British P.M. David Cameron visits the MIT Media Lab

Wed, 15 May 2013 14:13:47 GMT

In a visit to the MIT campus on May 14, 2013, British Prime Minister David Cameron met with President L. Rafael Reif and Media Lab director Joichi Ito, faculty members and students, and a group of young MIT entrepreneurs.

Starr Forum - 'Marathon Bombing: The Global Context' (Part 2)

Wed, 08 May 2013 07:08:11 GMT

Speakers:

Stephen Van Evera, Elizabeth Wood, Carol Saivetz, Bakyt Beshimov, Peter Krause, Jeanne Guillemin and Silvia Dominguez

Moderator: Richard Samuels, Ford International Professor of Political Science at the MIT Dept of Political Science and director of CIS.

Starr Forum - 'Marathon Bombing: The Global Context' (Part 1)

Wed, 08 May 2013 07:08:06 GMT

Speakers: Stephen Van Evera, Elizabeth Wood, Carol Saivetz, Bakyt Beshimov, Peter Krause, Jeanne Guillemin and Silvia Dominguez. Moderator: Richard Samuels

MIT Communications Forum: News or Entertainment – Press and Modern Political Campaigns

Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:30:45 GMT

Opening Remarks: Noel Jackson
Moderator: Seth Mnookin
Panelists: Ta-Nehisi Coates and Mark Mckinnon

Recorded April 11, 2013

Starr Forum: Fate of the Reset

Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:06:29 GMT

Participants:

Jeffrey Mankoff, Deputy Director, Russia and Eurasia Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies 

Matthew Ouimet, Senior Analyst, Office of Analysis for Russia and Eurasia, Department of State 

Barry Posen, Ford International Professor of Political Science and Director Security Studies Program, MIT

 Carol Saivetz, Research Affiliate, Security Studies Program and Lecturer in Political Science

Chris Hayes and Ta-Nahisi Coates: "Election Year 2012 and the Twilight of the Elites"

Tue, 20 Nov 2012 21:30:13 GMT

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Visiting Scholar Ta-Nehisi Coates speaks with journalist and MSNBC host Chris Hayes about his new book, Twilight Of The Elites.

SuperPacApp

Fri, 24 Aug 2012 22:08:14 GMT

The SuperPacApp helps voters get the information they need to make the most important decision of the year.

New York Times writer David Carr discusses the use of digital communications in the 2008 election and looks forward to 2012

Mon, 02 Jul 2012 07:18:58 GMT

From "Politics and Popular Culture"

Profile: Andrea Campbell

Thu, 10 May 2012 17:30:11 GMT

Andrea Campbell’s core research concerns resemble a list of hot-button political issues pulled straight from the 2012 presidential campaign: Social Security, Medicare, health insurance, taxation.

ZIAD JAMALEDDINE + MAKRAM EL KADI: L.E.FT - RECENT WORKS, LEBANON

Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:02:55 GMT

MIT Architecture's Spring 2012 Lecture Series: Specifications
Read more at: http://architecture.mit.edu/lectures/public-lecture-series

March 15, 2012
This Lecture, instead of linking architecture production to its proper history (history of architecture), proposes to draw a parallel between architectural production and the political history of Lebanon.

MAKRAM EL KADI

Born in Beirut in 1974, Makram el Kadi received his bachelor of architecture degree from the American University of Beirut in 1997 and his masters of architecture from Parsons School of Design in 1999. After working at the offices of Fumihiko Maki in Japan, he joined Steven Holl Architects where for 5 years he was project architect on numerous international projects, among them the World Trade Center proposal with Richard Meier, Peter Eisenman and Charles Gwathmey, and the winning entry to the natural history museum of Los Angeles county competition. Mr. El Kadi taught architecture studio with Steven Holl at the Columbia University School of Architecture Planning and Preservation GSAPP in 2004 and 2005 and as part of L.E.FT at Cornell University in 2006, and currently teaches graduate studio at MIT where he serves at the Aga Khan visiting Lecturer. He also has a regular teaching position at Yale where was the Louis Kahn visiting assistant professor of architecture and has been part of the Yale faculty since 2009.

ZIAD JAMALEDDINE

Born in Beirut in 1971, Ziad Jamaleddine received his Bachelor’s degree in Architecture from the American University of Beirut in 1995, where he won the Areen Award for excellence in design. He received his Masters degree in architecture from the Graduate School of Design at Harvard University in 1999. Mr. Jamaleddine worked for Steven Holl Architects for 5 years where he was the assistant to project architect for Simmons Hall dormitory at M.I.T, (winner of the National AIA Design award in 2003 and the New York AIA award in 2002), and the project architect for the design and development of the Beirut Marina project in downtown Beirut. Mr. Jamaleddine co-taught Vertical studio and seminar at Cornell University, Third-Year Graduate Advanced Architectural Design Studio at PennDesign, and Vertical Studio at Rensselaer (RPI) School of Architecture.

Daron Acemoglu on Why Nations Fail

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:30:07 GMT

It is among the grandest topics in scholarship: Why do some nations, such as the United States, become wealthy and powerful, while others remain stuck in poverty? And why do some of those powers, from ancient Rome to the modern Soviet Union, expand and then collapse? From Adam Smith and Max Weber to the current day, scores of writers have grappled with these questions. Some scholars, like Weber, have argued that religious or cultural differences create vastly different economic outcomes among countries. Others have asserted that a lack of natural resources or technical expertise has prevented poor countries from creating self-sustaining economic growth.

Economists Daron Acemoglu of MIT and James Robinson of Harvard University have another answer: Politics makes the difference. Countries that have what they call "inclusive" political governments -- those extending political and property rights as broadly as possible, while enforcing laws and providing some public infrastructure -- experience the greatest growth over the long run. By contrast, Acemoglu and Robinson assert, countries with "extractive" political systems -- in which power is wielded by a small elite -- either fail to grow broadly or wither away after short bursts of economic expansion.

Read more at: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/why-nations-fail-0323.html

Selections from "One Way Forward" by Lawrence Lessig

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:03:05 GMT

In this inaugural lecture of the MIT Media Lab Conversations Series, Lawrence Lessig discusses some of the core problems of the U.S. Congress and more.

Faculty Forum Online: Homeland Security

Tue, 06 Dec 2011 20:02:59 GMT

National security in an age of massive movements of people across borders is a universal concern that involves complex issues. While borders have different characteristics and challenges, there are areas of commonality. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of crossings are not problematic, but the ones that are raise concerns.

On Dec. 5, 2011, MIT Associate Professor of Political Science Chappell Lawson, who recently completed a two-year assignment as executive director and senior advisor to the commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, offered his thoughts on homeland security and answered questions from the worldwide MIT alumni community. Watch the video then join the discussion online.

MIT Political Science Distinguished Speaker Series: Gov. Ted Strickland (Ohio)

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:53:18 GMT

Civic Media Session: "Amplified Streets, from Print to Tweets: Social Movement Media Across Platforms"

Tue, 04 Oct 2011 18:48:46 GMT

Jason Pramas, Steve Meacham, and Kyle de Beausset

Social movements have always been productive spaces for the creation and circulation of media texts, tools, and frames for understanding the world. In the past, movement narratives were often told by specialists: filmmakers, writers, radio producers.

These roles still exist, but more recently, the rapid spread of digital literacies allows increased participation in movement media making by everyday participants.

This session brings together social movement media makers and scholars in a conversation about what the transformation of the media ecology means for movements. Under what conditions does media making by a movement's base help strengthen the movement and advance its goals, and when does it produce confusion and a lack of narrative power? How can filmmakers rooted in movements open up their processes to increased participation? What movements today are engaged in innovative cross platform practices?

Jason Pramas is editor/publisher of Open Media Boston - an online metro news weekly with a progressive editorial stance covering the labor and community beats since 2008. A photojournalist by trade, he has been active in movements for democracy and social justice for over a quarter century. He is working on an MFA in Visual Arts at the Art Institute of Boston at Lesley University, and teaches social media in various academic and professional settings.

Steve Meacham is organizing coordinator of City Life/Vida Urbana and has been an organizer for almost forty years, working in areas of housing, labor, community democracy, peace work, and economic conversion. He emphasizes a radical approach that links day-to-day issues to systemic change, that generates new leaders, and that can rapidly expand. His current position at City Life/Vida Urbana has allowed for the full development of this organizing model. It has combined an aggressive day-to-day response to housing displacement with a series of conferences and institutes called the Radical Organizing process.

Kyle de Beausset is the founder of Citizen Orange and a campaigner at Presente.org. He was born and raised in Guatemala of U.S. citizen parents and got connected to the pro-migrant movement after he retraced the route of a Guatemalan migrant into the U.S., almost lost his life to smuggler, and blogged about it. After being trained to organize by the undocumented youth movement, he learned to use his social media skills to help stop deportations, move the Presidents of Universities, and influence lawmakers. His writing and commentary have been featured in both local and national media outlets including the Associated Press, the Boston Herald, the Boston Globe, National Public Radio, Fox News, and MTV.

Noam Chomsky on the Responsibility of Intellectuals: Redux

Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:22:08 GMT

September 22, 2011 - MIT Wong Auditorium - In 1967, as the Vietnam War escalated, Noam Chomsky penned The Responsibility of Intellectuals, a stunning rebuke to scientists and scholars for their subservience to political power. Today we face a similar array of crises, from wars to escalating debt. What are the obligations of intellectuals in this day and age? Introduced by Joshua Cohen. Ideas Matter, a joint project of Boston Review and MIT's Political Science Department, is a lecture series that brings our writers together with other experts and practitioners for substantive debate on the challenges of our times. The series, free and open to the public, will offer four events in the 2011-12 academic year. bostonreview.net/ideasmatter

MIT professor Charles Stewart on race and the 2008 election

Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:03:14 GMT

MIT Professor Charles Stewart discusses how race played a roll in the election of Barack Obama, but in a way you might not expect.

Read more about it here: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/racialpolarization-0120.html

Mobile Storytelling in Real Time

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:01:55 GMT

Andy Carvin, National Public Radio
Liz Henry, BlogHer
Dan Sinker, Columbia College Chicago, @mayoremanuel

Plenary: "Civic Media Mobilization"

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:33:17 GMT

Successful civic media tools - especially ones designed by this conference's attendees - reengineer how mass-mobilization happens. But does that mean we should turn the page on old lessons?

Originally envisioned as a way to connect the like-minded across borders, civic media is proving just as powerful at mobilizing neighbors, in their towns, where they vote. So even for national issues, is all civic media really local? From the Wisconsin protests to Presidential campaigns, civic media is playing a larger role in organizing communities and defining political arenas. In this conversation between an organizer and activist, we'll explore how online activism differs from face-to-face.

Chris Faulkner, a member of the Tea Party, spends much of his time organizing online.

Yesenia Sanchez, from P.A.S.O.-West Suburban Action Project 52, works at street-level to drive community participation.

Together with moderator Damian Thorman, the two will discuss ways organizers can use online and offline strategies to their advantage and debate situations in which one is more effective than the other.

Civic Media Session: "Civic Disobedience"

Tue, 17 May 2011 20:31:53 GMT

2011 has seen a wave of popular protests threaten authoritarian regimes around the world. Protests in Tunisia removed a much-loathed dictatorship, and the occupation of Tahrir Square in Cairo promises to reshape the government of Egypt. Even in countries where protests are unlikely to unseat entrenched leaders, the prospect of unrest has led leaders to make major political concessions.

Is this wave of civic disobedience best explained as a reaction to economic and political conditions in each country? The viral spread of Tunisian unrest infecting other vulnerable nations? Or are changes in the media and communications environment -- near-universal mobile phone use, social media, the internet, satellite television -- enabling popular protest in a way we've not seen before? Is civic disobedience easier, or perhaps more effective, in a connected age?

To explore this question, we've invited a team of experts to closely examine the public protests we've witnessed this year and consider questions about media and civic disobedience. Our discussion includes:

Ethan Zuckerman (Moderator)
Co-founder of Global Voices Online; Senior Researcher at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, and Visiting Scientist at the Center for Future Civic Media

Clay Shirky
Writer, consultant, and Associate Professor at NYU in the Interactive Telecommunications Program

Zeynep Tufekci
Writer, journalist, and Assistant Professor at University of Maryland Baltimore County exploring how technology and society co-evolve

Sami ben Gharbia
Tunisian human rights activist and director of Global Voices Advocacy

Steve Kurtz: Cultural Resistance

Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:23:10 GMT

A Civic Media Session about models and techniques for public interventions and soft subversions aimed at undermining authoritarian tendencies in a time of neo-liberal domination.

Known for his work in Electronic Civil Disobedience and BioArt, Steve Kurtz is a founding member of the Critical Art Ensemble, a collective of five tactical media practitioners of various specializations including computer graphics and web design, film/video, photography, text art, book art, and performance.

Formed in 1987, Critical Art Ensemble's focus has been on the exploration of the intersections between art, critical theory, technology, and political activism.

Rethinking Climate Change: The Past 150 Years and the Next 100 Years

Thu, 21 Apr 2011 04:00:00 GMT

04/21/2011 4:00 PM Wong AuditoriumJohn Reilly, Co"director of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change; Senior Lecturer, Sloan School of Management ; Kerry Emanuel, '76, PhD '78, Professor of Atmospheric Science; Ronald Prinn, SCD '71, TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Science, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences; Chris Knittel, William Barton Rogers Professor of Energy Economics, MIT Sloan; School of Management ; Ernest Moniz, Director, MIT Energy Initiative; Sarah Slaughter, 82, SM'87, PhD 91, Associate Director for Buildings & Infrastructure, MIT Energy InitiativeDescription: At a time of great political paralysis around climate change internationally -- and apparent backtracking by American politicians and the public on the science of global warming itself -- there are "reasons to rethink our approach," says moderator John Reilly. He hopes to "create a civil discourse that helps us understand better the varied concerns of people on the topic." Panelists sketch the past, present and future of climate change. Kerry Emanuel reviews the science of climate change, noting that the greenhouse effect discovery dates back to the 18th century, and that by the end of the 19th, scientists had already begun worrying that consumption of fossil fuel and the accompanying release of CO2 would lead to an increase in surface temperatures of 5-6 degrees C. Modern science with its ice core measurements has tracked dramatic temperature changes on earth over tens of millions of years. But the last 100 years have been unprecedented, with the famous hockey stick illustration capturing the connection between human industry and increased CO2 release. When scientists run some models forward, they show temperature increases ranging from 1.5 to 4çC. While these projections contain uncertainty, says Emmanuel, "this does not mean we should do nothing." Diverse climate change reconstructions agree: the warmest years of the past century were 1998, 2005 and 2010. "This is happening in real"time," says Ronald Prinn, and whether or not "Florida has a cold winter," warming is occurring "at a rate that should worry us all." The amount of heat the earth absorbs is simply much greater than it can bounce back into space, courtesy of greenhouse gas already accumulated in the atmosphere, and increasingly, by the secondary impacts of climate change such as the melting of ice sheets. At MIT, Prinn's group runs models that factor in clouds, ocean mixing, and varying levels of greenhouse gas emissions. In a "business as usual" model, with no real efforts to rein in fossil fuel use, Prinn puts the risk of a temperature increase higher than 4çC at 85%. If we manage to stabilize CO2 emissions at 550 parts per million (we're at 472 today), there is still a 25% chance of getting greater than 2çC change. Prinn worries about the instability of the arctic tundra and permafrost, which stores 200 times the amount of current human emissions in carbon, as well as the acidification of oceans, placing plankton, basis of all ocean life, at risk. Against this bleak backdrop, MIT newcomer Chris Knittel describes the policy options for tackling climate change. He acknowledges the "dismal and frustrating science" of environmental economics, which had counted on the equivalent of a carbon tax to discourage carbon emissions, only to meet a wall of political rejection. Carbon pricing lowers demand for the fuel intensive products that matter the most in climate change, and whether in the form of cap and trade, or a direct tax, also spurs technologies aimed at fuel efficiency or encouraging alternative fuels. The nation's fuel standards, set to rise to 35.5 mpg by 2016 are modest, believes Knittel, and subsidies seem to encourage carbon intensive activities rather than reducing them (nb:corn and cellulosic ethanol). States like California are more ambitious, but recent court rulings blocked its cap and trade policy "for environmental justice reasons." "The question is whether we can substantially decrease energy and carbon intensity while accommodating economic growth," says Ernest Moniz. New technologies that emerge must drive the cost of carbon "very, very low" if they are to make a major impact. With cheap coal the primary fuel generating electricity in the U.S., Moniz offers a "Michelin guide type rating" of possible alternative, 'carbon"free' fuels: At the top are renewables such as solar; nuclear; and coal with capture and sequestration. Natural gas doesn't really figure, since it does not wean society effectively from carbon. Moniz believes the best fuel technologies require substantial innovations to bring down their prices. The nuclear industry may want to try small modular reactors of 50"300 megawatts, rather than the 1600 megawatt behemoths that after Fukushima, are even more controversial. Carbon capture and sequestration will require brand new approaches and full"scale testing. Moniz believes solar technology is making the most rapid progress, specifically in silicon photovoltaics, courtesy in part of work in novel materials at MIT. Also, the "global, peanut"sized industry" of batteries may play a "huge role in transforming the picture" of electric vehicles, possibly making them economically feasible in a decade." Sarah Slaughter believes the incredible challenge of climate change might make possible wholesale transformation of infrastructure, energy, and other resource systems. She cites New York City's planning efforts to adapt to sea level rise, which would likely flood the sewer system. All communities must think ahead, for hurricanes, or other disasters likely to flow from warming, but rather than replicate what exists today, says Slaughter, planners should focus on "building the world we want to live in." MIT and its partners around the world hope to develop "ground breaking technologies" to help transform communities and make them safer, and healthier. Slaughter envisions solutions such as district"wide heating and cooling, and describes a system introduced in Kenya that converts agricultural waste into fuel for cooking food. "There is an opportunity to do things right as we move forward," she concludes. About the Speaker(s): Energy, environmental, and agricultural economist John Reilly focuses on understanding the role of human activities as a contributor to global environmental change and the effects of environmental change on society and the economy. A key element of his work is the integration of economic models of the global economy as it represents human activity with models of biophysical systems including the ocean, atmosphere, and terrestrial vegetation. By understanding the complex interactions of human society with our planet, the goal is to aid in the design of policies that can effectively limit the contribution of human activity to environmental change, to facilitate adaptation to unavoidable change, and to understand the consequences of the deployment of large scale energy systems that will be needed to meet growing energy needs.Host(s): School of Science, MIT Energy Initiative

Part 1, "[REDACTED]" Censoring Game Politics

Fri, 08 Apr 2011 23:55:40 GMT

Part 1,""[REDACTED]" Censoring Game Politics! Politics is not a topic normally discussed in relation to game rating systems, but censorship of political content--mostly in the form of political symbols--is quite common. Nazi imagery, for example, has a long history of being censored, both in Germany and elsewhere. Exactly why is such political content censored? Whom is it intended to protect? Who is censoring it? What obligation do commercial game makers have to comply with prevailing political views? What are the consequences for not doing so? And what effect does this back-and-forth have on the political imagination of gaming culture? Games discussed will include: Bionic Commando Wolfenstein Indiana Jones Death to Spies Metal of Honor (2010) Six Days in Fallujah First-Person Victim Tropico Shadow Complex Metal Gear "[REDACTED]" - Censoring Game Politics is part three of a running discussion series on censorship in video games. Konstantin Mitgutsch, one of our post doctoral researchers, is a/Scientific Board Member of/PEGI, the European games rating board. He wants people from local Boston industry, academia, and journalism to come and discuss various topics of game censorship - namely violence, sex, and politics - for a report he is currently compiling for PEGI. The goal of the report is to suggest changes to the current rating system. This session will take place in GAMBIT between 4 and 7 pm (coming late is okay) on Friday 2/18 (today!). It will begin with Konstantin giving a little context for his report, how game rating systems currently work, etc. Then we will play a series of games and discuss them while we play. The goal is to capture the conversation. While it is happening, a small camera crew will be filming. The video will later go up on the GAMBIT website as part of our normal video series, but the video will also be used for reference for Konstantin's report. "Blood, Sex, and Politics in Video Games: How Censorship Is Done (or Not)" MIT GAMBIT Game Lab researcher Konstantin MItgutsch , brilliant as he is, can't figure out how video games are rated. And that's saying something, given that Mitgutsch is a scientific board member of Europe's game-ratings group, Pan European Game Information (PEGI). "Game content rating system like the Entertainment Software Rating Board and PEGI were established to help educators and parents to make informed decisions on buying computer games," Mitgutsch says as an introduction to three videos he and colleagues at the Singapore-MIT GAMBIT Game Lab are releasing about U.S. and European ratings systems. "But both groups have three core problems." First [mistake about playability]... Second [cultural differences]... Third [lack of context]... For the videos, GAMBIT researchers invited members of the local video game industry, academia, and journalism to discuss various topics of game censorship -- violence, sex, and politics. Mitgutsch is incorporating this research into a report for PEGI suggesting changes to the European ratings system. The first video in the series, "'Die!' Censoring Game Violence", will be released on Monday, March 28, 2011, with the second, "'Behave', Censoring Game Sex" to follow on April 4. The series will finish with "'(REDACTED)', Censoring Game Politics" on April 11. Videos can be seen at the Singapore-MIT GAMBIT Game Lab Website. Video Produced by Generoso Fierro, Edited by Garrett Beazley

Part 2, "[REDACTED]" Censoring Game Politics

Fri, 08 Apr 2011 23:37:04 GMT

Part 2,""[REDACTED]" Censoring Game Politics! Politics is not a topic normally discussed in relation to game rating systems, but censorship of political content--mostly in the form of political symbols--is quite common. Nazi imagery, for example, has a long history of being censored, both in Germany and elsewhere. Exactly why is such political content censored? Whom is it intended to protect? Who is censoring it? What obligation do commercial game makers have to comply with prevailing political views? What are the consequences for not doing so? And what effect does this back-and-forth have on the political imagination of gaming culture? Games discussed will include: Bionic Commando Wolfenstein Indiana Jones Death to Spies Metal of Honor (2010) Six Days in Fallujah First-Person Victim Tropico Shadow Complex Metal Gear "[REDACTED]" - Censoring Game Politics is part three of a running discussion series on censorship in video games. Konstantin Mitgutsch, one of our post doctoral researchers, is a/Scientific Board Member of/PEGI, the European games rating board. He wants people from local Boston industry, academia, and journalism to come and discuss various topics of game censorship - namely violence, sex, and politics - for a report he is currently compiling for PEGI. The goal of the report is to suggest changes to the current rating system. This session will take place in GAMBIT between 4 and 7 pm (coming late is okay) on Friday 2/18 (today!). It will begin with Konstantin giving a little context for his report, how game rating systems currently work, etc. Then we will play a series of games and discuss them while we play. The goal is to capture the conversation. While it is happening, a small camera crew will be filming. The video will later go up on the GAMBIT website as part of our normal video series, but the video will also be used for reference for Konstantin's report. "Blood, Sex, and Politics in Video Games: How Censorship Is Done (or Not)" MIT GAMBIT Game Lab researcher Konstantin MItgutsch , brilliant as he is, can't figure out how video games are rated. And that's saying something, given that Mitgutsch is a scientific board member of Europe's game-ratings group, Pan European Game Information (PEGI). "Game content rating system like the Entertainment Software Rating Board and PEGI were established to help educators and parents to make informed decisions on buying computer games," Mitgutsch says as an introduction to three videos he and colleagues at the Singapore-MIT GAMBIT Game Lab are releasing about U.S. and European ratings systems. "But both groups have three core problems." First [mistake about playability]... Second [cultural differences]... Third [lack of context]... For the videos, GAMBIT researchers invited members of the local video game industry, academia, and journalism to discuss various topics of game censorship -- violence, sex, and politics. Mitgutsch is incorporating this research into a report for PEGI suggesting changes to the European ratings system. The first video in the series, "'Die!' Censoring Game Violence", will be released on Monday, March 28, 2011, with the second, "'Behave', Censoring Game Sex" to follow on April 4. The series will finish with "'(REDACTED)', Censoring Game Politics" on April 11. Videos can be seen at the Singapore-MIT GAMBIT Game Lab Website. Video Produced by Generoso Fierro, Edited by Garrett Beazley

Part 3, "[REDACTED]" Censoring Game Politics

Fri, 08 Apr 2011 23:33:51 GMT

Part 3,""[REDACTED]" Censoring Game Politics! Politics is not a topic normally discussed in relation to game rating systems, but censorship of political content--mostly in the form of political symbols--is quite common. Nazi imagery, for example, has a long history of being censored, both in Germany and elsewhere. Exactly why is such political content censored? Whom is it intended to protect? Who is censoring it? What obligation do commercial game makers have to comply with prevailing political views? What are the consequences for not doing so? And what effect does this back-and-forth have on the political imagination of gaming culture? Games discussed will include: Bionic Commando Wolfenstein Indiana Jones Death to Spies Metal of Honor (2010) Six Days in Fallujah First-Person Victim Tropico Shadow Complex Metal Gear "[REDACTED]" - Censoring Game Politics is part three of a running discussion series on censorship in video games. Konstantin Mitgutsch, one of our post doctoral researchers, is a/Scientific Board Member of/PEGI, the European games rating board. He wants people from local Boston industry, academia, and journalism to come and discuss various topics of game censorship - namely violence, sex, and politics - for a report he is currently compiling for PEGI. The goal of the report is to suggest changes to the current rating system. This session will take place in GAMBIT between 4 and 7 pm (coming late is okay) on Friday 2/18 (today!). It will begin with Konstantin giving a little context for his report, how game rating systems currently work, etc. Then we will play a series of games and discuss them while we play. The goal is to capture the conversation. While it is happening, a small camera crew will be filming. The video will later go up on the GAMBIT website as part of our normal video series, but the video will also be used for reference for Konstantin's report. "Blood, Sex, and Politics in Video Games: How Censorship Is Done (or Not)" MIT GAMBIT Game Lab researcher Konstantin MItgutsch , brilliant as he is, can't figure out how video games are rated. And that's saying something, given that Mitgutsch is a scientific board member of Europe's game-ratings group, Pan European Game Information (PEGI). "Game content rating system like the Entertainment Software Rating Board and PEGI were established to help educators and parents to make informed decisions on buying computer games," Mitgutsch says as an introduction to three videos he and colleagues at the Singapore-MIT GAMBIT Game Lab are releasing about U.S. and European ratings systems. "But both groups have three core problems." First [mistake about playability]... Second [cultural differences]... Third [lack of context]... For the videos, GAMBIT researchers invited members of the local video game industry, academia, and journalism to discuss various topics of game censorship -- violence, sex, and politics. Mitgutsch is incorporating this research into a report for PEGI suggesting changes to the European ratings system. The first video in the series, "'Die!' Censoring Game Violence", will be released on Monday, March 28, 2011, with the second, "'Behave', Censoring Game Sex" to follow on April 4. The series will finish with "'(REDACTED)', Censoring Game Politics" on April 11. Videos can be seen at the Singapore-MIT GAMBIT Game Lab Website. Video Produced by Generoso Fierro, Edited by Garrett Beazley

Celebrating Science and Engineering Breakthroughs IV

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 04:00:00 GMT

03/29/2011 3:30 PM KresgeKatrin Wehrheim, Associate Professor of Mathematics, MIT; Sallie Chisholm, Lee and Geraldine Martin Professor of Environmental Studies and Professor of Biology, MIT; Nancy Kanwisher, '80, PhD '86, Professor of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, MITDescription: The wind"up session of this multi"part symposium on women at MIT brings together brains and brine -- two researchers' pioneering work in neuroscience and ocean microbes. In 1985, Sallie (Penny) Chisholm discovered Prochlorococcus, a "tiny, round, green thing that's not so beautiful but extraordinary." Lined up, 100 of these sub"micron size phytoplankton come to the width of a human hair, and they turn out to be the most abundant photosynthetic cell on the planet. There are so many Prochlorococcus distributed through global oceans that their accumulated weight would amount to one billion people. Most important, life as we know it would not be possible without these (and other) photosynthetic ocean creatures, which produce a large share of the planet's oxygen. Chisholm has spent more than two decades devoted to in"depth study of Prochlorococcus, which even as a single species presents many "ecotypes." Some fare better in great depths, far from the sun, others closer to the surface. Research has verified 12 genetically different strains of Prochlorococcus occupying different ocean niches _ and given that there are 1027 cells in the wild, many more genomes are literally floating around. Chisholm ultimately wants to understand why certain types of Prochlorococcus appear in particular ecosystems, and not in others. For instance, Prochlorococcus follow the Gulf Stream, but "disappear near Massachusetts." With faster gene sequencing, Chisholm and colleagues have been sampling seawater from around the world for Prochlorococcus, hoping to understand better the reasons for their diversity, and how they fit into the larger physical and chemical systems of the oceans. Nancy Kanwisher approaches fundamental questions involving the nature of the human mind using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), which enables investigation of both structure and function of the brain. In particular, Kanwisher has been exploring whether the brain features regions specialized for specific purposes. Her studies have turned up several such areas: the fusiform face area of the brain, responsible only for face recognition; the parahippocampal place area, a region that responds to images of places or scenes; and the "third and most disreputable region," the extrastriate body area, which responds to pictures of bodies, body parts _ whether stick figures or silhouettes. These regions are found in the architecture of all normal human brains, Kanwisher says, and their existence raises additional questions that she and other researchers are pursuing. For instance, to learn when these areas become wired in the brain, Kanwisher scanned children. She learned that kids as young as five years showed the same face recognition brain activity as adults. There is evidence "implicating genes" in face recognition. But there is a role for experience as well. Although there is a brain region that responds strongly to visual words and letter strings, the "selectivity of the region" depends on an individual's history (such as familiarity with written characters from specific languages). Kanwisher concludes that while there are some "highly specialized bits" of the mind/brain made up of specialized components, "these may be relatively rare, and there is probably lots of general purpose machinery." About the Speaker(s): From 2007 to 2010, Katrin Wehrheim served as assistant professor of math at MIT. She received the B.S. equiv. in mathematics and physics from the University of Hamburg in 1995, and the Diploma in physics from Imperial College in 1996. She completed the Ph.D. in mathematics at ETH Z orich in 2002. Wehrheim's thesis was awarded the ETH Medal. She continued at ETH Z orich as a postdoctoral fellow, 2002"03, before going to Princeton University as instructor, 2003"04. She was a member of Institute of Advanced Studies, 2004"06 and fellow at Princeton, 2005"06. Wehrheim's research interests include problems in gauge theory and symplectic topology and PDEs, in particular the relations of gauge theoretic and symplectic Floer theories.Host(s): Office of the President, MIT150 Inventional Wisdom

The Status of Women in Science and Engineering at MIT

Mon, 28 Mar 2011 04:00:00 GMT

03/28/2011 9:00 AM KresgeNancy Hopkins, Amgen, Inc. Professor of BiologyDescription: It's difficult to imagine that at one point in her career, National Academy of Science member Nancy Hopkins thought to quit. In her talk, she relates the historical challenges facing women in science and engineering at MIT, the university's responses to these problems, and how in the end Hopkins avoided becoming a poster child of the 'leaky pipeline' -- a term of art for the high rate of attrition among talented women in engineering and science academia. Hopkins weaves together a personal tale with the larger story of gender discrimination in U.S. academia. She first captures a century of women at MIT, from the handful of female admissions starting in the late 19th century, to the current numbers: 45% of all undergraduates, 29% of graduate students and 17% of the faculty. However, there were no women science or engineering faculty in the first 100 years. During this period, the exclusion of top"notch women researchers from major academic posts was common, says Hopkins, a reflection of the fact that "societal beliefs can overpower merit." A major turning point arrived in the 1960s and 1970s, when the civil rights and women's movements flung open workplace doors to women. But Hopkins notes that even after passage of laws against overt job discrimination, obstacles emerged to the advancement of women scientists and engineers, "unanticipated and largely invisiblealmost as effective at excluding women as the fact they couldn't get a job at all." There was sexual harassment, which "made it impossible for women to be equal in the workplace." Hopkins recalls in her undergraduate days grossly inappropriate behavior toward her by a Nobel Prize"winning biologist in a Harvard lab, but "didn't grasp until years later that a man who treats a student that way may not be genuinely interested in her lab notes." Mentors who could smooth the way to the next career step were few and far between for women students and young faculty. And unlike men, women have to choose between children or career. Hopkins says "women in my generation instinctively never talked about pregnancy or children at workYou wanted to make sure people knew you wanted to be a nun of science, and in fact personally, I was." Hopkins cites as well "unconscious gender bias," where women's research appeared to colleagues of both genders less valuable than identical research by a man, and accompanying marginalization in university departments. Up against these problems, who could blame women for departing their professions, asks Hopkins. At MIT, serious relief arrived in 1994, after Hopkins, demoralized after trying in vain to obtain more lab space for her zebrafish experiments, found similarly unhappy women colleagues who banded together to press for institutional solutions. Hopkins literally went about measuring lab space and provided hard data about gender bias to then MIT President Charles Vest, as evidence that women had less space available to conduct their research. (This "tape measure" turning point has earned Hopkins an unintended place in MIT history, while the tape measure itself is on display at the MIT Museum.) In stages, over the subsequent years, MIT began intensively recruiting women scientists and engineers for its faculty; creating new family leave policies; and placing women in top administrative roles, among a number of remedies. 19% of science faculty are now women, and surveys show a much higher level of satisfaction among this group. But Hopkins says the job is not yet finished: Women at MIT, from students to faculty, report "the perception that when women advance, it is due to the lowering of standards." The leaky pipeline won't be fixed until "this insidious belief that women are less good than men" vanishes within MIT and society at large. http://museum.mit.edu/150/71 About the Speaker(s): Nancy Hopkins earned widespread recognition for cloning vertebrate developmental genes. Using a technique called insertional mutagenesis -- designed for such invertebrate animals as the fruit fly -- Hopkins's laboratory has cloned hundreds of genes that play a role in creating a viable fish embryo. Hopkins' research earned her 1998 election to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1999 election to the Institute of Medicine and 2004 election to the National Academy of Sciences. She speaks frequently about gender equity issues in science. Hopkins obtained a B.A. from Radcliffe College in 1964 and a Ph.D. from the department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry at Harvard University in 1971. Host(s): Office of the President, MIT150 Inventional Wisdom

Richard Samuels

Tue, 08 Mar 2011 19:38:16 GMT

Richard Samuels discusses life at MIT, from PhD student to professor.

Barry Posen

Mon, 07 Mar 2011 16:04:36 GMT

Barry Posen discusses his current research.

A Conversation on Leadership

Thu, 03 Mar 2011 05:00:00 GMT

03/03/2011 12:00 PM Wong AuditoriumUrsula M. Burns, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Xerox Corporation Description: Her "journey to the top" is one that "could only happen in the United States of America," says Ursula Burns, describing her rise from New York City projects to the apex of corporate leadership at Xerox. For an eager audience of management students, Burns also highlights lessons from her early years and 30"year career. Burns' mother, a single parent who raised three children in the Lower East Side on a meager cleaner's salary, taught her that "where you are is not who you are." She also forcefully conveyed the importance of a good education. So Burns leveraged her Catholic school education into first a college degree, then a career in mechanical engineering (after a mistaken detour into chemical engineering.) When Burns first joined Xerox as an engineer in 1980, there were virtually no women in the company in her field, and few black women anywhere. Burns thought she would stay only a few years. Instead, she remained for decades, due in large part to the growth she found possible at the corporation: "They said, 'We hired you because we think you're smart, and if you work hard, we'll give you lots of opportunity.' And they never went back on their commitments." Along the way, Burns learned a few things, such as not looking for a promotion until "you've figured out a way to transform the current work," and the importance of "loving change, and thinking hard before turning down a job, especially from someone senior to you." She also figured out, "If you think you have to trade off who you are to make it, then you are going to fail." At Xerox, she was valuable to the organization precisely because of her differences, she says. "It's interesting how uniqueness is more of a significant advantage; it got me seen." To be an effective leader, she advises, you must determine "your space" in the firm; develop real listening abilities; have a clear vision and take risks. Burns is a big believer in setting objectives and standards for performance. She worries that these days "we're in the mode of making everyone feel better, loving each other, to the detriment of people focusing, trying hard and differentiating the great from not so good." One last thing, she counsels: Don't get distracted by how much money a position might make. "The measure of money is least important over the long term. There is a point where there is too much, and you'll know when you are there. Unfortunately, if you get to that point, you may have lost too much of the fun, joy and wonder enjoying the situation you're in, trying to have people around you be better, in pursuit of making more money." About the Speaker(s): Ursula Burns joined Xerox in 1980 as a mechanical engineering summer intern and later assumed roles in product development and planning. From 1992 through 2000, Burns led several business teams including the office color and fax business and office network printing business. In 2000, she was named senior vice president, corporate strategic services, heading up manufacturing and supply chain operations. She then took on the broader role of leading Xerox's global research as well as product development, marketing and delivery. In April 2007, Burns was named president of Xerox, expanding her leadership to also include the company's IT organization, corporate strategy, human resources, corporate marketing and global accounts. At that time, she was also elected a member of the company's Board of Directors. Burns was named chief executive officer in July 2009 and assumed the role of chairman of the company on May 20, 2010. In addition to the Xerox board, she is a member of the MIT Corporation, and on the MIT libraries' visiting committee. Burns serves as a board director of the American Express Corporation and provides leadership counsel to community, educational and non"profit organizations including FIRST " (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology), National Academy Foundation, University of Rochester, and the U.S. Olympic Committee, among others. Burns was named by President Barack Obama to help lead the White House national program on STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) in November 2009 and was appointed vice chair of the President's Export Council in March 2010. Burns earned a B.S. in mechanical engineering from Polytechnic Institute of NYU and an M.S. in mechanical engineering from Columbia University.Host(s): Sloan School of Management, MIT Sloan School of Management

How to Make a Great Mistake

Thu, 24 Feb 2011 05:00:00 GMT

02/24/2011 12:00 PM Wong AuditoriumEllyn McColgan, Director, Primerica, Inc. and Executive Advisor, Aquiline"LCCDescription: Take it from Ellyn McColgan: Colossal, cringe"inducing screw"ups can make rather than break a career. In a self"deprecating talk aimed at educating an audience training for corporate leadership, McColgan, who rose to run businesses managing trillions in assets, reveals how she learned from even the most devastating mistakes. "The single greatest weakness most people share," says McColgan is the "unwillingness to take a risk that might lead to make a mistake." But the problem is "you cannot lead from the middle, only from the front." This might sound intuitive, she acknowledges, but people avoid putting out "big ideas" because of the possibility of failure or hostility from colleagues. The fact is, McColgan states, we must learn to make and recover from mistakes in order to advance. McColgan identifies several key categories of mistakes, and describes them using episodes from her own work life. The "execution" mistake often results "from messing up something like time, resources, quality or the deliverable itself." At Fidelity, McColgan was tasked with reorganizing a client services division that was losing money. She developed a 15"month plan, with 2,000 action steps, millions in new technology, that when launched, "didn't work: We couldn't get a check to a participant in an envelope on time." Her boss stopped talking to her and she wanted to run away. Instead, McColgan came up with a fix, apologized to clients and her boss, and learned that "a good idea poorly executed doesn't count, no matter how great the plan was on paper." She also realized she had to share more and control less, and never shrink away from or conceal errors. While this episode was "terrifying" at the time, McColgan gained confidence from it. Other typical mistakes involve politics -- knowing who has the power in an organization to help you get things done, and how to read the work environment strategically; and personal weaknesses. McColgan shares missteps she made in these critical areas. In one case, she initially declined an invitation to become the assistant to a CEO in her firm because it seemed too large a leap. After a glass of wine, she reconsidered, and rather than serving as an MBA trainee, became instrumental in a giant brokerage firm merger. In another case addressing issues of personal style, she indulged her tendency for directness, and was told off by a colleague, learning that "people do not always want to know what I think of them." Ultimately, says McColgan, "making mistakes helps you to learn your own limits and the limits of an organization, so you will not be afraid to lead." About the Speaker(s): Ellyn McColgan has been a senior executive in the financial services industry for over 25 years. She began her career in the industry with Shearson American Express after graduating from Harvard Business School in 1983. She joined Fidelity Investments in 1990 where she worked for 17 years developing an expertise in growing the retail and institutional distribution businesses. Between the years 2002 and 2007, Ellyn built the Fidelity Brokerage Company to be the largest brokerage company in the United States as measured by client assets and client accounts, growing the business to $1.9 trillion in assets. She left the firm in 2007 as the President of Distribution and Operations. After leaving Fidelity, Ellyn served as President and Chief Operating Officer of Morgan Stanley Global Wealth Management Group where she led an organization of 17,000 people and $6.5 billion in revenues. She left Morgan Stanley in 2009 and is now an executive advisor to Aquiline Capital Partners in New York City. McColgan is a trustee of the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston and a member of the President's Council for the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. She is the former co"chair of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. Host(s): Sloan School of Management, MIT Sloan School of Management

Excellence is a Shared Path: Working Together for Justice and the Quality of Life

Wed, 09 Feb 2011 05:00:00 GMT

02/09/2011 7:30 AM Walker Morss HallDr. Susan Hockfield, President, MIT; Roland S. Martin, CNN contributorDescription: Exploring the past opens up new perspectives on the present and offers ways of navigating a challenging future, these speakers suggest, in a call to action on the occasion of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday. Susan Hockfield has been "digging into MIT's history," where she finds seeds for the institute's distinct culture. One core aspect of this culture, sustained over MIT's 150 years, is the idea of "rewarding talent and initiative regardless of social position or pedigree," says Hockfield. However, as she describes, meritocracy has sometimes been more of an aspiration than reality. Hockfield cites examples of the grudging acceptance of women students in the 19th and early 20th century. In the 1961 centennial, there were only 155 women enrolled in a student body of more than 6,000, she says. "Today, through a conscious and sustained outreach, 45% of undergraduates are now women." Although MIT now boasts far more students and faculty of underrepresented minorities, Hockfield says that "opening doors turns out to be the easy part." It is more difficult ensuring that "those who come from outside the circle of affluence or white privilege can count on a sense of full citizenship." MIT's central challenge must be "full inclusion," states Hockfield, and the Institute should lead the nation in attaining this goal. Don't show up at a King celebration, says Roland Martin, if you do not intend to recommit to "his cause, his ideals and vision." Martin frets that today's young people are waiting for the right moment "to take charge and get involved." It was not always so. In 1955, a handful of pastors in Montgomery, Alabama chose a very young Martin Luther King to lead the city's improvement association. It was high school and college students who frequently led the charge with lunch counter sit"ins, boycotts, and other protests that launched the Civil Rights movement. br> Martin notes the sense of lowered expectations around President Obama's administration, as if "folks voted, and then said, I'm done, did my part, when in fact, the election was the beginning of a process, not the end." Young people must "give a damn about something" other than themselves, and understand that the work involved often lasts for years. Martin invokes the Bible's Nehemiah, who rallied people to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. "What's your wall?" he asks: "Literacy? Economic development? HIV/AIDS? The point is, start where you are, then move on to the street, block, neighborhood, nation" Martin notes that his audience totals more than the number of those who met half a century ago in the Montgomery church basement, setting in motion a nationwide movement. There is enough "brain power, energy, passion in this room to literally change the world," he says, and "it's been done before, we have empirical data to prove it." Concludes Martin, "It's time to stop talking, meeting and start leading, whether young or old, to rebuild the crumbling walls in this country." About the Speaker(s): A nationally syndicated columnist, Roland Martin is the author of Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith, Speak, Brother! A Black Man's View of America, and his most recent book, The First: President Barack Obama's Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin. Martin is a commentator for TV One Cable Network and host of Washington Watch with Roland Martin, a one"hour Sunday morning news show. He is also an analyst for CNN. In October 2008, he joined the Tom Joyner Morning Show as senior analyst. Named by Ebony Magazine in 2008, 2009 and 2010 as one of the 150 Most Influential African Americans in the United States, he is the 2009 winner of the NAACP Image Award for Best Interview for "In Conversation: The Michelle Obama Interview." Martin is the former executive editor/general manager of the Chicago Defender, the nation's most historic black newspaper. He previously served as owner/publisher of Dallas"Fort Worth Heritage, a Christian monthly newspaper. He has won more than 30 professional awards for journalistic excellence, including a regional Edward R. Murrow Award from the Radio Television News Directors; top reporting honors from the National Association of Black Journalists; the National Association of Minorities in Cable. and the National Associated Press"Managing Editors Conference. Martin earned a B.S. in journalism in 1991 from Texas A&M University. In May 2008, Martin received a master's degree in Christian Communications from Louisiana Baptist University. Host(s): Office of the President, MIT Annual Breakfast Celebrating the Life and Legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Philip Morrison and Lester Thurow - Symposium on Forecasting the Future Across Industries (1988)

Tue, 01 Feb 2011 22:25:29 GMT

Physicist Philip Morrison (Institute Professor) and economist Lester Thurow (Dean of the Sloan School of Management) address senior executives at the "Symposium on Forecasting the Future Across Industries: Tech/ Science/ Art/ Economics/ Politics" held at MIT's Endicott House, on April 30, 1988. Introduced by Steve Starr. [T13536, T13537].

Gabriella Coleman: "'I did it for the Lulz! but I stayed for the outrage:' Anonymous, the Politics of Spectacle, and Geek Protests against the Church of Scientology."

Wed, 19 Jan 2011 13:19:37 GMT

A CMS-sponsored talk on civic media issues. Trained as an anthropologist, Gabriella (Biella) Coleman examines the ethics of online collaboration/institutions as well as the role of the law and digital media in sustaining various forms of political activism. Between 2001-2003 she conducted ethnographic research on computer hackers primarily in San Francisco, the Netherlands, as well as those hackers who work on the largest free software project, Debian. She is completing a book manuscript "Coding Freedom: Hacker Pleasure and the Ethics of Free and Open Source Software."

Report Card on President Obama: MIT Experts Assess President Obama on Afghanistan, Climate, and the Economy

Tue, 09 Nov 2010 05:00:00 GMT

11/09/2010 4:30 PM Bartos theaterRichard Samuels, Ph D, '80, Ford International Professor of Political Science, Director, Center for International Studies; Henry D. Jacoby, Professor of Management, MIT Sloan; Barry Posen, Ford International Professor of Political Science at MIT, Director Security Studies Program; Simon Johnson, Ronald A. Kurtz (1954) Professor of Entrepreneurship, Professor of Global Economics and Management, MIT Sloan School of ManagementDescription: President Obama scored abysmally on his mid"terms. A trio of MIT professors renders harsh judgment on the president half"way through his administration, and their assessments may leave listeners "weeping or depressed," in the words of moderator Richard Samuels. National security expert Barry Posen reviews the administration's strategy and implementation of the war in Afghanistan. This conflict was adopted by the president and many Democrats as "the right war" following the wrong"headed invasion of Iraq, says Posen. But after investing tens of thousands more troops, and nearly $100 billion a year in Afghanistan, there remains uncertainty about how to complete the mission: to clear out the Taliban, secure critical regions, and build up a successful Afghan police force and government. While the Pentagon seems to support an "open"ended project aimed at defeating the Taliban," the president appears intent on limiting the venture, with the aim of drawing down troops beginning in July 2011. But Posen is skeptical of the overall project: Afghan politics are corrupt, rife with ethnic rivalries, and the administration is incompetent, so the idea of setting up a government "to compete with the Taliban probably won't work well." Though there are frequent reports of killing Taliban leaders, "many doubt the Taliban can be killed off as fast they regenerate," and there is little chance of serious negotiation with them. The creation of a functioning Afghanistan "looks like a costly, lengthy gamble," but the strategy is driven by politics, says Posen: "Democrats are quite concerned not to appear authors of defeat." The U.S. missed a vital opportunity to take the lead in addressing climate change, says Henry "Jake" Jacoby. Early on, the Obama administration "hurt prospects for progress," putting healthcare reform first when it had a choice between "the health of the people and the planet." And the administration didn't forcefully back either the House or Senate versions of climate legislation, which attempted to produce an "economically rational" approach to pricing greenhouse gas emissions. Then came the recession, which doomed any chance for moving climate legislation forward, since it "made imposing costs very difficult," says Jacoby. What troubles him more is that the Obama administration has essentially "given the pulpit over to people against any action, and deniers." Republicans seem to be winning the war of public opinion, claiming that measures against climate change will strangle the economy, and are now pressing to relieve the EPA of its power to regulate CO2. The "outlook is dark," says Jacoby. "The word carbon is not said in polite company, and won't be said in Washington." While it is a "terrific achievement" that we avoided another Great Depression, Simon Johnson is still "giving out failing grades" to this administration. Although Obama and his economic advisers basically got it right with the stimulus, they shockingly departed from best practices around banking policy, he believes. When major banks flounder, you close some of them down, fire managers, eliminate boards of directors, but "whatever you do, you cannot provide these banks with an unconditional bailout," he says. Rewarding banks for bad behavior is plain shocking and leaves us in "a very awkward and unpleasant position." By making banks too big to fail and sidestepping tough financial reform, he says, recovered banks will fight all the harder against any effort to be reined in. "By building implicit subsidy schemes into the structures in which banks survive," we are stuck with "a few banks with excessive power," and the "administration is responsible for setting us up for serious trouble down the road." About the Speaker(s): Richard J. Samuels is also the Founding Director of the MIT Japan Program. In 2001 he became Chairman of the Japan"US Friendship Commission, an independent Federal grant"making agency that supports Japanese studies and policy"oriented research in the United States. In 2005 he was elected a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Samuels served as Head of the MIT Department of Political Science between 1992"1997 and as Vice"Chairman of the Committee on Japan of the National Research Council until 1996. Grants from the Fulbright Commission, the Abe Fellowship Fund, the National Science Foundation, and the Smith Richardson Foundation have supported nine years of field research in Japan. Samuels' next book, Securing Japan, will be published in 2007 by Cornell University Press. His previous books include Machiavelli's Children: Leaders and Their Legacies in Italy and Japan, a comparative political and economic history of political leadership in Italy and Japan,and "Rich Nation, Strong Army": National Security and the Technological Transformation of Japan,and The Business of the Japanese State: Energy Markets in Comparative and Historical Perspective. His articles have appeared in International Organization, Foreign Affairs, International Security, The Journal of Modern Italian Studies,and The Journal of Japanese Studies. Samuels received his Ph.D. from MIT in 1980.Host(s): School of Humanities, Arts & Social Sciences, Center for International Studies

Starr Forum: Reclaiming the Moral Life of Philanthropy

Mon, 18 Oct 2010 18:22:09 GMT

The bottom-line mentality that swept American life in the last few decades, often overriding considerations of principle and professionalism in business, politics, the arts, higher education, journalism and other spheres, left its mark on philanthropy and the not-for-profit world as well. Along the way the clarity of core values like justice and equality too often gave way to utilitarian approaches based on effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses.These have their place, but only if grounded in a strong moral framework. Speaker: Gara LaMarche, CEO and President, Atlantic Philanthropies Introduction: Deborah Fitzgerald, Dean, School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, MIT

Democracy after Citizens United

Thu, 30 Sep 2010 04:00:00 GMT

09/30/2010 4:00 PM Wong AuditoriumLawrence Lessig, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Director of the Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics; Allison R. Hayward, Vice President of Policy, Center for Competitive Politics; John Bonifaz, Founder, National Voting Rights Institute; Legal Director, Voter Action (Free Speech for People Campaign); Gabriel Lenz, Associate Professor, Political Science, MIT; Stephen Ansolabehere, Professor, Department of Political Science, MIT and Professor of Government, Harvard UniversityDescription: Just when it seemed the corrosive influence of big money on American politics could not be greater, the Supreme Court gave corporations full license to exercise 'free speech' during campaign season. Renowned legal scholar Lawrence Lessig and his respondents debate the most effective response to the 2010 Citizens United ruling, which, Lessig claims, poses an imminent danger to our democracy. Consider how corporate political clout has shaped critical areas of public policy, Lessig begins. For instance, subsidies to influential corn producers in the past three decades have led to shifts in food production, such as feeding cattle antibiotics to help them digest corn fodder, and high fructose corn syrup pervasive in food and soda. The result: an epidemic of obesity and antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria -- both antithetical to public health. Industries engage in "rent seeking," contributing to politicians in exchange for some kind of economic advantage, and blocking action in the public interest in the process: fossil fuel industries defeat climate change legislation; financial services defeat tough banking regulation; the health insurance sector defeats truly comprehensive health care law. Now, says Lessig, the Supreme Court has "taken a bad situation and made it much worse," by lifting restrictions on corporations at election time. Lessig does not disagree with the essence of the decision -- that the First Amendment permits corporations to engage in political speech. But he takes issue with the Court's reasoning, which ignores what he describes as "dependency corruption." The framers of the Constitution intended that Congress depend exclusively on its citizens. This is no longer the case, says Lessig: "People have increasingly been replaced by the funders." (Political scientist Gabriel Lenz confirms this perception, citing studies showing that when it comes to enacting policy changes, "Congress is mostly responsive to the 99th percentile in terms of income.") Congress members spend most of their time raising money, and the dominant givers are special interests, which have now been entirely unleashed by Citizens United. The great evil, argues Lessig, is that Americans believe that corporate money alone "buys results," and "this belief is sapping our will to participate in politics." Lessig strongly supports the idea of citizen"funded elections, which would permit only small"dollar contributions matched by the government, to help reduce the influence of corporations and reconnect citizens with their leaders. John Bonifaz sees a calculated effort over the past 30 years to enhance the power of corporations by fabricating corporate rights, and now through Citizens United, to permit businesses to tap their general treasury funds to influence elections, so they can "effectively own our democracy." He proposes a constitutional amendment that would restore the First Amendment, and elections, to the people. Identifying herself as a "small government libertarian," Allison Hayward wants to give the ethical actors in Congress an opportunity to clean their own house. She is also concerned that a focus on campaign financing may "drive good people out of politics, while bad people will still give." There are few enough opportunities for political participation for most people, says Hayward, and we "need to make sure that contributing to a candidate is a virtuous thing." About the Speaker(s): Prior to his current appointments at Harvard, Lawrence Lessig was a Professor of Law at Stanford Law School (where he was founder of Stanford's Center for Internet and Society), Harvard Law School (1997"2000), and the University of Chicago Law School. Lessig clerked for Judge Richard Posner on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court. Lesser's academic focus has concerned law and technology, especially where they concern copyright. He has written five books on the subject, and served as lead counsel in major copyright law cases. His current work at the Safra Center focuses on the question of institutional corruption. Lessig has won numerous awards, including the Free Software Foundation's Freedom Award, and was named one of Scientific American's Top 50 Visionaries. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society. Lessig earned a B.A. in economics and a B.S. in management from the University of Pennsylvania, an M.A. in philosophy from Cambridge, and a J.D. from Yale.Host(s): School of Humanities, Arts & Social Sciences, Department of Political Science

Reclaiming the Moral Life of Philanthropy

Mon, 27 Sep 2010 04:00:00 GMT

09/27/2010 4:30 PM e14"633Gara LaMarche, President and CEO, The Atlantic PhilanthropiesDescription: Gara LaMarche believes the nation's charitable organizations have lost "moral clarity," growing more concerned with "the fix, the intervention, than about reasons for doing or caring about what is right." After many decades laboring in large, private foundations, LaMarche has an intimate perspective on this drift in philanthropic mission and practice. He draws several telling examples from his own experience. As head of the Texas Civil Liberties Union in the mid"1980s, LaMarche failed to sway diehard capital punishment legislators with the "traditional ACLU rights talk," which was viewed either as starry"eyed idealism or dangerous radicalism. He took a radically different tack, and "argued in pragmatic practical terms" that the state couldn't afford to imprison so many, and that depriving prisoners of educational opportunities merely forced released inmates back to crime. This argument prevailed briefly, during a tough fiscal climate, but when the state was flush, it invested in more prisons. The result: Texas today holds four times as many prisoners as it did 20 years ago. LaMarche says "Pragmatic terms didn't work." His Atlantic Philanthropies poured millions into comprehensive health reform legislation, which resulted in the "most significant advance for the social safety net in over 40 years." Yet the law yielded no political benefits, says LaMarche, because the administration "erred in framing the healthcare campaign largely around costs, not around morality and justice." As a result, there is no match for the backlash -- "ferocious passion" around the issue of governmental and fiscal overreach. LaMarche also cites immigration reform as a case where philanthropy could have spurred action based on the "scope of injustice," but instead relied on political tactics, such as splitting conservatives, and "fixing a broken system." Technocracy, he says, "is no match for the virulent passion of the other side." Philanthropies have become sidetracked by public opinion and establishing metrics for their performance. They retreat to safe positions, and "erode what moral authority they have" by protecting their own self"interest, especially around tax distinctions. LaMarche says it is possible to strike a balance between the goals of effective philanthropy, and tackling social inequities and large, complex problems such as climate change. This means speaking out in the current "toxic political environment" with a coherent world view about "what is right," while not getting lost in polling and problem"solving, which risks "losing what gains we've made because the story of which those are part has no moral." About the Speaker(s): Gara LaMarche leads The Atlantic Philanthropies, an international grantmaking foundation dedicated to bringing about lasting changes in the lives of disadvantaged and vulnerable people. Atlantic focuses on four critical social challenges: Ageing, Children & Youth, Population Health, and Reconciliation & Human Rights. LaMarche joined Atlantic in April 2007 to lead the organization through its final chapter as the foundation plans to disburse its remaining endowment and complete active grantmaking by 2016. Before joining Atlantic, LaMarche served as Vice President and Director of U.S. Programs for the Open Society Institute, established by George Soros. Earlier, he was Associate Director of Human Rights Watch, and served in a variety of positions with the American Civil Liberties Union. LaMarche has written numerous articles on human rights and social justice issues for major national publications, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. He serves on the boards of StoryCorps, The White House Project, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and the Leadership Council of Hispanics in Philanthropy.Host(s): School of Humanities, Arts & Social Sciences, Center for International Studies

The Interaction Between Poverty, Growth and Democracy

Mon, 03 May 2010 04:00:00 GMT

05/03/2010 12:00 PM Wong AuditoriumPresident Alejandro Toledo, President of Peru 2001"2006Description: Alejandro Toledo has remained a passionate advocate of reform since departing the presidency of Peru in 2006. In his home country, he embodied the possibility of transformation, having risen from poverty in an Andean village to top political power, where he initiated a process of economic and social change for Peru. Now he serves as a kind of roving ambassador on behalf of the most deprived populations in Latin America. Toledo is advancing a particular initiative, the "Social Agenda for Democracy in Latin America," which asserts an inextricable link between effective, inclusive political institutions, and economic justice. "If we're not able to reduce high levels of poverty, inequality and social exclusion, then poverty can conspire against democracy," says Toledo. Natural resources are not a solution, but actually a burden, he believes. Many nations rich in mineral or agricultural wealth, including Peru, have very low standards of living. Inequitable foreign exchange and trade, buttressed by corrupt leaders, often robs these nations of their treasure, and of any chance for investing in development at home. The poor remain poor and, with no way of achieving a decent income or meeting their basic needs, hopeless. They "lose faith in democracy," says Toledo. The path out of poverty and corruption represents an opportunity and challenge for Latin America, says Toledo. Citizens must demand that their institutions be accountable, and political leaders must provide a plan for economic development that incorporates "explicit social policies that go beyond trickle down." Topping Toledo's agenda is quality education. Investing in the minds of people is a long"term proposition, acknowledges Toledo, and many politicians "don't have the patience, when they know the return will take 18 to 20 years before the kid turns out to be an engineer." But only education can "bring a family, a region, a nation, into a world of opportunity." Educated populations create citizens "with a sense of solidarity," who can work their way out of indigence and engage meaningfully in a democracy. Toledo also wants sustainable development in Latin America, so future generations can enjoy clean water and healthy forests. He is a fan of microfinance as well: "You give me $1 to invest in a poor woman ... and we begin changing the face of the world." He encourages fellow Latin Americans in the audience to return: "Latin America is a promising continent, but ... it will only play a crucial role in the world economy and democracy if you are there." About the Speaker(s): Alejandro Toledo was born in a remote village in the Peruvian Andes, one of 16 brothers and sisters from a family of extreme poverty. At the age of six, he worked as a shoe shiner and sold newspapers. By chance, he had access to a decent education, and went on to earn a B.A. in Economics and Business Administration from the University of San Francisco, and two masters degrees and a Ph.D. in the Economics of Human Resources, all from Stanford University. He worked as the Director of Peru's Economic Development Institute, and in positions at the World Bank, the Inter"American Development Bank in Washington, and the United Nations in New York before running for president of Peru. After his presidential term, Toledo left Peru and served as a Distinguished Scholar in Residence at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University from 2006 to 2008. During this period, he was also a Payne Distinguished Visiting Lecturer at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a CDDRL (Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law) Visiting Scholar. More recently, Toledo was a Distinguished Visiting Scholar at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, D.C., and also a Non"Resident Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy and Global Economy and Development at the Brookings Institution < br> Toledo founded and continues to serve as the President of the Global Center for Development and Democracy, which is based in Latin America, the United States, and the European Union. Host(s): School of Architecture and Planning, Legatum Center for Development and Entrepreneurship

Denialism: Media in the Age of Disinformation

Tue, 27 Apr 2010 04:00:00 GMT

04/27/2010 7:00 PM MuseumMichael Specter, Staff Writer, The New Yorker; Chris Mooney, Discover Blogger and Knight Fellow ; Shannon Brownlee, Instructor, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice; Shankar Vedantam, National Science Writer, The Washington PostDescription: A few hundred years after the Enlightenment, western civilization is rushing back to the Dark Ages. The causes are debatable, but, argue these science journalists, the public increasingly rejects the findings of science, from climate change to evolution, and is turning away from rationality and reason in general. "People are afraid of anything that will hammer away at their preconceived notions," says Michael Specter. He points to the fanatic opposition in some quarters to genetically engineered foods, and the worship of organic products. Almost everything we eat is the result of genetic modification, he notes, and "organics kill people, too." It doesn't make sense to think that returning to "the old ways" will keep us healthy and supply the world with food. "We're hurting ourselves in lots of ways," says Specter, when people insist on believing what they want. Human nature plays a big part in feeding denialism, believes Chris Mooney. "We all ... argue against information that contradicts our existing worldview." The unfortunate evolution of media in the digital age is feeding our inherent "confirmation bias," and today "Americans with different political leanings construct different realities." We must "give up" on the idea that truth triumphs and society advances as more people become critical thinkers. Concludes Mooney, "We have to work with the media and brains we have, and seek realistic change." Shannon Brownlee had an "epiphany" a decade ago when she realized that prostate cancer tests did not lead to a lower risk of dying, as researchers suggested, but instead to potentially harmful treatment. Her "awakening" led her to perceive "how much of medicine we take on faith." Brownlee's journalistic beat now involves the frequent occurrence of "bad science" in medicine. She believes we are not all that far removed from the days when medicine was based on "four humors of disease" and bleeding was the key remedy. Health care, on which Americans spend more than anything else, depends on "the perception of science as its underpinning"_ a terrible delusion, she implies. To contend with denialism, says Shankar Vedentam, we need a more nuanced view, one that recognizes its different shapes: One type rejects events from the past for which we have evidence, and another kind "says I'm not willing to trust projections of what will happen in the future." Climate change falls in the latter category, as people "are being asked to trust data rather than their intuitions." Some summers feel cold, and some winters feel hot, for instance. Also, he says, partisanship now holds sway in all aspects of life, with people swearing loyalty to particular positions in unrelated areas, and to fellow members of their "team." Given indifference to facts, good information "paradoxically, horrifyingly can amplify the effects of bad information," believes Vedentam. Just look at the explosive growth of the Obama birther movement, in spite of ample evidence that the president was indeed born in Hawaii. Panelists see no easy antidote to this large"scale retreat from reason. Specter recommends that schools teach statistics, and Brownlee concurs that kids "should know what a big denominator and small numerator means." Vendantam argues for a nonpartisan approach to such issues as climate change, and Mooney thinks hard scientists and social scientists should be "in better dialog" to craft an effective approach to the big scientific and policy questions of our time. About the Speaker(s): Michael Specter has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1998. His most recent book, Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives, was published on October 29, 2009. Specter writes often about science, technology, and public health. Specter came to The New Yorker from The New York Times, where he had been a roving foreign correspondent based in Rome. Earlier, Specter worked at The Washington Post, where, from 1985 to 1991, he covered local news, before becoming the paper's national science reporter and, later, the newspaper's New York bureau chief. In 1996 he won the Overseas Press Club's Citation for Excellence for his reporting from Chechnya. He has twice received the Global Health Council's annual Excellence in Media Award, first for a 2001 article about AIDS, and second for his 2004 article "The Devastation," about the ethics of testing H.I.V. vaccines in Africa. He also received the 2002 AAAS Science Journalism Award, for his article, "Rethinking the Brain," about the scientific basis of how we learn. Chris Mooney is a science and political journalist and commentator and the author of three books, including the The Republican War on Science, and Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co"authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. They also write "The Intersection" blog together for Discover blogs. Moponey has also been a visiting associate in the Center for Collaborative History at Princeton University. For the summer of 2010, he is a Templeton"Cambridge Fellow in Science and Religion. He is also a contributing editor to Science Progress and a senior correspondent for The American Prospect magazine. Mooney's 2005 article for Seed magazine on the Dover evolution trial was included in the volume Best American Science and Nature Writing 2006. In 2006, Chris won the "Preserving Core Values in Science" award from the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. His 2009 article for The Nation, "Unpopular Science" (co"authored with Sheril Kirshenbaum) will be included in Best American Science Writing 2010. Shannon Brownlee is a writer and essayist whose book, Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine is Making Us Sicker and Poorer, was named the best economics book of 2007 by New York Times economics correspondent, David Leonhardt, and is being used by legislators and policy makers to craft health care reform legislation. A former senior editor at U.S. News & World Report, her work has appeared in a wide variety of publications including the Atlantic Monthly, Discover, Glamour, More, Mother Jones, New York Times Magazine, The New Republic, Slate, and Time, among others. In 2008"2009, Brownlee served as a visiting scholar at the National Institutes of Health, and is a Woodrow Wilson Visiting Scholar. In 2010, Brownlee received two awards from the American Society of Journalists and Authors: the June Roth Award for Medical Journalism, and the ASJA's award for Reporting on a Significant Topic. Other honors include the Association of Health Care Journalists Award for Excellence, the Victor Cohn Prize for Excellence in Medical Science Reporting, the National Association of Science Writers Science"in"Society Award, and the Sigma Delta Chi Award from the Society of Professional Journalists. She holds an M.S. in Marine Sciences from the University of California, Santa Cruz. Shankar Vedantam writes about science and human behavior. He authored the weekly Department of Human Behavior column in The Washington Post from 2006 to 2009. He is the winner of several journalism awards and was a 2009"2010 Nieman Fellow at Harvard University. He previously worked at the Philadelphia Inquirer, Knight"Ridder's Washington Bureau, and New York Newsday. Vedantam has a master's degree in journalism from Stanford University and an undergraduate degree in electronics engineering. He is interested in the history of conflict over the theory of evolution, the changes over time of religious theories concerning the creation of the universe, and the effects of religious faith on health. He has written about the interplay between neuroscience and spirituality, an area he would like to explore further. Host(s): Office of the Provost, MIT Museum

Rebuilding Haiti

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 05:00:00 GMT

02/23/2010 4:00 PM Bartos theaterCherie Moit Abbanat, Lecture, Department of Urban Studies and Planning and the Department of Architecture, MIT; Michel DeGraff, Associate Professor of Linguistics, MIT; Erica James, Associate Professor of Anthropology at MIT; Dale Joachim, Visiting Scientist, MIT Media LabDescription: In the aftermath of the January 2010 earthquake, four panelists with strong personal and professional ties to Haiti share their insights about the different paths to rebuilding and reconstructing the country. Erica James begins with a view of Haiti's history of "ins_curit_", a term used to describe "cycles of political violence, crime, and economic deterioration that have accompanied periods of political and economic upheaval, foreign occupation, dictatorship, and continued environment decline." She believes the transition from emergency to reconstruction must deal with the challenges of repeated cycles of psychosocial trauma. Her concern is that international organizations, in attempting to alleviate the suffering of earthquake survivors, will give rise to practices that undermine the effectiveness of their interventions and create even more victims and victimization-unintended, and unwanted, consequences of their help. For James, the issues of population management-the regulation and distribution of resources, identity, and accountability-are important considerations in reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts. Cheri Miot Abbanat taps into her American and Haitian networks to find out what survivors need and want immediately to help rebuild their lives and their country. While governments and NGOs bring in traditional support-technology, medicine, food, housing-Abbanat suggests first "seeing it with Haitian eyes." She asks that aid organizations respect what is already in place in Haiti: homegrown knowledge, the language, what already works. Although fragile, existing support systems could be bolstered by international aid organizations instead of being replaced by them. Dale Joachim recognizes that "technology doesn't solve everything, but it solves a lot of things." His vision for rebuilding Haiti focuses on energy, the environment, and communications. By addressing Haiti's serious energy imbalance and by "bootstrapping" the public health, education, and rural enterprise systems with a robust communication infrastructure, the path to reversing the breakdown of the environment-in particular, Haiti's massive deforestation-will lead to far greater long"term recovery for the country overall. Using a series of overheads comparing several different countries of similar sizes and densities, he shows how the imbalance in Haiti's energy input/output has a pervasive impact on the Haitian infrastructure. Resolving the energy problem will help resolve issues of education, deforestation, and public health concurrently. Michel DeGraff uses language and linguistics "as a lens on [Haiti's] history." Without recognizing and resolving the complicated socio political stratifications created by language and economics, Haiti will be "rebuilt for the 5% who have always been well off," leaving the other 90%-those who speak Creole-no better off than they were before. DeGraff asserts that Haiti still suffers under brutal class and race inequities brought about, in part, by the power held by those who speak French over those who speak Creole. He believes that by changing the school system, which has been used to maintain these inequities, and by using Creole as the language of all Haitians, the system of language apartheid would be minimized and allow more Haitians access to economic power. A Q&A session follows. Host(s): School of Humanities, Arts & Social Sciences, Center for International Studies

Deploying Our Gifts for the Betterment of Humankind: What Would Dr. King Say about Us?

Thu, 04 Feb 2010 05:00:00 GMT

02/04/2010 7:30 AM Walker Morss HallGerry Hudson, Executive Vice President of SEIU "Service Employees International Union; Dr. Susan Hockfield, President, MITDescription: Woven into the fabric of MIT life, says Susan Hockfield, is the "perpetual striving to be ever better." To this end, Hockfield has been laboring to create a "true culture of inclusion." Hockfield now has a tool to aid her efforts: a report on MIT faculty race and diversity -- the result of 2 _ years of study. It documents the sometimes painful experience of MIT faculty members of underrepresented groups, but also provides practical steps for ameliorating the situation. Strong mentoring of junior faculty is a starting place, so new hires don't immediately begin struggling in "a sink or swim environment," which is "terribly wasteful and harmful to morale." Hockfield hopes the report will spur a more open discussion of race at MIT. Ultimately, she'd like to reinforce the idea that strengthening MIT's diversity is "pivotal to helping us magnify and deploy our shared gifts for mankind." Gerry Hudson has long dedicated himself to the cause of organized labor, such as nursing home employees like his own mother. His vision was shaped in large part by what he calls "the real King message," exemplified in a speech given to the AFL"CIO in 1961. In this address, entitled "When the Negro Wins, Labor Wins," King made clear his battle was not merely against white supremacy and racism in America, but against poverty as well. "The achievement of civil rights," says Hudson, "was merely a means to building the right kind of movement," aimed at securing a "just society free of war and poverty." While King implored the AFL"CIO to join with him "in creating a coalition of conscience," labor leaders of the day turned a cold shoulder. So "the Negro was asked to go off and fight Jim Crow" without labor's support, says Hudson. This marked a momentous failure for progressive politics, he believes -- an abortive attempt to ally the civil rights movement to the cause of labor and economic justice. This failure was soon followed by the rise of the Dixiecrats and George Wallace, the loss of Democrats in northern states, and ultimately "the long nightmare of American politics that has swept the country for more than 40 years." The labor movement has also gone into decline, and "if trends continue, there will be no labor unions in 20 years in this country." Not coincidentally, wealth has become increasingly concentrated, and there is an "outrageous inequality" in society now. Hudson found solace in Barack Obama's election, and his embrace of King's message of a broad politics of hope. It was "a remarkable passing of the baton." Yet, a year after that election, Hudson still looks for the promised changes in health care, labor reform, and green jobs. He finally believes that the creation of a more just America, "in which wealth is more equitably distributed, in which every child, no matter who or where they are in this country, can flourish," will not happen unless all his listeners put their "gifts on the table." About the Speaker(s): Gerry Hudson leads the SEIU's long"term care work division, focusing on building a voice for the union's 580,000 long term care members. He is also concerned with issues of environmental justice, particularly the disproportionate impacts of environmental degradation on low"income and minority communities. He led the first"ever U.S. labor delegation to the United Nations' climate change meeting in Bali in 2007. Before Hudson came to SEIU in 1978, he worked at the Hebrew Home for the Aged in Riverdale, NY. He was elected executive vice president for District 1199 New York, and coordinated this group's incorporation into SEIU. Hudson has also served as political director of the New York State Democratic Party, and led the union's campaigns in support of Jesse Jackson's presidential efforts in New York.Host(s): Office of the President, MIT Annual Breakfast Celebrating the Life and Legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Great Climategate Debate

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:00:00 GMT

12/10/2009 3:00 PM 26"100Henry D. Jacoby, Professor of Management, MIT Sloan; Kerry Emanuel, '76, PhD '78, Professor of Atmospheric Science; Judith Layzer, PhD '99, Linde Career Development Associate Professor of Environmental Policy; Stephen Ansolabehere, Professor, Department of Political Science, MIT and Professor of Government, Harvard University; Ronald Prinn, SCD '71, TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Science, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences; Richard Lindzen, A. P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary SciencesDescription: The hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit in November rocked the world of climate change science, energized global warming skeptics, and threatened to derail policy negotiations at Copenhagen. These panelists, who differ on the scientific implications of the released emails, generally agree that the episode will have long"term consequences for the larger scientific community. "What we have here," says Kerry Emanuel, are "thousands of emails collectively showing scientists hard at work, trying to figure out the meaning of evidence that confronts them. Among a few messages, there are a few lines showing the human failings of a few scientists" Emanuel believes that "scientifically, it means nothing," because the controversy doesn't challenge the overwhelming evidence supporting anthropogenic warming. He is far more concerned with the well"funded "public relations campaign" to drown out or distort the message of climate science, which he links to "interests where billions, even trillions are at stake..." This "machine has been highly successful in branding climate scientists as a bunch of sandal"wearing, fruit"juice drinking leftist radicals engaged in a massive conspiracy to return us to agrarian society" Richard Lindzen professes he has "no idea" what Emanuel is talking about -- if a "machine" exists, it's on the "other side," marginalizing those who disagree on the science. The release of emails is likely due "to a whistleblower who couldn't take it anymore." Lindzen sees evidence in the correspondence of "things that are unethical and in many cases illegal," including the refusal to allow outsiders access to data, and the willingness to destroy data rather than release it. He believes that since it's hard to read the documents "and not conclude that bad things are going on," this will have a negative impact on "popular support for science." There are "scandals, cheating and arguments" over research dealing with tiny increments of temperature change, Lindzen speculates, because so many scientists and ordinary people are invested in the idea of dramatic, human"based warming -- "People are being thrown catastrophes." "The imprudent language in the email cache reflects scientists' enormous frustration with the tactics of their opponents," says Judith Layzer. Climate change poses a serious new challenge for scientists: "On the one hand, they perceive it as sufficiently urgent that they're willing to go to great lengths, use language they wouldn't ordinarily, to try to persuade the public. On the other hand, they face the most sophisticated campaign of skepticism ever assembled, and one that consistently violates protocols they're accustomed to." The moderate language of science, with its emphasis on the weight of evidence, can't compete with attacks that discredit models, "which by their very nature are fishy to nonscientists." Careless email communications gave the public a harsh reminder that scientists "are human, fallible and not always judicious." The email controversy, says Stephen Ansolabehere creates uncertainty about the scientific debate, and will lead to greater scrutiny by the public _ which is "healthy." Since climate change is a grand scale problem with impacts on multiple dimensions of society, the "question we must ask ourselves now is, "Who will police science and how can science maintain credibility as it gets into public debates?" Scientists, as private citizens, are free to engage in political debates, but "must be especially careful about maintaining research standards and methods." Scientists will find in the future "they must be even more scrupulous about maintaining research standards because more is at stake than getting the next paper published" After combing through the emails, Ronald Prinn has reached several conclusions: Some exchanges dealing with modeling natural variability in temperatures over hundreds of years were "personal in nature," and "unprofessional." The research of the scientists accused of manipulating data is not central to the argument for anthropogenic climate change, nor has it compromised the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, although the public perception of climate science has certainly been affected. Climate researchers, Prinn concludes, "must step back from the tendency to polarization." More important, they must communicate better to the public that multiple approaches and critical analyses are the norm in climate science and that legitimate science is found in peer"reviewed literature, "not in blogs or in opinion pieces that go into newspapers." About the Speaker(s): Henry "Jake" Jacoby studies policy and management in the areas of energy, natural resources, and the environment, writing widely on these topics, including five books. He is a former Chair of the MIT Faculty, and former Director of the Harvard Environmental Systems Program, former Director of CEEPR, and former Associate Director of the MIT Energy Laboratory. He currently serves on the Scientific Committee for the International Geosphere"Biosphere Program and on the Climate Research Committee of the U.S. National Research Council. His current research is focused on economic analysis of climate change and greenhouse gas mitigation, and the integration of this work with the natural science of the issue. Jacoby received a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin in 1957, an M.P.A. in Public Administration from Harvard University in 1963, and a Ph.D. in Economics, also from Harvard University, in 1967. Host(s): School of Science, School of Science

Session II: Too Public or Too Private?

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:29:01 GMT

Kurt Iveson (University of Sydney, AU). 10/12/2009

Communications Forum - What's New at the Center for Future Civic Media

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:15:47 GMT

MIT Center for Future Civic Media Director Chris Csikszentmihalyi and fellow researchers present the Center's most recent projects.

From community mapping to news tracking, from collective action to rural empowerment, from cultural mixing to carbon consciousness, civic media is any technology or technique that strengthens a geographic community. Civic media researchers will demonstrate their projects in a lightning-round format, with time for discussion and questions following each presentation.

Between the Bars

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:49:36 GMT

Between the Bars is a blogging platform for one out of every 142 Americans---prisoners---that makes it easy to blog on paper, using standard postal mail. It consists of software tools to make it easy to upload PDF scans of letters, crowd-sourced transcriptions of the scanned images, and the usual full-featured blogging tools including comments, tagging, RSS feeds, and notifications for friends and family when new posts are available.

Sourcemap

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:23:50 GMT

Sourcemap is a social network built around supply chains, enabling collective engagement with where things come from and what they are made of. It provides resources for calculating the carbon footprint and geographic spread of various products and services, including consumer electronics, travel, and food.

Microtourism

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:05:20 GMT

Virtual Gaza

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:36:07 GMT

Virtual Gaza is a website where ordinary Palestinians under siege can describe their experiences in their own words, and where the destruction can be documented by those experiencing it directly. It was created as a response to the Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip in January 2009.

Cartegen

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:32:53 GMT

Cartagen is a set of tools for mapping, enabling users to view and configure live streams of geographic data in a dynamic, personally relevant way. Today's mapping software is largely based on static data sets, and neither incorporates the time dimension in its display nor provides for real-time data streams.

Awareness-Mapping

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:04:35 GMT

Jay Silver explores how the creation of interactive maps can cultivate awareness about local environments, supporting civic engagement by helping community members communicate new perspectives. To this end, we are developing a set of technologies and strategies that help people create, share, and discuss "awareness-maps" -- nonliteral, interactive representations of places, people, and experiences that help the creators (and their audiences) express and understand their environments in new and unanticipated ways.

Lost in Boston

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:29:13 GMT

Lost in Boston is a general-purpose web tool that cities can use to get citizens involved in civic improvement projects.

Populous

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:59:06 GMT

Placeblogger

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:17:30 GMT

Placeblogger is a site where you can search for local sources of news, information, and community near where you live, work and travel. In this video, founder Lisa Williams describes Placeblogger's use and potential.

Open Park

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:18:48 GMT

The Open Park project looks to define an 'ideal' or at least improved model and practice for online collaborative news-reporting and -writing.

As newsrooms across the country and beyond are grappling with the new economic realities of reduced budgets and news media professionals are busy drafting and testing plans for new models of news production and distribution, the little-explored practice of 'Don't compete, collaborate!' is well worth considering.

Collaboration and the sharing of skills and resources have already proved in other professional spheres that it is a winning formula--one especially well adapted to these economically demanding times. It is thus only logical to explore what this new practice could do for the future of journalism.

Extract - News Positioning System

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:52:57 GMT

Extract - Landman Report Card

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:50:43 GMT

Chris Csikszentmihalyi presents the Extract program and its Landman Report Card tool.

A landman is an agent that represents oil & gas companies in negotiations with landowners: their job is to get the best terms for the company. This interaction is perhaps one of the most important elements of the oil and gas exploration and extraction process.

Though many landmen sign onto and abide by codes of ethics, some landowners have accounts of landman dishonesty and misbehavior. Landowners are particularly vulnerable to misinformation at this moment as it is often the first time that they make contact with the oil and gas industry. The Landman Report Card was started to assist landowners in this tricky process by allowing landowners to educate and assist each other.

landmanreportcard.com provides tools to learn about landmen and their companies through reading reviews submitted by users. It also allows users to submit their own report cards, contact other users and use the site as their own private diary of interactions with this industry.

Sensible Communities

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:41:49 GMT

Redink

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:25:36 GMT

Redink, a project being developed by Center for Future Civic Media fellow Ryan O'Toole, empowers isolated consumers to exercise their collective purchasing power to support the issues they value. Organizing your friends or your organization's members for this free platform will enable you to identify exactly how much money your network spends at any business you are interested in targeting. You can then invite your friends to join a campaign to spend more or less money at that business. Learn more at www.make-them-think.org

Transportation Policy: Thinking Globally, Acting Locally and Walking the Talk

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:00:00 GMT

10/20/2009 4:00 PM 32"124Frederick P. Salvucci, '61, SM '62, Senior Lecturer, Center for Transportation and Logistics, MITDescription: Why do so many sustainable transportation programs turn out, like the Alice in the Wonderland parable to lead us down unexpected paths? Fred Salvucci observes that true sustainable transport requires making more than short"term fixes. A sustainable transportation program is built upon the pyramid of three "E"s: equity, environmental benefit, and economics. Maximizing on just one of these objectives imbalances the others, and leads to unintended and undesirable results. As a case in point, Salvucci notes that improvements in sustainable transportation can be made by either "fixing the automobile", or by "fixing the system." The "fixes" have included the mandate for improvement in CAFE standards, nationwide interest in adopting a California car standard, and the Cash for Clunkers program. These are all short"term responses as car ownership, and vehicle miles traveled continue to grow. Salvucci views public transport as a longer"term solution, and says that the government, universities, and other large employers have an important role in terms of turning the coin and incentivizing preferred modes of transport. He suggests that government policy and tax policies need to be aligned. He notes that transit resources need to be spread out widely and not benefit just a single region or provider. The early building of the National Highway System, a federal program that touched every state, received widespread support. Building a consensus for public transit and sustainable transportation policy is possible, just as it is "possible to sail against the wind". The state of Massachusetts and Boston, in particular, have shown this political leadership as Boston has managed to grow economically despite forgoing new above"ground freeways. A new initiative now exists in Boston, over the next five to 10 years, as all of the major bridges across the Charles River" with the exception of one" must undergo safety repairs. There will be an estimated 20% reduction in vehicle capacity, and together these bridges carry more traffic than the Central Artery. Salvucci urged planners at MIT to think of the Charles River Crossing project as a "pattern break-- an opportunity to demonstrate more sustainable transport modes in the face of the vehicle reduction. Boston and the MIT community have a new opportunity to undo the deeply embedded use of automobiles, provided we really believe, and wish to follow, the objectives of sustainable transportation. Host(s): School of Engineering, Transportation@MIT

Collaboration contest, at the Future of News and Civic Media conference

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:01:28 GMT

From the Future of News and Civic Media Conference, June 17-19 2009, co-hosted by MIT's Center for Future Civic Media and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

One of the little gems that the Knight Foundation introduced at the Future of News and Civic Media conference last week was to award five grand to the best collaborative projects created at the conference. We thought it might be a tall order, what with everything else the attendees were doing, but boy did they ever respond.

Attendees pitched 19 brand-new projects, and three of them--TweetBill, Hacks and Hackers, and the WordPress Distributed Translation Plugin--won cold hard cash to develop the ideas further. And the creators can thank their fellow attendees, because everyone used Mako Hill's preferential voting tool Selectricity to vote on the spot.

About the winning projects...

TweetBill

TweetBill sends you notification via Twitter when a bill reaches the stage in the US Congress where it's useful for you to call your Congresscritter! Sign up, tell us where you live, choose your issues, and you will get a tweet when your representative is slated to vote on a bill, along with the rep's phone number.

See the prototype http://www.tweetbill.com

Team Members: Nick Allen, Pete Karl, Ryan Mark, Persephone Miel, Aron Pilhofer, Ryan Sholin, Lisa Williams

Hacks and Hackers

The problem: Scattered through the worlds of journalism and technology live a growing number of professionals interested in developing technology applications that serve the mission of journalism. Technologists are doing more and more things that are journalistic; journalists are doing things that are more and more technological. These people don't have a platform or network through which they can share information, learn from one another or solve each other's problems. These people are scattered in organizations such as IRE, ONA, SND - and are in both academia and industry.

Proposal: Establish "Hacks and Hackers," a network of people interested in Web/digital application development and technology innovation supporting the mission and goals of journalism. This is NOT a new journalism organization (SPJ, ONA, IRE, ASNE, etc.) . In fact we would call it a "DIS-organization." The goals of this network are: (a) Create a community of people in different disciplines who are interested in these topics; (b) Share useful information (e.g., a tutorial on how to install Drupal); (c) Networking; (d) Jobs; (e) Professional development; (f) Etc.

How this network will work: (a) We will establish an online network that will aggregate and link out to relevant information provided by members; (b) Membership costs $0.00; (c) We will establish a system through which contributions to the network are rewarded - for instance, via some kind of points system that rewards members for, for instance, solving one another's technical problem or creating a great tutorial; (d) We will seek to build bridges between journalism and academia, generating interest among computer scientists in the problems of journalism and media and among journalists in the opportunities presented by technology.

Team Members: Aron Pilhofer, Rich Gordon

WordPress Distributed Translation Plugin

Description: A WordPress plugin which extracts and divides text and meta-text from blog posts into segments that are delivered to The Extraordinaries smart phone application so that bi-lingual users can volunteer five minutes while waiting in line at the supermarket to help translate news articles and blog posts. The plugin would also reassemble the translated segments into a single blog post and, optionally, give credit to all involved translators.

Background: Global Voices is the largest volunteer translation community in the world, both in terms of volunteers and the number of working languages. (New York Times article here.) On a daily basis the community translates independent media between Indonesia, German, Spanish, French, Italian, Malagasy, Dutch, Portuguese, Swahili, Serbian, Macedonian, Arabic, Farsi, Bangla, Chinese, Japanese, Hindi, Hebrew, Russian, Albanian, and more. Developing a mobile interface to social translation would allow Global Voices and other organizations to recruit volunteer translators who don't have regular access to a desktop internet connection.

Background -- The Extraordinaries (http://www.BeExtra.org):

The Extraordinaries delivers micro-volunteer opportunities to mobile phones and web browsers that can be done on-demand and on-the-spot. Currently available as an iPhone® application through Apple's iTunes® store, The Extraordinaries enables organizations to connect with their supporters through these micro-volunteer opportunities, strengthening relationships while leveraging their "crowds" to complete real work such as image tagging, translation and research.

Team Members: David Sasaki, Jacob Colker

Announcement of 2009 Knight News Challenge Winners

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:00:48 GMT

The 2009 Knight News Challenge Winners, as introduced by John S. and James K. Knight Foundation President and CEO Alberto Ibargüen. Held as part of the Future of News and Civic Media conference MIT, hosted by MIT's Center for Future Civic Media. The 2009 winners represent a remarkable diversity in ideas for developing new tools for news and engagement.

After opening remarks by Ibargüen, the introduction of the winners starts around the 15:30 mark.

Ethics and Enlightened Leadership

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 04:00:00 GMT

04/30/2009 2:00 PM KresgeHis Holiness The Dalai LamaDescription: His Holiness the Dalai Lama spoke at an inaugural event for a new institute in his name, the Dalai Lama Center for Ethics and Transformative Values. He tempered his provocative ideas about promoting ethics in a secular society with a stream of lively banter. He recalled that he had visited a homeless shelter in San Francisco the other day and told a man he met that he, too, had suffered the same fate after he went into exile in 1959. "I said, 'me too. Homeless'." Turning to global issues, he framed the two largest issues facing the world as the economy and ecology. These must be solved with compassion toward those we don't agree with, and by acknowledging the root causes of them. He rejects the notion that the economic meltdown was caused by "market forces" and instead names the causes as human behaviors--greed and hypocrisy. He called upon the community to not think in terms of "we and them" and encouraged all of humanity to come forward to solve the world's problems. The only condition that should allow for a "we and them" mindset, he declares, would be if aliens from another planet were to visit the earth. "Inner disarmament can be achieved, external disarmament is difficult." About the Speaker(s): His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, is both the head of state and the spiritual leader of Tibet. He was born in 1935, to a farming family, in a small hamlet located in Taktser, Amdo, northeastern Tibet. At the age of two the child, who was named Lhamo Dhondup at that time was recognized as the reincarnation of the 13th Dalai Lama, Thubten Gyatso. The Dalai Lamas are believed to be manifestations of Avalokiteshvara or Chenrezig, the Bodhisattva of Compassion and patron saint of Tibet. Bodhisattvas are enlightened beings who have postponed their own nirvana and chosen to take rebirth in order to serve humanity. In 1950 His Holiness was called upon to assume full political power after China's invasion of Tibet in 1949. In 1954, he went to Beijing for peace talks with Mao Zedong and other Chinese leaders, including Deng Xiaoping and Chou Enlai. But finally, in 1959, with the brutal suppression of the Tibetan national uprising in Lhasa by Chinese troops, His Holiness was forced to escape into exile. Since then he has been living in Dharamsala, northern India, the seat of the Tibetan political administration in exile. Since 1959 His Holiness has received over 84 awards, honorary doctorates, citizenshiops and prizes in recognition of his message of peace, non"violence, inter"religious understanding, universal responsibility and compassion. His Holiness has also authored more than 72 books. Host(s): Dean for Student Life, The Dalai Lama Center for Ethics and Transformative Values

The Future of Science Journalism

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 04:00:00 GMT

04/28/2009 7:00 PM MuseumJill Abramson, Managing Editor, The New York Times; Andrew Revkin; Ivan Oransky; Evan Hadingham, Senior Science Editor, NOVA; Phil Hilts; Cristine RussellDescription: Susan Hockfield states that science journalism "is now, and in the decades ahead, absolutely indispensable." As we confront global warming and health pandemics, science reporting must be sustained, Hockfield says, "in its rightful place, at the top of the profession and in the thick of the national conversation." But dismal economic times throw doubt on this aspiration, as these journalists attest. At the nation's flagship newspaper, The New York Times, there's a relentless commitment to high"quality journalism, whether print or digital, Jill Abramson maintains. "The fact that people have come to expect news on the web to be free has certainly challenged journalism's business model," she acknowledges, but The Times is better positioned than other publications to weather the changes. Indeed, "decades from now, the quality newspapers left may not be on paper, but journalism will continue to thrive," Abramson asserts. In particular, this means ramping up science coverage, whether examining climate science or common medical treatments and health policy. Abramson draws a clear distinction between science blogs, which are "often for the deeply engaged," and "coverage pitched to the intelligent general reader." Penetrating reporting with great breadth comes at a steep price: the paper must support reporters who dig deep into protected government files, are on perilous assignments, or must take a year to glean all dimensions of a complex story. She asks, "How do we prevent the collective muscle of investigative journalism from being gutted?" Whatever the answer (and one solution may involve nonprofit funding), Abramson sees a robust, continuing appetite for "trustworthy information on the world we live in." Cristine Russell sees a "best of times, worst of times" scenario for science journalism, with a glut of opportunities beyond print to chat and blog about science, or more frequently, health and fitness, and deep cutbacks in print science departments. Andrew Revkin admits the days when The Times could bring in $1 billion a year in ad revenue are gone forever, and hopes its staff "won't be in a museum of recently extinct journalists." But holes in science coverage mean "scientists have a greater responsibility to take the bull by the hornsand engage more fully in a conversation with society." Ivan Oransky characterizes some online science sites as a kind of "curation," with "a lot of people covering single events periodically." He cites Twitter as a positive example of "democratizing coverage," getting a new generation "to get back into science." Evan Hadingham suggests we might be "in a golden age of popular science communication on TV." Yet, in a 500"channel world, public TV science producers face "the ghettoization of science," worried about how to mix serious science with entertainment. About the Speaker(s): Jill Abramson was appointed managing editor in 2003 after serving as Washington bureau chief. She joined the newspaper in 1997. Previously, she was an editor and investigative reporter at The Wall Street Journal. She is a graduate of Harvard College and co"author of two books: Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas and Where They Are Now.Host(s): Office of the Provost, MIT Museum

Learning to See in the Dark: The Roots of Ethical Resistance

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 04:00:00 GMT

04/24/2009 6:00 PM Simmons HallCarol Gilligan, University Professor, New York University School of LawDescription: In this complex narrative documenting paradigm shifts in developmental thinking, Carol Gilligan defines the very capacity of our human nature-to have a voice and to communicate-as the grounds of both love and democratic citizenship. Dissecting the roots of healthy ethical resistance, Gilligan weaves together developmental psychology, neurobiology, ethics, and politics in ethical and moral decisions. Gilligan provides an overview of the evolution of her research and thinking about gender as they relate to ethics. She recounts in her early research that she was initially blind to gender issues. These issues became strikingly clear to her after completing one study with men about their moral dilemmas relating to the Vietnam War and the draft, versus a group of women faced with the moral choice to continue to terminate a pregnancy. Though this experience she realized that all previous studies of moral and psychological development had been based on men only. This insight set off a body of research and publication that focuses on the traditional gender splits of thought verses emotion, self verses relationships and mind verses body, and the harm to both genders to operate soley within these separate and restrictive arenas. From gender, Gilligan goes onto to study patriarchy, and looks into the societal issues on how the masculine qualities of thought, self and body have been elevated while emotion, relationships and body have been devalued, causing the psychological community to conclude that patriarchy is the natural state. Reflecting with great relief that "we now have a map," she looks at current political landscape offers insights into the election of Barack Obama and what it says about how our political landscape is changing. "We are born with a voice and into relationship, and if those capacities are encouraged, not traumatized, then we are able to register within ourselves the feeling of what happens, and that's the grounds, the growing consensus, for ethical action, to be in touch in that sense". About the Speaker(s): Carol Gilligan is an ethicist and psychologist currently appointed as a University Professor at the New York University. She received an A.B. in English literature from Swarthmore College, a masters degree in clinical psychology from Radcliffe College and a Ph.D. in social psychology from Harvard University. Her landmark book, In A Different Voice (1982) is described by Harvard University Press as "the little book that started a revolution." Following In A Different Voice, she initiated the Harvard Project on Women's Psychology and Girls' Development and co"authored or edited 5 books with her students: Mapping the Moral Domain (1988), Making Connections (1990), Women, Girls, and Psychotherapy: Reframing Resistance (1991), Meeting at the Crossroads: Women's Psychology and Girls' Development, (1992) and Between Voice and Silence: Women and Girls, Race and Relationships (1995). She received a Senior Research Scholar award from the Spencer Foundation, a Grawemeyer Award for her contributions to education, a Heinz Award for her contributions to understanding the human condition and was named by Time Magazine as one of the 25 most influential Americans. Her more recent publications include The Birth of Pleasure: a New Map of Love (2002), Kyra: A Novel (2008), and, with David A. J. Richards, The Deepening Darkness: Patriarchy, Resistance, and Democracy's Future (2009). Host(s): Dean for Student Life, The Dalai Lama Center for Ethics and Transformative Values

The Most Important Number in the World

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 04:00:00 GMT

04/13/2009 4:30 PM Wong AuditoriumBill McKibben, Writer/ OrganizerDescription: "Just a sleep"deprived activist and organizer." That's how environmentalist Bill McKibben describes his current incarnation, with writing career in abeyance while he proselytizes about the danger of climate change. The plight he first wrote about as hypothesis in 1989 has evolved into "deeply rooted consensus." By 1995, world climatologists agreed: "Human beings are heating up the planet." After the inflection point of the Industrial Revolution, McKibben reckons, "no surprise --stuff starts to happen!" That stuff is escalating atmospheric carbon. Fast forward to summer 2007, when "Arctic sea ice melted at an alarming pace." Other deleterious effects he cites include permafrost reduction; growing release of greenhouse gas methane; paradoxical increase in both drought and deluge; rising sea level; wildfires and deforestation; agricultural jeopardy. These phenomena conspire in feedback loops to pose accelerating risks to civilization. McKibben credits NASA climatologist Jim Hansen with deriving "the most important number in the world" _ the tolerable carbon level allowing survival of life on earth, now recognized as 350 parts"per"million maximum. Trouble is, we're already past that sustainability point, owing to rampant fossil fuel combustion. We face "not a problem for your grandchildren to solveit's a problem for your parents to have solved." Upon return to Vermont from a revelatory 2006 journey to Bangladesh, McKibben's mission became activism in service to global warming awareness. He gathered 1,000 people on a five"day pilgrimage to spread the word. At the sight of this mass of humanity in a rural state, he says "cows were running in terror." So began a populist movement demanding an 80% decrease in carbon emissions by 2050. McKibben saw the way ahead as harnessing the Internet's multiplicative power. In 2007, with the help of six students and email's exponential impact, 1,400 simultaneous demonstrations took place countrywide. "The thing just went viral," McKibben exclaims, "the biggest day of grass"roots environmental activism since the first Earth Day in 1970." Social networking and cell phones proved most effective tools for mobilization. Organizers next turned their aims to the upcoming Copenhagen conference to form a treaty succeeding the Kyoto Protocol. The campaign is aptly titled 350.org. McKibben endorses the virtue of a simple number as a rallying point because "Arabic numerals are one of the very few things that translate easily around the world," avoiding cross"cultural semantic mishaps. From Martin Luther King, Jr., McKibben absorbed principles of righteous activism. The good fight must be "creativedeterminedjoyful." In closing, McKibben cautions "nature does not grade on a curve." Global warming "is the morally urgent question of our moment." About the Speaker(s): Bill McKibben has been an environmental activist, educator, and prolific writer over two decades. He was one of the first to articulate the problem of climate change for a nonscientific readership, with his 1989 book, The End of Nature. In March 2007, McKibben published his most recent book, Deep Economy: the Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future. He zealously carries out dual pursuits as an author and crusader to spread the message of nature's vulnerability and the consequences for civilization of global warming. In 2006, he orchestrated the then largest demonstration against global warming in US history. Now he devotes his time and passion to the massive organizing effort for a worldwide event in October 2009, highlighting the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions. McKibben is a graduate of Harvard University, and the recipient of Guggenheim and Lyndhurst Fellowships as well as honorary degrees from several institutions. He is a religious school teacher in his Methodist Church in Vermont, and a scholar in residence at Middlebury College. Host(s): School of Humanities, Arts & Social Sciences, Center for International Studies

Distributed Leadership in the Obama Campaign

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 04:00:00 GMT

03/19/2009 E51"395Marshall Ganz, Lecturer in Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School of GovernmentDescription: The Obama campaign owes its victory not to a single charismatic candidate, but to the efforts of a disciplined and motivated organization whose roots go back to landmark movements of the 1960s. Marshall Ganz, who cut his teeth on civil rights work and with Cesar Chavez's United Farm Workers, describes how the principles and practices he learned around organizing and leadership played out in the most recent presidential election. For Ganz, our time represents the end of "40 years of wandering in the desert," the end of "the politics of disappointment." We've arrived at an extraordinary moment of rapid change -- a time of both possibility and uncertainty -- with commensurate challenges to political leaders. But Ganz's take, after years with progressive movements, is that leadership involves "taking responsibility to enable others to achieve purpose in the face of uncertainty." Leaders recruit, motivate and develop others, constructing a community around common interests, and building capacity from within the community. And unlike businesses, which tend to rely on rigid hierarchies, and systems and procedures, effective volunteer"based organizations must engage and enable lots of people to become innovators, adaptive in the face of uncertainty. This kind of "civic capital" is precisely what the Obama campaign cultivated and invested in, says Ganz. Thousands of people acquired the skills and practiced "the arts of leadership necessary to self govern in democracy." Some unique conditions made this campaign so successful, including Obama's story of hope, which drew on a persuasive personal narrative. There was also the campaign's strategy of developing grassroots capacity to win caucuses and close primaries; its use of the Internet to attract an army of small"scale, repeat contributors; and its capacity for "continual learning" about what was and was not working. In the summer of 2007, Ganz served as counselor in LA's "Camp Obama," teaching key state organizers to share personal narratives and create compelling politics around human experience and emotion, rather than around issues. He led workshops on motivating from "a place of hopefulness," rather than of fear, and on how to build from common ground to shared political values and commitments. Obama staffers and volunteers learned how to create mutually reliant leadership teams that could act independent of the campaign HQ; and how to amass and utilize voter information both to get out the vote, and to tap additional volunteers. A "cascade of training and leadership development" led to a massive field organization that built upon itself, where volunteers continually joined and moved up the ranks, and everyone felt "they owned a piece of it." About the Speaker(s): In 1964, a year before he graduated from Harvard College, Marshall Ganz left to volunteer as a civil rights organizer in Mississippi. In 1965, he joined Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers; over the next 16 years he gained experience in union, community, issue, and political organizing and became Director of Organizing. During the 1980s, he worked with grassroots groups to develop effective organizing programs, designing innovative voter mobilization strategies for local, state, and national electoral campaigns. In 1991, Ganz returned to Harvard College and, after a 28"year leave of absence, completed his undergraduate degree in history and government. He was awarded an M.P.A. by the Kennedy School in 1993 and completed his Ph.D. in sociology in 2000. He teaches, researches, and writes on leadership, organization, and strategy in social movements, civic associations, and politics.Host(s): Sloan School of Management, MIT Leadership Center

Politics and Popular Culture

Thu, 26 Feb 2009 05:00:00 GMT

The 2008 presidential campaign may have fused politics and entertainment once and for all. Three panelists and moderator Henry Jenkins discuss the nature and implications of this convergence.

Israeli Post-Election Politics: Results, Challenges, and Goals (MIT Hillel)

Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:22:03 GMT

Come February 17 to hear University of Haifa's Yisrael Ne'eman discuss the upcoming Israeli election results. The results of this election will have an important impact on Middle Eastern politics, and will set the tone for the new dialogue between President Obama and the new Israeli parliament. Yisrael Ne'eman will unravel the election results, and explain its impact on Israeli and international politics, including how it will effect the situation in Gaza. Following the lecture will be a short Q&A. Light refreshments will be served.

Key Issues In the Department of Defense for the Obama Administration

Mon, 02 Feb 2009 22:08:08 GMT

This MIT SSP IAP event, held on January 15, 2009, features MIT Security Studies experts Cindy Williams, Owen Cote, Harvey Sapolsky, and CIS Wilhelm Fellow, Admiral William Fallon. The panelists review the key spending, weapons system, and doctrinal issues facing the Secretary of Defense. The U.S. is now spending nearly 700 billion dollars a year on defense, including the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet knowledgeable observers agree that the Department of Defense has not budgeted sufficient funds to cover its plans for the next five years.

MIT professor Charles Stewart on race and the 2008 election

Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:03:49 GMT

MIT Professor Charles Stewart discusses how race played a roll in the election of Barack Obama, but in a way you might not expect.

Science Policy and the Obama Administration Advice to a New President

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 05:00:00 GMT

11/19/2008 6:00 PM Broad InstituteMarc A. Kastner, Dean, MIT School of ScienceDescription: The mood of gloom has eased somewhat within the science community, with the advent of a new presidential administration, and Marc Kastner captures the mix of hopefulness and trepidation among his peers around the enormous challenges the nation faces in coming years. Kastner describes four areas "in order of increasing difficulty" the new president must address: The president's first move should be to increase the prestige of science in government, by giving the science advisor a more important role, listening carefully to career scientists in government agencies, and encouraging rather than punishing them for speaking out. Second, Kastner advises expanding basic research on energy and environment. The U.S. imports $700 billion worth of oil per year, placing the nation "in jeopardy economically and politically," says Kastner. Clean energy is likely to be a huge industry, and if the U.S. is to lead worldwide, it must begin to master a cluster of technologies that together pose our best chance of beating climate change. We need a huge infusion of R&D money in such thorny areas as: carbon sequestration (we don't yet know if CO2 can be efficiently and safely injected into underground pore space); electrical storage, where we need a five"fold improvement in battery technology to produce an all"electric car that can run for 200 miles; solar energy, where current solar cells are made from materials that are too costly, and not yet efficient enough. While federal and private energy research has been declining, the International Energy Agency estimates the world will require $17 trillion dollars to stabilize CO2emissions between now and 2050. The third order of business involves biology: Having teased apart the DNA molecule and mapped the genome, we now stand ready for a third revolution in life science, says Kastner. This will involve the convergence of biology with mathematics, physics and engineering. Says Kastner: "The gigantic amount of data being generated by rapid sequencing requires new approaches: biology needs theory for the first time, needs integrating ideas to explore information and come up with clarity." The final and perhaps toughest job involves stabilizing science funding. Over the past 20 years, math, physical science and engineering funding have remained flat. In the life sciences it doubled (partly due to 9/11), then declined. While "it's wonderful to give more money to science," rapid increases over short times have often been followed by sharp dips, creating major research disruptions. Plus, says Kastner, it's unhealthy to fund one area and not the rest. "Different sciences reinforce each other and the scientific enterprise cannot do well if only one field is supported and the others are not." About the Speaker(s): Marc Kastner joined the Department of Physics in 1973, was named Donner Professor of Science in 1989, appointed Department Head in February 1998, and in July 2007, became Dean of the School of Science. A graduate of the University of Chicago (S.B. 1967, M.S. 1969, Ph.D. 1972), he was a research fellow at Harvard University prior to joining MIT. He served as Head of the MIT Department of Physics Division of Atomic, Condensed Matter, and Plasma Physics from 1983 to 1987, and as Associate Director of MIT's Consortium for Superconducting Electronics-a collaborative program designed to advance the technology of thin"film superconducting electronics-from 1989 to 1992. He served as Director of MIT's Center for Materials Science and Engineering from 1993 to 1998.Host(s): School of Humanities, Arts & Social Sciences, Center for International Studies

The Medium Religion

Sat, 15 Nov 2008 05:00:00 GMT

11/15/2008 5:15 PM 32"123Boris GroysDescription: Noted philosopher, critic and essayist Boris Groys, who has previously delved into the Soviet post"modernist and Russian avant"garde art scene, turns his attention now to the recent and dangerous marriage of religion and digital media. In a talk based on his paper, Religion in the Age of Digital Reproduction , Groys draws freely on such predecessors as Gilles Deleuze, Walter Benjamin, Martin Heidegger and Nietzsche to draw a bead on fundamentalism. He contends that the revival of extremist religion worldwide, in the face of a secular and skeptical world, depends on the broadcast of video and distribution of data, particularly through the Internet. Groys argues that in older times, religious rituals were practiced "in isolated sacred places." Today, "ritual, repetition and reproduction have become the fate of the entire culture. Everything reproduces itself -- capital, commodities, technology and art." In our day, public media sites like MySpace and YouTube feature private hopes, dreams and beliefs, substituting for the public discussions of a previous age. This new configuration of the media, especially the Internet, encourages and even favors sovereign religious politics over institutionalized secular politics, says Groys. "The Internet is the space in which it is possible for contemporary, aggressive religious movements to install their propaganda material and act globally." Today's religious rituals are enacted in a wired global space, where they can be faithfully reproduced an unlimited number of times, through the apparent magic of digital duplication. Video, believes Groys, serves as the principal medium of fundamentalism, serving up images over broadcast TV, the Internet, and in stores. Digital images are all the more powerful because they "have the ability to originate, multiply and distribute themselves through the open fieldsof communication, like climbing out of nowhere, like being divine" Groys shows two video clips: a Christian evangelical ritual in Siberia, where a man dressed in Biblical garb straight out of Franco Zeffirelli's bio"pic, Jesus of Nazareth, greets the faithful; and the taped confession of a Lebanese communist suicide bomber with commentary. Video recordings, digital images transmitted to countless many, are attempts to generate belief and passion, and function in some ways like "a Byzantine icon," says Groys. "The digital file functions as an angel -- an invisible messenger transmitting a divine command." About the Speaker(s): Boris Groys is an internationally acclaimed expert on late"Soviet postmodern art and literature and the Russian avant"garde. In the 1970s, Groys, who had studied philosophy and mathematics at Leningrad State University, immersed himself in the unofficial cultural scene in Russia's capitals, coining the term "Moscow conceptualism." In 1981, he immigrated to West Germany, where he earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy at the University of M oenster. Best"known as the author of The Total Art of Stalinism: Avant"Garde, Aesthetic Dictatorship, and Beyond (MIT Press), Groys has recently released Art Power (MIT Press), a collection of essays examining modern and contemporary art according to its ideological function. Other recent publications include Under Suspicion: A Phenomenology of the Media and Ilya Kabakov: The Man Who Flew into Space from his Apartment (Afterall/MIT Press). Groys has also edited collections of articles in Russian and German and has written more than a hundred articles. Since 1994, in addition to serving as the curator and organizer of numerous international art exhibitions and conferences, Groys has been a Professor of Aesthetics, Art History, and Media Theory at the Center for Art and Media Technology in Karlsruhe. Host(s): Office of the Provost, MIT List Visual Arts Center

The Impact of New Media on the Election

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 05:00:00 GMT

Panelists discuss how new technology may have permanently changed U.S. politics and campaigning.

Religion and the Election: What Do We Think We Know?

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 04:00:00 GMT

10/20/2008 7:00 PM 34"101Dr. Shaun Casey, Wesley Theological Seminary,; National Evangelical Coordinator for the Barack Obama Campaign; Dr. Alan Wolfe, SM '56, Professor of Political Science and Director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life, Boston CollegeDescription: The 2008 U.S. Presidential election was in many ways a watershed event, including the impact of religion on candidates and voters. Shaun Casey finds some parallels to 2008 in 1960, when John F. Kennedy eventually overcame enough Protestant resistance to become the first Roman Catholic president _ just as Obama campaigned to overcome American racism and become the first African"American president. Kennedy applied a "technical rationality to most problems," says Casey, so he hired staffers to help him present his faith in an unthreatening way. Obama also put together a staff to deal with such "religion problems" as Reverend Wright, the notion that he was a "Manchurian Meccan candidate," or even worse, "a secular Harvard Law School educator who's really an atheist." Alan Wolfeobserves that in the 1960 election, people were tired of eight years of Republican power, and found a young Democratic challenger appealing. The candidate with the real religion problem then was Richard Nixon, who "essentially had to hide his religion: he was Quaker." Says Wolfe, "What a horrible embarrassment" for a party that "believes in aggressive military posture." What Wolfe finds of greater interest is the emergence, after the '60s, of "the religious litmus test." He hypothesizes that Jimmy Carter introduced the concept, offering himself up as a man of God in whom a post"Watergate era America could trust. One of the Democrats' more "admirable" candidates thus "opened the Pandora's box for Republicans." Catching up to current times, Wolfe debunks Karl Rove's mystique as master manipulator of the religious right, claiming that Bush actually lost the 2000 election, and that Rove was "simply lucky" in 2004. McCain deployed the Rove strategy in 2008, and "it's been a disaster for him" Also, McCain is simply "awkward speaking about religionhe's tone deaf." In contrast, "Obama the 'Muslim' is steeped in the Christian language." Casey believes Rove and George Bush "elevated religious outreach to an art form not seen in American politics," marketing a candidate who was "a specific kind of Christian possibility independent of the reality in that candidate's life." Wolfe thinks conservative Christians gravitate to the Republican Party now because they're "working in big corporationsthey're wealthier." They see themselves as a marginalized minority group. Wolfe says the "real inheritors of the '60s are the Christian right. They're victimized, oppressed, and they're a movement of insurgency." Both panelists discern a new sensibility emerging in the evangelical movement. Young people don't clothe themselves as much in what Wolfe calls the "highly Calvinistic, punitive approach," and instead embrace openness around such issues as poverty, climate change and genocide. Casey believes this new religious cohort, raised in public schools, has been exposed to ethnic diversity, and interracial and interethnic dating: "They're far more cosmopolitan," he says. They're attracted to Obama, and less likely to oppose things like civil rights and sex education. "A kid in a suburban high school won't get exercised about gay rights; it's more live and let live." About the Speaker(s): Shaun Casey's research interests include the ethics of war and peace, the role of religion in presidential politics, public theology, the role of the Church in fighting global poverty, and the problem of theodicy as it relates to the Red Sox. He serves as a consultant to the Project on Religion and Post Conflict Reconstruction at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. His current projects include writing a book on the role of religion in the 1960 presidential election and offering free advice to candidates running for political office. Alan Wolfe's most recent books include Return to Greatness: How America Lost Its Sense of Purpose and What it Needs to Do to Recover It (2005), The Transformation of American Religion: How We actually Practice our Faith (2003), and n Intellectual in Public (2003). He is the author or editor of more than 10 other books. A contributing editor of The New Republic and The Wilson Quarterly, Wolfe writes often for those publications as well as for Commonweal,, The New York Times, Harper's, The Atlantic Monthly, The Washington Post, and other magazines and newspapers. He served as an advisor to President Clinton in preparation for his 1995 State of the Union address and has lectured widely at American and European universities. Wolfe has been the recipient of grants from the Russell Sage Foundation, the Templeton Foundation, and the Lilly Endowment. Casey received his B.A. from Abilene Christian University, his M.Div. from the Harvard Divinity School, an M.P.A. from the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, and a Th.D. from the Harvard Divinity School. Host(s): Dean for Student Life, The Chaplain to the Institute

The Electoral College Experts Debate and Audience Dialogue

Fri, 17 Oct 2008 04:00:00 GMT

10/17/2008 1:15 PM Bartos theaterArnold Barnett, PhD '73, George Eastman Professor of Management Science, MIT Sloan; Vikram Amar, Professor of Law UC Davis Law School; Dr. Alexander S. Belenky, Visiting Scholar, MIT Center for Engineering Systems Fundamentals; Robert Hardaway, Professor of Law University of Denver College of Law; Alexander Keyssar, Professor of History and Social Policy, JFK School of Government, Harvard University; Paul Schumaker, Professor, Political Science, University of KansasDescription: Much like our divided country, each side of this debate strains to comprehend the perspective of the other, together reaching no consensus on the fate of the Electoral College. In what feels like a constitutional law and political science scrimmage, participants lob questions and spark exchanges. What follows is a short list of discussion themes: Judith Best wonders how a movement currently pursuing a nationwide popular vote outside of a Constitutional amendment can accomplish its goal without usurping Constitutional process. Robert Bennett responds that advocates believe they are neither overturning the Constitutional system nor encroaching on the prerogatives of federal government. Alexander Belenkyasks what benefits popular vote proponents think it will bring. Alexander Keyssar asks in return, "Why shouldn't people have the ultimate voice in deciding what their political institutions look like?" Robert Hardaway worries about implementation of the direct national election. John Fortier notes possible problems among states over differing voting standards (e.g., polling hours, or mail"in ballots). Akhil Amar adds, "Who votes and who doesn't? Is it fair if one state allows 16"year"olds and another 18"year"olds? Is it equal if one state lets you vote for three months and another lets you vote for three hours? These are real issues, but in the end don't scare me away." Is a national popular vote doomed due to inertia and the preference of political parties for the Electoral College? Bennett imagines opposition might wither if a modest version of a nationwide vote emerged. Akhil Amar believes if both parties feel "bitten in the back" by the EC system, they'll say "let's move." Vikram Amar says unlike other ideas for constitutional amendments (such as for a balanced budget or school prayer), a popular vote has "potential for traction," since it involves improving democracy. Best thinks proponents of popular election "have their priorities wrong and should go after the Senate first." Vikram Amar agrees that the Senate is anachronistic, part of the original deal "to get the Constitution done" but Akhil Amar states there are "perfectly sound reasons for wanting to change the presidency and selection mechanism that do not require rethinking the Senate." Belenky wonders if it's good for the country if we elect a president by a thin plurality who has lost the popular vote in every state. Keyssar retorts "that for any conceivable electoral system the rest of people herecan think of a disastrous counter example." Best insists that "as thinkers, we must be careful to not confuse end and means: the goal of an election is to produce a president who can govern this nation." Concludes Akhil Amar, "Many arguments invoked against popular elections are actually red herrings, which might be sufficient to persuade people to stick with what we've got now." Says Bennett, "I don't think there's any doubt, if we go to a national popular vote there might be unexpected consequences but the notion that it will be somehow fatal is an over"dramatization of a point." About the Speaker(s): Arnold Barnett is one of the nation's foremost authorities on aviation security. He uses statistical techniques to probe social and organizational issues. Barnett heads an FAA research team to investigate antiterrorist measures. He has also written at length about crime and punishment, war casualties, and the misuse of statistics in the media. The Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences honored him with the 1996 President's Award for outstanding contributions to the betterment of society. In 2002, he received the President's Citation from the Flight Safety Foundation for "truly outstanding contributions on behalf of safety." Barnett holds a B.A. in Physics from Columbia College and a Ph.D.in Mathematics from MIT.Host(s): Sloan School of Management, MIT Sloan School of Management

The Electoral College: Its Logical Foundations and Problems What (if Anything) Should Be Done About Improving the System of Electing a President?

Fri, 17 Oct 2008 04:00:00 GMT

10/17/2008 8:30 AM Bartos theaterDr. Alexander S. Belenky, Visiting Scholar, MIT Center for Engineering Systems Fundamentals; Judith Best, Professor of Political Science at State University Of New York/Cortland; Robert Hardaway, Professor of Law University of Denver College of Law; John Fortier, Research Fellow American Enterprise InstituteDescription: Give a hearty cheer for the Electoral College, and for the Founding Fathers, whose good sense (and good luck), say these panelists, have led to a durable, wise and relatively fair system for electing a president. By way of introduction, Alex Belenky details the mechanics of the current Electoral College, and explains "to a certain extent, this is not in line with what was initially designed or meant by the Founding Fathers." The founders' idea was to appoint "some wise people from different states and they would come up with their own ideas. These wise people, a so"called independent congress, would elect a president." Belenky encourages panelists to debate whether the current system, in which electoral votes are determined by how states vote, should be abolished, or combined somehow with a popular vote. The people's belief that they vote for president and vice president directly "is definitely a far cry from reality," he says. The greatest fear of the founders, says Judith Best, was that of a majority tyranny that could control the entire government, and use it to oppress a minority. This fear led to the concept of three branches of government with separation of powers, and a federal principle shaping all governing institutions and decisions, where no popular votes for anything can be added across state lines. These are "load"bearing walls of the Constitution," says Best. Founders determined a method to balance nation and states, viewed as "little republics where selfish interests are forced to compromise early and often." But they struggled with the presidential election, especially how to prevent Congress from making the president its lackey. So they cleverly created a temporary congress to hire the president, with "no further influence or power over the winner." This ephemeral body, the Electoral College, "beats all alternatives," believes Best. The goal of an election is to "select a president who can govern a vast, heterogeneous nation," not serve as a public opinion poll. Requiring candidates to win states structures the election, forcing candidates to form broad cross"sectional coalitions, which unlike a popular vote, leads to a swift, sure decision to fill the world's most powerful office. Robert Hardaway believes the Electoral College is part of a grand plan that works quite well. This "parallel parliament" has but one duty: to meet every four years to select a president. John F. Kennedy, whose election in 1960 raised questions about the electoral mechanism, described a solar system of government power, all in balance. JFK believed any attempt to rework the Electoral College would mean transforming the other branches as well. Alternatives such as direct elections can lead to a proliferation of splinter parties, and to runoff elections where a majority of the people might reject the runoff candidates, but still end up with one of them. Founding Fathers wanted a system that protected minority rights and that "would elect a candidate whose support was broad as well as deep," says Hardaway. The Electoral College works pretty well in general, says John Fortier. There's not a great likelihood that the popular vote will head in one direction and electoral vote in another, and while small states exert substantial influence, they are relatively evenly split between the two parties. Our system takes "seriously the need to win a majority or strong plurality in states to do things, not just to elect a president, but to pass state laws." The most serious argument against the Electoral College is that campaigns don't take place as much nationally as in selected states, says Fortier, and he'd be "open to looking at some sort of proportional system where states would allocate electors that might open upgreater competition." About the Speaker(s): Judith Best teaches about political theory, American government and American political thought and jurisprudence. She has numerous publications, including: The Choice of the People? Debating the Electoral College (1996) and The Case Against Direct Election of the President: A Defense of the Electoral College(1975). She has spoken frequently before Congress and the public on the Electoral College System. She received her M.A. from the University of Michigan and her Ph.D. from Cornell University. Best has been a member of the Cortland faculty since 1973. After graduating Cum Laude from Amherst College in 1968 and Order of the Coif from New York University Law School, Robert Hardaway joined the U.S. Navy JAG Corps where he processed civil claims and also served as both a prosecutor and criminal defense lawyer. After serving four years, he joined the Denver law firm of Rovira, Demuth, and Eiberger where he practiced civil litigation. He also later served as a Deputy District attorney for Arapahoe County and rounded out his litigation career as a Colorado Deputy Public Defender, where he handled hundreds of felony cases, including death penalty cases. From there, he first entered academia as a clinical supervisor at the University of Denver College of Law, ultimately becoming a tenured Professor of Law. He is the author of 14 published books on law and public policy, and 29 law review articles, reviews, and articles in professional journals. More recently, he has expanded the scope of his professional writing to include docudramas and law"related fiction and novels and appears frequently on television and in the media commenting on legal issues. John Fortier is the principal contributor to the AEI"Brookings Election Reform Project and executive director of the Continuity of Government Commission. A political scientist who has taught at the University of Pennsylvania, University of Delaware, Boston College, and Harvard University, Fortier has written numerous scholarly and popular articles. His books include Absentee and Early Voting: Trends, Promises, and Perils (2006), After the People Vote: A Guide to the Electoral College (2004), and Second"Term Blues: How George W. Bush Has Governed (2007). Fortier writes a column for Politico and is a frequent radio and television commentator on the presidency, Congress, and elections. He received his B.A. from Georgetown University and his Ph.D. from Boston College. Host(s): Sloan School of Management, MIT Sloan School of Management

What (if Anything) Should Be Done About Improving the System of Electing a President? (Part 2)

Fri, 17 Oct 2008 04:00:00 GMT

10/17/2008 9:15 AM Bartos theaterAkhil Amar, Professor of Law at Yale Law School; Vikram Amar, Professor of Law UC Davis Law School; Robert Bennett, Nathaniel L. Nathanson Professor of Law, Northwestern Law; Alexander Keyssar, Professor of History and Social Policy, JFK School of Government, Harvard University; Paul Schumaker, Professor, Political Science, University of KansasDescription: The Electoral College emphatically does not represent the best of all possible worlds, say these panelists, providing often scathing and nuanced responses to the EC advocates who precede them in this conference. Akhil Amar favors the direct national election because it "best expresses the idea of one person, one vote." One argument in favor of the EC, though: inertia, which essentially expresses that "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't." He takes issue with those who would preserve the EC because it exclusively sustains federalism. Direct national elections, he says, wouldn't eliminate the Senate or the need for federal oversight of voting. Why fear a direct vote, he asks, when plenty of big states like California and Texas directly elect an executive "who looks like a mini"presidentand it works just fine." The "origins of the Electoral College are quite tainted and not really that understood," says Vikram Amar, and the more he listens to arguments for retaining the institution, "the more laughable some of them are." The EC doesn't really promote "the deepest vision of federalism," as its proponents suggest, nor does it defeat regionalism, since as few as 11 states could dictate the outcome of an election. He also derides advocates who support the EC because it can "exaggerate the margin of victory to create legitimacy." Robert Bennettfavors a nationwide popular vote, because he's "concerned about the incentives we have for campaigning and promising by candidates." Under the current system, candidates hit swing states hard and "ignore the others." Voters in California or New York don't hear from candidates except around money raising. Bennett believes that a popular vote "would lead to reaching out to a broader swath of the population." Other incentives to switch systems: the minority party would need "to get its act together" and we would be "less likely to have terribly close (elections). " Alexander Keyssar says many of the empirical claims in favor of the Electoral College "are demonstrably false," and describes the current system as "deformed." It's "surely the most unpopular political institution the Founding Fathers have created." Many attempts to abolish the system failed, owing in large part to the issue of race. "Had there been a national popular vote, the political power of the white racist South would have been dramatically diminished." Another reason for the preservation of the EC has been the perception of short"term partisan advantage. Keyssar approves the decentralized efforts by the National Popular Vote Initiative to abolish the Electoral College. Paul Schumaker has written a book breaking down the pros and cons of the existing election system. He recommends going beyond thinking "just in terms of a popular system," and looking at elections based on popular plurality, popular majority and instant runoff (his personal favorite). He examines all of these in light of such qualities as simplicity, equality, neutrality, participation, legitimacy and stability. Ultimately, "I don't think there's an ideal system, says Schumaker. But "can we do better? Yes." About the Speaker(s): Akhil Reed Amar teaches constitutional law at both Yale College and Yale Law School. He received his B.A, summa cum laude, in 1980 from Yale College, and his J.D. in 1984 from Yale Law School, where he served as an editor of The Yale Law Journal,. After clerking for Judge Stephen Breyer, U.S. Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit, Amar joined the Yale faculty in 1985. Amar is the co"editor of a leading constitutional law casebook, Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking. He is also the author of several books, including The Constitution and Criminal Procedure: First Principles (Yale Univ. Press, 1997), The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction (Yale Univ. Press, 1998), and most recently, America's Constitution: A Biography (Random House, 2005). Vikram Amar rejoined the UC Davis Law School (where he was a faculty member from 1993"1998) in 2007, after teaching at UC Hastings for a decade. He received a bachelor's degree in history from the University of California at Berkeley and his J.D. from Yale, where he served as an articles Editor for the Yale Law Journal. After law school in 1988, Amar clerked for Judge William A. Norris of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and then for Justice Harry A. Blackmun of the United States Supreme Court. He has also taught regularly as a Visiting Professor at the UC Berkeley School of Law and at the UCLA School of Law. A scholar in the field of constitutional law, Robert Bennett has been a member of the faculty of the Northwestern University School of Law since 1969, serving as the school's dean from 1985 to 1995. Bennett frequently teaches a seminar in the Law of American Democracy and courses in contracts, legislation, constitutional law, and constitutional theory. Bennett has also taught as a visiting professor at the University of Illinois College of Law, the University of Virginia School of Law, the University of Southern California Law Center, Brooklyn Law School, and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law of Yeshiva University. Alexander Keyssar is an historian by training, and has specialized in the excavation of issues that have contemporary policy implications. His 1986 book, Out of Work: The First Century of Unemployment in Massachusetts, was awarded three scholarly prizes. His book, (2000), was named the best book in U.S. history by both the American Historical Association and the Historical Society; it was also a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize and the Los Angeles Times Book Award. Keyssar is coauthor of Inventing America, a text integrating the history of technology and science into the mainstream of American history. In 2004/5, Keyssar chaired the Social Science Research Council's National Research Commission on Voting and Elections. Paul Schumaker has been a professor at the University of Kansas since 1990. He has published a number of books, including From Ideologies to Public Philosophies: An Introduction to Political Theory (Blackwell, 2008); and Choosing our President: The Electoral College and Beyond (edited with Burdett Loomis, Chatham House, 2002). He received his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, in 1973. Host(s): Sloan School of Management, MIT Sloan School of Management

What (if Anything) Should Be Done About Improving the System of Electing a President? (Part three)

Fri, 17 Oct 2008 04:00:00 GMT

10/17/2008 11:00 AM Bartos theaterArnold Barnett, PhD '73, George Eastman Professor of Management Science, MIT Sloan; Dr. Alexander S. Belenky, Visiting Scholar, MIT Center for Engineering Systems Fundamentals; David C. King, Lecturer in Public Policy, JFKennedy School of Government, Harvard University; Alan Natapoff, Research Scientist, MITDescription: As David King puts it, "The Constitution has an on the one hand, on the other quality," and the Electoral College seems a focal point for contrariness and ambivalence. King ticks off areas where the EC can be viewed alternatively: for instance, does it encourage healthy, broad"based campaigning and widespread voting, or promote targeted campaigning, and widespread voter fraud? Well acquainted with congressmen, King worries about the tension between short"term concerns (getting re"elected), and long"term interests. He believes that with the Electoral College, "you at least tip toward caring about winning multiple statesand the more states you try to win, the more candidates for office look to the long term and national best interest." Arnold Barnett offers a "pragmatic compromise" between a popular vote and the current Electoral College system, a potential cure for the current "funhouse mirror" of election politics based on weighted averages. Hold elections in individual states, and determine each candidate's percentage. Says Barnett: "Each candidate's national vote share would be a weighted average of vote shares in individual states. The weight of each state would be proportional to its share of electoral votes (i.e., the number of members of Congress)." The candidate with the highest weighted vote share would become president. Advantages of this system, says Barnett, include increasing the power of small states, and making currently irrelevant big states like New York relevant again. It would eliminate the worst consequences of winner take all ("Poster child: Florida 2000"); and there would be no danger of an election heading for the House of Representatives "where the president would be chosen under Strange Rules." Under the current system, not everyone has a say in presidential elections, Alexander Belenky believes, because a candidate with a very small percentage of the popular vote can actually become president. The Founding Fathers came up with a compromise to resolve problems in their day, and they "might be surprised to learn we still have this system." Belenky suggests considering a national popular vote of some kind -- "it's probably better for mathematicians to analyze schemes" to minimize manipulation. Give a candidate her share of such a vote, "then put the rest of electoral votes in play between the candidates." In this case, the EC serves as a backup system to help decide the final outcome. Alan Natapoff reaches for analogies from baseball and poker to describe voting systems, and ultimately relies on mathematics to shape his variation on the current EC system. Natapoff's concept: Winner takes all by state, but rather than a fixed number of votes, states instead have the number of votes equal to the number of votes cast plus the proportional equivalent of the two electoral votes they have now. Winner takes all "magnifies the power of individual voters," and works better than a simple national vote, unless the election is exquisitely close (with a margin less than 1 standard deviation). Concludes Natapoff: "We needn't apologize for this systemit's the ideal of a voting systemand it works." alt lang from Belenky Under the current system, the nation as a whole doesn't have a say in presidential elections, Alexander Belenky believes, because a candidate with a very small percentage of the popular vote can actually become president. The Founding Fathers came up with a compromise to resolve problems in their day, and they "might be surprised to learn we still have this system." Belenky suggests considering the will of the nation as a whole and the will of the states and DC as equal members of the Union as two decisive factors in determining the election outcome while retaining the Electoral College as a backup. Belenky suggests that the "winner"take"all" is the lesser evil compared to the proportional and the district (Maine"like) schemes of awarding state electoral votes and that its simple modification can make every state vote count, even under the Electoral College. About the Speaker(s): Arnold Barnett is one of the nation's foremost authorities on aviation security. He uses statistical techniques to probe social and organizational issues. Barnett heads an FAA research team to investigate antiterrorist measures. He has also written at length about crime and punishment, war casualties, and the misuse of statistics in the media. The Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences honored him with the 1996 President's Award for outstanding contributions to the betterment of society. In 2002, he received the President's Citation from the Flight Safety Foundation for "truly outstanding contributions on behalf of safety." Barnett holds a B.A. in Physics from Columbia College and a Ph.D.in Mathematics from MIT. Alexander S. Belenky is the author of books and scientific articles in the fields of optimization and game theory and their applications in transportation, industry, agriculture, environmental protection, advertising, brokerage, auctioning, and U.S. presidential elections. He is the author of Operations Research in Transportation Systems: Ideas and Schemes of Optimization Methods for Strategic Planning and Operations Management(2004). He is also the author of the books How America Chooses Its Presidents (2007) Extreme Outcomes of U.S. Presidential Elections (2003) and Winning the U.S. Presidency: Rules of the Game and Playing by the Rules (2004). He was an invited guest on radio and TV talk shows throughout the country in the course of the 2004 election campaign. His co"authored opinion pieces about voting systems have appeared in The Boston Globe, The Christian Science Monitor, and The New York Times. Belenky holds a Ph.D. in systems analysis and mathematics and D.Sc. in applications of mathematical methods. Alan Natapoff studied physics at Cornell, and as a graduate student in particle physics at Berkeley. He came to MIT as a postdoctoral fellow in biology and brain sciences and, since 1969, has been a research scientist at MIT's Center for Space Research in the Man"Vehicle Laboratory. For several decades, Natapoff has been interested in the problems of voting power and was technical advisor to Harvard Medical School's faculty in the design of its voting system. In 1977 he was invited to testify on the design of the Electoral College before the Senate Judiciary's subcommittee on Constitutional Rights. In 1996, his views on the Electoral College appeared in Public Choice under the title, "A mathematical one"man one"vote rationale for Madisonian presidential voting based on maximum individual voting power." David C. King lectures on the U.S.Congress, political parties, and election reform. He joined the Harvard faculty in 1992. In the wake of the 2000 presidential elections, King directed the Task Force on Election Administration for the National Commission on Election Reform. That effort culminated in landmark voting rights legislation signed by President Bush in late 2002. He later oversaw an evaluation and new management structure for the Boston Election Department. David King is the faculty director of Harvard's program for Newly Elected Members of the U.S. Congress. He has run similar programs for the State Duma of the Russian Federation, and he has advised on legislative design issues in several countries, including South Korea, Nicaragua, Chile, and Bolivia. King is co"author of The Generation of Trust: Public Confidence in the U.S. Military Since Vietnam, (2003), author of Turf Wars: How Congressional Committees Claim Jurisdiction (1997), and co"editor of Why People Don't Trust Government (1997). Host(s): Sloan School of Management, MIT Sloan School of Management

Presidential Energy Debate highlights video

Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:54:59 GMT

In this highlight video of an Oct. 6, 2008 debate at MIT, representatives of the John McCain and Barack Obama presidential campaigns speak to the differences between their candidates' approaches to solving the nation's energy problems. View full debate. Read news story.

Presidential Campaigns Debate Energy

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:28:44 GMT

Representatives from the McCain and Obama campaigns faced off Monday, Oct. 6 for a debate on energy, moderated by NPR's Tom Ashbrook, host of the daily talk show "On Point." McCain was represented by James Woolsey, who was director of the Central Intelligence Agency under President Clinton and has served in four different administrations, both Democratic and Republican. Obama was represented by Jason Grumet, executive director of the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy and former director of Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management. Questions were asked by journalists, Geoff Carr of the Economist and Susan McGinnis of CleanSkies.TV, as well as by a group of MIT students. The debate was co-sponsored by the student-run MIT Energy Club and the MIT Energy Initiative.

MIT Communications Forum: A Report Card on Media Coverage of the Presidential Election

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 04:00:00 GMT

There's anxiety, outrage, and some wistfulness in this panel devoted to weighing the strengths and weaknesses of political reporting during the current campaign season.

The Next Catastrophe: Reducing Our Vulnerabilities to Natural, Industrial, and Terrorist Disasters

Mon, 22 Oct 2007 04:00:00 GMT

10/22/2007 4:00 PM BartosCharles B. Perrow, Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Yale UniversityDescription: It's time to trade in the Department of Homeland Security for a Department of Homeland Vulnerabilities, says Charles Perrow. At its peril, our nation "privileges terrorism over natural and industrial disasters." From Perrow's perspective, the U.S. landscape is riddled with "weapons of mass destruction:" chemical plants; vital infrastructure such as bridges and levees; aging nuclear power plants; large, centralized providers of energy, water and food, all of which are obvious targets for natural disasters, accidents or attack. "There are 123 locations in our nation where a vapor cloud released by an accident or terror attack could endanger over 1 million people," says Perrow. Freight trains loaded with poisons lumber through our cities every day. With global warming, storms, floods and fires are on the increase. And the internet is "held hostage to Microsoft's command of 90% of the operating systems that we use." This means hackers with malicious intent could subvert sensitive facilities like our power grid and infiltrate the U.S. military. We can't prevent and mitigate our way out of this fix, no matter what administration is in office, says Perrow, although he bemoans the enormous erosion of regulatory oversight during the Bush era. He proposes instead such steps as removing hazardous materials from major population centers; dispersing vulnerable populations; breaking up or decentralizing large organizations; and codifying these measures through stringent laws. This approach won't likely win him friends in places like New Orleans, a city he hopes will not spring back to its pre"Katrina size. Cities in risky areas should be downsized, and provided with multiple evacuation routes and redundant means of protection and emergency services. "If we rely only on a few, we will be in peril." He takes aim at defenders of big organizations, who say we need economies of scale to function in a global economy. "Bigger is not safer," says Perrow. The larger the manufacturing plant, or internet service network, the more concentrated the power, the more likely an accident of consequence is to take place. We need many smaller, interconnected facilities, which can provide adequate economic efficiency. Perrow cites some "baby steps" in the right direction -- laws mandating public disclosure and inventories of hazardous materials and processes, and the switch by manufacturers to less poisonous substances. But real results "all depend on politics." About the Speaker(s): Charles Perrow is an organizational theorist and the author of such books as The Next Catastrophe: Reducing Our Vulnerabilities to Natural, Industrial, and Terrorist Disasters(2007);The Radical Attack on Business (1972); Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies(1984; revised, 1999); The AIDS Disaster: The Failure of Organizations in New York and the Nation (1990) with Mauro Guillen; and Organizing America: Wealth, Power, and the Origins of American Capitalism (2002). Perrow is past Vice President of the Eastern Sociological Society; a Fellow of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavorial Sciences (1981"2, 1999); Fellow of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science; Resident Scholar, Russell Sage Foundation, 1990"91; Fellow, Shelly Cullom Davis Center for Historical Studies, 1995"96; Visitor, Institute for Advanced Studies, 1995"96, Princeton University; former member of the Committee on Human Factors, National Academy of Sciences, of the Sociology Panel of the National Science Foundation, and of the editorial boards of several journals. Host(s): School of Humanities, Arts & Social Sciences, Program in Science, Technology and Society

Two More Things to Worry About

Sat, 09 Jun 2007 04:00:00 GMT

06/09/2007 3:00 PM E51"115 WongArnold Barnett, PhD '73, George Eastman Professor of Management Science, MIT SloanDescription: In customary, loose"limbed form, Arnold Barnett reprises two of his favorite themes: improvements to the U.S. Electoral College, and aviation safety. First up, Barnett's suggested fix for national elections, which through the "fun"house mirror" of the Electoral College, permit winner"take"all results. His formula involves a weighted vote share, akin to the weighted average professors use for determining a course grade. His equation would shift power to smaller states, without slighting the larger ones -- while still closely following the popular vote. He then offers an abundance of statistics that should relieve antsy air passengers of much anxiety. The precise metric Barnett has settled on, "death risk per flight, in first world domestic passenger services," has improved 70 fold since the 1960s, when a passenger had a one in 1 million chance of dying in a plane crash. Says Barnett, "When you consider all the things that can go wrong in jet aviation that would lead to death of passengers, the fact that the risk level is now one in 70 million constitutes the 8th wonder of the world." While air travel to developing nations does not provide as much reassurance (the chance of dying in a plane crash is one in 2 million these days), the numbers show steady improvement, and Barnett's research demonstrates it doesn't much matter whether a passenger flies the local carrier, or a 'first"world' airline. The real risk in air travel comes from threats posed by terrorists and criminals, and Barnett doesn't provide much solace in this quarter. He dismisses one suggestion that laptops be eliminated in airline cabins, because "work you can't do on a plane is time you can't spend with your kids at home." On the other hand, positive bag matching, which all U.S. carriers used to practice, would be another helpful layer of security. Barnett believes that "labor relations in the airlines are so brittle that they are afraid to ask baggage handlers to take on an additional task." He's worked out the math, and shown that should one airliner be blown out of the sky, and three others set to go off within minutes, "realistically there's nothing we can do-there's not enough time to communicate a credible warning to lead to measures to reduce the risk to other planes." Yet, even though the risk of terrorism is greater by far than the risk of dying in an accident, "we can't give up flying because of it." Concludes Barnett, "We're in an uncharted area -- making judgments to continue to live our lives, and making adequate precautions, and we don't know what that means." About the Speaker(s): Arnold Barnett is one of the nation's foremost authorities on aviation security. He uses statistical techniques to probe social and organizational issues. Barnett heads an FAA research team to investigate antiterrorist measures. He has also written at length about crime and punishment, war casualties, and the misuse of statistics in the media. The Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences honored him with the 1996 President's Award for outstanding contributions to the betterment of society. In 2002, he received the President's Citation from the Flight Safety Foundation for "truly outstanding contributions on behalf of safety." Barnett holds a B.A. in Physics from Columbia College and a Ph.D. in Mathematics from MIT.Host(s): Sloan School of Management, MIT Sloan School of Management

The Electoral College in U.S. Presidential Elections: Logical Foundations, Mathematics and Politics

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 04:00:00 GMT

04/25/2007 4:00 PM 1-190Dr. Alexander S. Belenky, Visiting Scholar, MIT Center for Engineering Systems FundamentalsDescription: To the expanding list of presidential election discontents add Alexander Belenky. Unlike other critics, though, Belenky is not driven by politics but by logic and math. His close analysis of the Constitution and such federal statutes as the Presidential Succession Act suggests that there may be no safeguard, in extreme cases, against a stalemate in a presidential election. Belenky sees ways to improve the current system. In a talk peppered with election history and rule-making, he settles on a key issue: the increasing difficulty (and possible danger) of relying on the Electoral College to determine the outcome of elections. Bush v. Gore and the 2000 election might seem a cakewalk compared to future crises. -How come 538 people can represent or be authorized to vote for president instead of 200 million voters? That's the question," says Belenky. The current system, dependent as it is on Electoral College balloting, promotes -winner take all" politics, and appears to Belenky to violate the -one state, one vote" principle, which is basic to the Constitution. Based on the most recent U.S. Census, just 11 states control the 270 electoral votes required to win the presidency, and the rest of the country seems irrelevant to the process. Belenky describes a not-so-outlandish scenario, in which the population of voters surges in California, giving the state all 270 electoral votes (268 plus the two senators). Belenky acknowledges those who would throw out the Electoral College altogether in favor of the popular vote, but prefers his own middle road of modification. The winner of the popular vote both nationwide and in at least 26 states would be considered the winner. If no candidate wins in this manner, then let the Electoral College decide, says Belenky. This system forces campaign visits to all the states, and tries -to build on the existing system rather than reject it." About the Speaker(s): Alexander S. Belenky is the author of books and scientific articles in the fields of optimization and game theory and their applications in transportation, industry, agriculture, environmental protection, advertising, brokerage, auctioning, and U.S. presidential elections. He is the author of Operations Research in Transportation Systems: Ideas and Schemes of Optimization Methods for Strategic Planning and Operations Management(Springer 2004). He is also the author of the books Extreme Outcomes of US Presidential Elections (2003) and Winning the US Presidency: Rules of the Game and Playing by the Rules (2004). He was an invited guest on radio and TV talk shows throughout the country in the course of the 2004 Election campaign. His co-authored opinion pieces about voting systems have appeared in The Boston Globe, The Christian Science Monitor, and The New York Times. Belenky holds a Ph.D. in systems analysis and mathematics and D.Sc. in applications of mathematical methods. Host(s): School of Engineering, Engineering Systems Division

A Life in Public Service

Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:00:00 GMT

04/13/2007 2:30 PM 32"123Senator Edward M. KennedyDescription: Senator Ted Kennedy delivers a scathing denunciation of the Bush Administration's science and research agenda, accusing the government of "fighting a war on truth on many fronts." He lashes out at people in power "who believe that political advantage and not scientific truth should inform public policy," and who have developed a pattern and practice of "ignoring or manipulating facts to achieve a desired political result." Kennedy points in particular to the battle over stem cell research, where the administration "would have us believe their policy stems from moral concern." Kennedy says this policy, which permits federal funding for stem cell lines created before August 9, 2001, merely "pays lip service to religious and moral opposition," since the government has not sought to close down fertility clinics or prevent the disposal of eggs in laboratories. This is a "nonsensical" policy that panders to right"wing supporters, suggests Kennedy, while crippling medical research that offers hope to Americans, and leaving this nation at a competitive disadvantage. He ridicules the FDA's foot"dragging approval of the emergency contraceptive pill, Plan B, which the agency's scientific advisors had recommended as safe and effective. The White house allowed a conservative base "to drown out the scientific consensus," says Kennedy. The same kind of political slant led to the ban on federal funding of international family planning groups that offered contraception information, "despite its enormous potential to help lives in the developing world." Kennedy has only scorn for the Bush Administration's response to global warming: "With the backing of cronies in the oil and gas industry, the Administration decided to create their own reality on global warming," says Kennedy, and rewrote or ignored scientific conclusions that didn't match their agenda. This comprehensive manipulation of government institutions for political gain, we now know, says Kennedy, also involved "officials busy collecting and twisting information" to support the decision to go to war in Iraq. Promoting politics at the expense of all else "breeds cynicism and erodes trust, but also threatens the foundations of democracy," believes Kennedy. Yet he sees an antidote to the last six, bleak years. Kennedy turns to institutions like MIT, which harbor "a questioning spirit that seeks to find and follow truth." He has hope that in the near future, science and public policy will once again become partners. About the Speaker(s): Senator Edward M. Kennedy has represented Massachusetts in the United States Senate for forty"three years. He was elected in 1962 to finish the final two years of the Senate term of his brother, Senator John F. Kennedy, who was elected President in 1960. Kennedy is currently the senior Democrat on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in the Senate. He also serves on the Judiciary Committee, where he is the senior Democrat on the Immigration Subcommittee, and on the Armed Services Committee, where he is the senior Democrat on the Seapower Subcommittee. He is also a member of the Congressional Joint Economic Committee and the Congressional Friends of Ireland, and a trustee of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. Kennedy received his B.S. from Harvard University in 1956, and attended the International Law School, The Hague, in 1958. He received an LL.B. from the University of Virginia, in 1959.Host(s): Office of the President, Office of the President

Evangelicals and the Media

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 04:00:00 GMT

04/05/2007 5:00 PM 3-270Amy McCreath, Episcopal Chaplain, MIT; Gary Schneeberger, Special Assistant for Media Relations, to James Dobson, Focus on the Family founder and chairman; Diane Winston, Knight Professor in Media and Religion, Annenberg School of Communications, University of Southern California; Jon Walker, Communications consultant, for Rick Warren and Purpose Driven Life MinistriesDescription: While many contemporary evangelical groups powerfully use all available means to get the Word out, these panelists firmly deny the existence of a monolithic evangelical movement, especially one that is motivated politically. About one-third of Americans are evangelicals, Diane Winston says, but couldn't be more different: -Some are filthy rich, others desperately poor; some smoke and drink; others are teetotalers." The basic evangelical -formulation" involves having a born-again experience, accepting the full authority of the Bible in all matters of everyday life and faith, and spreading the gospel. But don't buy the common fallacy, Winston says, that evangelicals are -unsophisticated." Winston describes a long tradition of mass media innovation among evangelicals in the U.S., dating back to the 18th century (although she notes a -backstory" starting with Martin Luther). In the 1740s, George Whitefield became a -colonial news story," organizing giant revivals with -monster crowds," planting stories about his own philanthropic activities in local papers, and going on publicity tours. In the early 19th century, evangelicals sought to put a Bible in the hands of every American and started up a giant publishing industry driven by steam-powered presses. In the 1920s, Aimee Semple McPherson drove a motorcycle onto her stage show, and was the first woman to broadcast sermons on the radio. These were the forerunners of today's evangelical media pioneers, says Winston, who -harness the power of communication to spread God's word," and whose pioneering use of technologies secular society subsequently adopts. One such media innovator is James Dobson, whose organization Focus on the Family has been broadcasting for 30 years. Gary Schneeberger, his media assistant, describes how Dobson began, leaving his post at the U.S.C. School of Pediatrics to help -families in crisis." Dobson believed that society was -at cross purposes with the family," and that the Bible presented powerful advice about how to raise children, keep marriages intact and thrive. His radio program found a large, receptive audience. Dobson brought the stories of real people and their struggles to the show, and offered emotional as well as theological connections, says Schneeberger. Focus on the Family now boasts 1,200 employees, a radio program syndicated to 7,000 stations globally in 27 different languages, magazines, and more recently, podcasts. Schneeberger downplays the group's policy arm, which -defends the family" and decency in public life, saying it gets -5% of the budget and 94% of the headlines." At Rick Warren's church, jumbotron screens simultaneously display the sermon at the worship center, while at other venues on the California campus, niche services take place for the thousands who might prefer gospel or rock and roll, reports Jon Walker. Known for his best-seller, The Purpose Driven Life-- 27 million copies sold-- Warren has spawned tens of thousands of affiliated churches, deploying big screen technology, PowerPoint presentations, video clips, webcasts, and RSS feeds. This vast network, connected by the internet, Jon Walker says -had people on the ground helping with Katrina before the government got there." Walker approves of the use of technology when it serves the primary mission of sharing gospel, but worries that -the danger comes when you're moving into products and resources and doing consumer marketing." About the Speaker(s): Amy McCreath earned a degree in politics from Princeton University and a Masters Degree from the University of Wisconsin - Madison in American History. She was ordained an Episcopal priest in 1998 after completing a Masters of Divinity at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary. She has served as Episcopal Chaplain at MIT and Coordinator of Technology and Culture Forum for six years, and as the Vice President of Associated Parishes for Liturgy and Mission. Host(s): School of Humanities, Arts & Social Sciences, Communications Forum

Why Newspapers Matter

Thu, 05 Oct 2006 04:00:00 GMT

10/05/2006 5:00 PM BartosJerome Armstrong, Founder, Netroots.com; Pablo Boczkowski, Professor of Communications Studies at Northwestern University ; Dante Chinni, Senior Research Associate, Project for Excellence in Journalism; David Thorburn, MIT Professor of LiteratureMacVicar Faculty FellowDescription: In this third and final panel, moderator David Thorburn makes an impassioned bid to refocus attention on the unique role newspapers play in society, and to cast a more skeptical eye on the merits of cyberjournalism. Newspapers organize the world on a daily basis, -create a universe that is in some sense more fundamentally unified and coherent than the atomistic universe" of the Web, and serve as -independent political observers that can stand up against and defy the demands of government." To Thorburn, the loss of this institution would deal a serious blow to society. Can emerging digital forms of news-gathering and communications hope to offer -the kind of political and moral independence" of traditional newspapers? Jerome Armstrong takes issue with Thorburn. As an early grassroots internet organizer, he -saw a lack of progressive voices in the mainstream media outlets." Newspapers did not cover the world he was interested in, so he -turned to the blogosphere." This is a new mechanism for the mass media: individuals pass on information or a message via the internet to much larger groups. Speaking directly to the continued relevancy of newspapers, Armstrong notes that blogs offer readers a chance to connect with like-minded folks, and wonders whether the communities available online are -offering something newspapers haven't offered." Pablo Boczkowski has hard data from his studies of Argentine print and digital journalism to suggest that -newspapers matter less because they have increasingly turned hard news into a commodity. They are losing their power to set the agenda." Since 2001, and the advent of the internet as a news source, Boczkowski has detailed the increased homogeneity of stories in Argentina's top newspapers. As editors monitor the competition online, especially breaking news, the same stories about politics, economics and foreign affairs show up in the pages of the following day's newspapers. And as websites that feed a steady stream of entertainment, disaster and sports news demonstrate their popularity by click traffic, newspapers increasingly follow their lead. There's now a -dense web of shared content" among online and print media, which may ultimately -decrease newspapers' ability to contribute to a diverse public sphere." The best-case scenario for newspaper readership is grim indeed, says Dante Chinni, a slow and steady 1% decline year after year. And with more people reading news online, the income from classified ads must grow enormously-- an unlikely prospect. But while Chinni can't identify a viable economic model to ensure the existence of newspapers, he makes a strong case for newspapers' continued survival: at the local and national level, -they're the place with the most bodies, the most reporters on the street. They've got expertise and know what they're talking about." Blogs can't break large stories, but feed off news that's already out there. Journalists have unique access, and -in spite of bias grumblings, lovable mainstream journalists try to get the story straight." And because the news environment has become so complicated, we need -somebody to make sense of it," more than ever. About the Speaker(s): Dante Chinni helps research, write and edit PEJ's Reports, articles and essays. As a freelance journalist, he writes a regular media column for the Christian Science Monitor and contributes to publications ranging from the Washington Post Magazine to Columbia Journalism Review. From 1994 - 1997 he was a reporter/researcher for the National Affairs desk at Newsweek Magazine. Jerome Armstrong, a pioneer of the political blogosphere, founded one of the first political blogs, MyDD.com, in 2001. An architect of the netroots strategy that used blogs and meetups for Howard Dean's campaign, Armstrong works as an internet strategist for advocacy organizations and political campaigns with his company, Netroots.com. Pablo J. Boczkowski is also External Faculty Affiliate at Columbia University's Center on Organizational Innovation and Visiting Faculty at Universidad Torcuato Di Tella's Business School in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Before coming to Northwestern, he was Cecil and Ida Green Career Development Assistant Professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management. Boczkowski's research examines the transformation of print culture in the digital age. Heis the author of numerous articles in such publications as Journal of Communication, New Media & Society,and The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences. His work has received awards from the International Communication Association, and the American Sociological Association, among others. Host(s): School of Humanities, Arts & Social Sciences, Communications Forum

Dr. King's Unfinished Agenda: A Call for Economic & Social Justice in the 21st Century

Thu, 09 Feb 2006 05:00:00 GMT

02/09/2006 7:30 AM Walker Morss HallDonna Brazile, Founder and Managing Director of Brazile and Associates, LLCDescription: Donna Brazile's informal but impassioned address illuminates her role not only as a mover and shaker in the halls of power but as a great national conscience. Brazile mourned the passing of Coretta Scott King at this event held ten days after Mrs. King's death: "I loved her spirit and determination." But she reminds us, "The most important thing is not just to cry and weep but continue her work." She calls for the renewal of the Voting Rights Act, which she describes as "the most important civil rights law that was passed," and chides President Bush for not endorsing the legislation at Mrs. King's funeral. Brazile was pressed into organizing the funeral cortege for another national icon, Rosa Parks. "I've been in presidential motorcades, vice presidential motorcades. I'd never been in a motorcade that a black woman was leading." When the procession wound its way through Washington, D.C.'s poorest neighborhoods on a cold, winter night, "people were lined up with their children outside to wave goodbye." While we owe so much to those who championed freedom and justice and equality, says Brazile, "it's fitting we continue to spread the gospel of peace, love, mercy and justice." Brazile's most involved, and involving, tale, involves her large family, stuck in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. Planes flew over as family members begged for water in the scorching heat. When she learned that the authorities would not evacuate her disabled sister from an assisted living facility, because senior citizens and people in public housing were "not a priority," Brazile took characteristic action. "I combed my hair, put on some makeup, and I went to CNN. I said, "Wolf, I need five minutes." Now, her aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters "are scattered in eight states in 14 cities. In order to keep up with them and to communicate I have to pull out an Excel sheet because they're still on the run from the worse storm of all, and that's the storm of indifference." It's time for a "frank conversation about the poor in America," says Brazile. Today, "our country's moving in the wrong direction and we need a course correction." Current policies are damaging racial equality, and economic and social justice, she says, and it's time for citizens to take a stand. "Don't wait for the president or vice president or any member of Congress to tell you what you know in your heart is the right thing to do. If you believe in justice, if you believe that Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King served a greater cause and a more noble cause, then give back and help lift someone up." About the Speaker(s): Donna Brazile, Chair of the Democratic National Committee's Voting Rights Institute (VRI) and an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University, is a senior political strategist and former Campaign Manager for Gore-Lieberman 2000 -- the first African-American to lead a major presidential campaign. Prior to joining the Gore campaign, Brazile was Chief of Staff and Press Secretary to Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia where she helped guide the District's budget and local legislation on Capitol Hill. Brazile is a weekly contributor and political commentator on CNN's Inside Politics, and American Morning. In addition, she is a columnist for Roll Call Newspaper and a contributing writer for Ms. Magazine. A veteran of numerous national and statewide campaigns, Brazile has worked on several presidential campaigns for Democratic candidates, including Carter-Mondale in 1976 and 1980; Rev. Jesse Jackson's first historic bid for the presidency in 1984; Mondale-Ferraro in 1984; U.S. Representative Dick Gephardt in 1988; Dukakis-Bentsen in 1988; and Clinton-Gore in 1992 and 1996. Brazile earned her undergraduate degree from Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge. Host(s): Office of the President, MIT Annual Breakfast Celebrating the Life and Legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.Tape #: T20896.

Human Genetics: Our Past and Our Future

Tue, 15 Nov 2005 05:00:00 GMT

11/15/2005 6:00 PM MuseumDavid Altshuler, '86, Founding Member, and Director of the Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute; Associate Professor, Genetics and Medicine, Harvard Medical SchoolDescription: Will genomics vanquish our most common diseases, or create a society based on vile eugenics _ or both? David Altshuler outlines these possibilities in his informal talk and conversation at the MIT Museum. Altshuler is a self-described optimist, and sees promise in current genetic research that attempts to pinpoint why some people develop diseases like adult-onset diabetes or schizophrenia. If we can identify the precise mechanisms inside cells that go haywire in individuals with an inherited predisposition to a certain disease, then it may be possible to design drugs much more accurately. "We're searching for a culprit who committed a crime, where the culprit is a mutation in a DNA sequence that made somebody get sick '. And scientists are the detectives -- CGI: Crime Gene Investigators," says Altshuler. Scientists have a very powerful tool in the human genome sequence, and they are quickly mapping out genes that cause diseases. But the very tools that permit insight into illness may also permit researchers to isolate genes for other human traits. And this has Altshuler musing: "How about hair loss, intelligence, criminality, athletic ability '.Should society regulate the use of genetic information in reproductive choices?" What if insurance companies gain access to individuals' genetic predictors, and use this to determine risk, and rates? "There's no federal legislation to prevent someone from shaking your hand, scraping off DNA, doing a genetic test and not hiring you or refusing to give you insurance," Altshuler points out. Ultimately, he says, it will be in the hands of the public to strike a balance between restricting the use of genetic information, and permitting its application to cure disease. About the Speaker(s): Clinical endocrinologist and human geneticist David Altshuler is one of the world's leading scientists in the study of human genetic variation and its application to disease, using tools and information from the Human Genome Project. He is a lead investigator in The SNP Consortium and the International HapMap Project, public-private partnerships that have created public maps of human genome sequence variation as a foundation for disease research. Among his discoveries is the finding of a common genetic variant that increases the risk of contracting type 2 diabetes. He received his B.S. in 1986 from MIT; a Ph.D. in 1993 from Harvard University, and an M.D. in 1994 from Harvard Medical School; he completed his internship, residency and clinical fellowship training at Massachusetts General Hospital.Host(s): Office of the Provost, MIT MuseumTape #: T20603

Science Policy, Politics and Human Rights

Tue, 03 May 2005 04:00:00 GMT

Kurt Gottfried, PhD '55, Co-Founder and Chair, Union of Concerned Scientists; Emeritus Professor of Physics, Cornell University; Sheila Jasanoff, Pforzheimer Professor of Science and Technology Studies, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University In this talk, Kurt Gottfriedinvokes the spirit and philosophy of Andrei Sakharov, Soviet physicist and human rights champion. It was Sakharov, Gottfried reminds us, who in recent times forged a powerful connection between science and politics: just as science relies on objective truths which can only be arrived at through testing of hypotheses, a democratic consensus depends on public study and open discussion of facts and beliefs. But, Gottfried warns, our nation is rapidly "moving away from a reality-based conception of policy and culture" and if our "policies relentless ignore reality, they will collide with it." Behind this slide toward unreality, he says, is the government's "distortion of scientific knowledge in advocating its policies to the public and Congress." Among a long list of examples: the systematic misrepresentation of the scientific consensus about climate change; political litmus tests for scientific advisory committees; abolishing advisory committees on nuclear deregulation; and posting misinformation on government websites about condoms and spurious links between breast cancer and abortion. Says Gottfried, "Some of these cases are reminiscent of Soviet-era practices." He warns that there's a limit to how long you can stay out of contact with reality." In her response, Sheila Jasanoff urges scientists to join hands with experts from other disciplines to serve as watchdogs on issues of science and technology. She says that "human rights provides a wonderful umbrella" for such an effort. Jasanoff makes a clear distinction between the practice of 'regulatory science,' which is more politicized from the get-go, and research science. She argues for public debate on the values that lie behind policy-making, and to "hold politics answerable to public hopes, fears, beliefs, knowledge, desire and needs." ABOUT THE SPEAKERS:
Kurt Gottfried has served on the senior staff of the European Center for Nuclear Research in Geneva and is a former chair of the Division of Particles and Fields of the American Physical Society. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Council on Foreign Relations. He has served on the board of the Union of Concerned Scientists(UCS) since its inception and led the UCS critique of the "Star Wars" program. He is the author of Quantum Mechanics and Concepts of Particle Physics, and senior author of The Fallacy of Star Wars and Crisis Stability and Nuclear War. Sheila Jasanoff's research concerns the role of science and technology in the law, politics, and public policy of modern democracies, with a particular focus on the challenges of globalization. She has written and lectured widely on problems of environmental regulation, risk management, and biotechnology in the United States, Europe, and India. Her books include Controlling Chemicals(1985); The Fifth Branch(1990); Science at the Bar(1995); and Designs on Nature(2005). Jasanoff has held academic positions at Cornell, Yale, Oxford, and Kyoto. Jasanoff holds an A.B. in Mathematics from Harvard College (1964), an M.A. in Linguistics from the University of Bonn, Germany (1966), a Ph.D. in Linguistics from Harvard University (1973), and a J.D. from Harvard Law School (1976). Host(s): Office of the Provost, Program on Human Rights and Justice Event date: 05/03/2005

The Arab Discourse, Al-Jazeera and the International Role

Mon, 25 Apr 2005 04:00:00 GMT

Hafez Mirazi, Washington Bureau Chief, Host of "Al-Jazeera Weekly"; Al-Jazeera Television Al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based Arab news network, wasn't the Bush Administration's favorite media outlet. But Hafez Mirazi states that his network's motto is "both sides of the story," and that it provides an indispensable service by sharing Arab perspectives with the entire world. Today, says Mirazi, there is widespread outrage at the U.S. occupation of Iraq. "If you don't say, 'We made a mistake and there were no WMDS (Weapons of Mass Destruction)', but instead switch to saying 'We did it for democracy, reform and the region,' you're giving ammunition to people who question anything coming out of Washington." Another issue for Arabs is Washington's fight against terrorism. Says Mirazi, "It doesn't look nice that you want to battle in Arab backyards rather than your own." Mirazi says that many Arabs believe the U.S. is occupying Iraq "because of a desire for hegemony on Arab oil," and that the U.S. will next target Iran and Syria. He describes a scornful attitude toward the stated American agenda of establishing a democratic model in the Middle East. Arabs believe that the U.S. has instead created anarchy in Iraq by dissolving the Iraqi Army, which "helped in protection and law and order of the country." They also view the U.S. shaping Iraq along sectarian lines -- the "Lebanonization of Iraq, by design and intention." Why not, Arabs wonder, be pragmatic and "deal with political Islam" to stitch the country's factions together? While the U.S. projects a success story about democracy, Arab media like Al-Jazeera describe "lessons about the severe limits of power '.When it comes to the end game, you will have a problem controlling 10 miles of highway between the green zone in Baghdad and the airport." About the Speaker(s): Before Al-Jazeera, Mirazi was correspondent for BBC Arabic/World Service in Washington and talk show host for the Arab News Network and Arab Network of America in Washington. He also held positions as writer, editor, and broadcaster for Voice of America in Washington. Mirazi started his career as a radio journalist and broadcaster with Voice of the Arabs (Sawot Al-Arab) on Cairo Radio in Egypt in 1980. He holds an M.A. in World Politics from the Catholic University of America in Washington and a B.A. in Political Science from Cairo University. Mirazi has lived in Washington and covered US politics since 1983. Host(s): School of Architecture and Planning, Department of Urban Studies and Planning Event date: 04/25/2005

Religion and American Politics

Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:00:00 GMT

Dr. Alan Wolfe, SM '56, Professor of Political Science and Director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life, Boston College Description: Alan Wolfe vigorously denies that a theocracy is rising in the United States. In his richly detailed tour of the nation's current Christian revival, he focuses on two very different movements. "Fundamentalists turn their back on culture; they can grow up and never meet anyone who doesn't share their faith," says Wolfe. But evangelical Christians "feel an obligation to engage, and as annoying as that engagement can be, it means that evangelicals have to be seduced by modernity." This is good news for liberal values, believes Wolfe, because the evangelical movement, which participates more in contemporary culture, is far more dominant. He describes the explosive growth of mega-churches in American exurbs, where thousands of congregants flock to hear Christian rock music and messages about loving Jesus and each other. While they're "put off by overt religiosity," they still talk about sin. Yet strict prohibitions against such activities as dancing are starting to fade. The bestselling books at Christian book stores (after Rick Warren's The Purpose-Driven Life) tend to be diet books such as Slim for Him. Wolfe believes Americans are shaped by culture and religion, and when the two clash, "culture almost always wins." He dismisses the notion that the Christian right or even moral values won the 2004 election for George Bush, and disputes the idea that "we're turning against modernity in the direction of a fundamentalist religious revival." He believes that a small clique of Christian lobbyists have influenced the current administration around such issues as stem cell research, and that Congress is shamelessly pandering to these groups, rather than speaking for American Christians, who, says Wolfe "are as American as they are Christian." About the Speaker(s): Wolfe's most recent books include Return to Greatness: How America Lost Its Sense of Purpose and What it Needs to Do to Recover It (2005), The Transformation of American Religion: How We actually Practice our Faith (2003), and n Intellectual in Public (2003). He is the author or editor of more than 10 other books. A contributing editor of The New Republic and The Wilson Quarterly, Wolfe writes often for those publications as well as for Commonweal,, The New York Times, Harper's, The Atlantic Monthly, The Washington Post, and other magazines and newspapers. He served as an advisor to President Clinton in preparation for his 1995 State of the Union address and has lectured widely at American and European universities. Wolfe has been the recipient of grants from the Russell Sage Foundation, the Templeton Foundation, and the Lilly Endowment. Host(s): School of Architecture and Planning, Special Program in Urban and Regional Studies

The Myth of American Exceptionalism

Mon, 14 Mar 2005 05:00:00 GMT

Americans have long embraced a notion of superiority, claims Howard Zinn.

Politics and Society in Iraq in the 20th Century

Tue, 01 Mar 2005 05:00:00 GMT

Sami Zubaida, Emeritus Professor of Politics and Sociology, Birkbeck College, University of London; Research Associate, London Middle East Institute Many Westerners view the Iraqis as a tribal, clannish people unlikely to achieve modern statehood. This view must be modified, says Sami Zubaida, in light of the country's attempt to embrace civil society less than a century ago. In an illuminating history, Zubaida points out that in response to the British-imposed rule, which lasted until 1958, many Iraqi groups aimed at liberation and reform. Sunnis promoted pan-Arab nationalism, but there was also a Communist Party of Iraq, and Shi'ites, Christians, Jews and Kurds advocated their own ideologies. Zubaida sees "a genuine commitment to citizenship" in this period. After the Iraqi revolution, which toppled the monarchy, and the rapid rise of the Baathists, there was "still social effervescence, under political repression and censorship." Intellectuals, labor groups and students opposed the new regime, as well as daring poets and musicians, who poked fun at politicians, and got a night in jail. While the Sunni remained politically powerful, Shi'a religious institutions collected revenues from pilgrimages and holy shrines, and Shi'a merchant families arose, including the infamous Chalabis. But the Baath under Saddam Hussein increasingly clamped down on subversives and groups considered a threat, expelling and persecuting millions. "What the Baath regime did was to colonize civil society '.All previous autonomous forms of associations, of art and literature, of universities, all of this was firmly put under the control of the party. All that was left was religion, patriarchy, communal and local sentiments." To Zubaida, the prospect of a democratic, pluralist state under rule of law "seems utopian right now." Yet recent elections "showed excitement that echoed the past and showed reason for guarded optimism." About the Speaker(s): Zubaida attended public school in Baghdad, Iraq, then universities in England. His research involves the religion, culture, politics and law of the Middle East. More recently he has focused on politics and society in the formation of modern Iraq. Major publications include Islam, the People and the State: Political Ideas and Movements in the Middle East, (1993); A Taste of Thyme: Culinary Cultures of the Middle East, (2000, co-edited with R. Tapper); and Law and Power in the Islamic World, (2003). Host(s): School of Architecture and Planning, Department of Urban Studies and Planning Event date: 03/01/2005

New Roles for Established Media

Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:00:00 GMT

Stephen W. van Evera, Professor of Political Science; Amy Mitchell, Director, Project for Excellence in Journalism; Alex Jones, Laurence M. Lombard Lecturer in the Press and Public Policy , Kennedy School of Government; Mark Jurkowitz, Media Writer, The Boston Globe These panelists purvey grim news about the media's 2004 election coverage.

Amy Mitchell offers results of a study showing that the vast majority of reporting in the 2004 election concerned "inside politics" such as candidates' performance and tactics; a measly 4% of debate coverage explained policy. As network news withdraws from conventions, expect to see cable TV's "live, extemporaneous" and often slip-shod approach to politics assume greater dominance. From Alex Jones, we learn that voters in the most recent election had so committed themselves to a candidate that no reporting on issues could move them, even if the facts stood squarely against their stated reasons for supporting the candidate. Says Jones, "for many people, voting is an emotional issue and what they gather from the media are impressions and not facts. So what are they seeing and reading?" Unfortunately, a lot of misinformation and opinion from the "blogosphere," Jones believes. Cable TV is so driven by its need to fill 24 hours of airtime that it jumps on every sensational internet posting. It's a "cutthroat, competitive environment of fragmented audiences, so invest what you have with as much snap, crackle and pop and spend as little as possible on reporting." Mark Jurkowitz says journalism is "dominated by 'he said, she said coverage'" and is "no longer about getting the truth or testing claims." He fears a trend where the public loses confidence in press objectivity and "no longer puts up with a messenger it doesn't agree with on potent issues." Jurkowitz predicts a partisan divide of news outlets as stark as the schism between red and blue states. Host(s): School of Humanities, Arts & Social Sciences, Communications Forum Event date: 10/28/2004

Investigating the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science

Thu, 11 Mar 2004 05:00:00 GMT

03/11/2004 7:00 PM 10-250Philip Morrison, Institute Professor and Professor of Physics, Emeritus, MIT; Kevin Knoblock, President, Union of Concerned Scientists; E. O. Wilson, Pellegrino University Professor, Emeritus, Harvard University; Honorary Curator in Entomology in the Museum of Comparative ZoologyDescription: In a just-published map of salt in seawater, Philip Morrison reads two lessons: the world is above all a physical place, so we need science to know about it; and science is telling us startling new things all the time. But according to Kevin Knobloch, the Bush Administration is making an unprecedented and concerted effort to suppress the release of important scientific data, "spin" the presentation of data to the public and in some cases to control the research process itself. "We expect decision-makers to hear what science has to say, then weigh other factors. But the decision-makers aren't even seeing the science," says Knobloch. The Union of Concerned Scientists has documented an egregious series of cases in which the White House shaped science to conform to its political goals: e.g., at the administration's request, the Environmental Protection Agency altered a report on climate change; the White House concealed research on the devastating impact of mercury on fetal development while Congress debated legislation dealing with power plant emissions; Cabinet secretaries replaced independent scientists with industry representatives on advisory committees dealing with environmental and public health issues. In follow-up remarks, E.O. Wilson scorned this "perversion of science." He said, "Science is not a religion, not an ideology, not a lobby intent on turning Washington around. It's simply the best method hit upon...to acquire knowledge about the real world." ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Philip Morrison has been at MIT for 40 years (Institute Professor; Physics, Emeritus). A distinguished theoretical astrophysicist, he worked on the Manhattan Project and since then has spoken out widely against the use of nuclear weapons. Kevin Knobloch is an expert on a wide range of environmental and arms control issues. He holds a master's degree in public administration from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. E.O. Wilson has been at Harvard for 40 years, as professor (Emeritus) of science and curator in entomology. A Pulitzer-Prize winning author, he has discovered hundreds of new species (he has been dubbed "the father of biodiversity") and is one of the leading scientific theorists of our times. Host(s): Dean for Student Life, Western Hemisphere ProjectTape #: T18353

Political Advertising, Free Speech and the Problem of Campaign Reform

Sat, 07 Jun 2003 04:00:00 GMT

06/07/2003 10:00 AM KresgeStephen Ansolabehere, Professor, Department of Political Science, MIT and Professor of Government, Harvard UniversityDescription: Professor Ansolabehere provides an overview of the current state of campaign finance laws and analyses the impact of funds spent on various forms of media. He explains the basic premise that the US Supreme Court has set forth that "speech is money" and discusses the political implications of this equation. About the Speaker(s): Stephen Ansolabehere studies elections, democracy, and the mass media. He is coauthor (with Shanto Iyengar) of The Media Game (Macmillan, 1993) and of Going Negative: How Political Advertising Alienates and Polarizes the American Electorate (The Free Press, 1996). Ansolabehere is also a member of the Cal Tech/MIT Voting Project. which was established in 2000 to prevent a recurrence of the problems that threatened the 2000 US Presidential election. Ansolabehere received a B.S. in Economics and B.A. in Political Science from the University of Minnesota and a Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard University. Host(s): Alumni Association, Alumni AssociationTape #: 16604 and 16605

Human Rights and the US State Department

Wed, 07 May 2003 04:00:00 GMT

05/07/2003 7:00 PM John Shattuck, Former US Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights; the Chief Executive Officer of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation Description: Ambassador Shattuck provides insights from his experiences as Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights in the Clinton Administration. Highlights include his analysis of the global events in the post-Cold War period which he states foreshadowed the attacks of September 11th . He defines two competing forces, the forces of integration, (centered mostly in Eastern Europe with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union, and the end of apartheid in South Africa) and the forces of disintegration, (fueled by those left behind in failed states living under severe repression) as the formula for the rise in global terror. He calls the Bush administration's reaction to September 11th a "security response" and criticizes the Bush administration for not addressing the human rights concerns that are in need of attention. About the Speaker(s): As US Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor in the Clinton Administration John Shattuck was the US Government's chief human-rights official from 1993 to 1998. He also served as the US Ambassador in Prague from 1999 to 2000. Before entering government, Ambassador Shattuck was Vice President for Government, Community, & Public Affairs at Harvard University. Prior to that, he worked for the American Civil Liberties Union as Executive Director of the Washington office and national staff counsel from 1971 to 1984. Ambassador Shattuck is now the Chief Executive Officer of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation in Boston. Among the numerous honors he has received for his work is the International Human Rights Award from the United Nations Association. His book, Freedom on Fire: Human Rights Wars and the Roots of Terrorism, will be published in Fall 2003 by Harvard University Press. Host(s): Dean for Student Life, Western Hemisphere Project Tape #: T16101

Recent Videos tagged 'Politics' on MIT Video

British P.M. David Cameron visits the MIT Media Lab

Starr Forum - 'Marathon Bombing: The Global Context' (Part 2)

Starr Forum - 'Marathon Bombing: The Global Context' (Part 1)

MIT Communications Forum: News or Entertainment – Press and Modern Political Campaigns

Starr Forum: Fate of the Reset

Chris Hayes and Ta-Nahisi Coates: "Election Year 2012 and the Twilight of the Elites"

SuperPacApp

New York Times writer David Carr discusses the use of digital communications in the 2008 election and looks forward to 2012

Profile: Andrea Campbell

ZIAD JAMALEDDINE + MAKRAM EL KADI: L.E.FT - RECENT WORKS, LEBANON

Daron Acemoglu on Why Nations Fail

Selections from "One Way Forward" by Lawrence Lessig

Faculty Forum Online: Homeland Security

MIT Political Science Distinguished Speaker Series: Gov. Ted Strickland (Ohio)

Civic Media Session: "Amplified Streets, from Print to Tweets: Social Movement Media Across Platforms"

Noam Chomsky on the Responsibility of Intellectuals: Redux

MIT professor Charles Stewart on race and the 2008 election

Mobile Storytelling in Real Time

Plenary: "Civic Media Mobilization"

Civic Media Session: "Civic Disobedience"

Steve Kurtz: Cultural Resistance

Rethinking Climate Change: The Past 150 Years and the Next 100 Years

Part 1, "[REDACTED]" Censoring Game Politics

Part 2, "[REDACTED]" Censoring Game Politics

Part 3, "[REDACTED]" Censoring Game Politics

Celebrating Science and Engineering Breakthroughs IV

The Status of Women in Science and Engineering at MIT

Richard Samuels

Barry Posen

A Conversation on Leadership

How to Make a Great Mistake

Excellence is a Shared Path: Working Together for Justice and the Quality of Life

Philip Morrison and Lester Thurow - Symposium on Forecasting the Future Across Industries (1988)

Gabriella Coleman: "'I did it for the Lulz! but I stayed for the outrage:' Anonymous, the Politics of Spectacle, and Geek Protests against the Church of Scientology."

Report Card on President Obama: MIT Experts Assess President Obama on Afghanistan, Climate, and the Economy

Starr Forum: Reclaiming the Moral Life of Philanthropy

Democracy after Citizens United

Reclaiming the Moral Life of Philanthropy

The Interaction Between Poverty, Growth and Democracy

Denialism: Media in the Age of Disinformation

Rebuilding Haiti

Deploying Our Gifts for the Betterment of Humankind: What Would Dr. King Say about Us?

The Great Climategate Debate

Session II: Too Public or Too Private?

Communications Forum - What's New at the Center for Future Civic Media

Between the Bars

Sourcemap

Microtourism

Virtual Gaza

Cartegen

Awareness-Mapping

Lost in Boston

Populous

Placeblogger

Open Park

Extract - News Positioning System

Extract - Landman Report Card

Sensible Communities

Redink

Transportation Policy: Thinking Globally, Acting Locally and Walking the Talk

Collaboration contest, at the Future of News and Civic Media conference

Announcement of 2009 Knight News Challenge Winners

Ethics and Enlightened Leadership

The Future of Science Journalism

Learning to See in the Dark: The Roots of Ethical Resistance

The Most Important Number in the World

Distributed Leadership in the Obama Campaign

Politics and Popular Culture

Israeli Post-Election Politics: Results, Challenges, and Goals (MIT Hillel)

Key Issues In the Department of Defense for the Obama Administration

MIT professor Charles Stewart on race and the 2008 election

Science Policy and the Obama Administration Advice to a New President

The Medium Religion

The Impact of New Media on the Election

Religion and the Election: What Do We Think We Know?

The Electoral College Experts Debate and Audience Dialogue

The Electoral College: Its Logical Foundations and Problems What (if Anything) Should Be Done About Improving the System of Electing a President?

What (if Anything) Should Be Done About Improving the System of Electing a President? (Part 2)

What (if Anything) Should Be Done About Improving the System of Electing a President? (Part three)