The extended deadline for this conference was Sunday, March 15. The scheduled keynotes for the conference are Quill Kukla and Kate Norlock.

This post is a strident reminder that if you submitted an abstract to the CFP, you can nevertheless withdraw it and, in doing so, demonstrate both your solidarity with disabled philosophers and other groups excluded from the conference and your willingness to be a force for change in philosophy. The conference will be inaccessible, despite claims to the contrary in the CFP itself.

Eric Schwitzgebel recently posted on his blog about the persistent homogeneity of philosophy and the “underrepresentation” (exclusion) of disabled people and members of other social groups from the profession. One could easily come away from that blog post with the impression that this persistence is a mystery, that the reasons for this homogeneity are perplexing and, alas, seem stubbornly unsolvable.

But the adoption and reproduction of this conclusion are themselves forms of structural gaslighting. For decades now, for example, I have elaborated the practices, strategies, and mechanisms of philosophy that (re)produce the exclusion of disabled philosophers and the marginalization and more recently cooptation of critical philosophical work on disability. Few philosophers have acted upon these insights by changing their methods and practices, adopting instead misguided ideas (such as about implicit biases) and policies (such as the requirement for anonymous job applications) that reinforced the very forms of exclusion that they were professed to eliminate.

Despite the universalism of philosophy that Schwitzgebel espouses, philosophy is fundamentally rooted in ableism and philosophers are so heavily invested (professionally, psychologically, economically, culturally, and socially) in the reproduction of these ableist roots that they continuously sustain them, even if covertly. The profession-wide refusal to recognize disabled philosophers as epistemic authorities about the character and elements of their exclusion from the profession is only one example of this gaslighting.

You can join the growing resistance to these ableist norms of philosophy. Here are some points of entry:

Read philosophy of disability by me, Mich, and others who unrelentingly contest an increasing number of dimensions of the discipline and profession.

Challenge your professors on the ableist scholarship that they are teaching you.

Call out the ableism that certain philosophers cavalierly, uncritically, unaccountably, and even enthusiastically (re)produce on social media, in their more formal publications, and in their classrooms, departments, and institutions.

Be an active anti-ableist bystander who supports disabled philosophers and reinforces the criticisms that they advance in the public domain.

Refuse to tacitly accept the ableist gaslighting of professional philosophy associations such as the APA, the CPA, CSWIP, and NAASP.

Refuse to participate in inaccessible, exclusionary conferences such as the upcoming NAASP and CSWIP meeting.

Find other disabled philosophers (through venues such as BIOPOLITICAL PHILOSOPHY and the Philosophy, Disability, and Social Change conferences) who share your anger about the pervasive ableism of philosophers.

Don’t ask for change in philosophy. Don’t wait for it. Demand it. Make it.