News & Events
Steven Brigham’s abortion clinics keep being sanctioned for offering substandard care. Why is he still in business? IPK Scholar, Eyal Press, reports on how the stigma and shame surrounding abortion enable substandard providers to thrive. Read "A Botched Operation" in the New Yorker.
Illustration by Tomer Hanuka.
The Council of Editors of Learned Journals (CELJ) has named Public Culture the 2013 co-winner of its Phoenix Award for Significant Editorial Achievement, given to journals that have launched an overall effort of revitalization or transformation within the previous three years. The other co-winner was Translation Review, published by Routledge.
The Award was presented on January 11, 2014, at the Modern Language Association conference in Chicago. In their comments at the ceremony, the CELJ jurors had this to say:
Public Culture was already a respected and pathbreaking journal before its major revamp. Starting from a strong base, the new editor has clearly identified a set of changes with a clear and appropriate rationale which provide development upon existing practice rather than a radical departure from it. These new developments are successfully carried out, with a marked emphasis on accessibility and broader relevance. The interviews involve prominent scholars and reflect the broad, interdisciplinary focus of the journal. The style/design of both the print version and the website are excellent and there is a clear intention to reach out to a new audience. The editors show real passion for their mission. Overall, an impressive journal very clearly pitched towars a broad, interdisciplinary, and topical audience.
Read more about the award and Public Culture's response here.
The Institute for Public Knowledge is partnering with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the President's Hurricane Sandy Task Force to organize REBUILD BY DESIGN, a multi-stage regional design competition to promote resilience for the Sandy-affected region. IPK will serve as Lead Partner for Stage Two, which will provide an analysis of the region through a collaborative process with local communities, regional stakeholders and international experts.
The goal of the competition is two-fold: to promote innovation by developing regionally-scalable but locally-contextual solutions that increase resilience in the region, and to implement selected proposals with both public and private funding dedicated to this effort. The competition also represents a policy innovation by setting aside HUD Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funding specifically to incentivize implementation of winning projects and proposals. Examples of design solutions are expected to range in scope and scale – from large-scale green infrastructure to small-scale residential resiliency retrofits. The competition process will also strengthen our understanding of regional interdependencies, fostering coordination and resilience both at the local level and across the US.
For more detail on the competition, including information on how to apply and an initial survey of available data sets, please follow the below links:
IPK's Director Eric Klinenberg contributed his thoughts on the role of government in disaster preparedness in Moore, Oklahoma in a May 24th post on the New Yorker blog.
Moore, Oklahoma, is not unfamiliar with tornadoes: it gets hit by one about once every five years. But the one that touched down there on Monday seemed especially cruel. The storm laid waste to nearly everything in its seventeen-mile path, destroying thirteen thousand homes, causing approximately two billion dollars in property damage, injuring two hundred and thirty-seven people and killing twenty-four, including nine children, so far. Powerful as it was, this week’s tornado pales in comparison to the one that hit Moore fourteen years ago, which tore up thirty-eight miles of land and killed thirty-six people, and to the one that hit Joplin, Missouri, in 2011, which left behind three billion dollars in damage and a hundred and sixty fatalities. The rebuilding effort in Oklahoma is already under way, but everyone in the state knows that more devastating twisters are coming, perhaps soon.
On Monday, April 29th, the Institute for Public Knowledge and Public Books celebrated the launch of IPK Visiting Scholar Neil Gross's new book, Why Are Professors Liberal and Why Do Conservatives Care? The author was in conversation with Nicholas Lemann, Dean and Henry R. Luce Professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, and Paul Starr, Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs, and Stuart Professor of Communications and Public Affairs, Princeton University.
C-SPAN filmed and broadcasted the event, and it is available to view online.
Some observers see American academia as a bastion of leftist groupthink that indoctrinates students and silences conservative voices. Others see a protected enclave that naturally produces free-thinking, progressive intellectuals. Both views are self-serving, says Neil Gross, but neither is correct. Why Are Professors Liberal and Why Do Conservatives Care? explains how academic liberalism became a self-reproducing phenomenon, and why Americans on both the left and right should take notice.
Academia employs a higher percentage of liberals than nearly any other profession. But the usual explanations—hiring bias against conservatives, correlations of liberal ideology with high intelligence—do not hold up to scrutiny. Drawing on a range of original research, statistics, and interviews, Gross argues that “political typing” plays an overlooked role in shaping academic liberalism. For historical reasons, the professoriate developed a reputation for liberal politics early in the twentieth century. As this perception spread, it exerted a self-selecting influence on bright young liberals, while deterring equally promising conservatives. Most professors’ political views formed well before they stepped behind the lectern for the first time.
Why Are Professors Liberal and Why Do Conservatives Care? shows how studying the political sympathies of professors and their critics can shed light not only on academic life but on American politics, where the modern conservative movement was built in no small part around opposition to the “liberal elite” in higher education. This divide between academic liberals and nonacademic conservatives makes accord on issues as diverse as climate change, immigration, and foreign policy more difficult.
Neil Gross taught at the University of Southern California and Harvard University before joining the University of British Columbia faculty in 2008. Trained at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Ph.D., 2002), and holding a BA in Legal Studies from the University of California, Berkeley (1992), Gross has special interests in sociological theory, politics, the sociology of ideas and academic life, and the sociology of culture. He is the editor of Sociological Theory, a quarterly journal of the American Sociological Association.