Past Events
Online only. Please register here.
Link and papers sent to registered attendees.
When Science Communicators Speak: Reconciling Public Reason and the Administrative State
Vanessa Schipani (Philosophy, Penn)
FROM COMBATING CLIMATE CHANGE TO CURBING THE PANDEMIC, we undeniably need science-based policies to overcome today’s challenges. However, recently scholars have questioned whether science squares with a major tenant of liberal democracy: public reason. Public reason stipulates that the reasons justifying coercive policies are shared by all citizens. The problem is many scientific reasons aren’t shared. This has led some to argue that public reason and the administrative state, insofar it is guided by expert scientific knowledge, fundamentally conflict. VANESSA SCHIPANI seeks instead to reconcile public reason and the administrative state by bringing to the fore the importance of science communication in a liberal democracy. She highlights in particular the need to increase the communication of scientific process. That is, science communicators of all stripes – journalists, press officers, K-12 teachers and scientists themselves – must center more on explaining how scientific methods, norms and standards produce the scientific conclusions that are used to justify policies. To support my claims, I’ll use social scientific research on science communication, climate change and the coronavirus pandemic as case studies as well as my own experience working as a science journalist.
Condoms, Curriculum, and Crisis: How the Battles over HIV/AIDS Prevention Strategies and a Multicultural Curriculum in Public Schools Shaped New York Politics in the 1990s and Beyond
Jeffery Berryhill (History, Rutgers)
JEFFERY BERRYHILL ARGUES THAT SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ANTAGONISM around HIV prevention strategies in New York profoundly shaped municipal politics at the close of the century. For many New Yorkers, worry abounded about the specter of permanent crisis born of poverty, drugs, crime, racial strife, sexuality, and disease. These fears were intimately bound with how people understood HIV prevention efforts. Moreover, racial and sexual anxieties structured these sentiments, particularly under the Dinkins Administration. However, opposition cohered across racial and ethnic boundaries, particularly in the case of needle exchange. For skeptics of harm mitigation, providing school children with condoms or distributing sterile needles to injection drug users contributed to the further deterioration of the urban environment. Drawing from an array of sources, Berryhill merges the literatures on late twentieth century urban politics, social mobilizations, and public health. He traces how these conflicts hastened electoral realignment in New York by accelerating the fracturing of Democratic coalitions that culminated in the GOP’s domination of the mayoralty for the next twenty years. In addition, Berryhill illuminates how the contentious politics of HIV/AIDS prevention fused on-going “culture wars” over education, sex, and drugs.
GRAD WORKSHOP - Science and Politics: How Is Public Discourse Shaped?
Online only. Please register here.
Link and papers sent to registered attendees.
When Science Communicators Speak: Reconciling Public Reason and the Administrative State
Vanessa Schipani (Philosophy, Penn)
FROM COMBATING CLIMATE CHANGE TO CURBING THE PANDEMIC, we undeniably need science-based policies to overcome today’s challenges. However, recently scholars have questioned whether science squares with a major tenant of liberal democracy: public reason. Public reason stipulates that the reasons justifying coercive policies are shared by all citizens. The problem is many scientific reasons aren’t shared. This has led some to argue that public reason and the administrative state, insofar it is guided by expert scientific knowledge, fundamentally conflict. VANESSA SCHIPANI seeks instead to reconcile public reason and the administrative state by bringing to the fore the importance of science communication in a liberal democracy. She highlights in particular the need to increase the communication of scientific process. That is, science communicators of all stripes – journalists, press officers, K-12 teachers and scientists themselves – must center more on explaining how scientific methods, norms and standards produce the scientific conclusions that are used to justify policies. To support my claims, I’ll use social scientific research on science communication, climate change and the coronavirus pandemic as case studies as well as my own experience working as a science journalist.
Condoms, Curriculum, and Crisis: How the Battles over HIV/AIDS Prevention Strategies and a Multicultural Curriculum in Public Schools Shaped New York Politics in the 1990s and Beyond
Jeffery Berryhill (History, Rutgers)
JEFFERY BERRYHILL ARGUES THAT SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ANTAGONISM around HIV prevention strategies in New York profoundly shaped municipal politics at the close of the century. For many New Yorkers, worry abounded about the specter of permanent crisis born of poverty, drugs, crime, racial strife, sexuality, and disease. These fears were intimately bound with how people understood HIV prevention efforts. Moreover, racial and sexual anxieties structured these sentiments, particularly under the Dinkins Administration. However, opposition cohered across racial and ethnic boundaries, particularly in the case of needle exchange. For skeptics of harm mitigation, providing school children with condoms or distributing sterile needles to injection drug users contributed to the further deterioration of the urban environment. Drawing from an array of sources, Berryhill merges the literatures on late twentieth century urban politics, social mobilizations, and public health. He traces how these conflicts hastened electoral realignment in New York by accelerating the fracturing of Democratic coalitions that culminated in the GOP’s domination of the mayoralty for the next twenty years. In addition, Berryhill illuminates how the contentious politics of HIV/AIDS prevention fused on-going “culture wars” over education, sex, and drugs.
133 S. 36th Street, Room 250 (Forum)
Perelman Center for Political Science and Economics
Food Provided.
Join the five caucuses of the Penn Political Union (PPU) for a debate on the resolution, "The United States should invest in foreign nations' sustainable infrastructure."
The PPU is unique among debating societies in encouraging participants to make heartfelt cases for policies they believe in to a politically diverse group of fellow students. Members can join one of five caucuses that span the political spectrum: Progressive, Liberal, Centrist, Conservative, and Libertarian. They can then take active roles in formal debates on important policy problems. At a time of political polarization and social-media bubbles, it is an opportunity to hone and challenge one’s own opinions, as well as make friendships “across the aisle” and cultivate the practices of civil discourse.
PPU DEBATE - Should the US Fund Sustainable Infrastructure Overseas?
133 S. 36th Street, Room 250 (Forum)
Perelman Center for Political Science and Economics
Food Provided.
Join the five caucuses of the Penn Political Union (PPU) for a debate on the resolution, "The United States should invest in foreign nations' sustainable infrastructure."
The PPU is unique among debating societies in encouraging participants to make heartfelt cases for policies they believe in to a politically diverse group of fellow students. Members can join one of five caucuses that span the political spectrum: Progressive, Liberal, Centrist, Conservative, and Libertarian. They can then take active roles in formal debates on important policy problems. At a time of political polarization and social-media bubbles, it is an opportunity to hone and challenge one’s own opinions, as well as make friendships “across the aisle” and cultivate the practices of civil discourse.
Irvine Auditorium, 3401 Spruce Street
In-person/Virtual: Please register here.
Featured speaker DEVI LOCKWOOD, author of 1,001 Voices on Climate Change, will discuss her work documenting climate change in 20 countries across six continents.
Also attending will be PPEH's Climate Champions, nine high school teachers working in eight Philadelphia School District schools across the city and approximately 300 of their students. Listen Up! is a two-day climate week program that provides the first opportunity for My Philadelphia Climate Story teachers and their students to see and meet one another and members of the Penn community,
CO-SPONSORED - Listen Up! Climate Stories and Philadelphia Youth
Irvine Auditorium, 3401 Spruce Street
In-person/Virtual: Please register here.
Featured speaker DEVI LOCKWOOD, author of 1,001 Voices on Climate Change, will discuss her work documenting climate change in 20 countries across six continents.
Also attending will be PPEH's Climate Champions, nine high school teachers working in eight Philadelphia School District schools across the city and approximately 300 of their students. Listen Up! is a two-day climate week program that provides the first opportunity for My Philadelphia Climate Story teachers and their students to see and meet one another and members of the Penn community,
The Darkened Light of Faith: Race, Democracy, and Freedom in African American Political Thought (Melvin Rogers)
133 S. 36th Street, Room 418
Perelman Center for the Study of Political Science and Economics
Read the Introduction to Rogers' book here.
133 South 36th Street, Auditorium (Basement)
Perelman Center for Political Science and Economics
In-person Event: Please register here.
Dinner provided / Free and open to the public.
AS THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS RAPIDLY APPROACH, the Mitchell Center and the Penn Government and Politics Association (GPA) host this debate among student political parties on a wide array of topics. The participating parties are the PENN DEMOCRATS, the PENN COLLEGE REPUBLICANS, the PENN YOUNG DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA, and PENN FOR LIBERTY. Topics include foreign policy, the economy, the judiciary, the electoral process, and COVID.
The GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS ASSOCIATION is Penn’s largest political organization. Devoted to non-partisan and balanced dialogue, the organization does not adopt positions on political issues; we leave it to our participants to make up their own minds. The group is divided into three main branches: the Polybian Society, the Penn Political Union, and the Penn Political Review. In addition, the organization conducts events with politicians and professors of all political leanings.
GPA - Penn Student Multi-Party Political Debate
133 South 36th Street, Auditorium (Basement)
Perelman Center for Political Science and Economics
In-person Event: Please register here.
Dinner provided / Free and open to the public.
AS THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS RAPIDLY APPROACH, the Mitchell Center and the Penn Government and Politics Association (GPA) host this debate among student political parties on a wide array of topics. The participating parties are the PENN DEMOCRATS, the PENN COLLEGE REPUBLICANS, the PENN YOUNG DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA, and PENN FOR LIBERTY. Topics include foreign policy, the economy, the judiciary, the electoral process, and COVID.
The GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS ASSOCIATION is Penn’s largest political organization. Devoted to non-partisan and balanced dialogue, the organization does not adopt positions on political issues; we leave it to our participants to make up their own minds. The group is divided into three main branches: the Polybian Society, the Penn Political Union, and the Penn Political Review. In addition, the organization conducts events with politicians and professors of all political leanings.
