FYI, I reported it to the police on July 13th, the day I found the package in my mailbox. I am not sure where BL is getting his information, but it is factually inaccurate.

This is the threatening part: " I do hope Prof. Jennings will return to her scholarship and stop digging her hole deeper in this matter. Having secured a tenure-track job at a UC Campus, following a prestigious post-doc, she is undoubtedly a very capable scholar. But her obsession with this issue, and her repeated misrepresentations, usually at my expense, are doing her no good." Now, one might ask, why are her "misrepresentations" "doing her no good"? (I am putting aside here the fact that I strongly disagree that my posts contained misrepresentations at Brian Leiter's expense.) Is society generally intolerant of misrepresentations? Is it intolerant of Brian Leiter's misrepresentations, for example? Was he doing himself no good when he presented me as a liar? Should we be concerned about Brian Leiter's future in philosophy given this misrepresentation? Obviously not. Here is a more plausible reading: my "misrepresentations" are doing me no good because Brian Leiter is ensuring as much, and will continue to do so. It is a vague threat, but a threat nonetheless. I am not alone in reading the passage this way. This is how Jaded, PhD read the passage. You can see that she links it to the threats aimed at both Carrie Ichikawa Jenkins and Noelle McAfee. And, in support of this reading, the passage was removed once I took down my post.

Nick--thank you. This really does mean a lot to me.

You are welcome to your perspective, Matt, which I am sure is shared by others. Your perspective may be partly based on incomplete knowledge. In case that is true, I will provide more context for my claim of harassment. At the time of the events in July 2014 I put up a post at this blog, "Why I believe that Brian Leiter intentionally attacked me." I took it down later because of what I perceived to be a threat by Brian Leiter at his own blog, posted at the same time as this tweet: https://twitter.com/brianleiter/status/487704121819283457. Since that tweet propagates a falsehood that is clearly intended to make me look bad (I did not even utter the statement he ascribes to me), I took the threat on his blog to mean that he would continue to say false things about me if I did not remove that post. I saw my options as to either take down the post or take legal action, which I did not want to do for various reasons. When I took down the post, he removed the threat. It is captured in a screen shot here: https://twitter.com/JadedPhD/status/514505276800909312 . I have also received emails from people reporting falsehoods Brian Leiter has told them about me and these events. So my perspective is not limited to the blog posts you mention. But in the blog posts you mention I believe he is trying to damage me and my reputation and I believe this is a form of harassment which makes my work environment more hostile than it should be. That is my perspective. As for David Wallace--he did not criticize my statistical analysis, but offered a different one that answered a different question. (In that part of the post I was discussing a set of programs, and he wanted to redirect the conversation to a question about whether individual programs should close, which I did not really want to discuss for various reasons.)

I like this hypothesis. But note that while women appointed 1930-1979 were more likely to be in historical fields, the women faculty in these programs in 2014 were more likely to be in value theory.

Thanks for this--it is a good suggestion.

It looks like I lost the source file, but I have now linked to the larger image file that was uploaded into the blog. Thanks for pointing this out.

Thanks, Dan! Yann Benétreau-Dupin had a similar worry to 1, and I found this site: http://colorbrewer2.org/. I am now planning to use that to manually set hex values that are colorblind safe. I will fix 2 (I thought the SQL query I had didn't yield this info and was waiting for a new one, but it does!). On 5, how do you feel about ordered versions? Here is a scatterplot of the data for comparison--I take it that this will be off-putting for some, but perhaps I should include both for all 4 sets of data?

This is just to note that I think there is much of value to the comments here and intend to write a follow-up post based on these ideas and also examples I can find online. I will put up a comment on this thread when I finally do so! Thanks for all of your help!

That makes sense. The programs listed with 1 graduate are smaller than those that didn't make the list--I listed programs by the percentage of Black graduates to overall graduates (who were permanent residents/citizens). UC Davis, for example, had 1 graduate out of 59, and so just missed the list (compare to Kentucky, which had 1 out of 51).

Good point. That was a supposition of mine that should be better grounded in fact. As for the numbers--I think it is 19 of the 96 that have not had a Black graduate (among permanent residents and citizens of the United States), at least as self-reported to the Survey of Earned Doctorates. Also, if I understand the way that NCSES used these categories, graduates who identified as "two or more races" would not have shown up in this category, even if they identified one of those races as Black. So it is possible that those 19 programs did have graduates who identified as Black in this time period.

Thanks again for your input--I added a note of caution to this and a new post to help readers keep at least one of your concerns in mind.

Ok, OSU has now been removed. Thanks again!

Thanks for your comment--I changed the cut off for the above lists to mean program % based on the ideas you present here.

Thanks again for your suggestion--I put up a new post: http://www.newappsblog.com/2016/01/racial-and-ethnic-minority-graduates-of-philosophy-programs-a-more-detailed-look.html. Please let me know if you have further thoughts and suggestions.