Informed by the critical humanisms of Hannah Arendt, Frantz Fanon, and Paul Gilroy, the authors argue for an orientation to teaching and learning that troubles the continuing effects of dehumanizing race logic. Reflecting on Paul Haggis's Oscar award winning film Crash from 2004, they suggest that the metaphor of racial 'crashing' captures what happens when we act out from experiences of racial injury instead of being touched by it. They propose a psychoanalytic pedagogy of emotions as a method for reading (...) representation beyond the limits of detached rational critique. Learning from the affect of racial injury as it is made manifest in representation, they suggest, is an important ethical starting point for generating new insights into what it might mean to live within and beyond contemporary legacies of racial hatred. (shrink)

As the composition of university campuses becomes more diverse, campus journalists must become better at making decisions that avoid needlessly offending members of various ethnic and cultural groups. This examination explores the role of the campus media and includes incidents that illustrate campus journalists' problems with decision making when confronted with material regarding their diverse audiences. It explores the political correctness movement on campuses, notes the advantage of ethical reasoning, offers a philosophical foundation for decision making based on respect, and (...) proposes a Model of Respect. This model should enable novice journalists to better self-regulate content, precluding the need for campus administrators and judicial bodies to establish regulations and laws that "force" sensitivity into campus speech and newspapers. (shrink)

In this article, the author, after describing the technocratic nature of the current science policy process, presents five arguments for changing it into a more participatory one. All five arguments draw on different sectors of the STS endeavor—both high and low church—to show why increased public involvement would benefit science. The first argues that the degree of potential harm from science-based technology demands greater accountability. The second draws on the adage that the buyer should have some say on the product. (...) The third uses the social constructed nature of science. The fourth builds on feminist and marxist arguments. Finally, the last uses Kant to claim that all people matter. The author ends by providing a quick view describing the appearance of a more participa-tory process. The key is not the final process but the process of working together to reach it. (shrink)