— Teaching Philosophy —
— APA Newsletter, Spring 2006, Volume 05, Number 2 —
APA NEWSLETTER ON
Teaching Philosophy
Tziporah Kasachkoff & Eugene Kelly, Co-Editors Spring 2006 Volume 05, Number 2
— 2 —
— 3 —
LETTER FROM THE EDITORS
Tziporah Kasachkoff
The Graduate Center, CUNY, tkasachkoff@gc.cuny.edu
Eugene Kelly
New York Institute of Technology, ekelly@iris.nyit.edu
Welcome to the Spring 2005 edition of the APA Newsletter on Teaching Philosophy, our second issue published exclusively online. In this issue we are pleased to present three articles and five reviews of books that can be used in the philosophy classroom.
Our first paper—to which we solicit reader response—continues a section of our Newsletter—Puzzles in the Classroom—that we initiated in our Spring 2003 issue. In that issue we presented an article by Steven Cahn entitled “The Ethics of Teaching: A Puzzle” that described a situation that many of us encounter in our classroom and that might present a quandary for many philosophy instructors. Cahn raised the question in that article of how, ethically, it is best for philosophy instructors to respond in situations such as the one he described. In this issue Cahn once again presents to our readers material that might be of help in their classroom. But this time around, in an article entitled “Two Lives,” Cahn puts forth a hypothetical case around which certain ethical questions might be raised for classroom discussion. The case is simply and straightforwardly presented and, given the facts of university life, should resonate with our students.
Following Cahn’s “Two Lives” are some comments by one of the Editors (Tziporah Kasachkoff) on how Cahn’s “Two Lives” might be put to good use in classroom discussion of the ethical issues that might be raised concerning it.
The Editors welcome responses from our readers to the case that Cahn presents and/or to Kasachkoff’s discussion of it. We are committed to publishing the responses that we receive. We also would welcome “Puzzles of the Classroom” supplied by readers of our Newsletter so that quandaries that they have experienced in the classroom might be considered, and perhaps responded to, by others.
Our second paper, by David Benatar, “Teaching Ethics for Everyday,” describes a course that Benatar teaches in practical ethics. The course focuses on problems that, he argues, have relevance for most people as they concern issues that arise for most of us in general daily life and that are neither specific to particular professions nor of concern only to policymakers on a “grand” (that is, governmental) scale. In the course of his article, Benatar indicates why he makes explicit to students the stands that he himself takes on the issues that he discusses in the classroom, as well as the cost of making his views explicit. He details the list of topics that he covers in the class, the responses he has received from students regarding the subject matter of the course, and the student assignments he gives in the course. Helpfully, Benatar has included some questions he has asked on the final examination for the course.
Our third paper, by Lisa Cassidy, is entitled “Advising an Undergraduate Philosophy Club” and is a description of the challenges and benefits of establishing a philosophy club within a college. Cassidy describes what she herself has done to generate student interest in attending the philosophy club that was established at her own institution, as well as the problems of recruiting new students for, and sustaining the interest of others in, the club. She shares with readers the various activities a club might provide as well as what, in her own experience, has succeeded and what has proved less successful. Cassidy’s description of the diverse activities that can be devised to attract and sustain student interest may be helpful to others who are seeking ways to expand enrollment in philosophy courses as well as raise awareness within the college community of the philosophy department and its offerings. Also of interest is a description of some of the pitfalls of advising a philosophy club and what might be done to avoid or lessen these. Readers who have experience with philosophy clubs are encouraged to respond to this article with descriptions of their own experiences, suggestions, and recommendations.
In our Book Review section, we are happy to present reviews of a very diverse group of books: one on theories of possible worlds; one that presents classical and contemporary texts in philosophy of religion; one that contains interviews with some leading philosophers on the nature and future of philosophy; and one that presents what the editor of that book takes to be the fundamental issues of philosophy (metaphysics, logic, epistemology, ethics, the history of philosophy, philosophy of mind, political philosophy, aesthetics, philosophy of religion, and continental philosophy). In addition, we are happy to include a review of Harry Frankfurt’s On Bullshit, which is, in book form, a re-issue of an article that Frankfurt published years ago. To the surprise (and, no doubt, delight) of the philosophical community, this little book has become a popular best-seller and was for many weeks on the list of the New York Times Best Selling Books.
We always encourage our readers to suggest themselves as reviewers of books and other material that they think may be especially good for classroom use. The names of books and other materials that we have received for review are listed in the Newsletter. But reviewers are welcome to suggest reviewing material that they themselves have used in the classroom and found useful, even if it doesn’t appear in our Books Received list. However, please remember that our publication is devoted to pedagogy and not to theoretical discussions of philosophical issues. This should be borne in mind not only when writing articles for our publication but also when reviewing material for our publication.
As always, we encourage our readers to write for our publication. We welcome papers that respond, comment on, or take issue with any of the material that appears within our pages.
The following guidelines for submissions should be followed:
• The author’s name, the title of the paper, and full mailing address should appear on a separate sheet of paper or, if the paper is sent to the Editors electronically, on a note that will not print out within the text of paper itself. Nothing that identifies the author or his or her institution should appear within the body or within the footnotes/endnotes of the paper. The title of the paper should appear on the top of the paper itself.
• Unless the paper is sent in electronic form, four complete copies of the paper should be sent.
• Authors should adhere to the production guidelines that are available from the APA.
• If you send an article by post rather than electronically, do not send the disk on which it was composed. The Editors will request the disk when the paper is ready to be published. In writing your paper to disk, please do not use your word processor’s footnote or endnote function; all notes should be added manually at the end of the paper.
• All articles submitted to the Newsletter are blind-reviewed by the members of the editorial committee. They are:
Tziporah Kasachkoff, The Graduate Center, CUNY (tkasachkoff@gc.cuny. edu), co-editor
Eugene Kelly, New York Institute of Technology (ekelly@.nyit.edu), co-editor
David B. Martens (martensd@social.wits.ac.za)
Andrew Wengraf (andrew@welch-wengraf.fsnet.uk)
Contributions should be sent to:
Tziporah Kasachkoff, Philosophy Department, CUNY Graduate Center, 365 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10016
or to
Eugene Kelly, Department of Social Science, New York Institute of Technology, Old Westbury, NY 11568.
ARTICLES
Two Lives
Steven M. Cahn
The Graduate School and University Center, The City University of New York
Joan earned a doctoral degree from a first-rate university and sought appointment to a tenure-track position in which she could teach and pursue her research. Unfortunately, she received no offers and reluctantly was about to accept non-academic appointment when an unexpected call came inviting her for an interview at a highly attractive school. During her visit she was told by the Dean that the job was hers, subject to one condition: she was expected to teach a particular course each year in which numerous varsity athletes would enroll, and she would be required to award them all passing grades even if their work was in every respect unsatisfactory. Only the Dean would know of this special arrangement.
Joan rejected the position on moral grounds and continued trying to obtain a suitable opportunity in academic life. However, never again was she offered a faculty position, and she was forced to pursue a career path that gave her little satisfaction. Her potential as a teacher went unfulfilled, and her planned research was left undone. Throughout her life she remained embittered.
Marie also earned a doctoral degree from a first-rate university and sought appointment to a tenure-track position in which she could teach and pursue her research. She, too, received no offers and reluctantly was about to accept non-academic employment when an unexpected call came inviting her for an interview at the school that Joan had visited. The Dean made Marie the same offer that had been made to Joan, and Marie, after weighing her options, decided to accept the appointment, even though she recognized that doing so would require her to act unethically.
Marie went on to a highly successful academic career, became a popular teacher and renowned researcher, moved to one of the nation’s most prestigious universities, and enjoyed all the perquisites attendant to her membership on that school’s renowned faculty. When on rare occasions she recalled the conditions of her initial appointment, she viewed the actions she had taken as an unfortunate but necessary step on her path to a wonderful life.
Joan acted morally but lived unhappily ever after, while Marie acted immorally but lived happily ever after. So I ask you: Which was the wiser?
How One Might Use “Two Lives” in the Ethics Classroom
Tziporah Kasachkoff
The Graduate Center, The City University of New York
Steve Cahn has once again submitted a case whose consideration might profitably be used to bring out various salient moral points in discussion with students. I offer readers the following questions that might be used for such discussion.
We encourage readers to write in their own suggestions with respect to conducting a classroom discussion of “Two Lives.”
1. Do students think that Marie was wise in her decision to accept the position, given that she herself believed her conduct to be unethical?
2. If students believe that Marie was wise in her decision to accept the position despite her viewing what she did as unethical, do the students believe that Marie was wiser than Joan in her decision to take the position?
3. If Marie is judged the wiser, are the grounds for this judgment that she did what in the end turned out to have best results for her?
4. If students answer “Yes” to question 3 and claim that Marie is to be judged the wiser based on the fact that she calculated the consequences of her acts for her and then correctly evaluated them in terms of their worth to her, it should be pointed out that it is not clear why, on these grounds, she is judged to be wiser than Joan. For it might be that Joan, being the sort of person she is, would not have had the life that Marie had, had Joan acted exactly as Marie did. Given Joan’s moral views and principles, had Joan done what Marie did, she might well have been miserable all of her life rather than happy at her professional success. Joan’s life might have been plagued by moral regret and a loss of self-esteem that undermined all of her professional pleasure. In that case, even if the students judge Marie to have been wise, they might be brought to see that relative to Joan, she may not have been the wiser. Both Marie and Joan may each have correctly assessed the consequences of her doing what she recognized as unethical.
5. Students who judge Marie’s act as wise (whether or not they judge her to be wiser than Joan) on grounds that she acted primarily to benefit herself in rather important ways should be asked to consider the following: Since Marie herself (according to the sketched scenario) regards her behavior as unethical, do the students themselves distinguish between the ethical and the wise, as Marie herself seems to?
6. If students say that they don’t distinguish between the ethical and the wise then they must think that Marie is mistaken in seeing her conduct as unethical (given that they believe her conduct is wise). But if they accept that Marie’s conduct is both unethical and wise, do they think that though wise, Marie acts in a way that she should be ashamed of?
At some point in the discussion, the point should be raised that what Marie does is not merely conduct herself in a way that is personally unethical. Rather, in being unfair to students who studied, and deceitfully awarding to other students grades that do not reflect what those grades are meant to signify, Marie subverts the norms of the profession to which she has committed herself and her professional future.
Are the students remembering to take into account:
(a) the effects of receiving unearned grades on the athletes themselves? Does the athletes’ knowledge that they are receiving grades they don’t merit have negative effects on how they conduct themselves not only in general but within the sport in virtue of which they are given the unmerited grades?
(b) the consequences on all who receive merited grades of the public knowing—as it invariably will—that academic credentials are sometimes awarded for reasons that have nothing to do with academic merit? (Although we are told that the Dean’s condition of employment is known only to him and the person whom he tries to recruit for his faculty, that condition cannot be guaranteed to be secured from public disclosure.)
(c) the fact that awarding false grades might contribute to skepticism (or suspicion) about academic credentials generally, once this policy becomes known as it invariably (though perhaps only eventually) will?
The general point to be made here is that if the judgment that Marie’s act is wise is based on general consequentialist reasoning, it may be based on false assumptions about what those general consequences will be.
7. Suppose the students argue the following in justification of their view that Marie need not be ashamed of what she did: Had Marie refused the position as Joan did, then the academic position that she was offered would eventually have been taken up by someone who would accept the position with its attendant conditions. So Marie’s standing on her principles and refusing the position, though ethical, would not have made any real difference in the world. When doing the ethical thing will make no difference in the world but will have great personal/professional costs, then the wisest course of action is to secure one’s own benefit at the cost of doing what is ethical. Since the outcome would have been the same were Marie to have refused the position (since someone else would have accepted it had she refused) then the wise thing for Marie to do is to reap the benefits of conduct that will in any case take place.
Students should be encouraged to see this line of reasoning as based on the view that wisdom consists in maximizing good results in the world—a position that seems intuitive enough. Such reasoning, students should be encouraged to see, is clearly directed toward the evaluation of conduct as wise or unwise in consequentialist terms.
At some point, the instructor should draw students’ attention to the notion of personal integrity, and what that might mean both generally and in connection with the two lives that are described by Cahn. Given that in some situations our ethical behavior may have no chance of changing the world and that sometimes we can make things better for ourselves only by doing what is unethical, what is the wiser choice—achieving the future we want by behaving in ways of which we are ashamed, or losing out on the future we wanted by holding onto a sense of our integrity? Is it so clear that one course is wise while the other isn’t? Each course of action has terrible costs, and which costs we are willing to pay determines for good and for ill not only what we achieve professionally but who we are personally. Perhaps rather than thinking that one course of action is wise and the other is not, it is wiser to think that both courses of action reflect a decision on the part of the agent to sacrifice something she regards as a great personal good for something else that she very much values. The choice “Two Lives” presents is not an easy one: Which life is the better life, all told—a life with a future that has no hope of realizing one’s dreams and talents, or a life based on a past that one is ashamed of?
As Cahn tells the story, Marie has a “wonderful life” and lives “happily ever after,” so we can assume either that Marie is not ashamed of behavior that she herself regards as unethical, or else that her feelings of shame do not interfere with her ability to be happy. What are students’ responses to this? Ought one to feel shame at behavior one regards as unethical, though necessary? Does it make sense to say that one should or should not allow that sort of shame to interfere with one’s happiness?
Questions to raise for discussion are:
• Is there a difference between prudence and wisdom?
• Does being wise have any connection with being moral?
• Is there any moral difference between feeling shame for what one has done in the past and allowing that feeling to interfere with one’s happiness, and living “happily ever after” even at the cost of behavior that one regards as shameful?
Advising an Undergraduate Philosophy Club
Lisa Cassidy
Ramapo College of New Jersey
Introduction
Clubs can be a good way to introduce students to a discipline, recruit students to a major, gain real experience doing research, or just interact on a more personal, informal level with faculty and other students.1 Student clubs can present challenges and opportunities for institutions, organizations, advisors, and students.2 In this paper I offer suggestions for philosophy club recruitment, organization, activities, and service projects. From my own experiences, I reflect upon the challenges and the rewards of advising an undergraduate philosophy club.
Origins of the Philosophy Club
My workplace is a state-funded, liberal arts college with almost six thousand students enrolled. While the college did have a philosophy major in years past, this major was eliminated in the 1990s due to “budgetary constraints.” The philosophy minor program since then has graduated three to five students each May. A concerted effort by the philosophers was recently undertaken to reinvigorate the philosophy program; the philosophy club has been central to that effort.
Equipped with funds from my dean, we advertised with flyers that the philosophy club was “thinking ‘til it hurts,” with free pizza and soda on Tuesday at 5:00 PM in an empty classroom. Since that time our philosophy club has become a campus award-winning organization.
Recruitment, Organization, Activities, and Service
Recruitment. The philosophy professors announce philosophy club meetings to their classes, and the “Introduction” class is a main feeder for club recruitment. Recruitment also takes place via flyers displayed on campus, usually in simple graphics with a memorable tag line (“Philosophy Club: We don’t fight. We have ‘discussions’.”). A bulletin board advertising philosophy courses offered, news clippings, flyers, etc. also sits in a prominent hallway. Those who attend meetings are included in an online group that is maintained by the philosophy club officers. We also have an online message board. I distribute flyers promoting our special events to faculty and ask my colleagues to announce these events to their classes. All of our special events are listed on the “campus events” calendar. Finally, there is evidence (from a self-study questionnaire) that word of mouth from one’s friends is a significant factor in recruitment to joining the club or attending club events.
Organization. In accordance with college guidelines, our philosophy club was required, in order to be recognized as an official club, to write a constitution and elect an executive board (consisting of a president, vice president, treasurer, and secretary). The student-written club mission statement begins: “The Philosophy Club provides a forum for the free expression of thought and speech. We are interested in philosophy because it provides us with opportunities to meet new and interesting people and talk about current issues in our society.” As this statement indicates, the objective of the club is intellectual discussions on campus in a social setting. (This mission statement is not exactly what I would have written because it does not explicate how an interest in philosophy can deepen and enrich discussions of pressing issues. However, the mission statement is one that students wrote for their club. More reflections on letting students lead the club are included in the conclusion.)
Becoming an official club (a process that may take some time) is essential at my college for receiving a budget allocation. Fortunately, my college has ample funding for student clubs, but funding is only allocated after a probationary period. Budget funds most often cater events, though funds also are used for off-campus transportation, fees, or on-campus club publicity. Our club budget is currently approximately three thousand dollars for one academic year; these funds are awarded based on the strength of our budget application, though we do not anticipate using all of the funds. Depending on one’s workplace, a philosophy club may face significant institutional challenges as a new organization (such as little or no allocation for club budgets and paucity of classroom meeting space).2
Activity: Weekly discussion meetings. Most of the philosophy club activity consists of weekly hour-long meetings, held at 5:00 PM. (A second weekly meeting has been difficult to arrange.) Weekly attendance ranges from five to twenty-five students. All the topics are selected by students, usually by a member of the Executive Board, though as advisor I have made some suggestions for possible topics. The topic for the week’s meeting is sometimes circulated electronically in advance to members via the club’s e-mail list and message board.
The day of the meeting, the topic of the hour-long meeting is written on the classroom board by a club officer as people file in, arrange themselves in a circle, and get coffee. Past topics have included:
• Multiculturalism in education
• Suffering and redemption
• Religion vs. spirituality
• Sex and violence in American culture
• Lying
• The morality of killing
• Literacy
• Life crises as learning experiences
• Marriage
• Consumerism in American culture
The discussion is very loosely moderated by one of the members on the Executive Board, who usually starts the session by making a few comments on the day’s topic. (I try to limit my own participation in the discussion, in most cases only speaking occasionally.) This activity is student run, and student attendance is generally very good.
I have found that the weekly discussion topics that are most successful in generating lively exchanges are those with which students make an immediate and personal connection. Therefore, weekly meeting topics are almost exclusively in the realm of social or religious philosophy. Also, it is important that the weekly meetings have a relaxed, welcoming atmosphere so that attendance does not feel like “school.” Any topic that requires highly specialized knowledge would stray too far away from that casual environment. Finally, only some of the club members have taken the upper-level philosophy courses needed for a discussion of more specialized topics. Thus, the weekly meeting is not to be viewed either as a study session or an analytic seminar.
Activity: Roundtable lunches. The philosophy club co-hosts special event roundtable lunch meetings with other student clubs. These roundtables are not held during our regular club meeting time but during lunch on a day when most faculty have commitments on campus. We recently set a goal of holding one roundtable lunch per month. On average about ten or fewer students attend the roundtable lunches, though that number is often matched by faculty attendance. This roundtable lunch series was initiated by faculty, based on student interest, with topics generally selected by faculty. Roundtable lunch topics are advertised in advance electronically, on flyers, and in the “campus events” calendar. Past topics for roundtable lunch events have included:
• Freedom vs. Determinism
• Romanticism
• Let’s Talk about Freedom (in celebration of Black History Month)
• What is Feminism?
• Fear and Violence
The discussion is moderated or co-moderated by faculty. (We have experimented with various techniques to launch discussions, sometimes using handouts with quotations, poems, philosophical passages, statistics, definitions, or “brain-teaser” problems that are relevant to that day’s discussion.)
This roundtable series has been very successful in raising the prominence of philosophy on campus, particularly among faculty from other disciplines. Because the lunches draw faculty from different disciplines in the humanities, one can leave the lunch having shared a truly interdisciplinary treatment of the day’s topic. For example, during the Romanticism Roundtable, historians, philosophers, and literature professors each discussed short passages of Romantic works that exemplified that movement for each field. The discussion leapt from Burke and Kant on the sublime to the poems of Poe. Participants gained a comprehensive view of Romanticism, even as individual professors disagreed, for example, about the ultimate significance of that movement.
Student attendance at roundtable lunches is low in comparison with our weekly meetings and in comparison with the Socratic Dialogue events (described below). Student attendance may be low simply because the roundtables are not scheduled during our regular meeting day or time. However, weak student attendance is only part of the problem; faculty dominate the discussions. I imagine it must be very intimidating for a student to speak up in this setting, where there is an equal student-faculty ratio, and faculty are more than willing to share their considerable erudition.
Some steps may be taken to curb faculty dominance when colleagues come to student club events. For example, the moderator may pose an open-ended question to the attendees and add, “Let’s let students comment on this topic first.” Another technique to encourage students to speak up is to ensure that the roundtable topics are accessible to a diverse audience. (The Romanticism topic, for example, might have been at once too abstract and too historically specific to engender student participation.) It might also be wise to start out an event by thanking everyone in attendance, but reminding faculty that student participation is vital for a successful event. (Tackling the problem of faculty members dominating club events calls for some diplomacy, particularly for the untenured club advisor. Additionally, one does not want to offend colleagues who generously sacrifice their time to attend a club event.)
Activity: Socratic Dialogue. The most successful “special events” launched thus far were the “Socrates Dialogue” events (christened “Socratic” by the club leadership). These events were held during the evening and drew about thirty students for each topic. The topics for the Socratic Dialogue event “What is pornography?” and “Who is God?” arose out of particularly heated regular club meetings and were advertised heavily on campus. Other student clubs were invited to cosponsor the event, which consisted of dinner and discussion of the topic. About five faculty members attended each event. (For the “Pornography” topic, the executive board of the club decided to split attendees into two groups in adjoining rooms to make the discussion groups more manageable.)
The Socratic Dialogue events generated good student attendance and promoted genuine philosophical reflection on the nature and significance of pornography and on the divine. I used a short self-study questionnaire for the first event to determine which factors best contributed to student involvement in club events, which study was prompted by my concern that our roundtable lunches were not particularly well-attended by students. The questionnaire asked students to check off all the factors that contributed to their attendance in that day’s event, the factors offered as choices being: a) free food; b) learn about the topic; c) my friends were going; d) meet new people/make new friends; and e) discuss philosophy and current events. Of nineteen attendees that answered the questionnaire, choice “e) discuss philosophy and current events” actually garnered the most responses—more than free food!
Activity: Plenary lectures. Lectures from faculty at other colleges and universities are an excellent way to expose students to different areas of professional interest and to provide them the opportunity to listen to and ask questions about original work. We have plenary lectures during our regular meeting time, which allows a half hour for the lecture and about the same amount of time for questions. The event is catered, and we promote it on campus. Student attendance is good, but we have not had faculty in attendance. The topic of the lectures varies, but given the small size of our department, I try to expose students to branches of philosophy that our courses do not cover. Furthermore, since our budget is small, lecturers need to be willing to appear on campus without an honorarium. A potential hazard is that plenary lectures might come to too-closely resemble classes and hence lose the extracurricular, fun atmosphere of a club meeting. This might be avoided by inviting dynamic, interesting, and exciting speakers.
Activity: Film series. Film night is an easy club activity. Assuming a campus has facilities to project a video or DVD, one just needs to choose the movie, rent it from the library or video store, and promote the movie event. There are many popular films with philosophical content, as well as lesser-known and foreign titles.
A film event might be enhanced with a discussion afterward, led by either faculty or students. I find some books (such as those in the Philosophy and Popular Culture Series by Open Court Press) helpful for prompting student reflection on film (or television). For example, to lead a discussion on the film The Matrix, one might consult The Matrix and Philosophy (Irwin 2002). Copies of articles might also be circulated in advance of the film presentation. A film series could be a successful recruiting tool to attract new students to the club because a well-chosen film should be able to draw new students to the event, and the discussion afterwards might retain these new students as members.
Activity: Professional Conference trip. Attending a professional conference can be a very exciting experience for students, though this activity will not have the broad appeal of some of the other activities. Fortunately, my college’s metropolitan location makes trips to local conferences fairly easy. About four students have attended various conferences, and even this small number is the result of a good deal of encouragement. (I research and announce upcoming conferences at club meetings and in our online forums.) Transportation, funds for conference fees, or hotels might need to be arranged, so one’s ability to take students to conferences might be limited by such expenses. In addition, a trip to a conference will require an attendance commitment (from both students and advisor) that a campus club meeting or event does not.
If the conference is small enough, it might be possible to ask the conference organizers if students might be welcome as commentators, or if students might submit papers to form a special student panel. My experience with students presenting papers or commenting at conferences has been very good. (One of our students has presented a paper at a local conference in a student panel, and two others have given commentaries. The papers presented were not submitted to blind review but were submitted to conference organizers by me as student submissions for inclusion in a special student panel. The students who participated in the conferences are among the most dedicated in the philosophy club and have returned from conference experiences very impressed and enthusiastic about the discipline.) However, conference trips are not suitable for everyone, and it may be too optimistic to expect many students to participate at this level. Nonetheless, the rewards of conference travel are numerous. Students experience a broad exposure to professors, philosophical debates, and styles of writing, and they are able to see “real” philosophy happening before their eyes. Students really enjoy attending their own professor’s panel if he or she is also presenting. Finally, intercollegiate philosophy club activities could be initiated at conferences if undergraduates from philosophy clubs at other institutions are also in attendance.
There is, however, a down side to conference trips. Having one’s paper rejected from a conference might be demoralizing for someone just starting out in the field, and some students might feel either overwhelmed by or bored by the conference. Additionally, as we all know, there are some conferences where presenters or audiences are less than cordial, and this could be troubling for a novice. An undergraduate-only philosophy conference is an excellent alternative to a professional conference.
Activity: Off-campus Cafe Philo trip. The Cafe Philo movement brings philosophical discussion out of the academy and into restaurants and cafes. These discussion groups are organized and moderated by philosophers in cities across the world. According to Bernard Roy, moderator of the New York City Cafe Philo,
Marc Sautet (1946-1998), a Parisian professor of philosophy, accidentally started philosophical discussion in the Cafe des Phares in Paris in 1992. Within a year, the informal exchanges grew into a national French phenomenon. Since September 1998, approximately twenty participants meet every other week at a restaurant for the New York City Cafe Philo. It is a good mix of students, faculty, retired teachers, artists, auto mechanics, etc. At the end of the discussion, participants propose topics for the next Cafe Philo. The topic that gets the most votes gets picked.3
Our philosophy club has organized a trip to attend a New York Cafe Philo.
The three students who traveled to the Cafe Philo enjoyed a lively and stimulating discussion about superstitions (that day’s topic), and one student even contributed. It is always possible that students might feel intimidated attending a philosophical discussion group where they are the youngest and newest members. But discussions at Cafe Philo can help students envision how philosophy might continue to fit into their lives after they finish their undergraduate education.
Activity: Toga Party Reading of Plato’s Republic. Our club has scheduled a toga party for an upcoming semester. I am planning this activity based on a friend’s description of his own undergraduate philosophy club days. The toga party involves reading the Republic aloud, a project that takes about twelve hours. Multiple copies of the book are required, as are refreshments and home-made costumes. Philosophy club members gather in a popular campus location and simply take on the different roles, reading the work aloud in bed-sheet togas with character name-tags. Since the reading takes so long, students sign up for two-hour reading shifts in advance.
Service. Service is essential for campus clubs; club budgets may be tied to the performance of service or fundraising projects. Our club’s service commitments include at least one on-campus and one off-campus service project per semester, though service requirements are institutionally specific. On- or off-campus service opportunities may already be organized by the Student Council or Activities Association. If that is the case (as it is at my college), organizing service activities should be straightforward. Our philosophy club’s past service projects include: a campus environmental clean up, a fundraising yard sale for tsunami relief, a student “fast-a-thon” (in which family and friends pledge money to students who fast) for world-hunger relief, and serving food in a soup kitchen. Usually the club’s Executive Board members decide which service projects to perform. The challenging part of any service project is recruiting committed volunteers. I leave service projects to the club members themselves to research, organize, and perform. In the past this has proved adequate, though it is possible that an advisor might need to be more active on service projects if the student leadership in the club is not able to meet its service requirements.
Some Challenges and Rewards of Advising Philosophy Clubs
My first concern with the philosophy club (as it currently is constituted) is that it is populated almost entirely by white students and that men tend to dominate the club’s activities. It has been demonstrated that women and ethnic minority men are less likely to speak out or take leadership roles in college classrooms,4 tendencies that may be replicated in clubs. For example, one study showed ethnic minorities are less likely to participate in extracurricular activities at community colleges.5
Our philosophy club membership is even “whiter” than the college overall. I have attempted to attract more students of color and make them feel welcome once recruited, though my efforts have met with minimal success. I have reached out to other campus groups (the Black Student Union, Ebony Women for Social Change) to invite those group members to our meetings, but this has not worked especially well. I had hoped that the roundtable lunch that focused on freedom (as part of Black History month) would interest nonwhite students in the club, but only a few such students attended the event, and none has come to another philosophy club meeting. In addition, although there generally is an equal ratio of men to women at weekly meetings, the men are more vocal. I have witnessed an exaggeration of the already well-documented tendency of white men to speak out more than women and minority men in classrooms.4 Since the club meetings are essentially social events where I exert no special control, my imperfect solution to this challenge is casually (I hope) pointing out that someone in the group is not being heard. Usually I phrase this by saying, “Ashley, I didn’t quite catch that...” I regret to admit that the gender dynamics can be exasperating. (Once I reduced myself to sputtering, “Boys, quit it, I can’t hear the girls!”) I have not been able to convince any women to attend an off-campus conference or Cafe Philo trip. Though a woman does sit on the Executive Board, the real leadership in the club comes from the men. So far I have not been able to encourage any of the women in the club to take a significant leadership role.
An argument in favor of diversity is well beyond the purview of this paper, so let me say simply that it seems to me to be unhealthy for our club (and for philosophy as an enterprise) to be so homogeneous. I discuss this challenge not because I have any facile answers to it—surely the nexus of race, gender, and philosophy defies such simplicity. The diversity challenge is worth noting because it is one that philosophy club advisors are likely to face. I am eager to learn how others respond to this challenge.
Another challenge for any student club is maintaining vibrancy and activity over generations of students.2 Since the club I advise is a new one, I will confront this challenge in the coming years. St