The Philosophers' Cocoon

A safe and supportive forum for philosophers.

Owned & Moderated by Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)

Contact: marvan@ut.edu

Blog mission & moderation policy

IMPORTANT NOTE on how to ensure anonymity in commenting
Job-Market Reporting Thread (2025-26)
Job-Market Discussion Thread (2025-26)

recent posts

about

Tattoos and the job-market?

In our newest “how can we help you?” thread, a reader asks:

I’m an early career (female if it matters) philosopher with several large tattoos. They are currently all easy to cover, and I’ve always kept them covered on campus visits and at most conferences. But I’m getting close to having one of my sleeves finished, and I’ve started considering having part of the design extend onto the top of my hand. I’d love to start a discussion about how such “job stopper” tattoos are perceived in the profession today. General wisdom in the tattoo community says to avoid visible ink until you’re established in your profession. I do have a TT job, but am imagining a very possible world where some circumstance puts me back on the market. How do hiring committees (and philosophers in general) feel about visible tattoos? I’d particularly be interested in hearing experiences from others with significant body mods.

Do any readers have helpful insights or experiences to share?

Posted in

23 responses to “Tattoos and the job-market?”

  1. Anonymous

    Perhaps philosophers are a more liberal bunch, but I will say it’s hard to overestimate the stigma of having tattoos for many people of a certain generation. I have heard from several people in their 60’s and 70’s (albeit pretty conservative) say they wouldn’t hire someone with tattoos. When I was getting my sleeve, I really wanted it to extend all the way to the wrist bone/bottom of the hand, because aesthetically I don’t really love the couple of inches traditionally present between the bottom of a Japanese-style sleeve and the hand. My tattoo artist refused, saying it would always be showing underneath long button up shirts, i.e., would be impossible to cover up when I wanted to. Though I was originally miffed, I’m actually really glad I have the option to cover up my tattoos with business attire. I have had flyouts at several religiously-affiliated SLAC’s, and if nothing else it gives me peace of mind to not have to worry about whether they’ll care about the tattoos or if I’ll lose out on a rare job opportunity for something like that.

    While very open to body modifications myself, I think there is enough of a stigma among older adults and/or more conservative folks that I’m glad for the option to cover them up.

    Reply
  2. Anonymous

    I’m early career (just finishing my PhD and going onto the job market). I’ve never had any problems with my tattoos, and I know a bunch of philosophers with visible tattoos. Though, for what it’s worth, I have avoided any tattoos that go past my wrist so that I can cover up all my tattoos in a job interview. I think *some* people have biases against people with tattoos and it’s not worth the risk for me.

    Reply
  3. Anonymous

    Whatever, do what you want.

    15 years ago, I would have said something different. These days, the people running the show – and most people under the age of around 60 – are from a generation and culture in which tattoos are fairly common and acceptable.

    I’ve had colleagues with hand tattoos, neck tattoos, head tattoos, etc, and nobody really cares. While I still tend to cover my large pieces at work, this is mainly a hold-over from earlier years when (as a young woman) I did not want to scare the conservative students or very old men. These days, the conservative students are more interested in my body art than offended by it; and the very old men, who now seem less old to me, frequently have tattoos themselves.

    Reply
  4. Anonymous

    I don’t have any tattoos, so I guess calibrate your judgment about my judgment accordingly.

    I cannot, however, imagine anyone in our profession caring about the mere fact that you have a visible tattoo. That just doesn’t strike me as the particular way in which our field is conservative. I don’t think it would make the slightest difference to your job prospects (like having brightly colored hair or shaving your head — would matter if you were an accountant (maybe) but not going to matter in philosophy)

    The only exception I can think of is (MAYBE) face tattoos which still seem kind of out there and might seem notable (though not necessarily job stoppers per se) and any tattoo whose content is going to be upsetting to people (a white power tattoo is going to be a non-starter wherever it is if somebody finds out, a tattoo of bunnies is not going to bother anyone even if its quite visible.)

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Since the OP is early career, they and others should keep in mind that many good philosophy jobs and especially postdocs are not based in philosophy departments, so the culture of philosophers isn’t a great guide to whether a tattoo will set back your opportunities. (I am a philosopher who works in a law school and I’m quite sure that a neck tattoo would informally hurt the chances of an applicant for a philosophy post here.) Furthermore, fellowships like JRFs in the UK will have diverse hiring panels, not just philosophers; even many permanent jobs have external committee members.

      Reply
  5. Anonymous

    (a) I don’t like tattoos and piercings.
    (b) I couldn’t even imagine them having any bearing on any philosophy hiring decision I was involved in.
    (c) If a place won’t hire you because of your tattoos, you don’t want to work there anyway, so win-win.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Not sure if this is representative, but it totally represents me! I wouldn’t want any of that, but couldn’t care less in hiring decisions!

      Reply
    2. Anonymous

      I’m less inclined to say that it is a win-win. I’d be happy to work for places where I wouldn’t want to work permanently, if that job gives me some breathing space before I go on the job market again.

      Reply
  6. dazesensationallye39c0dc2cd

    I am by no means conservative, but I would never get a tattoo and neither do most folks like me: cisgender white males in typical nuclear families, raised in middle class suburbia, whose views do not always align with the political left. And I’ve been on multiple hiring committees at my well-ranked R-1 department.

    I say all this in case this cultural baggage bears on the significance of my answer to the OP, which is: totally fine! It would make no difference to me in evaluating a candidate, and would not even make a noticeable impression on me (ha!) of any kind. So I say make your mark, if you’d like.

    Reply
  7. Anonymous

    Some perspective on tattoos from someone from an older generation. I am not that old, but old enough to associate tattoos with holocaust survivors. That is not a happy association; so the thrill or aesthetic of tattoos never caught me. I also recall as a student at Toronto around 1990 (a quite conservative city, then), some new graduate students from Montreal (a far less conservative city) asking me why other students do not have tattoos. I told them frankly, they are often associated with sailors and prostitutes.
    To be clear, I was hardly a conservative. My hair style and fashion was on the radical side.

    Reply
  8. Anonymous

    If you have a neck tattoo or face tattoo, it wouldn’t be *the* reason I would say no to you, but all else being equal between a candidate with a face or neck tattoo and a candidate without, I would choose the candidate without.

    If you had tattoos that extended to your hands, it wouldn’t be as big a deal for me, but I would have the impression of, “Why?” Which means I would probably read your materials a bit closer looking for evidence of being unserious.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      I appreciate the honesty, but would like to point out that this would be illegal.

      Reply
      1. tattooed philosopher too

        Tattoo-wearers are not a protected class, and it is not illegal, in the US, at least, to discriminate on that basis. https://legaljournal.princeton.edu/the-legality-of-tattoo-discrimination-in-employment/

    2. Anonymous

      Wow, this mindset is truly astonishing to me. I can’t imagine connecting someone’s having art on their neck or hand with an assessment of whether they would be a good colleague or a ‘serious’ philosopher. Genuinely, how could these things be related? This and other responses are a good reminder of how anti-progressive our discipline is. Which of course POC and minorities of all kinds have been telling us forever. How sad that we can’t imagine the positive value, to ourselves and our students, of having a professional community that is visibly diverse, inclusive and celebratory of self-expression.

      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        But everyone knows that serious philosophers are males with no tattoos, no facial hair, and elbow patches on their tweed blazers!

  9. Anonymous

    This thread has been eye-opening for me.

    Props to OP for landing a TT job and for having tattoos, and I hope (and am confident) that you will continue to be successful. Many of my tenured friends have tattoos, and the number of tattoos appears somehow correlated with their achievements and talent.

    To the supportive colleagues who encourage OP, great to have people like this around.

    Regarding the majority, “whose views do not always align with the political left,” who associate tattoos with “sailors and prostitutes” or “holocaust survivors”: Very sad, but a good reality check for younger folks who automatically assume that philosophers must have a critical and open mind. If philosophy departments are the place where you’re not allowed to be yourself, then let that be a warning to young philosophers who think about going into academia.

    Reply
    1. dazesensationallye39c0dc2cd

      Not an objection to your general point, but it looks as though you didn’t read the comments carefully enough, especially in light of what you drew from them. At least one of the quotes you picked out in your final paragraph was from someone unequivocally supportive of candidates with tattoos.

      Reply
    2. Anonymous

      I second the comment above, suggesting you did not bother to read what others have written. So rein in your moral outrage. The remark about sailors and prostitutes was made in 1990. I think things have changed in the last 36 years, even in Toronto.

      Reply
  10. OP

    OP here, and I’d like to thank everyone for the honesty on this thread!

    Reply
  11. Anonymous

    It is worth noting that we as humans are sometimes bad at recognizing our own implicit biases and how they affect our decision-making. So, while I agree that I don’t THINK this would affect my analysis of a candidate, I do not think we can be completely confident about that.

    Reply
  12. Anonymous

    I’ll just say this: I think tattoos, especially visible ones, are courageous and reflect an independent spirit. This is exactly what I’m looking for in a philosophy colleague! And it’s the sort of thing I’ve looked for when on hiring committees. YMMV, but I don’t think I’m alone is respecting individuals who are clearly confident enough in themselves to make a statement about who they actually are, and wanting our graduate students and undergraduate students to lear from such people.

    Reply
  13. Anonymous

    I worry about this last comment. People get tattoos for a lot of different reasons, good reasons and bad reasons. The bad reasons include peer pressure, or getting too drunk with malicious ‘friends*, etc. The idea that you would look at a person with a tattoo and infer something about their (good) character in this way is quite disconcerting. Let me tell you something: there are four kinds of people in the world – (i) good people with tattoos, (ii) good people without tattoos, (iii) bad people with tattoos, and (iv) bad people without tattoos. Tattoos or not, it is irrelevant to hiring a philosopher.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      As I said before, YMMV! Some people think tattoos are a minus, some a plus, and some neither. Just felt like there was a serious underrepresentation of the plus side (on which I stand firm!)

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading