Sweeping out the corners (341)

Cleaning up a few details:

A story today’s New York Times on a Tanzanian method to increase the survival of infants whose mothers died giving birth. Make sure you click through the multimedia presentation, and check out the previous story on Tanzania and abortion.

One final bit on this story: Those who perform cesaereans are not always doctors, but medical assistants. (‘Paramedics’, anyone?)

Here’s a link to the actual article about ‘imaginative indentification‘, byDavid Graeber. The discussion of imaginative identification in particular begins on p. 8.

On the Church of the Holy Sepulchre: the Wikipedia link, the Church’s own web site (move cursor over photos for further links)—and at least one story on brawling monks. Unfortunately, the video of that fight is no longer available. (You can find video of a November, 2008 fight at YouTube: plug in ‘monks sepulchre fight’ in the search engine.)

Posted in Pol 341 Women & Politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Paper 2 questions (341)

Pol 341—Paper 2

DUE DATE CHANGE: Now due THURSDAY, JUNE 25

Same basic requirements for second paper as for first; again, you have the option of working up your own topic. Otherwise, write on ONE of the following:

*H&J note that a few Scandinavian countries policies on childcare are aimed explicitly at increasing the father’s involvement in such care. Pick a country or region and explore their childcare policies, noting the reasons for those policies (e.g., increasing women’s equality and participation in the workforce, as good for child development, pro-natalism, etc.), as well as their effectiveness in meeting the various goals, the costs, and the benefits.
*Kaplan notes that many women became involved in Jane because they saw a ‘crying need’ for the service. Discuss a similar trajectory in any other area involving women and politics, whether it was couched in explicitly political terms, and whether and how this movement (and members’ understanding of the purposes of the movement) has evolved over time. [Possible examples: domestic violence shelters, home-birth movement, increased use of midwives, breastfeeding; anti- child-marriage efforts; etc.]
*Al-Ali & Pratt note that the attention paid to women’s status in Iraq changed as its utility to the interests of the various actors changed. Discuss a similar situation in any country, with particular attention paid to the narrative of concern, any actions taken (or noticeably not taken), and what, if any, action were women themselves able to take.
*H& J note that the education of girls and women in general and as regarding their bodies and sexuality in particular are seen as crucial in improving their status. Pick one or two countries and trace efforts made to increase access to education, obstacles to such increased access (including ideological opposition), and what, if any, differences there are in the amount and content of education for girls versus boys.

Posted in Pol 341 Women & Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

LEH 300 Bioethics (SSII09)

Required books:

Suzanne Holland, Karen Lebacqz, & Laurie Zoloth, eds. The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate, 2001, 9780262582087, $27

Liza Mundy, Everything Conceivable, 2008, 9781400095377, $15.95

You will also be assigned readings from the National Bioethics Advisory Council and the President’s Council on Bioethics, all available online.

Here’s information I provided to the college regarding this course; please note that the final syllabus may deviate somewhat from the description:

1. course description
What is—or ought to be—the relationship between ethics and politics? For example, in the area of genetics and stem cell technologies, it is arguably the case that the various bioethics panels have served more to assuage an uneasy public than to move policy in any particular direction, or, for that matter, to affect the course of such research itself. In this course, then, we will tack between the three fields of activity and argumentation: bioethics, the policy-making process, and the laboratory bench. While we will focus on recent battles over human embryonic stem cell research, we’ll detour into related historical and  contemporary cases, especially those concerning genetic and reproductive technologies.

2. course objectives
To equip students with the ability to navigate and make sense of the political and ethical debates concerning particular types of biotechnology, in particular, human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research and various assisted reproductive technologies (ART).

3. student learning outcome (what is expected of the students?)
In order for the students to gain some mastery over the controversies surrounding hESC research and ART, I will expect them to learn the basics of these technologies. While it is not expected that they know much about science entering the class, they will learn enough basic genetic science to make sense of the pitfalls and promises of ART and hESC research.

Second, they will learn what are the ethical issues involved in this work, and what are the arguments of the various sides. While ethical issues are often divided into simplistic ‘pro/con’ categories, the partisans in biotechnological research often occupy multiple ethical positions. For example, some accept research for the purposes of X, but not for Y.

Finally, the students will learn how the regulatory and policy-making processes on biotechnology both do and do not take ethical arguments into account, how ideological positions can both enhance and undercut ethical positions, and how little or how much the ethical and political debates affect the actual research.

4. outline of the course and sample texts (what type of material will be covered?)
The course will begin with an overview of the controversies, then concentrate on the science itself. A brief history of the relevant genetic research will follow, along with a history of the regulation (or lack thereof) of this work. This will cover the first quarter of the course.

The rest of the class will be devoted to laying out the current state of the research, regulatory climate, and the ethical and political debates; the history of these debates will be interspersed among the current debates.

Much of the reading material will be available online, with the bulk of it derived from governmental reports. I will rely in particular on material generated by (President Clinton’s) National Bioethics Advisory Board and (President Bush’s) President’s Council on Bioethics.

I may also use Liza Mundy’s Everything Conceivable (on ART), as well as an edited volume on the ethics of hESC research (perhaps Laurie Zoloth’s The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate—although I haven’t settled on this).

5. a general schedule to get a sense of how the course will be taught (in terms of the pace).
Given that this course will be taught over the summer—meaning 4 nights a week for 4 weeks, the pace will, of necessity, be pell-mell. (Were I to teach it during the school year, the pace would be more leisurely, and I would likely require more reading.)

There will be a quiz at the end of week one (or beginning of week 2) on the science; this will be a basic fill-in-the-blank/multiple choice quiz, designed solely to reinforce the necessity of knowing the science itself.

There will be two papers (2000-4000 words apiece) assigned, with the second building on the first. The initial paper will require the student to examine a particular line of research or a specific practice and to lay out what exactly is involved in this research or practice and for what the research or practice will be used or is already being used. The second paper will then engage the social issues or controversy surrounding the research or practice covered in the first paper.

In addition to the quiz and two papers, students will be graded on their attendance and participation. While lecture will predominate during the first week’s classes (if only because of the amount of factual information which will be relayed), there will be considerably more discussion in the latter three weeks of the course. Students will be encouraged not only to question me, but to engage in sustained conversation with one another.

It will be an intense course.

Posted in LEH 300 Bioethics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Violence cancels politics. . .

. . . and politics cancels violence.

It’s a basic Arendtian equation.

See what’s happening in Iran: check out Andrew Sullivan’s blog, The Daily Dish.

I was never a huge fan of Sullivan’s, especially in his brash I-know-how-to-be-an-America-better-than-you-do phase, but in these past few years he’s been chastened by life—and become a much more interesting thinker as a result.

More to the point, for this post, is that he’s been posting as fast as he can on the situation in Iran, throwing up amazing photos (here, among others) and videos (here, and here, among others)  of street protests, as well as a variety of commentary on the elections. The urgency of the posts matches that of the activity; the Times’s coverage is pallid, by comparison.

Fascinating, heartbreaking, and breathtaking. Go. Read it all.

(originally posted elsewhere)

Posted in All courses | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

What was that? (341)

Well, that was an unorthodox way to end class. . . .

Next week, then, we’ll continue looking into domestic policy. In fact, I may simply give Monday over to questions of household labor and child care, and start the abortion/underground politics discussion on Tuesday.

Here are the questions I had/have regarding household labor and care:

-what is the role of the state in female labor participation?
-encourage? discourage? neutral?
-what of difference vs equality feminists? irreconcilable?
-is one better than the other in dealing with the role of husbands/fathers?
-why is female labor participation centered mostly on women’s actions?
-point to continuing neglect of significance of household labor?
-what would a father-centered policy on child/day care look like?
-would this lead to greater attention paid to household labor, ie, that men doing the work makes it worthy of attention?
-how much is family policy a social versus a private concern?
-what of role of single people? people w/o children?
-what role do/should they have in family policy?
-how should family policy recognize them?
-should there be a family wage, eg, those w/families get paid more?
-or are allowances or tax benefits the way to go?
-what is the role of the market and/or private businesses in managing household care & labor?

Also, check out this piece on the role of ‘imaginative identification’ and understanding Sonia Sotomayor’s comments on the wisdom of Latinas. The short version is that those who are on the outside looking learn how to identify with those on the inside; those already on the inside, however, don’t have to learn anything—they’re already in. In practical terms, this means that ethnic minorities will understand more about ethnic majorities than vice versa, and women will understand more about men.

It’s a concept (tho’ not necessarily the precise term) that’s been around for awhile: people on the bottom look up; people who are up rarely look down. Anyway, check out the piece for yourself.

One, last, question (for now): Is the key to advancing women’s equality to focus on men—perhaps precisely because men have, for the most part, not had to engage in the kind of imaginative identification as discussed, above?

Again, this isn’t a new idea: James Baldwin in The Fire Next Time noted that racism was a problem with white people, not black people, and it was an additional (or, perhaps, central)  injustice that this problem was foisted off on black people.

Nonetheless, it is difficult to see how racism can be lessened or eliminated without white people actively taking it on as their/our issue, any more than sexism can be lessened or eliminated without men taking it on as their issue.

Your thoughts?

Posted in Pol 341 Women & Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Papers! Papeles! Papiers! (341)

Pol 341–Paper Requirements                  SSI009

Paper 1, 25 points: Due June 11
Paper 2, 25 points: Due June 22

Basics: 1200-1500 words, typed, double-spaced, hard copy only. NO COVER PAGE please.

References: While this is not a research paper, it is expected that you will do some additional reading for these papers. Thus, you do need to cite any references, including course material and anything you pull off the web. You must offer a full citation, including author, publisher, date; cf. ‘Citation Methods’, below.

Substance: Short version: write about some aspect of women and politics. Real version: Take some topic which is discussed in the readings or class and write about it. For the first paper, you’re to write on a matter discussed between June 2 and June 11; for the second paper, a topic discussed between June 11 and June 22.
Within these parameters, you have a wide latitude in which to explore a particular topic. Some of you are uncomfortable coming up with a topic of your own, however, so I offer the following suggestion for the first paper (I’ll offer a similar set of suggestions for the second paper):
*A common theme in both the Henderson & Jeydel and Al-Ali & Pratt books is that women as political actors and what are considered women’s issues tend to be sidelined by male political leaders, even those who proclaim their fealty to women’s equality. Take one or two real-world situations and examine in detail whether this holds true, i.e., what actions leaders take, what they say to justify their actions, and how female supporters respond to both their actions and their justifications.
*Scandinavian countries, Rwanda, and South Africa do particularly well in incorporating women into their political structures. Pick one country and explain in detail what has been done to bring women into institutional politics, what problems have occurred, and what remains to be done.
*Henderson & Jeydel, citing Maxine Molyneux, distinguish between ‘strategic gender interests’ and ‘practical gender interests’, noting that those pursuing strategic interests tend to take a more consciously feminist approach. Pick one or two social movements and examine whether this distinction between strategic and practical interests makes sense.
*Revolutionary movements are premised on liberation, but it is rare that women’s liberation is considered an integral factor to the larger liberation movement. Pick one revolutionary movement and examine its relationship to its women members, whether they are integrated into leadership, and how much rhetorical and practical activity is expended on behalf of women’s liberation.

Citation methods:
There are a number of acceptable ways to cite your material; what is listed, below, is simply one set of methods. Remember: you need to offer a footnote or endnote when you quote directly or if you use specific material (not in quotes) from a source. Whether you use foot- or endnotes is up to you.

Book
Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Edited volume
Flack, Harley E. and Edmund D. Pellegrino, eds. African-American Perspectives on Biomedical Ethics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1992.
Chapter from edited volume
Dryzek, John S. and David Schlosberg. “Disciplining Darwin: Biology in the History of Political Science.” In Political Science in History, James Farr, John S. Dryzek, and Stephen T. Leonard, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Journal article
Beauchampt, Tom L. “The Failure of Theories of Personhood.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 9, no. 4 (December 1999):309-324.
Government report
U.S. National Research Council. Mapping and Sequencing the Human Genome. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1988.
Web citation:
United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Web citation, with author:
Carmine, J.D. ‘Marriage as Prostitution: Baby Boomers vs. Millenials.’ Blogcritics: July 18, 2005. blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/18/095235.php

Posted in Pol 341 Women & Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

This is how it will be (341)

Pol 341, Women and Politics

Course reading (books available both at the bookstore and online):
Nadje Al-Ali & Nicola Pratt, What Kind of Liberation? 2009, ISBN: 9780520257290
Sarah L. Henderson & Alana S. Jeydel, Participation and Protest, 2007, 9780195159257
Laura Kaplan, The Story of Jane, 1995, 0226424219

Course requirements
:
Attendance & participation: 20%
Papers (due June 11 & June 22): 50%
Final (take-home), due July 1: 30%

Day 1, June 2: Getting started
Day 2, June 3: Henderson & Jeydel (H&J), chs. 1-2
Day 3, June 4: H&J, ch. 3; Al-Ali & Pratt (A&P), Intro, begin ch. 1

Day 4, June 8: A&P, finish ch. 1; H&J chs. 7-8
Day 5, June 9: A&P, ch. 2, begin ch. 3
Day 6, June 10: A&P, finish ch. 3; H&J, ch. 4, begin ch. 5
Day 7, June 11: H&J, finish ch. 5                    Paper 1 due

Day 8, June 15: H&J, ch. 6; Kaplan, Intro, chs. 1-5
Day 9, June 16: Kaplan, chs. 6-12
Day 10, June 17: H& J, ch. 9, Kaplan, chs. 13-15
Day 11, June 18: Kaplan, chs. 16-21

Day 12, June 22: H&J, ch. 12; Kaplan, chs. 22-23                Paper 2 due
Day 13, June 23: Kaplan, chs. 24-27, Epilogue
Day 14, June 24: H& J, ch 10; A&P, begin ch. 4
Day 15, June 25: A&P, finish ch. 4

Day 16, June 29: H& J, ch. 11; A&P, ch. 5
Day 17, June 30: Catch up, catch breath, reconsider

Final Exam due: July 1, by 6pm

Posted in Pol 341 Women & Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Pol 341—Women and Politics

Okay, so summer session begins in, mmm, 2 1/2 weeks, and I’ve only now decided what books I’m going to use:

  • Sarah Henderson, Participation and Protest, Oxford University Press USA, 2006, 9780195159257; $35.95.
  • Laura Kaplan, The Story of Jane, Univ of Chicago Press, 1995, 0226424219; $18.
  • Nadja Al-Ali & Nicole Pratt, What Kind of Liberation, 2009, 9780520257290; $24.95.

Sorry this is so late. . . .

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Deliberating over health care (228)

So I finally got around to reading the NYTimes interview with President Obama; here’s the section I mentioned in last week’s class:

[Pres. Obama]: Now, I actually think that the tougher issue around medical care — it’s a related one — is what you do around things like end-of-life care —

[reporter David Leonhardt] Yes, where it’s $20,000 for an extra week of life.

THE PRESIDENT: Exactly. And I just recently went through this. I mean, I’ve told this story, maybe not publicly, but when my grandmother got very ill during the campaign, she got cancer; it was determined to be terminal. And about two or three weeks after her diagnosis she fell, broke her hip. It was determined that she might have had a mild stroke, which is what had precipitated the fall.

So now she’s in the hospital, and the doctor says, Look, you’ve got about — maybe you have three months, maybe you have six months, maybe you have nine months to live. Because of the weakness of your heart, if you have an operation on your hip there are certain risks that — you know, your heart can’t take it. On the other hand, if you just sit there with your hip like this, you’re just going to waste away and your quality of life will be terrible.

And she elected to get the hip replacement and was fine for about two weeks after the hip replacement, and then suddenly just — you know, things fell apart.

I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. If somebody told me that my grandmother couldn’t have a hip replacement and she had to lie there in misery in the waning days of her life — that would be pretty upsetting.

And it’s going to be hard for people who don’t have the option of paying for it.

THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?

I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.

So how do you — how do we deal with it?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.

Posted in Pol 228 Democracy and Its Critics | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Test for democracy! (228)

Hello all.

Sorry this is a bit late, but I’ve posted the questions for your final exam. Scroll down to ‘pages’ and click on ‘Pol 228: Final Exam.’

A coupla’  things:

  • There are four questions, but you are to write on ONLY ONE.
  • There is no extra credit to writing on more than one question.
  • Remember to answer all parts of the question—the quickest way to lose points is to overlook or not respond to some of those parts.
  • Feel free to answer the parts of a question in whatever order makes the most sense to you. Again, the important thing is to answer all parts of the question.
  • Use examples, when appropriate. Do not assume, however, that I will draw the same lesson from an example as you do; in other words, make sure to EXPLAIN HOW the example works.
  • This is an open book exam, so make use of the books. If you’re not sure of what Gutmann & Thompson had to say on a particular issue, look it up.
  • Similarly, don’t forget the various chapters in Macedo. Not all chapters will help you in responding to each question, but at least a couple of chapters are clearly related to the concerns raised in each question.
  • You do not have to use foot- or endnotes—this is an exam, not a research paper—but do make sure to note from where you’re pulling your information. For example, you might write, ‘As Stanley Fish argues. . .’ or ‘I disagree with William Galston in. . .’. Granting such credit lets me know that you’ve actually read and understand the material—which also helps you to earn points.
  • I will not read drafts. This is an exam, after all.
  • I will, within reason, answer questions you may have about how to approach these questions. And no, what counts as ‘within reason’ is not open to deliberation.

I’ll also make hard copies of the exam available in class.

Good luck.

Posted in Pol 228 Democracy and Its Critics | Tagged , | Leave a comment