Policies

PES Anti-Harassment Policy (2019)

The Philosophy of Education Society is committed to providing a welcoming conference experience for everyone. Members of the Society recognize a shared responsibility to create and sustain a positive environment for the benefit of all and will not tolerate harassment of conference participants in any form.

We define harassment as single or repeated instances of unwanted behavior that creates an unwelcoming professional environment on the basis of gender, sex, race, religion, or ability, among others. Harassment includes, but is not limited to:

• Demeaning, intimidating, or other verbal comments and gestures that reinforce structures of domination and bias related to race, ethnicity, national origin, language, age, religion, gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, and physical appearance;

• Physical intimidation or stalking;

• Unwanted physical contact;

• Unsolicited sexual attention.

Members of the Society and conference participants are asked to consider the effects of their actions on others, especially those likely to have less institutional power: graduate students, junior faculty, and new members. Members of the Society are expected to understand that harassing behaviors may not be intended to harass or demean; the effects are nevertheless of ethical concern. Members are expected to understand the effects of formal or informal power structures that render it difficult to ascertain what is unwanted. For example, an individual might tolerate unwanted behavior if there are power imbalances between the individuals involved, but tolerance is not consent. It is every member’s responsibility to be vigilant about how their behavior affects the experiences of others and stop unwelcome behavior. Witnesses to harassing behavior are expected to intervene.

Individuals who experience harassing behavior at the PES-sponsored activities but feel uncomfortable addressing the situation directly are encouraged to report or consult with members of the Just Community Committee. The Executive Board has charged this committee with the responsibility of reviewing reports of incidents. It is designed to act as a neutral resource to receive concerns, grievances, and complaints; to provide information about resources on/off the relevant home institutions; and to offer feedback and relevant support. As a small society, with limited jurisdiction over the conduct of our members beyond scheduled events sponsored by the Society, the Committee will do its best to facilitate resolution fairly and quickly, with due attention to the privacy and professional concerns of all involved. For example, it may write an ‘informal’ letter to the alleged offending member to inform him/her that a concern or allegation has been received; the letter would note specifically that the Committee does not prejudge allegations, take sides, or warrant the truth of any particular claim. If appropriate, such a letter could go further and make additional requests, such as to eschew contact with the complainant, directly or through third parties. In cases of harassment that exceed the charge of the Committee, the Committee may take steps to facilitate the process of complainants seeking help from their campus policies and offices.

Both within sessions and more informally, philosophy of education requires a free exchange of information, ideas, beliefs and opinions in diverse forms, and it may well include discussion of controversial topics and unpopular points of view. However, such freedom of exchange and expression cannot exist without an equally vigorous commitment to, recognition of, and respect for the freedoms of others, and concern for the well-being of every conference participant.

The Executive Board recognizes its right and responsibility to keep PES activities and events welcoming, professional, and respectful of all.

Note: The names and contact information for members of the Just Community Committee will be posted in the Conference program every year.

Program Development: CORE and CGSSW sessions (2026)

• Submitters (of both papers and panel/symposium-type sessions) get an opportunity to tick boxes in the submission system to indicate their submission is related to questions of gender and sexuality and/or questions of race and ethnicity, and they would like CORE and/or CGSSW to consider the submission for their designated slot;

• CORE and CGSSW consider tagged submissions while those submissions are also being adjudicated by the program committee (i.e., a submission not selected by CORE/CGSSW to be part of the CORE/CGSSW-sponsored session can still be selected by the program committee for a regular slot elsewhere on the program); 

• It will be made clear that paper submissions are considered “peer reviewed” regardless of whether they were selected by the Program Committee, by CORE and/or CGSSW, or by both;

• CORE and CGSSW have an opportunity to select either one of the tagged submissions or propose a different session; the latter could be helpful either in the unlikely event that no submissions are tagged, or there is an important issue the Committee would like to be discussed (e.g., in a panel) but on which no submissions were received.

PES Organizational Statements (2026)

PES may issue a public statement when an issue is identified as consistent with the Society’s purposes, which are “(1) to promote the fundamental philosophic treatment of the problems of education, (2) to promote the clarification of agreements and differences among the several philosophies of education through the opportunities for discussion afforded by annual meetings, (3) to advance and improve teaching in the philosophy of education both in schools for the education of teachers and in other educational institutions, (4) to cultivate fruitful relationships between workers in general philosophy and workers in philosophy of education, (5) to cultivate fruitful relationships between scholars in philosophy of education and those in other areas of education inside and outside the academy, and (6) to encourage promising students in the field of philosophy of education.”

Criteria

The follow questions should be used in considering whether to write and release an organizational political statement on a particular issue:

1. Is this issue one about which our society possesses special expertise and knowledge?

2. Does the scope and significance of the issue suggest that a statement from our organization is warranted?

3. Is there good reason to believe that an organizational position statement is an appropriate and effective way for PES as a society to engage with this issue in addition to (or as a replacement for) alternative ways that we might engage with this issue?

4. Do we have reason to believe that a considerable majority of our organizational membership would find agreement in an organizational position statement about this issue?

5. Can a position statement we write about this issue be done in a non-partisan manner, consistent with our organization’s 501c(3) status?

Procedures 

1.  Any Committee, SIG, or individual member(s) (including a member of the Executive Board) can bring an issue which they believe merits a public statement per the scope outlined above to the attention of the PES Executive Board, or as a proposal to the PES membership at the annual business meeting.

2. The individual or group should submit drafted language for the position statement they are proposing, or recommend that PES sign onto a specific statement made by another organization (AAUP, AAC&U, etc). 

3. The Board discusses the issue, including the wording of the proposed statement, and can make a recommendation to the membership for a vote, either at the annual Business Meeting or via an online ballot. 

4. A membership vote, conducted via at the business meeting or via an e-mail poll, will need to carry a 2/3 majority of votes for approval. Following an approval, the Executive Director will be responsible for posting the statement on the PES website and circulating via PES social media accounts.

Example

As one example of an issue that might warrant a PES position statement, consider academic freedom. 

• Criterion 1:  The issue of academic freedom is one about which philosophers of education can be understood to have special expertise.
• Criterion 2: Powerful threats to academic freedom are threats to our organization’s mission and work. The pursuit of inquiry and teaching in philosophy of education requires academic freedom. The present multiplicity of threats to academic freedom in the US and other countries today could be considered serious enough to warrant a position statement from our organization.
• Criterion 3: While alternative ways to engage this issue might be recommended (special conference sessions, speakers, webinars, white papers, or other actions), an organizational statement is uniquely important when threats to academic freedom are understood to be persistent over time and/or increasing in frequency.
• Criterion 4: There is good reason to believe that our members would largely agree with an organizational position statement which supports academic freedom, given that most members study or work at educational institutions where healthy conditions of academic freedom is an enabling condition for their work.
• Criterion 5: Support for academic freedom can be expressed without supporting or criticizing any one political party, candidate, or official. 

Powerful threats to PES may warrant the issuing of a public statement in cases where the academic freedom of scholars in disciplines related to philosophy of education is compromised, for instance because they are persecuted for their peaceful, non-partisan, professional activities, particularly when engaged in activities related to scholarly research and teaching.

Any actions taken under this policy must not compromise PES's 501(c)3 status regarding involvement in partisan politics.