Discrimination and Disadvantage

CFP: 6th Conference of the European Association for Critical Animal Studies, Barcelona, May 22-24, 2019 (deadline: Dec. 15, 2018)

 

6th Conference of the European Association

for Critical Animal Studies (EACAS)

Rethinking revolution: Nonhuman animals, antispeciesism and power

Barcelona, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Campus Poblenou,

22-24 May 2019

  

Conference theme

Although human exploitation of nonhuman animals is by no means a modern development, it has grown exponentially in the last century. It is under capitalism that human abuse of their power over nonhuman animals has reached a massive scale, with a corresponding massive worsening of its consequences. This includes the suffering of trillions of sentient beings exploited in miserable conditions and killed for trivial purposes in the majority of cases, but also the massive contribution to global warming of industries like agribusiness, as well as the negative impact these practices have on social justice, intra-human violence and human health. The animal liberation movement therefore not only calls for justice and compassion for nonhuman animals, but also confront the results of industrial capitalism and modernity with a radical consciousness-raising claim. This claim is radical because it provides the most accurate condemnation of privilege and the status quo by revealing how inequality does not exist only at the intra-species level, but also at the inter-species level, and that both levels are closely interlinked and thus ought to be addressed jointly.

In the spirit of the field of Critical Animal Studies, the aim of this conference is to encourage scholars, students and activists to rethink the revolution that animal liberation theory represents since its inception in the 1970s, a social movement bringing the fight against oppression to its logical conclusion.

The conference welcomes proposals from a variety of scholars and disciplines – including critical academics, independent researchers, students and activists – reflecting on the intersecting themes of the conference: power, total liberation and antispeciesism. 

Dialogues on Disability: Shelley Tremain Interviews Lori Gruen

 

Hello, I’m Shelley Tremain and I’d like to welcome you to the forty-second installment of Dialogues on Disability, the series of interviews that I’m conducting with disabled philosophers and post here on the third Wednesday of each month. The series is designed to provide a public venue for discussion with disabled philosophers about a range of topics, including their philosophical work on disability; the place of philosophy of disability vis-à-vis the discipline and profession; their experiences of institutional discrimination and personal prejudice in philosophy, in particular, and in academia, more generally; resistance to ableism, racism, sexism, and other apparatuses of power; accessibility; and anti-oppressive pedagogy.

I acknowledge that the land on which I sit to conduct these interviews is the traditional territory of the Haudensaunee and Anishnaabeg, covered by the Upper Canada Treaties and directly adjacent to Haldiman Treaty territory. I offer these interviews with respect and in the spirit of reconciliation.

My guest today is Lori Gruen. Lori is the William Griffin Professor of Philosophy at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, where she also coordinates Wesleyan Animal Studies. These days, when she isn’t thinking about disabled animals, mass incarceration, and problems of captivity and possibilities of sanctuary, Lori hangs out with her companions, Taz and Zinnia, kayaks, cooks vegan food, worries about climate change, and wishes that she had better luck gardening.

 

Welcome to Dialogues on Disability, Lori! You are a leading feminist philosopher who has taken a somewhat circuitous and unconventional path in your career. Please tell us about your background and how it led to your current position in the discipline and profession.

Thanks so much for inviting me to be interviewed for your fantastic series, Shelley. I have found your interviews insightful and inspiring. I really appreciate the important interventions that you have urged to highlight what is overlooked in our profession. Occlusions and exclusions have been very motivating for me and my work, but they have also caused me to question my place in the profession. 

I went through both my undergraduate years and my first stint in graduate school without having the opportunity to take any courses taught by a woman. While I really like to argue (as my friends point out a bit too often) and that kept me going in philosophy for a period of time, I grew frustrated with the abstraction and distance from real problems in the world. I imagine that might have been different if I had at least one class in feminist philosophy. Fortunately, in one of my undergraduate classes, I was introduced to animal ethics and, in graduate school, I became involved in animal activism. 

I organized a protest against experiments on greyhounds at the Medical School at the University of Arizona, where I had a graduate fellowship, and a picture of me being carried away by police appeared on the front page of the campus paper. 

 

[Description of image below: A newspaper clipping about Lori's arrest and removal. In the photo of the clipping, two armed police officers are carrying Lori, one on each side of her, each with a hand under one of her knees and the other hand behind her back. Text under the photo describes the events.]

I got the sense that the faculty of the Philosophy Department weren’t happy about this. Keith Lehrer, who at the time was chair of the department, called me into his office and told me that I should really decide whether I wanted to study philosophy or try to change the world. Having read Marx, I had hoped that doing philosophy could change the world—and still believe it can—but left graduate school and moved to the Washington, D.C. area to try to make a difference.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) was just getting started, and I was invited to move into a house with the founders of the organization, Ingrid Newkirk and Alex Pacheco, to help mount campaigns to reveal the horrible conditions that billions of animals have to endure in laboratories and factory farms. Those early years in the animal rights movement were pretty exciting.

But, as that organization grew, my interests and their interests increasingly grew apart. I was working on a campaign that brought me in contact with members of the blind community, many of whom use seeing eye dogs, which raised really interesting and challenging questions for me about animal use. There were some uncomfortable discussions around that at PETA and eventually some decisions were made with which I didn’t agree. So, I left to start doing what we now would call more “intersectional” activism—still focused on our relationships with animals, but also on homelessness, racism, and sexism.

After several years, I began missing philosophy and decided to return to graduate school to study feminist philosophy. Alison Jaggar had just moved to University of Colorado at Boulder, so I moved to Colorado to work with her there. I also worked with Dale Jamieson, who originally introduced me to animal ethics. 

I feel very fortunate that I have been employed and able to teach and write about topics that I care about in practical ethics and political philosophy, topics that include animals, of course, but I have also been able to work on ecofeminist philosophy, some philosophy of science and technology, and also philosophy of race and racism. Over the last decade or so, I have helped to develop the field of Animal Studies, that, contrary to my early experience in graduate school, recognizes, even celebrates, the value of activism to scholarship and scholarship to activism. 

Troubling Diversity in Academia

 

An Inclusive Academy: Achieving Diversity and Excellence (MIT, 2018) is the title of a book by Abigail J. Stewart and Virginia Valian that I recently acquired. Readers and listeners of this blog may recall that over the past several years Valian has received considerable attention in philosophy due to her notable work on bias and gender and race discrimination in hiring practices in the university, in tenure and promotion, and so on.

I was intrigued when I read publicity for the book, especially since the use of the term diversity in the subtitle of the book and in press releases for it suggested to me that, for this book, Valian and co-author had expanded the scope of Valian’s earlier analyses of discrimination and underrepresentation in the university to incorporate new work that they had done on disability and ableism, work that would complicate and enrich Valian’s previous work on gender and race in the academy. Indeed, I had looked forward to receiving Stewart and Valian’s book, expecting to learn some new ways in which to deepen and extend the analyses that I have developed on the underrepresentation of disabled philosophers in philosophy and of disabled philosophers of disability, especially.

The book arrived. I began to read it. The more of the book that I read, the more frustrated and disappointed that I became. Although the book is 491 pages long, I would say that, cumulatively, less than half a page is devoted to the employment situation of disabled faculty within the university and to understanding the factors that contribute to our grievous underrepresentation. Indeed, one will learn nothing useful from this book about the exclusion of disabled academics from academia.

Throughout the book, the authors make almost no attempt to consider how or whether claims made about the ways that a given policy or practice contributes to the marginalization and exclusion of women faculty and other faculty of colour could be and should be extended to disabled faculty, notwithstanding the fact that some disabled faculty are women, some faculty of colour are disabled. In short, attempts to incorporate analysis of the apparatus of disability into the book’s analyses of sexism and racism in the university are almost entirely absent from it. Repeatedly, throughout the book, the authors make claims according to which “no relevant data is available” about how a given policy or practice affects the career opportunities and advancement of disabled academics (and nondisabled LGBTQ academics). More often than not, however, they don’t even bother to make this apologia, but rather proceed as if consideration of ableism and disabled academics (as well as nondisabled lesbian, gay, trans, and queer academics) are simply not pertinent to the given topic at issue.

Ten Questions About What It Would Be Like

 

1. What would it be like if nondisabled philosophers didn’t determine the questions that get asked about disability and how they will be answered, didn’t determine whose answers will count and why?
2. What would it be like if nondisabled feminist philosophers genuinely paid attention to what disabled feminist philosophers say about ableism rather than reconfigure our assertions in order to retain positions of privilege and dominance over us?
3. What would it be like if the pervasive, complex, and complicated apparatuses of disability and ableism were not reduced to the notions of “accessibility” and “accommodation” for the convenience and comfort that policy offers?
4. What would it be like if nondisabled philosophers no longer appealed to elaborate ethical principles in order to justify their casual mistreatment of us?
5. What would it be like if nondisabled philosophers acknowledged that their award-winning scholarship on (say) the Gettier problem, gender bias in science, propositional knowledge, or vagueness does not, in and of itself, make them experts on disability?
6. What would it be like if feminist philosophers were to acknowledge that their almost exclusive focus on sexual harassment has to some extent been self-serving, enabling them to conceal their own ableist and racist offences?
7. What would it be like if nondisabled feminist philosophers stopped using gender, race, and sexuality as a way to shut down discussions of ableism and preclude from consideration how mutually constitutive and reinforcing apparatuses of force relations shape those reactionary discursive practices themselves?
8. What would it be like if nondisabled feminist philosophers took it upon themselves to challenge, without coaxing, the ableism of philosophy, in particular, and of academia and society, more generally?
9. What would it be like if a nondisabled philosopher who consulted me about the exclusion of disabled philosophers from the profession actually took on board what I said rather than regard it as “beyond the scope of the current project”?
10. What would it be like if every concession to justice didn’t come with some subtle reminder that it is indeed a concession?

 

posted by Shelley

Reading about Class, Reading for Change, Reading with Eribon

 

In Bodies & Pleasures: Foucault and the Politics of Sexual Normalization, Ladelle McWhorter describes at length how reading Michel Foucault's The History of Sexuality, Volume One: An Introduction, changed her, changed her world, changed the configuration of the world for her. As McWhorter puts it at one place in Bodies & Pleasures,

 

Reading Foucault's text was not a cognitive act so much as it was a re-cognitive act. The text changed the way I saw the world, but it changed the way I saw first of all. It showed me precisely what I saw. No book had done that for me, or to me, before. Whether Michel Foucault, the man who sat down one day and wrote those words, was queer or not, the voice I heard was queer. It bespoke an angle of vision that I recognized, an angle of vision more or less forced on me because of the social position I as a particular kind of sexual subjectivity was forced to occupy, an angle of vision I had thought could never come to speech.

 

When I first read the introduction to Foucault's series on the history of sexuality and his equally astonishing Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, I too was changed, my world changed, its configuration changed, who I thought I was in it changed. Among other things, and perhaps most significantly, the books enabled me to begin to recognize the political, economic, social, and institutional character of normalization, the ingenuity of its disguises, and its invaluable service to what I have since come to understand as a particular apparatus of power, namely, disability. McWhorter's Bodies & Pleasures and Racism and Sexual Oppression: A Genealogy amplified these constitutive and transformative reading effects, as well as motivated others.

Now, another book has unexpectedly changed me, that is, I once again feel that I have been transformed by a text, my world reconfigured, this time by reading Didier Eribon's remarkable autobiography Returning to Reims. The book has changed (among other things) the way that I understand what "class" is, its complicated relations to and with sexuality and race, changed the way that I understand myself as an intellectual with a working-class background, and enabled me to more acutely understand the fundamental relation between academia and class. Passionate, poignant, and beautifully written, Returning to Reims is a love letter to working-class people, a testament to our struggles, and a witness to our subordinated existence. (That Eribon is the author of a groundbreaking biography on Foucault, by far my favourite biography on Foucault, makes the erstwhile biographer's autobiography all the more compelling to me.)

Virtually every page of Returning to Reims conveys at least one thought-provoking insight; hence, selecting a passage to excerpt in this brief post was not easy to do. Perhaps in the coming weeks, I will write a longer review of the book for the blog. For today, however, I want to share with you one of the book's calls to resistance. On pages 154 to 155, Eribon, concluding a section of the book in which he considers why his parents and others on the left in France have been drawn to the forces of the right, remarks:

 

So we find ourselves back at the question of who has the right to speak, who takes part—and how—in decision-making processes, which is to say not just in the elaboration of solutions, but also in the collective definition of the questions that it is legitimate and important to take up. When the left shows itself to be incapable of serving as a space in which new forms of questioning can be elaborated and tested, when it ceases to serve as a locus in which people can invest their dreams and energy, they will be drawn to and welcomed by the right and the extreme right.

Here, then, is the task that social movements and critical intellectuals must take up: the elaboration of theoretical frameworks and of political modes of perceiving reality that enable not an erasure—that would be an impossible task—but as great a neutralization as possible of the negative passions that are at work within the social body, especially within the popular classes. Other perspectives must be offered and a different future sketched out on behalf of what might then deservedly once again be called the left.

 

posted by Shelley

Tommy Curry Wins American Book Award

 

Many congratulations to Tommy Curry who is the recipient of a 2018 American Book Award for The Man-Not: Race, Class, Genre, and the Dilemmas of Black Manhood (Temple University Press, 2017). Here is the press release for the awards, with full list of award recipients (including Sunaura Taylor!). 

 

August 13, 2018
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Contact: Justin Desmangles, 916-425-7916

The Before Columbus Foundation announces the
Winners of the Thirty-Ninth Annual
AMERICAN BOOK AWARDS
Ceremonies, October 28, 2018, 12:00–2:30 p.m.

Oakland, CA—The Before Columbus Foundation announces the Winners of the Thirty-Ninth Annual AMERICAN BOOK AWARDS. The 2018 American Book Award winners will be formally recognized on Sunday, October 28, from 12:00-2:30 p.m. at the SF Jazz Center, Joe Henderson Lab, 201 Franklin Street (at Fell), San Francisco, CA. This event is open to the public. The American Book Awards were created to provide recognition for outstanding literary achievement from the entire spectrum of America’s diverse literary community. The purpose of the awards is to recognize literary excellence without limitations or restrictions. There are no categories, no nominees, and therefore no losers. The award winners range from well-known and established writers to under-recognized authors and first works. There are no quotas for diversity, the winners list simply reflects it as a natural process. The Before Columbus Foundation views American culture as inclusive and has always considered the term “multicultural” to be not a description of various categories, groups, or “special interests,” but rather as the definition of all of American literature. The Awards are not bestowed by an industry organization, but rather are a writers’ award given by other writers. 

 

The 2018 American Book Award Winners are:

Thi Bui, The Best That We Could Do: An Illustrated Memoir (Harry N. Abrams)

Rachelle Cruz, God’s Will for Monsters (Inlandia Books)

Tommy Curry, The Man-Not: Race, Class, Genre, and the Dilemmas of Black Manhood (Temple University Press) 

Tongo Eisen-Martin, Heaven Is All Goodbyes (City Lights)

Dana Naone Hall, Life of the Land: Articulations of a Native Writer (University of Hawaii)

Kelly Lytle Hernández, City of Inmates: Conquest, Rebellion, and the Rise of Human Caging in Los Angeles, 1771-1965 (University of North Carolina)

Victor Lavalle, The Changeling: A Novel (Spiegel & Grau)

Bojan Louis, Currents (BkMk Press at the University of Missouri-Kansas City)

Valeria Luiselli, Tell Me How It Ends: An Essay in Forty Questions (Coffee House)

Cathryn Josefina Merla-Watson and B. V. Olguín, Altermundos Latin@ Speculative Literature, Film, and Popular Culture (UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center Press)

Tiya Miles, The Dawn of Detroit: A Chronicle of Slavery and Freedom in the City of the Straits (The New Press)

Tommy Pico, Nature Poem (Tin House Books)

Rena Priest, Patriarchy Blues (MoonPath Press)

Joseph Rios, Shadowboxing: poems & impersonations (Omnidawn)

Sunaura Taylor, Beasts of Burden: Animal and Disability Liberation (The New Press)

Lifetime Achievement
Sequoyah Guess

Walter & Lillian Lowenfels Criticism Award
Kellie Jones, South of Pico: African American Artists in Los Angeles in the 1960s and 1970s (Duke University)

Editor/Publisher Award
Charles F. Harris

Anti-Censorship Award
Rob Rogers

Oral Literature Award
Heroes Are Gang Leaders

 

posted by Shelley

CFP: Connecting the Struggles (Canisius College, Buffalo, Sept. 21-23, 2018; deadline: Aug. 30, 2018)

 

Connecting the Struggles: 

Call for Presentations for the Prison Abolition

Western New York Conference

 

We invite you to join us for the first-ever Prison Abolition Western New York (PAWNY) Conference. The conference will be a regional gathering of people working on issues related to prison abolition and mass incarceration. Our theme is “Connecting the Struggles.” As our theme suggests, the conference will be an opportunity for individuals and organizations to meet up and develop ideas and strategies to build a world beyond prisons.

The conference will bring together activists, organizers, academics, and members of the public who are working on issues related to prison abolition to discuss how we may connect our struggles and develop strategy to create a world beyond prisons. We also hope to highlight the voices of those who are at the frontlines of the struggle against the many facets of the carceral states in which we live and die today, for our lives are built upon the resistance of our ancestors and are haunted by the unchanging root sources of colonial power: the militarized occupation of stolen lands and the racialized labor that was forced to work them. Contributions may take the form of workshops, presentation, or artworks and performances.

We strongly encourage contributions from artists, particularly those currently or formerly imprisoned and those whose lives have been affected by the carceral state, and artwork that expresses experiences of and interactions with the penal system and its effects. We encourage artists to use any medium of their choosing - visual arts, applied design, music, performance, poetry or any form of writing, and more. There will be a gallery show and performance space is available for theater, dance, or other kinds of performance.

 

Possible topics for presentation include:

Abolition vs. Reform
The School-to-Prison Pipeline
ICE and Immigration
Jails and Bail
Disability and Mental Health
Gender and Sexuality
The Prison-Industrial Complex
Solitary Confinement
Parole
Political Prisoners
Restorative and Transformative Justice
Indigenous Peoples and Incarceration
Abolition Lawyering
Policing
Incarceration and Intersectionality

 

The Politics of Representation

 

It was the Fall of 1982 and I was just not able to go to class anymore. It began about half-way through the semester, this compulsion to skip class and do anything, almost anything, but attend lectures. I had (what I now think of more than thirty years later) as a profound sense of aloneness, of having to do everything to preserve my ambitions and goals in life by myself. It was hard to be all the way across the country from my family which was in California. All of my friends seemed to have a purpose that I didn’t have. I couldn’t explain to them how alone I felt, there at Swarthmore, when their families were only an hour away from them, or their friends and their social communities, even on campus, seemed to derive from where they were from, from their high school, able to sustain their ambition, to affirm their choices every day.

My roommate from freshman year, also Black, had dropped out by then, and the subtle, and oftentimes not so subtle, indifference to me displayed by faculty who should otherwise have been crucial to my success, to my feelings, and future, left me without any intellectual moorings in the classes. I remember getting an A and always attending the one class that semester in which the professor engaged my ideas and thought that I was smart, that I was not at the school simply as a token to a politics of racial equality.

Even the word token, a substitute, a marker placed down instead of the real thing, a symbol for something real, yet itself, fake, cheap, inexpensive, and easily replaced was a threat to my presence at the school. “Here, have you lost your token? Let me get you another one.” It didn’t help that these were the Reagan years, during which the national politics of race on the Right was full of lamentation for those Blacks who had managed to get ahead and succeed because of so-called affirmative action; the Blacks who supposedly either didn’t really belong due to a lack of skills and acumen or because they had not passed or endured whatever requirements for admission, promotion, and excellence that existed for White people to achieve similar success in the work that they sought to accomplish.

The resistance to Black individual success by society, the absence of imagination on the part of those who considered racial equality a myth or a personal insult to their own excellence, was comprehensive, so much so that the students constantly questioned the presence of Black students in class and socially. That I was always supposed to justify that I belonged meant that once I wasn’t succeeding, when I wasn’t doing well, or if I wasn’t as good as, if not better than everyone else, I simply was not entitled to be there. I wasn’t failing at the class material, but rather at feeling as though I no longer cared enough about what people thought to make that the reason for my success. I needed some other reason to be in class than simply proving others wrong about race, about the capabilities of Black people. Being the exception simply wasn’t enough to overcome the absence of a particular connection to those around me, the absence of something that would define my success as important to myself and others.

This problem of Black student retention could not be easily solved by requiring that I, as a student, find some purpose or ambition beyond tokenism, some way of reaching beyond the politics of racial equality. That faculty are hostile or indifferent to Black students, that they resist the idea that they are complicit in making it difficult for students of color to succeed, is not easy for a university to address directly. After all, if the disciplines in which these faculty work don’t successfully address the problem of racial representation and its equation with racial equality, how can the faculty know how to address racial injustice in the classroom, in the department office, or in the larger society beyond academia? Indeed, teaching and research don’t usually require that faculty do more than provide lectures, conduct seminars, and evaluate student performance in studying course materials.  Hence, this problem of Black student retention is a question of the vocation.

CFP: Answering the Call: Philosophies Born of Struggle in the Twenty-First Century (Hamilton College, Nov. 2-3, 2018; deadline: Aug. 18, 2018)

 

Philosophy Born of Struggle XXIV

2018 Call for Papers

Answering the Call:

Philosophies Born of Struggle in the Twenty-First Century

November 2–3, 2018

Hamilton College, Clinton, New York

 

Keynote Speaker:

Charles W. Mills

Distinguished Professor of Philosophy

The Graduate Center, CUNY

 

Philosophy Born of Struggle asks for papers or panel proposals that address what it means for a philosophy to be a “philosophy born of struggle” in the twenty-first century.

We welcome submissions inspired by the conference theme. We especially welcome submissions on one or more of the following topics:

• The way or ways that philosophy can be in service of social movements.
• The meaning of struggle in our present social, political, cultural, and economic context.
• The role that philosophy can play in the development of effective transnational communication methods for people engaging in struggles in different parts of the world.
• The role that struggles play in the formation and maintenance of communities.
• The resources that theories constructed by Africana thinkers can provide to scholars and activists as they confront present-day ethno-nationalism throughout the globe, particularly in the Americas and in Africa.

In the spirit of answering the call, we welcome anyone who would like to participate in a planning session on November 3rd to help us chart the future of Philosophy Born of Struggle. 

The Philosophy Born of Struggle (PBS) conference was first organized in 1993 by J. Everet Green at Rockland Community College, and officially took on the name Philosophy Born of Struggle several years later to continue the study and traditions announced by Leonard Harris’s anthology Philosophy Born of Struggle: Anthology of Afro-American Philosophy from 1917. Every year PBS enjoys being hosted by universities, colleges, and community colleges throughout the country. For over two decades, PBS has remained a traveling conference dedicated to bringing Africana philosophy to various communities, be they academic or not, in the United States. Over the last several years, PBS has sought to be a home to voices that hear and speak to new, historically excluded, immigrant, déclassé, discriminated against, gendered and non-gender conforming philosophers.

CFP: 2nd Annual Critical Social Ontology Workshop (Oct. 13-14, 2018; deadline: Aug. 1, 2018)

 

2nd Annual Critical Social Ontology Workshop
St. Louis, MO, October 13-14, 2018

Call for Papers

 

The Critical Social Ontology Workshop (CSOW) is an interdisciplinary venue for radical thinking about the metaphysics of irreducibly social phenomena. Core members of the CSOW are Ruth Groff (Coordinator), Sally Haslanger, Tony Lawson, Doug Porpora, Vanessa Wills, and Charlotte Witt.

We invite paper proposals for the 2nd annual meeting of the Workshop, to be held at Saint Louis University. We will be interested in contributions the aim of which is to address fundamental issues of social ontology and/or foundational meta-theoretical issues that have implications for social ontology, and to do so in ways that shed light upon and/or offer alternatives to existing positivist; Humean; post-modern; or other orthodoxies in philosophy and social science.

The annual meetings of the Workshop are intended to be supportive, working conferences. Presenters will be asked to upload outlines of their papers in advance of the conference so as to maximize the opportunity for constructive conversation. We hope to eventually be able to publish some or all of the proceedings of the CSOW annual meetings in one way or another (we will keep you posted as we move forward with these plans). 

The Critical Social Ontology Workshop is unfunded. We will ask those participants who can afford to do so to contribute $30-$40 to help offset the basic costs of running the conference.

To submit a paper proposal, please send an e-mail to: [email protected].

Provide the following in the email: (1) a title; (2) a short abstract (200 words) that includes a clear statement of what the driving claim of the paper will be; (3) your contact information.

Please do be sure to include a clear statement of the thesis of the paper in your abstract (i.e., “I will argue that ... “).

Deadline: August 1, 2018.

 

posted by Shelley