Hypatia Diversity Prize

Hypatia is pleased to invite submissions for the 2015 Hypatia Diversity Essay Prize. This prize is awarded biennially for the best essay, previously unpublished, written by a graduate student, postdoctoral fellow, or non-tenured faculty member that embodies a feminist, intersectional approach in a philosophical analysis combining categories of identity (e.g., gender, class, disability, ethnicity, nationality, race, religion, sexuality). In addition to being published as the winning Diversity Essay in Hypatia, the winning author(s) will receive $500.  Essays of high quality that do not receive the award will also be considered for publication.

The Diversity Essay Prize committee warmly encourages essay submissions! Please submit essays at the Hypatia Manuscript Central Submission Site. When you submit your essay, make sure to select “Diversity Essay Prize” in the drop-down menu, and also note in the cover letter that the submission is for the diversity essay prize.

The Diversity Prize Committee is chaired by Linda Martin Alcoff and includes Ladelle McWhorter and David Haekwon Kim. If you have any question you may contact either the Editorial Offices at Hypatia@villanova.edu or Linda Martin Alcoff at lmartina@hunter.cuny.edu.

February 1, 2015 submission deadline

Rae Langton. . .

 

. . .is currently the featured Philosop-her over at Political Philosop-her. Go check it out.

When to stop correcting sexist language?

From a reader:

I teach students in my courses (all undergrads) how to avoid the use of gender-exclusive language. I’ve seen lightbulbs go off when I share techniques for avoiding awkward constructions, and I think many students readily absorb the idea that their writing should be aimed at everyone, not just at men.

Here’s the dilemma: A former student (now in the workforce) has asked for feedback on his personal statement for grad school applications.  His statement is chock-full of gender exclusive language–the kind of language which assumes all philosophers are men. I’m torn about whether to correct it or not.  I have loyalty to this student who once took a course with me, but there’s loyalty to my colleagues, whom I may have never met, but who have to deal with a lot of low-level sexism of the kind that drives us all nuts. I wouldn’t want them to exclude him from academe but his wording could be relevant data for someone. It’s his personal statement, not mine. His wording is sexist, and although mine wouldn’t be, I’m not the one asking for inclusion in this community.

My intuition is that the reader should offer advice, not editing new choices into the document but suggesting in one’s email-reply that the language is gender-exclusive.  If he doesn’t take the advice, that’s his affair, but if he does then good, because doing so possibly indicates a corrigible future colleague.

Suit filed to stop Campus SaVE Act

According to a March 2 press release, a University of Virginia rape victim has filed a landmark civil rights action in an effort to halt the Campus SaVE Act – a new U.S. federal law which is scheduled to take effect this week, on March 7.

The suit alleges that SaVE undermines women’s civil rights in various ways, including that it permits colleges and universities to mandate that victims prove their credibility under an exceedingly rigorous “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. In contrast, the April 2011 Dear Colleague Letter issued by the Department of Education as a clarification/guidance for Title IX requires only that victims meet a much lower “preponderance of the evidence” standard.

Under SaVE, the higher burden of proof will only be allowed in cases involving violence against women, and will not be applied to cases involving violence against students based on other protected class categories such as race, disabilities and ethnicity. The victim alleges in her suit that it is unconstitutional to subject violence against women to weaker legal standards compared to violence based on these other categories.

Another objectionable provision in SaVE requires schools to apply state criminal law standards to violence against women cases on campus. Current law requires schools to apply more generous federal civil rights standards so that, for example, a sexual assault is proved as long as the conduct was “unwelcome.” Under SaVE, “unwelcomeness” will not be enough. The victim will have to prove that the conduct violated state criminal law, which in most states means the victim will have to prove both non-consent and that the assault involved the use of force.

Because the more generous standard of “unwelcomeness” will continue to apply to cases involving violence that occurs on the basis of race, disabilities and ethnicity, the victim alleges SaVE violates women’s equal protection and due process rights.

UVA is under investigation by the Department of Education (DOE) and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for allegedly mishandling a sexual assault case on campus where a female student was drugged and raped by a male student. Allegations include that a UVA nurse falsified medical records and reported there were no injuries consistent with sexual assault despite multiple findings of significant injuries; and that UVA lost or destroyed photographs of the victim’s injuries.

According to the press release, UVA has not expelled a single student charged with sexual assault in more than 10 years. In the case currently under federal investigation, UVA’s own Sexual Misconduct Board ruled that the victim was “compelling” and “credible,” yet the Board cleared the accused of all charges, ruling the evidence was insufficient. UVA later granted the accused a teaching assistant position on campus.

Many advocacy groups have expressed support for the funding provisions in SaVE that will go toward anti-violence training and education programs. Those provisions are not being challenged in the lawsuit.