage, departed the room. I like to think that had they stayed and listened to me that day, they might have questioned their assumptions.
For 20 years, I’ve lived with the consequences of having told that forbidden story, and though I’ve since published nine novels and another memoir, none of which involves Salinger, few reviews of any book I write fail to mention that when I was 18 I slept with a great writer, and, more significantly, that I later committed the unpardonable offense of telling that story, or, as it is frequently stated, of writing a “tell-all” — language that aligns me with tabloid personalities.
Maynard asks if the #me too movent would have provied her a different reception.
i don’t know the answer. At the same time I am horrified at my memories of a time when women ‘using’ their relationship with a famous man were treated as Maynard has been.
A new report has come out from the ECU, and Helen De Cruz has pulled out some important statistics from it for us:
Some figures for philosophy in this survey, 2016/2017 (N = 1115).
* Only 6.1% of philosophers employed at UK universities are disabled – compare, 16-19% of UK working age adults are disabled.
* 95.2% of philosophers employed in UK universities are white – compare, 81.9% of UK population are white. There are only three non-STEM disciplines with an even whiter faculty. They are sports, history and classics (with around 96% white faculty).
* 70.3% of philosophers employed in UK universities are male. No other non-STEM subject has this low representation of women. To compare, Economics has 29.8% women, Theology has 36.7% women, Sports 36.4% and Politics 37.1%, all these are higher than philosophy, where only 29.7% are women).
That’s the title of a CPA blog post by Letitia Meynell, approaching questions of equity in the profession as questions about population-selection pressures:
Basically, it boils down to asking three questions: What is the distribution of various groups? How did they get where they are? And is the situation just?
Regarding the first question, ceteris paribus one would expect the population of professional Canadian philosophers to reflect, roughly, the Canadian population at large—half women, 15 out of 20 white, 1 in 20 Indigenous, 1 in 10 having a disability of some kind (and so on). Choose your preferred level of statistical significance and that will tell you how much divergence from this is too surprising to be the result of chance.
The second question simply tries to understand what caused this divergence from the general population. I find it useful to think about this in terms of selection processes, analogous to those discussed in evolutionary biology (though, obviously, without inheritance playing a role). After all, we are talking about populations and how various subpopulations with socially significant traits find themselves in environments (i.e., academia in general and philosophy in particular) that are more or less conducive to their academic and personal flourishing.
Read the full essay here.
A useful section from an email by Sabrina Joy Stevens
And if these hearings are going to proceed, we’re going to be there every step of the way, checking every attempt to dodge tough questions and helping you hold your senators accountable for stopping Kavanaugh from dragging women’s rights back to the Dark Ages.
FP is going through some changes. This is one of them. It’s also, I think, a beautifully written reflection on some of the problems of online culture.
Really interesting reflections on successful efforts to diversity a journal. The most intriguing bit to me is her cogent and interesting case against triple anonymous review, something I’ve been an advocate for. It gives me much to think about. But I urge you read the whole thing!