Mormon Philosopher Facing Discrimination?

[MosiahFree]

I found this alarming:

Quote

George Yancy, a professor of sociology at the University of North Texas who works on anti-Christian attitudes in the United States, has researched bias in academia, and recently shared some information he had collected regarding philosophers’ hiring preferences....

What do you suppose makes philosopher have such reservations? I'm the top three are Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Mormons (in that order) yet we have none of the baggage Fundamentalists or Evangelicals have. I feel totally clueless as to why this is the case. 

[Amulek]

Probably because when they hear "Mormon" they think straight-laced, staunchly Republican Mormon - which, in the US at least (where the poll was taken), is a fairly understandable stereotype. Utah is a pretty 'red' state, politically, and the academics polled are likely just using Mormonism as a proxy for political beliefs.

That's my suspicion at least. I doubt it has anything to do with Mormons qua Mormons.

 

Edited April 11, 2018 by Amulek

[stemelbow]

I don't get how he determined a slight or strong unwillingness to hire.  Sounds like he just gave us his impressions and guesswork about what another is thinking.  Or did he say in this survery, tell me if you have any sort of reservations hiring someone that is a republican or something?  I really don't see too many people saying they have reservation hiring someone based on them being a republican.  Sounds like discrimination.  

[Michael Sudworth]

6 hours ago, MosiahFree said:

I found this alarming:

What do you suppose makes philosopher have such reservations? I'm the top three are Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Mormons (in that order) yet we have none of the baggage Fundamentalists or Evangelicals have. I feel totally clueless as to why this is the case. 

Alarming indeed.  We need to do a much better job promoting the rich LDS philosophical tradition passed down by BH Roberts, Talmage, and others.  This is one of the reasons I think the Interpreter is such an important Mormon publication. It highlights and promotes the philosophy produced by the rising generation of LDS thinkers.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Michael Sudworth

[cinepro]

4 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Alarming indeed.  We need to do a much better job promoting the rich LDS philosophical tradition passed down by BH Roberts, Talmage, and others.  This is one of the reasons I think the Interpreter is such an important Mormon publication. It highlights and promotes the philosophy produced by the rising generation of LDS thinkers.

BH Roberts and Talmage were both high-ranking (and respected) General Authorities.

Who among the modern General Authorities would you look to as a "philosopher" or "theologian"?

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

Probably because when they hear "Mormon" they think straight-laced, staunchly Republican Mormon - which, in the US at least (where the poll was taken), is a fairly understandable stereotype. Utah is a pretty 'red' state, politically, and the academics polled are likely just using Mormonism as a proxy for political beliefs.

That's my suspicion at least. I doubt it has anything to do with Mormons qua Mormons.

Most philosophers are atheists and tend not to have much respect to theism. I suspect there's a basic bias there. The assumption is we're sloppy thinkers. Likewise the respected Mormon philosophers have tended to be focused in Continental Philosophy which tends to be looked down upon by the Analytic crowd who likely make up the majority of those surveyed.

 

[Physics Guy]

I suspect instead that Interpreter is hindering rather than helping Mormon academics. It's a niche journal, and that would be fine, except that in this case the niche is too narrow because there aren't many academic job slots specifically dedicated to Mormon topics.

If your niche is, say, nonlinear fiber optics, then that's a pretty narrow niche within all of physics, but it's not too narrow to get you a job. There are practical applications for nonlinear fiber optics and so there are a certain number of research chairs reserved for this topic in departments around the world. Being a big frog in that small pond can be enough to get you tenure in one of them.

There aren't many academic job slots dedicated to Mormon studies, though. If you want to get hired for your Mormon-related research then you have to get hired for research that fits into some wider niche and simply happens to be Mormon-related. That's perfectly possible in principle but it means you have to show that your work is interesting to the whole wider niche—and publishing in Interpreter will not help you show that. In fact it hurts you, because it implies that your article was not of significant interest to any wider niche, since if it were, you would surely have gotten more readers by publishing in a more mainstream journal.

This has nothing to do with Mormonism per se, but only about the size of the topic niche. The same issue is there for any journal which is focused narrowly in comparison to the range of available jobs. The result, though, is that time spent in writing an article for Interpreter is probably time wasted for anyone hoping to land an academic job. Insofar as aspiring Mormon academics are publishing in Interpreter instead of publishing in mainstream journals, Interpreter is probably sabotaging their career chances.

[clarkgoble]

I don't think most Mormon philosophers really write about Mormonism much academically. So I don't quite see the relevance of The Interpreter. I bet most answering the survey know nothing about Mormon studies.

[The Nehor]

To be fair philosophy is boring.

[sunstoned]

8 hours ago, cinepro said:

BH Roberts and Talmage were both high-ranking (and respected) General Authorities.

Who among the modern General Authorities would you look to as a "philosopher" or "theologian"?

That ship sailed a long time ago.  For the past 60 plus years the the focus has been choosing leaders with backgrounds in business and law.

[katherine the great]

I would be astonished if the interviewer is allowed to ask the applicant's religious affiliation. The person hiring can have whatever personal opinion they want about religious people, but if they're taking federal funds, they cannot discriminate based on religion.

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, MosiahFree said:

I found this alarming:

What do you suppose makes philosopher have such reservations? I'm the top three are Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Mormons (in that order) yet we have none of the baggage Fundamentalists or Evangelicals have. I feel totally clueless as to why this is the case. 

Duh.

We have been abysmal at displaying philosophical acumen because we have no systematic theology,  just scriptural hermeneutics 

What do you expect when "the philosophies of men mingled with scripture" are avoided?

Would you hire a philosopher who said he belonged to a religion that had no philosophers?  Go to a doctor who was a Christian Scientist? 

At least we beat out the EV's!

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

I would be astonished if the interviewer is allowed to ask the applicant's religious affiliation. The person hiring can have whatever personal opinion they want about religious people, but if they're taking federal funds, they cannot discriminate based on religion.

But they might be able to tell from other clues, especially if BYU or Utah are mentioned on the resume, two years missionary work, foreign language skill (where did you pick that up?).

And then they can just weight other aspects as not good enough to be a good fit.  Heard reports of LDS psychologists being blackballed in grad school (if you are a Mormon, you can't ethically treat ________).

Edited April 12, 2018 by Calm

[katherine the great]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

But they might be able to tell from other clues, especially if BYU or Utah are mentioned on the resume, two years missionary work, foreign language skill (where did you pick that up?).

And then they can just weight other aspects as not good enough to be a good fit.  Heard reports of LDS psychologists being blackballed in grad school (if you are a Mormon, you can't ethically treat ________).

Huh. Maybe this is where a good Mormon lawyer would come in handy. 

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

That ship sailed a long time ago.  For the past 60 plus years the the focus has been choosing leaders with backgrounds in business and law.

Thus the current...heart surgeon. Seriously though I'm surprised at how diverse the 12 are. Yes there are lawyers and businessmen but it's first off amazing how educated they are and how broad their knowledge.

Of the last 7 Presidents only one has been a businessman, Monson, and one lawyer, Hunter.

What's also surprising is how many Apostles the last decade have taught university.

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

But they might be able to tell from other clues, especially if BYU or Utah are mentioned on the resume, two years missionary work, foreign language skill (where did you pick that up?).

My friends in academia also not a common tactic if they aren't sure (say BYU is on your transcript) is to offer coffee during the interview. Also hiring is usually a group of 5. It only takes one who doesn't like Mormons to tank things. 

Honestly it's already really, really hard to get a job in academia. It doesn't take much to not make the cut. 

1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

I would be astonished if the interviewer is allowed to ask the applicant's religious affiliation. The person hiring can have whatever personal opinion they want about religious people, but if they're taking federal funds, they cannot discriminate based on religion.

You don't ask. As others mentioned you just notice what's on their resume. Just read the comments in that Nous thread - people were quite up front thinking conservative religion ought be discounted as shoddy thinkers. 

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by clarkgoble

[cinepro]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

You don't ask. As others mentioned you just notice what's on their resume. Just read the comments in that Nous thread - people were quite up front thinking conservative religion ought be discounted as shoddy thinkers. 

 

I always check by giving my interviewees a nice long hug and feeling the neckline on the back of their shirt.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, cinepro said:

I always check by giving my interviewees a nice long hug and feeling the neckline on the back of their shirt.

I'll take that as evidence of all that Hollywood movie experience.

[Rivers]

On ‎4‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 12:06 PM, cinepro said:

BH Roberts and Talmage were both high-ranking (and respected) General Authorities.

Who among the modern General Authorities would you look to as a "philosopher" or "theologian"?

Doesn't Elder Gong have a degree in philosophy?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Rivers said:

Doesn't Elder Gong have a degree in philosophy?

Doctorate from Oxford:

Gong graduated from Cubberley High School in Palo Alto, California, in 1972. He served as a missionary for the LDS Church in Taiwan.[10] He received a bachelor's degree from BYU and then was a Rhodes Scholar, receiving both a master's degree and D.Phil. from Oxford University.[1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrit_W._Gong

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Doctorate from Oxford:

Gong graduated from Cubberley High School in Palo Alto, California, in 1972. He served as a missionary for the LDS Church in Taiwan.[10] He received a bachelor's degree from BYU and then was a Rhodes Scholar, receiving both a master's degree and D.Phil. from Oxford University.[1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrit_W._Gong

That says he has a PhD

It is not necessarily in philosophy.

I would be happily surprised if it was, but the Wikipedia article showing his publications does not indicate anything in philosophy, it appears all have to do with international relations.

Edited April 13, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That says he has a PhD

It is not necessarily in philosophy.

I would be happily surprised if it was, but the Wikipedia article showing his publications does not indicate anything in philosophy, it appears all have to do with international relations.

"D.Phil" is confusing to me as too used to seeing it as PhD, forgot that the other was equivalent.  You are likely correct given his publications.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That says he has a PhD

It is not necessarily in philosophy.

I would be happily surprised if it was, but the Wikipedia article showing his publications does not indicate anything in philosophy, it appears all have to do with international relations.

Yup, his Masters and PhD were in International Relations. So far as I know there have been no Apostles with a background in philosophy. Maxwell was somewhat interested in it but he probably came closest. 

Edited April 13, 2018 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Yup, his Masters and PhD were in International Relations. So far as I know there have been no Apostles with a background in philosophy. Maxwell was somewhat interested in it but he probably came closest. 

And there won't be any as long as philosophy is viewed with suspicion.

 

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

"D.Phil" is confusing to me as too used to seeing it as PhD, forgot that the other was equivalent.  You are likely correct given his publications.

The degree got that name back in the olden days when philosophy was seen as the queen of all Sciences, the matrix from which all other knowledge is derived.

Of course that is the correct view but people no longer understand that.

Of course I'm not prejudiced or anything.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

"D.Phil" is confusing to me as too used to seeing it as PhD, forgot that the other was equivalent.  You are likely correct given his publications.

And incidentally Doctor Phil has clearly turned that to his advantage.