A few days ago, SWIP-NL, together with other researchers, sent protest letters to the organization and speakers of the G10 of Economy and Philosophy 2017. The program presents a predominantly white male line-up. In response, the spokesman of the organization, Boudewijn Richel, clearly states that he does not share our concern with gender equality and diversity practices:

“To say we need more women or we need more coloured people or whatever is not our aim  and unfortunately not a priority.”

Since, so often, these important discussions remain in the private realm, we decided to respond publicly in hopes of starting a broader discussion. We also cite passages from Richel’s letter in order to clarify our response and comments. (The citations in our text are literal quotations from Richel’s response to our protest letter. We chose not to publish the entire response.) Feel free to contribute to the discussion in comments to this post.

Here’s how Richel’s response started:

“Dear feminists! Again We are confronted with strange voices and obviously you have not learned from the detailed letter our *** coorganiser of the G10 has written to you Last year!” 

Dear Mr. Richel – These “strange voices” are merely the voices of people who share their concerns. In our view, it is you who did not learn from last year, when we raised the same problem about the all male and all white line up.

In defense, Richel exclaims:

“You are attacking a basic female organisation, I am the only man!“ 

The fact that Richel is the only male organizer in the apparently tripartite organization is of course by no means an excuse for the lack of diversity and gender equality in the program. The presence of women in an organization does not imply concern for diversity or knowledge of implicit bias in selecting speakers.

Richel explains that gender and diversity practices are not a concern, nor a priority of the G10: “The G10 is not a political vehicle to promote or disagree with any political ideas  whatsoever . It is founded for the investigation of new ideas and follows the rules of science not the rules of gender politics  So  to say we need more women or we need more coloured people or whatever is not our aim and unfortunately not a priority.”

He seems unaware of the fact that, in looking for new ideas, people tend often to overlook those written by persons who are not white, male, heterosexual – and our list could go on.

Mr. Richel – Since you bring up the subject of “science” we would invite you to take some of these scientific tests on implicit bias: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html.

According to Richel, our criticism is not realistic: 

“I think one has to face also a bit reality. There is only one Zizek and one Sloterdijk and they are not from Holland unfortunately . and  their is only one Siedentop and we choose the two best dutch commentators to be part of the discussions unfortunately for them they are males.” 

“One has to face a bit reality.” Indeed, Mr. Richel. The reality is that women and non-white people are generally not on a person’s radar when selecting speakers for an event, especially in the fields of philosophy or economics. The reality is that this also impedes the process of choosing “the two best dutch commentators”. We would have gladly assisted you in finding speakers, as we offered to do last year.

Generally, the topic of the G10 is the Future. Most philosophers and economists write and speak with an eye on the future. We are convinced that, if one would want to present an actual panoptic of what philosophers and economists have to say about the future in 2017 – and, therefore, give your audience what they are coming for – this can only be done if the criterium for selecting speakers is inclusive.

Mr. Richel furthermore suggests that we can discuss gender politics with other women philosophers:

“We booked for next year already an american Female ***, with her you can discuss all gender politics as you might know she does that much better as i can do.” 

In all honesty, we think that in his response, Mr. Richel clarifies very aptly why he himself might want to discuss gender politics with someone more knowledgeable than himself – whether or not a “Female”.

Finally, Richel brings in a financial argument. He writes that diversity practices are a concern for students who go to funded universities; not for privately funded organizations such as the G10, which after all not supposed to worry about equal representation:

“Young dutch students go for almost free to university and therefore you might think it would be nice if we could promote a bit more coloured people from Africa or so since in case.  The G10 has no funds anymore Government will donate money  as she does with your university and the payment of your study. The G10 is a privately funded forum…”

In the same paragraph, he also reiterates the point that the selection procedure has been based on what, earlier on in the letter, he called “scientific” criteria, rather than political support for “minorities”: the organizers have looked for “quality” only.

Richel signs the letter with the request to share it with others: “Thank you very much for your consideration and it would be most helpful and honest if you send my answer attached to  your letter to for instance to *** whom you addressed already on saturday evening without asking for our answer and to others you might consider !

sincerely yours ,

The only man in The G10 organisation who was awake on saturdayevening

Boudewijn Richel”

Despite the petition and signatures, the organization G10 clearly states that gender equality & diversity practices simply have no priority. Please take this in consideration when deciding to attend this event as speaker or participant. Feel free to share your thoughts and continue the discussion!

A few days ago, SWIP-NL, together with other researchers, sent letters of protest to the organization and speakers of the G10 of Economy and Philosophy 2017. The program presents a predominantly white male line-up. In response, the spokesman of the organization clearly states that he does not share our concern with gender equality and diversity practices – despite the petition and signatures, which began over a year ago:

“To say we need more women or we need more coloured people or whatever is not our aim and unfortunately not a priority.”

Please take this in consideration when deciding to attend this event as speaker or participant!

We wrote a response to the organizer, which can be found here. Feel free to contribute to the discussion on the page.

Eerder publiceerden we al de protestbrief aan de organisatie van de G10 van de Economie en Filosofie, 2017, i.v.m. het gebrek aan diversiteit aan sprekers.

Wij schreven ook de sprekers aan, voor zover wij over hun email-adressen beschikking hadden. Hieronder de brief.

Onderwerp: Lack of diversity at G10 of Economy and Philosophy

Dear xxxx

Next week, you will be participating in the G10 van de Economie en de Filosofie in Amsterdam. As you can see here the G10 has invited seventeen male speakers and one female, almost all of them white. The two women whose pictures are prominently featured on the event’s website are moderators.

Last year this organization had a similarly all-male line-up. This motivated two female PhD students to write a letter to the organizers stating that “a platform that proposes to present progressive views on our future lacks speakers from the group that represents half of the world population.” The letter (which can be read here) was signed by almost 400 people inside and outside academia. And while the organizer, Boudewijn Richel, initially replied that there “are hardly any women in economics and philosophy” eventually something did change. When Yanis Varoufakis, one of the event’s main guests, signed the letter and withdrew from the festival, women were hastily added to the program and took part in the discussions via Skype. (A Dutch press release about the 2016 events can be found here)

It’s astounding and very discouraging that the G10 has not learned anything from last year’s mistakes. We cannot, as we did last year, assume that the organizers simply forgot to think about implicit bias or a fair representation of society. We have sent the organizers of the G10 a letter of protest, but since they seem to have disregarded all points of criticism brought up last year, we have chosen also to contact the participants directly. Please consider if you want to contribute to an event that shows no concern for gender equality and diversity. It would be wonderful if you, as invited speakers. could take up the challenge of convincing the G10 of the importance of these topics.

Kind regards,

Anna Blijdenstein, Ph.D. candidate philosophy (University of Amsterdam)

Marieke Krijnen, postdoc (Orient-Institut Beirut)

Laura Karreman Lecturer Media and Culture Studies (Utrecht University), Ph.D. candidate in Art, Music and Theatre Studies (Ghent University)

On behalf of the board of Society for Women in Philosophy (NL):

Anya Topolski, assistant professor in political theory and philosophy (Radboud University, Nijmegen)

Roos van Unen, MA-student Philosophy (Vrije Universiteit)

Joyce Pijnenburg, lecturer in philosophy (independent), Ph.D. candidate (University of Amsterdam)

Ook dit jaar heeft de G10 van de Economie en Filosofie weer te weinig vrouwen uitgenodigd.

Met Anna Blijdenstein, Laura Karreman en Marieke Krijnen stelden we deze protestbrief op.

Dear G10 organisers,

The G10 Festival of Economics & Philosophy, branded as ‘Scouting for the future’, has 17 male speakers and only 1 female speaker. While the website’s homepage includes photographs of two women, they are relegated to the role of moderators. Last year your organization had a similarly all-male line-up. This motivated two female PhD students to write a letter bringing to your attention the importance of gender equality and diversity. The letter was signed by almost 400 people inside and outside academia and, after one of your main guests resigned, led to some changes made in the program.

It is astounding and very discouraging that the G10 has not learned from last year’s mistakes. We are shocked that a platform that purports to present progressive views on our future lacks speakers from the group that represents half of the world population. In addition, 17 of the 18 speakers are white. This shows little comprehension of our society, which is characterized by a diverse reality. A festival like this should be trusted to aim for a more representative depiction of this reality.

We hope that you do not bring against our objections the often-heard excuse that “there were no women to be found.” Anyone who makes the effort to look beyond the “usual suspects” (which indeed often consist of white men, but that is exactly the result of gender inequality), will discover many highly qualified and talented women. You can also always contact experts to ask for recommendations. Society for Women in Philosophy (NL) has over 60 members (who would be happy to assist), as well as a database of female speakers.

While implicit bias inclines us all to associate the word “economist” or “philosopher” with white men, we need to challenge this bias by making sure to have diverse speakers at events such as these.

If gender equality and diversity are a priority for festival organizers, they should be willing to go the extra mile. Specific perspectives of various social groups provide a critical view on the economy and on society in general. Women do not necessarily have a different view or present specific “women issues”. For us, this is about a fair representation of social reality and about countering of implicit gender bias (people are less likely to think of women when they are searching for and selecting speakers). We can only draw the conclusion that in the case of the G10, gender equality and diversity have not been a priority. That being said, your current selection of speakers has led to an unacceptable result.

Since, as organizers of the G10, you seem to have disregarded all points of criticism brought up last year, we cannot, as we did last year, assume that you simply forgot to think about implicit bias or a fair representation of society. We hope you are willing to make the necessary efforts to change the program, so that we do not feel compelled to boycott this event.

Yours sincerely,

Anna Blijdenstein, Ph.D. candidate philosophy (University of Amsterdam)

Marieke Krijnen, postdoc (Orient-Institut Beirut)

Laura Karreman, Lecturer Media and Culture Studies (Utrecht University), Ph.D. candidate in Art, Music and Theatre Studies (Ghent University)

On behalf of the board of Society for Women in Philosophy (NL):

Anya Topolski, assistant professor in political theory and philosophy (Radboud University, Nijmegen)

Roos van Unen, MA-student Philosophy (Vrije Universiteit)

Joyce Pijnenburg, independent lecturer in philosophy, PhD candidate (University of Amsterdam)

Deze column werd gepresenteerd tijdens Vrouwenlogica 4 “Wie betaalt, bepaalt?”, over Academische Vrijheid.

Academische Vrijheid

Natalie Scholz

Ik begin met een postulaat:

Zonder vrijheid bestaat geen wetenschap en dus ook geen universiteit. Wetenschap is de eindeloze, maar gereguleerde zoektocht naar waarheid op basis van het uitwisselen van argumenten. Dit kan alleen werken als de deelnemers aan dit debat a) vrij zijn om dit beginsel te allen tijde te waarborgen en dus hun argument in vrijheid kunnen formuleren en b) evenwel vrij zijn om de vragen te formuleren waarop dit debat zich richt. Een wetenschapssysteem waarin je maar een beperkt aantal vragen mag formuleren, die van buiten de wetenschap zijn bepaald, is al kwijtgeraakt wat wetenschap tot wetenschap maakt. Wetenschap, die alleen nog maar kennis mag generen waarvan het nut voor een meerderheid van de maatschappij direct in te zien is alleen nog een wetenschapsstomp, waarvan de wortels ook snel zullen verdwijnen. Als dat ooit zal gebeuren, en er zijn al een aantal stappen in die richting te zien, belanden we uiteindelijk definitief in een post-waarheid, een “post truth” tijdperk.

Maar ik wil vandaag niet de zogenoemde wetenschapsagenda centraal stellen. Ik wil het hebben over hoe de introductie van het beginsel van marktwerking op de universiteiten, en in diens kielzog de introductie van Tayloristische management praktijken, de academische vrijheid bedreigt. Het idee van marktwerking op de universiteiten is tot nu toe een fictie, wel een heel machtige en invloedrijke fictie. We praten inmiddels voortdurend over de markt, over output en rendabiliteit, maar er heerst grote verwarring wat voor een soort markt dat eigenlijk zou zijn. Helaas is de vrije uitwisseling van argumenten binnen de universiteit allang nauwelijks mogelijk als het gaat over de beginselen van het bestuur zelf.

Als resultaat van deze scheve fictie van marktwerking heeft zich een parallel systeem geïnstalleerd op universiteiten, dat de grondbeginselen van de vrijheid van wetenschap serieus bedreigt. Pas tijdens de Maagdenhuisbezetting begon ik te begrijpen hoe het grote aantal collega’s op tijdelijke en precaire aanstellingen net als de zich cyclisch herhalende bedreiging door bezuinigingen en ontslagen de keerzijde is van wat wij kunnen samenvatten als de aanval van het rendementsdenken op de essentie van ons werk. Hoe minder mensen een zekere aanstelling hebben, hoe minder mensen zich durven uit te spreken tegen deze bedreiging. En dan hebben we het nog niet eens over de effecten van de oplopende werkdruk….

Het aantal onderzoekssubsidies, het aantal publicaties, het aantal citaties, het aantal studenten die een vak afronden, het aantal studenten dat een positieve beoordeling van hun college geeft op een absurd reductionistisch evaluatieformulier, het aantal studenten dat snel hun studie afsluit, de plaats van de universiteit, de faculteit, de opleiding op rankings, al deze elementen beginnen de essentie van wat wetenschap en wetenschappelijk onderwijs zou moeten zijn te verdringen. Ze zijn allemaal op zich leeg en ze geven zowel studenten als docenten al te vaak een gevoel van leegte. Niet leren op zich, hetgeen studenten en academici als activiteit delen, maar “succesvol” zijn in het zodanig primair op holle kwantitatieve criteria ingestelde systeem, wordt langzaam maar zeker de maatstaf van alles.

Voor mij is het ergste aan deze ontwikkeling dat zij gepaard gaat met een sluipende dehumanisering. Als we studenten niet als nummers bekijken dan is dat ondanks, en niet vanwege, de manier waarop wij worden bestuurd. We houden ons enthousiasme voor de zoektocht naar waarheid en de ondersteuning van studenten daarbij niet vanwege, maar ondanks de holle kwantitatieve criteria waarmee we voortdurend geconfronteerd worden. Wat volledig uit het oog dreigt te raken is dat alleen mensen vrij kunnen zijn om hun vragen te formuleren en hunargumenten op het academische forum te ontwikkelen. Die mensen, docenten én studenten, hebben menselijke vormen van herkenning nodig, om steeds weer het risico durven te nemen dat wetenschap altijd is. Ze hebben een omgeving nodig die je aanwakkert om elkaar te steunen en niet om met elkaar te concurreren. Want je verlaat de basis van een ingebeelde zekerheid en betreedt het pad van een eindeloze onzekerheid als je wetenschap bedrijft. Wat een wonderlijk feit dat mensen dit nog steeds doen. En hoe snel kunnen we dit met z’n allen kwijt raken.