Monday, July 06, 2015

Free Thoughts podcast about Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom

I was interviewed by Cato's Aaron Ross Powell and Trevor Burrus for the podcast "Free Thoughts" about Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom. Our hourlong discussion is available as a podcast or online audio here.

Friday, June 19, 2015

Political theory (and related) journals impact factors, 2014

This is one of those things I put here some years and not others, depending on whether it occurs to me. Folding together information from the poli sci, ethics, and law Journal Citation Reports (TM) from Thomson-Reuters Web of Science, on the journals that regularly publish theory, so that it's all available in one place for theorists. Note that Impact Factors have been shown by the Scholar General to be hazardous to your intellectual health. Use in moderation and with caution. Impact Factors can be useful to have on hand for reporting to various administrative bodies, but they are certainly overused and misused in a variety of ways. I mean to make the former easier, not to endorse the latter. This is not a substitute for a substantive assessment of quality, and this ranking has very close to no correlation with my own ranking of quality. Also note that, as always, a number of important journals including The Review of Politics and History of Political Thought are missing from these rankings altogether. American Political Science Review: 3.688, 2nd in Political Science
American Journal of Political Science: 3.269, 4th in PS
Annual Review of Political Science: 3.140, 5th in PS
Journal of Politics: 2.255, 9th in PS
Perspectives on Politics: 2.132, 11th in PS
British Journal of Political Science: 1.987, 15th in PS
Philosophy & Public Affairs: 1.273, 40th in PS, 10th in Ethics
Political Research Quarterly: 1.149, 47th in PS
Ethics: 1.140, 13th in Ethics
International Theory: 1.051, 52nd in PS
Political Studies: 0.939, 59th in PS
Journal of Political Philosophy, 0.870, 67th in PS, 21st in Ethics
Polity, 0.642, 92nd in PS
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 0.641, 72nd in Law
Journal of Applied Philosophy, 0.588, 30th in Ethics
Political Theory, 0.576, 99th in PS
Law & Philosophy, 0.469, 34th in Ethics, 90th in Law
Ethics & International Affairs, 0.453, 110th in PS, 37th in Ethics
Contemporary Political Theory, 0.367, 124th in PS
Critical Review, 0.320, 130th in PS
Journal of Moral Philosophy, 0.275, 43rd in Ethics
Social Philosophy & Policy, 0.255, 44th in Ethics
Politics Philosophy & Economics, 0.214, 139th in PS, 47th in Ethics
Journal of Social Philosophy, 0.190, 49th in Ethics

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

AAAS 2015

Another year, another round of elections to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences that includes no political theorists. I'm not sure any theorist has been elected from within political science in the past six years. (There have been people elected from within philosophy, history, or law who are also political theorists.) That also means another year in which Michael Walzer in particular hasn't been elected. In the empirical fields we're starting to see a generation change in the people who are elected: PhDs in the 1990s are starting to turn up. In political theory, I don't immediately see anyone with a PhD after 1980, and there are still conspicuous omissions that ought to be rectified from the generation before that.

Wednesday, April 08, 2015

RPF reviews

This seems a little too openly self-promotional for BHL, but: see Todd Seavey on my new book at his blog, and Melissa Schwartzberg at The New Rambler Review, a new review site edited by Adrian Vermeule, Blakeley Vermeule, and Eric Posner.

Monday, March 30, 2015

Comments on Indiana

Setting politics aside to start with: I'm unsurprisingly a strong supporter of the original Religious Freedom Restoration Act and its state-level counterparts that sought to protect religious believers against state interference of the sort that was legalized by Smith v Oregon. I'm much more uneasy about RFRA defenses in civil lawsuits between two private parties. There is a lot to be said for having a general, impersonal private law, such that I don't have to know the identity of the other party in order to know the law that will govern our transaction. I've quoted this before in a related context; recall Voltaire's classic statement of the doux commerce thesis:
Take a view of the Royal Exchange in London, a place more venerable than many courts of justice, where the representatives of all nations meet for the benefit of mankind. There the Jew, the Mahometan, and the Christian transact together, as though they all professed the same religion, and give the name of infidel to none but bankrupts. There thee Presbyterian confides in the Anabaptist, and the Churchman depends on the Quaker’s word. At the breaking up of this pacific and free assembly, some withdraw to the synagogue, and others to take a glass. This man goes and is baptized in a great tub, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: that man has his son’s foreskin cut off, whilst a set of Hebrew words (quite unintelligible to him) are mumbled over his child. Others retire to their churches, and there wait for the inspiration of heaven with their hats on, and all are satisfied.
That's a major, valuable civil accomplishment, and not to be thrown away lightly. If I can't transact with people on the same terms because each of us is potentially carrying around a religiously-specific contract or tort law, that's a real loss. I don't say that a unified private law is required by justice or abstract principle; I'm too much of a pluralist and a multiculturalist for that. But I think we have reason to be very nervous about abandoning it, and reason to treat lightly and deliberately. I do not get the feeling that the trend toward super-RFRAs that extend to private transactions has been adopted with due care. As to private-sector discrimination, I'm of the view that private businesses should be free to refuse customers, subject to two categories of exceptions: (a) if the firms are common carriers or (in the common law sense) public accommodations rather than ordinary private retailers and (b) in the United States, due to the constitutional and historical distinctiveness of Jim Crow and its melding of public and private discrimination, discrimination on the basis of race. I think the trend to treat bans on private-sector discrimination outside of public accommodations and common carriers as the rule, rather than a unique exception demanded by the unique shape of Jim Crow, has been a serious mistake. But just because I think that the florist and the wedding-cake baker ought to be free to refuse customers in general doesn't mean that I think "antidiscrimination statute governing sexual orientation plus highly particular religious exemption" is a good second-best. Sometimes a legal kludge can make for a tolerable compromise. Sometimes when one area of law is broken, bending another can get you roughly where you should be. I'm not at all convinced that that's the case here. Writing an exemption to antidiscrimination law specifically for Christians who don't approve of homosexuality is ugly; and the generalized version we see in RFRAs like Indiana's does damage (the scale of which we can't yet guess) to the generality of the private law. Now unbracketing the politics: A pox on both your houses. There's a tremendous amount of deliberate and inflammatory misinformation flying around-- on one side, as if the IRFRA were nothing but a license to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and on the other as if there were no relevant differences between IRFRA and other RFRAs. (Most state RFRas don't apply to horizontal suits between private parties; there's a circuit split on whether to interpret the federal RFRA as so applying, but the statute doesn't say that it does.) George Stephanopolous yesterday went after Mike Pence with what he clearly thought was the very clever demand to get a yes or no answer to the question of whether it's now legal to discriminate against gays and lesbians in Indiana, when a) It already was; Indiana doesn't have a statewide ban on private sector discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (there are city- and county-level laws), and b) the right answer is not to know the answer, as all RFRAs prescribe a standard for judicial review rather than predetermining answers. It's up to a competent court to adjudicate whether there is a compelling state interest in preventing discrimination against a particular gay person by a particular conservative religious believer in a particular transaction. On the other hand, Pence and the bill's legislative supporters are obviously being disingenuous as hell about the motivation for passing a RFRA with this particular shape at this particular time. It is no secret that, politically, in Indiana, right now, this RFRA is centrally about same-sex marriage. People who have, in the last two years, unsuccessfully defended a ban on same-sex marriage in federal court and unsuccessfully tried to constitutionalize that ban make unconvincing defenders of liberty; they're just switching legal strategies. By the same token, and as I've said before, the newfound desire for opponents of same-sex marriage to defend pluralism and compromise rings very hollow.
Both of those requirements — compelling government interest, least burdensome means — are open to a considerable degree of interpretation, which is of course by design: That is what allows a modus vivendi to emerge.[...] Gay-rights activism is, just at the moment, very much oriented toward preventing the emergence of any social compromise on the matter of homosexual marriage, which is why tradition-minded florists and bakers, generally conservative Christians, are being targeted for prosecution as enemies of civil rights.
The anti-same-sex-marriage movement during its ascendancy in the 1990s and 2000s was viciously and hatefully maximalist. Imagine the different history of America if conservatives in the late 1990s had energetically supported civil unions provided that they not use the word "marriage," instead of pursuing the most aggressive and restrictionist DOMAs they could get away with in each context, such that where conservative majorities were strongest even ordinary contractual rights that might seem too much like marriage were prohibited, instead of mobilizing boycotts of firms that offered same-sex couples employment benefits! As it is, their defense of private sector liberty and the pluralism it makes possible is many days late and many dollars short. It kicked in only when, starting in the mid-2000s, the political tide turned. That shouldn't change our view of the right outcome; some particular cake baker shouldn't lose his religious liberty because the movement that's defending him now makes hypocritical arguments. But it does mean that the violin I hear playing when conservatives complain about the supposedly totalizing and compromise-rejecting agenda of same-sex-marriage supporters is very very small indeed. Update: Michael Tanner offers some thoughts in a very similar spirit.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Book offer for students

I have some extra copies of books to which I contributed sitting around the office. Anthony Laden and David Owen, eds., Multiculturalism and Political Theory James Fleming and Jacob T. Levy, eds., NOMOS LV: Federalism and Subsidiarity Avigail Eisenberg and Jeff Spinner-Halev, eds., Minorities Within Minorities Will Kymlicka and Alan Patten eds., Language Rights and Political Theory Better to get them into the hands of people who will read them. So: The first eight current students (or postdocs) who buy a copy of Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom after this post goes up, and who forward me their proof-of-purchase e-mail, can name one of the above books and I'll send it to them. (Actually, please name a first and a second choice in case there's clustering; I'll also update this post to indicate when each of the volumes runs out.) The cheapest way to buy RPF is directly from OUP: go here, and use discount code ASFLYQ6 at checkout for 30% off. For a while, at least, OUP was giving an additional 10% off to people making their first direct purchase through the website. If that's still true, then it comes to $US 30 or so. E-mail address is jtlevy [at] .

Tuesday, February 03, 2015

Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom

Available in the US February 11 (in Canada and the UK, released December 2014). If you buy at that link, discount code ASFLYQ6 brings the price down to $35. For those who prefer Amazon: Canada, US

Monday, August 18, 2014

I'm # 6,400,831!

That means someone has pre-ordered Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom.  Maybe even two someones.

Tuesday, July 01, 2014

Blogging the Annual Review of Political Science

Over at BHL, I'm blogging my way through a round of reading the 2013 and 2014 Annual Reviews of Political Science this summer.

Nomos LV: Federalism and Subsidiarity

Now in print: Nomos LV: Federalism and Subsidiarity (hardcover or electronic).

Nomos LV: Federalism and Subsidiarity, edited by James E. Fleming and Jacob T. Levy

"In Federalism and Subsidiarity, a distinguished interdisciplinary group of scholars in political science, law, and philosophy address the application and interaction of the concept of federalism within law and government. What are the best justifications for and conceptions of federalism? What are the most useful criteria for deciding what powers should be allocated to national governments and what powers reserved to state or provincial governments? What are the implications of the principle of subsidiarity for such questions? What should be the constitutional standing of cities in federations? Do we need to “remap” federalism to reckon with the emergence of translocal and transnational organizations with porous boundaries that are not reflected in traditional jurisdictional conceptions? Examining these questions and more, this latest installation in the NOMOS series sheds new light on the allocation of power within federations."

James E. Fleming and Jacob T. Levy

Part I. Federalism, Positive Benefits, and Negative Liberties

1. Defending Dual Federalism: A Self-Defeating Act
Sotirios A. Barber

2. Defending Dual Federalism: A Bad Idea, But Not Self-Defeating
Michael Blake

3. The Puzzling Persistence of Dual Federalism
Ernest A. Young

4. Foot Voting, Federalism, and Political Freedom
Ilya Somin

Part II. Constitutions, Federalism, and Subsidiarity

5. Federalism and Subsidiarity: Perspectives from U.S. Constitutional Law
Steven G. Calabresi and Lucy D. Bickford

6. Subsidiarity, the Judicial Role, and the Warren Court’s Contribution to the Revival of State Government
Vicki C. Jackson

7. Competing Conceptions of Subsidiarity
Andreas Føllesdal

8. Subsidiarity and Robustness: Building the Adaptive Efficiency of Federal Systems
Jenna Bednar

Part III. The Entrenchment of Local and Provincial Autonomy, Integrity, and Participation

9. Cities and Federalism
Daniel Weinstock

10. Cities, Subsidiarity, and Federalism
Loren King

11. The Constitutional Entrenchment of Federalism
Jacob T. Levy

Part IV. Remapping Federalism(s)
12. Federalism(s)’ Forms and Norms: Contesting Rights, De-Essentializing Jurisdictional Divides, and Temporizing Accommodations
Judith Resnik

Thursday, May 29, 2014

RGCS postdoc 2014-15

The Research Group on Constitutional Studies at McGill University invites applications for a postdoctoral fellowship for academic year 2014-15, renewable for 2015-16.  The Fellow will receive a stipend of $C 50,000 per year as well as a research fund and benefits.  

The Fellow will be expected to be in residence at McGill throughout the academic year, and to take an active part in workshops, conferences, and the intellectual life of RGCS and appropriate related research groups and centres (for political theorists, the Groupe de Recherche Interuniversitaire en Philosophie Politique, GRIPP).  The Fellow will also be expected to teach one course per year, most likely an upper-level undergraduate course on "Philosophy, Economics, and Society," though other matches between curricular needs and the Fellow's interests are possible.

The competition has a preference for political theorists, but is also open to those whose research in comparative politics or the public law field of political science falls within the theme of constitutional studies: constitutional design, constitutional law, and the operation of constitutional-level political institutions.  

Applicants should send a cover letter, CV, research statement (including a plan of the work to be pursued in the next two years), one writing sample of no more than 10,000 words, to by June 20, 2014, and should arrange for 2-3 letters of recommendation to be sent to the same address.  It is helpful and welcome if the cover letter specifies one or more political science members of RGCS' faculty roster ( ) who might be most appropriate as a research advisor, but the final match with an advisor or advisors may differ. 

The competition is open with respect to nationality; knowledge of French is an advantage but not required.  Other information on postdoctoral fellowships at McGill is available at , including information on obtaining a Canadian work permit if necessary.  Ph.D. must have been awarded between January 1, 2010 and the date of application, or else the dissertation must have been successfully defended and all requirements for the degree completed by the date of application (i.e. with formal awarding of the degree still pending).

All e-mailed parts of an application including letters of recommendation should include the applicant's name in the subject line.  Applications submitted as one complete interfolio file are welcome. 

Saturday, February 01, 2014

"Taking Politics Less Seriously"

My talk at an Institute for Liberal Studies seminar on rejecting the fiction that the political world reflects one's will or one's soul is now online. Politics is something that happens to us, something we have to manage and live with as best we can; it has no natural tendency to reflect our wills or our consent, and the insistence that it does only empowers the people who want to falsely impute consent to us and claim to be harming us in our own name.

Friday, October 11, 2013

The Center for Ethics in Society Post Doctoral Fellowships

For 2014-2015, we seek up to three new post doctoral fellows. We welcome candidates with substantial normative research interests from philosophy, the social sciences, and the professional schools. We are especially interested in candidates with research interests in inequality, education, international justice, and environmental ethics, but we welcome all applicants with strong normative interests that have some practical implications. Scholars with a JD but no PhD are eligible to apply. Fellows will be involved in teaching, interact with undergraduates in the Ethics in Society Honors Program and help in fostering an inter-disciplinary ethics community across the campus. The appointment term is September 1, 2014 - August 31, 2015; however, the initial term may be renewed for an additional year. Applicants must have completed all requirements for their PhD by June 30, 2014. Candidates must also be no more than 3 years from the awarding of their degree (i.e., September 2011). The application deadline is January 9, 2014 (5:00pm Pacific Standard Time). Stanford University is an equal opportunity employer and is committed to increasing the diversity of its faculty. We welcome applications from women and members of minority groups, as well as others who would bring additional dimensions to the university's research and teaching missions. Salary is competitive. Please submit a CV, a writing sample (no more than 25 pages), three letters of recommendation, and a one-page research statement. For information on how to access the online system to submit your application material, visit our website Contact person: Anne Newman ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Center for Ethics in Society Post Doctoral TEACHING Fellowships For 2014-2015, we seek up to two new post doctoral teaching fellows. These teaching fellows are offered in conjunction with Stanford's new general education requirement, which requires all Stanford undergraduates to take at least one ethics course. Teaching fellows will assist in one class per quarter and will be asked to run up to two sections per quarter. The Ethics Teaching Fellows will be fully integrated into the programming of the Center. This fellowship provides an opportunity to work with great students in a variety of disciplines and develop ethics expertise across the curriculum. The appointment term is September 1, 2014 - August 31, 2015. Applicants must have completed all requirements for their PhD by June 30, 2014. Candidates must also be no more than 3 years from the awarding of their degree (i.e., September 2011). The application deadline is January 9, 2014 (5:00pm Pacific Standard Time). Stanford University is an equal opportunity employer and is committed to increasing the diversity of its faculty. We welcome applications from women and members of minority groups, as well as others who would bring additional dimensions to the university's research and teaching missions. Salary is competitive. Please submit a CV, a writing sample (no more than 25 pages), three letters of recommendation, and a teaching portfolio. For information on how to access the online system to submit your application, visit our website Contact person: Anne Newman

Thursday, July 18, 2013

"Small but stubborn"

I think I should adopt "small but stubborn" as my personal motto, to be emblazoned on the home page of the blog, my business cards, and eventually the coat of arms of my Game of Thrones-style noble house. It works, donchathink?

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

The world is too much with us.

Zimmerman. Snowden. Dhaka. Taksim Square. Tahrir Square. Lac-Megantic. Oklahoma tornadoes. West, Texas. Syria. This is starting to feel like one of those novelistically awful long-hot-summers.... as if it's building up toward a blackout-riot on a global scale, or to the revelation that the neighbor's demon-possessed dog has been orchestrating the whole thing, or to a wrath-of-god thunderstorm in which Batman returns after ten years of retirement. This seems like an appropriate summer for Superman to start snapping people's necks.

In the novel that's set in this summer, Jenny McCarthy, Anthony Weiner Colin McGinn, and Elliot Spitzer will provide the dark comic relief--bad, and in some sense too bad to be funny, but not immediately* fatal, and so implausibly ridiculous that they let you laugh for a few pages in between the long stretches of tension.

*Yes, giving Jenny McCarthy a platform for her views will lead to more deaths. I said "immediately."

Monday, July 01, 2013

A note to the NSA

The gentleman on the left has "free" earlobes whereas the other guy's earlobes are attached. Please also note the difference in pigmentation spots on the neck and cheek. I would greatly appreciate it if you would direct your field agents to check earlobes and moles carefully before taking action.

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Come to Montreal: IPSA, July 2014 International Political science Association World Congress, Montreal, July 19-24 2014 Congress theme: Challenges of Contemporary Governance Political scientists are often seen not merely as analysts of political matters, but as something akin to engineers sculpting the organisation of power. Globalisation has profoundly altered the work of political scientists, intensifying communication and exchange on issues pertaining to the way in which communities, societies, nations and the world itself are governed. The ambition of this international political science congress, to be held in Montreal, is to reflect upon contemporary evolutions in governance in the face of numerous challenges: Political, economic and social systems have become increasingly fragmented, rendering global strategic initiatives ever more complex The variety of values, attitudes and behaviours exhibited by individuals and groups makes for a greater and more diverse demand for inclusion and participation As the structures through which these interests are represented continue to expand, systems of governance become increasingly complex, more difficult to interpret and understand and less responsive to the uninitiated citizen There is a growing risk that the democratic quality of our political systems will deteriorate as a result of the rising influence and decision-making capacity of technical-administrative and technocratic experts For a given sector or type of organisation, comparative analysis and an experimental methodological approach should help better evaluate the performance of different forms of governance It may also be fruitful to focus on the various competitive strategies and means by which models of governance are promoted, or even imposed (in the name of ‘good governance’ demanded by international institutions, for example) Faced with these challenges, the multi-faceted phenomenon of governance requires a global, comprehensive and multi-tiered approach: from the local association or political party up to the international community, via regional integration or the national regulation of an economic sector. Adopting an approach to political science which is resolutely open to the opportunities offered by interdisciplinary collaborations, we must also support the circulation of theoretical frameworks and empirical approaches which are applicable in the northern and southern hemispheres, to the most developed nations and the panoply of emerging and developing countries. The main focus of this congress will be to generate the greatest possible number of concrete, innovative answers to the questions of citizens, their political, associative and socio-economic representatives and the policy makers who are working constantly to improve the quality of governance. The principal themes covered by this congress will be: International Political Economy International Relations Public Policy Analysis and Administrative Science Comparative Politics and Institutions Political Theory, Gender and Politics Urban and Regional Politics and Policies Political Attitudes and Behaviour Deadline for open panel proposals: July 1, 2014 Deadline for paper proposals (and closed panel proposals): October 7, 2014

The living constitution

[The Voting Rights Act's] "Section 4's formula is unconstitutional in light of current conditions." Roberts for the majority (including Scalia) in Shelby County. Scalia in oral arguments on the DOMA case: "I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?... Well, how am I supposed to how to decide a case, then, if you can't give me a date when the Constitution changes?" I'm curious, Justice Scalia: when did the evolving standards of the living constitutional text of Amendment 15 section 2 change to make the VRA Section 4 unconstituional? Can you give me a date on that?

Quick reaction: Adoptive Couple vs Baby Girl

Thomas' concurrence in Adoptive Couple vs Baby Girl is shocking. He manages to concoct a story whereby the Constitution granted Congress *less* power relative to the states than the Articles had when it came to Indian affairs. He claims that the Indian Commerce Clause only applies to tribes in the unorganized west, outside state boundaries altogether. This is very nearly backwards. Madison very deliberately *removed* the restriction in the Articles limiting Congressional authority to "Indians, not members of any of the States."

(I discuss this in this paper. ).

Thomas is right that the Indian Commerce Clause should not be read in the Lone Wolf/ Kagama way to grant plenary power over all Indian affairs. But he's so utterly wrong about the jurisdiction to which the clause applies that the conclusion ends up backward: he would grant plenary power *to the states*, and declare the clause a dead letter now that there is no part of Indian Country that lies outside state boundaries. There is simply no evidence that the Founders envisioned the extinction of Indian Commerce Clause jurisdiction and a complete transfer of power to the states.

It's worth saying that I don't actually have a clear view about the merits of the case. ICWA cases are hard, and require knowing not only federal Indian law but also family law. I know essentially nothing about the latter. (I suspect that this is true of some of the justices, too-- ICWA cases are about the only family law cases the Court ever has to hear-- but they have clerks.) Indeed, Thomas' outlandish view here is (on his own telling) irrelevant to the case. I have sometimes admired his urge to make his points about the Constitution's original meaning even when he was clearly on his own. But in this case he has got it the wrong way around.

See more here (and in comments), and here (from longtime friend of the blog and former Supreme Court clerk Will Baude) (and in comments.) I also strongly recommend Gregory Ablavsky, "The Savage Constitution," forthcoming Duke Law Journal.

Another update:
Michael Ramsey says
I'm not sure Professor Levy is reading Thomas right. Off the top of my head, I can't see anything in the Constitution's text that would limit Congress' Indian Commerce power to tribes beyond state boundaries. Nor is it obvious why that limit would be assumed -- at the time, some of the tribes within state boundaries were extremely powerful, and relations with them seemed to call for a national approach. But I don't read Thomas as imposing that limit; all he says is that Congress' power is only to "regulate trade with Indian tribes — that is, Indians who had not been incorporated into the body-politic of any State", which (I would think) could include Indians living in tribes either within or outside a state.

To which I reply with a quotatiom from Thomas' opinion:

"The ratifiers almost certainly understood the Clause to confer a relatively modest power on Congress — namely, the power to regulate trade with Indian tribes living beyond state borders."

To this I'll add one more:

"It is, thus, clear that the Framers of the Constitution were alert to the difference between the power to regulate trade with the Indians and the power to regulate all Indian affairs. By limiting Congress' power to the former, the Framers declined to grant Congress the same broad powers over Indian affairs conferred by the Articles of Confederation."

This claim-- that the Constitution gave Congress less authority than did the Articles with respect to Indian affairs-- can't survive reading the text of those two documents and Madison's commentary on the change between them. My piece linked to above, and Ablavsky's far more comprehensively, provide the evidence; and the claim should startle even readers who don't know or care about the Indian power as such, given the relationship between the Articles and the Constitution.

Even if Natelson is right that Congressional and state power run concurrently (and I don't think that he is), Thomas' view goes implausibly far beyond that.

Stanford Ethics Center: Associate Director position

McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society PhD position The McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society seeks a full time associate director to supervise our post-doctoral fellowship program, implement programming for graduate students, and in general support the Center initiatives. Our Center, which is celebrating its 10th anniversary, is committed to bringing ethical reflection to bear on important social problems through research, teaching, and engagement. We have a core group of highly respected faculty and a robust post doctoral fellowship program with talented young scholars. In addition, we have a strong undergraduate honors program that attracts students from throughout the University. For more information about our Center, please visit Direct the Center’s post doctoral fellow program (50%) Coordinate and supervise all aspects of the Center’s post-doctoral fellow program, including advertising, recruitment, and participation in selection of fellows; coordinating appointments of postdocs and arranging for entry into Stanford life; manage the post doc workshop, work with fellows to develop excellent teaching skills, mentor fellows on best practices for advising students; coordinate post-doc mentoring with undergraduate honors students. Attend weekly workshops, review and comment on works in progress. Handle the appointment process for the post-doctoral fellows and all financial transactions related to the fellow (e.g., salary, reimbursements, and research funds) Programming for graduate students (25%) Working closely with the Director, Center staff and campus partners, develop and implement programming for graduate students. Responsible for implementation of all graduate student programming. Support Center initiatives (25%) Research, write and submit grants for Stanford and outside funding to support Center initiatives, work closely with Stanford faculty interested in promoting ethical reasoning and the discussion of ethical issues in their courses, support the Center’s research, explore development opportunities, and perform assorted tasks as needed to meet broader Center goals. Responsible for keeping working papers section of the website up to date and for assisting with the connection of Center research to the broader public. Qualifications A Ph.D. in a Humanities, Social Science, or related discipline with significant focus on ethics and/or political philosophy. The ideal candidate will have a PhD in Philosophy, Political Science or a Law degree with extensive teaching experience and a track record of publishing on ethical topics. Commitment and ability to foster appreciation and understanding of ethics across the curriculum and ability to work with diverse constituencies. The job will involve strategic planning, academic programming, committee work, and grant writing. Proven ability to be a team player (with a wide range of people including faculty, administrative staff, and students), as well as demonstrated leadership ability with excellent communication and organizational skills. Familiarity with university requirements, fellowship opportunities, and academic resources is a plus. This is a 3 year fixed term position (with possibility of renewal).

Monday, June 24, 2013

Strauss Prize winner: Alin Fumurescu

Alin Fumurescu, PhD Indiana University, has been awarded the 2012 APSA Leo Strauss Prize for the best dissertation in political theory, for “Compromise and Representation: A Split History of Early Modernity,” now adapted into a book from Cambridge University Press.