Dear all,

I very much applaud the mentoring program just initiated. I think it  
crucial that the mentors be people whose position is not at risk for  
structural reasons. Given the world we live in these days (this is  
different in other countries and would have been different during  
other time periods) the potential mentors are likely to be tenured  
professors (or associate professors) of philosophy. As has been  
pointed out on this list, the discussion and the reality people most  
people on this list live with is Americo-centric, and, of course, in  
different parts of the world structural vulnerability (or relative  
lack thereof) is tied to different positions, but here in the States  
at this point in time (and for the last few decades), tenure brings  
job security and decreased structural vulnerability.

I think it is counterproductive to attack people who are working very  
hard from within a certain hierarchical system to change that system.  
I also think that when we do that, we are not appreciating their great  
effort and (is it worse?) we show lack of compassion for their  
predicament.

I know of many members of this list who have worked tirelessly for the  
inclusion of various kinds of people within the profession of  
philosophy. Most of the time we don't know about their efforts, --the  
various fights that left them drained and eager to take up some other  
vocation. But I know I have benefited from these fights, and I think a  
lot of us have.

Criticism of the current structure of American academia is healthy;  
attacking people who are working within that structure to change it  
for the better is not.

Ásta

Dr. Ásta Sveinsdóttir
Assistant Professor of Philosophy
San Francisco State University

http://online.sfsu.edu/~asta/