Skip to content
Philadelphia Political Agnostics cover photo

Philadelphia Political Agnostics

4.5•718 ratings
Philadelphia, PA, US

835 members

Share

About us

This meetup started in 2015 as a group for people in the Philadelphia area who were concerned with the current political turmoil in America, but who also felt that the prevailing liberal-vs-conservative political paradigm is unnecessarily limiting our ability to think rationally about politics & search for policy solutions. Since we shifted to mostly online meetups in 2020, we've opened the group up to people everywhere. If you like to talk politics but you've got some moderate or unconventional views that leave you feeling out of place at most of the activist groups, party meetings & political rallies in your area, this meetup is for you!

However, if your political views put you on the far left or far right of the political spectrum - i.e. you're a Marxist, anarchist, "woke" left-wing identitarian, fascist/ethno-nationalist, Islamist, Black Hebrew Israelite, Christian fundamentalist, etc., or sympathetic to these positions - please go elsewhere. Also, if you consider yourself a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat but your views are just generic talking points you've gleaned from listening to Fox News & Tucker Carlson or MSNBC & The View, this group is not for you. It may seem uncharitable to exclude people, but from past experience our discussions just don't work very well with these folks, since they tend to be close-minded and see all of our problems as the result of only one of our political parties - i.e. they're not even remotely "agnostic".

"Political Agnosticism" is a term I came up with back in 2015 to represent a non-dogmatic approach to politics that acknowledges uncertainty and the validity of multiple perspectives, and looks for practical solutions without worrying about adherence to an overarching political ideology. The purpose of this agnostic, skeptical & free-thinking approach is to avoid treating politics as a "culture war" based on group identities or a clash of "political religions" based more on devotion to a party than knowledge of the issues. Instead, when we cover a political issue, we look at what experts in various disciplines know (and don't know) about it, tease out the ethical implications, note the tradeoffs between different policy approaches, and then look at potential solutions that encompass everything we've learned.

The only political values that are prerequisites for members are a belief in civility & tolerance towards those we disagree with, a belief in traditional civil liberties like the freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of association, and the right to privacy, as well as respect for institutional norms like separation of church & state, academic freedom, press freedom, government transparency, due process, judicial impartiality, and free & fair elections. These principles of an "open society" form the preconditions for the existence of a non-partisan political forum like ours.

Our general approach to politics is based on a concept we've borrowed from another organization, the Circle of Reason, called "pluralistic rationalism" – i.e. a personal commitment to reasoning, regardless of one's worldview. We start by assuming that reasonable people can differ in their cores values, whether it's framed as a preference for freedom vs security, tradition vs progress, individualism vs communitarianism, meritocracy vs egalitarianism, patriotism vs cosmopolitanism, etc. However, this approach is also premised on the belief that we should all commit to following the rules of logic & evidence-based reasoning. "Pluralistic Rationalism" is based on 3 tenets: (1) Factualism (as opposed to Denialism) for sourcing knowledge, (2) Skepticism (as opposed to Dogmatism) for vetting knowledge, and (3) Moderation (as opposed to Emotion) for expressing knowledge. To learn more about "pluralistic rationalism", see the Circle of Reason's website: http://www.circleofreason.org/

We are committed to creating a space for non-partisan political discussion based on intellectual honesty, mutual respect & civility. That means adopting the conversational principles of charity & good faith, avoiding name-calling, and trying to understand the best arguments that can be made for each side.

The goals for this meetup group are as follows:

(1) We try to understand why people - including ourselves - are predisposed by inherent psychological traits, cultural milieu & life experiences to have different moral intuitions & political orientations. We generally use a mix of the Big Five personality traits & Jonathan Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory, as well as Dan Kahan's work on "cultural cognition".

(2) We look at moral philosophy to try to better understand how moral axioms logically connect to one another and form ethical systems like deontological ethics, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and contractarianism. We examine how these ethical systems form the basis for political philosophy, legal philosophy, and normative theories in the social sciences.

(3) We try to increase our level of rationality by learning how to spot logical fallacies, cognitive biases, flawed statistics, and various forms of groupthink. We often look to the bloggers of the "rationalist community" (e.g. Eliezer Yudkowsky, Scott Alexander, Julia Galef, Spencer Greenberg, Nate Soares, Aella, Stefan Schubert, Zvi Moshowitz, Jacob Falkovich, Ozy Brennan, Sarah Constantin, Gwern Branwen, Roko Mijic), the board members of the Center for Applied Rationality (CFAR), as well as the hosts of the Bayesian Conspiracy podcast (Steven Zuber, Eneasz Brodski, Katrina Stanton, Jace Dickey). We could also include "rationalist-adjacent" bloggers like Tim Urban (Wait But Why), Samuel Hammond (Second Best), Matthew Adelstein (Bentham's Bulldog), Jack Despain Zhou (Tracing Woodgrains), as well as data journalists like Nate Silver & Nate Cohn, tech gurus like Paul Graham & Vitalik Buterin, and scholars like Daniel Kahneman, Philip Tetlock, Keith Stanovich, Scott Aaronson, Nick Bostrum, John Nerst, Sabine Hossenfelder, and Zeynep Tufekci who've promoted a similar style of detached, analytical thinking & strategic forecasting.

(4) We try to educate members on both the fundamentals and the latest research from the social sciences, and we discuss how this relates to current events & trending political topics. Aside from looking at academic research, a lot of our reading material comes from data/explainer journalism sites, econ & policy blogs, as well as the major public intellectuals & pundits from across the political spectrum.

(5) We try to imagine alternative types of political & economic systems that could provide better outcomes for the future based on both theory & empirical data. This often involves looking at various "maps of the policy landscape" like the Cato & Fraser Institutes' Human Freedom Index, SPI's Social Progress Index, the Economist's Democracy Index, the UN World Happiness Report, and others, even as we acknowledge the way their limitations, particularly the way they try to quantify qualitative factors that are often vague or inherently subjective.

(6) As part of our effort to break away from the narrow range of ideas represented by the two major political parties, we often look at constellations of ideas that could be described as syncretic, contrarian or heterodox. This often involves looking to intellectuals who've resisted the major populist & identitarian currents on the left and right, such as the scholars associated with Jonathan Haidt's Heterodox Academy, Peter Singer's Journal of Controversial Ideas, Keith E. Whittington's Academic Freedom Alliance, and Yascha Mounck's Persuasion.

(a) For critical insight on trends within conservatism, we often refer to conservative pundits who've criticized the GOP's ideological capture by Trump, e.g. David French, Sarah Isgur, Jonah Goldberg, Charles Sykes, Kevin Williamson, Anne Applebaum, Bret Stephens, George Will, Mona Charen, and other writers at sites like 'The Dispatch' and 'The Bulwark'. Also of interest are the Obama-era "reformicons" (e.g. David Frum, Yuval Levin, Ross Douthat, Reihan Salam, Ramesh & April Ponnuru, David Brooks, James Pethokoukis) who tried to steer the party more towards the interests of the middle & working classes in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, only to end up politically homeless when Trump took over the GOP. (Note: I specifically didn't include some neocons like Bill Kristol, Max Boot, Stephen Hayes, Liz Cheney, etc., since they've never appeared to modify their hawkish foreign policy views in light of the disastrous Iraq War they championed.)

(b) For critical insight on trends within libertarianism, we often refer to "cosmopolitan libertarians" (a.k.a. Beltway libertarians) at the Cato Institute & its "liberaltarian" offshoot the Niskanen Center, the GMU economics department (e.g. Tyler Cowen, Alex Tabbarock, Robin Hanson, Bryan Caplan, Russ Roberts, Walter E. Williams, Arnold Kling), the members of the '200-Proof Liberals' blog - successor to the now-defunct 'Bleeding Heart Libertarians' blog (e.g. Jason Brennan, Chris Freiman, Kevin Vallier, Matt Zwolinski, Jacob Levy, Steve Horwitz, Sarah Skwire), as well as the 'Fifth Column' podcast (Kmele Foster, Michael Moynihan, Matt Welch) and writers at the magazine 'Reason' (e.g. Nick Gillespie, Robby Soave, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, Ilya Somin, Eugene Volokh), and the anti-Trump libertarians at the new Substack 'The UnPopulist' (e.g. Shikha Dalmia, Cathy Young, Trevor Burrus, Aaron Ross Powell, Berny Belvedere, Radley Balko). The debates within Gene Epstein's Soho Forum and the Cato Institute's 'Cato Unbound' blog (although the latter is now defunct) are good venues for seeing the clash of ideas between libertarians & non-libertarians. (Note that I've excluded the paleolibertarians at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, the objectivists at the Ayn Rand Institute, and the left-libertarians at the Molinari Institute & C4SS since they seem to be more siloed in their echo chambers - although I'm fairly open to revising this opinion.)

(c) For critical insight on trends within progressivism, we often refer to liberal & centrist journalists who've criticized the biases of legacy-media outlets from within (e.g. Jonathan Chait, Adam Gopnik, George Packer, Graeme Wood, Damon Linker, James Bennet, Caitlin Flanagan, Megan McArdle, Pamela Paul, Josh Barro, Conor Friedersdorf, Jonathan Rauch, Shadi Hamid) and those who've moved to independent platforms like Substack (e.g. Andrew Sullivan, Matt Yglesias, Emily Yoffe, Freddie deBoer, Matt Taibbi, Jesse Singal, Katie Herzog, Zaid Jilani, Lee Fang). Many of these people signed the open letter against cancel culture in Harper's magazine back in July 2020. Left-leaning scholars who've broken with the progressive orthodoxy on some key issues (e.g. Camille Paglia, Kathleen Stock, Anne Applebaum, Mark Lilla, Scott Galloway, Richard Reeves) also fit into this loose intellectual cluster, as do the advocates of the "Abundance Agenda" (e.g. Ezra Klein, Derek Thompson, Steven Teles, Jerusalem Demsas, Marc Dunkelman, Binyamin & Yoni Applebaum, Misha Chellam).

(d) For critiques of trends within both conservatism & progressivism, we often look to the scholars at the Heterodox Academy (e.g. Jonathan Haidt, John Tomasi, Nadine Strossen, Musa al-Gharbi, Lee Jussim, Phil Tetlock, Scott Lilienfeld, Alice Dreger, Allison Stenger, Nicholas Christakis, Eric Smith, Sean Stevens, Yascha Mounck, Eric Kaufmann) and the moderate "enlightened centrist" faction of what used to be called the "Intellectual Dark Web", e.g. Sam Harris, Steven Pinker, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sarah Haider, Douglas Murray, Claire Lehmann, Helen Pluckrose, Peter Boghossian, Glenn Loury, John McWhorter, Coleman Hughes, and the various other writers & editors at media outlets like 'Quillette' and 'Areo Magazine' (although the latter is now defunct). Some other heterodox pundits like Bill Maher, Razib Khan, Richard Hanania, Meghan Daum, Debra Soh, Melissa Chen, Meghan Murphy, Konstantin Kisin, Michael Shellenberger, Freddie Sayers, Winston Marshall, Bari Weiss, Nellie Bowles - as well as other writers at 'Unherd' and 'The Free Press' - could be considered the successors to the IDW. (Note I've excluded some of the former IDW members like Dave Rubin, Jordan Peterson, Brett & Eric Weinstein, and Maajid Nawaz since they appeared to go off the rails amid the COVID pandemic & 2020 election due to "audience capture" and knee-jerk contrarianism. I've also excluded Joe Rogan due to his interest in pseudoscience & conspiracy theories, and Ben Shapiro is excluded because he seems more like a garden-variety conservative pundit.)

(e) For critical insight on trends within the emerging "bipartisan populist" sphere, we may refer to some members of the new think tank 'American Compass' (e.g. Oren Cass, Chris Griswold, Abigail Ball), writers at Julius Krein's journal 'American Affairs' (e.g. Michael Lind, David P. Goldman, Joel Kotkin), the strange bedfellows at Sohrab Amari's magazine 'Compact' (e.g. Edwin Aponte, Patrick Deneen, Matthew Schmitz, Geoff Shullenberger, Alex Gutentag, Adam Lehrer, Michael Tracey), so-called "reactionary feminists" who criticize both unrestrained capitalism & the sexual revolution (e.g. Mary Harrington, Louise Perry, Nina Power, Helen Andrews, Ashley Frawley), and several "post-left" writers formerly affiliated with the "Dirtbag Left" (e.g. Amber A'Lee Frost, Angela Nagle, Aimee Terese, Oliver Bateman, Malcolm Kyeyune). We could also refer to the 'Breaking Points' online news show headed by Krystal Ball & Saagar Enjeti (with co-hosts Emily Jashinsky & Ryan Grim; and their former 'Rising' co-hosts Kim Iversen & Batya Ungar-Sargon), Glenn Greenwald's post-Intercept output (e.g. the 'System Update' podcast), the writers at 'The Liberal Patriot' blog (Ruy Teixeria, John Halpin, Michael Bahareen), as well as some of the journalists at the socialist magazine 'Jacobin' who are partly sympathetic to populism (e.g. Jennifer Pan, Dustin Guastella, Paul Prescod). This loosely defined intellectual space is still evolving from conversations between anti-woke "class-first socialists" and "post-liberal conservatives" and is less ideologically coherent right now, although it has similarities to earlier Third Way ideologues like producerism and communitarianism. In some cases, figures in this movement have taken positions at odds with the core tenets of classical liberalism, but the left-right dialogue seems to be moderating some of their stances. (The comedians-turned-pundits Jimmy Dore & Russell Brand might fit into this space, as would Tucker Carlson, but I've excluded them as they've all promoted conspiracy theories so - like some of the former IDW members I listed above - they don't help us toward a rational view of politics. There's a similar problem with Anna Khachiyan & Dasha Nekrasova's 'Red Scare' podcast - they're too uninformed on policy & prone to knee-jerk contrarianism for shock value. The "MAGA Communism" guys have a similar problem.)

-- The common feature among all of the new media projects & public intellectuals listed above is that they are openly critical of intellectual blindspots & bad ideas coming from both the left & right, although most of them are not always *equally* aware or critical of problems on both sides of the political spectrum.

(7) In order to do our part combatting political polarization, we borrow ideas from a range of organizations that are currently working on enabling mutual understanding & civil dialogue, such as David Blankenhorn's Braver Angels project, Frank Burton's Circle of Reason, Alexandra Hudson's Civic Renaissance, Liz Joyner's Village Square, Joan Blades' Living Room Conversations, John Gable's AllSides team, David Nevins & Debilyn Molineaux's Bridge Alliance, Lisa Swallow & Kareem Abdelsadek's Crossing Party Lines, Tim Dixon & Gemma Mortensen's More In Common project, David Brooks's Social Fabric Project (a.k.a. Weave), Michael Smerconish's The Mingle Project, Charles Wheelan's Centrist Project (now called "Unite America"), Irshad Manji's Moral Courage Project, the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR), and others.

Upcoming events

13

See all
  • Cato Institute Book Event: "Disrupting Politics"

    Cato Institute Book Event: "Disrupting Politics"

    ·
    Online
    Online

    Event Title:
    "Disrupting Politics: A Front Row Seat to the Collision of Technology & Democracy"

    Registering for the Online Event:
    To register for and watch this FREE event, go to:     https://www.cato.org/events/disrupting-politics

    You can also watch it live on Vimeo - https://vimeo.com/1236246472

    NOTE: You can submit questions in the comment box on the Cato Institute's event page and join the conversation on social media using #CatoEvents. For event updates, follow @CatoInstitute on X. If you have questions about the event or your registration, please email events@​cato.​org.

    Event Description:
    Katie Harbath was at the center of some of the biggest controversies involving political speech and social media. During her decade at Facebook, where she led the company’s global election-related work, she helped navigate consequential decisions involving political advertising, election interference, misinformation, and content moderation. From the 2016 presidential election and the Cambridge Analytica scandal to growing concerns over online censorship, Harbath was directly involved as Facebook confronted questions about its influence over political speech and public debate.

    In her new book, Disrupting Politics, Harbath takes readers behind the scenes of these controversies, recounting the decisions facing Facebook as it navigated competing pressures from politicians, government officials, activists, and the public. Her account raises important questions about the power of technology platforms, who should decide what speech is permitted online, and the role of government in regulating political expression.

    Please join us for a discussion of these controversies, emerging challenges involving artificial intelligence and political misinformation, and what lessons Facebook’s experiences offer for today’s debates over free expression, government pressure on social media platforms, and the influence of technology companies in shaping public discourse.

    About the Speakers:
    * Katie Harbath is the Founder and CEO of the technology policy firm Anchor Change and the chief global affairs officer of Duco Experts, a technology firm. She is also the director of technology and democracy for the International Republican Institute and is also a fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Integrity Institute, and a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council. She worked for ten years as Facebook's director of public policy for global elections. She holds a BA in journalism and political science from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
    * Adam Conner is the Vice President of Technology Policy at the Center for American Progress. He holds a BA in Political Communication from the School of Media and Public Affairs at the George Washington University.
    * David Inserra is a Fellow for Free Expression and Technology at the Cato Institute. He has an MPP from George Mason University.
    * Jennifer Huddleston is a Senior Fellow in technology policy at the Cato Institute.. She has a JD from the University of Alabama School of Law.

    About the Cato Institute:
    Founded in 1976, the Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. The institute advocates for free market economic policies, protection of civil liberties, criminal justice reform, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. It publishes the annual "Human Freedom Index" that ranks countries based on their levels of personal & economic freedoms, and it hosts cross-partisan discussions monthly at "Cato Unbound". To learn more, go to https://www.cato.org/about

    .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

    • Photo of the user
    1 attendee
  • Braver Angels Event: "Becoming a Braver Angel Amid the Politics of Contempt"

    Braver Angels Event: "Becoming a Braver Angel Amid the Politics of Contempt"

    ·
    Online
    Online

    Event Topic:
    "Becoming a Braver Angel Amid the Politics of Contempt"

    About this Event:
    How do we stay connected despite political differences? Authors Teschner and Malow offer practical ideas on understanding and relationships.
    With the midterms behind us and holiday dinners just ahead, how do we be ourselves AND stay connected to family and friends who see politics differently?

    Join us for an engaging conversation with Doug Teschner and Beth Malow, two co-authors of Beyond the Politics of Contempt: Practical Steps to Build Positive Relationships in Divided Times (2025).

    Drawing on their book and their Braver Angels experience, Doug and Beth will share practical ways to speak honestly about what matters to us, better understand those who see things differently, and keep our relationships from becoming casualties of our political differences.

    Whether you're a longtime Braver Angel or simply want to navigate these conversations a little better, you'll come away with ideas you can put to use—not to change anyone's mind, but to make room for understanding, strengthen relationships, and stay connected even when you disagree.

    Questions? Contact Scott Schluter, sschluter@braverangels.org; mvoss@braverangels.org

    Registering for the Online Debate:
    This is a FREE event; however, you will need to register for it. Go to the following Eventbrite link & fill out the registration form:
    https://www.eventbrite.com/e/becoming-a-braver-angel-amid-the-politics-of-contempt-registration-2003432261826?discount=BRAVER&aff=oddtdtcreator

    Registration for this debate will be closed 12 hours prior to the scheduled starting time. Check your email for the confirmation message with the Zoom link - if you don't see it, check your "Junk" folder.

    • Note: Braver Angels events may be recorded, and may be shared with media or used in Braver Angels publications, including web pages. Participants who object to this may disable their video.

    About the Speakers:
    * Doug Teschner is a former Republican state legislator who was elected for six terms as a State Representative, served as a NH Assistant Secretary of State, led USAID democracy projects in the Rwanda and Morocco parliaments, and was Peace Corps country director in Ukraine and several African nations. He volunteers with Braver Angels and serves as New England Regional Leader and facilitates Braver Politics, supporting a bi-partisan caucus in the NH House of Representatives.
    * Beth Malow is a neurosurgeon and science communicator who works as a Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics in the Vanderbilt University. She's also a science communicator who uses her website, Beth's Wisdom, to explain science and health concepts and promote critical thinking. She's been an active member of Braver Angels since 2017, working with the Braver Angels Truth and Trust Project which is focused on building trust between citizens and public health officials, and serving as the co-chair for the Braver Angels Action Team within the Citizens' Climate Lobby, a nonpartisan climate advocacy organization.

    What is "Braver Angels"?
    Formerly known as "Better Angels", Braver Angels is an organization founded in 2016 to depolarize American politics through grassroots organizing. They do this primarily by hosting events for cross-partisan dialogue & civil debate. To learn more, go to https://braverangels.org/

    • Photo of the user
    1 attendee
  • Bi-Weekly Discussion - Was There a 2010s Campus Rape Crisis?

    Bi-Weekly Discussion - Was There a 2010s Campus Rape Crisis?

    ·
    Online
    Online

    This is going to be an online meetup using Zoom. If you've never used Zoom before, don't worry — it's easy to use and free to join.

    Click on the link above at the scheduled date/time to log in...

    ***

    ***

    WHAT SHOULD WE MAKE OF THE "CAMPUS RAPE CRISIS" STORIES IN THE MID-2010s?

    DID THE MEDIA CALL ATTENTION TO A REAL RAPE EPIDEMIC ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES, OR WAS IT JUST A MORAL PANIC OVER COLLEGE HOOKUP CULTURE?

    INTRODUCTION:
    Due to the recent media coverage of the     "Cornell Seven" legal case, I figured it might be useful to revisit a Skeptics meetup I hosted way back in Feb. 2020 that addressed the available evidence we have on prevailing trends & contributing factors in the incidence of sexual assault on college campuses during 2010s. I fixed some broken links and replaced a few videos that were taken down, but I didn't have time to update the information sources for the 2020s and see how things have changed. Therefore, we'll mostly be focused on conditions on college campuses in the 2010s, although this certainly has some relevance for the situation today. Hopefully, along the way, we can clear up some misconceptions that have proliferated in the public sphere due to the media's focus on a few high-profile cases and get a better sense of how big the overall problem is, which types of colleges are the most heavily implicated, and whether or not it was blown out of proportion. We'll also try to ascertain what factors are correlated with the sexual assault rates on college campuses, and what college administrators & law enforcement should do about it.

    In retrospect, it appears that the public debates over rape & sexual assault on college campuses in the mid-2010s was due in large part to the uptick in mainstream news coverage in the wake of the Obama administration's 2011 "Dear Colleague" letter which provided new Title IX guidelines for colleges. The letter told all of the colleges that receive federal money to use a lower standard of proof, a "preponderance of evidence", in sexual assault cases and required universities to allow accusers to appeal not-guilty findings, a form of double jeopardy. It also told schools to accelerate their adjudications, with a recommended 60-day limit, and strongly discouraged cross-examination of accusers. Critics argued this led to many unfair disciplinary hearings & unjustified expulsions, while proponents argued it was a necessary correction since in the past many colleges did little to address high rates of sexual assault on their campuses. (The letter's guidelines were rescinded by Trump's Education Secretary Betsy DeVos in 2017.)

    The most notable spikes in news coverage of what came to be known as the "campus rape crisis" came between 2014 & 2016. It started in 2014 with the White House PSA "1 is 2 Many" -- a viral video that featured President Obama & Vice President Biden, as well as several major actors like Daniel Craig, Benicio Del Toro & Steve Carell. The video launched their "It's On Us" campaign to raise awareness about sexual assaults on campus, and this was followed by the passage of California's "affirmative consent" law. That same year, there were a flurry of news stories about art student Emma Sulkowicz carrying her mattress around on Columbia University's campus to protest their dismissal of her rape case against a former friend & fellow student, and there was a major controversy over fact-checking & due diligence in journalism when a Rolling Stone article entitled "A Rape on Campus" about an alleged gang rape at a UVA fraternity had to be retracted due to major inconsistencies in the alleged victim's story. In 2015, Emma Sulkowicz stirred further controversy by releasing a graphic sex tape that reenacted her account of her rape, and the documentary film "The Hunting Ground" painted a dire picture of college campuses overrun by sexual predators, but it was sharply criticized by a group of Harvard law professors who claimed it misrepresented a case at their school. In 2016, the case against Brock Turner for sexual assault at Stanford concluded with a light 6 month sentence sparking public outrage, especially compared to the much longer 15-year sentences received by black football players in the Vanderbilt rape case, and a sexual assault scandal erupted with the football team at Baylor University.

    Google Trends show that the topic "campus sexual assault" began to slowly decline in 2017 even as the topic of "sexual assault" increased. This suggests that sexual assault continued to be a major news topic, but there was a divergence due to the news media's focus shifting from colleges to similar problems in the entertainment industry as the allegations against film producer Harvey Weinstein began to break. The Weinstein scandal was quickly followed by allegations of sexual misconduct against a long list of major actors, musicians, newscasters, and business leaders. This was the genesis of the #MeToo Movement, which dominated the discussion of sexual assault & sexual harassment in 2017-2018. "Sex trafficking" continued to capture headlines and peaked in 2020 even as media interest in campus sexual assaults declined, and Google Trends shows the topic of "sex trafficking" has had slow but steady growth through the 2000s, surpassing #MeToo in 2019. (I'm putting "sex trafficking" in quotes because, as we discussed in a past meetup, media accounts often conflate voluntary sex work with coercive pimping and urban legends about kidnappers selling victims into sexual slavery.)

    But while the news media may have moved on to broader discussions about sexual misconduct & sexual exploitation, what should the skeptic community make of the "campus rape crisis" that occupied so much public attention in the mid-2010s? Was the problem as bad as we were led to believe? If so, has the problem been successfully addressed by law enforcement & college administrators, or is it just drawing less media coverage?

    We must start by noting that while the actual rates of rape & sexual assault are unclear, they are not comparable to the dubious pseudoscientific & paranormal phenomena that scientific skeptics typically investigate. These crimes certainly do occur on college campuses (and elsewhere) and can be incredibly traumatizing for the victims. While some advocates for "restorative justice" favor mandatory therapy and compensation to the victims instead of long-term incarceration, if one subscribes to the theories of "retributive justice" or "expressive justice" (a.k.a. denunciation), it's reasonable to demand that the criminal justice system should give convicted rapists long prison sentences to punish them, express society's abhorrence of their actions, and show solidarity with their victims. To the extent that some violent sex offenders are likely to be recidivist, it makes sense to isolate them from the rest of society through incarceration. And to the extent their crimes are premeditated & "rational" (in an amoral & selfish sense), it makes sense to try to deter would-be sexual predators with the threat of swift & certain punishment.

    However, the highly inflammatory nature of sex crimes should also make us wary of the prevailing media narratives around these issues -- especially when we consider "moral panics" in the past that have surrounded allegations of sexual deviancy & sex crimes. These forms of moral panics are common enough they have earned their own term -- "sex panics". Historians, sociologists & social psychologists have identified a series of sex panics through American history, ranging from allegations of sexual congress with the Devil during the Puritan witch trials, to Jim-Crow-era fears of miscegenation & lynchings of black men accused of assaulting white women, the Second Red Scare's targeting of closeted homosexuals in government as potential traitors, and of course the "Satanic Ritual Abuse" panic centered around schools & daycares in the 1980s.

    The most prominent critics of the "campus rape crisis" narrative are conservatives & libertarian pundits writing for news outlets like National Review and Reason. They typically agree that activists on the political left are using the "rape crisis" as a pretext for their political agenda, but they differ on what they think the solution should be. Conservative pundits tend to ascribe a bit more credence to the idea that a rise in sexual assaults could be happening but argue that cracking down on "binge drinking" and "hookup culture" is the solution, and they tend to put the onus for this on young women who they argue need to be less promiscuous & more careful. Libertarian pundits, on the other hand, tend to think the statistics on campus sexual assaults are vastly inflated, and they argue that students have the right to drink alcohol & engage in casual sex if that's what they want. Libertarian pundits typically offer environmental solutions like allowing sorority houses to host parties so they can control flow of alcohol, lowering the drinking age to 18 so that younger college students don't have to drink surreptitiously in unsupervised house parties, and legalizing marijuana to allow an alternative to alcohol that's less likely to create an aggressive atmosphere at parties.

    Conversely, many feminist activists & left-leaning social scientists are afraid that sexual assaults are increasing on college campuses and that administrators aren't doing enough to catch & punish the perpetrators. They tend to see the real moral panic to be the concerns of conservative & libertarian pundits about a supposed wave of false rape accusations & campus tribunals that function as "kangaroo courts". Pundits & scholars on the political left tend to see their right-wing critics as "rape apologists" and "concern trolls" who want to preserve the patriarchy, "male privilege", "toxic masculinity" and "rape culture". They tend to see rape & sexual assault as a product of a corrupt culture that privileges men's access to sex over women's bodily autonomy, and they typically suggest a mix of sexual education, public shaming, campus disciplinary reform, and a sea change in our criminal justice system as the ultimate solution.

    In this meetup, we'll do our best to get past the rhetoric and the hype and look at the what the available research can tell us about the realities of sexual assault on college campuses.

    RELEVANT MATERIAL FROM PAST MEETUPS:

    We had a meetup in Feb. 2020 entitled "Is #MeToo the Solution to Gender-Based Violence?" that looked at some broader trends in the U.S. for "gender-based violence" (e.g. sexual assault, sexual harassment, domestic violence). They also tried to assess whether or not the #MeToo Movement helped to reduce these crime rates.

    Back in May 2018, the Skeptics had a meetup entitled "The Campus Rape Crisis & Sex Trafficking" where we discussed why some skeptics think the media's focus on the role of "date rape drugs" in campus assault cases is misplaced, how & why the news media gets some high-profile college rape cases wrong (e.g. the Duke lacrosse case in 2006, the Rolling Stone article about a UVA fraternity in 2014, the Hunting Ground documentary film in 2015), how "Missing White Girl Syndrome" leads the media to neglect the plight of women of color & men/boys who've gone missing, and how the media perpetuates myths about sex trafficking.

    In July 2019, the Skeptics had a meetup entitled "Debunking 'Cyber-Sex Panics'" where we looked at some of the misconceptions people have about the influence of the internet on the incidence of sex crimes. While some people believe that the proliferation of internet porn must've incited more people to commit sexual assault, crime stats suggest that it may have actually been one of the causes of the decline in sexual assault rates since the 1990s. Similarly, while many people consider online dating more dangerous than traditional dating, statistics suggest that it's no more dangerous. Children also don't appear to be at a particularly high risk from sexual predators when they go online, despite the fears of many parents. Lastly, we discussed how the recent media focus on the online "incel" subculture (i.e. involuntary celibate males) calls out some misogynistic & violent comments in their forums but also includes elements of a "moral panic" similar to what we've previously seen around stigmatized youth subcultures like metalheads, goths & emo kids.

    Also in July 2019, we had a meetup entitled "Has The Internet Ruined Romance & Relationships?" We looked at the debates about more general social problems surrounding the ubiquity of internet porn, the rise of online dating, teen internet use & sexting, and the alleged "sex recession" among Millennials. They also addressed the political debates about whether the government should try to legislate sexual morality, even in cases where no crime has occurred, simply to stabilize society and incentivize marriage & child-rearing.
    ----------------------------------------------------
    DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO PREPARE FOR OUR DISCUSSION:
    The videos & articles you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of some of the major debates over the incidence of rape & sexual assault on college campuses. As usual, I certainly don't expect you to read all the articles & watch all the videos prior to attending our discussion. The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just watch the numbered videos linked under each section - the videos come to about 50 minutes total. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details. You can browse and look at whichever ones you want, but don't worry - we'll cover the stuff you missed in our discussion.

    In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the topics in the order presented here. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section. I've listed some questions to help stimulate discussion, but we'll also address those posed by our members.
    ----------------------------------------------------
    I. STATISTICS ON THE PREVALENCE OF CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULTS:

    • ARE STUDENT SURVEYS THAT INDICATE 1-IN-4 OR 1-IN-5 WOMEN WILL BE RAPED OR SEXUALLY ASSAULTED IN COLLEGE ACCURATE, OR DO THEY SUFFER FROM "NON-RESPONSE BIAS" (I.E. NON-VICTIMS ARE LESS LIKELY RETURN THE SURVEY)? DO THEY EQUATE "UNWANTED KISSING OR TOUCHING" WITH "SEXUAL ASSAULT" OR EQUATE "DRUNK SEX" WITH "RAPE"? IS THE CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT RATE MORE LIKE 1-IN-40, AS CHRISTINA HOFF SOMMERS CLAIMS?
    • ARE COLLEGE STUDENTS MORE LIKELY TO BE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED THAN NON-STUDENTS THEIR AGE?
    • HAVE RAPE & SEXUAL ASSAULT BEEN INCREASING ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES IN RECENT YEARS, OR IS THIS MERELY AN APPARENT RISE DUE TO INCREASED AWARENESS OF THE EXISTING PROBLEM?
    • IS IT TRUE THAT THE COLLEGE STUDENTS MOST AT THE RISK OF SEXUAL ASSAULT ARE FRESHMEN DURING THE "RED ZONE" - I.E. FIRST 2-3 MONTHS OF COLLEGE?
    • ARE FRATERNITY MEMBERS & STUDENT ATHLETES OVERREPRESENTED AMONG CAMPUS PERPETRATORS OF RAPE & SEXUAL ASSAULT?
    • HOW ACCURATE ARE DAVID LISAK'S STUDY THAT SHOWED 6% OF COLLEGE MEN ADMITTED TO "NON-CONSENSUAL SEX" & KEVIN SWARTOUT'S STUDY THAT SHOWED A HIGHER NUMBER OF ~11%?

    1a) Christina Hoff Sommers, "Campus sexual assault: Bad statistics don't help victims" (video - 3:50 min.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5XMuTAomNk
    1b) Christina Hoff Sommers, "Sexual assault myths: Part 2" (video - 5:10 min.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq3Ju_sI_Ew
    1c) Newsy, "Is There A Link Between College Football Game Days And Rape?" (video - 1:14 min.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGcEUp1GpNs
    1d) 11Alive, "Verify: is the [fall] 'red zone' for college students' sexual assault risk real?" (video - 1:50 min)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VN4awzwT2s

    II. STUDENT DRINKING CULTURE & HOW IT MAKES ASSESSING CONSENT & MEMORY IN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE CASES DIFFICULT:

    • WHAT PERCENTAGE OF RAPES & SEXUAL ASSAULTS ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES INVOLVE ALCOHOL?
    • DO MANY STUDIES OF CAMPUS RAPE EQUATE CONSENSUAL DRUNK SEX WITH RAPING AN UNCONSCIOUS VICTIM?
    • DOES THE SUNY BUFFALO STUDY THAT INDICATED 17.6% OF COLLEGE MEN ADMITTED COMMITTING "SEXUAL AGGRESSION" WHILE DRINKING EQUATE "FORCED SEX" WITH "UNWANTED CONTACT"?
    • DO DRINKING LOCATIONS - SPECIFICALLY OFF-CAMPUS PARTIES VS ON-CAMPUS PARTIES - PLAY A BIGGER ROLE IN SEXUAL ASSAULT THAN JUST THE DRINKING ITSELF? IF SO, COULD THIS BE RELATED TO THE "COUPLING" PHENOMENON MALCOLM GLADWELL DISCUSSES IN HIS BOOK TALKING TO STRANGERS?
    • DOES RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA POSE A SIMILAR PROBLEM AS ALCOHOL, OR DOES IT DECREASE SEXUAL AGGRESSION? DO CAMPUSES IN STATES WITH LEGAL MARIJUANA SHOW ANY CHANGE IN SEXUAL ASSAULT RATES?
    • HOW MANY CASES OF SEXUAL ASSAULT INVOLVE "DATE RAPE DRUGS" (E.G. GHB, ROHYPNOL)? COULD STUDENTS OVERESTIMATE THEIR PREVALENCE DUE TO MISIDENTIFYING ALCOHOL-INDUCED BLACKOUTS AS CASES OF BEING "ROOFIED"?
    • COULD "CAUTIONARY TALES" ABOUT DATE RAPE DRUGS, EVEN IF OVERBLOWN, MOTIVATE YOUNG PEOPLE TO ENGAGE IN BENEFICIAL BEHAVIORS LIKE DRINKING LESS AND/OR WATCHING OUT FOR FRIENDS WHO APPEAR TO BE TOO INTOXICATED? OR DO FEARS OF DATE RAPE DRUGS DISPLACE MORE GROUNDED CONCERNS ABOUT BINGE DRINKING?
    • WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "BLACKING OUT" & "PASSING OUT" FROM ALCOHOL? IN THE FORMER CASE, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT PEOPLE COULD CONSENT TO SEX BUT NOT REMEMBER?
    • HOW DOES ALCOHOL & ADRENALINE INTERACT TO AFFECT A VICTIM'S MEMORY IN A CASE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT? IS IT LIKELY THAT THE VICTIM WILL REMEMBER WHO ASSAULTED THEM BUT NOT MUCH ELSE?

    2a) WIVBTV, "Research Scientist studies risks of alcohol and sex in young women" (video - 2:09 min)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqz07snS3TM
    2b) WKBW TV w/ Sherri Darrow, "[SUNY Buffalo] Study finds drinking locations linked to sexual assault" (video - 2:14 min.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afCkgcNRGVs
    2c) Caroline Kitchens, "Date rape drugs: Facts vs. myths explained" (video - 5:19 min.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu90VKEa2xk
    2d) Jim Hopper, "Sexual Assault, Intoxication & Memory" (video - 3:26 min.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9gaITxFsjs

    III. THE DEBATES OVER "HOOKUP CULTURE", AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT & BYSTANDER INTERVENTION TRAINING, AND THEIR EFFECTS ON CAMPUS SEXUAL NORMS:

    • IS COLLEGE "HOOKUP CULTURE" MOSTLY LIMITED TO GREEK LIFE AT BIG STATE UNIVERSITIES, OR DOES A PARTY SCENE WITH HOOKUPS INEVITABLY DEVELOP AT ALL RESIDENTIAL COLLEGES?
    • WHAT PORTION OF COLLEGE STUDENTS ARE ENGAGED IN "HOOKUP CULTURE" - I.E. THEY'RE SEXUALLY ACTIVE BUT DON'T HAVE A SIGNIFICANT OTHERS? DOES IT USUALLY INVOLVE "ONE NIGHT STANDS" WITH DIFFERENT PARTNERS OR "FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS" & POLYAMORY?
    • IS "HOOKUP CULTURE" MOSTLY A RESULT OF A SHIFT IN SOCIAL NORMS AWAY FROM TRADITIONAL DATING? OR IS IT MORE A PRODUCT OF UNEQUAL GENDER RATIOS AT COLLEGES THAT PUSH WOMEN TO COMPETE FOR MEN USING CASUAL SEX, AS JON BIRGER ARGUES?
    • ARE MOST SEXUAL ASSAULTS ON CAMPUS A PRODUCT OF HOOKUP CULTURE & BINGE DRINKING LEADING PSYCHOLOGICALLY "NORMAL" MALES TO HAVE SEX WITH WOMEN WHEN CONSENT ISN'T CLEAR, AS "AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT" PROGRAMS IMPLY? OR ARE MOST CASES COMMITTED BY PREDATORIAL SERIAL RAPISTS, AS DAVID LISAK ARGUES? IF IT'S THE LATTER, DO SEXUAL PREDATORS USE DRINKING & HOOKUP CULTURE FOR "CAMOUFLAGE", AS LISA WADE SUGGESTS?
    • ARE THERE STUDIES THAT SUGGEST THE "AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT" TRAINING PROGRAMS BEING ADOPTED BY MANY COLLEGE CAN REDUCE THE INCIDENCE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT? IF NOT, DOES THE BENEFICIAL RESULTS FROM PUBLIC SCHOOL SEX ED CLASSES (I.E. LOWERED TEEN PREGNANCY RATES) SUGGEST IT WILL PROBABLY WORK, OR ARE THESE COLLEGE SEMINARS MORE AKIN TO THE CORPORATE SEXUAL HARASSMENT TRAINING THAT STUDIES SUGGEST DO NOT WORK?
    • ARE THERE STUDIES THAT SUGGEST "BYSTANDER INTERVENTION TRAINING" CAN REDUCE THE INCIDENCE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT? IS BYSTANDER INTERVENTION MORE PLAUSIBLE NOW THAT STUDIES SHOW THE "BYSTANDER EFFECT" WAS OVERSTATED, OR ARE AN ACQUAINTANCE RAPIST'S ATTEMPT TO ISOLATE THEIR VICTIM USUALLY TOO AMBIGUOUS TO RELY ON BYSTANDER INTERVENTION?
    • IS BYSTANDER INTERVENTION PLAGUED BY RACIAL BIASES, SO THAT BLACK WOMEN ARE LESS LIKELY TO BE HELPED BY WHITE PEERS? DOES THE TENDENCY OF COLLEGE WOMEN TO "SLUT-SHAME" LOWER CLASS PEERS SUGGEST THERE MIGHT ALSO BE CLASSIST BIASES THAT PREVENT INTERVENTION?
    • IS BYSTANDER INTERVENTION FROM MEN INHIBITED BY CAMPUS FEMINISTS WHO OFTEN PORTRAY "WHITE KNIGHT" BEHAVIOR AS OUT-DATED & CONDESCENDING? OR IS IT MOSTLY INHIBITED BY THE "BROS BEFORE HOES" ETHIC IN MALE GROUPS?

    3a) NY Mag, "Is 'Hook-Up Culture Real?" (video - 2:31 min.)
    https://youtu.be/PtQx-rhsnJU
    3b) SciShow Psych, "Is the Bystander Effect Real?" (video - 5:08 min)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv22TMtNNkI
    3c) PBS NewsHour w/ Jaclyn Friedman & Shikha Dalmia, "'Will saying yes to affirmative consent curb sexual assault?'" (video - 6:55 min)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvf3oKshj-U

    IV. THE "PERFECT VICTIM MYTH", FALSE MEMORIES VS FALSE ACCUSATIONS, AND THE DEBATE OVER WHETHER FEAR OF FALSE RAPE ALLEGATIONS ARE A MORAL PANIC:

    • WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED REPORTING RATE FOR CASES OF RAPE/SEXUAL ASSAULT, WHEN WE COMPARE VICTIM SURVEYS TO POLICE RECORDS?
    • HOW COMMON ARE FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF RAPE/SEXUAL ASSAULT, ACCORDING TO LAW ENFORCEMENT STATS? IS THERE A GREY AREA DUE TO ALLEGATIONS THAT WEREN'T SUBSTANTIATED BUT ALSO WEREN'T DISPROVEN?
    • IS IT TRUE THAT AN "ILLUSION OF CONTROL BIAS" &
      "SYSTEM JUSTIFICATION" (A.K.A. JUST-WORLD HYPOTHESIS) MAY CAUSE PEOPLE TO OVEREMPHASIZE THE ROLE OF A PERSON'S BEHAVIOR IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THEY BECOMES THE VICTIM OF SEXUAL ASSAULT? COULD THIS ALSO LEAD TO "VICTIM-BLAMING" & SUSPICIONS OF A FALSE ACCUSATION IF A PERSON REPORTING A SEXUAL ASSAULT DOESN'T FIT THE STEREOTYPE OF A "PERFECT VICTIM" -- I.E. SOBER & CONSERVATIVELY DRESSED AT THE TIME OF THE ASSAULT, NOT ROMANTICALLY INVOLVED WITH THE PERPETRATOR, AND VISIBLY DISTRAUGHT WHILE REPORTING IT TO POLICE IMMEDIATELY AFTER?
    • ARE DELAYED MEMORIES OF A SEXUAL ASSAULT COMMON DUE TO TRAUMATIC REPRESSION (A.K.A. DISSOCIATIVE AMNESIA)? IF SO, CAN COUNSELORS HELP VICTIMS REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED, OR DOES THIS POSE A RISK OF CREATING FALSE MEMORIES THAT LEAD TO FALSE ACCUSATIONS?
    • DO PEOPLE WHO MAKE FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT TEND TO FIT A PSYCHOLOGICAL PROFILE? IF NOT, ARE FALSE ACCUSATIONS MORE THE RESULT OF CERTAIN SITUATIONS THAT PROVOKE REGRET (E.G. INFIDELITY, SLUT-SHAMING, UNWANTED PREGNANCY, REJECTION, ETC.)?
    • DOES DELAYED REPORTING OF A SEXUAL ASSAULT INCREASE THE CHANCES THAT THE COMPLAINANT IS MAKING A FALSE ACCUSATION, OR IS THIS NORMAL BECAUSE IT OFTEN TAKES TIME FOR A VICTIM TO WORK UP THE COURAGE? WHAT ABOUT CASES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT WAS FRIENDLY WITH THEIR ALLEGED ATTACKER FOR SEVERAL WEEKS BEFORE MAKING THE ACCUSATION?
    • WHY MIGHT BLACK MALE STUDENTS (6% OF UNDERGRADS) BE OVERREPRESENTED AMONG THOSE ACCUSED OF RAPE & SEXUAL ASSAULT? IS THIS THE RESULT OF RACIAL BIAS OR DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR?
    • DOES THE INCREASE IN TITLE IX LAWSUITS AGAINST COLLEGES IN THE LATE 2010s SHOW PROGRESS BECAUSE SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS SUED THEIR SCHOOLS FOR NOT PROTECTING THEM? OR DOES IT INDICATE SCHOOLS MAY HAVE DEVIATED TOO FAR FROM DUE PROCESS, OPENING THEMSELVES TO SUITS BY MEN WHO WERE FALSELY ACCUSED?

    4a) ABC News, "Rape graphic [from the Enliven Project] goes viral with surprising statistic on false rape accusations" (video - 1:56 min.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf3Z1poOK7s
    4b) Seamus Coughlin, "Only 2% Of Rape Accusations Are False?" (video - 3:14 min.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8zSDvaYrRw
    4c) Jackie Fuchs, "Victim blaming and the 'just world' fallacy" (video - 2:23 min.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJfCOLKv6fc
    4d) BBC w/ Vanessa Grigoriandis & Jim Hopper, "Why people can take years to report sexual assaults" (vide - 2:30 min.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t7Sj2k1CK4

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    • Photo of the user
    • Photo of the user
    2 attendees
  • Commonwealth Club Event: "What a Country Owes its Soldiers"

    Commonwealth Club Event: "What a Country Owes its Soldiers"

    ·
    Online
    Online

    Join the Commonwealth Club of California on Nov. 16, 2026 to a discussion on Sara Mohamed's new book, What a Country Owes Its Soldiers.

    HOW TO WATCH:
    This event is $10 for online tickets, and you must register at the link below, at which point you'll be emailed a link to the online event -     https://commonwealthclub.my.salesforce-sites.com/ticket/#/instances/a0FVb00000HSBLJMA5

    EVENT DESCRIPTION:
    American leaders endlessly profess their admiration for military service members. But according to UC Berkeley law professor Saira Mohamed, these effusive declarations hardly comport with reality. Soldiers receive shoddy equipment and inadequate medical care; they are ordered to commit crimes and deployed to illegal wars. Such treatment, she writes, is rarely recognized for what it is: a violation of the duty owed to soldiers by their government. When American service members are injured or killed during training, for example, they and their families are barred from suing the military for negligence or malfeasance. And when the torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib came to light, the subsequent proceedings focused just on low-ranking perpetrators. The psychological harm done to the soldiers themselves by commanders who ordered them to commit torture in the first place went unacknowledged.

    Examining statutes, treaties, court cases and congressional hearings, Saira Mohamed shows how the law encourages the treatment of soldiers as mere instruments, to be used and abused however the government wishes. She also unearths overlooked laws that point in the other direction, suggesting the possibility of robust protections for service members. Paradoxically, she argues, these get ignored in part because of the popular adulation of the military―the vision of service members as heroes who selflessly endure unlimited sacrifice. The all-volunteer nature of the force also promotes the misguided notion that soldiers have willingly accepted whatever mistreatment they might endure.

    In her new book What a Country Owes Its Soldiers, Mohamed shows how laws and mindsets can change, enabling genuine respect for soldiers’ humanity. Acknowledging their rights can transform our understanding of those who fight America’s wars, and of American warmaking itself.

    ABOUT THE SPEAKER & MODERATOR:

    • Saira Mohamed is a Professor of Law at the UC Berkeley School of Law, as well as the school's Agnes Roddy Robb Chair in Jurisprudence, Ethics, and Social Responsibility
    • The Moderator, Aaron Glantz, is the AI Bureau Chief for the Christian Science Monitor and author ofThe War Comes Home: Washington's Battle Against America's Veterans (2009)

    ABOUT THE EVENT HOST:
    The Commonwealth Club of California is the nation's oldest and largest public affairs forum. Every year, they present more than 450 forums on topics ranging across politics, culture, society and the economy. Their stated mission is to be the leading national forum open to all for the impartial discussion of public issues important to the membership, community and nation. To learn more, go to: https://www.commonwealthclub.org/who-we-are
    .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

    • Photo of the user
    1 attendee

Group links

Organizers

Photo of the user Brian B.
Badge for Brian B.
Brian B.

Super Organizer

Members

835
See all
D
R
S
A
Z
O
F
A
C
L
R
M