Political Inequality

blackboard

2006-01-31T15:42:00.000-08:00

Is up and running. If you already know how, please register post-haste. Group pages have been created, and I'll issue invitations to groups as soon as many or most of you have joined. If you don't know how, fear not; I have a blackboard handout for you tomorrow.

I'll also repost the Tilly questions to a discussion forum over there so we can try out the threading. If you want to respond now, go ahead and post in the below thread.

Charles Tilly, Durable Inequality, Chapters 1 and 2

2006-01-31T15:03:00.000-08:00

Away we go with empirical social theory, our second approach to understanding inequality in society this term.

EST asks why, rather than should. Tilly doesn't ask "Why Inequality?" (as in, why are some people richer, more powerful, have higher status, more respected, etc. than others). Why not? Probably because he doesn't think it's particularly puzzling. There's no particular reason to expect things to be different. What he *does* ask is "Why are some paired inequalities (ie, male/female, white/black, citizen/foreigner, aristocrat/plebian, etc. durable; that is, why do they tend to persist over space and (especially) time?" The alternative, from pg 7, would be for inequalities to be arranged by "individual differences in attributes, propensities, or performances." So the question is "Why A and not B?" He doesn't discuss it, of course, but B is in some sense to what many people mean when they refer to the as of yet unrealized dream of "equality of opportunity." In a sense, his "why" work could be seen as in the service of this normative goal--if we understand how this normative goal is consistently thwarted, perhaps we can better figure out how to dismantle it.

A few questions on the reading:

1) Why do you think he begins with a series of anecdotes about height?

2) When you first read over the 8 step road map to the arguments of the book (pg. 8-9) what was your impression? What questions did you have?

3) Describe the two primary causal mechanisms through which we establish and maintain categorical inequality (10). Can you give concrete examples of these practices?

4) Tilly says something rather controversial on pg. 15: "reduction or intensification of racist, sexist, or xenophobic attitudes will have relatively little impact on durable inequality..." Two pages later he'll name and criticize the idea that racism/sexism etc. have material consequences "mentalism" and offer a critique of it. Why does Tilly arrive at this conclusion, in your best estimation? Does his reasoning make sense?

5) What is "methodological individualism"? Why is Tilly critical of it?

6) What is "Phenomenological individualism"? Why is Tilly critical of it?

7) How does Tilly hope "relational analysis" will offer an improvement over individualism of various sorts?

----

8) Chapter two begins with a discussion of the relational elements of money, nutrition, etc. What is Tilly talking about here? What point is he trying to make?

9) What, in your estimation, does the title of this chapter--from transactions to structures--mean?

10) How does Tilly "map" human interaction (54). What is the point of this map?

11) Consider the discussion of how racial barriers differ from ethnic, cultural or class barriers (63-64). How does Tilly describe the difference?

12) As you finish reading these two chapters, it's probably occured to you that Tilly spills a lot of ink inventing a new vocabulary for a series of everyday events and occurances. Why does he find it necessary to redefine how to talk about these events?

Paper topics, First paper

2006-01-22T15:00:00.000-08:00

The first short paper should be 3-4 pages long (typed, double-spaced, normal fonts and margins). Remember, you must write two of the three short papers from each of the major sections of the course.

The first paper will be due January 30. When referring to specific ideas or passages from course readings, feel free to simply use a page number and author. If you cite outside sources, remember to give full bibliographic data. All papers should be carefully and logically organized, with a clear introduction (including thesis statement) and conclusion.

Here are potential paper topics:

1) As I said at the outset of this course, each approach to understanding human inequality we'll study this term has certain strengths and weaknesses. Use the readings from Phillips, Barry, and/or Anderson to assess the strengths and weaknesses of normative political philosophy. Keep in mind that you're using these texts not to analyse their specific arguments, but rather the methods they use to help us better understand the issue of inequality.

2) What does Anne Phillips conclude is the best way to think about the relationship between economic and political inequality? How does she arrive at this conclusion? Are her arguments sufficient to justify her conclusion? Why or why not? (keep in mind, I'm not asking you whether or not you agree with Phillips, but whether her arguments are sufficient to establish her conclusion. You might agree with her conclusion but think she doesn't quite justify it, or disagree with her conclusion but respect her well made argument, so whether you agree or not isn't directly relevant to your answer).

3) What, according to Brian Barry, is wrong with the idea of meritocracy as a distributive principle? Barry focuses his critique on a particular version of meritocracy. Consider other possibilities--is their another formulation of merit that would withstand the criticisms Barry makes? If yes, explain and defend this version of meritocracy. If no, consider the meaning of the loss of a functioning concept of merit--is this a problem? How can we replace it?

Brian Berry on Meritocracy

2006-01-22T14:52:00.000-08:00

To access Wednesday's readings:

Start here

Click on "Electronic Reserves and Course Pages"

Search for "inequality" under "course name" and "contains"

Click on the course number

In the password slot, fill in winter2006

Now you'll be on the page with the links; both chapters should be read for Wednesday. They are listed in reverse order; do read "The Idea of Meritocracy" before "The Abuse of Science." More on these chapters soon....

Elizabeth Anderson, "What is the Point of Equality?"

2006-01-19T13:04:00.000-08:00

ACCESS

First, click here.

Log in with uw net id.

Click on the link under "click here to start the proxy"

Click on the link for electronic journals (under "resources")

Choose E and scroll waaaay down to "Ethics"

There are four different databases that store this journal. It doesn't matter which one you use. THe article is from January 1999 (volume 109, issue 2) and begins on page 287.

I used the JSTOR database, chose the "browse the journal" option, and selected that issue, where I found the article. All the databases that store this journal are pretty intuitive to use.

DISCUSSION

What, by Anderson's reckoning, is so wrong with those who press a "luck inequality" understanding of the point of equality?

What, according to Anderson is the point of equality? Why, in her mind, is this a better 'point' for equality than the versions she is critical of?

Would there be significant policy differences between the theories based on remedying luck inequality and Anderson's theory of equality?

What sort of changes would we need to make to our existing tax structure, social policy, etc. to meet the demands of Anderson's theory of equality?

Discuss these and other questions below.

Phillips, conclusion

2006-01-16T15:24:00.000-08:00

How does Phillips end the book? Has she satisfactorily answered her own questions?

One interesting conclusion, found on pg. 131: Economic inequality may not present a problem for equality of worth, unless the gap is too wide, but "in the case of race and gender, I have pressed this point further to argue that political equality is incompatible with any kind of gap." (131). She immediately goes on to suggest that skepticism is warranted about the rather strong version of this point she's making. What are her reasons for coming to this conclusion? This is one of the more interesting points of the book, I think.

See you Wednesday morning. Don't forget to send me your book preferences today or tomorrow.

Phillips, ch. 5

2006-01-16T15:18:00.000-08:00

Chapter 5 shifts gears considerably. She begins with a crucial question for political theorists. I think the best phrasing of the question is a little different than hers. I would put it this way: "What are the boundaries of the political?"

What does this question mean?
How can we begin to answer this question?
How should we answer this question?
Why is this question so important for Phillips?

Phillips then spends the bulk of this chapter discussing two approaches to political theory that take a somewhat broader view of "the political" than our liberal tradition: civic republicanism and deliberative democracy.

For each of these traditions, try to define and summarize them before class if you can. Also, think about how they might lead to a better (or worse) approach to the problem of inequality and democracy that we've been thinking about here.

Anne Phillips, Which Equalities Matter, Chapter 4

2006-01-16T14:56:00.000-08:00

As our long weekend comes to a close, it's time to prepare to consider some of the key themes and issues from the remainder of Anne Phillips' book Which Equalities Matter?

Chapter 4: "From Access to Recognition"

Here, Phillips moves from the independent discussions of political and economic inequality in the last two chapters to think about how they might interact with each other directly. She begins by stating what has probably been obvious to us for quite a while--that inequality in the level of political participation and efficacy is a) quite significant, and b) has a number of complicated causes, of which economic inequality is one. Even if we all agree on this, there are still several important questions we need to ask ourselves:

1) Is this a problem?
2) Why is this a problem?
3) What, if anything, can be done about it?

How does Phillips answer these questions?

Phillips identifies a conundrum in this article. On the one hand, extreme poverty is an affront to the notion of equal human worth (which, she suggests, we've already made a commitment to when we've commited to democratic politics). However, as she says, "a society premised on citizen equality is poorly served by welfare poicies that target the poor as objects of compassion and treat them as a category apart..." (80). What is her solution to this problem?

From there, she discusses the segregation problem with income inequality. This is something we could talk a great deal more about in the US context, and it will come up for those of you reading Kozol's book later. If high levels of inequality create conditions under which the wealthy segregate themselves from the poor (gated communities, private schools, exurbs, etc) does this present a challenge for democracy? What kind of challenge?

In the next section (84-90) Phillips outlines her ideal of 'recognition' and the ways in which it's challenged by both economic inequality and cultural difference and domination. Is the recognition ideal a possibility? Can these challenges be overcome? Why does she reject the assimilationist solution in the cultural sphere but not the economic one? How is her ideal of "convergence" different than assimilation?

Update on Phillips book

2006-01-13T16:01:00.000-08:00

I just recieved notice from the bookstore that there will be no more copies of Which Inequalities Matter? coming in to the bookstore, as the publisher is apparently out. I'll try to get some chapters put on electronic reserve, but if you don't yet have a copy you'll probably need to do your reading from the reserve copy or photocopying the book.

I apologize for the inconvenience.

reminder

2006-01-11T13:46:00.000-08:00

Tell me which book you want to do (and your second choice) by next Tuesday. Email is fine.

Anne Phillips, Which Equalities Matter? Chapter 3 Reading notes and questions

2006-01-11T06:53:00.000-08:00

In this chapter, Phillips explores the issue of economic inequality *in itself* (the issue of the relation between political and economic inequality is saved for chapter 4). There are two questions that we need to consider, coming at the problem from different directions:

1) Should we care at all about economic inequality?

2) When, and to what degree, is economic inequality acceptable?

These questions come at the issue from two different directions, the first assuming the default position is that this isn't an issue, and the second assuming it is. Phillips is fairly certain the answers are probably going to turn out to be "yes" and "sometimes." The key, then, is figuring out precisely why and when and to what degree we care (and, as she notes toward the end of the chapter, what can reasonably be done about it without making matters worse.

Along the way to her own argument, Phillips nicely introduces several key figures and approaches to the problem of inequality in contemporary political philosophy. It is these figures and approaches I'd like us to discuss.

First, we're introduced to Marx on equality, and it turns out Marx thinks equality is a rather silly idea. And boring. And pointless. Her take on this is spot-on, I think, and I recommend those few pages on Marx with a great deal of enthusiasm.

But the Marx discussion is rather beside the point--she quickly moves on to contemporary philosophy on inequality, beginning with Rawls.

Rawls approach to inequality can be found on pg. 49. Rawls' disembodied brains behind the veil of ignorance prefer simple equality--except: "that all social primary goods are to be distributed equally unless an uneqaul distribution of any or all of these goods is to the advntage of the least favoured" (Phillips, 49)

Question on this point: What does Rawls mean here? More interestingly, how much inequality would this actually allow? Is this clear?

Setting aside for the moment the practicality or interpretability (is that a word?) of this test: do you think it makes sense as a principle? Why/why not?

Moving on, Dworkin (see pg. 55) gives us the misleadingly titled "Equality of Resources" which really means we'll have lots of unequal amounts of various resources, but it's OK if and only if what we have is a logical consequence of the choices we made, AND we made those choices from an initial position of equality. If we choose to invest heavily in alcohol and skimp on fire insurance to do so, and we find ourselves without a home for this reason, that's a form of inequality that society can handle. I only discussed this briefly in class today, so let me say something I should have: an obvious strength of this approach is that it offers a great deal of respect to the preferences of members of society to decide what's good for them. This seems to dovetail nicely with Phillip's notion that "inherent equal worth" is central to the sort of equality that democracy requires.

That said, what do you think of this idea? Other problems/strengths?

(and furthermore: while the clamshell auction make work marvelously on the desert island in his analogy work in an already established society?)

That's all the further we got in class today, but next week when we return we'll look at the rest of the chapter, which includes the following approaches:

The sufficiency approach (Frankfurt, Raz, similar to an idea called "Universal Basic Income promoted by the Belgian political philosopher Phillipe van Parijs--here's a story about van Parijs' idea and some related ones, and here's a link to an organization devoted to promoting the idea in the United States. Van Parijs' most famous paper on the topic is called "Should Surfers be Fed?" which explains why they let him put this picture on the cover of his book.)

Phillips thinks the sufficency approach takes us away from inequality. Why are the sufficiency theorists willing to go there?

I know you will be tempted to comment on your suspicion that this plan is deeply infeasible. I understand that strong urge, but encourage you to resist, and think instead about it's more philosophical strengths and weaknesses.

Finally, we have one of my personal favorites: Michael Walzer's complex equality (64-65). The basic idea here--inequality in any one sphere of life is no big deal as long as you follow the rules to get it. Get rich as an entreprenour, win the election and become president, charm the most attractive person in town into marrying you--great! Just don't use your riches to influence politics, use your political position to enrich your friends, or get a good job because of your spouse. It's using success in one sphere to influence another that we don't like.

What do you think of this approach? If we could contain an extreme amount of economic inequality in this way, would it be permissible?

More posts on the rest of the book coming soon.

Anne Phillips, Which Equalities Matter? CHAPTER 2 Reading notes and discussion questions

2006-01-08T13:50:00.000-08:00

In chapter 2, Phillips gets into the nitty-gritty details of her argument about equality.

In the first section (23-30), Phillips sets aside her concerns about economic inequality and just looks a bit more closely at the concept of political equality. One of the central ideas of this chapter is that political 'neutrality' isn't always the clearest path to political equality?

--Why not? Why are feminists often wary of "gender-blind" approaches and black activists wary of "race-blind" approaches to political equality?

--What is it about the social world of modern liberal democracies like the US and the UK that complicates matters in this regard?

--When does "difference" become a challenge for equality? What does Phillips mean when she suggests "difference through equality" (25)?

In the next section (30-35) Phillips suggests that sometimes the best way to approach the problem of inequalities in the social and economic realms is through political means (35).

--Why does she come to this conclusion?

--Do you agree?

--Can you think of some examples as to how this dynamic might work?

In the remainder of the chapter, Phillips discusses some of the ways in which philosophical liberals (remind me to talk a bit about what this means--those who were with me last quarter know, but the rest of you should be aware that this category is somewhat different than "liberals" in the everyday uses of the term) would object to some of her political solutions to the problem of group inequality.

--What are these criticisms?

--How does she respond to them?

As always, feel free to use this thread to post your own questions or comments about this chapter in addition to discussing any of the specific questions and topics I raised here.

Anne Phillips, Which Equalities Matter? CHAPTER 1 Reading notes and discussion questions

2006-01-05T17:01:00.000-08:00

In this chapter, Anne Phillips introduces the problem she's seeking to address in the rest of the book. The first thing she notes is that there seems to be some link to Democracy and equality.

--What is that link?
--Are there other reasons we might value democracy? Does it make senses to say you value democracy if you don't care about equality at all?

Speaking from a British, late-90's perspective (remember, the Labour party--the left of center party in the UK which had been openly socialist in it's official stances until now. Tony Blair removed the most explicit socialist goals from the party platform and, as Phillips noted, pursued a series of constitutional reforms (reforming the House of Lords, more local autonomy for Wales and Scotland) that had little to do with economic equality.

--What does Phillips think of this development? What are the positives and negatives?

Phillips suggests in the last part of this chapter that perhaps we need to start thinking again about the ways in which economic inequality and political inequality might be related.

--Before reading too much further into Phillips book, think about this for a moment. What are some concrete ways they might be related? Does Krugman's essay help us think about these?

--Does Phillips suggest some other ways?

--On pg. 15-16, Phillips suggests we think about political equality in a "deeper" way than we are in the habit of doing. What is this deeper sense of political equality of which she speaks? Do you agree?

--What is the "structural privileging of corporate power" (pp.17-18) according to Phillips? What might provide balance for this?

Use this comment section to discuss this and other issues that might come up in regard to chapter 1 of Phillips' book. I'll post a similar guide for chapter 2 tomorrow sometime.

Paul Krugman, "For Richer..."

2005-12-27T17:24:00.000-08:00

1) Princeton economist Paul Krugman gives an account of the relative income distribution of the wealthy and the rest of us in the USA over the last 100 years. What trends does he identify? Does any part of this story surprise you?

2) What does Krugman tell us about the trends in the pay rate of CEOs? Why do CEOs get paid so much more than they did 30-40 years ago? Krugman suggests it simply doesn't make sense to say they're doing their jobs that much better, given the economic performance of firms in the relative eras. So what's going on here?

3) Everyone knows you can't have capitalism without economic inequality. What Krugman shows is that even within the same country, you can have a very wide degree of levels of inequality while still retaining a capitalist economy. Why does the current high levels of inequality worry Krugman?

4) Krugman argues that globalization is at best a minor factor in the story of modern American inequality. What reasons does he give for this?

5) Krugman poses some difficult questions for how we should normatively evaluate economic growth. The fact that the GDP per capita of Sweden is about the same as the GDP per capita of Mississippi is, Krugman suggests, very misleading. Why?

6) What is the harm Krugman is afraid our current high levels of inequality will do to American society? Are his fears justified?

Getting In, Malcolm Gladwell

2005-12-27T17:06:00.000-08:00

Reposting the link here.

1) Compare the Ontario college admissions process of Gladwell's youth (about 25 years ago) to the college admissions process today. What are the advantages of each system? Which, in your estimation, is more "fair"?

2) What have been the primary goals of the Harvard admissions process over the years? What do you think of Harvard's goals? Why do you think they have them? Bigotry was almost certainly one reason Harvard wanted to keep the Jewish portion of the student body down--are there other reasons?

3) It is widely thought that student-athletes, because they are often granted admission with grades and/or test scores that would not have allowed them admission otherwise, are granted a share of a scarce resource they don't 'deserve.' Gladwell suggests there is evidence that this account is wholly incomplete. What is this evidence? How do we evaluate whether people "deserve" their share of a scarce resource?

4) Do you think college is a "treatment-effect institution" or a "selection-effect institution"? Should this distinction have any impact on admissions policies?

5) Admission to Harvard is, quite clearly, a scarce resource. There are many people who would like it, and would probably do just fine with it, than can ever hope to have it. But Gladwell concludes that this particular scarce resource to be not a particularly big deal. His conclusion--Harvard's admissions policies, while often odd, quaint, and based on stereotypes, are no big deal. Non-admission to Harvard doesn't constitute a harm so society shouldn't care how this resource is distributed. Do you agree with Gladwell? Why/not?

6) A broader question associated with #5: There are lots of scarce resources out there. For some of them, society is rightfully very concerned with how we allocate them. Take, for example, the job of President of the United States. Lots of people want it, but only one person can have it. It's a very scarce resource. But we as a society make a pretty big deal about how we distribute this resource. If, for example, Bob Dole had somehow managed to replace George W. Bush after the 2004 election, despite not even running that year, many of us (including those of us who think Bob Dole would probably be better at the job) would be pretty concerned.

Another scarce resource is access to high quality, freshly roasted, properly prepared coffee. We in Seattle are huge beneficiaries of this scarce resource--most people in the country are looking to Starbucks as their best option, while we have half a dozen micro roasters of exceptional quality to choose from. Now, I think this is too bad for those people, and I don't envy them, but I also don't think society should worry about this too much. Maybe this resource will spread around a bit more and maybe it won't, but it doesn't matter much one way or the other.

Lots of important stuff, including Harvard admissions, intuitively falls somewhere in the middle. So, my question is this: How should we decide whether the distributional patterns of a particular scarce resource are something society as a whole ought to be conerned about or not?

Of course, your own topics and questions are welcome.

Harriet McBryde Johnson, "Unspeakable Conversations"

2005-12-27T10:28:00.000-08:00

Here's the link again.
Those of you in my class last term know this article. I manage to find reasons to assign it in a wide variety of classes because, well, I think it's great, theoretically interesting, and exceedingly thoughtful and well-written. Her essays now form a book, which I hope to read someday.

But on this essay: much to discuss, and I'm interested in any of your reflections and reactions. In this class, we're primarily interested in what this essay can tell us about inequality in society.

A preliminary note about Singer: discussion on this essay often turns to Singer's strange philosophical vision. He's a very smart and clever thinker, who is best known for his vigorous and uncompromising defense of animal rights. I can't and won't try to explain the argument for infanticide he makes (although for the truly curious I'd be happy to point you to the sections of his book, Practical Ethics, where he spells out the argument. A few points about Singer's argument:

1) The permissibility depends on a distinction between human beings and persons. We are all persons now, but we weren't always, and some of us will cease to be persons someday. Personhood has to do with, amongst other things, a minimum level of brain function. Most infants become persons, in Singer's sense, at around 18 months.
2) Singer allows for infanticide under a utilitarian theory of future predicted happiness, based on his utilitarian philosophy--the idea that a different, non-disabled "replacement child" could be happier herself and cause her parents less pain and more pleasure. This ceases to matter once we become persons, since persons can't be killed without their permission, for obvious reasons.
3) Even if this sounds appalling to you, if I were to walk you through all the technical steps in Singer's argument, you'd be forced to admit he makes it all sound pretty compelling if you share his utilitarian premises.

Now that that's out of the way, a few discussion questions:

1) Most of us would look at Harriet McBryde Johnson and say that she's someone who is suffering from what we might call "natural inequality"--that is, inequality that comes from the random luck of natural endowments. She is unlucky in the same way that supermodels, geniouses, and Tiger Woods are lucky.

Do you think she would agree with this assessment of the nature of her 'inequality'? How would she describe the "inequality" she suffers from?

2) Why is it so hard for Johnson to respect Singer in theory? Why is it so easy for her to respect him in practice? Why is the issue of mutual respect important when thinking about political equality?

3) What does she mean when she takes the "tragic view" of Peter Singer?

4) Think for a moment about the two argument about assisted suicide she discusses (Batavia and Gill) about 2/3 of the way through this essay. Which seems more compelling to you? Which seems most consistent with "equal respect" for the disabled?

(there's so much more to discuss here, bring up whatever you'd like about this essay)

Finding (and discussing) the Maass article

2005-12-27T00:44:00.000-08:00

Old Link is dead.

New strategy for access. Go to the University of Washington library homepage.

If you are off campus go here. Log in. Click the link under "Click here to start the proxy."

Click "research databases"

Under L, find "Lexis-Nexis-academic"

Confirm that you are, indeed, an authorized user (which you are).

There are many searches one could use to find it, but here's what I did: Under date I switched it to last month, and I put the following in the search window:

"Price of Oil" Maass

The article, from the Dec. 18th New York Times, comes up as the third hit right now (although that may change).

More posts on these articles forthcoming tomorrow or the next day.

UPDATE (12/27):
Let's use this post for a discussion of the article. Some discussion questions:

1) This article identifies a phenomenon in international politics known as "the resource curse." What is the resource curse? Why does it function the way it does? Can you think of ways the resource curse might be overcome?

2) If you listen to politicians left to right, energy independence is often lauded as a valuable goal. Yet there is little effort to explore for oil off the coasts of Florida and California, and try as they might, the Republican party can't seem to unite strongly enough to pass a bill to open ANWR to oil-drilling. How does this article explain this puzzling phenomenon?

3) This article is just one example of the inequality of environmental consequences. Can you think of other examples? Why is this problem pervasive? Is there any way it might be overcome?

(these questions shouldn't limit your discussion; post about anything you like with relation to this article)

syllabus

2005-12-23T14:35:00.000-08:00

Note: this is not the final syllabus. There will be some more detail, policies, fewer typos, etc. in the final syllabus. Still, this is the gist of it and I thought I'd post it before I go away from work and internet access for the holidays so y'all can take a look if you wish.

I'll put an update in this post when the syllabus is updated and completed.

UPDATE #1: The syllabus has not been updated but the link has been fixed.

UPDATE #2: The syllabus linked here is now the final copy.

Links

2005-12-22T14:11:00.000-08:00

A syllabus will be up shortly, tomorrow morning or early afternoon.

This class is going to be a bit shorter than a typical class, as we'll lose 15% of our classtime to scheduling, holidays, etc. (We'll meet on 10 Wednesdays, but only 7 Mondays because the term starts on a Tuesday and there are 2 Monday holidays).

With that in mind, I'd like to have a substantive discussion on January 4th, rather than the usual introduction. I've selected a series of perhaps seemingly unrelated newspaper and magazine stories. It's not crucial that everyone read every one of these, but I hope you'll each read most of them. I'll post the links now, and sometime shortly after Christmas I'll post separate comments on each of them with some discussion questions. If you'd like to begin the discussion early, by all means do so. If not, please try to read some of the articles and be prepared to discuss them on January 4th.

They are:

Paul Krugman, "For Richer..."

Harriet McBryde Johnson, "Unspeakable Conversations"

Malcolm Gladwell, "Getting In"

Alan Krueger, "Sticks and stones can break bones, but the wrong name can make a job hard to find"

Peter Maass, "The Price of Oil"

The last link might stop working soon, so you might want to print or save it ASAP even if you're not going to read it at this time. If it does stop working, I'll create an alternate way to access it.

Welcome!

2005-12-21T11:26:00.000-08:00

This is the home on the internets for BIS 393b, Special Topics, "Political Inequality", University of Washington-Bothell, Winter 2006.

More information will be forthcoming quite soon.