Women in Philosophy: Report on Black Women Philosophers Conference

by Carol Moeller

The Black Women Philosophers Conference, March 15-16, 2019, at CUNY Graduate Center, sponsored by the CUNY Graduate Center, CUNY Grad Center Philosophy Program, the Center for the Humanities, the CUNY Advanced Research Collaborative (ARC), together with the APA Committee on the Status of Black Philosophers, and the New York Society for Women in Philosophy (NYSWIP), is the third in a series co-organized by Co-organized by Linda Martín Alcoff (Professor of Philosophy at Hunter College and the CUNY Graduate Center) and Charles Mills (Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at CUNY Graduate Center). The first, in Spring of 2018, was on Racial Inequality, the second, in Fall of 2018, was on #MeToo and Epistemic Justice. The conferences are free and open to the public. Alcoff and Mills state at their opening of this conference that they have learned a lot about how to organize these conferences and expect to keep doing them. Happily, I was able to attend the entire first of these conferences, as well as all of this one. I am still disappointed that I failed to note the date of the second (on #MeToo and Epistemic Justice) and missed it.

In Alcoff’s welcome to the Black Women Philosophers Conference, she notes the “struggles of resistance and activism” embodied in this conference, showing “that change is afoot.” She noted three reasons to focus upon what she calls “identity diversity” in the profession of philosophy (against the common view that philosophy is simply about ideas, no matter the identity of the person offering the ideas – many object to “agitation” for identity diversity):

• “The current demographics of the profession” of PhD philosophers (97% white) “are not a natural artefact” but are “[the products] of discriminatory policies and practices and false beliefs and bad ideologies.” These ought to change. “Those most likely to be able to reveal the falseness of the beliefs and to critique them and to replace them will be those” [who are members of groups that have minoritized by them]. “So the reforms cannot happen successfully without our input and our philosophical input.” Alcoff notes that those who have been targeted based upon arbitrary exclusions are more likely to be aware of these exclusionary practices.
• We seek “Idea Diversity” – diversity of “ideas, concepts, frameworks, questions, and theories.” These require diversity of identities. “Arbitrary limits on the flowering of new philosophical work constrains our progress.”
• If philosophy is truly interested in idea diversity, it must be open to change, including change of methods and topics. It must not only “end the arbitrary exclusions of some groups“ but also “it needs to become open to change at every meta-level.” This involves not only the content of philosophy but also what philosophy is to be “when we can open the windows and breathe in the fresh air.”

As Alcoff notes in an interview with the CUNY Graduate Center:

“The need for what we might call “identity diversity” that is, diversity by race, by gender, etc. is a means rather than an end in itself. The history of philosophy has focused on a somewhat narrow range of questions, ignoring many crucial ones, such as Charles’ work shows most acutely. Centuries of liberal political philosophy with hardly a word on slavery, colonialism, or the oppression of women? The uniformity of identity had an impact on the richness (or lack thereof) in philosophical questions, frameworks, and theories. So, as in every other scholarly discipline, we can see that increased identity diversity brings new questions, new methods, and new theories. By creating a conference with a critical mass of identity diversity in this way, we hope to shift the discussion of what the significant questions are, and the viable answers.”

Charles Mills notes that the number of Black women PhD philosophers active in the profession has gone from 1 or 2 to about 5 or 6 to 25 to 30 (by his count, with Linda Martín Alcoff and lots of speakers and audience members agreeing with his impression of the numbers). Michele Moody-Adams notes (in an interview on Myisha Cherry’s UnMute Podcast) that the first Black woman to receive tenure in a philosophy department did so in 1987, and at the time of her own tenure in 1996 the numbers of tenured Black women were still quite small.

Many spoke of challenges, yet also resiliency. Michele Moody-Adams mentioned how she almost left the profession while enduring terrible sexism and racism in a certain context. She shared how John Rawls and Hilary Putnam (mentors from Harvard), reached out to her. She recalled how Rawls phoned her at home and said “I hear you are unhappy” – noting that he and Putnam were prepared to do anything they could to help. She names Rawls and Putnam’s actions as “helping to create a space for justice.”

Many of the presenting philosophers are Spelman graduates, with many citing the importance of Spelman to their development. Many cited the importance of a collegium for Black women in philosophy, initiated by Kathryn Belle.

The conference flowed remarkably, such that themes from one paper often appeared in another paper on the same panel or in another one. This is particularly significant because, as Alcoff shared with me, she and Mills did not ask the presenters to speak on any specific topic. Themes from the panel on “Black Pain, White (Non)-Empathy, and Black Rage” arose often. Notions of “epistemic injustice” and “epistemic justice” came up again and again.

Practices of – or at least toward – “epistemic justice” were often present in the conference. Though the seating was an arrangement often criticized as hierarchical, with speakers on stage and audience in auditorium seating, the conference fostered a collaborative, participatory atmosphere. Whereas in many mainstream conferences many people show up primarily to the sessions in which they present, and people are rushing about choosing from among concurrent sessions, most of the speakers (and much of the audience) stayed for the full two days. There was only one session at a time, with everyone in this common space of a beautiful recital hall, learning together. Each session involved a Q and A, usually with many more people lining up to speak than time could permit. Those raising questions included undergraduates, graduate students, other professors, artists, therapists, activists, and others. (Though the very first question was quite antagonistic and did not show any evidence of having understood the papers just given.) The questions were received and responded to with great generosity.

Nor did the presenters appear at all to be competitive with each other or with the audience members. Instead, each embodied openness and genuine commitment to hearing from everyone and learning. They demonstrated great intellectual virtues, seeking to hear, understand, learn from, and think with participants in the conference

The conference centered Black women philosophers, who – and whose work – are often treated as marginal to the discipline, ignored altogether, or treated as an afterthought. When I mentioned the conference to others, excited and eager to have others attend, more than one philosopher said something like “a whole conference of Black women philosophers presenting?! I didn’t know there were enough to do that.” Others seemed to think that the conference would only be relevant to Black women.

Too often white professors seem to ignore Black philosophers, or to think of their work as “special interest,” only relevant to Black people. As Charles Mills notes (in the interview linked below): “To the extent…that the stereotypical image of a “philosopher” can be changed, it would help if white professors across the country made a self-conscious effort to see how their syllabi and curricula could be expanded to take account of the different perspectives often expressed on classical philosophical questions (social and political philosophy, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, the metaphysics of the self, etc.) by people of color, as well as their raising of new kinds of questions. The aim should be to incorporate such material into “regular” mainstream courses rather than having them “ghettoized” solely in, e.g., African-American Philosophy or race courses.”

Many of these philosophers engage with the world beyond the “Ivory Tower” in innovative ways. (It was only in conversation with my friend Jude-Laure Denis at the conference that the whiteness of the Ivory Tower image registered in my mind, despite decades of my hearing and using that term.) Myisha Cherry, for example, hosts “The Unmute Podcast” –“the place where philosophy and real world issues collide,” which she discusses at the APA blog here. Cherry’s edited collection has just been published. Cherry’s talk “Breaking Rules Through Rage” powerfully shows how “racial rules” insist upon cognitive, affective, and behavioral elements lending support for white supremacy. She theorizes “Lordean rage” – developing Audre Lorde’s accounts of anger and rage at injustice. She claims that Lordean rage as well has cognitive, affective, and behavioral elements that break the dominant racial rules.

The Black Women Philosophers Conference honors Professor Anita L. Allen of the University of Pennsylvania, who closed out the conference with her keynote. The current President of the Eastern Division of the APA (2018-2019), Allen is the first Black female president of the American Philosophical Association in its history of over 100 years. She is Vice Provost for Faculty and the Henry R. Silverman Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy at Penn.Anita L. Allen closed out the conference with her keynote, “Why I Write About Privacy.” Some high points of her talk include the following: the importance of addressing topics of digital privacy, the extent to which her arguments on privacy have been cited in Supreme Court Rulings, and that Indian LGBT advocates have used those arguments to establish legal protections of LGBT folks in India.

Allen mentioned troubling situations (including racist and sexist mistreatment) she has faced in Philosophy. Interestingly, she notes that such difficulties have been much more common in the world of philosophy professors than in the world of law professors. Asked about this in the Q and A, she speculated that law professors may have been better because there were more Black people in the law than there were in Philosophy. She notes that of course lawyers must develop awareness of the laws and of the consequences of violating them. She places more importance, though, on how lawyers are socialized into the legal profession, with practices that foster a sense of identity as a lawyer, as a professional with certain ethics and duties.

Asked to speak to a highlight and a take away from the conference Yolonda Y. Wilson writes,

The highlight of the conference for me was Anita Allen’s keynote. She managed to weave personal narrative, the history of black (US) women philosophers, and her intellectual work on privacy into a tour de force! What struck me about this conference is the brilliant, cutting-edge work that black women philosophers are producing that goes largely unsung in the profession.

These philosophers, and the space that they created, allow one to imagine possibilities of how philosophy can be transformed as formerly minoritized voices gain volume, as critical masses of people from minoritized groups gain footholds in philosophy. As Alcoff stated in her welcome to the conference, “identity diversity” is crucial to transforming philosophy. This conference was such a generative space, and the presenters so stimulating intellectually, that one was left wanting more. Fortunately, Mills and Alcoff plan to continue to curate such spaces in subsequent conferences.

One participant said of the conference,

I will take away the rich, complexity of many papers, and a lack of the feeling of homogeneity (and hence boredom), and that we could each do our thing, rigorously, the way we each do our thing.

When the conference was officially over, many people seemed to have no interest in leaving this profound intellectual space. Many lingered, exchanging hugs and contact information, taking photos, and thanking each other for these powerful two days, and for their ongoing work. I thank Linda Martín Alcoff, Charles Mills, and others who worked on and participated in this conference, one of the most powerful, intellectually stimulating events of my many years in the profession. I would urge interested readers to get onto the mailing list of the CUNY Graduate Center, to be informed of events. These are generally live-streamed, so one may watch and hear the proceedings from any location with internet access.

Speakers:

Anita Allen-Castellitto, University of Pennsylvania
Kathryn Belle (formerly Kathryn T. Gines), Penn State University
Emmalon Davis, New School for Social Research
Nathifa Greene, Gettysburg College
Devonya Havis, Canisius College
Janine Jones, University of North Carolina Greensboro
Axelle Karera, Wesleyan University
Michele Moody-Adams, Columbia University
Mickaella Perina, University of Massachusetts Boston
Camisha Russell, University of Oregon
Jackie Scott, Loyola University Chicago
Kris Sealey, Fairfield University
Jameliah Shorter-Bourhanou, Georgia College, College of the Holy Cross
Anika Simpson, Morgan State University
Briana Toole, CUNY Baruch College
Yolonda Wilson, Howard University

Carol Moeller has been a professor of philosophy at Moravian College in Bethlehem, PA since 1997, focusing upon social justice. She earned her Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Pittsburgh in 1998 (as well as Doctoral certificates in Women’s Studies and in Cultural Studies) and her BA from Oberlin College. Moeller was a Greenwall Fellow in Bioethics and Health Policy at Johns Hopkins and Georgetown Universities (01-03). She is a member of the Future of Minority Studies Project and a long time anti-racist, queer, disability, and feminist activist. moellerc@moravian.edu