Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-bp2c4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-21T01:48:44.029Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Might We Address the Factors that Contribute to the Scarcity of Philosophers Who Are Women and/or of Color?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Yolonda Y. Wilson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Professional philosophy in the US remains relatively homogenous. I use four anecdotes to amplify some of the practices that may contribute to the dearth of underrepresented philosophers. Each anecdote highlights a different problem—lack of proper mentoring, stereotype threat, difficulties navigating sexism, and a sense of exclusion. Although I discuss each of these issues separately, it is certainly the case that these (and other issues) can and often do occur concurrently. I offer preliminary thoughts on how these problems could be addressed while keeping in mind that philosophy in the US is a microcosm of the larger US society.

Information

Type
Found Cluster: Issues in the Profession
Information
Hypatia , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , Fall 2017 , pp. 853 - 861
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Amar, Vikram David. 2014. Why “blind” grading makes good sense, and should be used more extensively outside of the context of law school exams. Verdict: Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia, January 17. verdict.justia.com/2014/01/17/blindgrading-makes-good-sense-used-extensively-outside-context-law-school-exams (accessed October 4, 2016).Google Scholar
American Philosophical Association (APA) Committee on the Status of Women. 2016. Site visit program. www.apaonlinecsw.org/home/site-visit-program (accessed June 16, 2016).Google Scholar
Brake, Deborah L. 2007. Perceiving subtle sexism: Mapping the social‐psychological forces and legal narratives that obscure gender bias. Columbia Journal of Gender and the Law 16 (3): 679–723.Google Scholar
Calhoun, Cheshire. 2015. Precluded interests. Hypatia 30 (2): 475–85.10.1111/hypa.12149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslanger, Sally. 2008. Changing the ideology and culture of philosophy: Not by reason (alone). Hypatia 23 (2): 210–23.10.1111/j.1527-2001.2008.tb01195.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milkman, K. L., Akinola, M., and Chugh, D. 2015. What happens before? A field experiment exploring how pay and representation differentially shape bias on the pathway into organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology 100 (6): 1678–712.10.1037/apl0000022CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mills, Charles. 1998. Non‐Cartesian sums: Philosophy and the African American experience. In Blackness visible: Essays on philosophy and race. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Novaes, Catarina Dutilh. 2013. On anonymous grading. New APPS: Art, Politics, Philosophy, Science, May 2. www.newappsblog.com/2013/05/on-anonymous-grading.html (accessed April 28, 2017).Google Scholar
Olberding, Amy. 2014. Subclinical bias, manners, and moral harm. Hypatia 29 (2): 287–302.10.1111/hypa.12026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, Claude. 1997. A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist 52 (6): 613–29.10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weinberg, Justin. 2015. Is anonymous grading better? The Daily Nous, December 15. http://dailynous.com/2015/12/15/is-anonymous-grading-really-better/ (accessed April 28, 2017).Google Scholar