Hither and yon: CEU, Budapest
The 20th Annual Individual vs. the State conference
June 8 – 9, 2012
Central European University, Budapest (Auditorium)
The Tragedy of Liberty?: From Liberation to Self-Destruction and Irrelevance
Friday, June 8,
9.30 a.m. – 11.00 a.m.
Panel 1. Is a Liberty-Based State Still Possible?
Chair: Renata Uitz (CEU, Legal Studies Department)
A Non-Utopian Plea for Liberal Democracy and Against Social Engineering
Shlomo Avineri (Hebrew University, Jerusalem)
Republican Liberty, Global Constitutionalism, and the Obsolescence of the State
José Luis Marti (Universitat Pompeu Fabra)
Commentator: Daniel Smilov (University of Sofia, Bulgaria)
11.30 a.m. – 1.00 p.m.
Panel 2: Liberty to Whom?
Chair: Nenad Dimitrijevic (CEU Political Science)
Political liberty: three theories of liberalism for three theories of federalism. A Hegelian turn
Lluís-Ferran Requejo (Universitat Pompeu Fabra)
No Longer a Slave But Not Yet Free: Freedom and Social Dislocation
John Christman (Penn State University)
Commentator: János Kis (CEU, Political Science and Philosophy)
2.30 p.m. – 4.00 p.m.
Panel 3: The Demise of Freedom
Chair: Judit Sandor (CEU Departments of Political Science, Legal Studies and Gender Studies, and CELAB, Director)
Liberty and its Competitors
András Sajó (European Court of Human Rights)
Victims’ Rights and Due Process
Károly Bárd (CEU Legal Studies Department)
Commentator: Lech Garlicki (European Court of Human Rights)
5.00 p.m. – 6.30 p.m.
Panel 4: Is Security a Pretext? The Possibilities of Freedom in a Genuine Risk Society
Chair: Petra Bárd (National Institute for Criminology, Budapest)
Liberty and Security Revisited: Towards a Liberalism after Neoliberalism
Jan-Werner Muller (Princeton University)
Freedom under a System of Public Laws: From Hobbes through Hayek to Republicanism
David Dyzenhaus (University of Toronto)
Commentor: Miroslaw Wyrzykowski (Warsaw University)
Saturday, June 9, CEU Auditorium
9.30 a.m. – 11.00 a.m.
Panel 5: Liberty to All or Pluralistic Freedoms: The Conflict of Values
Chair: Susanna Mancini (University of Bologna)
Liberty and the Conflict of Values
Matthias Mahlmann (University of Zurich)
Rationalism Pluralism and Freedom
Jacob T. Levy (McGill University)
Commentator: Michel Rosenfeld (Cardozo Law School)
11.30 a.m. – 1.00 p.m.
Panel 6: Dignity as a Challenge to the Liberal Order
Chair: Patrick Macklem (University of Toronto)
Expressivism, Dignity and the Challenge to Liberty
Christopher McCrudden (Queen’s University, Belfast)
Waldron on Dignity and Responsibility-rights: Can the Tragedy of Liberty be Avoided?
Ruzha Smilova (University of Sofia)
Commentator: Wojciech Sadurski (University of Sydney)
2.30 p.m. – 4.30 p.m.
Panel 7: What Would a Liberty-Based Constitutional Order Look Like?
Chair: Michael Hamilton (CEU Legal Studies Department)
What Would a Liberty-Respecting Criminal Justice System Look Like?
Eric Blumenson (Suffolk University Law School)
Room for Religious Pluralism? Freedom of Religion Replaced by Institutional Considerations
Renáta Uitz (CEU Legal Studies Department)
Commentator: Anna Sledzinska-Simon (University of Wroclaw)
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Public opinion watch
New polls here and here. Both show the median respondent supporting tuition increases rather than a freeze-- albeit in one case preferring inflation indexing to the government's proposal. And Bill 78 is less unpopular than one would like, and less unpopular than I think Montrealers are convincing ourselves it is. The Quebec City area has very different politics, and a lot of voters.
Tuition and language politics
Maybe all of the following is obvious and widely-known; I haven't seen it discussed, though.
The "distinct society" portion of the tuition conversation has been mostly about the transfer of authority over higher education from the Catholic Church to the Quebec state in the wake of the Quiet Revolution, and the conscious commitment to work toward a social-democratic model of tuition-free higher education. But it seems to me that there's also a strong relationship with language-population politics.
The Quebec higher education system has several relevant distinct features:
1. CEGEP/ college education going to grade 13
2. Following directly from that, a 3-year university BA
3. A differentiation between tuition for in-province and out-of-province Canadian students-- standard in the US but, I believe, unique in Canada Update: not unique, I'm told in comments, but I'm having trouble coming up with general information. So far it looks to me as if Ontario, BC, Alberta, and Calgary all have uniform Canadian tuition rates, without provincial differentiation. More information, please!)
4. Very, very low in-province tuition-- not 0, but much closer to 0 than to tuition in Ontario or California.
5. Unusually high provincial levels of taxation
I treat (5) as part of higher education policy because defenders of low tuition insist that students aren't trying to avoid paying for their educations; they'll just pay for them later through taxes rather than up-front through tuition; and that this moreover prevents low tuition from being a regressive subsidy to the middle- and upper-class students who are most likely to attend university. And of course it's importantly connected to (4).
Now, the first thought I had in looking at all of this was, "anomalously low tuition and anomalously high taxes to pay for it can go together in a closed society where the same people spend their whole life cycle in the same tax-and-spend system, and the closed society is a convenient assumption for some social democratic modeling, but its empirical falseness means that the micro-level fairness story fails. You'll get people getting their cheap educations and then leaving, while others who have paid full price for a university education elsewhere, or even out-of-province tuition here, migrate here and then pay again through the tax system." Now, one unattractive feature about that from my perspective is that it creates a possible sense that people are doing something wrong, shirking their fair share of the burden for their own education, by out-migrating; I think that's an illiberal norm to run a society on. But on its face it also looks fiscally unsustainable: everyone's incentive is to get the education and then get out. And then I thought to myself, "discouraging out-migration is an important part of the preservation of The french Fact. So I'm missing something."
Separate the population into three groups, and look at how the system works for each.
1) Out-of-province students have roughly neutral incentives to come to university here, but a disincentive to come to university and stay. Out-of-province tuition is roughly comparable to tuition elsewhere in the country (though still lower than Ontario), and out-of-province students get the standard 4-year degree since they didn't go to CEGEP, so if they just come get a BA and leave again they're neither getting any special discount nor paying any special price. But if they come and stay, then they've paid 4 years of normal tuition rather than 3 years of cheap tuition, and then they spend the rest of their lives paying taxes as if they had benefitted from the discount rate. (The same is true-but-moreso for international students.)
2. In-province anglophones have an incentive to do what I described above: get a BA on the cheap by paying three years of low tuition, then migrate out to anywhere else in North America where their taxes will be lower. The incentive to stay local for the BA is very steep.
3. In-province francophones face the same financial incentives as in-province anglophones: a huge incentive to stay local for the BA, since the three-year low tuition degree is vastly cheaper than a four-year normal-tuition degree elsewhere. Then-- here's the part that puzzled me-- they have an incentive at the margin to leave when the high taxes kick in.
But exit in post-collegiate early adulthood is a lot easier for anglophones. They've got, roughly, the whole Canadian and American college-educated labor market open to them, and they enter it on an equal footing with those whose educations were anywhere else in North America.
If English is neither your first language nor the language of your university education, it's a lot harder to suddenly jump into the educated-labor market of anglophone North America at age 22 or 25. You're starting at a disadvantage in that market that doesn't apply if you stay close to home. If, by contrast, you had left home for an English-language four-year education, you'd be a lot more likely to, as it were, defect, and take advantage of the economic opportunities open to anglophone university graduates in other parts of the continent.
So the system as a whole acts as a financial disincentive to permanent in-migration from the rest of North America (and NB that French citizens pay in-province tuition rates, not international tuition rates) and as a marginal incentive to out-migration for anglophones once they've gotten their college educations. But for francophones from Quebec, it acts as a strong incentive to stay at home for university education, a moment when there might otherwise be an especially high risk of permanent out-migration, and a marginal reduction in their ability to out-migrate later.
In other words, even if some number of high-earning francophones leave (and therefore never "pay back" the cheap university educations they receive) the system broadly tends toward making francophone Quebec a more self-contained economic world in which people do spend their whole life cycles, while simultaneously subtly encouraging anglophone out-migration and discouraging anglophone in-migration.
This, perhaps oddly, makes me slightly more sympathetic to the system than I would otherwise be. (It also, of course, makes it more sustainable than it would otherwise be; it significantly retards the get-your-cheap-degree-then-get-out dynamic.) Francophone Quebec does need to be a partly self-contained economic world to be sustainable; a large steady outflow of 18-year olds who never came back could be the beginning of a downward spiral in the viability of the French Fact. (Note, too that a bloated civil service is often a part of this kind of system in postcolonial societies; it provides jobs for a surplus of locally-highly-educated workers.) Of all the possible policies to sustain the French Fact on a population basis, this tax-and-subsidize policy is on the low-coercion side. (It might, probably does, depress the overall prosperity of Quebec, and that has to go into the calculations too; in the long term, la survivance will depend on an economy that is successful, competitive, and attractive, not just one that is self-contained enough to discourage emigration.)
But-- if I'm right about all this-- I do think it's worth acknowledging the uncomfortable truths that the system operates to diminish the mobility of local francophones, indeed depends on doing so, while simultaneously greasing the slide out of town for local anglophones.
This is all back-of-the-envelope modeling, and I'm entirely open to correction and instruction in the comments. See also: Kymlicka and Patten, eds., Language Rights and Political Theory; and an article of mine defending the compatibility of ethnocultural federalism geared with an emphasis on preserving the national minority's culture with liberalism.
The "distinct society" portion of the tuition conversation has been mostly about the transfer of authority over higher education from the Catholic Church to the Quebec state in the wake of the Quiet Revolution, and the conscious commitment to work toward a social-democratic model of tuition-free higher education. But it seems to me that there's also a strong relationship with language-population politics.
The Quebec higher education system has several relevant distinct features:
1. CEGEP/ college education going to grade 13
2. Following directly from that, a 3-year university BA
3. A differentiation between tuition for in-province and out-of-province Canadian students-- standard in the US but, I believe, unique in Canada Update: not unique, I'm told in comments, but I'm having trouble coming up with general information. So far it looks to me as if Ontario, BC, Alberta, and Calgary all have uniform Canadian tuition rates, without provincial differentiation. More information, please!)
4. Very, very low in-province tuition-- not 0, but much closer to 0 than to tuition in Ontario or California.
5. Unusually high provincial levels of taxation
I treat (5) as part of higher education policy because defenders of low tuition insist that students aren't trying to avoid paying for their educations; they'll just pay for them later through taxes rather than up-front through tuition; and that this moreover prevents low tuition from being a regressive subsidy to the middle- and upper-class students who are most likely to attend university. And of course it's importantly connected to (4).
Now, the first thought I had in looking at all of this was, "anomalously low tuition and anomalously high taxes to pay for it can go together in a closed society where the same people spend their whole life cycle in the same tax-and-spend system, and the closed society is a convenient assumption for some social democratic modeling, but its empirical falseness means that the micro-level fairness story fails. You'll get people getting their cheap educations and then leaving, while others who have paid full price for a university education elsewhere, or even out-of-province tuition here, migrate here and then pay again through the tax system." Now, one unattractive feature about that from my perspective is that it creates a possible sense that people are doing something wrong, shirking their fair share of the burden for their own education, by out-migrating; I think that's an illiberal norm to run a society on. But on its face it also looks fiscally unsustainable: everyone's incentive is to get the education and then get out. And then I thought to myself, "discouraging out-migration is an important part of the preservation of The french Fact. So I'm missing something."
Separate the population into three groups, and look at how the system works for each.
1) Out-of-province students have roughly neutral incentives to come to university here, but a disincentive to come to university and stay. Out-of-province tuition is roughly comparable to tuition elsewhere in the country (though still lower than Ontario), and out-of-province students get the standard 4-year degree since they didn't go to CEGEP, so if they just come get a BA and leave again they're neither getting any special discount nor paying any special price. But if they come and stay, then they've paid 4 years of normal tuition rather than 3 years of cheap tuition, and then they spend the rest of their lives paying taxes as if they had benefitted from the discount rate. (The same is true-but-moreso for international students.)
2. In-province anglophones have an incentive to do what I described above: get a BA on the cheap by paying three years of low tuition, then migrate out to anywhere else in North America where their taxes will be lower. The incentive to stay local for the BA is very steep.
3. In-province francophones face the same financial incentives as in-province anglophones: a huge incentive to stay local for the BA, since the three-year low tuition degree is vastly cheaper than a four-year normal-tuition degree elsewhere. Then-- here's the part that puzzled me-- they have an incentive at the margin to leave when the high taxes kick in.
But exit in post-collegiate early adulthood is a lot easier for anglophones. They've got, roughly, the whole Canadian and American college-educated labor market open to them, and they enter it on an equal footing with those whose educations were anywhere else in North America.
If English is neither your first language nor the language of your university education, it's a lot harder to suddenly jump into the educated-labor market of anglophone North America at age 22 or 25. You're starting at a disadvantage in that market that doesn't apply if you stay close to home. If, by contrast, you had left home for an English-language four-year education, you'd be a lot more likely to, as it were, defect, and take advantage of the economic opportunities open to anglophone university graduates in other parts of the continent.
So the system as a whole acts as a financial disincentive to permanent in-migration from the rest of North America (and NB that French citizens pay in-province tuition rates, not international tuition rates) and as a marginal incentive to out-migration for anglophones once they've gotten their college educations. But for francophones from Quebec, it acts as a strong incentive to stay at home for university education, a moment when there might otherwise be an especially high risk of permanent out-migration, and a marginal reduction in their ability to out-migrate later.
In other words, even if some number of high-earning francophones leave (and therefore never "pay back" the cheap university educations they receive) the system broadly tends toward making francophone Quebec a more self-contained economic world in which people do spend their whole life cycles, while simultaneously subtly encouraging anglophone out-migration and discouraging anglophone in-migration.
This, perhaps oddly, makes me slightly more sympathetic to the system than I would otherwise be. (It also, of course, makes it more sustainable than it would otherwise be; it significantly retards the get-your-cheap-degree-then-get-out dynamic.) Francophone Quebec does need to be a partly self-contained economic world to be sustainable; a large steady outflow of 18-year olds who never came back could be the beginning of a downward spiral in the viability of the French Fact. (Note, too that a bloated civil service is often a part of this kind of system in postcolonial societies; it provides jobs for a surplus of locally-highly-educated workers.) Of all the possible policies to sustain the French Fact on a population basis, this tax-and-subsidize policy is on the low-coercion side. (It might, probably does, depress the overall prosperity of Quebec, and that has to go into the calculations too; in the long term, la survivance will depend on an economy that is successful, competitive, and attractive, not just one that is self-contained enough to discourage emigration.)
But-- if I'm right about all this-- I do think it's worth acknowledging the uncomfortable truths that the system operates to diminish the mobility of local francophones, indeed depends on doing so, while simultaneously greasing the slide out of town for local anglophones.
This is all back-of-the-envelope modeling, and I'm entirely open to correction and instruction in the comments. See also: Kymlicka and Patten, eds., Language Rights and Political Theory; and an article of mine defending the compatibility of ethnocultural federalism geared with an emphasis on preserving the national minority's culture with liberalism.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Friday, May 18, 2012
Banana republicanism
"Special law" is every bit the contradiction in terms that "student strike" is. Emergency decrees and bills of attainder aren't laws, and I won't be referring to Bill 78 as a law except in scare quotes.
On the other hand, my patience for playing along with the phrase "student strike" ran out as of the UQAM protests this week, when the protesters prevented students and professors from meeting together for educational purposes, screaming "scab" at the students who wanted to attend class. Calling it a strike means calling the students who want to attend class scabs, and calling their attempts to attend class illegitimate, so I won't be doing that either.
So, that said, some first impressions of the proposed decree.
1. Section III is entirely illegitimate. I don't know whether it passes Charter review; I am not a Canadian lawyer. But it is an absurdly draconian violation of freedom of assembly and indeed freedom of movement. It's police state stuff, unworthy of a free society.
2. Section V.29 multiplies the reach of every other punitive and prohibitionist part of the act, so much so that it renders Sections III IV, and V as wholes illegitimate. It amounts to the category of conspiracy-by-omission. It means that not only anyone who talks to student protesters or protest leaders over the next several months is vulnerable to prosecution, but that even avoiding them won't keep you safe. Again, police state stuff.
3. If one were to detach V.29, Section IV and the rest of Section V start to look more complicated. They skirt awfully close to the line of being a bill of attainder; they're certainly not a normal case of lawful governance. But the boycott has created a legally strange situation. The boycotters, calling what they're doing a "strike," assert a collective democratic right to prevent students and professors from carrying on classes. But the concept of a student strike is unknown to Quebec law. That doesn't mean that it's illegal; it's not prohibited, and in a a free society that which is not prohibited is allowed. But striking is not only a refusal to do something; it is also an assertion of the authority to prevent others-- "scabs"-- from doing it. That makes it less like "assembly" and "speech" and more like "contract" or "will," come the moment when the beneficiary of a contract or a will seeks to take possession. In order to maintain peace and keep clear on what everyone's rights are, we normally rule out self-help and don't treat "contract" or "will" as things that one can just be left alone to do. They're powers partly constituted by law, exercisable in ways described and prescribed by law.
If I say that you and I had a contract, but it was oral and unwitnessed, and I try to seize the goods to which our supposed contract entitled me, you call the police to protect yourself and your goods. To that, it is insufficient on my part to say "unwitnessed oral contracts aren't prohibited." What I say is true, but it's also true that an unwitnessed oral promise does not rise to the level of "contract" that legitimizes coerced performance. Your right to carry on unmolested by me is something about which the law can't just be agnostic.
In a strike-as-constituted-by-the-labour-code, employers and would-be replacement workers have their freedom of action limited. The strike isn't just an action by the workers; it's an authorized limitation on others. The student unions, purporting to strike, have tried to self-help their way into that same ability to limit the actions of others. The law can't just be agnostic about whether students who don't wish to boycott may attend class unmolested, whether universities may protect their classrooms from disruption and protect access to them. And since this is not a legally-constituted strike, the legal answer is that those who wish to carry on with their educational activities are free to do so. Injunctions to protect their access, like legal action to prevent me from carrying off your stuff that I say you promised me, look aggressive but are legally defensive, defending the legal freedom of those the protesters want to characterize as "scabs" but who are not in a legal position like the would-be replacement workers during a labour strike.
The injunctions have been flouted; and protesters have repeatedly created situations where police have to choose between not protecting the rights of universities, professors, and dissenting students or trying to coerce large determined crowds of protesters. When they opt for the latter, they use the ugly and abusive tools of riot control against people who were not rioting but who were obstructing the legal rights of others, en masse. There is no peaceful way to move hundreds or thousands of people who do not wish to be moved. And there is also no rule that whatever hundreds or thousands of people together want to do must be legitimate. This has been the paradoxical situation of the last several weeks in particular. The police have been first to use violence, at least large-scale violence, over and over again; but that doesn't mean that the injunction-flouting protests were legitimate.
I don't know enough about Canadian civil procedure to know why contempt of court proceedings couldn't be used to do what Section IV of the emergency decree tries to do: coerce the unions through crippling financial penalties in order to try to stop having to violently coerce the bodies of protesters. That would be preferable to this kind of legislative action. But some attempt to hold unions responsible for protests that flout injunctions and disrupt the legal freedom of others does seem legitimate, and preferable to constant situations that can be resolved only through police violence or through abandoning the freedom of third parties to the whims of the protesters. The unions are creatures of Quebec law, with power granted by law to compel dues payment from students; but they have helped themselves to an authority that isn't granted by the law that creates them, and when others have ignored that supposed authority have freely encouraged lawless response. It's awfully late in the day for their leaders to discover that "social peace" is at risk. Their attitude toward injunctions and toward the rights of universities, professors, and dissenting students has been one of "contempt for the rule of law," as Bernard Amyot, former president of the Canadian Bar Association put it. That doesn't excuse the government from blame for its own abandonment of the rule of law in the new emergency decree.
As with the ban on masks, illegitimate behavior by the protesters is going to met by an illegitimate response, deeply restricting what should be protected freedom of expression. Section III and Section V.29, like the ban on masks, are opportunistic expansions of state and police power far beyond what is needed, or what is compatible with liberal freedom. And Section V.29's multiplier effect on the rest of the act pushes all of Sections IV and V into that category. But for the student unions to suddenly appeal to the rule of law and freedom of assembly when they've scorned those for everyone else is a bit much. The upshot is a lot of damage all around to Quebec's ability to function as a free society.
Update: While I was writing this post, the Montreal city council unsurprisingly passed the awful ban on masks. Kafka-esque question-begging of the day:
On the other hand, my patience for playing along with the phrase "student strike" ran out as of the UQAM protests this week, when the protesters prevented students and professors from meeting together for educational purposes, screaming "scab" at the students who wanted to attend class. Calling it a strike means calling the students who want to attend class scabs, and calling their attempts to attend class illegitimate, so I won't be doing that either.
So, that said, some first impressions of the proposed decree.
1. Section III is entirely illegitimate. I don't know whether it passes Charter review; I am not a Canadian lawyer. But it is an absurdly draconian violation of freedom of assembly and indeed freedom of movement. It's police state stuff, unworthy of a free society.
2. Section V.29 multiplies the reach of every other punitive and prohibitionist part of the act, so much so that it renders Sections III IV, and V as wholes illegitimate. It amounts to the category of conspiracy-by-omission. It means that not only anyone who talks to student protesters or protest leaders over the next several months is vulnerable to prosecution, but that even avoiding them won't keep you safe. Again, police state stuff.
3. If one were to detach V.29, Section IV and the rest of Section V start to look more complicated. They skirt awfully close to the line of being a bill of attainder; they're certainly not a normal case of lawful governance. But the boycott has created a legally strange situation. The boycotters, calling what they're doing a "strike," assert a collective democratic right to prevent students and professors from carrying on classes. But the concept of a student strike is unknown to Quebec law. That doesn't mean that it's illegal; it's not prohibited, and in a a free society that which is not prohibited is allowed. But striking is not only a refusal to do something; it is also an assertion of the authority to prevent others-- "scabs"-- from doing it. That makes it less like "assembly" and "speech" and more like "contract" or "will," come the moment when the beneficiary of a contract or a will seeks to take possession. In order to maintain peace and keep clear on what everyone's rights are, we normally rule out self-help and don't treat "contract" or "will" as things that one can just be left alone to do. They're powers partly constituted by law, exercisable in ways described and prescribed by law.
If I say that you and I had a contract, but it was oral and unwitnessed, and I try to seize the goods to which our supposed contract entitled me, you call the police to protect yourself and your goods. To that, it is insufficient on my part to say "unwitnessed oral contracts aren't prohibited." What I say is true, but it's also true that an unwitnessed oral promise does not rise to the level of "contract" that legitimizes coerced performance. Your right to carry on unmolested by me is something about which the law can't just be agnostic.
In a strike-as-constituted-by-the-labour-code, employers and would-be replacement workers have their freedom of action limited. The strike isn't just an action by the workers; it's an authorized limitation on others. The student unions, purporting to strike, have tried to self-help their way into that same ability to limit the actions of others. The law can't just be agnostic about whether students who don't wish to boycott may attend class unmolested, whether universities may protect their classrooms from disruption and protect access to them. And since this is not a legally-constituted strike, the legal answer is that those who wish to carry on with their educational activities are free to do so. Injunctions to protect their access, like legal action to prevent me from carrying off your stuff that I say you promised me, look aggressive but are legally defensive, defending the legal freedom of those the protesters want to characterize as "scabs" but who are not in a legal position like the would-be replacement workers during a labour strike.
The injunctions have been flouted; and protesters have repeatedly created situations where police have to choose between not protecting the rights of universities, professors, and dissenting students or trying to coerce large determined crowds of protesters. When they opt for the latter, they use the ugly and abusive tools of riot control against people who were not rioting but who were obstructing the legal rights of others, en masse. There is no peaceful way to move hundreds or thousands of people who do not wish to be moved. And there is also no rule that whatever hundreds or thousands of people together want to do must be legitimate. This has been the paradoxical situation of the last several weeks in particular. The police have been first to use violence, at least large-scale violence, over and over again; but that doesn't mean that the injunction-flouting protests were legitimate.
I don't know enough about Canadian civil procedure to know why contempt of court proceedings couldn't be used to do what Section IV of the emergency decree tries to do: coerce the unions through crippling financial penalties in order to try to stop having to violently coerce the bodies of protesters. That would be preferable to this kind of legislative action. But some attempt to hold unions responsible for protests that flout injunctions and disrupt the legal freedom of others does seem legitimate, and preferable to constant situations that can be resolved only through police violence or through abandoning the freedom of third parties to the whims of the protesters. The unions are creatures of Quebec law, with power granted by law to compel dues payment from students; but they have helped themselves to an authority that isn't granted by the law that creates them, and when others have ignored that supposed authority have freely encouraged lawless response. It's awfully late in the day for their leaders to discover that "social peace" is at risk. Their attitude toward injunctions and toward the rights of universities, professors, and dissenting students has been one of "contempt for the rule of law," as Bernard Amyot, former president of the Canadian Bar Association put it. That doesn't excuse the government from blame for its own abandonment of the rule of law in the new emergency decree.
As with the ban on masks, illegitimate behavior by the protesters is going to met by an illegitimate response, deeply restricting what should be protected freedom of expression. Section III and Section V.29, like the ban on masks, are opportunistic expansions of state and police power far beyond what is needed, or what is compatible with liberal freedom. And Section V.29's multiplier effect on the rest of the act pushes all of Sections IV and V into that category. But for the student unions to suddenly appeal to the rule of law and freedom of assembly when they've scorned those for everyone else is a bit much. The upshot is a lot of damage all around to Quebec's ability to function as a free society.
Update: While I was writing this post, the Montreal city council unsurprisingly passed the awful ban on masks. Kafka-esque question-begging of the day:
The leader of one of the city's opposition parties, Louise Harel, asked for clarification on whether scarves or bandanas worn by protesters protecting themselves against chemical irritants or tear gas would be included in the ban.
A lawyer for the police insisted those scarves are considered masks under the bylaw. The reasoning is, according to the lawyer, that if tear gas is being deployed, the demonstration has already been declared illegal.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
A grammar lesson
The grammar of apologies is "I'm sorry for" plus a progressive or past progressive verb, or "I'm sorry that" followed by a dependent clause that has "I" as the subject. In either case, preferably using a verb specifically describing what was done, and not a vague "hurt" or "offended."
The grammar of non-apologies is "I'm sorry if," and/or a dependent clause that is in the passive, and/or a dependent clause that has "you" as the subject, often with any of these combined with vague "hurt" or "offended" verbs, or verbs about understanding or comprehension.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Perspective
Two days ago I sent a grumpy note to a Canadian granting agency about some isues in the grant adjudication process. Yesterday I griped all day about FQRSC/ SSHRC/ Common CV forms.
Nothing quite like having the US House of Representatives vote to defund NSF funding to one's whole discipline to put the Canadian annoyances into perspective.
Monday, May 07, 2012
Masks
I talked with CBC Radio One about the problems with banning masks during protests. I think there are exceptional cases in which such bans can be temporarily and locally legitimate; but they need to be constructed a lot more narrowly and carefully than either the proposed Montreal or the Canadian federal bans have been.
I managed to avoid talking about masked characters in comics, whether The Avengers (though that might have boosted my ratings) or V for Vendetta.
Update: See also this CTV clip.
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Freedom of complex associations watch
Complex associations are associations-- "intermediate" or "civil society" or "enterprise" in Oakeshott's use of that word-- that themselves contain associations or systems of associations. Examples are the Catholic Church, with its internal orders of many kinds from Opus Dei to Benedictine monasteries to the Jesuits, and universities, with their internal systems of student clubs.
Complex associations must decide how wide to set the boundaries of freedom of association for their own internal groups; and their freedom to set terms for their own internal groups is itself part of their own associational freedom.
Sometimes there are tricky, nested problems here; sometimes there could be complicated and subtle solutions.
And then there's Tennessee.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Lawmakers have given final approval to a bill seeking to rescind Vanderbilt University's "all-comers" policy, which requires school groups to allow any interested students to join and run for office. The Senate approved its version of the bill sponsored by Republican Judiciary Chairwoman Mae Beavers of Mt. Juliet on a 19-12 vote on Monday. The House later followed suit on a 61-22 vote. Voting yes were 57 Republicans and three Democrats and one independent. Voting no were 21 Democrats and one Republican. Thirteen members abstained. Christian student leaders have been vocal in opposition, saying their groups shouldn't be forced to admit members, and possibly leaders, who do not share their beliefs. Under the proposal, which is headed to the governor for his consideration, "a religious student organization may determine that the organization's religious mission requires that only persons professing the faith of the group ... qualify to serve as members or leaders. "No state higher education institution may deny recognition or any privilege or benefit to a student organization or group that exercises such rights," according to the proposal.This is to place the associational freedom of subordinate religious clubs categorically above the freedom of association of the university.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Journals
The Harvard library's attempt to draw attention to the problem of journal pricing made me realize that I had no idea what things look like in our corner of the academy. Herewith the results of some googling: institutional subscription prices, for the US-- print and online combined rate, where available, print-only where not.
Contemporary Political Theory, Palgrave: $970
Philosophy and Public Affairs, Blackwell: $208
Journal of Political Philosophy, Wiley: $938
Political Theory, Sage: $1095
European Journal of Political Theory, Sage: $804
History of Political Thought, Imprint: $320
Polity, Palgrave: $249
Ethics, Chicago: $438
Constellations: $1150
Political Studies, Wiley: "Combined Subscription with British Journal of Politics & International Relations and Political Insight and Political Studies Review and Politics" (sic; commas would be nice): $1707
PPE, Sage: $820
CRISPP Taylor & Francis: $703
Ethics, PPA, and HPT combined cost less than, say, CPT.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Political theory books
It was pointed out to me today that I haven't done one of these in a while. Been posting on facebook without posting on the blog.
Some recommended books in political theory and related fields from 2011:
Iris Marion Young, Responsibility for Justice
Christian List and Philip Pettit, Group Agency
George Kateb, Human Dignity
Robert Alan Sparling, Johann Georg Hamann and the Enlightenment Project
Hasana Sharp, Spinoza and the Politics of Renaturalization
Lea Ypi, Global Justice and Avant-Garde Political Agency
Craig Yirush, Settlers, Liberty, and Empire: The Roots of Early American Political Theory, 1675-1775
Rebecca Kingston, Public Passion: Rethinking the Grounds for Political Justice
Adrian Vermeule, The System of the Constitution
Eric MacGilvray, The Invention of Market Freedom
Jeremy Jennings, Revolution and the Republic: A History of Political Thought in France since the Eighteenth Century
Evan Fox-Decent, Sovereignty's Promise
2012:
Marc Hanvelt, The Politics of Eloquence: David Hume's Polite Rhetoric
John Tomasi, Free Market Fairness
Laura Valentini, Justice in a Globalized World: A Normative Framework
Robert Wokler, Rousseau, the Age of Enlightenment, and Their Legacies
Christopher Brooke, Philosophic Pride
It was pointed out to me today that I haven't done one of these in a while. Been posting on facebook without posting on the blog.
Some recommended books in political theory and related fields from 2011:
Iris Marion Young, Responsibility for Justice
Christian List and Philip Pettit, Group Agency
George Kateb, Human Dignity
Robert Alan Sparling, Johann Georg Hamann and the Enlightenment Project
Hasana Sharp, Spinoza and the Politics of Renaturalization
Lea Ypi, Global Justice and Avant-Garde Political Agency
Craig Yirush, Settlers, Liberty, and Empire: The Roots of Early American Political Theory, 1675-1775
Rebecca Kingston, Public Passion: Rethinking the Grounds for Political Justice
Adrian Vermeule, The System of the Constitution
Eric MacGilvray, The Invention of Market Freedom
Jeremy Jennings, Revolution and the Republic: A History of Political Thought in France since the Eighteenth Century
Evan Fox-Decent, Sovereignty's Promise
2012:
Marc Hanvelt, The Politics of Eloquence: David Hume's Polite Rhetoric
John Tomasi, Free Market Fairness
Laura Valentini, Justice in a Globalized World: A Normative Framework
Robert Wokler, Rousseau, the Age of Enlightenment, and Their Legacies
Christopher Brooke, Philosophic Pride
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Book launch tomorrow
The Research Group in Constitutional Studies and the Department of Philosophy are pleased to invite you to a Joint Book Launch to celebrate the recent achievements of some of our colleagues.
In celebration of:
Hasana Sharp (Philosophy), Spinoza and the Politics of Renaturalization (University of Chicago Press), and
Robert Alan Sparling (SSHRC Postdoctoral fellow, Political Science), Johann Georg Hamann and the Enlightenment Project (University of Toronto Press).
Speakers: Jacob T. Levy, Natalie Stoljar, Matthias Fritsch, Rob Sparling, and Hasana Sharp.
Thursday, April 19
3 to 4:30 pm
Paragraph Books
2220 McGill College Avenue
There will be a wine and cheese reception.
The Research Group in Constitutional Studies and the Department of Philosophy are pleased to invite you to a Joint Book Launch to celebrate the recent achievements of some of our colleagues.
In celebration of:
Hasana Sharp (Philosophy), Spinoza and the Politics of Renaturalization (University of Chicago Press), and
Robert Alan Sparling (SSHRC Postdoctoral fellow, Political Science), Johann Georg Hamann and the Enlightenment Project (University of Toronto Press).
Speakers: Jacob T. Levy, Natalie Stoljar, Matthias Fritsch, Rob Sparling, and Hasana Sharp.
Thursday, April 19
3 to 4:30 pm
Paragraph Books
2220 McGill College Avenue
There will be a wine and cheese reception.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
POUR DIFFUSION IMMÉDIATE
Montréal, le 15 mars 2012
Un colloque international
pour les 80 ans de Charles Taylor
L'événement soulignera la carrière et les contributions exceptionnelles de l’éminent philosophe
Montréalais de naissance, diplômé et professeur émérite de l’Université McGill, éminent philosophe et intellectuel, Charles Taylor sera le sujet et l’invité d’honneur du colloque international Charles Taylor à 80 ans, une importante conférence qui se tiendra au Musée des beaux-arts de Montréal, du 29 au 31 mars 2012. Dans le cadre de cet événement, des intellectuels du monde entier analyseront ses travaux, ainsi que son apport à la vie publique canadienne.
« Charles Taylor a exercé une profonde influence sur des générations de spécialistes en sciences humaines et sociales au Canada et partout dans le monde, affirme Daniel Weinstock, de l’Université de Montréal. L’annonce de ce colloque a suscité un engouement extraordinaire. »
Dans le cadre de cet événement, certains des scientifiques et des théoriciens parmi les plus éminents au monde présenteront des exposés sur divers aspects des réalisations de Charles Taylor dans les domaines des sciences politiques et de la philosophie. Parmi eux : Craig Calhoun, prochain directeur de la London School of Economics; Tariq Modood (Université de Bristol), spécialiste des minorités ethniques et religieuses en Grande-Bretagne; Jean Bethke Elshtain (Université de Chicago), éthicienne politique très influente aux États-Unis; Anthony Appiah (Université Princeton), philosophe né à Londres qui a grandi au Ghana et étudié en Angleterre et aux États-Unis et dont les travaux sur le cosmopolitisme, l’ethnicité et l’identité lui ont récemment valu la Médaille nationale des sciences humaines du gouvernement américain; et Joseph Heath (Université de Toronto), éminent commentateur sur l’éthique et l’économie au Canada et ancien étudiant de Charles Taylor. Dans l’ensemble, 27 sommités de sept pays et de trois continents livreront une présentation sur la carrière de Charles Taylor. Soulignons par ailleurs que l’honorable Michel Bastarache, ancien juge à la Cour suprême du Canada, fera également partie des panélistes.
Le 30 mars, en soirée, une séance spéciale portera sur la carrière publique de Charles Taylor. « Depuis la création du NPD et les débats sur le rapatriement de la constitution, le fédéralisme et le statut du Québec jusqu’à ses travaux sur le multiculturalisme et les accommodements religieux, Charles Taylor a exercé une influence qui dépasse celle d’un simple "intellectuel engagé" , affirme le professeur Jacob Levy, de l’Université McGill. Pendant plusieurs décennies, il a joué un rôle de premier plan dans la vie publique montréalaise, québécoise et canadienne, et sa vision personnelle de la communauté politique, ainsi que son sentiment d’appartenance à cette dernière, ont donné vie aux débats politiques. »
Au cours des dernières années, ce sont surtout les travaux de Charles Taylor sur la question religieuse qui ont retenu l’attention. Ainsi, en 2008-2009, il a coprésidé, avec Gérard Bouchard, la Commission Bouchard-Taylor sur les accommodements raisonnables envers les minorités religieuses. Il a également reçu, en 2007, le prestigieux Prix Templeton pour le progrès et la découverte dans la recherche sur les réalités spirituelles, et a publié, la même année, un essai colossal intitulé L’âge séculier.
Au cours de sa carrière qui s’est échelonnée sur plus d’un demi-siècle, Charles Taylor a publié une quinzaine d’ouvrages sur des sujets aussi variés que Hegel, la méthodologie des sciences sociales et le multiculturalisme. Il a été titulaire de la Chaire Chichele à l’Université d’Oxford (il succédait alors à son professeur Isaiah Berlin et a par la suite été remplacé par un autre Montréalais d’origine, G. A. Cohen). Il a été invité à présenter les résultats de ses recherches dans le cadre des prestigieuses Conférences Massey. Enfin, il a reçu le Prix Kyoto, a été fait Compagnon de l’Ordre du Canada, été nommé Grand Officier de l’Ordre national du Québec et membre de la Société royale du Canada. Actif sur la scène politique canadienne depuis près de 50 ans, Charles Taylor a été candidat du NPD à quatre reprises au cours des années 1960 et a été défait par Pierre Elliot Trudeau lors de la première campagne électorale de ce dernier.
*Les discussions se tiendront en français et en anglais.
Renseignements :
http://www.mcgill.ca/rgcs/gripp/events/taylor ou http://creum.umontreal.ca/spip.php?article1280
L’inscription est gratuite et obligatoire. Pour vous inscrire, prière d’envoyer un courriel avec votre nom et affiliation à l’adresse suivante : taylor.conference.2012@gmail.com.
À propos du colloque :
Le colloque est organisé conjointement par Daniel Weinstock, titulaire de la Chaire de recherche du Canada en éthique et philosophie politique de l’Université de Montréal; Jocelyn Maclure, professeur agrégé de philosophie à l’Université Laval; et Jacob T. Levy, titulaire de la Chaire de théorie politique Tomlinson de l’Université McGill. L’événement est une initiative conjointe du Groupe de recherche interuniversitaire en philosophie politique de Montréal, du Centre de recherche en éthique de l’Université de Montréal et du Groupe d’études constitutionnelles de l’Université McGill.
Personnes-ressources :
Cynthia Lee
cynthia.lee@mcgill.ca
Relations avec les médias
Université McGill
514 398-6754
http://francais.mcgill.ca/newsroom/
http://twitter.com/#!/McGilluMedia
William Raillant-Clark
w.raillant-clark@umontreal.ca
Attaché de presse international
Université de Montréal
514 343-7593
Cell. : 514 566-3813
Montréal, le 15 mars 2012
Un colloque international
pour les 80 ans de Charles Taylor
L'événement soulignera la carrière et les contributions exceptionnelles de l’éminent philosophe
Montréalais de naissance, diplômé et professeur émérite de l’Université McGill, éminent philosophe et intellectuel, Charles Taylor sera le sujet et l’invité d’honneur du colloque international Charles Taylor à 80 ans, une importante conférence qui se tiendra au Musée des beaux-arts de Montréal, du 29 au 31 mars 2012. Dans le cadre de cet événement, des intellectuels du monde entier analyseront ses travaux, ainsi que son apport à la vie publique canadienne.
« Charles Taylor a exercé une profonde influence sur des générations de spécialistes en sciences humaines et sociales au Canada et partout dans le monde, affirme Daniel Weinstock, de l’Université de Montréal. L’annonce de ce colloque a suscité un engouement extraordinaire. »
Dans le cadre de cet événement, certains des scientifiques et des théoriciens parmi les plus éminents au monde présenteront des exposés sur divers aspects des réalisations de Charles Taylor dans les domaines des sciences politiques et de la philosophie. Parmi eux : Craig Calhoun, prochain directeur de la London School of Economics; Tariq Modood (Université de Bristol), spécialiste des minorités ethniques et religieuses en Grande-Bretagne; Jean Bethke Elshtain (Université de Chicago), éthicienne politique très influente aux États-Unis; Anthony Appiah (Université Princeton), philosophe né à Londres qui a grandi au Ghana et étudié en Angleterre et aux États-Unis et dont les travaux sur le cosmopolitisme, l’ethnicité et l’identité lui ont récemment valu la Médaille nationale des sciences humaines du gouvernement américain; et Joseph Heath (Université de Toronto), éminent commentateur sur l’éthique et l’économie au Canada et ancien étudiant de Charles Taylor. Dans l’ensemble, 27 sommités de sept pays et de trois continents livreront une présentation sur la carrière de Charles Taylor. Soulignons par ailleurs que l’honorable Michel Bastarache, ancien juge à la Cour suprême du Canada, fera également partie des panélistes.
Le 30 mars, en soirée, une séance spéciale portera sur la carrière publique de Charles Taylor. « Depuis la création du NPD et les débats sur le rapatriement de la constitution, le fédéralisme et le statut du Québec jusqu’à ses travaux sur le multiculturalisme et les accommodements religieux, Charles Taylor a exercé une influence qui dépasse celle d’un simple "intellectuel engagé" , affirme le professeur Jacob Levy, de l’Université McGill. Pendant plusieurs décennies, il a joué un rôle de premier plan dans la vie publique montréalaise, québécoise et canadienne, et sa vision personnelle de la communauté politique, ainsi que son sentiment d’appartenance à cette dernière, ont donné vie aux débats politiques. »
Au cours des dernières années, ce sont surtout les travaux de Charles Taylor sur la question religieuse qui ont retenu l’attention. Ainsi, en 2008-2009, il a coprésidé, avec Gérard Bouchard, la Commission Bouchard-Taylor sur les accommodements raisonnables envers les minorités religieuses. Il a également reçu, en 2007, le prestigieux Prix Templeton pour le progrès et la découverte dans la recherche sur les réalités spirituelles, et a publié, la même année, un essai colossal intitulé L’âge séculier.
Au cours de sa carrière qui s’est échelonnée sur plus d’un demi-siècle, Charles Taylor a publié une quinzaine d’ouvrages sur des sujets aussi variés que Hegel, la méthodologie des sciences sociales et le multiculturalisme. Il a été titulaire de la Chaire Chichele à l’Université d’Oxford (il succédait alors à son professeur Isaiah Berlin et a par la suite été remplacé par un autre Montréalais d’origine, G. A. Cohen). Il a été invité à présenter les résultats de ses recherches dans le cadre des prestigieuses Conférences Massey. Enfin, il a reçu le Prix Kyoto, a été fait Compagnon de l’Ordre du Canada, été nommé Grand Officier de l’Ordre national du Québec et membre de la Société royale du Canada. Actif sur la scène politique canadienne depuis près de 50 ans, Charles Taylor a été candidat du NPD à quatre reprises au cours des années 1960 et a été défait par Pierre Elliot Trudeau lors de la première campagne électorale de ce dernier.
*Les discussions se tiendront en français et en anglais.
Renseignements :
http://www.mcgill.ca/rgcs/gripp/events/taylor ou http://creum.umontreal.ca/spip.php?article1280
L’inscription est gratuite et obligatoire. Pour vous inscrire, prière d’envoyer un courriel avec votre nom et affiliation à l’adresse suivante : taylor.conference.2012@gmail.com.
À propos du colloque :
Le colloque est organisé conjointement par Daniel Weinstock, titulaire de la Chaire de recherche du Canada en éthique et philosophie politique de l’Université de Montréal; Jocelyn Maclure, professeur agrégé de philosophie à l’Université Laval; et Jacob T. Levy, titulaire de la Chaire de théorie politique Tomlinson de l’Université McGill. L’événement est une initiative conjointe du Groupe de recherche interuniversitaire en philosophie politique de Montréal, du Centre de recherche en éthique de l’Université de Montréal et du Groupe d’études constitutionnelles de l’Université McGill.
Personnes-ressources :
Cynthia Lee
cynthia.lee@mcgill.ca
Relations avec les médias
Université McGill
514 398-6754
http://francais.mcgill.ca/newsroom/
http://twitter.com/#!/McGilluMedia
William Raillant-Clark
w.raillant-clark@umontreal.ca
Attaché de presse international
Université de Montréal
514 343-7593
Cell. : 514 566-3813
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Charles Taylor at 80: An international conference
Event celebrates prominent philosopher’s career and contributions
Event celebrates prominent philosopher’s career and contributions
Thursday, March 08, 2012
Thursday, March 01, 2012
Fulbright Visiting Research Chair in the Theory and Practice of Constitutionalism and Federalism
Applications now being accepted for 2013-14. $US 25,000 stipend for a semester of research in residence at RGCS at McGill. (US citizens only, post-PhD.) See full description here.
Applications now being accepted for 2013-14. $US 25,000 stipend for a semester of research in residence at RGCS at McGill. (US citizens only, post-PhD.) See full description here.
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
Hither and yon, England edition
Wednesday, January 18: LSE political and legal theory workshop, 5 pm, "Contra Politanism"
Friday, January 20: Southampton political theory workshop, "Contra Politanism," 2 pm
Monday, January 23: Nuffield College Oxford political theory workshop, 2:15 pm, "Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom"
Tuesday January 24: Institute for Economic Affairs, "Rationalism and Pluralism," 6:30 pm
Wednesday January 25, Queen Mary, University of London political theory workshop, "Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom," 4.30pm, Laws 1.19
Wednesday, January 18: LSE political and legal theory workshop, 5 pm, "Contra Politanism"
Friday, January 20: Southampton political theory workshop, "Contra Politanism," 2 pm
Monday, January 23: Nuffield College Oxford political theory workshop, 2:15 pm, "Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom"
Tuesday January 24: Institute for Economic Affairs, "Rationalism and Pluralism," 6:30 pm
Wednesday January 25, Queen Mary, University of London political theory workshop, "Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom," 4.30pm, Laws 1.19
Sunday, January 08, 2012
Passage of the day
From Jeremy Jennings' magisterial Revolution and the Republic, A History of Political Thought in France since the eighteenth century, pp 410-11:
"[W]e might turn our attention to Charles Fourier's Theorie des Quatre Mouvements, first published in 1808. With its accounts of copulating planets, the sea tasting of lemonade, and the nine degrees of cuckoldry, this is undoubtedly one of the strangest books ever written... There is no need to analyse Fourier's taxonomy of what he took to be our 'luxurious,' 'affective,' and 'distributive' passions, nor to dissect his classification fo the 810 personality types which derived from it: the point was that Fourier believed that it was a mistake to repress the passions. This explains why he allotted such a central place to 'amorous freedom' and what he termed 'combined gastronomy.' If, as Fourier believed, sensual pleasure was the primary and immutable source of human activity, the trick was to so arrange society that it should be maximized. Exquisite food and a rich diet of sexual partners would secure social harmony."
From Jeremy Jennings' magisterial Revolution and the Republic, A History of Political Thought in France since the eighteenth century, pp 410-11:
"[W]e might turn our attention to Charles Fourier's Theorie des Quatre Mouvements, first published in 1808. With its accounts of copulating planets, the sea tasting of lemonade, and the nine degrees of cuckoldry, this is undoubtedly one of the strangest books ever written... There is no need to analyse Fourier's taxonomy of what he took to be our 'luxurious,' 'affective,' and 'distributive' passions, nor to dissect his classification fo the 810 personality types which derived from it: the point was that Fourier believed that it was a mistake to repress the passions. This explains why he allotted such a central place to 'amorous freedom' and what he termed 'combined gastronomy.' If, as Fourier believed, sensual pleasure was the primary and immutable source of human activity, the trick was to so arrange society that it should be maximized. Exquisite food and a rich diet of sexual partners would secure social harmony."
The MHERC Postdoctoral Fellowship in Health Equity Research
2012 Call for Applications
The Montreal Health Equity Research Consortium (MHERC) is seeking to appoint up to four post-doctoral fellows doing research related to health equity and the social determinants of health (SDH). Applications on any dimension of this general theme will be considered, but the following areas are of particular interest:
The epistemological, conceptual, and ethical foundations of health equity and SDH.
Conceptual and practical problems raised by the measurement of health inequalities and SDH.
Experimental (e.g. cognitive psychology, behavioral economics) approaches to decision-making and health policy development.
Case studies in the analysis of health equity or SDH.
The duration of the award is 12 months, renewable for a second year, commencing on September 1, 2012. The value of each award will be CA$40,000. Fellows will be in residence at the Université de Montréal or McGill University in Montreal.
Applicants should have at the time of award completed a PhD in a relevant discipline including, but not restricted to, philosophy, cognitive psychology, epidemiology, health economics, and sociology. Applicants may not have received their PhDs more than 5 years before the beginning of the fellowship.
MHERC is a collaboration between the MEDEC Lab (http://www.medeclab.net/) at McGill University, and the Centre de recherche en éthique de l’Université de Montréal (CRÉUM), under the direction of Principal Investigators Daniel Weinstock (Université de Montréal) and Nicholas King (McGill University). Funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Programmatic Grant on Health and Health Equity, the project is comprised of a multidisciplinary team of researchers conducting research in philosophy, epidemiology, sociology, and cognitive psychology.
Successful applicants will be provided with office space in one of the two participating research centers associated with the project, and will be expected to participate in all of MHERC’s activities.
Applications should be written in English, and include a cover letter describing the candidate’s background, qualifications, and research interests; a complete Curriculum Vitae; a writing sample; and the names of three referees. Applications should be sent to Pierre-Yves Néron at py.neron@gmail.com.
2012 Call for Applications
The Montreal Health Equity Research Consortium (MHERC) is seeking to appoint up to four post-doctoral fellows doing research related to health equity and the social determinants of health (SDH). Applications on any dimension of this general theme will be considered, but the following areas are of particular interest:
The epistemological, conceptual, and ethical foundations of health equity and SDH.
Conceptual and practical problems raised by the measurement of health inequalities and SDH.
Experimental (e.g. cognitive psychology, behavioral economics) approaches to decision-making and health policy development.
Case studies in the analysis of health equity or SDH.
The duration of the award is 12 months, renewable for a second year, commencing on September 1, 2012. The value of each award will be CA$40,000. Fellows will be in residence at the Université de Montréal or McGill University in Montreal.
Applicants should have at the time of award completed a PhD in a relevant discipline including, but not restricted to, philosophy, cognitive psychology, epidemiology, health economics, and sociology. Applicants may not have received their PhDs more than 5 years before the beginning of the fellowship.
MHERC is a collaboration between the MEDEC Lab (http://www.medeclab.net/) at McGill University, and the Centre de recherche en éthique de l’Université de Montréal (CRÉUM), under the direction of Principal Investigators Daniel Weinstock (Université de Montréal) and Nicholas King (McGill University). Funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Programmatic Grant on Health and Health Equity, the project is comprised of a multidisciplinary team of researchers conducting research in philosophy, epidemiology, sociology, and cognitive psychology.
Successful applicants will be provided with office space in one of the two participating research centers associated with the project, and will be expected to participate in all of MHERC’s activities.
Applications should be written in English, and include a cover letter describing the candidate’s background, qualifications, and research interests; a complete Curriculum Vitae; a writing sample; and the names of three referees. Applications should be sent to Pierre-Yves Néron at py.neron@gmail.com.
Monday, December 12, 2011
International Conference on the Work of Charles Taylor on the occasion of his 80th birthday/ Colloque international en l’honneur de Charles Taylor à l’occasion de son 80ième anniversaire
March 29-31 2012, Musée des beaux-arts, Montréal
A conference of the Groupe de Recherche Interuniversitaire en Philosophie Politique [GRIPP] de Montréal, Centre de Recherche en Éthique de l’Université de Montréal (CRÉUM) and McGill University’s Research Group on Constitutional Studies [RGCS].
This conference will feature two and a half days of papers engaging with the many various themes in Charles Taylor's uniquely wide-ranging academic work, including agency, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, Hegel, political theory, modernity, Canada, and secularism and religion. It will also feature a special session on Taylor's career as a public intellectual and political actor, from his work in the early days of the New Democratic Party through his interventions in Canadian constitutional debates about the judiciary and about Quebec and federalism to his recent work on religious accommodation in Quebec. Professor Taylor will respond to the papers.
The final conference schedule is forthcoming. The current list of those giving papers at the conference includes (see the list below):
-------------------
29 au 31 mars 2012, Musée des beaux-arts de Montréal
Un colloque international organisé par le Groupe de Recherche Interuniversitaire en Philosophie Politique [GRIPP] de Montréal et le Centre de Recherche en Éthique de l’Université de Montréal (CRÉUM) et le Research Group on Constitutional Studies [RGCS] de l’université McGill.
Ce colloque regroupera des chercheurs de réputation internationale dans le domaine des sciences humaines et sociales qui seront réunis pour commenter, comprendre et interpréter l’œuvre de Charles Taylor. Les grands thèmes de celle-ci y seront abordés, du multiculturalisme à l’interprétation de la modernité en passant par la philosophie de l’identité personnelle, la philosophie de l’esprit et du langage, la politique canadienne et la sécularisation. Il est à noter que ce le colloque sera complété par la tenue d’un évènement public portant sur l’engagement public de Taylor sur des enjeux comme l’avenir de la sociale démocratie et la pensée progressiste au Canada, la constitution canadienne, le fédéralisme, les accommodements raisonnables et la gestion de la diversité culturelle.
Programme complet à venir. La liste des conférenciers invités :
K. Anthony Appiah (Princeton University)
Ronald Beiner (University of Toronto)
Richard Bernstein (New School for Social Research)
Rajeev Bhargava (Delhi/Center for the Study of Developing Societies)
Craig Calhoun (New York University)
José Casanova (Georgetown University)
John Christman (Pennylvania State University)
William Connolly (Johns Hopkins University)
Nigel DeSousa (U. Ottawa)
Hubert Dreyfus (University of California at Berkeley)
Jeanne Bethke Elshtain (Georgetown University)
Rainer Forst (University of Frankfurt)
Shaun Gallagher (University of Central Florida)
Ian Gold (McGill University)
Joseph Heath (University of Toronto)
Nancy Hirschmann (U. Penn)
Cécile Laborde (University College, London)
Guy Laforest (Université Laval)
Jacob T. Levy (McGill University)
Dominique Leydet (Univeristé de Québec à Montréal)
Tariq Modood (University of Bristol)
Michelle Moody-Adams (Columbia University)
Michael Rosen (Harvard University)
Hans-Julius Schneider (University of Potsdam)
Evan Thompson (University of Toronto)
James Tully (University of Victoria)
Jeremy Webber (University of Victoria)
Conference co-organizers: Daniel Weinstock (Montreal), Jocelyn Maclure (Laval), Jacob T. Levy (McGill).
Paper titles and abstracts, a complete conference schedule, and registration information will be posted as they become available at http://www.mcgill.ca/rgcs/gripp/events/taylor.
March 29-31 2012, Musée des beaux-arts, Montréal
A conference of the Groupe de Recherche Interuniversitaire en Philosophie Politique [GRIPP] de Montréal, Centre de Recherche en Éthique de l’Université de Montréal (CRÉUM) and McGill University’s Research Group on Constitutional Studies [RGCS].
This conference will feature two and a half days of papers engaging with the many various themes in Charles Taylor's uniquely wide-ranging academic work, including agency, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, Hegel, political theory, modernity, Canada, and secularism and religion. It will also feature a special session on Taylor's career as a public intellectual and political actor, from his work in the early days of the New Democratic Party through his interventions in Canadian constitutional debates about the judiciary and about Quebec and federalism to his recent work on religious accommodation in Quebec. Professor Taylor will respond to the papers.
The final conference schedule is forthcoming. The current list of those giving papers at the conference includes (see the list below):
-------------------
29 au 31 mars 2012, Musée des beaux-arts de Montréal
Un colloque international organisé par le Groupe de Recherche Interuniversitaire en Philosophie Politique [GRIPP] de Montréal et le Centre de Recherche en Éthique de l’Université de Montréal (CRÉUM) et le Research Group on Constitutional Studies [RGCS] de l’université McGill.
Ce colloque regroupera des chercheurs de réputation internationale dans le domaine des sciences humaines et sociales qui seront réunis pour commenter, comprendre et interpréter l’œuvre de Charles Taylor. Les grands thèmes de celle-ci y seront abordés, du multiculturalisme à l’interprétation de la modernité en passant par la philosophie de l’identité personnelle, la philosophie de l’esprit et du langage, la politique canadienne et la sécularisation. Il est à noter que ce le colloque sera complété par la tenue d’un évènement public portant sur l’engagement public de Taylor sur des enjeux comme l’avenir de la sociale démocratie et la pensée progressiste au Canada, la constitution canadienne, le fédéralisme, les accommodements raisonnables et la gestion de la diversité culturelle.
Programme complet à venir. La liste des conférenciers invités :
K. Anthony Appiah (Princeton University)
Ronald Beiner (University of Toronto)
Richard Bernstein (New School for Social Research)
Rajeev Bhargava (Delhi/Center for the Study of Developing Societies)
Craig Calhoun (New York University)
José Casanova (Georgetown University)
John Christman (Pennylvania State University)
William Connolly (Johns Hopkins University)
Nigel DeSousa (U. Ottawa)
Hubert Dreyfus (University of California at Berkeley)
Jeanne Bethke Elshtain (Georgetown University)
Rainer Forst (University of Frankfurt)
Shaun Gallagher (University of Central Florida)
Ian Gold (McGill University)
Joseph Heath (University of Toronto)
Nancy Hirschmann (U. Penn)
Cécile Laborde (University College, London)
Guy Laforest (Université Laval)
Jacob T. Levy (McGill University)
Dominique Leydet (Univeristé de Québec à Montréal)
Tariq Modood (University of Bristol)
Michelle Moody-Adams (Columbia University)
Michael Rosen (Harvard University)
Hans-Julius Schneider (University of Potsdam)
Evan Thompson (University of Toronto)
James Tully (University of Victoria)
Jeremy Webber (University of Victoria)
Conference co-organizers: Daniel Weinstock (Montreal), Jocelyn Maclure (Laval), Jacob T. Levy (McGill).
Paper titles and abstracts, a complete conference schedule, and registration information will be posted as they become available at http://www.mcgill.ca/rgcs/gripp/events/taylor.
Thursday, December 01, 2011
Waldron on Dignity
The pieces in the forthcoming ASU Law Journal symposium on Jeremy Waldron's Schoen Lectures are gradually appearing on SSRN.
Jeremy Waldron, "Dignity, Rights, and Responsibility"
Brian Bix, "Rights, Responsibilities, and Roles"
Katherine Franke, Dignifying Rights
Jacob T. Levy, "The Right to be Dignified, or the Dignity of Liberty
I'll post more as I become aware of them.
The pieces in the forthcoming ASU Law Journal symposium on Jeremy Waldron's Schoen Lectures are gradually appearing on SSRN.
Jeremy Waldron, "Dignity, Rights, and Responsibility"
Brian Bix, "Rights, Responsibilities, and Roles"
Katherine Franke, Dignifying Rights
Jacob T. Levy, "The Right to be Dignified, or the Dignity of Liberty
I'll post more as I become aware of them.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Oxford graduate political theory conference
Theme: Political Theory and the ‘Liberal’ Tradition
Department of Politics and International Relations, Oxford University, 19-20 April 2012
Graduate students are invited to submit paper proposals for the inaugural Oxford Graduate Conference in Political Theory, to be held at the Department of Politics and International Relations on 19-20 April 2012.
The theme for this conference is “Political Theory and the ‘Liberal’ Tradition”, and there will be two keynote addresses, given by Jeremy Waldron (NYU; All Souls’ College, Oxford) and Charles Mills (Northwestern University). The theme may be broadly construed, and we welcome papers addressing any of the following themes:
• The ‘liberal’ tradition and history of political thought: The canon of great political works is still believed to offer crucial insights for current theorising, thanks to their perception as continuous sources of wisdom about the salient principles of good government. But why are certain thinkers traditionally included, whilst others are not? Why are most ‘great’ thinkers dead, white, and male? Has liberalism been insensitive to the grievances of minorities, and to certain forms of oppression and exclusion? Finally, is the ‘liberal’ tradition a retrospective construct, which paradoxically includes thinkers who never considered themselves ‘liberals’?
• The core values of liberalism: The basic liberal tenets of liberty, democracy, solidarity, and equal rights have often been used as the basis for analysis of contemporary issues such as multiculturalism, human rights, and concern for future generations. Liberal political thought has also been closely entwined with Western conceptions of statecraft and diplomacy, and has significantly shaped the development of international norms in an era of increasing global interrelation. But how have these fundamental values been interpreted and balanced, and what are the tensions between them? Can there be new ways to apply the core values of liberalism to key questions in contemporary political philosophy?
• Liberalism and ideology: Historically, the liberal tradition competed with, and evolved alongside, many other political ideologies—including conservatism, socialism, anarchism, nationalism, and green politics— with which it has often combined to form important new hybrids. Is it possible to write about a fixed substantive content of liberal ideology? What are the commonalities and overlaps between liberalism and other traditions? How have the various ‘liberalisms’ present in modern political thought developed historically and ideationally? And what is the relationship between liberal ideology and ‘real’ liberal politics at national and international levels?
Up to twelve papers will be accepted overall; each panel will be led by an Oxford Faculty member and include a graduate student as respondent.
Proposals of no more than 500 words are requested by 15 January 2012, with accepted papers to follow by 31 March 2012. Please submit abstracts formatted for blind review, along with your name, educational status, and institutional affiliation, to oxford.poltheory.conference@gmail.com. Details on how to register for the
conference to follow shortly.
Theme: Political Theory and the ‘Liberal’ Tradition
Department of Politics and International Relations, Oxford University, 19-20 April 2012
Graduate students are invited to submit paper proposals for the inaugural Oxford Graduate Conference in Political Theory, to be held at the Department of Politics and International Relations on 19-20 April 2012.
The theme for this conference is “Political Theory and the ‘Liberal’ Tradition”, and there will be two keynote addresses, given by Jeremy Waldron (NYU; All Souls’ College, Oxford) and Charles Mills (Northwestern University). The theme may be broadly construed, and we welcome papers addressing any of the following themes:
• The ‘liberal’ tradition and history of political thought: The canon of great political works is still believed to offer crucial insights for current theorising, thanks to their perception as continuous sources of wisdom about the salient principles of good government. But why are certain thinkers traditionally included, whilst others are not? Why are most ‘great’ thinkers dead, white, and male? Has liberalism been insensitive to the grievances of minorities, and to certain forms of oppression and exclusion? Finally, is the ‘liberal’ tradition a retrospective construct, which paradoxically includes thinkers who never considered themselves ‘liberals’?
• The core values of liberalism: The basic liberal tenets of liberty, democracy, solidarity, and equal rights have often been used as the basis for analysis of contemporary issues such as multiculturalism, human rights, and concern for future generations. Liberal political thought has also been closely entwined with Western conceptions of statecraft and diplomacy, and has significantly shaped the development of international norms in an era of increasing global interrelation. But how have these fundamental values been interpreted and balanced, and what are the tensions between them? Can there be new ways to apply the core values of liberalism to key questions in contemporary political philosophy?
• Liberalism and ideology: Historically, the liberal tradition competed with, and evolved alongside, many other political ideologies—including conservatism, socialism, anarchism, nationalism, and green politics— with which it has often combined to form important new hybrids. Is it possible to write about a fixed substantive content of liberal ideology? What are the commonalities and overlaps between liberalism and other traditions? How have the various ‘liberalisms’ present in modern political thought developed historically and ideationally? And what is the relationship between liberal ideology and ‘real’ liberal politics at national and international levels?
Up to twelve papers will be accepted overall; each panel will be led by an Oxford Faculty member and include a graduate student as respondent.
Proposals of no more than 500 words are requested by 15 January 2012, with accepted papers to follow by 31 March 2012. Please submit abstracts formatted for blind review, along with your name, educational status, and institutional affiliation, to oxford.poltheory.conference@gmail.com. Details on how to register for the
conference to follow shortly.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Princeton Graduate Conference in Political Theory
Graduate Conference in Political Theory
Princeton University
April 6-7, 2012
Call for Papers (deadline January 16, 2012)
The Committee for the Graduate Conference in Political Theory at Princeton University welcomes papers concerning any topic in political theory, political philosophy, or the history of political thought. Papers should be submitted via the conference website by January 16, 2012. Approximately eight papers will be accepted.
The Graduate Conference in Political Theory at Princeton University will be held from April 6-7, 2012. This year, we are excited to include Professor Elisabeth Ellis, Texas A&M University, as keynote speaker and conference participant.
The conference offers graduate students from across institutions a unique opportunity to present and critique new work. Each session, led by a discussant from Princeton, will focus exclusively on one paper and will feature an extensive question and answer period with Princeton faculty and graduate students. Papers will be pre-circulated among conference participants.
Submission Information:
· Due date January 16, 2012
· Submissions must be made in PDF format via the conference website: http://politicaltheory.princeton.edu
· Papers should be no more than 7500 words.
· Format for blind review; include title but exclude all personal and institutional information.
· Submissions by email or postal mail will not be accepted.
Papers will be refereed on a blind basis by political theory 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 University Center for Human Values and the Department of Politics at Princeton University.
Questions and comments can be directed to: polthry@princeton.edu
For more information, please visit the conference website at http://politicaltheory.princeton.edu
Graduate Conference in Political Theory
Princeton University
April 6-7, 2012
Call for Papers (deadline January 16, 2012)
The Committee for the Graduate Conference in Political Theory at Princeton University welcomes papers concerning any topic in political theory, political philosophy, or the history of political thought. Papers should be submitted via the conference website by January 16, 2012. Approximately eight papers will be accepted.
The Graduate Conference in Political Theory at Princeton University will be held from April 6-7, 2012. This year, we are excited to include Professor Elisabeth Ellis, Texas A&M University, as keynote speaker and conference participant.
The conference offers graduate students from across institutions a unique opportunity to present and critique new work. Each session, led by a discussant from Princeton, will focus exclusively on one paper and will feature an extensive question and answer period with Princeton faculty and graduate students. Papers will be pre-circulated among conference participants.
Submission Information:
· Due date January 16, 2012
· Submissions must be made in PDF format via the conference website: http://politicaltheory.princeton.edu
· Papers should be no more than 7500 words.
· Format for blind review; include title but exclude all personal and institutional information.
· Submissions by email or postal mail will not be accepted.
Papers will be refereed on a blind basis by political theory 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 University Center for Human Values and the Department of Politics at Princeton University.
Questions and comments can be directed to: polthry@princeton.edu
For more information, please visit the conference website at http://politicaltheory.princeton.edu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)