CFP: Resistant Imaginations

University of Oregon
Eugene, OR, United States, February 1-2, 2019

In The Epistemology of Resistance, José Medina points to the importance of addressing not only actions and practices but also language and the imagination when fighting oppression. We are often keen to challenge or call out exclusionary and stigmatizing aspects of the social imaginary, a process that centers around negation. Yet imagination and the social imaginary will never be replaced by some strict notion of reason/truth, so we must also consider positive steps for creating alternative imaginaries or critical reimaginings, ways of “calling in” – we must cultivate imaginative practices. With her concept of epistemic gathering, for example, Gaile Pohlhaus Jr, asks us to imagine new ways of creating communities across difference that disrupt inherited colonial practices.

For this intimate conference we are seeking papers/presentations that elaborate or instantiate resistant imaginations or related concepts (whether drawn from Medina’s work or other sources).

Though hosted by philosophers interested in Critical Epistemology we welcome papers, presentations, and workshops from any academic discipline and from outside the academy. We especially encourage work that crosses traditional boundaries—disciplinary and academic/non-academic, among others—to expose how issues of disability, gender, race, socioeconomic status, and other areas of difference shape our understandings of the world.

Invited Speakers:

José Medina (Northwestern University)

Gaile Pohlhaus, Jr (Miami University, Ohio)

Submission link: https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=ri2019

Submission deadline: November 1, 2018

Submission Guidelines:

The following submission categories are welcome:

Extended Abstract (500 words or less) describing a paper who presentation would take no more than 20 minutes.

Non-Paper Proposal (500 words or less) describing a presentation, performance or workshop. Longer timeframes may be considered.

You are permitted one submission. Please provide a title, select 3-10 topics/keywords, and attach a 500-word abstract/proposal as a PDF or Word document. Please do not include any identifying information in your abstract.

Organizers:

Camisha Russell
Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy
camishar@uoregon.edu

Kit Connor
Accessibility Contact
kconnor@uoregon.edu

Additional Information:

The conference will be relatively small with no concurrent sessions. Registration is required, but there is no registration fee.

Information about lodging, including ADA guest rooms, will be available closer to the date.

Guidance on making presentations accessible will be provided to presenters on notification of acceptance of a submission.

Vital resources on sexual misconduct in academia

The 1752 Group, a wonderful UK lobbying group on sexual misconduct in higher education, has just released two rich, important resources that everyone interested in these issues should read and engage with.

First, they have a detailed report on the experiences of students and early career people who are victims of misconduct by staff. The report discusses both their experiences of misconduct, and their experiences with the reporting and adjudication systems of universities. It carefully outlines the many widespread failings in these systems, and the devastating effects of these failings.

Next, they’ve worked with one of the leading law firms on sexual harassment (both in the US and UK), McAllister Olivarius, to offer recommendations for improving these systems.

Everyone should read both of these, and they can be downloaded here.

Kate Manne on himpathy

It could not be more timely.

When it comes to the moral deficiencies exhibited by Mr. Trump and other supporters of the judge, many critics speak about lack of empathy as the problem. It isn’t. Mr. Trump, as he has shown clearly in the Kavanaugh confirmation process, seems to have no difficulty taking another person’s perspective, and then feeling and expressing a sympathetic or congruent moral emotion.

The real problem is that the people Mr. Trump feels with and for are most frequently powerful men who have been credibly accused of serious crimes and wrongdoing. He felt sorry for Michael Flynn, referring to him as a “good guy.” More recently, he felt bad for Paul Manafort. And, in the case of Judge Kavanaugh, Mr. Trump feels sorry for a man accused of sexual assault while erasing and dismissing the perspective of his female accusers.

Read the whole thing.

Kate Manne on Kavanaugh, and how women’s testimony is received

Excellent article by Kate Manne:

As has emerged in vivid and often harrowing detail via the #WhyIDidn’tReport hashtag trending on Twitter, there are many different reasons why women don’t report, and no one situation is exactly like another. A woman oppressed along multiple axes — due to her race, class, sexuality, or being trans, for example — may face barriers to speaking out that are especially or even uniquely formidable. That is a crucial reason why Tarana Burke, a Black feminist activist, founded the #MeToo movement over a decade ago: to center the experiences of abuse suffered by Black and brown girls who were and remain disproportionately vulnerable.
But while we shouldn’t universalize, we can identify some patterns that keep women who have been assaulted conveniently quiet — especially when the assailant is a privileged boy or powerful man, whom many people will rush to defend on instinct. There will be hand-wringing even among the people who judge him guilty, with women very much included, over the loss of his bright future — as if its derailment were not his fault, and the envisaged path were his birthright.

Read the whole thing.

Anita Hill on the new allegations: thank you!

from CNN:

Anita Hill called on the federal government to implement a “fair and neutral” way to investigate sexual misconduct complaints after allegations surfaced against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh this week.

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?

The most and least sexist states

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.

List of sexual harassers in academia

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.