A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Harassment

Is Sexual Harassment Scientific Misconduct?

by 11 Comments

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) recently decided to treat harassment (including sexual harassment) as scientific misconduct. This puts harassment on par with major ethical violations in science such as data fabrication and plagiarism. Since the AGU has adopted this into their ethical guidelines, members who are found guilty of harassment can be subject to such penalties as being banned from presenting at conferences and being forbidden from publishing in AGU journals. For scientists trying to advance (or simply maintain) their professional careers, these punishments can have serious consequences—thus they have real teeth.

This decision was motivated by the fact that the echelons of science (like everywhere else) includes people who misuse their status, power and authority to harass those beneath them. As should be expected, some of the harassment is sexual in nature and is directed by men at women. Almost three quarters of women have reported being harassed in the field and over a quarter have reported being sexually assaulted. While some might doubt the exact numbers, such levels of misbehavior are quite consistent with the stories that are known to almost everyone in higher education.

While there are a variety of reasons that women are a small minority in the sciences, the harassment and misogyny are clearly factors. Philosophy, as an academic field, all to often suffers from such problems, so I see no reason to doubt that the sciences are any different. I have also heard, anecdotally, stories from colleagues in the sciences. Such bad behavior is unethical on the face of it and is made even worse when one considers the harmful consequences not only to the women harmed, but to the endeavor of science itself. Laying aside the moral concerns, sexual assault is a crime and sexual harassment in the workplace is generally against the law. As such, there are excellent reasons to combat harassment in the sciences.

One area of concern is parallel to that of how academic institutions handle sexual harassment. Scientific organizations, like universities, do have some power over their members. However, they are imbued with the power of the state: they cannot conduct criminal investigators on their own, nor can they conduct criminal trials. As such, it can be argued that the criminal offenses should be left to the police (who, it must be said, do not always handle them well). The scientific organization or university can then impose penalties on those who are convicted of crimes.

Embed from Getty Images

One problem with this approach is that there is misconduct that falls short of a crime that still merits punishment. For example, academic misconduct is not a crime, but should have consequences. As such, it can be argued that organizations should also conduct their own investigations and trials to address such incidents. This raises the concern that these organizations are likely (as has been shown in the case of universities) to conduct their investigations unfairly. That is, either acting to protect their reputation at the expense of victims or victimizing the accused to create the appearance that they are taking the matter seriously. While this is a reasonable concern, it is not telling against having organizations engage in policing the relevant behavior of their members. Rather, it is concern about the integrity of the organizations in this regulation. Thus, the practical and moral concern is to ensure that the process is fair.

Another point of concern is classifying such harassment in the sciences as scientific misconduct.  Harassment, sexual or otherwise, is clearly misconduct, unprofessional and wrong—even it does not each the level of a crime. It is certainly harmful to scientists and science, but it can be argued that while it is misconduct, it is not scientific misconduct simply because it happens in the sciences. One obvious way to argue for this is to consider the matter of academic misconduct.

At a university, there are certain actions (such as plagiarism) that count as academic misconduct. There are also actions, such as sexual harassment, that are misconduct, but not academic misconduct. To illustrate, if a student plagiarizes a paper, then they have committed academic misconduct. If a student sexually harasses their fellow students in class, they are engaged in misconduct in an academic setting, but it is not academic misconduct. Even if their misdeeds harm the academic performance of their fellow students. This is because the sexual harassment is not academic in nature; it just takes place in an academic setting. To illustrate, I can fail a student for plagiarizing a paper—since that is relevant to their academic performance. I cannot justly fail a student for sexual harassment—that behavior is irrelevant to their grade. I can, obviously, contact the campus authorities about the student’s behavior and have them removed from the class.

In the case of sexual harassment in the field, lab or other scientific setting, this is clearly misconduct. However, it does not seem to be misconduct of a scientific nature. Rather, it is misconduct that takes place in a scientific setting. To say that a scientist who harasses is thus engaged in bad science would be an error—they are behaving badly and being unprofessional, but that is distinct from their scientific activities. This is analogous to a student who does the academic work properly but engages in terrible behavior towards fellow students. As another point, if a scientist committed murder, that would not be regarded as scientific misconduct—even if they murdered another scientist. It would be murder. Likewise, harassment is not an abuse of science, but an abuse of people.

While some might be outraged at this view, I am not claiming that scientists should thus be free to harass because that behavior is not scientific misconduct. I would no more claim this than I would claim that students should be allowed to assault fellow students because doing so would not be academic misconduct. Rather, there should be penalties for both.

Scientists who engage in harassment within their field should face the relevant legal and professional consequences. In terms of professional consequences, an organization could impose the same penalties that the AGU does—a scientist who violates professional ethics by engaging in harassment could be excluded from presenting at conferences and publishing; just as a student who does not engage in academic misconduct but engages in harassment or assault can be expelled from a school.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

My Dungeon Masters Guild Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Why Do Good People Do Bad?

by 9 Comments

Embed from Getty Images

Recent events have raised the old question of why (seemingly) good people do bad things. For example, Matt Lauer and Garrison Keillor were both widely respected, but have now fallen before accusations of sexual misdeeds. As another example, legendary Democrat John Conyers’s was regarded as a heroic figure by some, but is now “retiring” in the face of accusations.

One easy and obvious way to explain why people who seem good do bad things is that they merely appeared to be good. Like Plato’s unjust man from the story of the Ring of Gyges, these people presented a virtuous front to the world. But, unlike the perfectly unjust man, their misdeeds were finally exposed to the world. On this view, these are not cases of good people doing bad, they are cases of bad people who masqueraded as good people and finally lost their masks. While this cynical and jaded approach does have considerable appeal, there are alternatives that are worth considering. It must be noted that the situations of individuals obviously vary a great deal and it is not being claimed that one explanation fits everyone.

An alternative explanation of why seemingly good people do bad things is the fact that people tend to be complicated rather than simple when it comes to ethics. Or, as is often said in popular culture, everyone is a mix of good and evil. As such, it is no wonder that even those who are good people (that is, more good than evil) sometimes do bad things. There is also the obvious fact that people are imperfect creatures who fail to always act in accord with their best principles.

One way to understand this is to use a method that the philosopher David Hume was rather fond of: he would routinely ask his reader to consider their own experiences and see if they matched his views. In the case of why good people do bad, I will ask the reader to think of the very worst thing they ever did and to think of why they did it. Presumably each of us, including you, think of themselves as good people. But, we all do bad things—and honestly considering why we do these things will help us understand the motivations and reasons of others.

A third option explains why seemingly good people do bad in terms of why people might think a bad person is good (other than deception). One possibility is that people often confuse a person being good at their profession, being charming, being beautiful or possessing other such positive qualities (virtues) with being a good person. For example, Kevin Spacey is a skilled actor and this no doubt led some people to think he was thus a good person. As another example, Garrison Keillor is a master story teller and created a show that is beloved by many—and some no doubt regarded him as a good person because of these talents.

Both Plato and Kant were aware of this sort of problem—the danger of a person with only some of the virtues, or in Kant’s terms, lacking a good will. Plato warned of the clever rogue: “Did you never observe the narrow intelligence flashing from the keen eye of a clever rogue‑how eager he is, how clearly his paltry soul sees the way to his end; he is the reverse of blind, but his keen eye‑sight is forced into the service of evil, and he is mischievous in proportion to his cleverness?” Kant, in his Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, raises a similar point:

Moderation in the affections and passions, self-control, and calm deliberation are not only good in many respects, but even seem to constitute part of the intrinsic worth of the person; but they, are far from deserving to be called good without qualification, although they have been so unconditionally praised by the ancients. For without the principles of a good will, they may become extremely bad; and the coolness of a villain not only makes him far more dangerous, but also directly makes him more abominable in our eyes than he would have been without it.

This should be taken as a warning about judging people—while the positive virtues of a person can easily lead people to judge them a good person, judging the whole person based on a few qualities can easily lead to errors. This is not to say that it should be assumed that people are always bad, but it is to say that it should not be inferred that a person is good based on a limited set of positive traits or accomplishments.

Another possibility is that a person will think another person is good because they agree with their professed values, religion, ideology, etc. The person’s reasoning is probably something like this:

 

Premise 1: I believe in value V.

Premise 2: Person A professes belief in value V.

Premise 3: I (think I) am a good person (because I believe V).

Conclusion: Person A is a good person.

 

For example, Democrats would be more inclined to think that Bill Clinton, John Conyers and Al Franken are good people—because they are fellow Democrats. Likewise, Republicans would be more inclined to think that Trump and Roy Moore are good people. This sort of reasoning is also fueled by various cognitive biases, such as the tendency of people to regard members of their own group as better than those outside the group.

While this reasoning is not entirely terrible, those using it need to carefully consider whether Person A really holds to value V, whether believing in V really is a mark of goodness, and whether they really are a good person. Not surprisingly, people do tend to uncritically accept the professed goodness of those who profess to share their values and this cuts across the entire political spectrum, across all religions and so on. People even hold to their assessment in the face of evidence that contradicts person’s A professed belief in value V.

This discussion does not, of course, exhaust possible explanations as to why (seemingly) good people do bad things. But it does present some possible accounts that are worth considering when trying to answer this question in specific cases.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Gaming & Groping I: Motivations

by 12 Comments

On the positive side, online gaming allows interaction with gamers all over the world. On the negative side, some gamers are horrible. While I have been a gamer since the days of Pong, one of my early introductions to “the horrible” was on Xbox live. In a moment of deranged optimism, I hoped that chat would allow me to plan strategy with my team members and perhaps make new gamer friends. While this did sometimes happen, the dominate experience was an unrelenting spew of insults and threats between gamers. I solved this problem by clipping the wire on a damaged Xbox headset and sticking the audio plug into my controller—the spew continued, but had nowhere to go.

There is an iron law of technology that any technology that can be misused will be misused. There are also specific laws that fall under this general law. One is the iron law of gaming harassment:  any gaming medium that allows harassment will be used to harass. While there have been many failed attempts at virtual reality gaming, it seems that it might become the new gaming medium. In any case, harassment in online VR games is already a thing. Just as VR is supposed to add a new level to gaming, it also adds a new level to harassment—such as virtual groping. This is an escalation over the harassment options available in most games. Non VR games are typical limited to verbal harassment and some action harassment, such as the classic tea bagging. For those not familiar with this practice, it is when one player causes their character to rapidly repeat crouch on top of a dead character. The idea is that the players is repeatedly slapping their virtual testicles against the virtual corpse of a foe. This presumably demonstrates contempt for the opponent and dominance on the part of the bagger. As might be imagined, this act speaks clearly about a player’s mental and moral status.

Being a gamer and a philosopher, I do wonder a bit about the motivations of those that engage in harassment and how their motivation impacts the ethics of their behavior. While I will not offer a detailed definition of harassment, the basic idea is that it requires sustained abuse. This is to distinguish it from a quick expression of anger.

In some cases, harassment seems to be motivated primarily by the enjoyment the harasser gets from getting a response from their target. The harasser is not operating from a specific value system that leads them to attack certain people; they are equal opportunity in their attacks. Back when I listened to what other gamers said, it was easy to spot this sort of person—they would go after everyone and tailor their spew based on what they seemed to believe about the target’s identity. As an example, if the harasser though their target was African-American, they would spew racist comments. As another example, if the target was the then exceedingly rare female gamer, they would spew sexist remarks. As a third example, if the target was believed to be a white guy, the attack would usually involve comments about the guy’s mother or assertions that the target is homosexual.

While the above focuses on what a person says, the discussion also applies to the virtual actions in the game. As noted above, some gamers engage in tea-bagging because that is the worst gesture they can make in the game. In games that allow more elaborate interaction, the behavior will tend to be analogous to groping in the real world. This is because such behavior is the most offensive behavior possible in the game and thus will create the strongest reaction.

While a person who enjoys inflicting this sort of abuse does have some moral problems, they are probably selecting their approach based on what they think will most hurt the target rather than based on a commitment to sexism, racism or other such value systems. To use an obvious analogy, think of a politician who is not particularly racist but is willing to use this language in order to sway a target audience.

There are also those who engage in such harassment as a matter of ideology and values. While their behavior is often indistinguishable from those who engage in attacks of opportunity, their motivation is based on a hatred of specific types of people. While they might enjoy the reaction of their target, that is not their main objective. Rather, the objectives are to express their views and attack the target of their hate because of that hate. Put another way, they are sincere racists or sexists in that it matters to them who they attack. To use the analogy to a politician, they are like a demagogue who truly believes in their own hate speech.

In terms of virtual behavior, such as groping, these people are not just using groping as a tool to get a reaction. It is an attack to express their views about their target based on their hatred and contempt. The groping might also not merely be a means to an end, but a goal in itself—the groping has its own value to them.

While both sorts of harassers are morally wrong, it is an interesting question as to which is worse. It could be argued that the commitment to evil of the sincere harasser (the true racist or sexist) make them worse than the opportunist. After all, the opportunist is not committed to evil views, they just use their tools for their amusement. In contrast, the sincere harasser not only uses the tools, but believes in their actions and truly hates their target. That is, they are evil for real.

While this is very appealing, it is worth considering that the sincere harasser has the virtue of honesty; their expression of hatred is not a deceit.  To go back to the politician analogy, they are like the politician who truly believes in their professed ideology—their evil does have the tiny sparkle of the virtue of honesty.

In contrast, the opportunist is dishonest in their attacks and thus compound their other vices with that of dishonesty. To use the politician analogy, they are like the Machiavellian manipulator who has no qualms about using hate to achieve their ends.

While the moral distinctions between the types of harassers is important, they generally do not matter to their targets. After all, what matters to (for example) a female gamer who is being virtually groped while trying to enjoy a VR game is not the true motivation of the groper, but the groping. Thus, from the perspective of the target, the harasser of opportunity and the sincere harasser are on equally bad moral footing—they are both morally wrong. In the next essay, the discussion will turn to the obligations of gaming companies in regards to protecting gamers from harassment.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Democrats & Sexual Harassment

by 5 Comments

English: Official portrait of United States Se...
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

While Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” remarks got considerable media attention, Vito Lopez stepped in to remind us that Democrats are not always angels when it comes to women. Assemblyman Lopez, long a power broker, was recently censured for sexual harassment.

If these accusations are true, the Lopez was clearly behaving badly. In this case, there is really little in dispute-people who engage in sexual harassment should be punished. Of course, some might say that his actions border on an attempt at sexual assault, but that is something left to lawyers to hash out.

What I find most interesting about this situation is that (assuming the claims are true) Lopez engaged in behavior that seems rather irrational. After all, the consequences of sexual harassment are well known these days and presumably Lopez is reasonably intelligent and keeps up with the news. As such, I wonder why Lopez (allegedly) decided to engage in such career ending behavior.

There is also apparently a sexual harassment complaint against Janet Napolitano. In this case, the accusation is that men are being harassed and discriminated against in her department. Naturally, if these claims are true, it would make me wonder why this would take place.

One standard explanation is that people tend to think that they will be the exception. That is, that although other folks get caught and punished, they are too clever or powerful to face the consequences of their actions. While this might sometimes be the case, if Lopez was thinking this, then he miscalculated.  I suspect that people in positions in power sometimes think that they are entitled to break the normal rules (or that they do not apply to them). There is also the matter of the sort of personality that would be involved in power-that sort of person is probably accustomed to simply getting what s/he wants and hence extends this expectation beyond the limits of his/her legitimate authority.

Another explanation is that sometimes people do not realize that they are engaging in harassment. In some cases, this is understandable (there are, after all, some gray areas). However, when a person’s hand is on another person’s leg, the situation is rather clear. Of course, a person might think that his (or her) advances will be appreciated or welcomed and this could perhaps result in unintentional harassment. Except, obviously enough, in cases in which such advances would be automatically inappropriate (such as between a boss and her employee).

A third possibility is that some people simply cannot help themselves, for whatever reason. That is, they have some of defect in will or (in more modern terms) a mental condition that causes them to act in ways they should not.

In the case of females harassing men, there might be a “payback” factor at work. After all, men have been on the giving end of harassment for a long time and it might be rather tempting to certain women to switch roles. Of course, it also might be that there are women who are just as bad as men and it is just a matter of being given the opportunity to behave badly.

It is, of course, always depressing to hear about such incidents. After all, by now I would hope that people in such positions would know better and be deterred from acting in this manner. However, this is clearly not the case.

Any thoughts on why people engage in such career-ending (or damaging) behavior?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Women, Aggression & Philosophy

by Leave a Comment

Halo: Reach
Image via Wikipedia

While the majority of undergraduate students in America are women, philosophy departments are still predominantly composed of men. Not surprisingly, both male and female philosophers have addressed this matter and various explanations have been offered as to why this is the case. There have also been numerous learned treatises written about how to remedy this apparently problematic situation.

While the entire topic is well worth addressing, my goal in this essay is far more modest. I will address only the rather limited subject of women and aggression in philosophy.

If my memory serves, my first exposure to this matter was in my undergraduate days in a class on feminism. As a graduate student and in my professional career, this matter was (and is) brought to my attention fairly often, generally by female colleagues in the field.  This sort of aggression was, of course, cast as an evil of philosophy and a causal factor in pushing women away from philosophy. The general idea is as follows.

Certain practices in academic philosophy are rife with aggressive behavior. Since we are talking about philosophers, this behavior is generally not physical. Rather, the aggression tends to be social and intellectual. To use a commonly cited example, paper presentations are sometimes cast as struggles between the presenter and the audience. The presenter tries to come across as smart as possible, while members of the audience launch attacks calculated to bring the presenter down a peg and to lift themselves up in the intellectual hierarchy. While this might seem to be something of an exaggeration, it does match my own experience. It is also, of course, consistent with Hobbes discussion of how the learned behave in the presence of each other.

While not all men enjoy this sort of adversarial method, it is ofter claimed that men find it far more appealing than women. This seems to be correct and is consistent with the stock gender stereotypes. As far as the cause, one can present the usual suspects: socialization and genetics. Whatever the cause, there does seem to be a significant difference between how men and women react to such situations, at least in general terms.

Given that these sort of interactions are part of being a professional philosopher, it makes sense that women would the field less appealing and hence this is a plausible causal factor as to there being fewer women than men in philosophy.

This does not, however, automatically entail that this behavior should be changed so as to make philosophy more appealing to women.

To use an obvious analogy, combat oriented video games and aggressive sports are far less appealing to females than males. However, to assume that this is somehow a defect in the games or sports would be a rather hasty conclusion. It would also be rather hasty to infer that such games and sports should (in the moral sense of the term) be changed so as to appeal to females. After all, there are plenty of other games and sports that females can play. So, for example, if many women do not find Halo: Reach enjoyable, they can always play Portal 2 or (God forbid) Farmville. Likewise, if many women do not find the practice of philosophy appealing, they can seek alternatives.

An obvious, and correct, reply is that while combat games and contact sports are inherently aggressive, it is not obvious that philosophy must be aggressive. There is also the obvious point that while women can play a wealth of alternative sports and games, to simply tell women that they have to play philosophy the “male way” or hit the intellectual highway seems to be rather unwarranted.

That said, it could be argued that the  aggressive nature of this sort of philosophical behavior might be an important (or even essential) aspect of the philosophical method. If so, it would be unreasonable to expect the practice of philosophy to change so as to make it appeal to women. Going back to the games and sports analogy, it would seem unreasonable to demand that video games and sports be changed so that they will appeal to women and allow women to compete with men in all cases (such as in American football).

While it is tempting to see philosophy as requiring an aggressive clash of ideas, this does not seem to be essential to the practice of philosophy. To use the obvious example, while Socrates was quite willing to engage with the likes of Meletus and Ion, the Socratic method is more of a cooperative endeavor rather than an inherently acrimonious or hostile one. It is, of course, also possible to have a lively, spirited and even competitive exchange of ideas without it devolving into a situation that is needlessly aggressive.

This sort of approach would, I think, make the practice of professional philosophy more appealing-and not just to women.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Rule Creep

by 5 Comments

This morning, as I was running to get to a 5K race on the FSU campus, I saw that a new sign had been put up in front of the local dog park. The sign caught my attention because it is truly a large sign-so large that it actually has its own little roof. The sign provides a list of the new rules for the dog park. The previous sign was much smaller and simply attached to the fence. By way of comparison, the old sign has 10 rules and the new one has 14. Interestingly, one of the new rules is that folks who go to the dog park need to have photo ID on them. I assume that this is in the case of trouble and that this rule probably arose from some specific incident or incidents.

As I continued on to my 5K, I thought about the big sign and this led me to think about my own syllabus. As with the dog park, the rules I have for my classes have increased with each passing year. When I first started teaching, my syllabus just had information about the class. Then I had to add more and more rules and policies. Some were required by the university while others had to be added in response to problems. That is, not surprisingly, the major source of rule creep: some innovator commits a new wrong or causes a new problem and this leads to a new rule.

In the past, I foolishly believed that a degree of common sense could be expected from people. But, experience has taught me that sense is not very common. Like many people, one of my great moments of enlightenment was when I saw that coffee containers started bearing the warning that the contents might be hot. Presumably they thought about adding that hot coffee should not be applied to one’s groin but that might be seen as a form of sexual harassment.

In the case of my syllabus, I have had to add new rules due to various problems. Rather than have a monster syllabus, I started posting additional rules on my website (in the form of FAQs). For classes with papers, I also have a set of policies that the students download (or more likely do not). I have had to do this because, for example, I’ve encountered some students who think that copying and pasting from Wikipedia is a legitimate way to write a paper. I have also had to add rules about students turning in identical papers, students who skip the first week (or two) of classes, students who turn in blank papers, and so on.

While one reason for the rules and policies is so students know what to expect, the main reason is a psychological one: I know I warned everyone and hence I feel fine when I apply the rules.

Of course, the rules on my syllabus are only of interest to people in my classes (and usually not even to them). However, the same process applies to laws, as the dog park sign indicates. In fact, there always seems to be more rules. In some cases this is fine, such as cases in which the rules are needed. In other cases, it isn’t so great. After all, while ignorance of the law is no excuse, it is clearly impossible for anyone to keep up with all the laws today.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
%d bloggers like this: