Monday, March 15, 2010
April 9-10, 2010: "Hegel After Spinoza: A Symposium
McGill University, Thomson House
Friday - 4:00 pm
Keynote Address
John McCumber, "Nature vs. Spirit: Hegel’s Reconciliation with Spinoza"
Saturday - 10:00 am
Jason Read, "'Desire is Man’s Very Essence': Spinoza and Hegel as Philosophers of Transindividuality"
Caroline Williams, "Thinking the Subject between Hegel and Spinoza"
2:00 pm
Vittorio Morfino, "Spinoza in the Science of Logic"
Vance Maxwell, "Hegel’s Treatment of Spinoza: Its Scope and Limits"
4:15 pm
Keynote Address
Warren Montag, "Hegel, sive Spinoza: Towards a History of the Problem"
April 15-16, 2010: Basic Income at a Time of Economic Upheaval: A Path to Justice and Stability?
McGill University, Faculty Club
9.30: coffee & registration
9.45: welcome: Jurgen De Wispelaere, CRÉUM
10.00 – 11.00: Opening Lecture
Louise Haagh, University of York & BIEN
“Basic Income and Public Finance”
Chair: Almaz Zelleke, The New School & USBIG
11.00 – 12.45: Panel A – Basic Income Models in Canada and the US
Sally Lerner, University of Waterloo
“Education for a Canadian BIG Society”
Jim Mulvale, University of Regina
Rob Rainer, Canada Without Poverty
“Mapping out a Pragmatic Guaranteed Income Architecture for Canada”
Karl Widerquist, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, Qatar
“Exporting the Alaska Model: A Model for Reform Around the World”
Chair: Peter Dietsch, CRÉUM
12.45 – 14.00: lunch
14.00 – 15.45: Panel B – Basic Income at the Margins of Employment
Andrea Vick, University of Toronto
Ernie Lightman, University of Toronto
“Precarious Jobs, Precarious Workers: Income Security for Canadians with Episodic Disabilities”
Matt Stahl, University of Western Ontario
“Copyright, Creative Work and the Basic Income Grant”
William DiFazio, St. John’s University
Stanley Aronowitz, City University of New York
“The Jobless Future and Democracy: Wither Agency?”
Chair: John Rook, National Council for Welfare
15.45 – 16.00: coffee
16.00 – 17.45: Panel C – The Ecological Imperative
Anita Vaillancourt, University of Toronto
“Reconnecting Basic Income in Canada with Indigenous and Ecological Roots”
Michael Howard, University of Maine
“A Cap on Carbon and a Floor on Income: A Defensible Combination in the US?”
Gianne Broughton, Canadian Friends Service Committee
“Outline of an Ecological Argument for BIG”
Chair: Pat Evans, University of Carleton & BIEN Canada
17.45 – 18.45: Keynote
Guy Standing, University of Bath & BIEN
“Basic Income for the Precariat”
Chair: Jim Mulvale, University of Regina & BIEN Canada
FRIDAY 16 APRIL, Hall B 3325
9.00 – 10.45: Panel D – Economic Crisis and Income Security
Chandra Pasma, Citizens for Public Justice
“The Great Recession: What Happened to Economic Security in 2009?”
James Bryant, Manhattanville College
“The Basic Income Guarantee as an Automatic Stabilizer”
Philip Harvey, Rutgers University
“More for Less: The Job Guarantee Strategy”
Chair: Pierre-Yves Néron, CRÉUM
10.45 – 11.00: coffee
11.00 – 12.45: Panel E – Funding a Basic Income
Gary Flomenhoft, University of Vermont
“Progress on Basic Income from Common Assets In Vermont”
André Presse, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
Götz Werner, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
“Stimulating the Economy: Basic Income and the Consumption Tax”
Jeffrey Smith, Forum on Genomics
“Are Geonomies Both Imperturbable and Bountiful”
Chair: David Casassas, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona & BIEN
12.45 – 14.00: lunch
14.00 – 15.45: Political Forum “The Politics of a Universal Basic Income Grant”
Senator Art Eggleton, Chair Standing Committee Social Affairs, Science & Technology
Amélie Chateauneuf, spokesperson FCPASQ
Tony Martin MP
Rob Rainer, Executive Director Canada Without Poverty
Al Sheahen, Committee Member USBIG
Senator Hugh Segal, Deputy Chair of the Subcommittee on Cities
Chair: Sheila Regehr, Director National Council for Welfare
15.45 – 16.30: Closing Lecture
Senator Eduardo Suplicy, São Paulo, Brazil & BIEN
“Steps Towards a Citizen’s Basic Income”
Chair: Steve Shafarman, Income Security for All & USBIG
16.30: Closing & Thanks: Mike Howard, USBIG & Jim Mulvale, BIEN Canada
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Those trying to decide among graduate schools should read this Brian Leiter post and follow its advice: talk to current students.
I'd add as secondary advice: beware of thinking that you can avoid the problems in a problematic department. Academia is in many ways a very solitary life, but grad students and faculty alike really are very enmeshed in the worlds made up by their departments and universities. All the problems he lists out there can poison a whole department. Be worried and careful if you find yourself explaining to yourself that the problematic professors/factions aren't in your part of the department and so won't affect your life as a grad student. It ain't necessarily so.
Friday, March 05, 2010
Now available: Michel Seymour, ed., The Plural States of Recognition
Table of contents
Introduction--M.Seymour
Aristotle and Hegel on Recognition and Friendship--R.R.Williams
Hegel, Taylor and the Phenomenology of Broken Spirits--R.Bhargava
Respect as Recognition: Some Political Implications--A.E.Galeotti
Esteem for Contributions to the Common Good: The Role of Personifying Attitudes and Instrumental Value--H.Ikheimo &--A.Laitinen
Models of Democracy and the Politics of Recognition: Respect for Reasonable Cultural Diversity as a Principle of Political Morality--S.Thompson
Difference, Multi and Equality--J.Maclure
Political Liberalism and the Recognition of Peoples--T.Modood
Multicultural Manners--J.T.Levy
The Public Assessment of Indigenous Identity-- Avigail Eisenberg
Conclusion--M.Seymour
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
I was sent this delightful piece by Canadian Olympian Clara Hughes about the real home field advantage: access to one's own espresso machine the morning of a race.
Monday, March 01, 2010
Two theory-heavy political science conferences released their schedules today: the Canadian Political Science Association , June 1-3, Montreal (with the theory section organized by Jennifer Rubenstein and myself, and including a dedicated workhop on "Non-ideal and institutional theory") and the New England Political Science Association (theory panels organized by Sharon Krause).
For those who just want to see the theory listings for CPSA instead of browsing through the unwieldy 86-page pdf, I've separated them out here.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Fast-food chain Quick triggers an uproar and is accused of acting "contrary to the principles and spirit of the republic" when it makes the business decision to serve only halal beef at some restaurants. (Mind you, it's not as though this means only serving Muslim customers-- Christians and non-believers can eat halal beef without getting cooties.)
Compare, of course, the Quebec sugar shack case.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
See Eugene Volokh on a proposed Arizona abolition of freedom of contract and choice of law.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Le multiculturalisme a-t-il un avenir ?
26-27 FÉVRIER 2010 : COLLOQUE (UNIVERSITÉ PARIS I - PANTHÉON-SORBONNE)
vendredi 26 février
Salle 1 (Centre Panthéon, 12, place du Panthéon 75005 Paris)
Président de séance : Patrick Savidan (Université de Poitiers)
8h45-9h00 : Catherine Larrère (Université Sorbonne-Paris 1) Mot de bienvenue
9h00-9h40 : Will Kymlicka (Université Queen’s) The Essentialist Critique of Multiculturalism
9h40-10h20 : Cécile Laborde (University College London) Pour un républicanisme critique
10h20-10h50 : Questions
10h50-11h10 : Pause café
11h10-11h50 : Michel Wieviorka (EHESS) Le multiculturalisme : un concept à reconstruire ?
11h50-12h10 : Répondante : Catherine Audard (London School of Economics)
12h10-12h30 : Questions
Après-midi : Deux ateliers en sessions parallèles
Atelier 1 : L’institutionnalisation du multiculturalisme : enjeux juridiques, éthiques et identitaires
Salle 1 (Centre Panthéon, 12, place du Panthéon 75005 Paris)
Président de séance : Vincent Geisser (CNRS)
14h30-14h50 : Serge Guimond (Université Blaise Pascal) Les normes nationales d’intégration au Canada anglais, en France, en Angleterre, en Allemagne et aux USA
14h50-15h10 : Daniel Kofman (Université d’Ottawa) Multiculturalism as a demarcation between rights of majorities and minorities
15h10-15h40 : Questions
15h40-16h00 : Pause café
16h00-16h20 : Pieter Dronkers (Université d’Utrecht) Loyal to the tricolor
16h20-16h40 : Elke Winter (Université d’Ottawa) Nous, les autres et eux : la constitution discursive des identités collectives multiculturelles 16h40-17h00 : Dimitrios Karmis (Université d’Ottawa) Quelle hospitalité pour le multiculturalisme de demain ?
17h00-17h45 : Questions
Atelier 2 : Revisiter le modèle de la tolérance religieuse
Salle 216 (Centre Panthéon, 12, place du Panthéon 75005 Paris)
Président de séance : Christophe Bertossi (IFRI)
14h30-14h50 : François Boucher (Université Queen’s) Le fondement égalitariste des pratiques d’accommodement de la diversité religieuse
14h50-15h10 : Paul May (EHESS et UQAM) La laïcité selon Charles Taylor : une perspective critique
15h10-15h40 : Questions
15h40-16h00 : Pause café
16h00-16h20 : Roberto Merrill (CEHUM, Université de Minho) Minorités illibérales, droits de sortie et neutralité de l’Etat : entre tolérance et autonomie
16h20-16h40 : Laurent de Briey (Université de Namur) Le foulard de la parlementaire. Construction d’une interculturalité ou régression démocratique ?
16h40-17h00 : Denise Helly (INRS, Université de Montréal) Les juges de droit familial et les causes « musulmanes » au Québec et en Ontario
17h00-17h45 : Questions
20h30 : Dîner
Samedi 27 février
Matinée : Deux ateliers en sessions parallèles
Atelier 3 : Le modèle multiculturaliste : réappropriations et résistances
Salle 419B (Centre Panthéon, 12, place du Panthéon 75005 Paris)
Président de séance : Pap Ndiaye (EHESS)
9h00-9h20 : Patrick Imbert (Université d’Ottawa) Une lecture de Charles Taylor, Will Kymlicka et du multiculturalisme canadien par Daniel Bonilla Maldonado en fonction de la Colombie et de La constitucíon multicultural
9h20-9h40 : Magali Bessone (Université de Rennes 1) Multiculturalisme et construction nationale : le cas de la Bosnie-Herzégovine
9h40-10h10 : Questions
10h10-10h30 : Pause café
10h30-10h50 : Jessica Franklin et Karen Bird (Université de McMaster) From colour-blindness to recognition : Political paths to new identity practices in Brazil and France
10h50-11h10 : Milena Doytcheva (Université de Lille 3) Lutte contre les discriminations et “promotion de la diversité” : la difficile émergence d’une question minoritaire en France
11h10-11h30 : Sophie Guérard de Latour (Université de Bordeaux 3) La France perd-elle la mémoire ? Républicanisme, histoire nationale et reconnaissance des minorités
11h30-12h15 : Questions
Atelier 4 : Jeunesse et éducation dans les sociétés multiculturelles
Salle 420B (Centre Panthéon, 12, place du Panthéon 75005 Paris)
Présidente de séance : Gabrielle Radica (Université de Picardie)
9h00-9h20 : Tine Brouckaert et Karima Guezzou (Universités de Ghent et de Saint-Etienne) Comment négocier que les enfants de sans papiers, deviennent de futurs citoyens acceptés tout en laissant une place à leurs droits à la différence ?Entre valeurs et construction d’identités à l’école, une comparaison des modèles entre la France et la Belgique.
9h20-9h40 : Laury Bacro (Universités de Montréal et de Poitiers) Quid du multiculturalisme en France ? Le cas des troisièmes générations en France et leur difficulté à formuler leurs demandes de reconnaissance dans le cadre de l’idéologie républicaine
9h40-10h10 : Questions
10h10-10h30 : Pause café
10h30-10h50 : Janie Pélabay (Université du Luxembourg) L’Europe des « valeurs communes » et le recul du multiculturalisme : la diversité supplantée par l’unité ? 10h50-11h10 : Marcello Ostinelli (SUPSI, Locarno) L’éducation à la citoyenneté démocratique entre libéralisme politique et républicanisme critique
11h10-11h30 : Gunther Dietz (Universidad Veracruzana) Multiculturalism and Interculturality in Mexican Public Policy : the discourse and praxis of indigenous rights in a intercultural university
11h30-12h15 : Questions
Après-midi : séance plénière
Amphithéâtre Bachelard (17 rue de la Sorbonne 75005 Paris)
Président de séance : Emmanuel Picavet (Université de Franche-Comté)
14h30-15h10 : Catherine Larrère (Université Sorbonne-Paris 1) Multiculturalisme et protection de la nature
15h10-15h50 : Daniel Weinstock (CREUM, Université de Montréal) Est-ce que le multiculturalisme canadien est en crise ? 15h50-16h20 : Questions
16h20-16h40 : Pause café
16h40-17h20 : João Cardoso Rosas (Université de Minho) From Human Rights to Multiculturalism and Back
17h20-17h40 : Répondante : Justine Lacroix (Université Libre de Bruxelles)
17h40-18h00 : Questions
Monday, February 15, 2010
On facebook and on the ILS website:
Politics & Society Seminar
(co-hosted with the Montreal Economic Institute and the McGill International Student Network)
March 6, 2010 | 10am - 4pm
McGill University, Location TBA
Join us on Saturday, March 6 at McGill University to hear from leading thinkers about the ideas that shape our society.
Students and faculty from all disciplines are encouraged to attend. Click here to register.
The seminar will begin at 10:00am and conclude at 4:00pm. Each talk will be followed by time for questions and discussion by the participants. The seminar is free for students and faculty, general admission is $20. Lunch will be provided.
The agenda for this seminar is as follows:
10:00am – Registration
10:30am – Welcome
10:45am – Tom Palmer (Atlas Economic Research Foundation) - A Brief, 4,500 Year History of Liberty
12:00pm – Lunch
1:00pm – Jacob Levy (McGill University) - Freedom, Culture and Multiculturalism
2:15pm - Break
2:30pm – Jason Brennan (Brown University) - Civic Virtue Without Politics
3:45pm - Wrap-up and adjournment
Plato's Gorgias and the Politics of Shame
Forthcoming soon from Princeton University Press:
In recent years, most political theorists have agreed that shame shouldn't play any role in democratic politics because it threatens the mutual respect necessary for participation and deliberation. But Christina Tarnopolsky argues that not every kind of shame hurts democracy. In fact, she makes a powerful case that there is a form of shame essential to any critical, moderate, and self-reflexive democratic practice.
Through a careful study of Plato's Gorgias, Tarnopolsky shows that contemporary conceptions of shame are far too narrow. For Plato, three kinds of shame and shaming practices were possible in democracies, and only one of these is similar to the form condemned by contemporary thinkers. Following Plato, Tarnopolsky develops an account of a different kind of shame, which she calls "respectful shame." This practice involves the painful but beneficial shaming of one's fellow citizens as part of the ongoing process of collective deliberation. And, as Tarnopolsky argues, this type of shame is just as important to contemporary democracy as it was to its ancient form.
Tarnopolsky also challenges the view that the Gorgias inaugurates the problematic oppositions between emotion and reason, and rhetoric and philosophy. Instead, she shows that, for Plato, rationality and emotion belong together, and she argues that political science and democratic theory are impoverished when they relegate the study of emotions such as shame to other disciplines.
Monday, February 08, 2010
Some space on campus, like your dorm, can be safely assumed to be student-only. Other space, like the library, cannot. The old guy next to you in line at the library cafe just might be, say, a professor. Might even be the professor of the friend whose fraudulent excuse for skipping a scheduled exam you were describing in detail (though in this case wasn't that particular professor); in any case, might be a professor, who won't be entertained by such stories, or by the tales of your own past similar fraudulent feats of derring-do.
Now you know. And knowing is half the battle. (That's an in-joke aimed at other old people; don't worry about it.)
I really don't think funny comics with such a pernicious and false message should be allowed. I may form one of those groups like the one that defends hamburgers against Oprah's slander or that tries to get X- ratings on movies that have cigarettes in them.
But since I routinely give the other side of the story, here's the entertaining latest installment of "Multiplex"'s odd anti-caffeine story arc.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
A few thoughts, to be expanded upon as time permits. Spoilers.
I was nervous about the premiere beforehand and very enthusiastic afterward. I don't know why I didn't see the alternate timelines coming-- it's very Abrams, and we've always had parallel narrative tracks on the show. But I didn't, and it perfectly solves the problem I was most nervous about--that neither post-Jughead option could be satisfying.
I was really, really right to think that this season theology would take center stage, crowding out political theory, philosophy of time, free will and causality, and so on. (For that reason, I didn't reprise my "Lost and political theory" talk last night; I have little to say about the theology.) And that's OK. But still...
There were a lot of Jesuses-- Jessuses? Jesi?-- running around last night.
-Sayid, who came out of the baptismal pool in a groan-inducingly-Godspell-like crucification pose, telegraphing the final moment of the episode (which was further telegraphed by Miles' listening to Sayid a few minutes later)
-Christian (ahem) Shepherd (ahem), whose body went missing sometime before they
-Jack Shepherd, who hasn't really done much Christ-standing-in to justify his name up until now, but now seems set to make the crippled walk
-and Jacob, already an established healer, whose power raises Sayid from the dead, who is sacrificed by someone who knew not what he did, who appears to one follower after his death, and whose body (again) disappears.
This isn't really a complaint, but it's a new worry, since all of these seem to be in for long-term Jesussy plotlines. Part of what was so interesting about the political theory and time/ causality references was that different characters and different viewpoints and different symbols were in play for each. I hope they figure out a way to do something similar for this season's theology.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
The lead story in the Chronicle this afternoon:
Quebec Offers Fast-Tracked Canadian Citizenship to Foreign Students
By Karen Birchard
Quebec is playing the citizenship card in a bid to recruit to Canada foreign students who might otherwise be tempted to study in Australia, Britain, or the United States.
The province's premier, Jean Charest, who is leading a delegation of university heads on a visit to India, told a packed meeting at the University of Mumbai on Monday that, starting on February 14, foreign students who graduated from universities in Quebec would get "a certificate of selection" that would put them on a fast track to Canadian citizenship.
"Any student who secures a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree from any university in Quebec will obtain a certificate of selection to become a citizen of Canada ," said Mr. Charest, according to The Times of India. "We have the right to select our own citizens. We are doing this because we have a shortage of skilled labor."
Mr. Charest said that once foreign students had the certificate, the federal government would then carry out security and health checks before awarding citizenship.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The University of Montreal’s Centre de recherche en éthique (CREUM) is inviting applications of postdoctoral researchers in ethics, for residential fellowships which can vary in length according to individual circumstances (maximum 27 000 $ CAN). Applicants are expected to have at least a working knowledge of French.
The CREUM will offer to its fellows: a postdoctoral grant of 3 000$ per month, an individual workstation, access to the services of the University of Montreal (libraries, sports center, etc.), and assistance for material organisation of the stay. In return, the fellows are expected to pursue the research project submitted in their application, to participate in the Center's activities (conferences, seminars, lectures), and to present their work in progress in the context of Center's seminars and workshops. Application deadline: April 30th, 2010. For more information, please visit www.creum.umontreal.ca
Monday, January 18, 2010
Princeton University
9-10 April 2010
The Committee for the Graduate Conference in Political Theory at Princeton University welcomes papers concerning any period, methodological approach or topic in political theory, political philosophy, or the history of political thought. Approximately eight papers will be accepted.
Each session, led by a discussant from Princeton, will be focused exclusively on one paper and will feature an extensive question and answer period with Princeton faculty and students. Papers will be pre-circulated amongst conference participants.
The keynote address will be given by Professor Sharon Krause, Professor of Political Science at Brown University.
Submissions are due via email to polthry@princeton.edu
Assistance for invited participants' transportation, lodging, and meal expenses is available from the committee, which acknowledges the generous support of the Department of Politics, the University Center for Human Values, and the Graduate School of Princeton University.
All papers should be submitted by email. Submissions by snail mail will not be accepted.
For more information, please visit the conference website at https://politicaltheory.princeton.edu/
Questions and comments can be directed to: polthry@princeton.edu .
Last year’s program is available here: https://politicaltheory.princeton.edu/program.php .
Monday, January 11, 2010
1) "Plus de 100 intellectuels dénoncent la prorogation". Daniel Weinstock's letter charging Stephen Harper with betraying democratic principles and constitutional norms gains widespread support among legal scholars, philosophers, and political scientists.
2) The silver lining: via the Gazette, a list (scroll to the bottom of the page) of the bills that were in progress during the 2009 session of Parliament that are now scuttled. Prorogation wipes the pending legislation from the last year out, undoing or at least delaying a substantial portion of the government's legislative agenda.
Among the 'losses' are, most importantly, new mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses (C-15), but also a bunch of expansions of police powers (C-19, C-31, C-34, C-46, C-47, C-55) and a bunch of the kind of "cracks down on" and "close criminal loopholes" legislation that I consider guilty until proven innocent (C-27, C-35, C-36, C-42, C-43, C-45, C-52, C-53, C-54, C-58). Anything that sabotages Canada's march toward American-style narcotics policies can't be all bad.
Looks to me like the only serious losses on the list are the FTA with Jordan and the end of Canada Post's monopoly on international first-class mail. On net, a win. After all, "no man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the Legislature is in session" (attr to Mark Twain, but apparently predating him.)
3) Some thoughts from the revolutionary tradition that was rejected by the Loyalist ancestors of many of today's anglophone Canadians.
John Locke:
Sec. 155. It may be demanded here, What if the executive power, being possessed of the force of the common-wealth, shall make use of that force to hinder the meeting and acting of the legislative, when the original constitution, or the public exigencies require it? I say, using force upon the people without authority, and contrary to the trust put in him that does so, is a state of war with the people, who have a right to reinstate their legislative in the exercise of their power: for having erected a legislative, with an intent they should exercise the power of making laws, either at certain set times, or when there is need of it, when they are hindered by any force from what is so necessary to the society, and wherein the safety and preservation of the people consists, the people have a right to remove it by force. In all states and conditions, the true remedy of force without authority, is to oppose force to it. The use of force without authority, always puts him that uses it into a state of war, as the aggressor, and renders him liable to be treated accordingly.
Thomas Jefferson:
[among King George III's long train of abuses justifying revolution are that] "He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
"He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within."
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Thursday, January 14:
Charles Larmore (Brown)
"Reflection and Morality"
2 pm, Local 422, 2910 boul. Édouard-Montpetit
Universuty of Montreal
Friday, January 15:
conference on "Persuasion, Politics, Law"
Arts 160, McGill University
Coffee, pastries 8:30 – 9:00 am
9:00 am - 10:30 am: Robert Howse, NYU Law School, "On Leo Strauss's Philosophy and Law"
10:45 am - 12:15 pm: Jill Frank, University of South Carolina, "The Power of Persuasion in Plato"
Lunch Break
2:00 pm - 3:00 pm: Nina Valiquette MOREAU, "Musical Persuasion: Rousseau's Platonic Democracy"
3:00 pm - 4:00 pm: Douglas Hanes, "The Problem with One Self: Freedom, Persuasion, and Changing Desires
(Please note: The Afternoon session is also the first GRIPP graduate student workhop of the semester.) Papers will be available in advance. Please contact christina.tarnopolsky@mcgill.ca
Friday, January 22
Nancy Rosenblum, Harvard University
"Partisanship and Independence: The Moral Distinctiveness of 'Party ID'”.
2-4 pm, Arts 160, McGill University
Monday, January 04, 2010
Annual Meeting of the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy
New Orleans, January 6, 2010
Hilton New Orleans Riverside, 2 Poydras Street, Belle Chasse room, Third Floor.
I. Getting to the Concept of the Rule of Law: 10:30 a.m.-12:15 p.m.
Principal paper (philosophy): Jeremy Waldron, New York University
Commentator (law): Robin West, Georgetown University
Commentator (political science): Corey Brettschneider, Brown University
II. Maintaining or Restoring the Rule of Law after September 11, 2001: 1:30 p.m.-3:15 p.m.
Principal paper (political science): Benjamin Kleinerman, Michigan State University
Commentator (law): Curtis Bradley, Duke University
Commentator (philosophy): Lionel McPherson, Tufts University
III. Building the Rule of Law after Military Interventions: 3:30 p.m. - 5:15 p.m.
Principal paper (law): Jane Stromseth, Georgetown University
Commentator (political science): Tom Ginsburg, University of Chicago
Commentator (philosophy): Larry May, Vanderbilt University
Reception: 6:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m.
--------
In order to join the ASPLP and receive the eventual volume of Nomos on "Getting to the Rule of Law," please e-mail me.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
Via Inside Higher Ed, a Globe and Mail poll revealed significant gaps between francophone and anglophone Canadians on the value of higher education:
Canada's two solitudes endure in the value placed on higher education, with English-speaking young adults twice as likely as their francophone peers to see a university degree as the key to success, according to a new national poll.
[...]
The poll, conducted last month for the group by Leger Marketing and released exclusively to The Globe and Mail, asked 1,500 Canadians in all parts of the country if they thought a university degree was now a minimum requirement for success. What it found was a wide gap in views when the respondents' first language was taken into account - a gap that only increased when results of the youngest of those surveyed were broken out.
Fewer than 20 per cent of 18- to 24-year-old French speakers said a university degree was required, compared with 40 per cent of the English group. That difference increased even more when compared with those whose first language is neither English or French - generally first- or second-generation Canadians. More than two-thirds of young people in this group agreed a degree is needed to be successful, a result that is in keeping with the high percentage of new Canadians who go on to higher education.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Graduate Conference in Political Theory
Princeton University
9-10 April 2010
The Committee for the Graduate Conference in Political Theory at Princeton University welcomes papers concerning any period, methodological approach or topic in political theory, political philosophy, or the history of political thought. Approximately eight papers will be accepted.
Each session, led by a discussant from Princeton, will be focused exclusively on one paper and will feature an extensive question and answer period with Princeton faculty and students. Papers will be pre-circulated amongst conference participants.
The keynote address will be given by Professor Sharon Krause, Professor of Political Science at Brown University.
Submissions are due via email to polthry@princeton.edu by Monday January 4th 2010. Please limit your paper submission to 7500 words and format it for blind review (the text should include your paper's title but be free from other personal and institutional information). Papers will be refereed by current graduate students in the Department of Politics at Princeton. Acceptance notices will be sent in February.
Assistance for invited participants' transportation, lodging, and meal expenses is available from the committee, which acknowledges the generous support of the Department of Politics, the University Center for Human Values, and the Graduate School of Princeton University.
All papers should be submitted by email. Submissions by snail mail will not be accepted.
Questions and comments can be directed to: polthry@princeton.edu
For more information, please visit the conference website at https://politicaltheory.princeton.edu/
Brian Leiter reports that Jeremy Waldron has accepted the Chichele Chair in Social and Political Theory at Oxford University on a half-time basis.
Waldron (the first non-Montrealer to hold the chair in more than thirty years!) was widely thought to be the correct and even obvious choice for the preeminent position in the field. Several years worth of puzzlement about how to proceed with a Plan B followed when (or so it is said; all my knowledge here is of the "everyone knows" variety) it seemed that he was not movable from New York. This compromise is an outcome to be welcomed all around-- good for political theory at Oxford, good for the field, and (I hope and trust) good for Waldron.