Publish or Perish

Funds and positions in philosophy should be awarded through systems that are reliable, objective, and efficient. One question usually taken to be relevant is how many publications people have in a group of well‐respected journals. In the context of significant competition for jobs and funding, however, relying on quantity of publications creates a serious downside: the oft‐lamented demand that we publish or perish. This article offers a systematic review of the problems involved in contemporary academic philosophy, and argues that the resulting situation is bad not just for individual philosophers but also for philosophy itself: we are not working as a discipline to as high a standard as we might. The article then suggests some potential solutions, including some more detailed considerations around what seems a particularly promising option: a professional code of conduct for philosophers.     

Let's close the confidentiality gap

An examination of the interface between the law of privileged communication and the professional standards of confidentiality reveals a considerable gap between what the law is and what counseling and guidance personnel believe it is. The nature of the law is discussed, and evidence of disagreement with and misunderstanding of the law by counseling and guidance personnel is presented. Several recommendations are made to close the gap by bringing knowledge and attitude of counseling and guidance personnel into agreement with the law as well as modifying the law to reflect the needs of clients, counselors, and society.     

Let's Not Do Responsibility Skepticism

I argue for three conclusions. First, responsibility skeptics are committed to the position that the criminal justice system should adopt a universal nonresponsibility excuse. Second, a universal nonresponsibility excuse would diminish some of our most deeply held values, further dehumanize criminals, exacerbate mass incarceration, and cause an even greater number of innocent people (nonwrongdoers) to be punished. Third, while Saul Smilansky's ‘illusionist’ response to responsibility skeptics – that even if responsibility skepticism is correct, society should maintain a responsibility-realist/retributivist criminal justice system – is generally compelling, it would not work if a majority of society were to convert, theoretically and psychologically, to responsibility skepticism. In this (highly improbable) scenario, and only in this (highly improbable) scenario, the criminal justice system would need to be reformed in such a way that it aligned with the majority's responsibility-skeptical beliefs and attitudes.     

Agency: Let's mind what's fundamental1

The standard event-causal theory of action says that an intentional action is caused in the right way by the right mental states. This view requires reductionism about agency. The causal role of the agent must be nothing over and above the causal contribution of the relevant mental event-causal processes. But commonsense finds this reductive solution to the “agent-mind problem”, the problem of explaining the relationship between agents and the mind, incredible. Where did the agent go? This paper suggests that this challenge against event-causal reductionism is importantly related to debates about fundamentality. It also suggests that extant event-causal answers to the agent-mind problem, ones that suggest that part of an agent's mind can stand proxy for the agent herself, fail against the challenge. It sketches an alternative reductive view that appeals to entity grounding. This view resolves the commonsense challenge and promises to be theoretically fruitful with respect to other longstanding problems with the event-casual view. The paper concludes with a burden-shifting argument against emergentist agent-causal theories and non-reductive event-causal theories of agency.     

Let's Suspend Suspensions: Consequences and Alternatives

National data dispute the value of school suspensions. This article describes specific alternatives to suspension, with special attention devoted to the creation of “in-school” suspension programs. It outlines the philosophies, benefits, essential components, and major difficulties of in-school suspension centers. The author discusses truancy prevention, contingency contracting, and corporal punishment, and provides sources for obtaining detailed information on each disciplinary technique.