Good Practices Guide

American Philosophical Association

Good Practices Guide
Developed by the Task Force on a Best Practices Guide
Peter Railton (chair), Mi-Kyoung “Mitzi” Lee, Diane Michelfelder, Robin Zheng

Last Updated September 2019

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial–ShareAlike 4.0

International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
sa/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA.
 Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Preface ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
List of Topics ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Section 1: Communication and implementation of guidelines for good practices ......................................10
Section 2: Contemporary forms of bias and discrimination ................................................................................12
Forms of bias and discrimination ................................................................................................................................................ 12
Explicit bias ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Implicit bias........................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Contextual bias .................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Structural bias and discrimination .............................................................................................................................................. 17
Contending with bias and discrimination ................................................................................................................................ 18
References ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 19
Section 3: Teaching, supervising, supporting, and mentoring students .........................................................23
Classroom teaching ............................................................................................................................................................................ 23
Supervising dissertations, undergraduate theses, and independent or directed studies .................................... 28
Mentoring and supporting graduate students........................................................................................................................ 30
Section 3, Appendix A: Some suggested practices in teaching philosophy.....................................................34
Section 4: Professional development of students and faculty.............................................................................37
Professional development in graduate programs ................................................................................................................. 37
Professional development in undergraduate programs .................................................................................................... 41
Formal and informal programs for professional development and mentoring of tenure-track faculty ........ 44
Some special considerations .......................................................................................................................................................... 45
Supporting non-tenure-track (NTT) faculty............................................................................................................................ 46
Other resources ................................................................................................................................................................................... 48
Section 5: Interviewing and hiring ................................................................................................................................ 49
Preliminaries ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 49
The first-round screening interview .......................................................................................................................................... 50
The campus visit ................................................................................................................................................................................. 52
After the campus visit ....................................................................................................................................................................... 54
Offers of employment ....................................................................................................................................................................... 54
Section 5, Appendix A: Some recommended practices for phone and internet interviews .....................56
Interviewing institutions and individual interviewers ....................................................................................................... 56
Placement advice for candidates.................................................................................................................................................. 58
Placement officers and graduate programs............................................................................................................................. 59
Section 5, Appendix B: Research on interviewing ................................................................................................... 60
Other resources ................................................................................................................................................................................... 62
Sources .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 62
Section 5, Appendix C: Guidelines for interview questions .................................................................................64
Section 5, Appendix D: Sample candidate evaluation sheet ................................................................................67
Section 6: Social events and activities.......................................................................................................................... 68
Social activities and inclusivity ..................................................................................................................................................... 68

Page 1 of 93
Table of Contents
 Social events and alcohol................................................................................................................................................................. 68
Accessibility of social events, conferences, and other meetings ..................................................................................... 69
Additional resources ......................................................................................................................................................................... 75
Section 7: Communication................................................................................................................................................ 76
Communication across levels ........................................................................................................................................................ 76
Communication in discussions ..................................................................................................................................................... 78
Electronic communication .............................................................................................................................................................. 80
Section 7, Appendix A: Some general norms for discussions ..............................................................................86
Norms of respect ................................................................................................................................................................................. 86
Norms of constructiveness ............................................................................................................................................................. 86
Norms of inclusiveness .................................................................................................................................................................... 86
Section 8: Mental and emotional health and safety ................................................................................................ 88
Student mental and emotional health and safety .................................................................................................................. 88
Faculty and staff mental and emotional health and safety ................................................................................................ 90
Responding to traumatic events on campus ........................................................................................................................... 92
Resources ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 93

Page 2 of 93
Table of Contents
 Acknowledgments
The Task Force on a Best Practices Guide would like to thank many colleagues and students who have
contributed ideas and comments over the course of the formation of this guide. There are too many to thank
individually, but we should especially mention those who kindly responded with written comments to
requests for expert assistance during the final round of revisions: Michael Brownstein, Joshua Knobe, Matt
Kopec, Chandra Sripada, Julia Staffel, and Shannon Sullivan. Moreover, expert advice was also furnished by
colleagues at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, including especially Louis
Penner, and by Amelie Rorty. We would also like to thank members of various committees and task forces of
the APA—including the Committee on Inclusiveness in the Profession, the Committee on the Teaching of
Philosophy, the Committee on Academic Career Opportunities and Placement, the Committee on Non-
Academic Careers, the Task Force on Diversity and Inclusion, and the Committee on the Status of Women
Site Visit Program—who reviewed sections of the penultimate draft and provided many useful correctives
and suggestions. Useful correctives and suggestions were also provided by those colleagues who attended
the open-comment sessions on the draft Guide at the 2018 Eastern, Central, and Pacific Division meetings,
and we are grateful for their contributions to this process. Throughout the project the APA staff, particularly
Erin Shepherd and Amy Ferrer, have been supportive and helpful. Of course, none of these individuals
should be held responsible for any of the content of the Guide.

Page 3 of 93
Acknowledgments
 Preface
Times change, and the American Philosophical Association, like most professional organizations, colleges,
and universities, has perceived the need for continuing development of codes of professional conduct across
a wide range of areas of academic life. The following are among the areas usually included in such codes of
conduct:

• Academic freedom
• Discrimination and diversity
• Sexual harassment and assault
• Faculty-student relations
• Professional meetings
• Accessibility for families and caregivers
• Social events and alcohol
• Fair practices in recruitment, promotion, and funding
• Professional discourse and the use of social media
• Grievances and redress
Such codes of conduct are intended to spell out acceptable and unacceptable forms of behavior, as well as
associated procedures and sanctions in cases where violations may have occurred. Often these codes of
conduct connect with law, and contain procedural guarantees and reporting requirements mandated by law
(e.g., under Title IX and the Clery Act). Codes of conduct also typically go beyond strictly legal mandates by
setting out standards of professional conduct distinctively appropriate for an academic community. In 2016,
the APA board of officers adopted the APA Code of Conduct.

This Good Practices Guide, as we understand it, is written against the background of such a code, and is not
intended to play the same role in relation to the conduct of academic life. There will inevitably be areas of
overlap—some of the guidelines or recommendations within this document will have the same content, if
not the same force, as a rule of professional conduct. But a Good Practices Guide—we decided this was a
more accurate representation of what we might hope to achieve than “Best Practices”—does not attempt to
draw lines regarding what is strictly permissible or impermissible. Rather, it is a set of recommendations
based upon the accumulated experience of faculty, administrators, and students, intended in part to address
some of the underlying conditions that can give rise to the problems with which a code of conduct deals, and
to suggest structures and practices that can, if in place, help promote constructive and equitable responses
to these problems. More positively, these recommendations are meant to suggest policies and practices that
may help us to realize the sort of academic community we aspire to—a community of mutual respect and
fairness, of commitment to scholarship and learning, of open-mindedness and inclusivity, and of concern for
nurturing the next generation of philosophers and members of the society at large.

Naturally, members of the APA will differ over the interpretation of these values, their priority, and how to
understand the responsibility of individuals, academic units, teaching programs, students, journals, and

Page 4 of 93
Preface
professional associations in attempting to realize these values. We view this Good Practices Guide not as an
attempt at a definitive statement, but as a starting point, and as a basis for continuing discussion and
development of good practices. 1 Similarly, this guide does not purport to be comprehensive. Rather, it
focuses upon a number of areas where special challenges arise in the promotion of mutual respect, fairness,
and inclusivity, and where experience and research indicate effective ways of meeting some of these
challenges.

Philosophers are also members of the broader community beyond the academy, and most of those we teach
will find their lives outside academia. Our recommendations have sought in various ways to take cognizance
of these facts, but many issues remain. In particular, we have not attempted to discuss the role or
responsibilities of philosophers as potential agents in the public or political sphere, and how these relate to
their professional and pedagogical roles and responsibilities. This, in our opinion, is an important discussion
to have within the APA, and we hope the continuing evolution of this Good Practices Guide will provide one
forum for it.

1 Members are encouraged to send comments and suggestions on this guide, or on related matters, to the APA at
[email protected], where an archive of such suggestions will be kept.

Page 5 of 93
Preface
 List of Topics
We divide our suggestions into the following categories, though, of course, the suggestions often bear on
more than one category, resulting inevitably in some duplication. As noted above, this list is not meant to be
exhaustive, and we encourage members to make recommendations as to how this list might be
supplemented.

Section 1: Communication and implementation of guidelines for good practices

What role might this guide play in stimulating discussion of significant concerns within departments,
committees, or other academic units? How might such discussions enable all perspectives to be expressed?
What is it for an academic unit to adopt, ratify, or adapt a set of good practices? On a continuing basis, how
are faculty, staff, and students to be made aware of the recommendations of this Good Practices Guide, and
of their meaning and implications?

Section 2: Contemporary forms of bias and discrimination

Central to many of the concerns and recommendations of this guide is the challenge of promoting a diverse
and inclusive philosophical community characterized by mutual respect and a commitment to fairness. Bias,
discrimination, and unfairness can enter into virtually any area of academic life and can take a variety of
forms: explicit, implicit, contextual, and structural. Bias and discrimination are complex phenomena, and
awareness of their diverse forms is important in contending with them. Recent research in psychology,
sociology, and philosophy has led to the development of theoretical frameworks for thinking about bias and
discrimination, frameworks that may enhance our understanding and contribute to the development of
more effective practices. Each of the individual sections of this document draws to some extent upon
elements of this research, but just as it is important to make use of our best-developed theories to date, it is
also important to keep in mind the limitations of these theories and the controversies about their well-
foundedness. In particular, recent years have seen a very active debate over experimental metholodogies
and reproducibility in science generally, and social psychology has been a special focus of concern. How
might we as philosophers take into account both the content and the controversies of empirical research?

• Forms of bias and discrimination

• Explicit bias
• Implicit bias
• Contextual bias
• Structural bias and discrimination
• Contending with bias and discrimination
Section 3: Teaching, supervising, supporting, and mentoring students
What sorts of practices have been found to promote effective and inclusive teaching? What are some of the
goals or concerns in the supervision or mentoring of students? How is one to increase accessibility for
students with disabilities without marginalizing or imposing additional burdens upon them? What are the
special responsibilities of supervisors and mentors, and how are these related to the structure of graduate
and undergraduate programs?

Page 6 of 93
List of Topics
 • Classroom teaching
o Curricular design; Course content; Course structure; Grading and assessment
o Plagiarism and cheating; Classroom atmosphere and management; Classroom community
building; Institutional partners and students in difficulty; Accessibility; Events for students;
Special opportunities for talented students
• Supervising dissertations, undergraduate theses, and independent or directed studies
o Meetings; Feedback; Professional opportunities; Sharing resources; Progress and review;
Letters of recommendation; Teaching letters
• Mentoring and supporting graduate students
This section also includes an appendix with further information.

• Section 3, Appendix A: Some suggested practices in teaching philosophy

o Active learning; Lectures; Discussions; Professional development; Contributions to the
scholarship of philosophy teaching and learning; Pedagogical activism
Section 4: Professional development of students and faculty
Concern for philosophy is also concern for the long-term health of the discipline—a concern that extends to
undergraduates and junior faculty as well as graduate students. Recent years have seen tightening budgets
and a difficult job market for academic positions in philosophy, and these developments have had significant
effects at all levels. How can faculty provide encouragement and support for students, while promoting
expectations that avoid excesses of optimism and pessimism? At the undergraduate level, how can faculty
provide guidance and assistance to students with a diverse array of backgrounds as they think about, and
apply to, graduate school? At the graduate level, how should faculty contribute to the professional
development of students—including the possibility of “alternative academic” and non-academic careers—
and how should departments conduct placement services? How might placement procedures be made more
transparent and responsive to current student needs? What are some ways in which programs have learned
to inform students about issues of professional development, or to provide encouragement and support for
such activities?

• Professional development in graduate programs

• Professional development in undergraduate programs
• Formal and informal programs for professional development and mentoring of tenure-track
faculty
• Some special considerations
• Supporting non-tenure-track (NTT) faculty
Section 5: Interviewing and hiring
What are some good practices with respect to the holding and conducting of recruitment interviews—in-
person or electronic, whether at conventions or in other settings? How are questions of dual careers or
disabilities to be addressed? What are some techniques that have been found to help counter bias and elicit
fairer assessment of candidates? When making offers of employment, what are some practices that avoid

Page 7 of 93
List of Topics
placing unreasonable pressure on candidates, or that promote greater understanding of the terms of
employment?

• Preliminaries
• The first-round screening interview
• The campus visit
• After the campus visit
This section also includes several appendices with further information.

• Section 5, Appendix A: Some recommended practices for phone and internet interviews
o Interviewing institutions and individual interviewers
o Candidates
o Placement officers and graduate programs
• Section 5, Appendix B: Research on interviewing
• Section 5, Appendix C: Guide to acceptable interview questions
• Section 5, Appendix D: Sample candidate evaluation sheet
Section 6: Social events and activities
Social events and informal department-centered activities play a large role in academic life and are often a
vital part of the exchange of ideas that colleges and universities exist to promote. They can also play an
outsized role in shaping perceptions of belongingness or exclusion. It therefore is appropriate that questions
of good practices and inclusiveness be raised in connection with such events and activities as well as those
that are more official. Several particularly important areas of concern are socially gendered activities,
alcohol use, accessibility, and potential for bullying or sexual harassment. What issues should be kept in
mind, and what are some effective ways for individuals, groups, or academic units to reduce the risks
associated with alcohol, or to avoid various forms of social or economic marginalization or exclusion, or to
help ensure that events and activities are accessible to individuals with disabilities and free of bullying or
harassment?

• Social activities and inclusivity

• Social events and alcohol
• Accessibility of social events, conferences, and other meetings
• Accessibility and accommodation checklist
o Some general planning considerations
o Planning for possible emergencies
o More specific recommendations
Section 7: Communication
Effective communication plays an important role in discovering and addressing virtually all problems faced
by individuals and units. Are there examples of effective practices within departments, programs, or other

Page 8 of 93
List of Topics
units to encourage open lines of communication across levels? What are reasonable expectations or norms
for open discussions at meetings, colloquia, and other events, if we are to promote the goals in inquiry,
fairness, openness, and inclusion?

• Communication in discussions
• Electronic communication
• Email
• Social media
• Communication on department websites
This section also includes an appendix with more information.

• Section 7, Appendix A: Some general norms for discussions

o Norms of respect; Norms of constructiveness; Norms of inclusiveness
Section 8: Mental and emotional health and safety
How can teachers, supervisors, mentors, and administrators help when students or colleagues appear to be
in psychological difficulty or distress? When is it appropriate to raise concerns about mental or emotional
health with a student or colleague? What should instructors do when they sense that a student might pose a
risk of violence to self or others? What sorts of conversations about or involving mental health or safety
concerns should be treated as confidential, or, alternatively, should be communicated to those whose
responsibility is to help students in distress or to manage campus security? How can an environment be
created in which questions of mental health are less stigmatized and isolating, and individuals are more
likely to receive the treatment they need?

• Student mental and emotional health and safety

• Faculty and staff mental and emotional health and safety
• Responding to traumatic events and experiences
This list of topics is obviously not comprehensive. We have attempted to focus on questions that are
recurrent in academic life, and that can give rise to some of the most difficult problems. We have also
discussed most extensively those areas with some overlap with our own areas of research or experience. It
is important in sustaining a living Good Practices Guide over time that others enrich, revise, or extend these
guidelines. That, too, is a good practice.

Note: Throughout this document, frequent use is made of the expression “the department” or “departments” when
describing good practices. Philosophy programs and teaching may also be situated in other kinds of academic units,
and suggestions to departments may in some cases need to be adapted to these varied institutional settings. Those
philosophers who are located in non-departmental settings are especially encouraged to contribute their experience to
the evolution of this guide. Similarly, the phrase “colleges and universities” is typically meant to include community
colleges as well as four-year colleges.

Page 9 of 93
List of Topics
 Section 1: Communication and
implementation of guidelines for good
practices
We encourage departments and other academic units to make this guide accessible to faculty and students
and to hold open discussions of the issues discussed herein. Some departments have already found it useful
to discuss sections of previous drafts of this guide during departmental meetings, using this as an occasion
to share ideas and information about issues discussed in the guide. Such discussions can be more than
informational, however. The governing idea of guides of this kind is that it is not enough simply to affirm
certain values or goals—there must be a continuing commitment to developing and implementing policies
and procedures that can enhance their realization. Since faculty, student population, and staff change over
time, and since new challenges arise and improved research emerges, periodic revisiting of the issues
discussed in this guide is recommended, as is the monitoring of policies and practices for effectiveness.
Departmental and committee chairs can contribute to the effectiveness of such meetings by making it clear
that participation in such meetings is as much a responsibility as participation in meetings for hiring,
promotion, and graduate review—indeed, good practices for the conduct of hiring, promotion, and graduate
review are among the central concerns of these guidelines. Thought should also be given to the
representation of various groups—faculty, staff, students, etc.—who might not normally be present at
department or committee meetings, but who would be affected by such practices and whose perspectives
and participation are important for the development, implementation, and success of the practices.
Discussion of the guide and subsequent decision-making can model the central values of inclusion,
transparency, and mutual respect, as well as manifesting recognition of the importance of process.

The issues with which the guide is concerned are often difficult to broach and awkward to discuss, and for
this reason they may fail to be discussed in the usual array of departmental or committee meetings. Thus,
posing the question of explicitly reviewing existing practices in light of the recommendations of guides such
as this as can afford an opportunity for discussions and decision-making that otherwise would not have
occurred. Moreover, planned discussions of this kind make it possible to raise difficult issues in a setting
independent of any specific incident, grievance, or crisis, and without attributing any fault. Once such an
incident has occurred or a crisis is underway, it will be more difficult to achieve open reflection and frank
discussion of how existing practices might better address persisting concerns or serve underlying values.
Moreover, it should not fall upon those who are most concerned with these issues, or most likely to be
adversely affected by them, to raise such questions—the departmental or committee chair can do so as part
of the regular course of events.

As this guide will discuss below, structure is important for effective and inclusive processes and discussions.
If there is to be a departmental or committee meeting, or several such meetings, at which a review of
practices is to occur, it is recommended that copies of this guide or other such guides be circulated in
advance, along with links to existing departmental, college, or university policies or standard practices. One
recommended practice is to have the various sections of this guide reviewed and discussed first in the
relevant departmental committees or in ad hoc representative groups, which then can bring
recommendations to the department as a whole. This may permit a more thorough examination of issues as

Page 10 of 93
Section 1: Communication and implementation of guidelines for good practices
well as better adaptation of recommendations to specific unit circumstances and resources. Department and
committee chairs can encourage attendance at meetings, and make available agendas in advance that help
insure that there will be space both for structured and open discussion, that there will be a chance for those
with minority views to make themselves heard, and that action items can be introduced. It is also considered
a good practice that, where possible, significant policy changes are not be adopted at the first meeting at
which they are discussed, so that there can be time for reflection and wider discussion. Another
recommended practice is to designate a chair or facilitator for such meetings other than the existing
departmental or committee chair (see SECTION 7: COMMUNICATION for further suggestions about how to
structure discussions to promote full and open participation). Departments and committees may also
benefit from inviting a college or university ombudsperson, legal counsel, or others with relevant expertise
or experience to make presentations to the group, prior to or during deliberation.

If a vote is taken on affirming, revising, or adopting guidelines, this should be recorded in the meeting’s
minutes, and a copy of the guidelines voted upon should be kept along with the minutes and archived by the
department, whether the vote is favorable or not. Being able to refer back to such discussions and guidelines
can play an important role in subsequent deliberations and in contending with incidents as they occur.

If adopted, guidelines should be made readily available to all members of the department, and newly
arriving members should be given copies. Orientation of new students and faculty is an important occasion
for making sure that all members are aware of unit guidelines—again, before a crisis or controversy arises
of the kind such a guide is intended to help prevent. For example, a departmental Good Practices Guide can
help newcomers to gain a reasonable idea of what they should expect from others—colleagues, staff, and
students—and what others will expect from them. Becoming aware of the guide can also enable newcomers
to contribute more effectively to the ongoing process of developing departmental practices.

Should an incident or accusation occur, all parties should be reminded of the existence of unit guidelines and
given access to them. In such cases, guidelines may be of significant value in providing structure and focus
for the discussions that follow.

This Good Practices Guide is itself a work in progress, and experience is an important source of information
about how to improve it. The APA has therefore sought ways of drawing upon this experience in the ongoing
development of the guide through a series of public consultations via the APA Blog and discussion sessions
at APA meetings. The task force hopes that the APA will continue to create opportunities and forums for
members to convey relevant comments and suggestions to the APA (along with a durable record of
comments and suggestions received). 2

2 Members are encouraged to send comments and suggestions on this guide, or on related matters, to the APA at
[email protected], where an archive of such suggestions will be kept for future review.

Page 11 of 93
Section 1: Communication and implementation of guidelines for good practices
 Section 2: Contemporary forms of bias
and discrimination
Since a central concern of this guide is to explore ways in which philosophy can promote equity, inclusion,
and diversity within the profession, some orientation with respect to existing scholarship on questions of
bias and discrimination seems appropriate as a background to the more specific discussions of particular
areas of concern, addressed in subsequent sections of this guide. Any such orientation will necessarily be
selective, and the current state of research will itself always be subject to change and disagreement among
reasonable people. Therefore this orientation is meant simply to introduce some frameworks for thinking
about bias and discrimination, and to indicate how they might relate to some of the challenges our
profession faces. The APA itself has no position on these empirical issues, and instead encourages all
philosophers to seek, and critically assess, a wide range of information.

As philosophers, we are professionally involved in encouraging self-understanding and the critical

examination of concepts, assumptions, reasoning, and values that figure in ordinary thought and practice.
We also live in a society that has been, and continues to be, divided in many ways along lines of “race,” 3
ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, socioeconomic status, and gender or sexual identity—with profound
effects upon the outcomes individuals experience in life. Colleges and universities have the capacity to bring
together diverse groups of students and faculty, and to make a distinctive contribution to overcoming
various forms of bias, discrimination, or unfairness that might be found in the larger society. But it would be
a mistake to confuse this potential with reality—colleges and universities will be able to play this role only
through the active efforts of those involved, and those efforts are likely to be more successful if informed by
our developing empirical and philosophical understanding of these phenomena.

Forms of bias and discrimination

At the individual level, “bias” as such is a general phenomenon of cognition and affect—a matter of prior
beliefs, preferences, feelings, or expectations that individuals bring to situations, and that shape how they
interpret and respond to those situations. Thought and learning could hardly occur without some prior
attitudes, and, in humans, such attitudes often take the form of category schemes that impute traits with
causal or explanatory potential (Gelman 2009). This kind of categorization can be found across a wide array
of natural and social domains, and can be implicit (in the sense of not involving self-conscious cognition or
feeling) as well as explicit (Uleman et al. 2008). Categorization of this kind can be linked to stereotyping, in
which some category-associated traits or behaviors are attributed to all members, ignoring individual
differences within the category and actual comparative frequencies of traits or behaviors across categories.
Categories and stereotypes need not have any positive or negative valence, although evaluative attitudes
often are associated with them (Eagly & Chaiken 2007). Categorization, stereotyping, and evaluation can
also be fine-grained, cross-cutting, and contextually-influenced, not simply tied to predominant social
groupings as such (Fiske et al. 2002, Livingston & Brewer 2002). In the social domain, tendencies to
categorize appear to emerge in the first year of life, and have the important feature that individuals tend to

3Throughout this section, the term “race” is being used to designate the self-ascribed social categories typically used in
public records and in social psychology research. Similarly for “Black” and “White.” For recent philosophical
discussions concerning “race” and related categories or concepts, see James (2016) and Yancy (2017).

Page 12 of 93
Section 2: Contemporary forms of bias and discrimination
place themselves as well as others in categories, and begin to show preferences toward those identified as
belonging to their own group (Liberman et al. 2017).

Own-group preferences are a robust psychological phenomenon, but are not as such equivalent to social
prejudice as this is normally understood, since own-group preferences need not involve negative
stereotypes of other groups. Moreover, own-group preferences can be quite labile, shifting in focus and
scope with changing contexts, and can operate without reference to, or across, other categories of social
division. For example, if a discussion section is arbitrarily divided into two groups for an informal debate,
members of one’s own side can become objects of own-group preference even though the division is known
to be arbitrary, and brings together individuals belonging to disparate social groups (cf. Billig & Tajfel 1973).
Own-group preference thus can work against, or in favor of, individuals who are members of one’s own
social category, and the pervasiveness of own-group preference does not mean that social prejudice as we
know it is inborn or unchangeable.

Moreover, social prejudice can involve unfavorable attitudes toward, or negative stereotypes about, one’s
own group, and various kinds of preference for socially valorized groups (see Fiske et al. 2002; Uhlmann et
al. 2002; Dunham et al. 2014; though see Olson et al. 2009). For example, in the US, individuals of all ages
tend to show a stronger implicit association between positive words and youth, and girls who, in fact,
outperform their male peers in mathematics nonetheless tend to have a negative association between
femaleness and mathematical ability and a positive association between maleness and such ability (Nosek et
al. 2002). Contending with social prejudice thus is not a matter of eliminating own-group preference, but of
working to encourage the development of greater and more accurate self-understanding and understanding
of others—and it therefore is fully compatible with the educational and research mission of colleges and
universities.

Although, as discussed above, “bias” as a term of psychological theory is not equivalent to prejudice,
commonsense usage of “bias” as a matter of negative beliefs and attitudes toward particular social groups is
sufficiently entrenched that we will generally follow that usage in this guide. Entrenched, too, is a sense that
“bias” involves some form or degree of epistemic defect—for example, holding positive or negative
stereotypes on the basis of limited or unrepresentative experience, or failure to be open to certain kinds of
evidence, or partiality in the weighing evidence. The subsections that follow discuss some forms that bias
can take.

Explicit bias
Explicit social bias is a matter of self-conscious positive or negative attitudes about the capacities or
behaviors of social groups. While expression of explicit bias has become less common on the whole (Dovidio
et al. 2017), it continues to be present to some degree in contemporary social and academic life (Craig &
Richeson 2014). Prevalent social norms against bias have the effect that explicit bias, even though self-
conscious, is infrequently publicly expressed as such, despite the fact that a significant number of individuals
may be motivated to express such bias, and will do so privately or in contexts where they feel the usual
social norms are not dominant (Forscher et al. 2015). While reliable statistics are hard to assemble, a
number of campuses have recently experienced increased incidents of explicit expressions of biased
attitudes in which the favored or disfavored groups or individuals are identified in terms of race, ethnicity,
religion, sexual orientation, or immigration status (Bauer-Wolf 2017).

Page 13 of 93
Section 2: Contemporary forms of bias and discrimination
Confusion exists, however, over whether or when expressions of explicit bias are a form of protected speech.
Colleges and universities have come under attack for failing to protect free expression of a full range of
political opinions, in part because they are thought to treat expressions of explicit bias as forbidden,
whatever the context. However, some ways of expressing explicit bias are indeed protected forms of speech,
and treating them as such is important if colleges and universities are to maintain an open climate of
discussion on campus, and to avoid the exclusion or marginalization of certain social or political points of
view. Yet when such expressions take the form of verbal harassment, abuse, or threat, they lose this
protection (for some criteria, see the next paragraph). In the present climate, it therefore is important for
colleges and universities to affirm their commitments both to free expression and to the creation of a
climate free of harassment, abuse, or threats.

Academic units are encouraged to have open discussions of the distinction between protected speech and
harassment, abuse, or threat, and to develop and publicize guidelines to help members of the academic
community to make these distinctions. It is not a simple matter to make these distinctions, especially given
the pervasive use of online media, but open discussion of such issues can help an academic community
develop appropriate norms for encouraging tolerance of speech, teaching, or scholarship involving
unpopular views while at the same time providing an environment where staff, students, and faculty of all
backgrounds can participate fully in the core activities of institutions of higher learning. Having had such
discussions even in the absence of an on-going controversy may help individuals and the academic
community as a whole to avoid the chilling effect of vague notions about permissibility, while also creating
clear spaces for legitimate forms of protest and contestation. Among the criteria relevant to distinguishing
protected expression from harassment include: where and in what circumstances the expressive acts take
place; whether the expressive acts espouse a general viewpoint publicly or target an individual or
individuals; whether the individual or individuals are targeted as members of a protected category (e.g.,
religious, racial, ethnic, gender, disability, etc.); whether the expressive acts are intensive in manner,
repeated, or involve threats to retaliate if the unwelcome behavior is reported; and whether the acts create a
hostile environment or undermine the possibility of equal educational access or opportunity for the
individual or group targeted(see Sokolow et al. 2011). Those at public institutions should be aware that they
are under stricter constitutional constraints regarding free expression than public institutions. The
following are two relevant statements that indicate the challenge and importance of making the distinction
between harassment and protected speech:

• American Civil Liberties Union statement on campus speech

• APA statement on bullying and harassment

Implicit bias
Recent decades have seen increased attention to implicit cognition and affect, elements of an individual’s
beliefs, attitudes, or preferences of which the individual is often (though not always) unaware, but which
can operate in shaping thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in ways that require no conscious recognition,
endorsement, or effort. While researchers vary in how they understand the notion of “implicit” thought or
feeling, and how accessible “implicit” attitudes might be (for discussion, see Brannon & Gawronski 2017), it
is widely agreed elements of cognition and affect not readily accessible to introspection play an important
role in perception, language, choice, motor control, and social interaction—complex activities where the
amount of information that must be taken in and used to adjust one’s responses exceeds the capacity for
self-conscious, controlled thought and decision-making. Our conscious mental lives thus depend pervasively

Page 14 of 93
Section 2: Contemporary forms of bias and discrimination
on processes and attitudes that shape how we see the world and act upon it, but which have not been the
products of prior deliberation and choice, and often are not open to direct introspection. Implicit affective
processes, too, such as non-conscious preferences (Jost et al. 2002) or implicit empathic simulations of the
mental states of others (Gutsell & Inzlicht 2010), also appear to be part of the equipment that enables us to
lead the complex social lives we do. Since such implicit processes and attitudes influence what we attend to,
perceive, think, remember, feel, want, and do, sometimes despite our stated intentions and avowed beliefs
or principles, they pose a special problem in our efforts to live up to ideals of impartiality, fairness, open-
mindedness, evidence-sensitivity, and rigor in judgment.

One heavily studied form of implicit cognition and affect has come to be known as “implicit bias”—the
existence of implicit stereotypes of, and evaluative attitudes toward, socially identified groups such as races,
ethnicities, gender or sexual orientations, social classes, and so on. As with other forms of implicit cognition
and affect, the individual is often unaware, or only partially aware, of these attitudes, and they may be at
odds with the individual’s self-consciously endorsed beliefs and values. Despite the existence of widely used
measures of implicit bias, the extent to which implicit bias as measured in these ways predicts actual
behavior is a matter of controversy (Nosek et al. 2005; Karpinski & Ross 2006; Greenwald et al. 2002, 2009,
2015; Oswald et al. 2013; Lai et al. 2014; Forscher et al. 2016). It is important, therefore, to distinguish
between, on the one hand, a psychological “probe” intended to indicate the existence of underlying
associations, such as the well-known Implicit Association Test (IAT), and, on the other hand, measures of
actual individual behaviors in context, which typically are the result of a multiplicity of factors. While some
evidence exists that individual scores on the IAT, for example, have predictive power for particular kinds of
behavior in a range of settings (see below) or with respect to behavior at the aggregate level (Greenwald et
al. 2015), individual scores tend to vary significantly from one test context to another. However, such a
pattern of test-retest variation in the face of a significant effect-size is typical of most probes of implicit
mental processes, including the well-established Stroop test and Erikson flanker task (Hedge et al. 2017; see
also Ableson 1985 on the limitations of variation-based arguments), and does not in itself indicate that there
is no robust underlying cognitive or affective phenomenon at work. But it does argue against using
particular IAT test scores as a basis for inferring whether individuals will exhibit greater or lesser prejudice
in their behavior.

A potentially valuable use of tests like the IAT is in providing individuals with a first-personal experience
that encourages them to think seriously about whether they might have underlying cognitive or affective
attitudes at odds with their avowed beliefs, principles, or values, and that might have an influence in their
thought and action that they would hope to avoid. Studies of interventions to counter discriminatory effects
have found that explicit instructions to “avoid stereotyping” or “avoid prejudice” have little effect, and may
even activate stereotypical thinking (Kunda & Spencer 2003), but some interventions for which we have
evidence of effectiveness use administration of the IAT as an initial step, accompanied by making the results
available to the individual and providing the individual with a discussion of what such results do or do not
mean (Forscher et al. 2017). Because the IAT and various other measures of implicit associations are
confidentially accessible online, it is possible for individuals to take, and retake, these tests privately as part
of their reflection on the challenges of overcoming bias, though they should be cautioned against using the
test score diagnostically. Moreover, it is as yet unclear which aspects of taking the IAT or thinking about
possibility of discrepancy between one’s avowed beliefs and one’s spontaneous or unacknowledged
cognitive and affective reactions, combined with which level of motivation to avoid prejudice, contribute to
the value of the IAT in encouraging effective reflection upon one’s possible biases (Hahn & Gawronski 2018).

Page 15 of 93
Section 2: Contemporary forms of bias and discrimination
For us as philosophers and educators, the ongoing discussions within psychology and philosophy about the
reality, nature, measure, and significance of implicit bias themselves afford an important opportunity for
developing critical thinking, self-reflection, and an appreciation of the methodological challenges of
understanding a phenomenon as complex as bias or a mind as complex as our own (Acup et al. 2015;
Brownstein et al., ms.; Brownstein & Saul 2016; Machery 2017).

Contextual bias
Studies of explicit and implicit bias often find that context plays an important role in mediating the
relationship of measurements of potential bias to actual behavior. Some theories of discrimination therefore
seek to incorporate context directly into understanding the intrapersonal and interpersonal dynamics of
bias. For example, the theory of “aversive racism” grew out of earlier attempts to account for how individual
attitudes and behaviors involving race have evolved in response to changing laws and social norms in the
wider society (Dovidio et al. 2017; this approach has also been used to study gender- and class-oriented
bias; see also Alba et al. 2002 and Craig and Richeson 2014 on responses of attitudes about race and
immigration to changing real or perceived demographics). For example, the theory considered how
individuals self-identifying as White who explicitly endorse prevailing anti-discriminatory policies and
practices may nonetheless, when in a direct interaction with an African American individual, experience
discomfort, anxiety, ambivalence, or fear in ways that contribute to discriminatory outcomes, e.g., through
failures of communication (Pearson et al. 2009).

The theory of aversive racism as a form of contextual bias is of special interest for educators since an
important component of its evidence comes from studies of professional interactions, e.g., of physicians with
patients. These studies include assessments of explicit and implicit attitudes, but also use such objective
indicators as the kind of medical care given to a patient for a particular medical condition, as well as
subjective indicators such as the self-reported experience of patients with the physician. The physicians
studied generally saw themselves as non-prejudiced on matters of race and scored low on explicit bias
measures, but their medical practice indicated differences in treatment between African-American and
White patients with similar conditions, and the scores these physicians received on measures of implicit bias
were predictive of lower quality of coronary care (Green et al. 2007), shorter visits (Cooper et al. 2012), and
fewer prescriptions of narcotics for pain relief after pediatric surgery (Sabin & Greenwald 2012). Moreover,
when Penner and colleagues looked at interactions between non-Black physicians with a profile of low
scores on explicit bias measures but higher scores on implicit bias measures, they found that these
physicians offered African-American patients less information about possible side-effects and that African-
American patients on average reported lower levels of satisfaction and trust in the aftermath of interactions
(Penner et al. 2010; Penner et al. 2012). The debate over sources of disparities in medical treatment and
outcomes across racial categories is complex, and the contextual hypothesis of aversive racism must be
placed in a yet larger social context (see below), but the hypothesis suggests that achieving more inclusive
ideals as teachers and colleagues requires active attention not only to one’s personal attitudes, but to the
structure and qualities of interactions and to the kinds of information that may as a result be consciously or
implicitly exchanged. While implicit attitudes and their psychological workings might not be readily
available to introspection, they may well manifest themselves in spontaneous affective responses of which
we can become aware (Gawronski 2019). Such self-understanding, combined with greater sensitivity to
context, may help cue attention to the need to provide more structure to interactions in order to promote
fuller communication and more equal treatment (cf. Levishina et al. 2014). (For a critical discussion of
recent attempts to understand implicit bias measures situationally, see Machery 2017.)

Page 16 of 93
Section 2: Contemporary forms of bias and discrimination
A second suggestive link with the theory of contextual bias arises in connection with hiring and selection
decisions. Measures of implicit bias were found to be predictive of favoring White over non-White
candidates primarily in those cases where neither candidate’s credentials were clearly superior, or where
the criteria for choice were unclear (Dovidio & Gaertner 2000; Son Hing et al. 2008). This research supports
recommendations made throughout this guide that encourage the development of selection procedures
where criteria are explicit and agreed upon in advance, and where candidates are scored and discussed on
these individual criteria, rather than evaluated in more impressionistic or holistic manner. Uhlmann and
Cohen (2007), for example, found that when experimental subjects were asked to evaluate two hypothetical
candidates for police chief, one a man with more street experience and less formal training, and the other a
woman with more formal training but less street experience, the man was favored and street experience
was cited as more important in selecting a police chief than formal training. However, when the woman was
described as having more street experience and the man as having more formal training, the man was again
preferred, and this time subjects cited formal training as more important than street experience.
Commitment to a weighing of job criteria in advance of awareness of candidate gender eliminated this effect
(see also Hodson et al. 2002).

Structural bias and discrimination

Individual adoption of principles against prejudice and attempts to contend with explicit or implicit bias,
even when combined with unit-level adoption of policies and practices, is not enough to contend with all the
ways in which social fault lines and disparities associated with race, ethnicity, gender, or class tend to be
self-reinforcing. Structural bias or discrimination arises when large-scale factors such as the distribution of
resources and the background array of social institutions, policies, and practices have the effect of
perpetuating various kinds of inequality in opportunity or achievement in ways that do not depend upon the
existence of discriminatory attitudes at the individual or unit level (Bonilla-Silva 1997). For example,
parents who are not authorized immigrants to the US, or whose immigration status is pending, may be
reluctant to interact with the school system or other sources of social support, even though their children
are fully-entitled US-born citizens. Even if the teachers and other officials were free of bias toward these
children, there could be a cumulative effect on the children’s education or health that results in lowered
opportunities (cf. Viruell-Fuentes 2012 on immigrant health).

Colleges and universities need to be especially mindful of structural factors that may yield academic
disadvantage for some students—and academic advantage for others—independently of faculty or
administration attitudes or local policies. Talk of a promoting a more diverse student body or faculty may
fail to take cognizance of the very different levels of family resources and social capital individuals bring
with them to campus, and how these differences shape academic processes and outcomes (Anderson &
Hansen 2012). For example, the precarious financial situation of the families of some college students can
combine with other structural factors—such as background lack of access to health insurance, child care, or
public transportation—to result in crises brought on by ill health or job loss in the family that disrupt a
student’s life and may force an interruption in the student’s studies, resulting in a loss of equal ability to
access educational opportunities for reasons that may be invisible to teachers and staff.

The existence of financial aid for students does not eliminate such disparities. Departments should be aware
that a given level of graduate student funding, for example, can have quite different meaning for a student
whose family has ample resources versus a student whose family is financially straitened. Questions such as
when the first stipend of an academic year will be paid, or whether summer funding is available, or whether

Page 17 of 93
Section 2: Contemporary forms of bias and discrimination
travel funds are paid in advance, can make a considerable difference to some students’ ability to pursue
their graduate studies as successfully as possible. Departments therefore should seek to be informed about
the adequacy of levels of support, and students should have access to information about how aid will be
administered and to confidential financial counseling. Careful attention to matters of funding and effective
communication with students does not remove structural bias, but they might at least help to avoid
aggravating its effects.

Overcoming structural bias or discrimination typically takes efforts at many levels (Haslanger 2015), and
recognition of the existence of structural factors is an important step toward understanding how
discrimination works in the actual lives of our students and colleagues. Commitment to reducing
discrimination or lack of equal access on a small scale thus requires commitment to working for larger-scale
changes as well. In the end, overcoming bias and discrimination is not a matter of structure versus attitudes,
but of structure and attitudes.

Contending with bias and discrimination

What is known about effective ways of contending with bias? Much less than we might hope. However,
because explicit and implicit social cognition and affect are profoundly shaped by learning mechanisms
(Baron & Banaji 2006; Castelli et al. 2008), similar mechanisms may also help in unlearning bias (Rudman et
al. 2001; Devine et al. 2012; Forscher et al. 2017; though see also Forscher et al. 2016). The most effective
ways of unlearning bias seem to involve bringing members of diverse groups together in settings in which
they engage in joint projects where each makes a contribution (Dasgupta 2013). Colleges and universities
are well situated to provide such experiences, which can fit naturally into their teaching and research
mission. But success in these efforts requires active steps—simply bringing together a diverse student body
without such structured occasions for bridging across social divides can have the effect of triggering and
reinforcing, rather than challenging and reducing, negative stereotypes (Rae et al. 2015).

Moreover, contending with bias and discrimination should not be thought of entirely in terms of affecting
attitudes. Discrimination is a matter of practice as well as attitudes, and changes in practice can reduce
differential treatment or outcomes in admissions, hiring, and retention. Here are some practices or
interventions that have shown promise in reducing discrimination:

• Taking active steps to diversify the pool of candidates at every level of recruitment (van Ommeren et
al. 2005).
• Requiring those on hiring, promotion, and graduate admission committees to attend workshops on
contending with explicit and implicit bias (see Jackson, Hilliard, and Schneider 2014) and inviting
faculty with expertise in the various dimensions of bias and discrimination to make a presentation at
a department meeting.
• Developing and using explicit criteria of selection or evaluation for deliberations about hiring,
promotion, graduate admissions, fellowships, recognitions, etc.—seeking to use a uniform procedure
when discussing candidates so that each receives similar scrutiny and similar information is brought
to bear in each case (Bauer & Baltes 2002; Uhlmann & Cohen 2005), and having available full
applications, rather than relying heavily on letters of recommendation (Schmader et al. 2007).
• Asking for explicit justifications for rejecting candidates (Foschi 1996).

Page 18 of 93
Section 2: Contemporary forms of bias and discrimination
 • Encouraging awareness—in assessments of the teaching of faculty or graduate students, or in
evaluating the teaching dossier of candidates for positions—of typical patterns of variation in
student comments for male vs. female instructors, or for instructors perceived as heterosexual vs.
gay, or for instructors belonging to underrepresented groups in the discipline (this involves
understanding a mixture of attitudes rather than unidimensional discrimination; see, e.g., Ewing et
al. 2003; Waldo & Kemp 1997).
• Instituting a review process for letters of recommendation used in placement, and encouraging
greater awareness in faculty of some of the ways letters of recommendation can reflect, or
encourage, implicit bias (Morgan et al. 2013).
• Encouraging a systematic review of the ways in which departmental handling of financial questions
may adversely affect students from relatively disadvantaged backgrounds.
For more discussion of relevant research, and of methods that can be effective in countering bias, see also
these university-maintained websites: the Harvard University website of resources for Faculty Development
and Diversity and the University of Michigan ADVANCE project.

References
Acup, D., J. Anderson et al. “Estimating Reproducibility in Psychological Science.” Science 349 (2016): 943, aac4176-1-8.
Alba, R.D., R.G. Rumbaut, and K. Marotz. “A Distorted Nation: Perceptions of Racial/Ethnic Group Sizes and Attitudes
towards Immigrants and Other Minorities.” Social Forces 84 (2005): 901–19.
Amodio, D.M., and P.G. Devine. “Stereotyping and Evaluation of Implicit Race Bias: Evidence for Independent Constructs
and Unique Effects on Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91 (2006): 652–61.
Anderson, P.L., and M.N. Hansen. “Class and Cultural Capital—The Case of Class Inequality in Educational
Performance.” European Sociological Review 28 (2012): 607–21.
Brannon, S.K., and B. Gawronski. “A Second Chance for First Impressions? Exploring the Context-(in)dependent
Updating of Implicit Evaluations.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 8 (2017): 275–83.
Baron, A.S., and M.R. Banaji. “The Development of Implicit Attitudes: Evidence of Race Evaluations from Ages 6 and 10
and Adulthood.” Psychological Science 17 (2006): 53–58.
Bauer, C.C., and B.B. Baltes. “Reducing the Effects of Gender Stereotypes on Performance Evaluations.” Sex Roles
47.9/10 (2002): 465–76.
Bauer-Wolf, J. “A September of Racist Incidents.” Inside Higher Education. September 22, 2017.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/09/22/racist-incidents-colleges-abound-academic-year-begins
Billig, M., and H. Tajfel. “Social Categorization and Similarity in Intergroup Behavior.” European Journal of Social
Psychology 3 (1973): 27–52.
Brownstein, M., and J. Saul. Implicit Bias and Philosophy, vols. 1 and 2. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.
Brownstein, M., A. Madva, and B. Gawronski. (ms.). Understanding Implicit Bias: How Critics Miss the Point.
Castelli, L., C. De Dea, and D. Nesdale. “Learning Social Attitudes: Children’s Sensitivity to the Nonverbal Behaviors of
Adult Models During Interracial Interactions.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34 (2008): 1504–13.
Cooper, L.A., D.L. Roter, et al. “The Associations of Clinicians’ Implicit Attitudes about Race with Medical Visit
Communication and Patient Ratings of Interpersonal Care.” American Journal of Public Health 102 (2012): 979–87.
Craig, M.A., and J.A. Richeson. “More Diverse Yet Less Tolerant? How the Increasingly Diverse Racial Landscape Affects
White Americans’ Racial Attitudes.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 40 (2014): 750–61.
Dasgupta, N. “Implicit Attitudes and Beliefs Adapt to Situations: A Decade of Research on the Malleability of Implicit
Prejudice, Stereotypes, and the Self-Concept.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 47 (2013): 233–79.

Page 19 of 93
Section 2: Contemporary forms of bias and discrimination
Devine, P.G, P.S. Forscher, A.J. Austin, and W.T.L. Cox. “Long-Term Reduction in Implicit Bias: A Prejudice Habit-
Breaking Intervention.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012): 1267-1278.
Dovidio, J.F., and S.L. Gaertner. “Aversive Racism and Selection Decisions: 1989 and 1999.” Psychological Science 11
(2000): 319–23.
Dovidio J.F., and S.L. Gaertner. “Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism: Historical Trends and Contemporary
Approaches.” In Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism: Theory and Research, edited by J.F. Dovidio and S.L. Gaertner
(New York: Academic Press, 2017).
Dunham, Y., A.-K. Newheiser, L. Hoosain, A. Merrill, and K.R. Olson. “From a Different Vantage: Intergroup Attitudes
Among Children from Low- and Intermediate-Status Racial Groups.” Social Cognition 32 (2014): 1–21.
Eagly, A.H. and S. Chaiken. “The Advantages of an Inclusive Definition of Attitude.” Social Cognition 25 (2007): 582–602.
Ewing, L.E., A.A. Stukas, and E.P. Sheehan. “Student Prejudice Against Gay and Lesbian Lecturers.” Journal of Social
Psychology 143.5 (2003): 569–79.
Fiske, S.T., A.J.C. Cuddy, P. Glick, and J. Xu. “A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype Content: Competence and Warmth
Respectively Follow from Perceived Status and Competition.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82 (2002):
878–902.
Forscher, P. S., W.T.L. Cox, N. Graetz, and P.G. Devine. “The Motivation to Express Prejudice.” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 109.5 (2015): 791–812.
Forscher, P.S., C. Lai, J. Axt, C.R. Ebersole, M. Herman, P.G. Devine, and B.A. Nosek. “A Meta-Analysis of Change in Implicit
Bias.” August 15, 2016. DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/DV8TU.
Forscher, P.S., E.D. Mitamura, W.T.L. Cox, and P.G. Devine. “Breaking the Prejudice Habit: Mechanisms, Timecourse, and
Longevity.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 72 (2017): 122–146.
Foschi, M. “Double Standards in the Evaluation of Men and Women.” Social Psychology Quarterly 59 (1996): 237–54.
Gawronski, B. “Six Lessons for a Cogent Science of Implicit Bias and Its Criticisms.” Perspectives on Psychological Science
14 (2019): 574–95.
Gelman, S. “Learning from Others: Children’s Construction of Concepts.” American Review of Psychology 60 (2009):
115–40.
Green, A.R., D.R. Carney, et al. “The Presence of Implicit Bias in Physicians and Its Predictions of Thrombolysis
Decisions in Black and White Patients.” Journal of General Internal Medicine 22 (2007): 1231–38.
Greenwald, A.G., L.A. Rudman, B.A. Nosek, M.R. Banaji, S.D. Farnham, and D.S. Mellott. “A Unified Theory of Implicit
Attitudes, Stereotypes, Self-Esteem and Self-Concept.” Psychological Review 109 (2002): 3–25.
Greenwald, A.G., E.L. Uhlmann, T.A. Peohlman, and M.R. Banaji. “Understanding and Using the Implicit Association Test:
III. Meta-Analysis of Predictive Validity.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97 (2009): 17–41.
Greenwald, A.G., M.R. Banaji, and B.A. Nosek. “Statistically Small Effects of the Implicit Association Test Can Have
Societally Large Effects.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 108 (2015): 553–61.
Hahn, A. and B. Gawronski. “Facing One’s Implicit Biases: From Awareness to Acknowledgement.” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 114 (2018): 769–94.
Hedge, C., G. Powell, and P. Sumner. “The Reliability Paradox: Why Robust Cognitive Tasks Do Not Produce Reliable
Individual Differences.” Behavioral Research. July 19, 2017. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1.
Hodson, G., D.F. Dovidio, and S.L. Gaertner. “Processes in Racial Discrimination: Differential Weighing of Conflicting
Information.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28 (2002): 460–71.
Jackson, S.M., A.L. Hilliard, and T.R. Schneider. “Using Implicit Bias Training to Improve Attitudes Toward Women in
STEM.” Social Psychology of Education 17 (2014): 419–38.
James, M. “Race.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2016. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/

Page 20 of 93
Section 2: Contemporary forms of bias and discrimination
Jost, J.T., B.W. Pelham, and M.R. Carvallo. “Non-Conscious Forms of System Justification: Implicit Behavioral Preferences
for Higher Status Groups.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 38 (2002): 586–602.
Karpinski, A., and R.B. Ross. “The Single Category Implicit Association Test as a Measure of Implicit Social Cognition.”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91 (2006): 16–32.
Lai, C.K., M. Marini, S.A. Lehr, et al. “Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17
Interventions.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143 (2014): 1765–85.
Levishina, J., C.J. Hartwell, F.P. Morgeson, and M.A. Campion. “The Structured Employment Interview: Narrative and
Quantitative Review of the Research Literature.” Personnel Psychology 67 (2014): 241–93.
Liberman, Z., A.L. Woodward, and K.D. Kinzler. “The Origins of Social Categorization.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 21
(2017): 556–68.
Livingston, R.W. and M.B. Brewer. “What Are We Really Priming? Cue-Based vs. Category-Based Processing of Facial
Stimuli.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82 (2002): 5–18.
Machery, E. “Do Indirect Measures of Biases Measure Traits or Situations?” Psycholgical Inquiry 28 (2017): 288–91.
McConnell, A.R., and J.M. Leibold. “Relations Among the Implicit Association Test, Discriminatory Behavior, and Explicit
Measures of Racial Attitudes.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 37 (2001): 435–42.
Morgan, W.B., K.B. Elder, and E.B. King. “Emergence and Reduction of Bias in Letters of Recommendation.” Journal of
Applied Social Psychology 43 (2013): 2297–306.
Nosek, B.A., M.R. Banaji, and A.G. Greenwald. “Male = Math, me = Female, Therefore Math ≠ Me.” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 83 (2002): 44–59.
Nosek, B.A., A.G. Greenwald, and M.R. Banaji. “Understanding and Using the Implicit Association Test: II. Method
Variables and Construct Validity.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31 (2005): 166–80.
Olson, M.A., M.T. Crawford, and W. Devlin. “Evidence for the Underestimation of Implicit In-Group Favoritism Among
Low-Status Groups.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (2009): 1111–16.
Oswald, F.L., H. Blanton, G. Mitchell, J. Jaccard, and P.E. Tetlock. “Using the IAT to Predict Ethnic and Racial
Discrimination: Small Effect Sizes of Unknown Societal Significance.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 108
(2015): 562–71.
Pearson, A.R., J.F. Dovidio, and S.L. Gaertner. “The Nature of Contemporary Prejudice: Insights from Aversive Racism.”
Social and Personality Compass 3 (2009): 314–88.
Penner, L.A., J.F. Dovidio, et al. “Aversive Racism and Medical Interactions with Black Patients: A Field Study.” Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology 46 (2010): 436–40.
Penner, L.A., S. Eggly, J. Griggs, H. Orom, and W. Underwood. “Life-Threatening Disparities: The Roles of Ethnicity and
Social Class in the Treatment of Cancer.” Journal of Social Issues 68 (2012): 328–57.
Rae, J.R., A.-K. Newheiser, and K.R. Olson. “Exposure to Racial Out-Grounds and Implicit Race Bias in the United States.”
Social, Psychological, and Personality Science 6 (2015): 535–43.
Rudman, L.A., R.D. Ashmore, and M.L. Gary. “’Unlearning’ Automatic Biases: The Malleability of Implicit Prejudice and
Stereotypes.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 (2001): 856–68.
Sabin, J.A., and A.G. Greenwald. “The Influence of Implicit Bias on Treatment Conditions for 4 Common Pediatric
Conditions: Pain, Urinary Tract Infection, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and Asthma.” American Journal of
Public Health 102 (2012): 988–95.
Schmader, T., J. Whitehead, and V.H. Wysocki. “A Linguistic Comparison of Letters of Recommendation for Male and
Female Chemistry and Biochemistry Job Applicants.” Sex Roles 57 (2007): 509–14.
Smith, D.G. “How to Diversify Faculty.” Academe 86.5 (2000): 48–52.

Page 21 of 93
Section 2: Contemporary forms of bias and discrimination
Sokolow, B.A., D. Kast, and T.J. Dunn. “The Intersection of Free Speech and Harassment.” In American Bar Association,
ABA: Human Rights Magazine 38 (2011).
https://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol38_2011/fall2011/the_inte
rsection_of_free_speech_and_harassment_rules.html
Song Hing, L.S., G. Chung-Yan, L. Hamilton, and M. Zanna. “A Two-Dimensional Model That Employs Explicit and Implicit
Attitudes to Characterize Prejudice.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 94 (2008): 971–87.
Uhlmann, E.L., and G.L. Cohen. “Constructed Criteria: Redefining merit to Justify Discrimination.” Psychological Science
16 (2005): 474–80.
Uleman, J.S., S.A. Saribay, and C.M. Gonzalez. “Spontaneous Inferences, Implicit Impressions, and Implicit Theories.”
Annual Review of Psychology 59 (2008): 29–60.
Van Ommeren, J., G. Russo, R.E. de Vries, and M. van Ommeren. “Context in Selection of Men and Women in Hiring
Decisions: Gender Composition of the Applicant Pool.” Psychological Reports 96 (2005): 349–60.
Waldo, C.R., and J.L. Kemp. “Should I Come Out to My Students?” Journal of Homosexuality 34 (1997): 79–94.
Yancy, G. On Race: 34 Conversations in a Time of Crisis. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Page 22 of 93
Section 2: Contemporary forms of bias and discrimination
 Section 3: Teaching, supervising,
supporting, and mentoring students
Community college, college, and university campuses are among the locations in our society where there is
the greatest diversity of representation of groups assembled together for shared purposes and for a
significant length of time. Yet this does not guarantee that the educational experience will be effective or
inclusive for all of those present on our campuses. What sorts of practices have been found to promote
effective and inclusive teaching, and how are these connected to issues about the structure and content of
the curriculum, of classes and discussions, and of other forms of instruction such as supervision and
mentorship? How can instructors provide in their classrooms sufficient structure and support to sustain
clear and high expectations for all students while also fostering respectful exchange of diverse opinions and
perspectives? How can philosophy reach out to non-traditional or underrepresented groups of students? In
what ways can students be encouraged and enabled to make their own contribution to creating and
maintaining their learning community? With these and other questions in mind, here are some practices for
faculty and graduate instructors that have helped promote reflective choices about diverse aspects of
teaching.

Classroom teaching
While the teaching of philosophy is more than a sum of parts, it can be useful to consider the elements of
teaching and teaching programs, and the distinctive ways they can promote or hinder the attainment of our
goals in teaching along with the learning experience of students. Among these elements are the following:

Curricular design
The shape and content of a curriculum, whether by design or not, tends to be seen by teachers and students
as conveying information about what is deemed to be most important, central, or foundational in the field,
and what is peripheral. Similarly for questions about how philosophy might connect with other areas of
inquiry, or about the role of philosophy in helping students develop skills and critical abilities that can
contribute to their learning generally, or about philosophy’s relation to practical life. In making decisions
concerning the curriculum, departments are thus encouraged to take up such questions reflectively on a
periodic basis, rather than allowing them to be settled by default.

Course content
Evidence suggests that course content can also communicate to students information about what is most
valued within philosophy, or who is most capable of doing philosophy. This speaks in favor of incorporating
authors of diverse backgrounds as well as philosophical content from diverse cultural traditions into syllabi
and throughout the course. This may involve adding non-traditional topics, incorporating secondary
literature, or inviting guest lecturers, and treating these contributions as integral to the course as whole. But
this should be done with critical self-awareness: for instance, non-Western philosophical traditions often do
not fit neatly into traditional Western philosophical categories, so including them can be more complicated
than simply adding content. Instructors are encouraged to read widely in the relevant areas, to consult with
colleagues or specialists working in these fields, and to attend panels and conferences devoted to these

Page 23 of 93
Section 3: Teaching, supervising, supporting, and mentoring students
areas. Departments can also reach out to other departments and programs, invite area specialists to speak,
and explore the possibility of making appointments in these areas.

Resources for diversifying course content include the following:

• The APA’s Underrepresented Philosophers Directory (UPDirectory)

• The APA’s Diversity and Inclusiveness Syllabus Collection
• Society for Teaching Comparative Philosophy
• The Deviant Philosopher
• American Society for Aesthetics Diversity Curriculum Grants
When instructors remain current in their subject areas and strive to explore new areas, this contributes to
enriching undergraduate instruction and better prepares undergraduates for subsequent coursework or
careers. Similarly for remaining current with pedagogical research on effective teaching and learning, both
within a given area and in such general areas as learning how to interpret text and write papers. Discussing
teaching methods and coordinating content with colleagues in philosophy or other disciplines can also help
foster undergraduate learning beyond individual classes. All of this takes time, and departments and other
academic units are encouraged to provide various forms of support for such efforts, and to help faculty and
graduate instructors to identify other sources of support. Finally, in choosing course content, instructors
should be mindful of the financial burdens placed on students, e.g., the expense of assigned books, and
should work with libraries or other resources on campus to help ensure equitable student access to course
materials, while also helping students become aware of these resources.

Course structure
While some courses by their nature are flexible and open-ended, many students come to philosophy courses
without a clear idea of what to expect, or of what will be expected of them. It typically is useful, then, for
instructors to develop clear objectives for their courses, and to communicate these to students at the start of
the term and on the course syllabus and website. Similarly for any assumptions about what skills or
disciplinary content the course will assume. This will help students to make informed choices and to
understand why the course and its assignments take the form they do. When a course requires flexibility or
adaptiveness, instructors can help students stay oriented by making the changes clear to students and
maintaining an accessible up-to-date syllabus.

By varying the types of assignments used, working to make writing assignments relevant and level-
appropriate, and taking steps to ensure that tests are based upon the material students have been asked to
master in the course, instructors can help minimize the extent to which differences in the backgrounds
students bring to class will affect their overall performance. Some instructors have had success using
practice exams, practice problem sets, and sample papers to aid students in figuring out what kinds of study
or effort is required to succeed, and to level the playing field between those with different educational
backgrounds. At the same time, instructors are also encouraged to be open to alternative ways in which
students can establish that they meet course prerequisites, or can enrich their backgrounds outside of class
in order to master course material.

One successful strategy is to scaffold course assignments, especially in introductory courses, so that
students have ample opportunity to practice the skills they will need to succeed on important assessments.

Page 24 of 93
Section 3: Teaching, supervising, supporting, and mentoring students
In teaching new students how to write philosophy papers, for example, instructors might ask first for thesis
paragraphs and outlines, instead of full papers, and later offer one-on-one conferences to discuss initial
drafts. They might also refer students to writing centers and support elsewhere in the college or university.

By employing active learning techniques—e.g., the use of small-group discussions, student presentations
and debates, role-playing, team-based exercises, experiential learning, multiple media of instruction, and
ungraded assignments evaluated by fellow-students—instructors can make the classroom accessible to
students with a variety of learning styles, and can also gain valuable feedback about how well students are
doing or what they might need in order to succeed. Many have found that active techniques also tend to
encourage greater participation in subsequent classroom discussions and to increase student willingness to
approach instructors, e.g., in office hours.

Teach Philosophy 101 hosts a large set of resources, including sections on “Change-of-Pace Exercises” and
“Non-traditional Materials.”

SEE ALSO: SECTION 3, APPENDIX A: SOME SUGGESTED PRACTICES IN TEACHING PHILOSOPHY

Grading and assessment

Grading is most effective when performed in a timely manner: a reasonable goal is within two weeks of
submissions or examinations. Whenever the nature of the assignment permits it, grading should be
performed under a veil of student anonymity (even though, in practice, complete anonymity might not be
possible). Students may be asked to provide detachable cover sheets, use student ID numbers, or submit
using online classroom learning platforms. Providing distinct and clearly specified criteria (e.g., a rubric,
especially in introductory courses), publicized in advance and explained to students, can be especially
helpful to students without extensive background in philosophy or similar courses. Clearly specified criteria
also help instructors to make clear both high expectations and their confidence in students’ ability to
succeed through continued effort and practice in meeting these criteria. Comments that indicate strengths
as well as weaknesses, and that suggest concrete ways to improve, can increase the learning value of
assigning papers. When working with graduate student instructors or undergraduate student preceptors,
faculty may want to calibrate grading across sections of the class, and to discuss ways of providing
constructive feedback to students throughout the course.

Classroom atmosphere and management

Structured interaction and facilitation are important for enhancing student learning and promoting
inclusion in the classroom. When informal expectations and rules of engagement are not made explicit,
students from underrepresented and marginalized groups, or students who lack cultural capital, suffer a
disadvantage. To address such issues, instructors discuss with students policies for encouraging wider
participation: for instance, some instructors have had success with brainstorming and collectively agreeing
to a set of “ground rules” on the first day of class.

Instructors are encouraged to take some time at the start of the term to clarify the roles and responsibilities
of students. For example, what is expected with regard to class attendance, preparing for class, completing
assignments, respecting fellow students in discussions, participating in course surveys, and adhering to
academic integrity in their work? For written assignments, instructors are encouraged not to take for
granted that students understand proper citation practices, and to provide them with appropriate links to
sources of proper citation practices and to institutional guidelines for academic integrity, drawing attention

Page 25 of 93
Section 3: Teaching, supervising, supporting, and mentoring students
to these questions in class. Instructors are also encouraged to explain their own commitments with regard
to, e.g., fair and timely grading, respect for students, ensuring accessibility and accommodation, and
availability outside of class.

It is also a good practice to spend some time at the beginning of the course giving students an opportunity to
share information that might be relevant for supporting their learning. For example, instructors should
make an effort to learn their students’ preferred names (and pronunciation), while also clarifying how they
would like other students to refer to them. It is particularly important to respect students’ pronouns. Some
instructors ask students to turn in questionnaires where they may privately indicate their level of
preparation, learning or other disabilities, special needs, naming preferences and pronunciation, and
pronouns. By circulating the questionnaire to all students, and collecting them from all students, instructors
can avoid singling out students or placing the burden upon individual students to initiate the providing of
such information.

Monitoring and understanding discussion dynamics is a complex but key part of effective instruction, and
may include the following: whether students feel both that they understand how to participate in classroom
discussion and that they have adequate opportunity to do so; whether each student, in fact, is able to
exercise this opportunity; whether negative and positive feedback are distributed equitably; whether
instructors’ informal questions, greetings, and jokes, as well as thought experiments, hypothetical cases, and
examples, resonate with some segments of the student body and not others; whether insensitive language
and comments are quickly addressed; and whether students feel that they may make use of—without being
reduced to—their social identities and backgrounds. Anonymous mid-course evaluations can be helpful for
understanding discussion dynamics and the experience of individual students. Instructors are encouraged to
model philosophical dialogue that is critical but constructive in the service of shared aims of greater
understanding, e.g., in which people’s views are treated charitably, their contributions are acknowledged,
and their ideas (not their ability or character) are under evaluation.

Departments can provide faculty and graduate instructors with valuable feedback by instituting some form
of regular teaching observations, either by peers or by instructional specialists at the institution. The
pedagogical value of such observations will be enhanced if they are used for formative purposes and not
exclusively for the summative assessment of instructors.

The Minorities and Philosophy (MAP) network offers a collection of resources on their website: “Best
Practices for the Inclusive Philosophy Classroom”

SEE ALSO: SECTION 7, APPENDIX A: SOME GENERAL NORMS FOR DISCUSSIONS

Classroom community building

For many students, and perhaps particularly those from underrepresented and marginalized groups,
gaining a sense that they are members of the academic community is not automatic. Instructors can
encourage a greater sense of community in the classroom by ensuring (in classes where this is feasible) that
they and the students all know each other’s names and pronouns, and working together with students to
generate a common list of expectations and norms for classroom discussion, which can be revisited and
updated periodically. Active learning techniques can also be used in ways to promote community and to
ensure that students work with classmates outside their own self-selected groups.

Page 26 of 93
Section 3: Teaching, supervising, supporting, and mentoring students
Institutional partners and students in difficulty
Writing centers, libraries, academic support centers, women’s centers, multicultural centers, and centers
providing academic support for student athletes can contribute importantly to the success of students from
diverse backgrounds. Instructors should familiarize themselves with the various institutional resources
available to students, make students aware of how to learn about such resources, and encourage their use.
Most institutions also have procedures instructors should follow when they believe a student is in academic
difficulty, and academic advisors are often a good source of initial consultation. Department and other
academic units should provide such information to instructors at the beginning of each term, since
procedures and services often change. Instructors may also need to be aware that the sources of a student’s
difficulty with course material can be complex, and can reflect disadvantages in the student’s background or
ongoing challenges owing to financial, familial, or medical difficulties. Making contact with a student in
difficulty to invite the student to come to office hours or encourage the student to consult with their advisor
can help the instructor understand the student’s situation and help the student make contact with
appropriate services before the difficulties become severe. Such contact can also provide an opportunity for
the student and instructor to work together to develop a roadmap for returning to good standing in the
course. Instructors should also be informed of their responsibilities when they have reason to think that a
student may be a danger to themselves or others, or may be subject to some form of harassment.

SEE ALSO: SECTION 8: MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Accessibility
It is a good practice when writing syllabi and announcements to place emphasis upon the commitment to an
affirmative principle of ensuring that all students have full access to the course and its content, as opposed
to merely “accommodating students with disabilities.” Instructors should clearly indicate on the syllabus
and emphasize in class that there are opportunities for students to meet privately and discuss any concerns
they might have about access, assignments, and so on. Most colleges and universities have special offices of
services for students with disabilities, and students can be encouraged to make contact with these offices,
which often are also able to give instructors detailed recommendations about how to provide appropriate
accessibility. Instructors have a vital role to play in making all aspects of the course accessible, from
ensuring that the room is wheelchair-accessible, to using videos with captions, to writing on the board in
large and clear print, to making arrangements for extra time and private rooms for examinations, and so on.
Departments and other academic units should provide instructors with information about what is
considered a reasonable arrangement to accommodate religious holidays, lactation needs, caretaking
responsibilities, and student work and athletic activity, as well as language difficulties students may
experience. Instructors who do not receive such information are encouraged to request it, and to be sure
that their own accommodations align with shared guidelines. Instructors should strive to cultivate
relationships of trust with their students so that appropriate arrangements can be made that are both
respectful and consistent with student responsibility for course material and assignments. In some cases,
students may make requests (e.g., to record lectures) owing to disabilities they prefer not to disclose, and
consultation with student disabilities services may provide a way of protecting student privacy with respect
to their fellow students.

SEE ALSO: ACCESSIBILITY AND ACCOMMODATION CHECKLIST

Page 27 of 93
Section 3: Teaching, supervising, supporting, and mentoring students
Events for students
Events that are not a part of the regular curriculum may still play an important role in student learning (e.g.,
departmental talks, undergraduate philosophy clubs, and discussion groups). Departments should attempt
to organize events in such a way that it is not expensive to participate in them. For instance, if local events
such as conference dinners and outings to coffee shops or bars are not paid for by the department,
organizers should take into consideration that some venues could exclude poorer or underage students
from participating.

Special opportunities for talented students

Instructors may be able to help highly talented students to identify co-curricular opportunities that enable
them to deepen their engagement with philosophy, e.g., participation in a student journal, submitting work
for publication, independent study, undergraduate research projects, and attending conferences and
philosophy summer camps. These opportunities can be especially important for talented students who come
from backgrounds in which they have not had such opportunities in the past, though, of course, all talented
students should be encouraged to take advantage of these opportunities.

Supervising dissertations, undergraduate theses, and independent or

directed studies
Supervision is a core part of the teaching of philosophy but can pose problems owing to a lack of formal
structure or clear expectations. The APA recommends that faculty strive to maintain principles of
transparency, accountability, and respect for the students they supervise. Faculty are encouraged to work
with students early on to develop a framework with clear and explicit expectations for student and faculty
alike. Advisors and advisees are jointly responsible for maintaining the advisor’s familiarity with the general
state of the advisee’s research so that the advisor can represent the student’s progress accurately at student
reviews and discussions of special fellowships. Some find helpful the formula that an advisor should be
“partial to the student but impartial to the student’s work,” encouraging students as they develop their
ideas, but also drawing upon the advisor’s experience and perspective to guide students toward feasible
projects, to give students an accurate idea of how their work can be improved, and to help students
understand the relation of their projects to the current state of the discipline. Here are some general
guidelines, which obviously need to be adapted to special situations:

Meetings
Faculty supervisors and their advisees should discuss in advance a mutually acceptable and pedagogically
effective schedule of meetings, as well as an understanding about what is normally expected of both in
preparation for a meeting. If the student is in residence, meetings should take place no less than once or
twice per term, but every two or three weeks is a common norm, especially in the case of undergraduate
advisees or early in the development of a dissertation project. In some cases, meeting as often as once a
week may be appropriate. If the student is not in residence, some arrangement should be made to
coordinate expectations and keep current information about how to contact one another.

Feedback
Whenever possible, feedback on student work should be timely, and possible delays should be anticipated
and explained to the student. Faculty have many demands upon their attention, and students generally

Page 28 of 93
Section 3: Teaching, supervising, supporting, and mentoring students
should be encouraged to send reminders if a deadline is approaching, or if feedback is unusually delayed
without explanation.

Professional opportunities
In addition to the regular work of advising, faculty can enhance student development by keeping aware of
departmental or alternate sources of support, travel funding, etc., for students, and recommending that
students apply when appropriate. Students may also need encouragement to consider submitting their work
to journals or conferences, to apply for summer institutes or workshops, to attend talks and seminars, or to
engage in reviewing and networking. When appropriate, faculty should introduce students to colleagues and
visitors. One potentially valuable practice is for faculty to invite students to attend conferences with them,
and co-author or co-review papers. Faculty should also make efforts to become aware of special
opportunities—whether in philosophy or beyond—available to students from underrepresented groups,
and encourage their qualified advisees to apply for these opportunities.

Sharing resources and expertise

Faculty are encouraged to share with their students such resources as journals, email lists, newsletters, calls
for papers, blogs, and other electronic resources. Students may be unfamiliar with many resources, or
unable to assess the potential value or reliability of resources, and faculty can take the initiative in providing
information and guidance. At the same time, faculty should apprise students of what sorts of questions or
appeals are appropriately directed elsewhere.

Progress and review

Departments should establish formal procedures and criteria for reviewing the progress of their graduate
(and majoring) students. These procedures and criteria should be explained at the beginning of the
program, and reviewed again at the beginning of each academic year, allowing students time to prepare for
deadlines.

Letters of recommendation
Letters of recommendation should be honest and informed, and faculty asked to write letters should feel
they can decline if they will not be able to write a positive or informative letter. Faculty should familiarize
themselves with current norms in writing letters of recommendation, and be aware of some of the ways in
which such letters can unintentionally exhibit or create bias. When students are applying for jobs, placement
directors usually review faculty letters for consistency and accuracy in the information they provide about
the student’s career in the program and the current state of the student’s progress. Questions about
consistency or accuracy should be brought to the attention of letter writers, as should any questions about
the inclusion of inappropriate material in the letters (e.g., unprofessional comments or stereotypic
language). Responsibility for the content of a letter lies in all cases with the letter writer, though if
significant unresolvable issues arise in reviewing a letter, these may need to be dealt with through joint
consultation with the department chair.

SEE ALSO: SECTION 2: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF BIAS AND DISCRIMINATION

Teaching letters
Evidence of teaching effectiveness is an important part of the dossier, and departments should have
processes that enable graduate instructors to assemble a varied and well-documented teaching portfolio.

Page 29 of 93
Section 3: Teaching, supervising, supporting, and mentoring students
Obtaining evidence of effectiveness should not be left to student evaluations alone—departments should
arrange multiple faculty observations of teaching over the course of a graduate career, and participate
actively in improving institutional student evaluation processes. Faculty should also consider nominating
especially effective students for teaching awards. Faculty who write teaching letters for students should be
made aware of current expectations for such letters, and should be mindful of the ways in which student
evaluations or faculty reports on teaching can embody unintended bias.

SEE ALSO: SECTION 2: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF BIAS AND DISCRIMINATION

Mentoring and supporting graduate students

Graduate programs with sufficient personnel have sometimes found it beneficial to establish a system for
offering mentoring to students that is parallel to the formal relations of faculty supervision. In such cases,
departments should make an effort to identify mentors (who can be drawn from the graduate community as
well as the faculty) with whom students are likely to be comfortable raising questions, and with whom
students can discuss matters that might be difficult or inappropriate to bring to an academic advisor or
chair. Mentors should follow the principles of accountability and respect outlined in the previous section,
and be aware of reporting obligations under existing legislation (such as Title IX and the Clery Act), but
should also be aware of the need for discretion in sharing or reporting information. Here are some further
guidelines:

● Mentors should be clear about what types of support (professional, personal, etc.) they are able to
provide. No one mentor should be expected to fulfill all roles, and, ideally, students should develop
relations with several mentors over the course of their time in graduate school. However, mentors
should remain open and supportive even if they personally are unable to help a particular student or
in a particular situation. Faculty mentors should recommend and make introductions to other
potential mentors—other faculty, more advanced students, or other members of the academic and
non-academic community—who might be suitable. Note that, while it often is helpful for students to
have mentors with backgrounds similar to their own, mentees can still have excellent mentoring
experiences with mentors who do not share their backgrounds.
● Mentors should take initiatives to get to know their students and their students’ circumstances and
background, as well as any special needs or concerns students might have.
● Mentors should remember that they might be taken as professional and personal role models. By
telling mentees of their own mistakes or disappointments, and how these were overcome, they may
encourage students to experiment and help students cope with mistakes and challenges. An ideal
mentoring relationship is reciprocal, as each learns from the other. However, mentors should be
careful to respect boundaries—a rough test sometimes used: if one would hesitate to discuss or
share X (something one has heard from a student) with other students, then X is potentially an
inappropriate thing to share, generally. In allocating mentorships, it should be taken into account
that personal relationships between mentor and mentee can undermine some of the functions of
mentorship and be a source of inappropriately privileged access to departmental information and
resources.
● Mentors are encouraged to actively provide occasions in which students can raise concerns about
their professional lives, or about how their professional lives intersect with their personal
responsibilities or well-being, or about matters of financial or intellectual need. Making such

Page 30 of 93
Section 3: Teaching, supervising, supporting, and mentoring students
 occasions a routine part of advising mentees can minimize the extent to which they might be felt to
intrude upon student privacy or autonomy.
SEE ALSO: SECTION 8: MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
● Mentors can help students to identify forms of internal or external support or recognition. Often
these possibilities do not come to the attention of students in the normal course of events, so it is a
good idea for mentors to review with students on an annual or term basis what such possibilities for
support or recognition might be. Included in this review can be possibilities for submitting student
work or proposals for conferences, publication, or grants.
Whether or not a department decides to institute formal mentoring relationships as well as other forms of
student advising, departments should periodically revisit whether the overall structure of supervision and
oversight for its graduate students is adequate, or functioning to meet existing needs. Program reviews and
retreats can also be an occasion for such reflection. Keep in mind that, while considerable attention is
devoted to the structure of the curricular aspects of graduate training, supervision of independent work,
research assistantships, and dissertation advising are often at least as important in a student’s philosophical
and professional development, and thus the appropriateness and effectiveness of these relationships merit
consideration in their own right. Here are a few guidelines:

● In cases (for example, in the first years of graduate study) where advisors are assigned, departments
should pay attention to student needs in making such assignments.
● It is a good practice for programs to have explicit procedures for finding and changing advisors, and
to bring these procedures to attention of faculty and students alike on a regular basis, in addition to
posting these procedures on a departmental website.
● Students can benefit from multiple lines of support. If students have only one connection with the
department, they are in danger of “falling through the cracks” in the event that their sole advisor or
mentor goes on leave or fails to maintain sufficient communication.
● Departments should help make faculty aware of programs that the college or university offers for
the development of supervisory or mentoring skills. When these programs are effective,
departments should encourage faculty to participate, and should consider participation in such
programs a positive factor in evaluating faculty teaching.
● More generally, departments should seek ways of recognizing and rewarding good supervising and
mentoring, by making faculty contribution in these areas a component of faculty reviews, and
nominating faculty for relevant awards or course relief. This includes being attentive to whether
some faculty are overburdened with advising and mentoring, and finding ways to counteract or
offset this.
● In addition to formal supervision and mentoring, departments should provide regular informal
opportunities (e.g., departmental picnics, receptions, weekly tea or coffee) for students to meet and
develop relationships with one another and with faculty.
● It is vital that departments ensure that all faculty and students are aware of institutional, state, and
federal policies on discrimination and sexual harassment. Institutions typically have detailed
guidelines concerning faculty-student relationships, and faculty should be made aware of these
policies on a regular basis. Not only are these policies important for preventing inappropriate

Page 31 of 93
Section 3: Teaching, supervising, supporting, and mentoring students
 faculty-student relationships, but advisors or mentors might be the first person approached when a
student has a concern of this kind. If such concerns are to be dealt with appropriately, it is vital that
faculty have up-to-date information on legal requirements and institutional norms in these very
sensitive areas. Faculty who are mandatory reporters of complaints of harassment or discrimination
should be aware of this role and what it involves.
● Some useful sources on advising and mentoring include the following:
o The National Science Foundation (NSF) ADVANCE program at the University of Michigan,
charged with increasing the representation and participation of women in STEM careers, has
published two reports: Giving and Getting Career Advice: A Guide for Junior and Senior
Faculty and Creating a Positive Departmental Climate: Principles for Best Practices.
o The University of Michigan Rackham Graduate School has published guides on mentoring for
faculty and graduate students.

Financial support
Departments should be mindful of the financial burdens faced by many graduate students, and the limited
family resources some may have. In addition to providing an adequate living stipend (e.g., a stipend that
takes into account the local cost of living and does not require students to take out loans in order to pursue
their studies), departments are encouraged to take the considerations into account:

● Applying for graduate school can be expensive due to application fees and the costs of submitting
official test scores, e.g., for the GRE and TOEFL. Institutions are encouraged to explore such steps as
elimination of application fees, application fee waivers, elimination of test requirements, or
acceptance of unofficial test scores.
● Graduate students often receive general information about the financial package that they would
receive, but it is often unclear when they will receive their first paycheck, what fees they might be
responsible for, when their summer stipends will be paid, and so on. These matters can pose real
hardships for students who are not wealthy, cannot rely on familial support, have higher expenses
owing to dependents or medical conditions, must travel from abroad, or lack access to credit cards.
Departments should routinely make this kind of detailed financial information available to students
as early as possible.
● Some departments make travel and research funding available on a case-by-case basis, without clear
guidelines as to how much money each individual may request or can expect to receive. Such
uncertainty can discourage students with fewer financial resources from making plans or
commitments to attend conferences and other professional events. Thus, departments should be as
transparent and equitable as possible in establishing rules and criteria for the allocation of such
funding, and for opportunities to request additional funds. Departments should also help students
become aware of relevant external grant and fellowship opportunities, and encourage them to
consult the APA website for APA and non-APA sources of support. Since some of these sources of
support require an extended application process, bringing relevant possibilities for external support
to the attention of students at various points in their graduate career is desirable.
● Many institutions expect graduate students to pay up front for conference travel and expenses and
be reimbursed later, and this may result in long waiting periods between making a payment and
receiving funds. This disadvantages low-income students and faculty, along with international

Page 32 of 93
Section 3: Teaching, supervising, supporting, and mentoring students
 students who may not be initially eligible for US credit cards. Departments are strongly encouraged
to offer direct payment of travel expenses, and to monitor how long it takes to process
reimbursements. Consider developing workarounds if reimbursement times are longer than a
month.
● If there are opportunities for graduate students to earn extra money, e.g., by additional teaching or
grading, these opportunities should be allocated through procedures that are fair and transparent,
and details of remuneration should be clearly established in advance.
● Some institutions have graduate student labor unions that collectively bargain for working
conditions, job security, higher salaries, and health benefits, and which have established grievance
procedures for overwork, workplace harassment, and so on. In such contexts, departments are
encouraged to familiarize themselves with the union contract, to ensure that their policies are in line
with the contract, and to advise students concerning available union services or procedures.

Ombudsperson
Some departments have had good experience with establishing a faculty ombudsperson or ombudspersons
to whom students can bring concerns about climate, procedures, interpersonal conflict, and the like. This is
a distinct function from advising or mentoring, and the choice of an ombudsperson or persons should be
made with an eye toward this distinctive role. There can be an advantage in students having this additional
path by which to seek counsel and assistance, especially since the advisory or mentoring relationship can
itself become a source of concern, and some possible sources of concern will involve the chair. Moreover,
students may be reluctant to bring a concern to the attention of the department chair without having
discussed it with someone who has the experience and familiarity with institutional and professional norms.
The existence of an ombudsperson apart from the usual system of advising or administration thus can mean
that students voice concerns that otherwise would go unheard. Students should be aware of the
ombudsperson(s), and how they can be contacted, even outside of normal office hours.

However, if a department establishes an ombudsperson, there should be a clear understanding of the scope
and responsibilities of this role in relation to other supervisory, mentoring, or administrative roles. It is
important for faculty to be aware that issues such as sexual harassment and discrimination are not merely
interpersonal or intra-departmental matters, and must be reported to the college or university Title IX
officer and handled by appropriate official procedures. Partly as a result of the potential for conflicts
between the ombudsperson’s role and institutional requirements and procedures with respect to
harassment and discrimination, some departments that initially experimented with appointing an
ombudsperson have since abolished the program, occasionally at the urging of the college or university
administration.

Page 33 of 93
Section 3: Teaching, supervising, supporting, and mentoring students
 Section 3, Appendix A: Some
suggested practices in teaching
philosophy
The following additional guidelines for effective teaching of philosophy were drafted by the APA Committee on
Teaching Philosophy and are reproduced here. Other resources on teaching philosophy are available on their
website: APA Committee on Teaching Philosophy.

Active learning: Good teachers employ active learning techniques, which include in-class exercises such as
the following (revised from Tom Drummond’s Best Practices in College Teaching):

• In-class Writing: Think-pair-share, focus questions, in-class journals, or lecture/reading

summaries.
• Objection Exchange: Students bring to class a paragraph-long objection to the reading and
exchange papers with a partner at the start of class. Students respond to their partner’s objection.
The papers return to their original authors, and the original author responds to the partner’s
objection to the original objection. This activity encourages close reading, develops dialectical skills,
and prepares students to write philosophy papers.
• Brainstorm: Brainstorming generates ideas, encourages creativity, involves the whole group, and
demonstrates that people working together can create more than individuals alone.
• Round: Each person has a 2- or 3-minute opportunity to express a point of view on a given topic, or
passes, while others listen. This activity elicits a range of viewpoints and builds a sense of safe
participation.
• Concept Models/Maps: The teacher distributes a handout that asks a series of leading questions.
Students work in small groups to build a conceptual model. They make their own diagrams and
record their own observations.
• Simulations and Games: Simulations and games, with specific guiding principles, rules, and
structured relationships, can last several hours or even days.
• Learning Cells/Peer Teaching/Jigsaw: Each learner reads different selections and then teaches
the material to a randomly assigned partner. By explaining conceptual relationships to partners,
tutors are forced to develop their own understanding.
Lectures: Good teachers strive to craft engaging lectures. Research has shown that attention tends to wane
after 10–20 minutes, so good lecturers often speak in 10-minute segments, before pausing to interact with
the class, e.g., by asking questions, performing a close reading of a passage, assigning an in-class writing
response, introducing a small group activity, giving an immediate mastery quiz, or telling a story.

Discussions: Good teachers take active steps to facilitate group discussion, e.g., reading two conflicting
passages aloud in class, asking students to relate the reading to a personal experience, assigning a problem
that requires the reading to solve, exploring a case study, surveying the group for a response, showing a

Page 34 of 93
Section 3, Appendix A: Some suggested practices in teaching philosophy
relevant video clip, or developing a role-playing exercise. They should also strive to generate and moderate
open, active, and inclusive critical discussions. Good instructors typically wait for students to gather their
thoughts (instead of calling upon the first raised hand), e.g., by asking students to write down responses
before anyone speaks aloud, waiting for 2–3 hands before calling on the first person. Good instructors also
typically encourage wider participation by, e.g., calling on people in order across the room, drawing names
randomly, and inviting people who have not previously spoken to speak. They respond reflectively to each
student contribution, e.g., by paraphrasing the main point, asking for clarifications, challenging students to
expand upon the initial idea, or offering parallel or meta-comments such as “I was confused about that
myself” or “You’ve identified the first step of the argument.” They artfully restrain students who monopolize
discussion, reach out to students who rarely speak without putting them on the spot (e.g., by calling on them
only after an activity in which the student has had time to think, or by citing points the student has made in
previous work or conversation), compliment good questions, and find ways to reignite discussion after it
stalls. At the end of class discussion, taking a few minutes to summarize and assess the discussion is
especially useful for students, particularly those who might have been struggling.

Professional development: Not all philosophers naturally excel at teaching, but, like any subfield of
philosophy, teaching can be an area of expertise. Philosophers should actively study the latest developments
in pedagogy, both in and outside of philosophy, in order to continually improve their teaching. Philosophy
departments might purchase monographs on the teaching of philosophy and feature them prominently in
their department libraries. And campus teaching centers can provide resources on the latest innovations
and best practices in teaching.

• The American Association of Philosophy Teachers (AAPT) organizes development sessions at APA
meetings as part of the Teaching Hub, as well as a biennial conference. At these events, philosophers
can participate in interactive workshops on philosophy teaching and learning.
• Many publications, such as the “The Teaching Workshop” on the APA Blog and the APA Newsletter on
Teaching Philosophy, provide active forums in which philosophers can reflect upon their own
teaching and share their experiences.
• On questions of the allocation of effort and time management, some faculty have found useful Robert
Boice, Advice for New Faculty Members: Nihil Nimus (Pearson, 2000).
• Further resources are also available at the University of Michigan Center for Research on Learning
and Teaching.
Contributions to the scholarship of philosophy teaching and learning: Philosophy instructors who
have spent extra time exploring a particular pedagogy or reading on a particular issue in student learning
should consider publishing an academic paper on the subject for the benefit of their peers. Journals that
publish in this area include the following:

• Teaching Philosophy
• AAPT Studies in Pedagogy
• Journal of the American Philosophical Association
Pedagogical activism: Recognizing the value and importance of teaching requires active support,
especially at universities that emphasize research over teaching, on both individual and institutional levels.

Page 35 of 93
Section 3, Appendix A: Some suggested practices in teaching philosophy
Individual instructors should support their institution’s efforts to improve faculty teaching and student
learning by attending development events, mentoring less experienced teachers, and making the discussion
of teaching a central part of department culture. Departments should support teaching by rewarding
excellent teaching, developing meaningful tenure and promotion standards for good teaching, and
advocating for the fair and equal treatment of non-tenure-track instructors, who are often responsible for
teaching of large, and sometimes vulnerable, student populations.

Page 36 of 93
Section 3, Appendix A: Some suggested practices in teaching philosophy
Section 4: Professional development of
students and faculty
Professional development is a concern at all levels of college and university life.

Professional development in graduate programs

The APA’s guidance documents for the academic job market, listed below, provide a comprehensive
discussion of many aspects of the placement process. This discussion of good practices is intended as a
supplement to those documents, with special focus on questions of diversity.

• Guidance for Philosophy Job Seekers

• Guidance for Placing Departments
• Best Practices for Hiring Departments
Professional development plays an increasing role in graduate student success, especially in the academic
job market, and departments should be aware of some successful practices in encouraging such
development over the course of a graduate career, and not just in its final stages. Placement directors—and
faculty in general—should strive to stay informed and knowledgeable about changing expectations for
professional development, and be prepared to adapt their practices accordingly:

• Departments should make sure that their practices with regard to the nomination of candidates and
preparation and submission of dossiers conform to the APA Statement on Placement Practices.
• Departments should know the APA’s Statement on Academic Freedom and Questionable
Employment Practices, and should review the AAUP Censure List and APA Censure List in order to
inform candidates who might be considering applying to institutions on these lists.
The job search process itself can be difficult, and encouraging an atmosphere of support and engagement by
the faculty as a whole can help make the process more bearable, and students more likely to succeed. Part of
this support is to show respect for the diverse array of potential positions, academic and non-academic, that
are available to students. Philosophy departments, faculty, and graduate students are encouraged to take the
following steps:

● Start job market discussions early. Invite all graduate students to meetings that intended to discuss
key aspects of the application process (e.g., teaching portfolios, cover letters). Departments can also
give students more insight into the hiring process by allowing graduate student representatives to
attend and vote in hiring meetings, sit on search committees, and so on.
● Host professionalization events that describe concrete strategies and tips for submitting, presenting,
and publishing work, e.g., for journals or conferences. Students can be encouraged to come to these
events with questions—perhaps through an anonymous submission process. More advanced
students with experience on the job market can be invited to share their own experience and
insights.

Page 37 of 93
Section 4: Professional development of students and faculty
 ● Be open to all careers, including non-academic and “alt-ac” positions. Treat such careers as one of
several legitimate options, rather than a form of failure. (Resources on non-academic and “alt-ac”
jobs may be available to departments through their college of university career offices.)
o Faculty should be aware that bias against graduate students who opt for careers beyond the
professoriate is a serious concern and may take subtle and implicit forms. Such bias can also
be present within the graduate student body itself, and countering this may require that
faculty give prominence to the discussion of a variety of potential career paths at graduate
student orientation and other regular meetings. Some departments have had success in
inviting graduates who have gone on to careers outside the academy to make presentations
to the department or to meet with current students or job-seekers.
SEE ALSO: SECTION 2: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF BIAS AND DISCRIMINATION
o For further information, see the APA’s guide on non-academic careers, Beyond Academia:
Professional Opportunities for Philosophers.
● Model respect and appreciation for all philosophers at all institutions, including and especially non-
tenure-track faculty at one’s own institution. Ranking programs and students can generate
unnecessary anxiety and create a distorted impression of the variety of strong academic institutions
across the country and the wider world, though encouraging students to be realistic in their
expectations can be an important part of creating an effective dossier and candidacy. Faculty and
students should educate themselves about the realities of today’s job market (within and beyond
academia) and larger trends in higher education, and be frank about the ups and downs of the job
market.
● Encourage students to explore and build relationships with faculty and students at neighboring
institutions, including institutions of diverse kinds serving diverse constituencies. This will assist
students in preparing job materials for wide and varied academic job searches.
● Encourage students to consider applying for university or national dissertation-completion
fellowships. The experience of applying for such fellowships can provide an early setting in which
students and faculty can review readiness for entering the job market, set deadlines for the
completion of dossier materials, and refine and explain written work for novel audiences. Ideally,
departments will maintain up-to-date lists of possible dissertation fellowship opportunities, along
with relevant information about to how to apply and samples of applications from previous years.
o The APA maintains a list of societies and organizations that grant fellowships of interest to
philosophers.
● Foster a community of support. Encourage student-to-student mentoring, e.g., by former or more
experienced students. Such mentoring can be supported by departments through helping to match
mentors and mentees, maintaining a database of placement information, including sample
application materials from former students and placement records over time, providing funds for
mentors and students to have coffee or meals together, notifying mentors of institutional training
sessions directed at mentors and encouraging their attendance, and so on. Mentors can make sure
mentees know that they are available for advice and support, help keep (other) faculty aware of
ongoing progress, and direct mentees to relevant networks or sources of expertise and knowledge
(e.g., others’ experience of the market, the diversity of academic institutions, the nature of higher

Page 38 of 93
Section 4: Professional development of students and faculty
 education in other countries). For example, a mentoring program for women job seekers that
matches former graduates who have found a position with graduate students currently on the
market has been developed by the Society for Women in Philosophy.
● Schedule job market workshops for students in the spring so that students will be able to make
better use of the summer months. All students who are thinking about going onto the academic job
market—or who are simply interested in finding out about the job search process—should be
invited to attend. The workshops should provide a timeline for job-seekers to prepare writing
samples and other application materials so that they can get their work to faculty in time for review
and revision by the early fall.
● Offer financial support, where possible, for dossier services and travel—even small amounts of
support can make an important difference for students whose financial resources are limited.
Students should be aware early on of the significant financial burden they can incur on the job
market (through travel, paying for dossier services, etc.), and of the resources and strategies
available to them for lessening this burden. If they have not already done so, students approaching
the time at which they will begin their job searches should be encouraged to become members of the
APA, and perhaps other professional associations as well, and departments should consider making
funds available to help subsidize such memberships. (The APA offers bulk membership discounts for
departments wanting to provide membership for their students and/or faculty.)
● Encourage job seekers to familiarize themselves with the APA’s policies, statements, and
publications, particularly as these relate to job-seeking. In addition to PhilJobs: Jobs for
Philosophers, students should be encouraged to consult The Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside
Higher Ed, email listservs, and other publications and online sources with information about job
postings, including positions in other disciplines, in university administration, or in related areas of
employment outside the academy. Placement directors and job seekers can help one another in
building up a knowledge base of such sources.
● Be familiar with the special issues that candidates from underrepresented groups or with disabilities
may face. Placement directors should take advantage of college or university resources to gain better
understanding of these issues and of effective ways to address them. Placement directors should
take active steps to make it possible to speak with candidates about these matters in a frank,
informed, and supportive way, and to help candidates find necessary resources. And all who are
involved in the placement process should be aware of protocols and responsibilities for reporting
problems in these areas, should they arise.
● Encourage placement directors to meet early and often with students, and to make clear to job
seekers the extent to which they are available and willing to offer support and guidance. (Ideally,
placement directors will be apprised of every step and new development.) Many of the skills and
tasks required for participation in the academic job market are not what students have spent their
graduate careers training for, and graduate students may need guidance on many things that appear
obvious to seasoned faculty. Maintaining a collection of job search materials (e.g., timelines, tips,
strategies, sample dossiers) that is accessible to all graduate students can enable students to acquire
vital information through their own research and to manage some of the uncertainties associated
with the prospect of eventually going on the job market.

Page 39 of 93
Section 4: Professional development of students and faculty
 ● Provide students on the job market with an opportunity to present a paper to the department in an
informal setting, e.g., a “brown bag” lunchtime talk. Similarly, mock interviews should be arranged
for job candidates wherever possible—either in person or electronically. Such experiences can be
essential for the candidate’s preparation in the final stages of job seeking.
● Discuss in advance the issues that can arise when candidates receive job offers—the questions they
should ask, the negotiation of deadlines, and the challenges of comparing different kinds of positions.
Candidates should also be aware that some institutions are unable to negotiate offers. Often there is
very little time to think about issues arising from job offers once these have started to go out.
Advisors and mentors should be sure to provide candidates with contacts for discussing such issues
on short notice and at various times of the day or week.
● Consider how a placement director’s greater familiarity with some students than others might have
a biasing effect when it comes time to advise potential candidates in the job search process.
Placement directors should therefore strive insofar as possible to use uniform procedures for all
students and to base advice to candidates on known, professionally relevant criteria. Placement
directors are officers of the department and responsible for assuring that personal information on
matters of race, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, political conviction, national origin, age,
disability, actual or potential marital status, and actual or perceived medical condition not play a
role.
● Consider as well possible benefits of creating a team of placement mentors, ideally representing a
range of sub-disciplines, each of whom has special responsibility for several of the students on the
market. In such a scheme, which some departments have used with success, placement mentors
work with the placement director to review student dossier materials and letters of
recommendation; inform students about available resources in the college, university, or profession;
and provide informal advice.
● Take into account the fact that most job interviews are now conducted electronically, and thus make
available to students resources that can enable them to have effective, professional electronic
interviews. This may include arranging practice video interviews, providing information about video
interviewing, and making suitable spaces available for such interviews to take place, either in the
department or the academic unit, equipped with high-speed connections, freedom from distractions,
and so on.
SEE ALSO: SECTION 5, APPENDIX A: SOME RECOMMENDED PRACTICES FOR PHONE AND INTERNET
INTERVIEWS

Candidates and their families may come under special psychological pressures during the job search
process, and departments should make information available about resources in the college or university, or
in the wider community, for practicing anxiety and stress management and for counseling, and support.
Providing such information to all candidates early on as a matter of course can avoid various concerns about
privacy or stigmatization. Even when students have been successful in their job search, they may be under
considerable stress as they complete and defend their theses, prepare for their new positions, or move
themselves or their families to a new city. Advisors and graduate programs are encouraged to maintain
active contact with students during this period, and departments are encouraged to find ways to facilitate
these potentially difficult transitions.

Page 40 of 93
Section 4: Professional development of students and faculty
Information about placement services and accurate and complete data on past placement should be
available to prospective students as well as students enrolled in the program. Such records should include
information concerning initial enrollment, attrition, and employment histories extending beyond the first
year post-degree (when such information can be obtained). Some programs provide such information in an
anonymized manner (though identifying employing institutions), while others list students and advisors by
name. Note, however, that student permission must be obtained for any such use of their names. Since
students might be reluctant to refuse, and the rise of social media has made it problematic in general to
provide identifying personal information on the web, anonymizing the information may be a preferable
approach.

SEE ALSO: SECTION 5: INTERVIEWING AND HIRING

Professional development in undergraduate programs

It goes without saying that professional development is a concern for undergraduates as well as graduate
students, and philosophy serves in many ways to enhance not only the skills of individuals who do not go on
to graduate study in philosophy, but their quality of life. Undergraduate programs should make accessible to
undergraduates up-to-date information about ways in which coursework or concentration in philosophy
has contributed to the development of students who have gone on to careers across a broad range of fields.
(See the APA’s guide on non-academic careers, Beyond Academia: Professional Opportunities for Philosophers,
and the “Who Studies Philosophy?” webpage and poster series.)

Undergraduates today are experiencing unusually high levels of anxiety, whether about their many
commitments, their academic performance, or their futures beyond college. Departmental advising can play
a role in encouraging students to think realistically about their programs and course selection, and
departments can hold or sponsor accessible, open discussions for their undergraduates in which realistic
information is provided about post-graduate study and ways in which study in philosophy can contribute to
their intellectual and professional development. One way of encouraging such discussions is to invite back
former philosophy students who have gone on to a variety of areas of study or careers, and who can speak
from personal experience about what philosophy has meant for them. Many departments also maintain
active communication with former students, through regular newsletters, departmental Facebook pages and
other forms of social media, or by working through the college or university alumni office. Loyalty to
philosophy is often strong, even in those who have gone on to careers beyond academic philosophy, and a
strong alumni base can contribute vitally to the support for a department and provide potential resources
for current undergraduates.

While only a fraction of undergraduates who take courses in philosophy will go on to do graduate work in
philosophy, still, this is the life-blood for the next generations of academic philosophers. Undergraduate
teaching and advising can play a critical role by providing encouragement and guidance to college-level
students for whom graduate study and perhaps an eventual career in academic philosophy might make
sense. While individual faculty and faculty advisors play the primary role in preparing such students to be
successful in graduate admission and study, there is much that departments in general can do to prepare
students in other ways. For example, they can help students to become better informed about what it is like
to be a graduate student in philosophy. By offering a frank picture of graduate program acceptance rates and
the job market, they can also assist students with managing their own expectations, both with regard to the
likelihood of getting into graduate school and of obtaining a position in philosophy after receiving a
graduate degree. Departments can also support “pre-professional” development opportunities for their

Page 41 of 93
Section 4: Professional development of students and faculty
majors by encouraging and supporting undergraduate philosophy clubs, publications, and conferences, and
by bringing publishing and conference opportunities to the attention of students. Here are a few more
detailed recommendations emerging from past departmental experience:

• While information about graduate schools can be found in abundance on the internet, it is good
practice to assume that undergraduate students might not be familiar with the basics. For example,
they might not know how graduate support and instruction are structured, what financial support
will look like, or what kind of written work they would be expected to produce before and during the
dissertation-writing process. They also may not be informed as to how graduate programs in their
admissions decisions tend to weigh grades, writing samples, GRE scores, and letters of
recommendation, and what acceptance rates are typical. The diversity of graduate programs, and of
possible positions in philosophy, can also be stressed—there is not a single or guaranteed path to a
career in teaching philosophy. Departments should consider creating structured opportunities for
such discussions with undergraduates. There are many options: a lunch for juniors or seniors, a
meeting of the philosophy club, class meetings of junior or senior seminars, etc.
• Undergraduates focused on graduate school admission should be given accurate information about
the demands of graduate school, rates of successful completion of the PhD, and the likelihood of
success in finding long-term employment in philosophy. At the same time, information about
alternate paths for philosophy graduate students, whether in the form of joint degree programs,
graduate certificate programs, successful transfer into other areas of study, or the pursuit of non-
academic careers, should be made available. This information should be made available to all
students as a matter of course to avoid singling individuals out. Without minimizing the challenges
involved, discussions with undergraduates can include the satisfactions of graduate study in
philosophy, including the opportunity to participate in and contribute to a scholarly community and
often to have an unusual degree of autonomy in the selection of one’s own research questions.
• Students should be informed about ways to obtain information about graduate programs and their
strengths, but also cautioned about how to read rankings of departments—these may not reflect the
needs of all students and can be based on incomplete data and non-representative survey samples.
As stated in the APA Statement on Rankings of Departments, students and administrators seeking
comparative information should be encouraged not to rely on any single source but rather to check a
wide variety of sources and to be aware of the methods of each.
o The APA maintains a Guide to Graduate Programs in Philosophy that provides self-reported
information from graduate programs about a variety of factors important to prospective
students: faculty and their specializations, financial support, diversity and climate initiatives,
and so on.
o The APA-funded project on Academic Placement Data Analysis provides recent placement
statistics organized by graduating program, interactive data tools, and reports on recent
trends.
• In addition to hearing from departmental faculty, it is good for undergraduates to hear the views and
personal experiences of graduates who are currently in or have recently completed master’s or PhD
programs. Sample questions to which current or recent graduates might respond include the
following: How did graduate school compare with what you expected? What aspects of life as a
graduate student are the most and the least rewarding? How do you balance teaching classes or

Page 42 of 93
Section 4: Professional development of students and faculty
 being a teaching or research assistant with making progress on your thesis or dissertation? What
work/life balance issues have you encountered, and how have you been able to deal with them?
Skype can be a vehicle for these conversations, as can on-campus events featuring a panel of
graduates. In inviting alumni or others to participate in conversations about graduate school,
departments should be attentive to diversity, including diversity of philosophical approaches,
careers, and traditions, as well as demographic diversity and diversity of institution.
• As mentioned above, the primary responsibility in supporting students interested in studying
philosophy at the graduate level typically rests with the faculty advisor. In addition to writing letters
of recommendation, such support would normally include providing constructive criticism of their
writing samples and assisting them in identifying programs whose strengths would be a good fit
given their own qualifications.
• Some students thinking about pursuing a graduate degree might also have an interest in publishing
in undergraduate journals or presenting at undergraduate conferences, not only to strengthen their
applications but as a way of trying out their ideas with communities of their peers. Departments are
encouraged to support this interest by developing a “resources” section of the department website
featuring information about undergraduate journals and upcoming conferences, along with links to
summer programs in philosophy such as the UCSD Summer Program for Women in Philosophy and
the Philosophy in an Inclusive Key Summer Institute programs. Departments with available funding
for undergraduate travel to conferences should make sure that information about this funding, as
well as application procedures, reaches all undergraduates.
• In addition, departments can also request sample successful graduate school application material,
including cover letters, research statements, and writing samples, making these available to current
students in a manner that preserves confidentiality and privacy.
• Departments can also identify alumni or others who are willing to serve as contacts for current
undergraduates, to help advise students in preparing for application to graduate study, application
to professional school, or other forms of post-graduate career. A department choosing to do this
should, however, be mindful that such consultation is only one source of potential guidance, and
encourage their students to seek multiple forms of advice. Some colleges and universities are
establishing “hubs” for bringing together sources of information about life after graduation for
students in the humanities or other non-professional areas, and departments are encouraged to take
an active role in improving the quality of information available at such hubs, and in making sure that
their students are aware of such resources.
• In recent years, the public availability of information about individual admissions to graduate
programs in philosophy through social media or websites such as The GradCafe can add to the
anxiety that applicants might naturally experience during the time that graduate programs begin
notifying applicants of their decisions and inviting those admitted for a campus visit. Faculty should
be aware of when this notification period begins so they can be particularly attentive to signs of
student distress.
• Some colleges and universities have funds available for undergraduate research initiatives, and
faculty research funds can in many cases be used for undergraduate research assistantships. These
opportunities can be a valuable way for students to develop philosophically and become better

Page 43 of 93
Section 4: Professional development of students and faculty
 prepared for graduate study. Departments should bring information about these potential
opportunities directly to the attention of all faculty and undergraduates.

Formal and informal programs for professional development and

mentoring of tenure-track faculty
The challenge of developing the next generation of philosophers extends to the faculty level as well. The
interests of junior faculty, departments, institutions, and the profession as a whole are advanced when
junior faculty receive effective support for their teaching and research, and are able to receive informed
advice about the profession, their new institution, and relevant practices and resources. Recommended
practices in promoting the professional development and effective mentoring of junior faculty include both
formal and informal processes.

On the formal side, it is the responsibility of the department and chair to help junior faculty to realize their
full potential and to meet the standards of review to which they will be subjected. This includes providing
junior faculty with periodic review—ideally, once per year—of their teaching, research, service, and
progress toward meeting the criteria for promotion. Such reviews should be constructive, but should also
attempt to provide a realistic appraisal of the junior faculty member’s progress, identifying weaknesses as
well as strengths, and including a discussion of what steps the faculty member can take to increase strengths
and overcome weaknesses. They should not include predictions about the outcome of the tenure process,
but they should create a written record, shared with the candidate, that can become part of a pathway to
tenure and can be consulted at the time of promotion. It is much too late if concerns about the faculty
member’s research, teaching, or service are raised for the first time in the tenure process itself.
Responsibility for communicating the results of periodic reviews lies with the department chair, who should
also be the person who provides junior faculty with information on critical matters relating to terms of
employment and university procedures and norms.

The periodic review is also an occasion for departments to consider whether a junior faculty member is
being asked to bear an inappropriate teaching or service burden. While it is important not to ask junior
faculty to do a large number of new course preparations, it is also important to give junior faculty the
opportunity to teach a range of courses in order to develop their teaching portfolios or to teach in areas of
their greatest interest. Junior faculty may need greater protection of time for research than already-tenured
faculty, and may need additional resources in order to manage time- or work-intensive courses. Similarly,
junior faculty should be protected from highly burdensome administrative responsibilities. Junior faculty
with young families, eldercare responsibilities, or other caretaking demands may find it especially difficult
to balance these responsibilities with teaching or administrative demands, given the pressures of an
impending promotion review. By incorporating opportunities to indicate these special needs into the
standard process for faculty expression of teaching and administrative preferences, a department can spare
junior faculty the burden of taking the initiative in raising questions about special consideration they might
understandably be reluctant to broach. And departments are increasingly recognizing the multiple
challenges faced by junior faculty by giving them special priority in the provision of leave or teaching relief.

On the less formal side, many other questions arise for junior faculty in the course of starting a career and
coming to terms with a new institution. For such questions, a junior faculty member might need advice from
someone knowledgeable about the faculty member’s particular area of research, or might be more
comfortable approaching a colleague other than the chair. Chairs, moreover, are often under fairly stringent
restrictions in terms of the information and advice they can give to junior faculty. Thus, many departments

Page 44 of 93
Section 4: Professional development of students and faculty
have instituted a regular practice of informal mentoring in which each junior faculty member is assigned a
senior colleague to help with professional development and acclimation to the new institution. Core
questions for senior faculty mentors concern substantive advice about teaching and research, such as
providing junior faculty members feedback on their work or teaching (or helping them to obtain such
feedback from others), helping junior faculty members obtain the information and advice needed to make
good decisions about where to submit papers and conference proposals, suggesting ways of developing
professional contacts, assisting junior faculty members in navigating college or university bureaucracies or
in settling into their new town, and so on. Senior faculty mentors can also serve as advocates for a junior
faculty member’s interests within the department, college, university, or profession. (It is important,
however, not to think of the mentor as substituting for a well-developed plan of formal departmental
feedback and review, or to expect mentors to be a “back channel” for confidential information about
departmental reviews.)

Choice of an informal mentor should be made with an eye to identifying a senior colleague who could be
expected to work well and conscientiously with the junior faculty member, and, where possible, whose
areas of research are sufficiently close to those of the junior faculty member that the mentor could be
expected to be a source of informed feedback and useful professional advice. Junior faculty should be able to
have input into the choice, and the choice should occasionally be informally reviewed by consulting the
junior faculty member and the current mentor. Obviously, choice of an individual mentor will at any time be
somewhat limited by available senior candidates, and some departments have taken the step of seeking to
recruit external senior faculty with relevant expertise to serve as outside mentors (see below).

While junior faculty should be protected from heavy administrative assignments insofar as possible, they
should also be afforded equal opportunities to participate in department life, e.g., choosing and inviting
colloquium speakers or serving as liaisons to other units on campus, which could assist them in becoming
more a part of the wider institutional community and contribute to their service record at the time of tenure
review.

Junior faculty may also need access to additional financial support in order to develop their research
programs. This support can take many forms, including start-up funding, travel funds for presenting at
professional conferences, funds to hire students to provide research assistance, assistance with membership
in professional associations, and publication subventions. Programs should inform potential faculty at the
time of recruitment about the extent to which such funding may or may not be available. To be sure, the
need for supplementary financial support to help faculty meet research expectations is not restricted to
junior faculty alone. See the APA Statement on Research for further discussion of research support to faculty
in philosophy.

Some special considerations

As increased funding flows into interdisciplinary initiatives, more faculty positions will involve
appointments in multiple departments. In such cases it is especially important to have coordinated plans for
formal review as well as informal mentoring of junior faculty. It is a good practice in such cases for the
different units to work together to design a coordinated periodic review process when formulating the
initial hiring agreement or initial memorandum of understanding for the joint appointment of an existing
junior faculty member. Junior faculty contemplating joint appointments should have an idea of what to
expect, and what will be expected of them. This includes developing a formal understanding of what role
each department will play in the tenure process and what criteria of research, teaching, and service will be

Page 45 of 93
Section 4: Professional development of students and faculty
used to evaluate the faculty member. As before, it is much too late for such questions to come up at the time
of the tenure process itself.

Departments and chairs should be aware that junior faculty belonging to underrepresented groups in the
field or department, as well as those whose area of research is not well represented in the department, can
face an array of special challenges and demands. Arrangements for supplementing internal formal and
informal mentoring with external informal mentoring might be appropriate in such cases. Plans of this kind
should be developed in consultation with the junior faculty member, and it is a good practice for colleges
and universities to make available funding to support such arrangements (e.g., travel, honoraria).

A number of departments have had good success in holding a workshop on the junior faculty’s research in
the candidate’s third or fourth year, in which several faculty from other institutions are asked to read some
of the candidate’s work and to participate in a roundtable discussion held at the candidate’s home
department. This enables candidates to receive external feedback from established scholars in their field in
a manner that anticipates some aspects of a tenure review, but that leads to constructive recommendations
of how the work can be further developed in readiness for the promotion process. In this case, too, it is a
good practice for colleges and universities to make available funding to support such arrangements (e.g.,
travel, honoraria).

Supporting non-tenure-track (NTT) faculty

An increasing number of faculty nationwide are not on a traditional tenure track. While optimally
“institutions should minimize reliance on non-tenure-track faculty” (as per the APA Statement on Non-
Tenure-Track Faculty), NTT faculty are an important and often critical component in a department’s
teaching and graduate training, and an increasing amount of the research in philosophy is being done by
faculty not on the tenure track. Concern over the discipline’s future should therefore extend to the
professional development of NTT faculty as well. Indeed, given the heavy teaching loads NTT faculty often
carry, longer-term concern for their development as teachers and scholars, and recognition of them as
valued colleagues, is especially important. 4

In accordance with the APA Statement on Non-Tenure-Track Faculty, departments are encouraged to
actively advocate for a healthy core of tenure-track faculty, as the tenure system ensures conditions vital for
excellence in research and teaching: protection of academic freedoms, and the secure employment that
undergirds long-term, full-time investment in student learning and the growth of their disciplines. Thus,
departments should collect and publicize data on the percentage of courses taught by full-time and part-
time NTT faculty, establish targets for the above, and work with NTT faculty unions. They should strive to
move part-time faculty into full-time continuing positions to the extent possible, and to work with other
nearby institutions to help NTT find other employment as needed. Departments should allow NTT faculty to
participate in all relevant and appropriate faculty meetings, committees, and assessment exercises.

Departments should also follow employment and re-appointment practices commensurate with the
recognition that NTT faculty’s expertise in teaching philosophy is a valuable skill. This includes, where
feasible, advertising all multi-year and renewable part- and full-time positions on a national basis and a year
in advance, rather than hiring locally and on the basis of the chair’s personal discretion. If the institution is

4What follows is adapted from the APA Statement on Non-Tenure-Track Faculty and a draft APA Statement on Best
Practices Regarding the Support and Treatment of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty.

Page 46 of 93
Section 4: Professional development of students and faculty
committed to the respectful treatment of NTT faculty, this commitment may be listed on job postings, along
with an explicit permission for NTT faculty to be released from the position if they accept a tenure-track job
elsewhere. NTT faculty should receive official job contracts detailing their responsibilities, and should be
given titles appropriate to their level of experience and expertise. NTT faculty courses should be publicized
in the same manner as other courses, and in online postings NTT instructors should be listed by name along
with links to their webpages, rather than merely referred to as “Staff.” NTT are a vital part of the
department, and should be invited to all new faculty orientation events, and included in all department
social events. Departmental administrative and office staff should be made aware that they are expected to
provide appropriate support to NTT faculty. Departments might also consider making a teaching-focused
hire who can serve as a pedagogical coordinator, taking on tasks such as training teaching assistants,
advising junior tenure-track faculty, conducting peer observations, giving feedback on teaching portfolios,
sharing pedagogical scholarship, and developing innovative initiatives such as experiential learning and
undergraduate research programs. NTT faculty may be invited to give department workshops on pedagogy,
which should be duly compensated.

Departments should also strive to offer NTT faculty the same salary and benefits (e.g., medical and parental
leaves, moving allowances, travel and research funding, merit pay, faculty discounts, retirement matching)
as new tenure-track faculty, and should compensate NTT faculty for any teaching or service performed in
addition to what is specified in their contracts—including independent studies and advising—and should
try to ensure that appointments and payment begin prior to the first day of classes. Since many NTT faculty
are under constant pressure to excel at their jobs in hopes of being hired into more secure positions, they
are often at risk of being exploited; departments may thus want to consider prohibiting arrangements
whereby NTT faculty are asked to take on uncompensated labor in teaching, advising, or service.

When NTT faculty are on renewable appointments, it is a good practice to develop a review and promotion
process similar to the processes used for tenure-track faculty to enable NTT faculty to receive feedback on
their teaching and research and make progress in their careers. This review and promotion process will, of
course, have criteria appropriate to the nature of the position so that NTT faculty are not being asked to
accomplish all that is expected of junior faculty while also carrying a heavier teaching load. Developing a
respectful, collegial atmosphere for NTT faculty can be encouraged by associating the review process with a
promotion ladder and a set of appropriate titles—e.g., non-tenure-track assistant professor, associate
professor of practice (without tenure), associate professor of teaching (without tenure). When the
appointments are non-renewable, it is of considerable value if some member of the department has come to
know the NTT faculty member’s work and teaching well enough to be able to serve as a recommender for
future applications for employment. Normally this will be the department chair, but, for reasons essentially
similar to those discussed above with respect to tenure-track faculty, it can be a good practice for faculty
other than the chair to be involved in an informal mentoring process as well.

Here are some more detailed recommendations, as outlined by a draft APA Statement of Best Practices
Regarding the Support and Treatment of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty:

To support NTT faculty as teachers, departments can take the following steps:
• Avoid “just-in-time” hiring by giving NTT faculty sufficient time to prepare for courses before the
term begins. If a NTT instructor is taking over for another faculty member, provide contact
information and previous syllabi that will aid in course preparation.

Page 47 of 93
Section 4: Professional development of students and faculty
 • Assign NTT faculty to teach in their areas of expertise whenever possible, taking into account their
specific skills and background. Consult with NTT faculty members to decide upon an appropriate
number of new preparations, taking into consideration the need to protect the faculty member’s
time for research, further training, or family responsibilities.
• Reserve a fully equipped, private, lockable office for each NTT faculty member for the hours they are
required to be on campus, and ensure that each NTT faculty member has access to a computer or
laptop. Seemingly minor decisions or inequities can convey unintended information to faculty and
students about the value of NTT faculty to the department, so NTT faculty should have mailboxes in
the same location as those of tenure-track faculty, and should appear on departmental websites and
have their photos posted in the department alongside other departmental faculty. When possible,
make parking privileges available in college or university facilities to NTT faculty, keeping in mind
that parking fees can be especially burdensome for them and that many must commute between
multiple campuses in the course of a day and work unusual hours.
• Assign a faculty mentor to NTT faculty, such as a more senior NTT faculty member, and provide
compensation for this mentoring work if it is not already specified in the mentor’s contract. Consider
developing a NTT faculty handbook that introduces new instructors to the curriculum, institutional
rules and regulations, and the duties and responsibilities of their position.
• Ensure that NTT faculty are eligible for teaching awards.
To support NTT faculty as researchers, departments can take the following steps:

• Invite interested NTT faculty to give talks to the department and to participate in department
colloquia, seminars, and reading groups. Introduce NTT faculty to other faculty who work in the
same areas.
• Offer conference travel and research funding, preferably available in advance, and encourage NTT
faculty to apply for this funding. Where funds are scarce, departments can create a common pot to
which individual faculty might apply.
• Ask NTT faculty about their professional goals and arrange opportunities for them to receive career
advice from tenure-track and tenured faculty. Departments should advocate for their NTT faculty in
job searches just as they do their graduate students, e.g., by writing strong letters of
recommendation.
• In organizing events such as conferences, or calls for workshops, anthologies, and grants, designate
and reserve spaces for scholars in NTT or teaching-intensive positions. Waive or significantly reduce
registration fees for NTT faculty, and make travel grants available to them.
• Nominate work by NTT faculty for research prizes.

Other resources
The foregoing section reflects in part material drawn from the descriptions of mentoring programs at a
number of universities, collected together in Rachel Thomas, “Exemplary Junior Faculty Mentoring
Programs,” written for the Women’s Faculty Forum at Yale University. This document is also a good source
for detailed ideas about ways in which junior faculty mentoring can be implemented, including questions
that go beyond departmental policy.

Page 48 of 93
Section 4: Professional development of students and faculty
 Section 5: Interviewing and hiring
The search and recruitment process for hiring new faculty plays a critical role in shaping not only
departments, but also the profession as whole. This process is central to increasing diversity in philosophy,
both in its teachers and in its students. 5

It is beyond the scope of the current document to develop guidelines for the search and recruitment process
as a whole, though we should mention that there is a wealth of information about good practices for fairness
and effectiveness in advertising a position, creating a candidate pool, drawing up a shortlist, interviewing
and deliberating about candidates, and making and negotiating offers. The following resources address
these issues:

• APA guidance documents on the academic job market:

o Guidance for Philosophy Job Seekers
o Guidance for Placing Departments
o Best Practices for Hiring Departments
o Best Practices for Interviewing
• Best Practices for Conducting Faculty Searches, prepared by Harvard University Office for Faculty
Development and Diversity
• The ADVANCE project, a website hosted by the University of Michigan, which contains research and
guidelines for recommended practices for enhancing fairness and diversity
Many universities now require members of search and hiring committees to take a diversity and
inclusiveness training course that offers an overview of good practices for conducting an inclusive hiring
search. Such trainings usually (i) identify good practices for an inclusive search process; (ii) identify good
practices for diversifying the candidate pool; (iii) review federal regulations and university requirements
concerning affirmative action, Equal Employment Opportunity, and confidentiality; and (iv) offer strategies
for mitigating various forms of bias throughout the search process.

The following discussion of recommended practices in interviewing is intended to outline documented

techniques or practices that tend to result in fairer outcomes in recruitment. These recommendations may
reasonably be modified to fit particular institutional situations and structures, and many institutions may
have developed their own set of recommended practices. Departments should ensure that all participants in
any stage of the search and recruitment process are aware from the outset of the APA’s Statement on Non-
Discrimination and of any applicable college or university policies or reporting requirements.

Preliminaries
This guide focuses on interviewing practices rather than overall hiring practices. However, it should be
noted that prior to the first-stage interviews, the hiring department has a responsibility to properly

5This section was primarily drafted by the Subcommittee on Interviewing Best Practices, chaired by Julia Driver, with
additional information, including the entirety of Appendices A, C, and D, provided by the APA Task Force on a Good
Practices Guide.

Page 49 of 93
Section 5: Interviewing and hiring
advertise a position and should work to recruit as large and diverse a pool of candidates as possible. One
resource to aid in doing so is the APA’s Underrepresented Philosophers Directory (UPDirectory). Those
involved in the search should develop a list of job-related criteria, and read application files applying these
criteria consistently. Some departments have tried to eliminate bias by anonymizing the initial screening (to
prevent search committee members from making assumptions about a candidate with respect to sex,
gender, race, ethnicity, etc.), and by not reading recommendation letters until a later stage of the search.
These same considerations of fairness and consistency carry through to the interview process itself.

Some departments, in order to lessen the burden on candidates and letter-writers, do not request letters
until after a shortlist has been formed by the hiring department; other departments find that letters are
valuable even in the early stages of reviewing applications. Departments are encouraged to avoid
application requirements that must be customized to the position in question, except when such
customization is a matter of qualifying to apply for the position. If needed, more specialized material can be
requested when the review process has focused on a smaller group of candidates.

SEE ALSO: SECTION 5, APPENDIX B: RESEARCH ON INTERVIEWING

Departments should also follow the APA Statement on the Job Market Calendar, which recommends for
tenure-track or continuing positions advertised in the second half of the calendar year an application
deadline of November 1 or later. It is further recommended that positions be advertised at least 30 days
prior to the application deadline to ensure that candidates have ample time to apply. In normal
circumstances, a prospective employee should have at least two weeks for consideration of a written offer
from the hiring institution, and responses to offers of a position whose duties begin in the succeeding fall
normally should not be required before February 1. When advertising in PhilJobs: Jobs for Philosophers,
advertisers are asked to confirm that the hiring institution will follow the above guidelines. If an advertiser
does not do so, the advertisement will include a notice to that effect.

The first-round screening interview

Departments standardly select from the application files received a short list for a first round of screening
interviews. In the past, the first-round interviews usually took place at a professional meeting, generally the
APA Eastern Division meeting. However, most departments now opt to use video conference software or
conference calls to conduct first-round interviews. Though a few may still conduct their screening
interviews at the APA Eastern Division meeting in early January, the APA no longer provides placement
services or support for these interviews. Video or phone interviews typically pose less of a financial burden
to the candidate; they also eliminate some of the risks of inappropriate treatment of candidates—especially
women—that were present in the setting of the convention interview process. For a variety of reasons, then,
applicants can no longer routinely be expected to attend the APA Eastern Division meeting for interviewing
purposes, and departments who hold first-round interviews there thus may find that they still must do a
significant portion of first-round interviewing by teleconference or videoconference, and this could
introduce unwanted differential treatment into the interviewing and evaluating process.

SEE ALSO: SECTION 5, APPENDIX A: SOME RECOMMENDED PRACTICES FOR PHONE AND INTERNET INTERVIEWS

If a hiring department has decided that it will be conducting interviews at a professional meeting, that
department should make sure in scheduling interviews with candidates that enough time is provided for
candidates to arrange for transportation and accommodation. Interviews must be accessible for candidates

Page 50 of 93
Section 5: Interviewing and hiring
with disabilities, e.g., departments must make efforts to ensure that the interview location is accessible. Such
interviews must conform to APA policies on interviews, including the restriction that interviews must not be
conducted in a hotel room used for sleeping. See the APA Statement on Hotel Room Interviews for further
discussion.

Departments that plan to conduct electronic screening interviews should be mindful of various associated
challenges and should prepare for them in advance. Interviewing departments and individual interviewers
should keep in mind the following issues:

• Technical glitches and poor audio or video connections can detract from an interview in a way that
can be disadvantageous to the candidate. It is of particular importance for interviewers to ensure
that the interviewee is able to hear and see all of them well throughout the interview.
• Relatedly, electronic interviews can favor candidates who have access to superior technical facilities.
To achieve greater equality among candidates or institutions that may lack such resources, some
hiring departments provide funding for candidates to use a commercial electronic conferencing
facility during the interview.
Whether a department chooses to conduct an in-person or electronic interview, it is a good practice to keep
in mind that judgments about a candidate should be made on the basis of agreed-upon criteria, and be
aware that impressions of candidates such as “fit,” “collegiality,” and “friendliness” are especially subject to
bias. Psychological research has cast doubt on the predictive value of unstructured interviews in hiring, and
emphasized the dual liability of such interviews: their unstructured character tends to invite various forms
of bias even as their first-person salience tends to produce excessive confidence in one’s impressions. In
consequence, some departments have decided to eliminate first-stage interviews, focusing instead upon the
content of the dossier, and inviting a smaller group of candidates to campus directly.

SEE ALSO: SECTION 2: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF BIAS AND DISCRIMINATION

SEE ALSO: SECTION 5, APPENDIX B: RESEARCH ON INTERVIEWING

To reduce the risks of unstructured interviews, departments and search committees should develop a rubric
of evaluation criteria that align with the job description, pose questions that could elicit reasonable
information concerning these criteria and give candidates a chance to explain their qualifications, and keep
written notes rather than relying upon memory. It is a good practice to discuss in advance what questions
will be asked of interviewees and in what order, and, insofar as possible, to use the same set of questions for
all candidates. Not all questions need be identical, of course, since questions will naturally need to reflect
specifics of the candidate’s research, teaching experience, and so on. However, interviewing committees
should attempt to ensure that questions from the same categories are asked, and that every candidate has
been given a chance to answer questions corresponding to the full set of criteria being used. This helps
provide the committee with a uniform range of information about candidates, and helps preclude the
possibility that candidates may be disadvantaged because some questions were overlooked. Structure also
helps reduce the chance that inappropriate questions will be asked, and members of interviewing and hiring
committees should discuss among themselves in advance guidelines concerning acceptable questions to
candidates. Some questions that may be appropriate after an offer has been made (e.g., inquiring about
possible family responsibilities that may affect the potential hire’s ability to accept an offer) are not
appropriate beforehand.

Page 51 of 93
Section 5: Interviewing and hiring
SEE ALSO: SECTION 5, APPENDIX C: GUIDE TO ACCEPTABLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Members of the hiring committee should be well prepared for the interviews, and each should have access
to the same information for each candidate. This information may include, among other things, the
candidate’s CV, writing sample, and perhaps a sheet listing highlights from the candidate’s dossier.
Moreover, when possible, interviewees should be given the names of those who will be conducting the
interview in advance, and be given an idea of how many candidates are being interviewed. In fairness to the
candidates being interviewed, departments should limit the number of interviews to a reasonable number.

Most departments schedule 60 to 90 minutes per interview, which allows the interviewers to talk to the
candidate for at least 45 minutes, some of which time can be reserved for the candidate to ask questions as
well. This also leaves time for the committee to have a brief discussion of the interview in light of search
criteria once the interview is over, and to prepare for the next candidate.

Those who will be conducting interviews should discuss interviewing practices in advance, keeping in mind
relevant guidelines, including the APA Statement on Non-Discrimination:

The American Philosophical Association rejects as unethical all forms of discrimination based
on race, color, religion, political convictions, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation,
gender identification or age, whether in graduate admissions, appointments, retention,
promotion and tenure, manuscript evaluation, salary determination, or other professional
activities in which APA members characteristically participate.

Throughout the initial interview process, members of the hiring committee are expected to maintain the
highest standards of professionalism and refrain from behavior that may distract or intimidate the
candidate. Interviewers and other members of the department are strongly discouraged from conducting
pre- or post-interview “interviews” on their own before or after a screening interview.

The campus visit

After the first round of interviews, the search committee or department generally decides to invite a short
list of candidates to campus for visits to continue the interviewing process. It is a good practice to inform
candidates who do not make it onto the shortlist as soon as possible, consistent with the progress of the
search. Each candidate on the short list should receive information on arranging for transportation and
accommodation. To avoid disadvantaging candidates with access to fewer resources, hiring departments
should pay the travel expenses for candidates’ campus visit, and should attempt to arrange the purchase of
tickets and accommodation in such a way that the candidates will not have to bear the cost of travel while
awaiting reimbursement. When a hiring department does not have funds to pay for candidate travel for
campus visits, they should make this clear in advance and assist candidates in whatever other ways they can
with travel and lodging. It is a good practice for hiring departments to inform invitees in advance of how
many candidates they expect to invite, and what the likely timetable is for interviews and decision-making.

The hiring committee should provide candidates with a detailed itinerary and contact information in
advance of campus visits, and the itinerary should incorporate breaks to allow the candidate ample time to
meet personal needs and prepare for each stage of the interview. At all stages of the process, the
interviewing department should make reasonable accommodation for candidates with disabilities.
Accommodation for disabilities may include making sure that all interview-related activities take place in

Page 52 of 93
Section 5: Interviewing and hiring
accessible locations for candidates with mobility impairments, or providing large print materials or
recordings of printed materials for candidates with vision impairments.

SEE ALSO: ACCESSIBILITY AND ACCOMMODATION CHECKLIST

The campus visit is also a good time to provide candidates with—and make sure they have a chance to
review and discuss—written information about the department and the college or university, especially
information about tenure or rehiring timelines and review processes, leave for research or for family or
medical needs, healthcare and retirement benefits, housing, and dual-career hiring policies and resources.
Candidates may be, or feel they are, at a disadvantage if they must request such information themselves.
Candidates unable to travel to campus should be provided with a similar packet of materials, as well as a
chance to discuss its content.

Many departments include in the campus visit a teaching demonstration as well as a “job talk.” If a teaching
demonstration is required, candidates should be informed of this as early as possible, and given a
description of the nature of the class—e.g., the level and format of the course (introduction, intermediate, or
advanced; lecture, seminar, or discussion), a syllabus (if the demonstration is part of an ongoing course),
and information about the likely audience for the demonstration. Departments should ensure in advance
that accessibility standards are met uniformly for all candidates, and all candidates should be asked in
advance about any technical support they might need for their teaching demonstration.

A “job talk” may take various forms depending on the institution and its practices, and, since practices vary,
candidates should be informed as early as possible about the department’s practices and expectations (e.g.,
whether a copy of the talk is expected in advance, what the audience for the talk is likely to be, how time is
typically divided between presentation and discussion, what norms there may be about handling questions
and answers). And again, departments should ensure uniform accessibility in advance, as consult with
individual candidates about what technical support they might need for their talks.

While other components of the invitation process and campus visit may vary according to the nature of the
position or the interests of the candidates, candidates should be treated uniformly insofar as possible. This
applies to the initial communications with candidates and also to the opportunities afforded candidates
while they are on campus, e.g., meeting with faculty, students, or administrators. Prior to the candidates’
campus visits, departments should remind faculty, students, and staff of the importance of treating all
candidates for a given position in comparable ways. As in the initial interviews, thinking through questions
of structure in advance and providing a similar structure for all candidates is important, both for consistent
and relevant information-gathering about candidates and to reduce the chance of various forms of bias.

Dual-career families are becoming increasingly common in academia, and questions about dual careers
sometimes arise during a campus visit. Norms regarding dual careers are evolving; however, it is clear at
present that any initiative in providing information to departments about potential dual-careers issues lies
with the candidate—departments may not ask candidates any questions about dual careers or other forms
of family responsibility or needs for accessibility until after an official offer has been made. Departments can
and should provide candidates with information about campus resources for accommodating dual careers,
family responsibilities, or accessibility, but must provide all candidates with the same information. Chairs
typically have primary responsibility for providing such information, and should be sure that they are in a
position to answer questions with up-to-date information. A candidate who anticipates finding it difficult to

Page 53 of 93
Section 5: Interviewing and hiring
accept an offer without some arrangement for a spouse or partner may consider making this information
known early enough in the recruitment process to provide the department with time to seek to make
relevant arrangements, but this is a delicate issue and candidates should seek advice before doing so.

● For further discussion of dual careers, along with model guidelines for institutions, see the Clayman
Institute’s Dual-Career Research Report.
Before a campus visit is over, the candidate should be informed as fully as possible concerning how the
departmental search and deliberation will proceed from that point forward, and whom to contact in the
event of further questions or developments. Candidates should also have a clear idea of who will be
contacting them with information about the status of the search. Ideally, a single person—normally, the
department chair—should be responsible for all official communication with the candidate.

After the campus visit

Contact with candidates after the campus visit and prior to an offer of employment should be as consistent
as possible for all candidates. Candidates may wish to contact individual members of the department in
order to follow up on research suggestions, or to ask questions that that given faculty member may be best
suited to answer. Faculty who might wish to initiate post-interview contact with a candidate should
normally discuss the advisability of initiating such contact with the official contact person for the search,
and inform that person whether contact has taken place. Since informal contact with faculty might occur at
any point in the recruitment process, it is a good practice to remind all faculty at the start of the recruitment
process of the “ground rules” for conversations with candidates. Regardless of who initiates post-interview
contact, information gained during these post-interview conversations should be considered private, and
not introduced into the hiring process without the express consent of the candidate and clearance with the
official contact person for the search.

Departments should keep candidates apprised of the progress of a search, and should inform candidates
promptly if they have been eliminated from the search. Once the department has made an offer and the offer
has been accepted, all candidates should be informed that the search is over.

SEE ALSO: SECTION 5, APPENDIX C: GUIDE TO ACCEPTABLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Offers of employment6
Deadlines for responses to offers
The circumstances under which offers are made are so various that no rule will cover all cases, but norms of
professional courtesy suggest the following practices, intended to enable employers and prospective
employees to be cognizant of one another's legitimate concerns. Employers are properly concerned about
their ability to plan for the contingency of making another offer in a timely fashion should an existing offer
be turned down. Prospective employees are properly concerned to have reasonably clear information about
which offers they are actually going to receive as they make an important career decision.

Such legitimate concerns, however, have the potential to set a hiring department and the candidate to whom
they have made an offer at cross-purposes, and so it is important for hiring departments and prospective
employees to be able to discuss frankly and with mutual regard their concerns in order to arrive at a
mutually agreeable deadline for a response from the candidate. In normal circumstances a prospective

6 Adapted from the APA Statement on Offers of Employment

Page 54 of 93
Section 5: Interviewing and hiring
employee should have at least two weeks for consideration of a written offer from a properly authorized
administrative officer. In accordance with the APA Statement on the Job Market Calendar, we recommend
that “responses to offers of a position whose duties begin in the succeeding fall should not be required
before February 1.” When an employer is unable to honor these conditions, the prospective employee
should be given an explanation of the special circumstances that warrant insistence on an earlier decision.
By the same token, a prospective employee should not delay unnecessarily in responding to an offer once it
has been made. When a prospective employee requests more time to consider an offer than the employer is
inclined to give, a candid statement of the reasons for the request is appropriate.

Oral offers and acceptances

It is important to note that there are circumstances in which oral contracts are legally binding—the absence
of a written offer letter or written acceptance need not mean that a contract is not enforceable. Two types of
situations involving oral offers or acceptances have in the past proven especially problematic.

In the first type of situation, a prospective employee who has received what appears to be a firm oral job
offer forgoes other opportunities only to learn subsequently that the prospective employer has no job to
offer—for example, because the position does not receive final administrative approval. In order to prevent
misunderstandings on this score, the prospective employer should make very clear to the prospective
employee whatever contingencies might be involved in a position and whether a formal offer is in fact being
extended by the oral communication. If a prospective employer is only in a position to say that a formal offer
will be forthcoming provided that a departmental recommendation receives administrative approval, and
can only predict such approval but not guarantee it, the prospective employee should be informed explicitly
of this. In the second type of situation, a formal offer has been orally made and accepted and the prospective
employee subsequently receives another offer and wants to accept it. In such a case, the candidate is under a
strong prima facie obligation to respect the initial oral acceptance, and only very weighty reasons can offset
this.

Cases of both types can present legal and moral problems that require specific solutions, but awareness of
the seriousness of oral agreements and observance of norms of professionalism, transparency, and trust by
all parties can reduce the chance of either type of situation arising.

Page 55 of 93
Section 5: Interviewing and hiring
 Section 5, Appendix A: Some
recommended practices for phone and
internet interviews
It has now become the predominant practice to conduct first-round interviews using video conferencing
software or conference calls. Here are some recommended practices for conducting such interviews.

In general, electronic interviews should adhere to the guidelines for in-person interviews whenever this is
practicable, including the uniform treatment of candidates. Use of electronic interviews can introduce some
inequalities in treatment, for example, if special circumstances result in hiring departments using a mixture
of in-person and electronic interviews. In such cases, search committees and hiring departments need to be
aware of the potential advantages or disadvantages individual candidates may receive from the differences
between in-person and electronic interviews. Similarly, both placing and hiring departments should be
aware of advantages or disadvantages that can arise in electronic interviews when candidates have
differential access to technical resources. Placing departments should seek to make available to candidates
appropriate facilities for electronic interviewing, and inform candidates about special facilities their
institution may have for this purpose. Some departments or institutions may lack such resources, however,
and candidates may be traveling or living away from their home institution. In such cases, placing or hiring
departments may wish to consider providing candidates with funds to use appropriate commercial
teleconferencing or video conferencing facilities so that candidates with limited personal resources are not
disadvantaged. Special measures may need to be taken to ensure equal accessibility for candidates with
disabilities, and the availability of such accommodations should be indicated to all candidates as a matter of
routine so that the burden of initiating discussion of accommodation is not placed on the candidate.

Interviewing institutions and individual interviewers

• Arrange video and phone interviews using the same procedures one would use in arranging an in-
person interview.
o Inform the candidate about what to expect in the interview, e.g., the approximate length and
structure of the interview, and who is likely to be present. Allow enough time between your
invitation and the actual interview for the candidate to prepare and to make whatever
technical arrangements might be needed.
o Ensure that technological assistance at your institution is available during interviews.
Interviews should be conducted in a professional manner with as few difficulties as possible.
Inadequate connectivity or lack of technological assistance in an interview can distract a
committee or the candidate and increase whatever anxiety is associated with the interview.
Similarly, both the candidate and the search committee should have one another’s contact
information in case a problem with connectivity or audio or video quality arises.
o Departments are encouraged to inquire with their institution’s technical staff concerning the
forms of teleconferencing or videoconferencing with which they have had the best
experience, and to consult in advance with candidates concerning the electronic resources

Page 56 of 93
Section 5, Appendix A: Some recommended practices for phone and internet interviews
 available resources available to them and make appropriate arrangements. Departments
may want to encourage candidates to use a headset or external microphone to avoid
feedback loops.
o It is a good practice to ask candidates to have a preliminary 5-minute trial run before the
actual interview to make sure that the candidate understands the operation of the
interviewing software and that communication is working smoothly in both directions.
Preferably this will be done by a department administrator rather than a member of the
interviewing committee. Whoever does the trail run should be aware that the same
restrictions on appropriate questions or mode of address apply during the test period as
during the interview itself.
• Arrange an appropriate location for the interview.
o Universities often have a room designated for internet video conferencing. The location
should be free of distractions and have a secure, wired internet connection.
o Test the space and the connection in advance.
o Make sure a telephone is available in case there is a problem with the video conference
connection.
o Make sure all interviewers are adequately informed about the limitations of the technology.
If use of the equipment is not clear, tell them how they ought to speak and direct their voices,
where they ought to look, etc. Also, let the interviewers know what the candidate can see and
hear, and any other information that may be appropriate.
o If the interview space is a classroom, consider whether additional microphones are needed.
• Allow ample time immediately before and after the scheduled interview.
o In addition to providing an opportunity for other recommended preparation for an
interview, time before the interview allows you to check that the technology is working
appropriately. Leaving some “buffer” time between interviews will help ensure that, in case
of technical difficulty, each candidate is still able to receive their full allotted time.
o Arrive at the interview location at least thirty minutes before the scheduled interview.
o At the end of the interview, ensure that all connections to the candidate have been
disconnected before beginning discussing of the interview or candidate.
• Ask questions with the same animation as an in-person interview, but keep in mind that there may
be a time-lag in the connection, depending upon the technology being used.
o Speak clearly, audibly, and at a reasonable pace. Be aware that if multiple individuals are
using the same connection, they will need to project their voices and avoid talking at the
same time.
o In telephone interviews with multiple interviewers, speakers should identify themselves
whenever speaking. This may also be helpful during video interviews, where the image may
not contain enough information to enable the candidate to keep track of who is speaking.
o Allow for pauses.

Page 57 of 93
Section 5, Appendix A: Some recommended practices for phone and internet interviews
Placement advice for candidates
● Placement directors at the candidate’s institution should consider giving candidates advice about
how best to arrange interviews, and should make them aware of whatever technical support may
available. Here are some suggested guidelines to give candidates:
● Plan well in advance for a suitable location for your interview. Inform your placement director that
the interview will take place, and inquire with the placement director or department about available
facilities for teleconferencing or video conferencing, or provisions for such services if you are away
from your home institution.
o Ask the interviewers how long you should expect the conversation to last so that you are
able to schedule the appropriate facilities.
o If no spaces are designated for interviews at your department or institution, ask if your
department can make available a suitable, quiet office for the duration of the interview. If
you do not have access to an appropriate space on campus, arrange such a space at your
home or the home of a colleague, or consider using commercial facilities that offer such
services.
o The space should be free of distraction. Think especially about the material that forms the
backdrop of your interview, and avoid objects that would convey personal information.
o For video interviews, a wired, high-speed connection is best. Check your webcam and
microphone well in advance of the interview and be sure you are familiar with their
operation.
o For telephone interviews, try to use a landline, which normally has better sound quality and
more reliable connectivity than a cell phone. If you must use a cell phone, make sure it has
ample battery life and the reception is excellent.
● Prepare for a video or phone interview in the same manner you would prepare for an in-person
interview.
o Know the college or university as well as the department that will be interviewing you.
o Ask the department for the names of those who will interview you.
o Anticipate what sorts of questions they might ask.
o Compile a list of possible questions that you could ask them if time permits. Have these
questions in mind or on hand for the actual interview.
o Be able to describe your current and future research in a succinct manner for a generalist
audience.
o Have your application materials and supplementary materials ready at hand in a non-
distracting form. Avoid clutter surrounding the computer.
o Dress as you would for an in-person interview. Video tends to skew bright colors, stripes,
etc., so avoid creating visual distraction by wearing solid, muted colors. Even in telephone
interviews, keep in mind that you will want to be in the frame of mind made possible by a
professional setting.

Page 58 of 93
Section 5, Appendix A: Some recommended practices for phone and internet interviews
 o It can be disconcerting for interviewers if the candidate appears to not be looking at them
during the interview. Experiment with lighting and camera angles to find a way to create an
image in which you will look most natural and be able to see the interviewers most clearly
without looking down. Practice looking into the camera.
o Check the internet connection, webcam, and microphone at the location and with the
equipment you will be using during your actual interview.
o Note that a headset or external microphone may be useful for avoiding feedback loops that
frequently occur when internal microphones are used.
o Make sure that the interviewing committee has an alternate phone number for reaching you
in case of technical difficulties and that you have a number for reaching them.
o Speak with your placement director about the possibility of arranging a mock interview of
the kind you will be having. This is also an opportunity to check to see if you have found a
satisfactory setting, lighting, camera angle, etc. for the interview.
o Request that the interviewing institution arrange for a 5-minute trial run to be sure that the
audioconferencing or videoconferencing software is understood, and communication is
smooth in both directions.
● During the interview, avoid distractions.
o Make sure any phone present in the room that is not being used in the interview is turned
off. If a cellphone is being used as a backup, turn down the ringer.
o For video interviews, close all other programs on your computer.
o Be aware that video and telephone interviews, even more than in-person interviews, invite
distraction for all parties. You can help alleviate this if you answer the questions clearly and
succinctly.

Placement officers and graduate programs

• Begin preparation for electronic interviewing well before the job market season, looking into
possible facilities and assessing available technology, making improvements if needed. Provide
potential job seekers with information about electronic interviewing, including these guidelines
from the APA.
• Advocate for the students on the market with your university. If there is currently no designated
space or support service for video and telephone interviews, lobby for this.
• Work with faculty and candidates to set up mock electronic interviews.
• For further discussion, see also the APA Guidance for Placing Departments and Best Practices for
Interviewing.

Page 59 of 93
Section 5, Appendix A: Some recommended practices for phone and internet interviews
 Section 5, Appendix B: Research on
interviewing
Most departments feel that there is value in first-round or screening interviews. They believe that they are
better able to ascertain the research potential or teaching effectiveness of a candidate through a face-to-face
interaction with the candidate, whether in person or electronically. Some also view the in-person first-round
interview as an opportunity to “sell” their department more effectively to prospective colleagues.

Other departments do not conduct first-round interviews, preferring instead to invest more time studying
the dossiers, and choosing a shortlist of candidates to bring to campus on that basis. Work in social
psychology has cast doubt on the usefulness of first-round interviews. The “interview illusion” refers to the
view that one can glean a great deal of useful information about a job candidate from a brief, unstructured
interview:

…the one-hour personal interview has virtually no validity for predicting job performance, yet
people often feel convinced after such interviews that they have a good idea of the candidate’s
attributes and how well the candidate would perform on the job. Indeed, such an inflated belief
in the certainty of knowledge obtained in the interview may cause people to overturn
completely (and wrongly) preconceptions of the candidate based on job recommendations that
probably do have some validity. (Nisbett and Ross 1980, 72)

Their diagnosis is that the vividness of interview data swamps the dull, but more reliable data provided in
the candidate’s dossier (Nisbett and Ross 1980, 290). One source of error is the tendency to place great
weight on the behavior of others while discounting one’s own similar behavior:

Interviewers often feel confident relying on interviewee’s behavior in order to infer more stable
internal states—such as passion, mental stability, or drive. In making such inferences,
interviewers pay attention not only to interviewee’s carefully composed replies but also to their
implicit or uncontrolled responses, such as nonverbal gestures, off-the-cuff remarks, or
unintended slips of the tongue. The very unintentional and unmonitored responses that people
view as meaningless in their own case, people often view as meaningful in the case of others.
(Pronin 2009, 17-18)

There is compelling evidence that impressions from unstructured interviews are poor predictors of eventual
job performance, and that such interviews may actually undermine the quality and fairness of interviewers’
judgments (Dana et al. 2013). A caveat: much of this evidence is gathered from interview settings not
specific to academia.

Though research consistently shows that unstructured interviews tend to provide less reliable predictions
of job performance than more structured interviews, there remain open questions concerning the types of
structure that are most appropriate for a given interview type (Macan 2009; Hartwell et al. 2019). What is
meant by “structured” is not always clear, but the most common understanding involves making the

Page 60 of 93
Section 5, Appendix B: Research on interviewing
interview procedure as uniform across candidates as possible. 7 For example, candidates can be asked the
same questions and, insofar as possible, in the same order. 8 Since it is possible the wording of the questions
plays a biasing role, care should be taken to make sure that the questions are presented in essentially the
same way for all the candidates. Structure also can include settling upon relevant criteria in advance, making
sure the interview covers all of these criteria, and using a consistent rating scale to evaluate interviewees’
performance or promise (see Macan 2009, 206). For example, skills-based interview questions can be
evidentially relevant, especially with respect to teaching. While there is evidence that highly structured
interviews “can minimize or eliminate potential bias with respect to demographic similarity between
applicants and interviewers” (McCarthy et al. 2010, 351), one should be cautious in translating this evidence
into actual interviewing practice, especially since academic interviews typically need to range over many
dimensions, and research projects and teaching experience may vary considerably, calling for different lines
of questioning and follow-up. Interview formats that fall between the two extremes, e.g., semi-structured
interviews, in which the interview experience is kept as consistent as possible between candidates, but
allowance is made for questions that permit “probing” or following up on a given response, may be
appropriate.

However, it should also be recognized that reliance upon dossiers alone might not diminish certain forms of
bias. In a well-known study involving 238 psychologists, the psychologists—118 were male, 120 were
female—were asked to evaluate curricula vitae that had been randomly given either a stereotypically male
name or a stereotypically female name. CVs bearing a male name received higher evaluations than those
bearing a female name, though the CVs were otherwise identical (Steinpreis et al. 1999). In another study,
applicants with “White-sounding” names received 50 percent more callbacks after a resume review than
applicants with “African-American-sounding” names (Bertrand and Mullainathan 2004). To minimize the
role implicit bias plays in reviewing dossiers, some recommend that files be anonymized prior to review.
This may involve using a multi-step screening process. For example, first, personnel not involved in the
evaluation process can anonymize CVs, writing samples, teaching, and research statements, and a
preliminary assessment of these documents can be used to narrow the pool; letters of recommendation,
which tend to contain identifying information it would be difficult to remove, are read only after this
narrowing has occurred.

One worry about first-round face-to-face interviews is that such forms of anonymizing are usually
impossible. Of course, anonymity is impossible at the point of campus visits, but there is value in reducing
bias in the selection of those who come to campus. Some evidence suggests that biases can be partially
mitigated by the passage of time. Kunda and Spencer report that initially activated stereotypes can fade in as
little as 15 minutes of exposure: “As time unfolds, one’s attention shifts from the person’s category
membership to individuating information or to the demands of the task at hand” (Kunda and Spencer 2003,
528). This suggests that retaining the 45-minute norm for face-to-face interviews may be helpful, even when
the interviews are electronic; this likewise permits the coverage of job-related criteria to be more thorough
and detailed, which may also help counter certain kinds of bias. However, Kunda and Spencer also report
that stereotypes can reassert themselves at any point throughout an interaction, especially if the purpose of
the interaction is to determine “attributes or likely behavior” of the other, as interviews typically do. They

7 See Macan (2009) and Levishina et al. (2014) for reviews of some of the different ways “structured” is understood in
the research literature.
8 See, for example, Structured Interviews: A Practical Guide, US Office of Personnel Management, September 2008.

Page 61 of 93
Section 5, Appendix B: Research on interviewing
cite a set of studies in which the study participants engaged in structured interviews with a White or an
Asian confederate. The interview consisted in “stereotype-irrelevant” questions:

Following 10–15 [minutes] of such interaction, half of the participants were given the goal of
forming an impression of their interaction partner’s personality and likely career choice.
Controls were given, instead, the goal of elaborating on the contents of their discussion. As may
be expected from the finding that stereotype activation can dissipate by the end of such a
lengthy encounter (Kunda et al. 2002), controls interacting with an Asian confederate showed
no activation of the Asian stereotype. In contrast, participants given the task of forming an
impression of their Asian partner did activate the Asian stereotype. Most likely, they recruited
the stereotype so as to inform their impressions of this person. (Kunda and Spencer 2003, 529)

This evidence indicates that attention to the problem of counteracting stereotypes is required even in longer
interviews and campus visits (see Kunda and Spencer 2003 for further discussion).

SEE ALSO: SECTION 2: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF BIAS AND DISCRIMINATION

There are several concerns about eliminating first-round interviews. They may enable the search committee
to fill gaps in information left by the dossiers, and that would help identify an evident lack of fit between the
candidate and the job criteria. This may be especially important for departments with very limited
resources for bringing candidates to campus. Another concern is that such interviews can afford job
candidates valuable information about the hiring department and worthwhile feedback on their work and
on how they are faring on the job market. For example, candidates may use the number of first-round
interviews they receive as a source of information about how well their dossiers are being perceived,
whether or not they finally obtain a job in a given job cycle. One way departments could address this
problem is by having a policy of informing candidates when they have made a long-list, or of requesting
additional material from candidates who are still in contention at a certain point in the hiring process.

Other resources
The Implicit Bias & Philosophy Project website has several useful reading lists.
http://www.biasproject.org/

Sources
Bertrand, M., and S. Mullainathan. “Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?” The American
Economic Review 94 (2004): 991–1031.
Dana, J., Robyn D., and N. Peterson. “Belief in the Unstructured Interview: The Persistence of an Illusion.” Judgment and
Decision Making 8 (September 2013): 512–20.
Hartwell, C.J., C.D. Johnson, and R.A. Posthuma. “Are We Asking the Right Questions? Predictive Validity Comparison of
Four Structured Interview Question Types.” Journal of Business Research 100 (2019): 122–29.
Kunda, Z., and S.J. Spencer. “When Do Stereotypes Come to Mind and When Do They Color Judgment? A Goal-Based
Theoretical Framework for Stereotype Activation and Application.” Psychological Bulletin 129 (2003): 522–44.
Levishina, J., C.J. Hartwell, F.P. Morgeson, and M.A. Campion. “The Structured Employment Interview: Narrative and
Quantitative Review of the Research Literature.” Personnel Psychology 67 (2014): 241–93.
Macan, T. “The Employment Interview: A Review of Current Studies and Direction for Future Research.” Human
Resource Management Review 19 (2009): 203–18.

Page 62 of 93
Section 5, Appendix B: Research on interviewing
McCarthy, J.M., C.H. Van Iddekinge, and M.A. Campion. “Are Highly Structured Job Interviews Resistant to Demographic
Similarity Effects?” Personnel Psychology 63 (2010): 351.
Nisbett, R., and L. Ross. Human Inferences: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Prenctice-Hall, Inc., 1980.
Pronin, E.. “The Introspection Illusion.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 41 (2009): 17-18.
Moss-Racusin, C.A., et al. “Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students.” Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109 (2012): 16474–79.
Steinpries, R.E., K.A. Anders, and D. Ritzke. “The Impact of Gender on the Review of the Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants
and Tenure Candidates: A National Empirical Study.” Sex Roles 41 (1999): 509–28.

Page 63 of 93
Section 5, Appendix B: Research on interviewing
 Section 5, Appendix C: Guidelines for
interview questions
Many universities have formulated guidelines for interviewing candidates that are in accordance with
university and federal regulations concerning Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity and Non-
Discrimination. It is essential for all members of a search committee to be aware of these guidelines and
follow them in both spirit and letter—for example, information that should not be requested explicitly
should not be asked about indirectly, either. Note that if one candidate is asked a question about potentially
conflicting responsibilities, needs for accessibility, criminal record, etc., the same question must be asked of
all candidates. The following list of acceptable questions is generic, and addressed to public institutions and
institutions receiving government grants (it is drawn, with modifications, from the Harvard Faculty
Development and Diversity guidelines. Exceptions exist in special cases—e.g., regarding whether religious
institutions may ask questions about religious affiliation—though guidelines related to race, ethnicity,
gender, disability, national origin, and age still apply (see the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
statement). Recently institutions have begun promulgating guidelines with respect to pronouns; be sure
that you understand and follow relevant guidelines in your interviewing practices. Once again, it is
important that all candidates be treated equally.

While some questions are unacceptable, it is permissible for departments to ask candidates to submit a
statement describing how the candidate could contribute to departmental or institutional initiatives to
promote diversity. Candidates should have full discretion in determining how to respond to such requests.

Subject What may be asked What may NOT be asked

Name • What is your name? Are there nicknames or • Birth name if name has legally
initials that we would need to know to changed, e.g., at marriage.
check your work and educational record? • Inquiries about the name that
would seek to elicit information
about the candidate’s ancestry or
descent.

Age • If hired, can you offer proof that you are at • How old are you?
least 18 years of age? • What is your birthdate?
• Questions about the applicant’s career
stage.

Sex or Gender • No questions • Are you male, female,

transitioning, transgendered?

Sexual • No questions • What is your sexual orientation?

orientation • Are you gay?

Page 64 of 93
Section 5, Appendix C: Guidelines for interview questions
 Subject What may be asked What may NOT be asked

Religion • No questions. (You may inquire about • What is your religion?

availability for weekend work.) • Which church do you attend?
• What are your religious
holidays?

Birthplace • No questions • Where are you (or is your family)

originally from?

National • No questions • Do you consider yourself Latinx?

Origin / Race

Citizenship • If hired, can you show proof of your • Are you a US citizen?
eligibility to work in the US? • Where were you born?
• Are you fluent in any languages other than
English? (You may ask this question only as
it relates to the job being sought.)

Language • What languages do you read fluently? Write • Inquiries into how the applicant
fluently? Speak fluently? acquired the ability to read,
write, or speak a foreign
language.

Education • Inquiries into the academic, vocational, or • Questions about education

professional education of the candidate designed to determine how old
the applicant is.

Disability or • If appropriate accommodations are • Are you disabled?

medical available—regardless of the extent to • What is the nature or severity of
history which you might use them—are you able to your disability?
perform the essential functions of this job? • Have you ever received workers’
Provide the position description so that the compensation?
applicant can give an informed answer.
• Do you have HIV/AIDS?
• Have you ever been treated for
drug abuse or alcoholism?

Page 65 of 93
Section 5, Appendix C: Guidelines for interview questions
 Subject What may be asked What may NOT be asked

Marital / • Do you have any responsibilities that • Are you married?

Family Status conflict with job attendance or travel • What is your spouse’s name?
requirements? • What is your maiden name?
• Do you have any children?
• Are you pregnant?
• What are your childcare
arrangements?
• Are you related to the
philosopher __________?

Residence • What is your address? • Do you own or rent your home?

• Who resides with you?

Military • Candidate’s work experience, including • Inquiry into an applicant’s type

names and addresses of previous of military discharge.
employers, dates of employment, reasons
for leaving

Criminal • Have you ever been convicted of a crime? • Have you ever been arrested?
record (You must state that a conviction will be
considered only as it relates to fitness to
perform the job being sought.)

Memberships • Are you a member of any professional • Inquiry into applicant’s

societies or organizations? (Exclude membership in unions or
inquiries into organizations the name or nonprofessional organizations
character of which indicates the race, creed, (e.g., clubs, lodges, etc.).
color, or national origin of its members.)

Page 66 of 93
Section 5, Appendix C: Guidelines for interview questions
 Section 5, Appendix D: Sample
candidate evaluation sheet
This evaluation sheet is a general template; search committees should feel free to modify this for their own
purposes. These questions are designed for assistant/associate professor faculty searches; committees may
want to modify some of the language used for non-tenure-track and senior tenured faculty searches.

Candidate’s Name:
Please indicate which of the following are true for you (check all that apply):
□ Read candidate’s CV
□ Read candidate’s scholarship
□ Attended meal with candidate
□ Read candidate’s letters of recommendation
□ Attended candidate’s job talk
□ Met with candidate
□ Other (please explain): _____________________________________
Please comment on the candidate’s scholarship (noting the basis of your assessment):

Please comment on the candidate’s teaching ability (noting the basis of your assessment):

Please rate the candidate on each of the following:

Unable
Excellent Good Neutral Fair Poor
to judge
Potential for (evidence of) scholarly impact
Potential for (evidence of) research productivity
Potential for (evidence of) research funding
Potential for (evidence of) collaboration
Relationship to the department’s priorities
Ability to positively contribute to department climate
Potential (demonstrated ability) to attract and
supervise graduate students
Potential (demonstrated ability) to teach and supervise
undergraduates
Potential (demonstrated ability) to attract, work with,
and teach diverse students
Potential (demonstrated ability) to be a conscientious
department/school community member

Page 67 of 93
Section 5, Appendix D: Sample candidate evaluation sheet
Section 6: Social events and activities
Social activities, even those of an informal kind, such as clubs, discussion groups, sports teams, and social
outreach programs, can help to make a department a community. At the same time, they pose challenges
along multiple dimensions, and attention to these considerations can help avert some of the most serious
problems a philosophical community can face.

Social activities and inclusivity

While departments may be mindful of questions of inclusion for official events, informal activities by their
nature tend to be organized in a decentralized way, and departments, faculty, or students may not be aware
that certain groups of individuals are informally excluded by the nature of the activities, lack of funds, or
living arrangements. Therefore, it is important that departments make an effort to review on a regular basis
what kinds of informal activities are available to students and faculty, ask whether the range of activities
provides everyone with some opportunity to take part, and encourage faculty and students to be attentive to
these considerations when planning or taking part in such activities. This section discusses various
dimensions of social events that departments may wish to consider.

Social events and alcohol

It is often suggested that professional philosophy in the English-speaking world has a “drinking culture.”
Whether or not this is the case, it is certainly true that many departments sponsor multiple kinds of events
in the course of the academic year involving faculty and students where alcohol is served. And in any
environment where alcohol is served, drinking can lead to behavior that is problematic in a wide range of
ways, from offensive or harassing conduct to behavior that is aggressive, dangerous, or illegal. Events
involving philosophers are no exception.

Recommended practices in the area of social events and alcohol concern not only mitigating the possibility
of unprofessional or dangerous behavior, but enhancing inclusiveness. Faculty and students may choose not
to drink or to drink very little for a variety of reasons—it might be a personal matter, have a religious basis,
be connected with a health issue (that the individual may not wish to make public), or be a question of
prudence (for example, if they plan to drive following the event). Making an effort to prevent such
individuals from being marginalized by the choice of venue or character of an event is important for creating
an open, diverse departmental culture. Those new to the department or lacking in seniority can be under
special pressure to drink more than they would like to in order to fit in, while others can come to feel that
not participating in drinking activities could limit their access to socializing, or to meeting and conversing
with colleagues or departmental visitors. At the most extreme, such considerations could give rise to the
worry that philosophy as a professional pursuit is not for them.

Recognizing the important role that departments can play in shaping their own culture, the following
guidelines are suggested for social events where alcohol is available to be consumed. In this context, the
phrase “social events” refers to events that officially fall under departmental auspices. This would include
departmental receptions for new or retiring faculty and guest speakers, as well as departmentally
sponsored picnics, parties, dinners, or other kinds of social gatherings. These guidelines are not meant to
cover non-departmentally funded parties at the home of a member of the department, nor the informal
socializing over alcohol that occurs when a group of students on campus become involved in philosophical

Page 68 of 93
Section 6: Social events and activities
conversation and decide to continue the conversation at a nearby bar. Informal socializing among faculty
and students at a bar following an evening seminar or a class presents a special case; here too good practices
can be identified.

• Departments planning to hold social events at which alcohol will be served should thoroughly
familiarize themselves with relevant institutional policies and adhere to these policies in organizing and
holding the event.
• Departments should take steps, as best they can, to ensure that for social events involving alcohol,
drinking itself does not appear to be the focal point of the event. (An example of an event that would
appear to “feature” alcohol would be a departmental event that will take place at a bar, or a
departmental picnic at which a truck from a local brewery would be present.)
• Non-alcoholic beverages should be available at all social events involving alcohol; such beverages should
be as centrally and readily available as those containing alcohol, and those who choose not to drink
alcohol should not be made conspicuous or marginalized.
• Departments should discuss the value of promoting drinking in moderation at departmental social
events. Steps that could be taken include limiting the number of drinks per person through the
distribution of drink tickets, limiting the length of the event, and limiting the amount of alcohol served.
• Some institutions have taken the step of requiring that, at events where alcohol is served, a member of
the department with training in good practices with regard to alcohol must be present. Such individuals
can also be designated as persons to whom any concerns about alcohol-related behavior at the event
could be communicated.
• In situations where instructors (including graduate teaching assistants) and students decide to adjourn
to an informal location following a class or seminar, instructors should be aware that the choice of a bar
as the locale is one of several options. At a minimum, before a bar is chosen, instructors should ensure
that all students are above drinking age. But if bars are habitually chosen, instructors should be aware
that this could have a discouraging and marginalizing effect on students who feel uncomfortable about
going to bars or who for any reason prefer or need not to drink alcohol. Such informal interactions are
an important part of the educational experience, and care should be taken so that students do not feel
excluded from them. Varying the venue for such post-class socializing, e.g., by going to a coffee shop or
café, can enhance inclusivity.

Accessibility of social events, conferences, and other meetings

Philosophy departments today, and their members, host a large range of different events: public lectures,
conferences, colloquia, workshops, forums, and club meetings, among others. It is important to ask whether
adequate measures have been taken in the planning of such events to make them accessible to those who
might have limited mobility or disabilities.

Clearly, it will be a matter of judgment which concerns about accessibility should be taken into account for a
given kind of event. To help members and departments think about the spectrum of issues and
instrumentalities in providing accommodation, we are reproducing here, with minor alterations, an
accessibility and accommodation checklist, assembled by Kelsey Borrowman, in her role as editorial

Page 69 of 93
Section 6: Social events and activities
assistant for Hypatia, in conjunction with the Hypatia/APA Committee on the Status of Women conference at
Villanova University in 2015. 9

Accessibility and accommodation checklist

The following checklist is tailored to larger conferences with open submissions, but can be adapted to
thematic conferences, smaller workshops, etc., as appropriate:

• Consult a member of the APA Committee on Inclusiveness in the Profession, or someone familiar
with and working on disability issues.
• Consider inviting disabled philosophers to contribute a paper or panel.
• Consider including disability among the areas in which submissions are invited.
• Put in the conference announcement information about the accommodations you will be able to
provide, the accessibility of parking and the locale, and list a contact person for questions of access.
This person should have sufficient information and authority to coordinate disability services for the
meeting.
• In choosing a venue for the conference, determine the facility’s ability to accommodate accessibility
issues. This includes restrooms, meeting areas, coffee and lounge facilities, dining areas, etc.
Accessibility should be convenient and, if access is difficult, conference staff should be available to
assist. (See below for some more specific questions to ask and recommendations.)
• On the conference pre-registration form, ask what accommodations the participant will require—
these might include conference materials in alternative formats, such as large print, Braille, or on
tape or disk; sign language interpreters; ramps for getting on and off platforms; designated
“handicapped” parking; and so on. If a requested service cannot be provided, it is important to call
the registrant with the disability as soon as possible to explain the situation and attempt to work out
some alternative accommodation.
• Collect as early as possible information about any relevant dietary restrictions of conference
participants (vegetarian, vegan, lactose or gluten-intolerant, kosher, halal, allergies, alcohol, etc.).
• Before the conference or meeting, arrange for event staff and volunteers to have an orientation
session that deals with how they can best help individuals with disabilities—this is, indeed, an
opportunity for general learning made concrete. Staff from the Office of Disability Services at your
institution or volunteers with disabilities can help you conduct these orientations. Be sure that you
consider the full range of disabilities—visual or hearing impairments, mobility impairments, needs
for physical assistance, learning disabilities, and so on—keeping in mind that some disabilities may
be hidden. Review the collateral as well as main activities of the meeting and ask how they may all
be made accessible to all who attend. Here are some more specific recommendations that should
figure in conference planning:

9This checklist is a work in progress, and we welcome collaborative contributions to it. The recommendations listed
here are not in any particular order and some are intentionally repeated. It includes wording from and information
provided by the listed sources. Those with recommendations or suggestions of any kind are invited to contact the APA
at [email protected].

Page 70 of 93
Section 6: Social events and activities
 o At conference registration, make someone available who can address questions about
accommodations and provide relevant information, and provide the name of someone who
will be at the conference to be contacted should further questions or needs arise; ensure that
a registration table is available at a height appropriate for attendees using wheelchairs,
scooters, and other mobility aids (34” is recommended).
o If food is served during the conference, try to ensure that a range of foods will be available
whenever food is served, and that food is properly labeled for dietary restrictions, allergies,
etc. For food served by a wait staff, be sure that you have made the wait staff aware of any
dietary restrictions, and ask that they be able to respond to questions about the ingredients
of the food they are serving.
o If you are planning a reception or buffet-style meal during or after the meeting, ask
participants with disabilities if they will need assistance; assign staff to help at breaks or
meals.

Some general planning considerations

• When budgeting for meeting or conferences, include accommodations for people with disabilities as
a budget item. If you need to get an idea of costs, speak to the Office of Disability Services or others
on your campus who have already planned events using accessibility accommodations.
• Consider offering a free or reduced registration rate for a companion assisting an attendee with a
disability.
• Consult with the Office of Disability Services or other units to identify individuals who would be
willing to volunteer as readers, guides, and personal assistants, or perform other functions related to
accommodating individuals with disabilities. Be sure that these volunteers have had training or
experience for working with people with disabilities, and include them in any staff orientation.
• Consider putting together a group of volunteers as a Digital Access Facilitation Team (such as the
one at the Society for Disability Studies conference), who will be responsible for consistently and
comprehensively live-tweeting the entire conference as a way of collaboratively increasing the
accessibility of the meeting or conference.
o Consider offering these volunteers a free or reduced rate in recognition of the labor
necessary to produce such access.
Please note that there is an ongoing discussion about the use of tweeting and other forms of
recording as potentially undermining a safe space for discussing sensitive and often difficult
experiences that can arise within contexts engaging topics like race or racialization, sexuality,
gender, and disability. Obtain permission from speakers in advance before recording,
transcribing, or tweeting, and, if permission is granted, inform audiences at the outset of
sessions that presentations and discussions will be live-tweeted. This allows individuals to use
their own discretion about what to say or withhold.
• Arrange for good internet connections when needed.
• The internet can be used to provide alternative formats of materials during presentations—for
example, allowing people using screen readers or other assistive technologies to follow along with
an online version of your displayed material. For remote CART (Communication Access Realtime

Page 71 of 93
Section 6: Social events and activities
 Translation), you will need a connection that is reliable and has sufficient bandwidth for transferring
audio.
• Have a designated, accessible quiet room, especially if the participants are not staying in the same
location as the conference or meeting. This is helpful for a range of disabilities and impairments
including, but not limited to, sensory processing disorder, chronic fatigue, and any participant who
needs access to a safe and private space for medication, injection, or nursing.
• Where applicable, make sure you make available a list of adaptive and public transportation,
including cabs, vans, and city buses, if any, and of volunteers to give people rides to lodging and
other event locations.
• Consider providing an accessibility guide, which includes contacts, information for the conference or
meeting itself, as well as accessible local eateries and other points of interest. If you do not put
together a physical accessibility guide, make sure that your contact person has this information
available.
Planning for possible emergencies
• In the event of an emergency, are there both auditory and visual alarms?
• Do you have an evacuation plan that addresses the evacuation of persons with disabilities?
• Are trained staff available familiar with these evacuation procedures?
More specific recommendations
An inquiry can be made to meeting facilities requesting confirmation of the answers to most of these
questions, but some require special attention from conference organizers.

Work together with the campus disability office, who will know how to evaluate the facilities in question.
Also, keep a record of various facilities and their accessibility (this could be kept with the disability office or
in the office that plans meetings and conferences). When in doubt, walk through the facility with an
individual knowledgeable about access issues.

Venue
• Is the path to the building accessible?
• Is there a specific entry that is accessible?
• If the main entrance has steps, does it also have a railing?
• If there is not an automatic door opener, can the door be easily opened with one hand?
• Is there an accessible washroom in the building (see also “Washrooms,” below)? Where is it located?
• Is the room/theater accessible? Are the doors wide enough for someone in a wheelchair or scooter
to get through?
• Are there seats or spaces allotted for individuals in wheelchairs or those who need to sit close to the
front to lip-read, hear, or see?
• Where would someone with a service animal sit?
• Is there someone assigned to guide attendees to the correct accessible location?

Page 72 of 93
Section 6: Social events and activities
 • If there are additional events, such as an outside event or social hour, is there seating available for
people who cannot stand for long periods of time?
• How easy is the terrain to negotiate? Can a person in a power wheelchair or with crutches easily
navigate it?
• Are there any physical dangers to a person with a visual impairment?
• If there is an elevated stage, can those using mobility aids access the stage?
• Are all parts of the venue smoke free and free of strong scents, e.g., fresh paint or floor varnish?

Signage
• Are large, clear letters and plain language used on signs directing people to specific areas? Are they
free from glare?
• Are event personnel aware of stair-free pathways to the event?
• Are the areas of travel and the display areas adequately lit?
• Is there enough room for those in wheelchairs to safely pass one another? (72” is recommended.)
• If the main entrance isn’t accessible, are there signs directing people to the accessible entrance?

Washrooms
• Are the floors slip-resistant and glare-free?
• Are changes in floor level (i.e., stairs, ramps, escalators) marked with a textured edge and color
contrasting?
• Is there an accessible washroom? If not, an accessible portable toilet should be made available in an
appropriate location.
• Are large, clear letters, understandable pictures/symbols, and Braille used on the signs identifying
the accessible washroom(s)?
• Do event personnel know where the accessible washrooms are located?
• Do the doors to the washroom and the stall have clearances that allow a wheelchair to pass through
and the stall door to be closed? (37.5” is recommended.)
• Can the stall door be closed and locked with one hand?
• Are grab bars in place on the wall closest to the toilet?
• Can the toilet paper dispenser be easily reached?
• Is there adequate leg clearance under the lavatory counter for those in wheelchairs to wash their
hands?
• Will those using wheelchairs or scooters be able to easily reach the paper towel dispensers or hand
dryers?
• Are there shelves or other projections that could be hazards for those with a visual disability?
• Do urinals have grab bars installed on each side?

Page 73 of 93
Section 6: Social events and activities
 Communications
• Have you arranged for an amplified audio system complete with microphones and stands? Are the
stands adjustable?
• Are handouts or other printed materials available in large print, Braille, or electronic format if
requested?
• Are podium heights adjustable to meet the needs of different speakers?
• Can microphone heights be adjusted?
• Have you scheduled sufficient breaks during the day?

Access for individuals who are deaf or hearing impaired

• According to the Americans with Disabilities Act, all meetings and conferences must be accessible to
individuals with hearing impairments. Therefore, provisions must be made for people who are deaf
or have reduced hearing.
• Make sure in advance that assistive listening devices are available for those using hearing aids or
needing sound amplification and that you know how to obtain them. Usually, the Office of Disability
Services at your institution has access to such equipment and can explain how to use the equipment
or connect you with service personnel who will do so. Make sure that service personnel will be on
call if the equipment is not functioning during the times of the meeting.
• If requested, the host campus must provide for a sign language or other interpreter for hearing
impaired or deaf individuals. You should make sure that such services are available without cost, or
that your conference budget plans for this potential expense. Again, the disability services office can
provide you with guidance and with names of qualified interpreters should they be required.
• You may also need to provide note-takers for some individuals. This is a legitimate accommodation
request and such service can often be provided by the disability services office or by recruiting
volunteers at meeting sessions or from the meeting staff who are able to carry out this task.

Access for individuals with visual impairments

• Ask for information on the conference registration form concerning whether the registrant will need
for conference materials to be available in large print, audio recording, digital format, or Braille—
where the choice of format is determined by the registrant’s preferred mode of communication. Your
budget should include this as a possible expense.
• Identify one or more individuals to serve as guides and/or readers for visually impaired attendees,
making sure they have access to proper training. The guides should be prepared to take an attendee
to a specific workshop, to the washroom, or to lounges and dining areas, and may be asked to stay
with the attendee or to return when the activity has been completed, depending on the attendee’s
needs. Guides may also be asked to orient an attendee to the meeting facilities so that the attendee
can travel about independently. Readers may be asked to read from the printed meeting program,
handouts, session evaluation forms, or other print materials, if these have not been made available
to the participant in another requested format.
• Someone at the registration desk should be prepared to read items for an attendee or to assist them
in filling out evaluations and other forms. If you have more than one workshop, be sure that the

Page 74 of 93
Section 6: Social events and activities
 workshop coordinators are prepared to help an attendee with a visual impairment fill out the
workshop evaluation form at the end of the session.
• Make a service animal relief area available to attendees.

Access for individuals with learning and other hidden disabilities

• Individuals with learning disabilities may also request readers, note-takers, or guides. These
requests are legitimate and should be honored.
• If possible, have an area set aside so that individuals with disabilities such as diabetes, heart
conditions, asthma, and arthritis can have a place to rest. This rest area may serve multiple
purposes, giving an attendee a quiet place to rest, read information, or fill out evaluations.
• You are not responsible for giving an individual medication, but you should know how to get in
touch with medical personnel if necessary. Keep in mind that all medical information about
individuals must be kept confidential.
• As before, make sure you have a list of both adaptive and public transportation, including cabs, vans,
and city buses, if these services are available, or of volunteers able to give people rides to hotels and
other event locations.

Additional resources
• APA’s Resources on Diversity and Inclusiveness

• Digital Access Facilitation Team, Society for Disability Studies

• Statement from APA members with disabilities on accessibility

• Recommendations for Making Presentations Accessible (University of Waterloo)

• How to Make Your Presentations Accessible to All (Web Accessibility Initiative)

• Accessibility Guidelines for Presentations (Society for Disability Studies)
• Composing Access (links to sources for making a presentation accessible and conference organizing
aimed at access)

• The Quiet Room by Susan Naomi Bernstein (on the importance of having a quiet, rest space)

• Sample Accessibility Guide (National Council of Teachers of English)

• Consider browsing the informative and ongoing #AcademicAbleism hashtag on Twitter

• PhDisabled – What It’s Like Doing Academia with Disability & Chronic Illness

Page 75 of 93
Section 6: Social events and activities
 Section 7: Communication
Effective communication plays an important role in maintaining a healthy departmental climate, and in
identifying problems and contending with them when they arise. This section offers examples of effective
practices within departments, programs, or other units to encourage open lines of communication across all
levels. (Here the focus is primarily upon communication to and among faculty and students, with only
occasional reference to staff; communication with and among staff is a topic meriting separate discussion.)

Communication across levels

It is useful for departments to think about the goals that they are trying to achieve in communication.
Communicative practices within a department can help or hinder transparency, cooperation, and
inclusiveness. Many questions departments face concerning personnel require some degree of
confidentiality, but seeking insofar as possible to create a climate of transparency and openness can help
faculty and students understand the processes, constraints, and reasoning behind decisions, enabling them
to resolve certain corrosive forms of doubt and distrust. This openness also permits faculty and students to
formulate clearer questions about the appropriateness of procedures or decisions, fostering wider
discussion and more information sharing, contributing in the long run to better decision-making. Moreover,
transparency helps faculty and students to be aware of what is expected of them, and what they can expect
of one another. Such shared expectations allow students and faculty to hold themselves and each other
accountable for their actions and behavior, and greatly facilitates the work of staff. Members of a
department are also more likely to be willing to work together if they understand the department’s (and the
university’s or college’s) rules, and are confident that these rules will be followed fairly. Since many
decisions seriously affect the lives of students and faculty, the existence of standard procedures and clear
criteria, as well as appropriate processes for grievances or the appeal of decisions, is vital to maintaining
cooperativeness in a setting where the success of the department’s activities depends so heavily upon good
will. When some are perceived as receiving special treatment without adequate explanation, this tends to
break down general willingness to contribute to the department’s essential activities.

Inclusiveness, too, can be affected by communicative practices in the department. Inclusiveness matters
both for reasons of fairness and as a way of encouraging the most effective development of the capacities of
all members. As a result, inclusiveness can have a positive effect on rates of retention and satisfaction with
the program, both for faculty and for students, and can enable a program to grapple more effectively with
the problems and crises that will inevitably arise. To take just one example, using the correct pronouns or
other forms of address for individuals is an important component of mutual respect and trust, and
departments can by their regular practices manifest such respect and trust, creating a background against
which occasional misunderstandings can be dealt with constructively.

We have organized this discussion of recommended practices in communication by the type of

communication: some forms of effective communication are top-down, some are bottom-up, and others are
neither or both.

Top-down communication
Top-down forms of communication come not only from the chair and executive committee, but from
advisors, supervisors, directors of undergraduate and graduate studies, and chairs of committees. That is,

Page 76 of 93
Section 7: Communication
from all those in positions with supervisory or resource-allocating roles. It is important that such
communication conveys information and expectations accurately, and often this is best done in written as
well as oral form to help ensure shared understanding and memory. Some policies can be made most
accessible if posted on the department website, though posting alone tends to be insufficient and should be
accompanied by communications at appropriate times to remind faculty, students, and staff of rules and
regulations they are expected to follow. This approach is inextricably tied with holding people accountable
for their actions and allowing them to hold others accountable as well. Good practices for effective top-down
communication include the following:

• Communicating expectations for promotion to tenure-track assistant and associate faculty.

• Communicating expectations for annual merit reviews in teaching, service, and research to faculty
members.
• Communicating expectations for graduate students concerning the meeting of MA or PhD program
requirements, including for advancement to candidacy, qualifying exams or submission of qualifying
papers, and the creation and approval of a prospectus. Students should be provided with a clear
timeline that will enable them to assess whether they are making expected progress, and in cases in
which progress is inadequate, communicate expectations for restoring adequate progress both
orally and in writing to the student.
• Communicating, typically in consultation with the department administrator, expectations for office
staff members.
• Communicating clearly to faculty, staff, and student representatives which deliberations and
decisions should be kept confidential, and why this is important.
• Encouraging the keeping of minutes for meetings of the department and its committees, and
ensuring that committee chairs and student representatives report on deliberations and decisions as
appropriate. For example, student representatives should be aware of their responsibility to keep
the entire student body informed, and chairs should provide assistance in making this possible.

Bottom-up communication
The bottom-up forms of communication come from all members of the department, in reporting to those
who are in positions of responsibility any problems or issues that need attention in the department. Of
particular concern to a department’s climate is the question of whether those who have some degree of
formal or informal authority over others are following department and institution rules and regulations.
Familiar examples of abuses of such authority include sexual harassment and gender-based discrimination,
and other forms of discrimination or marginalization. In a department with a poor climate, members of the
department report concerns to those in authority but do not receive indications that these concerns are
being taken seriously, or members lacking in authority may be too uncertain of the response they will
receive to report them at all. Other abuses include violations of basic principles of collegiality and mutual
respect. Good practices for effective bottom-up communication include the following:

• Communicating to faculty and those in reporting roles the rules for reporting abuses, and the
mechanisms for protecting those who raise such concerns by acting as whistleblowers or bringing
forward a complaint.
• Communicating to faculty and students their rights as members of the academic community.

Page 77 of 93
Section 7: Communication
 • Creating ombuds roles in the department or identifying campus ombudspersons and other officials
exempt from mandatory reporting rules, and making sure that everyone in the department knows
who they are.
SEE ALSO: OMBUDSPERSON SUBSECTION IN SECTION 3: TEACHING, SUPERVISING, SUPPORTING, AND
MENTORING STUDENTS

• Maintaining a climate page on the department website with information about where students can
go for help and assistance.

Communication in discussions
Another important area of communication is, of course, the many discussions that occur among members of
the department in formal and informal settings on questions of philosophy, research projects, and teaching.
All members of the department should be able to participate in such discussions in an environment where
their viewpoints and work are taken seriously, and where discourse is civil, respectful, and professional.
Members of the department should show civility, mutual respect, and collegiality by extending common
courtesies, being personally accountable, and being willing to contribute their ideas and efforts to the
effective functioning of the academic unit. Department members should defend the free inquiry of
associates, show due respect for the opinions of others in departmental deliberations and in the exchange of
criticism and ideas, and acknowledge academic debt. They should strive to be objective in professional
assessment of students, candidates, colleagues, and staff members. And they should respect the privacy of
and not discriminate against or harass colleagues and staff members. Good practices include the following:

• Faculty in particular, but students as well, should model a high level of professional respect toward
others, where this is more than mere politeness, but includes taking each other seriously as fellow
members of the department and of the wider community of philosophy.
• Faculty in particular, but students as well, should encourage open-mindedness about the scope of
intellectual inquiry, and not disparage areas of philosophy other than their own or disciplines in
which they do not work or with which they are not familiar.
• Criticism is an important source of progress in philosophy, but it is generally more effective when it
is focused and constructive rather than overly broad and dismissive. Criticisms that could
reasonably be construed as personal attacks are strongly discouraged—especially in public contexts.
• A department with a good climate will also cultivate norms of respectful, constructive, and inclusive
discussion in classrooms and seminars. Some may experience the seminar room as a hostile
environment, and faculty and students in their zeal to “do philosophy” can often be highly
judgmental. In such an environment, those who lack confidence will sometimes stop participating, to
their own detriment and to the detriment of the quality of discussion and effectiveness of graduate
training.
• Moreover, students and faculty alike should be aware that hostile and aggressive behavior has been
explicitly or implicitly seen as stereotypically male and heterosexual. As a result, such an
atmosphere may engender stereotype threat or a sense of alienation among women, those not
belonging to dominant groups, and those who differ in their sexual orientation. See Antony (2012),
pp. 238–40; and Beebee (2013), §2.

Page 78 of 93
Section 7: Communication
Departmental colloquia and public talks pose special challenges to the pursuit of constructive, inclusive
exchange. Among good practices for chairing talks are the following: 10

• Take a short (3–5 minute) break between the talk and the questions. This allows those who aren’t
confident about their question to think it through and discuss it with colleagues and permits
speakers a moment to rest and reflect.
• Designate a chair to organize the Q&A. The chair can keep track of those seeking to raise questions,
and then attempt to allocate time and order the sequence of questioners so as to permit fully
inclusive discussion. For example, the chair can prioritize questions from graduate or undergraduate
students at the outset of the Q&A period or call upon those who speak up less frequently.
• Adopt (and enforce) the hand/finger distinction. A hand represents a new question, and the
discussion chair can keep a list of questioners based upon the showing of a hand at any point in the
Q&A. A finger may also be used at any point in the discussion and represents a request to pose a
follow-up question or to ask for clarification on a point that is highly relevant to the exchange that
has just taken place. This can permit more focused and productive discussion and can give people
who tend not to speak the opportunity to ask smaller, “safer” questions. However, the finger
convention can be abused by some to monopolize discussion or prevent moving on to other
questions, and the chair should be recognized as having the authority to decide whether or when to
cut short a long series of follow-ups. The chair should also not hesitate to intrude if bullying occurs,
either from the podium or from the floor.
• Follow the “one question per question” rule. Sometimes what is presented as “a question” will in fact
be an extended statement, or a series of distinct questions. This too can lead to a monopolization of
discussion by a few of the most vocal or influential members of the audience. A discussion chair
should be able to decide when it is appropriate to move on to other questioners in order to make the
discussion more open to all. Depending upon audience size and available time, discussion chairs may
find it helpful to announce in advance a time target for individual questions. This can help ensure
that more people will have a chance to participate in discussions, cue questioners about how to
formulate their questions, and make it possible for the discussion chair to limit a questioner without
creating an appearance of arbitrariness.
• For similar reasons, one should not automatically grant questioners a follow-up question. It should
be clear that granting a follow-up is at the chair’s discretion, and chairs should make an effort to be
equitable in the use of this discretion, regardless of the questioner’s rank or status.
SEE ALSO: SECTION 7, APPENDIX A: SOME GENERAL NORMS FOR DISCUSSIONS

References
Antony, L. “Different Voices or Perfect Storm: Why Are There So Few Women in Philosophy?” Journal of Social
Philosophy 43 (2012): 227–55.

Beebee, H. “Women and Deviance in Philosophy.” In Women in Philosophy: What Needs to Change?, edited by K.
Hutchison and F. Jenkins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

10The text in this section is adapted from the BPA/SWIP UK Good Practice Scheme section on “Seminar chairing policy
suggestions.”

Page 79 of 93
Section 7: Communication
Electronic communication
Other forms of communication in the department include communication among members of the
department as part of effective communal decision-making, communication by the department and groups
within it to the outside world, and the ways that individual members of the department communicate with
each other and those outside the department, especially via social media. In contemporary academia, these
forms of communication often take place electronically, and that can raise special issues. As noted in
SECTION 1: COMMUNICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF GUIDELINES FOR GOOD PRACTICES, it can be a good
practice to organize public discussions within the department on questions about recommended practices
or norms, and whether it is desirable to adopt these for the departmental community. Practices and norms
for electronic communication continue to evolve, and in the absence of shared expectations or standard
procedures it is of particular importance for departments to encourage wide and inclusive discussion of
these questions. The following is a sample outline of points that a potential set of guidelines concerning
electronic communication and social media (herein below, “ECSM guidelines”), developed or adopted by a
unit or institution, could include. There are many ways to structure such guidelines; the list of topics given
here does not pretend to be exhaustive.

• Introduction and background: This section of the ECSM guidelines could explain the reasons for
having such a policy and indicate its scope, namely, that it applies to covering the use of institutional
computing resources, including computer equipment, networks, and systems. It could also provide
definitions of whatever terms seem helpful—e.g., electronic and social media, the distinction
between academic freedom and freedom of expression, the difference between privacy and
confidentiality.
• Institutional computer-related policies: Does the college or university have a general policy on
appropriate computer usage? Some institutions have restrictions on what can be said or done using
institutional email accounts and webpages: for example, it may be prohibited to use them as vehicles
for marketing products from one’s own business to one’s colleagues or for political campaigning. If
so, the guidelines should signal key features of this policy and link to the full policy. In addition,
department members have responsibilities to abide by all broader legal rules and regulations
directly related to electronic and social media usage that apply to their institution. Links to these
policies, e.g., the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), could be included in this section as well.
• Other relevant institutional policies: Care must be taken to avoid violations of other policies,
including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and institutional non-
discrimination and anti-harassment policies, when using institutional computing resources. Links to
these policies could be included in a separate section, accompanied by a reminder that departmental
members have responsibilities to abide by all applicable policies.
• Access: Faculty and students should also be made aware that most private and public institutions
have the right to access electronic communications made on computers connected to institutional
servers, even if these computers were purchased with private funds. Moreover, at public institutions,
or in activities connected with or supported by federal funding, electronic communications may be
subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests from private individuals. The nature and
scope of Freedom of Information rights depend upon state and federal law; for general information,
see the FOIA website or consult your state government’s website.

Page 80 of 93
Section 7: Communication
 • APA Code of Conduct: A separate section of ECSM guidelines could link to the APA Code of
Conduct. The code grounds professional conduct in a code of ethics that stresses the value of
academic freedom to professional work in philosophy, as well as other professional conduct values
such as fairness, equity, and dignity. ECSM guidelines could emphasize that these values should be
respected in not only “real world” professional interactions, but also all forms of electronic and
social media communications. Additionally, the Code of Conduct contains sections on Electronic
Communications and Bullying and Harassment, which includes cyber-bullying. ECSM guidelines
could also include this statement or a link to it.
• Privacy: Given that respect for privacy is critical for establishing communicative trust in online
environments, it is important for ECSM guidelines to stress that information shared electronically
with a faculty member, post-doc, or graduate student should generally not be forwarded or shared
with others without the sender’s consent. Privacy should be taken as the “default” mode for treating
the communications of others. This extends, for example, to making student papers available to
other students via email or posting them on one’s own faculty website. It would also include taking a
photograph of student work and posting that on Instagram, Twitter, or Facebook (regardless of
whether one’s social media accounts use private/protected settings).
• Confidentiality: FERPA requires confidentiality as the default mode for relating to student records.
ECSM guidelines should mention, though, the importance of confidentiality in general with regard to
electronic communications and social media. If the sender of an email message requests
confidentiality, it should not be forwarded to others, and in general the presumption should be
against forwarding content that is not specifically intended for others to see. In addition, students
and others should not be “tagged” on the photos one posts on Facebook without first receiving their
consent.
• Other considerations: While acknowledging the difficulty of drawing a sharp line between
professional and personal email, ECSM guidelines could also mention the value of reserving an
institutional email account for professional email, and using other email accounts for one’s personal
use. They could also mention the value of creating social media accounts for classroom use, ones that
would be separate from personal accounts, and deleting them when the course has ended. At the
same time, it is important to note that no matter what account a department member uses to send a
message or to post something on social media, the recipient could, as mentioned above, “broadcast”
the content over email and social media to many others. For this reason, it is a good practice to keep
a professional tone in all employment-related online communications. That is, use respectful and
collegial language in all professional communications, independently of whether the
communications are addressed to one’s actual colleagues.
• Posting ECSM guidelines: Departments choosing to develop ECSM guidelines are also encouraged
to make the policy available on departmental websites, to explicitly bring it to the attention of new
department members, and also to make it a part of new student orientation.
• Electronic device policies in courses: Departments are encouraged to ask all instructors to state
explicitly on course syllabi how they will use electronic and social media communications in a
responsible manner. Such an “electronic device” section of a syllabus could take the form of referring
to departmental guidelines and a commitment to abide by them. That section could also set out
faculty preferences for student use of social media in class. Just as faculty members might indicate

Page 81 of 93
Section 7: Communication
 on a syllabus that, apart from a student who has an accommodation to make a recording of the class,
no other recording of the class be made without their consent, they could in an “electronic device”
section of a syllabus express a preference that classroom discussion not be “tweeted” while it is
unfolding. Such transparency and clarity would contribute to increasing trust within the classroom
environment.

Email
Communication among members of the department is necessary for effective communal decision-making.
Here, habits and practices have been transformed by the use of email in the past 15 years, where members
of a department rely more and more on email not only to communicate with each other, but also to make
collective decisions. Email is, of course, a useful way of keeping in touch with colleagues and students, and
making announcements to the department. However, in using email, one has to balance the importance of
ready connectedness with the importance of avoiding the pitfalls that come with email communication. A
good department will attempt to cultivate an environment in which all interactions between members of the
department—whether personal or professional, whether face-to-face or by electronic media—are
conducted with civility and professionalism. Email communication has serious limitations that can breed
misunderstanding and conflict. Furthermore, in many instances it cannot substitute for face-to-face
interactions among colleagues or students.

Good practices for email use include the following:

• Some departments have taken steps to limit email, recommending, for example, that email not be
used as a substitute for talking in person, and setting out clear guidelines for what are or are not
appropriate subjects for email. For discussion of sensitive or contentious matters, it is normally
preferable to meet in person. Email is, however, a useful way of confirming important results of a
conversation, or coordinating with colleagues on a proposed plan of action.
• Many communications require discretion and must respect privacy. Individuals can be significantly
harmed if confidential information finds its way to inappropriate recipients. Email is a treacherous
medium for any communications that must remain confidential, especially since messages are often
automatically threaded in such a way that participants in a discussion are unaware of what
information they are sending when they send a message. In-person exchange or, when this is not
possible, telephone conversations are often the only suitable means for discussing confidential
matters. And emails are typically not protected against Freedom of Information requests.
• Colleges, universities, and other academic units often have very strict rules about what can or cannot
be transmitted through email, and FERPA provides privacy guarantees of which students, faculty,
and staff should be aware.
• Some departments designate an individual, such as the chair, to be responsible for monitoring email
and empower this person to shut down email threads that appear to be spiraling out of control, e.g.,
with disrespectful or offensive posts. It is often easier for emails to be misunderstood, especially
with respect to tone, than more direct personal communication.
• Some departments restrict access to listserv addresses that send messages to the faculty or
department as a whole. Limiting group emails and discouraging the use of reply-all can help disputes
from escalating and discourage inappropriate sharing of confidential information.

Page 82 of 93
Section 7: Communication
 • All members of a department should be educated about the extent to which the privacy of their
institutional email accounts is and is not protected; most institutions reserve the legal right to access
and read messages in all email accounts. Faculty and staff should follow the “New York Times rule”:
do not put anything in an email message one would not be prepared to see on the front page of the
Times—or read in a court of law.
• Faculty members already receive crushing quantities of email each day, and simply processing all
these messages makes it difficult to get on to the more important business of teaching philosophy,
thinking, and writing. It may be reasonable to limit group emails to announcements that cannot be
conveyed through any other means, and which do not require a reply from recipients. Moreover, if
no reply is required, indicate this explicitly in the message.
• To avoid proliferation, many departments compile announcements of talks, events, and news into a
single weekly electronic newsletter. Such a newsletter should be inclusive in the events it will
announce.

Social media
For many who work or study in academia, the use of social media for professional purposes is a routine,
everyday practice. By enriching student learning, scholarship, and philosophical community, as well as
allowing powerful opportunities for philosophers to communicate with the public, the use of social media
can bring remarkable benefits. The use of social media and other forms of online communication can also
promote inclusivity: for instance, some students who might feel uncomfortable about speaking up in class
might be avid participants in an online discussion forum. Social media can be a useful way of networking
and promoting one’s work, soliciting ideas and suggestions about teaching or research, and advertising an
event or conference widely. They can also bring down barriers between people at different institutions and
at different stages in their careers.

At the same time, the very ease with which information can be conveyed and amplified electronically can
have unintended consequences. When, for instance, an email message intended for a single recipient is then
posted on social media, a message designed to be seen by one person comes to the attention of the public at
large. If this message contains language that is unprofessional (if, for example, it devalues the recipient’s
work in harsh and dismissive terms, or makes fun of the recipient’s philosophical interests), the broad
attention the message receives may result in not only embarrassment for the original sender, but also
institutional or legal sanctions. Messages that were intended only for close friends, or meant to be kept in
confidence, or that were written in haste, can end up shared with a much broader audience, including the
rest of the department, professional communities, and the public. Such comments can easily be taken out of
context, causing unintended pain and damage to reputations. Students and faculty who enjoy the benefits of
social media should be aware of these risks and should be especially vigilant in maintaining high standards
of professional conduct and in fostering good relations within the department and between the department
and the broader community.

While the very seamlessness with which electronic and social media have become integrated into the lives
of their users brings many benefits, it also makes it possible to mix the professional and personal in ways
that can blur important lines. For example, faculty who “friend” or “follow” students run a number of risks.
First, this may send the student the message that the faculty member expects close personal relationships
with students, or that the absence of a personal relationship could harm a student’s long-term success in the
program and beyond. This is, of course, inappropriate, and can be particularly problematic when the faculty

Page 83 of 93
Section 7: Communication
member is male and the student female. Second, “friending” students can seem to pressure them into
sharing personal information that the students would not normally want to share with faculty. Third,
“friending” can appear to draw in-group/out-group lines that can be corrosive to student morale and create
the appearance of favoritism. All of these problems can be avoided by careful and appropriately restrained
use of social media.

• Faculty members may wish to consider making a policy of not adding current graduate and
undergraduate students in their program to their online social networks. Some departments have
adopted an informal policy along these lines, offering faculty a policy-based explanation for declining
social media connection requests from students. However, social media can also be a useful way of
developing professional relationships with students, as long as certain guidelines are followed,
including the following:
o Learn the privacy settings for social media such as Facebook. Make use of distinctions
between Facebook friends who are personal friends, and those who are professional
acquaintances and colleagues. Make informed and ample use of privacy settings to block
posts that share information best left out of a professional setting. For example, some forms
of personal information—including marital status, religious affiliation, and sexual
orientation—are protected information that employers and graduate admissions committees
are prohibited from considering, and that one may not want them to know.
o Understand and respect students’ FERPA privacy rights.
o When posting, always be aware of one’s audience. Posts visible to colleagues and students
should observe norms of professional respect.
Twitter and similar forms of microblogging social media make it possible to share news and information,
broadcast opinions and requests, and build a professional community of individuals interested in similar
academic or professional issues on a very broad scale, but they come with minimal control over who sees
one’s broadcasts or tweets. Twitter can be used in the classroom to live-blog events, build a sense of
community, serve for backchannel communication, or even to provide a study guide via tweets with
hashtags. Again, as with Facebook, Twitter and similar microblogging social media have important
drawbacks, which include the ease with which personal and professional activities and opinions can
intermix, and the fact that one’s opinion may end up broadcast to a much larger audience, and with less
context, than one intended. Posts made in one’s role as faculty should be professional and should never
contain or refer to confidential information. Student information is, as noted above, protected by FERPA and
by norms of privacy that should always be observed by professional educators. The use of Twitter or other
social media in order to broadcast denigrating or humiliating remarks about others is never appropriate.

Communication on department websites

Many departmental websites are oriented toward recruiting undergraduate majors or minors, or graduate
students. Sarah-Jane Leslie and colleagues (2015) have published a study showing a strong inverse
correlation between the belief that success in fields such as philosophy required raw “brilliance,” and the
percentage of women as well as African-American PhDs in these discipline. The study recommended that
“Academics who wish to diversify their fields might wish to downplay talk of innate intellectual giftedness
and instead highlight the importance of sustained effort for top-level success in their field.” With this advice
in mind, departments should review their websites and make changes as appropriate.

Page 84 of 93
Section 7: Communication
In addition, departments should carefully phrase references on websites to departmental areas of emphasis
and strength. If a program is strong in history of philosophy and in epistemology, for example, but does not
have course content from non-Western traditions, these strengths should be identified as being in “Western
history of philosophy” and “Western epistemology.” If a program is not truly comprehensive, broad, or
inclusive with regard to traditions and readings, the department website should not describe the program in
such terms. (This recommendation is in line with the APA Statement on the Global Character of Philosophy.)

It is a good practice for departmental websites to refrain from referring to rankings based on incomplete
data or non-representative survey samples in order to promote their reputation in the field.

References
Leslie, S.-J., A. Cimpian, M. Meyer, and E. Freeland. “Expectations of Brilliance Underlie Gender Distributions across
Academic Disciplines.” Science 347, no. 6219 (2015): 262–65.

Page 85 of 93
Section 7: Communication
 Section 7, Appendix A: Some general
norms for discussions
Because of the distinctive importance of discussion in the development of philosophical ideas and in the
training of our students, it might be helpful to have a list of some general norms that can facilitate these
goals. Such a list, or a modified form of it, might be shared with students and faculty, and form the basis for
meetings on the climate for discussion in the department, its talks, and its classes and seminars. Placing the
possible adoption of a set of norms on the agenda might encourage taking the climate for discussion
seriously. The norms below are excerpted and adapted from a list compiled by David Chalmers.

Norms of respect
• Don’t interrupt.
• Don’t present objections as flat dismissals. (Leave open the possibility that there’s a response.)
• Don’t be incredulous or sarcastic, or mime astonishment or amusement to others in the audience.
• Don’t start side conversations parallel to the main discussion.
• Acknowledge your interlocutor’s insights.
• Object to theses, not to people.

Norms of constructiveness
• Objections are fine, but it’s also always okay to be constructive, building on a speaker’s project or
strengthening their position. Even objections can often be cast in a constructive way.
• Even when an objection is destructive with respect to a position, it often helps to find a positive
insight suggested by the objection.
• If you find yourself thinking that the project is worthless and there is nothing to be learned from it,
think twice before asking your question.
• It’s okay to question the presuppositions of a project or an area, but discussions in which these
questions dominate can be unhelpful.
• Don’t keep pressing the same objection (individually or collectively) until the speaker “cries uncle.”
• Remember that philosophy isn’t a zero-sum game. (Related version: philosophy isn’t Fight Club.)

Norms of inclusiveness
• Don’t attempt to dominate the discussion. (Partial exception for the speaker here!)
• Raise one question per question. (Further questions go to the back of the queue.)
• Try not to let your question (or your answer) run on forever.
• Acknowledge points made by previous questioners.
• It’s okay to ask a question that you think may be obtuse or uninformed.

Page 86 of 93
Section 7, Appendix A: Some general norms for discussions
 • Don’t use unnecessarily offensive examples.
• Be aware of others in the audience who might be attempting unsuccessfully to enter the discussion,
or are being interrupted, and attempt to find a way to incorporate or invite them into the discussion.
• Many departments have had good success with the practice of asking first for questions from
undergraduates or graduate students before proceeding to questions from faculty or others.

Page 87 of 93
Section 7, Appendix A: Some general norms for discussions
Section 8: Mental and emotional health
and safety
Academic life is notorious for its pressures upon students and faculty alike, yet questions about mental and
emotional health often go undiscussed. Members of the academic community are often unclear about how to
respond when fellow members of the community appear to be undergoing psychological difficulty, or how
privacy considerations interact with the concern to help, or what resources might be available to them and
others for contending with issues of mental and emotional health and safety. In the background are also
more general concerns about how to create a climate in which questions of mental and emotional health are
less stigmatized and isolating, and individuals are more likely to receive the treatment they need.

Student mental and emotional health and safety

Students at all levels are under exceptionally high levels of stress, and the proportion of students seeking
help for anxiety, depression, and related disorders has risen from 19% in 2007 to 34% in 2017, while
lifetime diagnoses rose from 22% to 36% (Lipson et al. 2018). Debate continues over whether these
increases are reflective of underlying changes in mental health as opposed to greater willingness to seek
treatment, but even if the underlying rates are constant, we should be aware that it is likely that one in five
undergraduates is experiencing mental health difficulties. Such problems of mental and emotional health are
often the cause of academic failure even in dedicated and talented students. This should be a special concern
for us as educators, particularly because colleges and universities often have available facilities for the
treatment of psychological distress and disorder, though at present those facilities are having difficulty
meeting demand. Depression is of particular concern since, while twenty percent of college students say
their depression level is higher than it should be, only 6 percent say that they would seek help, and still
fewer actually do seek help. Suicide is now the second leading cause of death for students at college or
university, and the number of students taking their own lives or attempting to do so is increasing, and the
chief cause of suicide in this age group is untreated depression. Even students who are not depressed can
find the stress and isolation encountered at colleges or universities difficult to bear, leading to behavior that
can be dangerous to others as well as themselves.

One obstacle to seeking assistance, for faculty and students alike, is absence of awareness of what forms of
consultation and treatment are available at the college or university, and of which services are covered by
student or faculty health plans. Be aware that some students come from backgrounds where family
resources and lack of adequate insurance have meant that seeking professional help has been limited to
serious emergencies. Providing instructors and staff with up-to-date information of this kind at the
beginning of academic terms, and posting such information in a conspicuous place, not only helps students
and faculty to find their way to help, but also makes it clear that the institution and department are
positively engaged on behalf of mental health, and this can lessen the sense of stigma or isolation.

Stigma and isolation are, however, not easily overcome. This places faculty, graduate student teaching
assistants, and departmental staff in an important position—they are often the first in any official capacity
to see signs of student distress or of unmanageable behavior, or to be approached by students seeking
advice or help. Many faculty, graduate instructors, and staff are concerned that they will be violating student
privacy if, when they see signs that a student is in distress or disruptive, they raise with the student the

Page 88 of 93
Section 8: Mental and emotional health and safety
question of counseling. But they should know that FERPA (the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of
1974) is not a barrier to taking steps to provide necessary support for individual students in crisis, or to protect
the health and safety of others in the campus community.

Should a student seem to you to be in distress or at risk of behavior dangerous to the student or others, you
are not violating privacy rights to raise the issue with the student. You can encourage the student to discuss
their situation, feelings, and concerns, and suggest college or university resources available to the student.
While you should use discretion with any information the student might communicate to you, you should not
and cannot promise confidentiality. When students discuss suicide, threaten the safety of others, or give you
information that suggests that they or other students might be involved in sexual misconduct covered under
Title IX or that might pose a threat to safety inside or outside the classroom, you are under a professional
obligation to report this information to the relevant campus offices. You should, therefore, make clear to the
student that certain actions, threats, or threatening behavior must be reported, though you should also
indicate that you will share this information only with appropriate campus offices. If the situation is not one
of emergent risk, you should maintain as fully as possible privacy about whatever information the student
shares. Other recommended practices in such situations include the following:

• Try to help the student focus on specific aspects of the problem.

• Avoid over-easy reassurance, such as, “I’m sure you’ll be all right.”
• Be accepting and respectful of what is said, allowing the student to state concerns without your
becoming defensive or combative. Respect for the student’s experience and value system does not
require you to validate these, but to take them seriously.
• Always keep in mind that your advice is not a substitute for professional counseling, and you should
make this clear to the student and encourage them to seek additional help as needed. To that end,
help the student identify available sources of professional help.
• Work with the student to recall constructive coping methods they have used in the past.
• Attempt to get the student to agree to take manageable, concrete steps to help overcome whatever
academic difficulties might have arisen from their distress—uncompleted work, inability to study,
failure to attend classes or exams, etc.—and to agree to keep you informed as these steps are taken.
• Have confidence in your insight and reactions in spotting difficulties and offering help, but try not to
rely entirely upon your own judgment. Within the limits of confidentiality, seek the opinion of those
at your college or university who are in positions of responsibility for student well-being.
• Recall that part of your responsibility is the safety of students, and be sure to familiarize yourself
with recommended procedures when safety issues arise. Your college or university may have
specific guidelines for conduct in such cases and for reporting, which are normally available on the
website of campus security services.
One important sign of psychological distress is that a student drops out of contact with a class or an advisor.
When this happens, it is not a violation of student privacy to attempt to contact the student and initiate a
discussion of what might explain the loss of contact. Most colleges and universities have offices of student
academic affairs (such as a Dean of Students) and counseling offices able to help students who have ceased
contact, and it is appropriate for you to inform such offices of a student in academic difficulty or who has
missed a number of classes without explanation.

Page 89 of 93
Section 8: Mental and emotional health and safety
Departments should ensure that all instructors receive a full packet of materials on mental health resources
available to students as well as university or college guidelines on public safety and reporting. Departments
are encouraged to schedule a session for all faculty and graduate students in which relevant mental health
professionals and legal staff at the college or university provide guidance in dealing with student difficulties.

Faculty and instructors should be aware that the sources of student distress are varied and often arise from
concerns outside the classroom. Most colleges and universities have offices that provide counseling and help
for students who are victims of assault or harassment, who are struggling with substance abuse, whose
family life is in crisis or disarray, or who face financial difficulty, however, the nature of these difficulties
may make students reluctant to come forward and ask for help. Creating an environment where students
feel able to bring such concerns forward and receive help is a complex matter, but is a fundamental
obligation of institutions and individuals. Many faculty and staff are mandatory reporters of sexual
harassment or assault under Title IX or the Clery Act, and all faculty or staff should be aware whether or not
they have this responsibility, what it involves, and to whom they must make a report. It is a good practice for
departments to take steps to ensure that mandatory reporters receive proper information and, where
applicable, training. If a student approaches you with a concern about sexual assault or harassment, be sure
to inform them immediately whether you are a mandatory reporter, but also clarify that bringing their
concern to a mandatory reporter does not oblige them to take any particular action—whether to initiate a
formal complaint remains their decision. Because policies concerning the reporting of potential sexual
misconduct vary across institutions and are subject to change, faculty with advisory roles are encouraged to
develop familiarity with their institution’s specific current guidelines, processes, and procedures for
handling reports, along with possible accommodations (e.g., changing class schedules) that can be made to
support students contending with such issues.

Some institutions are experimenting with creating an ombuds role that does not entail mandatory
forwarding of reports of sexual harassment, which enables individuals with concerns who are uncertain or
who fear reprisal to make an initial contact, explore relevant questions and alternatives, and receive advice
and help. Moreover, some institutions have established “first responder” programs which train faulty and
instructors on appropriate responses to students who confide with them any potential sexual misconduct;
faculty and instructors can be required or encouraged to enroll in such programs, and departments can
make publicly available a list of trained faculty (e.g., on the department website). In any case, faculty,
instructors, and staff have the special responsibility in that they might be the individual best placed to detect
signs of such problems, or to whom the student feels able to come to discuss concerns. Faculty moreover
may be able to encourage students to seek assistance by helping them directly to take the next steps.

Here are some guidelines for dealing with some of the most frequent issues about student mental or
emotional health:

• Assisting the Emotionally Distressed Student (CSU Long Beach)

• Responding to Emotionally Distressed Students (UC Santa Cruz)

Faculty and staff mental and emotional health and safety

Problems with mental health and substance abuse are not confined to students. However, while many of the
same good practices discussed above apply when one encounters potential mental health problems among
faculty colleagues or staff, special considerations arise from the fact that faculty and staff are employees of
the college or university and hold positions within an academic hierarchy in which they will be subject to

Page 90 of 93
Section 8: Mental and emotional health and safety
performance reviews. Confidential personal advice that would be acceptable in an informal setting between
peers can be inappropriate in the setting of various institutional relationships. It is therefore often
appropriate, when approached by a colleague or staff member in psychological distress or with a concern
over harassment or substance abuse to encourage the individual to contact the college or university
counseling services or other units specifically designed for these purposes. Faculty should be aware of
whether they are mandatory reporters of sexual harassment or assault (see the section above for further
discussion of mandatory reporting.) One should make it clear that, in advising a colleague to approach
relevant college or university services, one is not attempting to dismiss or minimize the individual’s
concerns, but rather is seeking to support and protect the individual by facilitating access to expert guidance
under conditions where the rules of confidentiality and information-sharing will be strictly observed.
Following up with the individual can help assure that the concern is being taken seriously.

Special services for meeting faculty and staff needs can also serve to provide a contact that is available
outside the department, and available -after business hours. All faculty and staff should familiarize
themselves with these services and how to reach them. If a colleague or staff member expresses imminent
suicidal tendencies, appears to pose a danger to others, or discusses behavior that constitutes sexual
harassment or is otherwise unlawful, it is one’s professional responsibility to determine which authorities
should receive this information, and to share it with them—and to be clear with the colleague or staff
member that one will be doing so. Be aware also that not all mental health crises take the form of dangerous
behavior toward the self or others. (For a discussion of the incidence of mental health crises, and how to
contend with them, see the guide prepared by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration.)

Obviously, the present guidelines are not meant to exclude attempting to provide advice and support for
colleagues in distress, and discretion must be used in deciding whether the seriousness of the distress
warrants taking any further action.

Among the forms of information departments should ensure that all faculty and staff receive are the
following:

• The services available to them, including confidential ways of contacting counseling services.
• What their health or other insurance will support by way of counseling or treatment for themselves
or their families.
• Good practices and professional responsibilities in dealing with a colleague or staff member who is,
or appears to be, in psychological distress or a threat to others.
• How to obtain further information.
Additionally, a generic presentation of information about available services for faculty and staff, and of some
relevant guidelines, should be posted in the department. This increases the chance that faculty or staff will
have recent awareness of the services available to them, and manifests the commitment of the university,
college, and department to providing the support needed for maintaining mental health.

This commitment should extend beyond providing information and making services available for those in
direct need. In federal law, the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996, the Mental Health Parity and Addiction
Equity Act of 2008, and the Affordable Care Act of 2010 all mandate some form of equity in the treatment of

Page 91 of 93
Section 8: Mental and emotional health and safety
mental and physical health. But social stigma and fear that seeking mental health treatment will harm
employment prospects or social standing still inhibit many from seeking the mental health care they need,
or requesting medical leave for reasons of mental health. If this situation is to change, it is necessary that
open discussion of mental health issues take place within departments. Consider inviting a college or
university health professional to make a presentation at a regular departmental meeting to discuss
questions that might arise about physical and mental health and the services the college or university makes
available. This kind of meeting will enhance awareness and also help communicate that the department is
concerned with the mental as well as physical health of its members, and does not consider such questions
“unmentionable.” Similarly, making faculty and staff aware of workshops for stress management and other
daily mental health challenges will help promote use of these workshops and help make it evident that such
challenges can occur in anyone’s life.

Above all, faculty and staff should be provided a robust environment of support and protection so that they
do not feel they must face psychological difficulties alone, or that it will be destructive to their career to
approach a colleague, chair, or counseling services about mental health or substance abuse problems. While
institutional concerns and procedures are important, it is also important to recognize that a colleague or
staff member seeking help is in distress and needs active concern and support from those the person knows
and trusts.

Responding to traumatic events on campus

Sadly, various kinds of traumatic events continue to occur on campus, including incidents of individual
violence as well as harassment and intimidation of members of the academic community on grounds of race,
religion, ethnicity, gender, class, or sexual orientation. Acts of individual violence can leave a long wake of
student distress behind them, and acts of harassment or intimidation can be harmful not only to individual
students or groups, but also to the overall climate for inclusiveness and mutual trust and respect.
Typically, it will fall to larger units—the college, the university, the faculty senate, the governing board—to
publicly take the lead in responding as an institution to such incidents. However, contending with such
incidents should not be left entirely to these entities. Such incidents directly affect our students and our
colleagues, and alter the educational environment inside as well as outside the classroom. They create
special challenges, and perhaps also responsibilities, for us as philosophers who teach. Philosophy should
equip us to help our students in thinking about such episodes. If that is the case, what kinds of constructive
contribution can we make?

The experience most of us have had as students and teachers seldom provides us with direct experience in
contending with episodes of this kind, and the body of relevant research is still fairly small. However, as
instructors we are often the face of the college or university that students encounter most regularly, and we
have the privilege of doing so in a context centered on knowledge and learning. And as philosophers in
particular, we are trained to explore controversial questions with students in a manner that promotes
analytic clarity, appreciation of other viewpoints, and the investigation of fundamental normative
dimensions. We do not step out of our professional or pedagogical roles if we acknowledge the occurrence of
such episodes, and research conducted in the aftermath of various kinds of traumatic public events (such as
September 11th; attacks on members of particular racial, ethnic, or religious groups; the appearance of
posters or messages threatening students or demeaning groups of students; campus violence; and
Hurricane Katrina) suggests that simple acknowledgement by instructors of these events can be helpful for
students, some of whom may be feeling anxious, upset, marginalized, and unsafe. Such acknowledgement

Page 92 of 93
Section 8: Mental and emotional health and safety
also creates an opening for further discussion or for students to approach faculty outside class with their
concerns (Huston & DiPietro 2007).

Classroom discussion of these traumatic events, like classroom discussion in philosophy generally, is likely
to be more constructive if the instructor provides some structure and conceptual resources to keep the
dialogue in focus and help it move ahead intellectually. It is important for instructors to prepare for such
discussions by informing themselves about relevant issues and facts and getting some idea of the concerns
students are likely to have, but it is not the point of these discussions to decide “what actually happened” or
“who was responsible.” Rather, discussions should help students achieve deeper understanding of the many
dimensions of such incidents—epistemic, expressive, cognitive, social, and moral. Providing such
opportunities for thinking together in a structured setting may also help counter student distress—for
example, a study of post-September 11th anxiety in college students found that mental disengagement and
emotional venting alike led to reduced ability to cope (Liverant et al. 2004).

Faculty should also be aware of campus guidelines and procedures in the event of a natural disaster or act of
violence, and what role they are expected to play in helping to protect the safety of colleagues, staff, and
students. Departments can help promote such awareness by scheduling presentations from those with
primary responsibility for such issues on campus.

Resources
Huston, T.A., and M. DiPietro. “In the Eye of the Storm: Students’ Perceptions of Helpful Faculty Actions Following a
Collective Tragedy.” To Improve the Academy 25 (2007): 207–24.
Lipson, S.K., E.G. Lattie, and D. Eisenberg. “Increased Rates of Mental Health Services Utilization by U.S. College
Students: 10-Year Population Level Trends, 2007-2017.” Psychiatric Services 70 (2019): 60–63.
Liverant, G.I., S.G. Hofmann, and B.T. Litz. “Coping and Anxiety in College Students after the September 11th Terrorist
Attacks.” Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 17 (2004): 127–39.
Guidelines for Discussing Incidents of Hate, Bias, and Discrimination (Center for Research on Teaching and Learning,
University of Michigan).

Page 93 of 93
Section 8: Mental and emotional health and safety