The Brooks Blog

Monday, January 23, 2012

New website launched - thombrooks.info

I have promised some big news on this blog in recent days. My first big announcement is twofold.

First, I have launched a new website here - thombrooks.info. There are a few bugs left to fix and I expect the website will be 100% functional from tomorrow. The website will replace my current Newcastle site here. The new website will include the latest updates on new publications and media links.

Secondly, I intend to spend much less time blogging to devote more attention to other projects, including writing more for other outlets. I had originally planned to close the blog entirely, but the shock expressed by Spiros convinced me to suspend this plan for now.

Originally, the Brooks Blog provided me with a much needed outlet. I had wanted to post drafts of my papers and my university did not yet have the facilities in place to permit this. Over time the Brooks Blog posted more on higher education and political commentary moving beyond highlighting my latest drafts and publications. And so it has continued for almost six years now.

The Brooks Blog has introduced me to new friends and colleagues from across the UK, Europe, North America, and beyond. I have benefited enormously from brilliant insights and comments on current affairs and my own research. I suspect there will be more to come in future, but note it will become much less frequent.

My suspicion is that the days of lone bloggers is coming to an end. The rise and rise of new group blogs, not least APPS, has been exciting. It has been impossible to keep up as a lone blogger with the excellent work appearing at APPS, PEA Soup, Feminist Philosophers, Labour Left, and many other group blogs. Instead of continuing on my own, I plan to join forces with others and primarily in the area of British politics and public policy rather than academic philosophy and higher education. This is where my interests have been moving in recent months and years and where I plan to dedicate more time.

The Brooks Blog has become something of an elderly gent in the blogging world. Most blogs have died after 1-2 years whereas my blog has run since early spring 2006. I have long felt it was time to move on to new challenges. I have a second major announcement forthcoming on new changes at the Journal of Moral Philosophy as well.

So it's not the end for this blog, but readers should expect less frequent posts in future. After 360,000+ "hits" and hundreds of comments, etc., I can only thank you, the reader, for making this all worthwhile. It is often remarked how difficult and even callous academic philosophy has become. This has never been my experience and I am deeply grateful for the fun that blogging has brought me.

If you haven't blogged before, then I recommend you try it. But as a group blog. In the meantime, I can be found over here and on Twitter (@thom_brooks). Until next time . . .

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

The latest insights on publishing by journal editors

Many thanks to the organizers of the "Editors' Cut" workshop last week at the University of London. The event was enjoyable and the discussion wide-ranging and lively. Full audio of the different talks can be found here. Papers are forthcoming in Metaphilosophy.

Thom Brooks on "How Not to Save the Planet"

. . . can be freely downloaded here. The paper's abstract:

"Climate change presents us with a pressing challenge. A global consensus accepts that human activity is responsible for climate change and its associated dangers. However, there is disagreement on how best to address this challenge. The essay argues that leading proposals are unsatisfactory, such as the ecological footprint and polluter pays principle. The reasons include that they do not effectively manage climate change and may contribute to further problems. We require a new approach to address climate change. "

Comments most welcome!

Thom Brooks on "Climate Change and Negative Duties"

. . . has now appeared in Politics and found here. The abstract:

"Climate change and its harmful effects are widely accepted. A common approach is to argue along the lines of Mill's ‘harm principle’: if we contribute to climate change, then we are likewise responsible for harming others and we have a negative duty to reduce our carbon emissions. This article argues that a negative duty leads to a philosophical fork in the road which does not necessarily entail carbon emissions reductions. Arguments for such reductions require further supplementation to close off possible non-conservationist alternatives."

Particularly pleasing is that - after publishing about 70 articles - this is the first to start from page one in a journal.

Monday, January 16, 2012

My final "new books" list

Vittorio Bufacchi, Social Injustice: Essays in Political Philosophy. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

Jennifer Lees-Marshment, Political Marketing: Principles and Applications. London: Routledge, 2009.

Anna Moltchanova, National Self-Determination and Justice in Multinational States. Dordrecht: Springer, 2009.

A. Raghuramaraju, Enduring Colonialism: Classical Presences and Modern Absences in Indian Philosophy. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Melinda A. Roberts and David T. Wasserman (eds), Harming Future Persons: Ethics, Genetics and the Nonidentity Problem. Dordrecht: Springer, 2009.

Robin West, Normative Jurisprudence: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Major forthcoming announcements

A brief note that in the next few days I will be posting some major new announcements. Watch this space...

Monday, January 09, 2012

"Punishment: Should we lock 'em up?"

Ideas on the 3rd Floor
IPPR North’s in-house programme of events on politics, culture and society

Punishment: Should we lock ‘em up?

Tuesday 24 January 2012, 5.30pm to 7pm
IPPR North Offices, central Newcastle (UK)

IPPR North would like to invite you to take part in Ideas on the 3rd Floor, an exciting new programme of in-house events on a wide range of topics within politics, culture and society designed to bring the freshest ideas and the most interesting thinkers to Newcastle for intelligent debate of some of today’s most pressing social challenges.

We would like to invite you to join Thom Brooks, Reader in Political and Legal Philosophy from Newcastle University, and Rick Muir, Associate Director of Public Services at IPPR, to discuss the concept of punishment – an area of increasing importance and concern to both citizens and politicians.

Thom will be talking about his soon to be published book on punishment. He will explore questions such as: how do we decide what should be crimes? How do we decide when someone is responsible for a crime? What should we do with criminals? Rick will respond to Thom’s argument and will explore how ‘justice reinvestment’ – which sees resources currently spent on incarcerating offenders in prison redirected into community-based alternatives that tackle the causes of crime – could more effectively rehabilitate offenders.

The event will be held on Tuesday 24 January 2012, 5.30pm to 7pm at the IPPR North offices in central Newcastle. The event is free and open to all but it is essential that you book your place as space is limited. Please email north@ippr.org to book. Please feel free to pass this invitation on to colleagues who you think may be interested in the event topic.

Friday, January 06, 2012

Michael Gove's war on schools: hundreds of teacher misconduct cases to go unheard

The story can be found here. More than 300 cases of teacher misconduct cases may be affected. The story is all the more remarkable given Gove's repeated claims about the need to improve standards. Yet more pursuit of ideological ends at the expense of students and the public.

UPDATE: Those interested in evidence of what Gove would be like in a classroom may wish to see this video of Gove addressing a group of students...who proceed to fall asleep. Yet more evidence that Gove is out of touch on how to improve schools.

Wednesday, January 04, 2012

The latest issue of Legal Theory in China

. . . can be found here. I strongly encourage readers to check it out. Essays and more with Brian Bix, Thom Brooks, Christine Korsgaard, and Brian Leiter.

Michael Gove's war on schools: all schools are second class?

The Education Secretary, Michael Gove, has launched a blistering attack on opponents of his drive to transform schools into academies. We have remarked on why schools should not become academies before here.

Today, Gove says of his opponents that "Let's hold their prejudices up to the light. What are they saying? If you're poor, if you're Turkish, if you're Somali, then we don't expect you to succeed. You will always be second class and it's no surprise your schools are second class. I utterly reject that attitude." Gove appears to clearly link study in a non-academy school with a "second class" education.

This is an outrageous attack on the UK's successful education system. School standards are high and there is no glut of schools receiving "outstanding" status: indeed, only 6% of primary schools are found "outstanding". (There will be no direct comparison possible for academies because they will not be subject to Ofsted inspections.)

So let's hold Gove's prejudices up to the light: he appears to claim that all schools in the UK are second class. If you desire a first class education or to exercise your full potential, it's academies or bust. This is untrue and has no basis in fact. This is an astonishing allegation to make without supporting evidence (echoing John Reid's comments about the Home Office being unfit). These comments will do nothing to improve education standards, the education experience or improve morale amongst teachers in schools or academies.

Moreover, it is further remarkable that little attention until recently has been given to ensuring that academies will satisfy any standards as they will all be beyond Ofsted control. This may suggest that Gove is driven by ideological zeal -- in his drive to disrupt collective action by teachers -- and not by evidence nor standards.

Gove's war on schools appears to be in full swing.

Families with children will be hardest hit by coalition plans

More confirmation that we're not "all in it together" that will be very damaging from the coalition's efforts to win back lost women voters. Details here from the BBC.

Plans for a privately funded science university

Details here and sounds like the much trumped idea of building some alternative MIT. These are the kinds of ideas that exercise ministers, but never seem to work. There is little doubt that the coalition seems interested in "for profit" enterprises entering the higher education market. The question is whether we'll see a trickle or a flood.

Now that's what I call "tighter than a new tube sock on a cow"

. . . or so the race between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum in Iowa has been described. Romney won by 8 votes in the end. This will not translate into extra delegates for Romney as Iowa distributes its delegates proportionately. However, it will mean positive headlines of a Romney win and some much needed momentum. The bad news -- for Romney fans -- is that he is still failing to break from the pack and the race is too close to call for many pundits.

As stated months ago, The Brooks Blog calls the race for Romney - and the White House for Obama. My suspicions are that the GOP race will run for a while yet with each candidate so concerned about removing Obama they inflict lasting damage on their own side. This will also deplete much needed resources to contest the election with Obama. Plus, there is the possibility of voter fatigue which will benefit Obama (the incumbent).

Tuesday, January 03, 2012

How students learn best

Apparently, research claims to show remaining active and having a set routine are key.

Saturday, December 31, 2011

Happy New Year!!!

Wishing readers a very happy and productive new year --- see you in 2012!!!

The Queen's New Years Honours

No philosophers receive honours in a list notable for the large number of academics honoured. Special congratulations to Newcastle's Deputy Vice Chancellor, Ella Ritchie, who has been awarded an OBE -- well done!

UPDATE: The BBC has the story here.

The Nasty Party is Back

Polly Toynbee warns of what we can expect in 2012 from the Conservative-led coalition. Details here.

Friday, December 30, 2011

The APA-Eastern

Sadly missing the American Philosophical Association - Eastern Division meeting this year. What is the latest?

The biggest event of 2011

I was asked by Research Fortnightly for my view on the big event or story in higher education for 2011. My answer is here and states:

"The big policy event of the year was the unprecedented mass opposition to the inclusion of the “Big Society” in the Arts and Humanities Research Council’s delivery plan. This plan spells out the AHRC’s strategic research funding priorities and it clearly states that the AHRC will “contribute” to the government’s “Big Society” agenda. More than 4,000 academics and 30 learned societies signed petitions and published joint statements declaring almost universal condemnation. This led to en masse resignations from the AHRC’s Peer Review College. The campaign continues for the removal of the “Big Society” from the AHRC Delivery Plan."

Thursday, December 29, 2011

New books

New books received in December include:

Tony Blair, A Journey. London: Arrow Books, 2010.

Paul Cairney, Understanding Public Policy: Theories and Issues. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

Alastair Campbell, The Blair Years: Extracts from the Alastair Campbell Diairies. London: Arrow Books, 2007.

Matt Cavanagh, Against Equality of Opportunity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Jonah Lehrer, How We Decide. Boston: Mariner, 2009.

Chris Mullin, A Very British Coup. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1982.

Chris Mullin, A Vier from the Foothills: The Diaries of Chris Mullin. London: Profile Books, 2009.

Chris Mullin, A Walk-On Part: Diaries 1994-1999. London: Profile Books, 2011.

William Poundstone, Priceless: The Hidden Psychology of Value. Oxford: Oneworld, 2010.

Steven R. Smith, Equality and Diversity: Value Incommensurability and the Politics of Recognition. Bristol: The Policy Press, 2011.

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

More soon....

Watch this space....

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas...

Wishing readers a very Happy Christmas. Expect much more over the holidays soon....

Blame the private sector for the Eurozone crisis

Private sector debts --- and not public sector debts --- are to blame. Data and analysis found here.

Good news for government, bad news for students

The political ping pong that is education enters a new stage. Ofqual has called for a new exam paper in the wake of recent allegations and tougher scrutiny on exam marking. The good news for the government is that if student performance drops then blame can be placed at the feet of previous Labour governments. The bad news for students is that, if the allegations have any merit, many students have been steered toward some topics rather than others to improve their exam performance and now the exam may be changed.

It will be interesting to see if Michael Gove moves forward with fundamental changes to the exam system, such as ensuring that one body produces one test for all students (rather than multiple exam boards producing different tests used to evaluate all students on a common measure). Let us hope so.

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Happy Hanukkah!

Wishing readers a very Happy Hanukkah and New Year!

"Us and Them", or more evidence in declining standards in government

The British government has been in talks with unions trying to find agreement on a new pension deal. Most accounts predict the deal will lead to public sector workers contributing much more and working longer for a much smaller pension. In representing the government's position in talks, Liberal Democrat Danny Alexander is reported to have offered this gem in his statement to Parliament:

"[. . .] : "The negotiations ... are now concluded. This is the government's final position. Us and the unions agree that this is the best position that we can reach through negotiations. [. . .]"

"Us and the unions"? While it was clear the Liberal Democrats were set to lost much support from their student base after recommending to Parliament that university fees become trebled in price, there's no need to reach these depths. What next? "We ain't gonna negotiate. Innit"?

The Leiden Rankings for Universities

. . . can be found here.

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Tories cannot be trusted on the economy

A major issue in the 2010 general election campaign concerned the British economy. Was Labour handling the crisis well or could others handle it much better? We now have an answer.

The Conservative-led coalition with the Liberal Democrats put full blame onto Labour for Britain's economic problems. They argued that Labour had borrowed too much and that international factors were not to blame for the UK's economic predicament.

We are now 18+ months later and what do we see? We see the coalition government borrowing more money than under Labour. (Don't take my word for it: this is confirmed by The Daily Mail here.) We have seen unemployment, especially amongst youth, soar to levels not seen since before Tony Blair became Labour's Prime Minister. Additionally, we also face rising crime rates and future uncertainty. On the whole, the current government's economic plans are proving a failure with no credible plan for job creation on the table.

Ironically, the single biggest reason that the government claims has made recovery difficult is, erm, the international financial crisis. This is exactly what Labour had argued under Gordon Brown (and precisely what Osborne denied was a relevant excuse). Oh, how things change when you take office.

It's time to rid ourselves of the myth that the Tories can be trusted on the economy. The economy tanked under their leadership pre-Blair and the economy has become worse, not better, since the Tories took over from Labour. Britain needs a Labour government to put the country back on the road to recovery and financial health.

UPDATE: Further evidence that the Tory-led government cannot be trusted on the economy is found in the deeply worrying situation regarding reported billions in unpaid taxes. The figure may be as high as £25 billion and further details may be found here.

Monday, December 19, 2011

Kim Jong-il has died

Details are here. Perhaps new reason for greater concern about the future of North Korea. However eccentric, Kim Jong-il has been leader for a long time and his antics had become predictable, however unwelcome. The secession is now under way to (presumably) one of his sons. This could begin an important moment in North Korea's history and an opportunity for positive change with greater global engagement. The world watched and waits.

Petition to UK government on higher education

There is a petition circulating that calls on the UK government to abandon its current plans and consider an alternative to how higher education may be funded. The petition can be found here. I note that you must be a British citizen (although you need not reside in Britain) to sign.

Friday, December 16, 2011

Thom Brooks on "After Fukushima Daiichi: New Global Institutions for Improved Nuclear Power Policy"

This essay is forthcoming in Ethics, Policy & Environment and the draft can be found here. The abstract:

"This comment argues for the importance of global institutions to regulate nuclear power. Nuclear power presents challenges across national borders irrespective of whether plants are maintained safely. There are international agreements in place on the disposal of nuclear waste, an issue of great concern in terms of environmental and health effects for any nuclear power policy. However, there remains a pressing need for an international agreement to ensure the safe maintenance of nuclear facilities. Safe nuclear power beyond waste disposal should receive more attention. Nuclear power policy is often a matter of purely state interest with national governments alone responsible for regulating the safe maintenance of nuclear facilities. It ought not be left to national governments alone to regulate the safe administration of nuclear power given the many threats to environmental safety and public health. This comment argues that global institutions may best address this problem. The comment concludes with recommendations on how nuclear power policy might be regulated."

Comments are most welcome.

Thursday, December 15, 2011

The Editor's Cut: The Future of Philosophy by Journal Editors

INSTITUTE OF PHILOSOPHY ONE-DAY INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP

The Editor’s Cut

Friday 13 Jan 2012, G22/26, Senate House, 9.45 (for 10.15) - 18.30

The Editor’s Cut – A view of philosophical research from journal editors

This international workshop brings together philosophers and publishers to survey and discuss recent trends and promising lines of philosophical research, aided by the current perspective of today’s editors.

9.45 Registration and Coffee

Morning Session: Chaired by Barry C. Smith (Institute of Philosophy)

10.15 Welcome and Introduction to the workshop

10.30 Thomas Baldwin (Mind)

11.00 Akeel Bilgrami (Journal of Philosophy)

11.30 Coffee break

12.00 Matti Eklund (Philosophical Review)

12.30 Luciano Floridi (Philosophy & Technology)

1.00 - 2.00 Lunch (own arrangements)

Afternoon Session: Chaired by Armen T. Marsoobian (Metaphilosophy)

14.00 Steven French (BJPS) & Michela Massimi (BJPS)

14.30 Vincent F Hendricks (Synthese)

15.00 Tim Mulgan (Philosophical Quarterly)

15.30 Robert Stern (European Journal of Philosophy)

16.00 Tea break

16.30 Panel discussion:

Chaired by Luciano Floridi (Philosophy & Technology)

David Bourget (Philpapers.org)

Thom Brooks (Association of Philosophy Journal Editors and Journal of Moral Philosophy)

Liam Cooper (Wiley-Blackwell)

Hilary Gaskin (Philosophy editor, CUP)

Peter Momtchiloff (Philosophy editor, OUP)

5.30 Wine reception

6.30 Close

Co-organised by Armen Marsoobian (Metaphilosophy), Luciano Floridi (UNESCO Chair in Information and Computer Ethics) and Barry C Smith (Institute of Philosophy). With the generous support of Metaphilosophy and Wiley-Blackwell.

Registration essential. Please visit:

http://philosophy.sas.ac.uk/d/f/EditorsCut130112prog.pdf

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

The AHRC rewrites history

The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) has published online its "year in review" noting the most significant events in 2011.

A closer look reveals that -- perhaps unsurprisingly -- the "year in review" makes no mention of the single biggest story concerning the AHRC in recent years. The story is "Observergate": the Observer ran a story this past spring that alleged (a) the AHRC delivery plan includes several references to the "Big Society" and (b) the government put pressure on the AHRC to include the "Big Society". Both the AHRC and government swiftly denied that any pressure was put on the AHRC. Instead, their common position was that the AHRC had freely chosen to include the "Big Society" in its delivery plan without political pressure.

This made a potentially bad situation far worse in the eyes of many. The reason is simple. The AHRC's delivery plan presents its five year plan for strategic research funding priorities. The plan makes repeated mention of the "Big Society": this was a Conservative Party campaign slogan. For example, the AHRC delivery plan states clearly that it will "contribute" to the "Big Society" agenda of the government.

There was an unprecedented show of solidarity in opposition to the AHRC's delivery plan. More than 4,000 academics from the UK and abroad signed petitions calling on the AHRC to remove all mention of the "Big Society" without delay. Over 30 learned societies from across the arts and humanities published a letter in the Observer and Times Higher declaring that the "Big Society" should be removed from the delivery plan. This was then followed by the resignation of 50 senior members of the AHRC Peer Review College (including Fellows of the British Academy and at least one RAE 2008 Panel Chair) when the AHRC continued to refuse to remove the "Big Society" from its delivery plan. A few days later the AHRC CEO became the Chair of Research Councils UK (RCUK).

The connections between the AHRC delivery plan and "Big Society" are unambiguous. The plan states:

* “Connected Communities will enable the AHRC to contribute to the government’s initiatives on localism and the ‘Big Society’” (sect. 2.4.4).

* “We will focus on issues such as the ‘Big Society’” (sect. 2.10.1).

* “The contribution of AHRC plans to the ‘Big Society’ agenda are described in Section 2” (sect. 3.10).

* “In line with the Government’s ‘Big Society’ agenda . . . the AHRC will continue to support the integrated programme of RCUK Public Engagement’ (sect. 3.12).

Perhaps it is unsurprising that the biggest AHRC-related news story of the year (and of the last few years at least) would fail to be included in the AHRC's own list of 2011 in review. This appears to be one further attempt to wish this story away and greet the unprecedented opposition with silence.

I hope that journos following this story will draw attention to this revision of history. The AHRC should never have included the "Big Society" in its delivery plan. The AHRC says that there was no political pressure put upon them to include the "Big Society" and ministers confirm this is true. There should then be no problem at all for the AHRC to agree with ministers that the delivery plan should be amended.

It is not too late for a change. It is time the AHRC corrected this without further delay.

The Big Society is in Big Trouble

The Conservative Party used "the Big Society" as a central campaign theme. The idea is vague, but broadly that we should each ask much less from the state and more from each other. Civil society, not the state, should rise to the challenge of taking a more active part in policy and community relations. Oh, and we'll need a vibrant civil society to provide for free those public goods provided by the state because the state will be slashed. (Hence, many critics have understood the Big Society to be a euphemism for cuts in public spending.) (Note: don't get me started on the AHRC and Big Society.)

Never before has a governing party had so much trouble with its central idea. Everyone knew what the "Third Way" was under Labour. But not even the Tories seem to understand what the "Big Society" is in theory or, indeed, in practice. We have now seen about four so-called "Big Society tzars" come and go. Today, we learn further that many in the party still -- 18 months into government -- do not see how the "Big Society" might become implemented in practice. A central problem is its being too "vague" (or so we are told by party members).

All the more reason to question the decision by the Arts and Humanities Research Council to include several references to the "Big Society" in its five year delivery plan spelling out its strategic research funding priorities. The AHRC delivery plan is explicit: the plan will "contribute" to the "Big Society". It is curiosity that the AHRC would make this part of its delivery plan for strategic research funding priorities when the government can't find a tzar to lead on the idea and party members still don't see how it might work in practice.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Coalition cracks - too much to repair?

Some will say - at last! - deep cracks are forming in the coalition government. The issue was not the decision to raise VAT or slash public sector workers or treble student fees. No, the issue was Europe. Traditionally, Europe has been the issue that most divides the Conservatives and there are divisions to be found between many pro-European ministers, principally Ken Clarke, and Eurosceptic backbenchers. The fireworks on display over the Prime Minister's recent "veto" were not - perhaps surprisingly - on display between Tory MPs, but fired by Eurosceptic Tories at their Liberal Democrat coalition "partners". No wonder Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, (in an "unprecedented" move) missed the session: it's bad enough facing angry voters and angry opposition benches, but also most of the party with whom your party is in coalition? It's almost too much.

While many will point to the principled stance of Liberal Democrats (finally?) reasserting themselves in the coalition, there is perhaps another explanation for the sudden unease: one new poll has put UKIP ahead of the Liberal Democrats. If true, then perhaps a strong incentive for Lib Dems to speak out now -- instead of before on Trident, VAT, university fees, etc. -- is not mere survival after the next general election, but the possibility -- however faint -- that the Lib Dems may no longer the main alternative to Labour and the Conservatives. Lib Dems were always going to have difficulty differentiating themselves in future elections given their position in the coalition and UKIP may be benefitting.

Of course, it's all too early to tell. But, if you're a Liberal Democrat, it may not be too early to begin to panic.