2022 MODULES FOR THE ETHICS CENTER MENTORING PROGRAM:

UPDATES AS OF MAY 5, 2022

To potential applicants. We are grateful for the overwhelming interest in our mentoring program. We have had so many requests that we have added a 9th module: Ghosts’ Stories: Trauma, Memory and Legacies of Violence, taught by Kiyaan Parikh, a Graduate Student in Political Science. All other modules are now fully-booked and are closed. If you are interested in module 9, feel free to apply online. This module addresses political violence and trauma and how people can survive and recover from such trauma. (See full description of module 9 below.) Otherwise, we regret that our other modules are completely full.

To those we have accepted. We look forward to meeting all of our mentees and will include fuller descriptions of each module May 15th in the section on Summer internships on the website. Later details will be sent by June 1st, including a waiver your parents must sign if you are under 18 when you begin the module. If you wish to send a short (1-2 sentences) description and a photograph of yourself, we will post them on our website. This is not required and please note that submitting them gives us consent to post them on the website. We look forward to an exciting summer.
 
Best,
 
Professor Monroe


 

 

Each summer the UCI Ethics Center selects a few promising students for a mentoring program. We plan a full program again in 2022, open to all qualified college and high school students from around the world. Applications are now open and students may apply to our online program by completing the application

LINK TO APPLICATION: https://na.eventscloud.com/ereg/index.php?eventid=661310

Online program. While we initially accepted only local students, with the advent of COVID-19, we went online and quickly realized there is an international demand for the kind of personal mentoring we provide. The 2022 summer mentoring program thus will again be online and we will accept students from all over the world for a virtual program of mentoring during the weeks of June 27, 2022 – July 22, 2022. Students will meet twice a week, in groups of 15-30 students, as part of a mentoring program that will provide hands-on experience in various forms of research. The research activities offered include inter alia (1) basic library research that might be used in a literature review, (2) learning skill sets such as SPSS or other computational programs, and (3) introduction to data analysis of various kinds, from archival data, aggregate data, interview and survey data, and narrative-interpretive analysis. No prior experience with ethics is required. All that we ask is that students be interested in working with a university faculty member or a graduate student mentor.

No charge for program, a modest processing fee. There is no charge for the program itself. In 2021, however, we had over 300 applications, and because we lacked the resources to handle that many students well, we had to close consideration of applications at the end of April. To handle the increased demand, and to keep the mentoring experience a high-quality one, small enough to retain its personal aspect, we will be asking for a $159 processing fee. Students for whom this fee poses a financial hardship can request a fee waiver from the Associate Director of the Mentoring Program at andradac@uci.edu. Anyone who wishes to make further contributions to the Ethics Center, to defray costs for other students who may have financial constraints, may do so here: https://secure.give.uci.edu/donation/?COA1=004011&COA2 We appreciate all your support.

Modules. To handle the increased demand for our program, we begin by offering seven modules this year. Students will be allowed to participate in only one module, and may register on a waitlist if they wish. We will try to assign each student to their preferred module.

We will add extra modules if demand requires it in order to keep the numbers below 30 for each module. (If demand is high for one particular module, then we will try to offer more than one session of that particular module.) We will begin reviewing applications and send out the first acceptances by February 1st. Thereafter admissions will be rolling, with acceptances sent on the 1st and the 15th of each month until May.

Waiver. Participants in the program who are under 18 on June 27, 2022, will need to have a waiver signed by their parents before they can begin the program. Waivers will be sent out by June 1 via email and must be received before the program begins June 27th.

Application form. The application process is a simple one and requires no recommendations. Please complete the application and indicate your choice of a module at that time. Students are allowed to take only one module.

LINK TO APPLICATION FORM: https://na.eventscloud.com/ereg/index.php?eventid=661310
 


 

2022 MODULES FOR THE ETHICS CENTER MENTORING PROGRAM

JESSIC GONZALEZ

Module 1A. Science and moral reflection: Can science help us make better decisions? Jessica Gonzalez, Grad student, Logic and Philosophy of Science. Tuesdays & Thursdays from 1-3 p.m.

Module 1B. Science and moral reflection: Can science help us make better decisions? Due to popular demand, we are offering a second session for Module 1, which has been over-subscribed. Module 1B: Science and Moral Reflection is taught by Jessica Gonzalez and will meet from Tuesdays and Thursdays from 10:00am - 12:00pm. The module is identical to Module 1, only the time will differ. Module B meets 10:00am - 12:00pm.

Module Description Extensive empirical work suggests that our moral processes can be deeply influenced by biases. These biases may lead us to make moral judgments that betray our moral values. Science can help us understand our moral processes better. In particular, by understanding our moral processes, we can correct for these biases and learn to make judgments that are better in sync with our moral values. If we do this, we’ll be more satisfied in the long run. In this module, we will examine the many findings in moral cognition that reveal the surprising ways in which our moral judgments can wander away from our underlying moral principles. If we understand our moral cognition better, we’ll be able to correct for these biases. And more importantly, involving science in our moral deliberations will lead to us feeling more satisfied when we reflect on them. In this module, our research will take two paths that often will intersect: (1) scientific studies on moral cognition and (2) moral philosophy. We’ll look for ways that our moral processes can be corrected and we’ll look for philosophical reasons to support the use of scientific information in our moral deliberations.

Meetings & Expectations We’ll meet twice per week for two hours each meeting. One reading will be suggested before each meeting. During our meetings, we’ll start with a round of brief and informal check-ins. Then I’ll give a min-lecture (around 20 min) about the reading, followed by about 10 min of Q&A. For the last hour, we’ll have focused discussions in smaller groups (about 30 min) and then a large-group discussion/debrief (about 30 min). Interns are expected to attend meetings regularly and turn in weekly write-ups. At the end of the internship, they are also expected to turn in a “white paper” and a 30-sec video about their experience in the module.

Learning Objectives
  1. Interns will be able to identify key components of literature reviews.
  2. Interns will analyze the moral contributions of scientific articles.
  3. Interns will reflect on how we can use science in our moral decision-making and present their original work.
Weekly Write-Ups
Please submit these by Friday of each week.
  • Reflections: One page of reflections on the week’s topics.
  • Analyses: Find one paper and review it. Each analysis should be approximately two pages.
Projects
Please submit these by Friday, July 22.
  • White Paper on your findings (may be individual or group).
    • “White papers” are often used by businesses to give an overview of a topic to a particular audience. Here, we’ll be using this idea loosely, adapting it for a slightly more academic use. The goals of this paper are (1) to serve as an introduction to skills needed for academic literature reviews, but also (2) to be of practical use for a wide audience. So, in this white paper, interns will join three article analyses (assigned in Weeks 1-3) under the common theme of “How can science help us make better moral decisions?” The format is flexible -- this is just meant to provide creative opportunities for interns to present their work. It should be somewhere around 10 pages. We’ll talk about this during the first meeting.
  • 30-second video of what you learned in this module.
    • We’ll compile these short videos into a module presentation on the last day of the internship (when we’ll meet with members of the other modules).
Week 1: What is the relationship between science and morality?
  • Tuesday
  • Thursday
    • Reading: Moral Cognition: An Introduction to the Field
    • Mini-Lecture: What do we hope to get out of scientifically studying morality?
    • Discussion: If you could use science to investigate a moral issue, what would it be?
  • Weekly Write-Ups
    • Reflection: How do you think science can contribute to the study of morality?
    • Analysis: Find one scientific study about a moral topic.
      • What field is investigating what moral question?
      • What do the authors (hope to) find?
      • What are the limitations of the study?
      • What does the study mean for our thoughts on morality?
Week 2: Can science help us feel better about our past moral decisions?
  • Tuesday
    • Reading: Michael Sandel’s Justice
    • Mini-Lecture: Moral Dilemmas
    • Discussion: What would you do in Marcus Luttrell’s position?
  • Thursday
    • Reading: Green 2014
    • Mini-Lecture: Trolleyology
    • Discussion: How should we think of moral dilemmas, given Greene’s dual-process theory of moral judgment?
  • Weekly Write-Ups
    • Reflection: Have you faced a moral dilemma before? If so, how did you react? If not, imagine being in a moral dilemma -- how do you think you’d react?
    • Analysis: Find one scientific study about moral judgments.
      • What are the authors investigating?
      • What methods do the authors use?
      • What are the limitations of the study?
      • What does the study tell us about our moral judgments?
Week 3: Can science help us make better moral decisions in the present/future?
  • Tuesday
    • Reading: Haidt & Moral Dumbfounding
    • Mini-Lecture: Intuitionism & Cognitive Biases
    • Discussion: What happens in moral dumbfounding?
  • Thursday
    • Reading: Thomas et al. No Child Left Behind
    • Mini-Lecture: What informs our beliefs -- facts or values?
    • Discussion: How can we use scientific studies to improve our moral decisions?
  • Weekly Write-Ups
    • Reflection: Have you been morally dumbfounded before? How will knowing about intuitionism change how you judge moral issues in the future?
    • Analysis: Find one scientific study about biased moral reasoning.
      • What bias(es) are the authors investigating?
      • What methods do the authors use?
      • What are the limitations of the study?
      • What does the study tell us about our moral reasoning?
Week 4: What concrete changes can science help us make to our moral decisions?
  • Tuesday
    • Reading: Dewey’s Two Essays
    • Mini-Lecture: Using science as a tool for moral reflection
    • Discussion: How can we use science to make concrete changes to our moral decision-making?
  • Thursday
    • Presentations of White Papers
  • Projects
    • White Paper
    • 30-sec Video

Reading Recommendations
It is not necessary to read all, or any, of these particular articles. However, you may find them to be a helpful starting point for your research journey this summer. I will make these articles available in our Google Drive. Please do not pay for access for any article. If you have trouble accessing articles you’d like to read, please post it to our Articles Needed page and we’ll add it to the Drive within a day. *Readings for our module meetings are starred.

Dewey, J. (1902a). The evolutionary method as applied to morality. The Philosophical Review, 11(2), 107. doi:10.2307/2176631

Dewey, J. (1902b). The evolutionary method as applied to morality: ii. its significance for conduct. The Philosophical Review, 11(4), 353. doi:10.2307/2176470

Gonzalez, J. (forthcoming) “Moral Cognition: An Introduction to the Field” K. Monroe, ed.

Greene, J.D. (2014). “Beyond Point-and-Shoot Morality: Why Cognitive (Neuro)Science Matters for Ethics.” Ethics, 124(4), pp.695-726

Haidt, J. (2001). “The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment.” Psychological Review 108, no. 4: 814–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814.

Kitcher, P. in Sober, Elliot. (2006) Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology

O’Connor, C., Fulton, N., Wagner, E. & Stanford, P.K. (2012). "Deus Ex Machina: A Cautionary Tale for Naturalists." Analyse & Kritik 34, no. 1. doi:10.1515/auk-2012-0104.

Pronin, E. & Kugler, M. B. (2007). “Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: The introspection illusion as a source of the bias blind spot. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(4): 565-578. ISSN 0022-1031, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.011.

Sandel, M.J. (2009). Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Thomas, A. J., Stanford, P. K., & Sarnecka, B. W. (2016). No Child Left Alone: Moral Judgments about Parents Affect Estimates of Risk to Children. Collabra, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.33

USC Literature Reviews (https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/literaturereview)


 

ANDRADA COSTOIU

Module 2.
The pseudo-science of race and ethnicity: The impact of social categorization on public policy that reflects and perpetuates systemic racism. Andrada Costiou, Tobis Fellow. Monday and Wednesdays, 10 a.m. -12 p.m.

Module description: Race is an exceedingly complex concept that transcends disciplines, coloring everything from our daily lives to policymaking. In this module, we will begin by disentangling the scientific construction of race and discuss the development of scientific thought about human genetic diversity, social Darwinism, and the eugenics movement. Then we consider the social construction of race. We discuss implicit bias and try to understand how humans socially categorize, and how implicit social cognition can lead to prejudice and stereotyping. The last two weeks are dedicated to examining social inequalities and the role of public policy in reflecting, promoting, and perpetuating systemic racism. This module is designed to boost your awareness and learning about race and to stimulate your thoughts about what you can do in your own community to promote less discrimination and fight prejudice.

Assignments & Group projects
Week 1: written assignment -2 pages.
Week 2: watch the movie you choose.
Week3: group movie presentation.
Week4: a 30 second movie about what you learned in this module & 10-page group paper (10 students/group) on the questions outlined in the last week (Monday). These papers will be complied into a collective working paper, that will be put on the Ethics Center Website. You will be listed as authors.

Written assignments should be emailed to andradac@uci.edu before the due date. I expect that for group projects everyone to make an equal contribution.

Readings
The module is designed to take you on a fun and interesting journey on the construction of race, socially and politically. You do not have a heavy reading load and you do not need to acquire the reading materials from a library or anywhere online. These, together with other materials for this module are placed in a common google folder and you will be given access to the folder in May (in case you want an early start with the materials).
 

Week 1. Monday: The scientific invention of race
  • Lecture: What is a literature review and what is the structure of an academic paper; Discussing your assignments and projects; The scientific invention of race
  • Discussion on the readings
Readings:
  1. Dennis, Rutledge M. “Social Darwinism, Scientific Racism, and the Metaphysics of Race.” The Journal of Negro Education, vol. 64, no. 3, 1995, pp. 243–52.
  2. “Blackness as a result of torrid zone”, in Gates Jr, Henry Louis, and Andrew S. Curran, eds. Who's Black and Why? A Hidden Chapter from the Eighteenth-Century Invention of Race. Harvard University Press, 2022.
Discussion Questions:
  1. Why might the ideas of “race science” have been appealing to so many Europeans and Americans in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries?
  2. What were some of the key ideas of “race science”?
Wednesday: Eugenic pseudoscience and its influence on the US immigration policy (Immigration Act of 1924).
  • Lecture: Brief history of eugenics and overview of US immigration policy
  • Discussion on the readings below
  • Group exercise: Define what you mean by race and gender, contrast that with what eugenicists meant by those terms.
Readings:
  1. Stojanović, Marija. "EUGENICS." Facta Universitatis, Series: Law and Politics (2019): 153-162.
  2. Ngai, Mae M. “The Architecture of Race in American Immigration Law: A Reexamination of the Immigration Act of 1924.” The Journal of American History, vol. 86, no. 1, 1999, pp. 67–92,
Discussion Questions:
  1. Why did some leaders think it would be beneficial to control who could have children and who could not?
  2. How did the eugenics movement in the United States impact people?

Written assignment due Sunday (2 pages):
Find a scientific paper that talks about an ethnic or racial group in the US immigration policy. What is the main argument? What is the historical context? What method does the author(s) use? Do the history/ findings about this group resonate with anti-immigration laws of the past?
 

Week 2. Monday: Race as a social construct, Implicit bias
  • Lecture: What is implicit bias?
  • Video: Jane Elliot experiment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLAi78hluFc
  • Discussion on the experiment and on the reading below
  • Group exercise using literature to understand implicit bias

Readings:
Macrae, C. Neil, and Galen V. Bodenhausen. "Social cognition: Thinking categorically about others." Annual review of psychology 51.1 (2000): 93-120.

Discussion Questions:
  1. What do we mean when we say race is a social construct?
  2. What are the psychological underpinnings of social categorization?
  3. Why do we socially categorize?
  4. How does social categorization help the organization of our societies?
Wednesday: From individual to aggregate racialized behavior: Implicit Association Test (IAT) and “Bias of crowds”
  • Discussion on the readings below
  • Choose your movie(group) for next week and split in groups to find information that relates to kind of racial prejudice and systemic racism the movie addresses.
Readings:
  1. Dupree, Cydney H., et al. "Race–status associations: Distinct effects of three novel measures among White and Black perceivers." Journal of personality and social psychology120.3 (2021): 601.
  2. Charlesworth, Tessa ES, and Mahzarin R. Banaji. "Patterns of implicit and explicit stereotypes III: Long-term change in gender stereotypes." Social Psychological and Personality Science 13.1 (2022): 14-26.
Discussion Questions:
  1. How does race-status association is endorsing social dominance?
  2. What does research tell us about the relationships between IAT, historical context and geographical location?
  3. What is the relationship between racial bias and social outcomes?

There is no written assignment due this week, but you will have to watch the movie you choose.
 

Week 3. Explore social and institutionalized racial discrimination in the United States through movies

Instead of reading papers, we will learn about systemic racism through movies. You will be split into groups (6 students/ each group). Each group will be responsible for watching one of the movies listed below and do a collective presentation on it. Some question to think about while preparing your presentation: What is the context? What have you learned about systemic racism from this movie? Discuss the type of systemic racism the movie addresses. What was the most memorable moment in the film? What was your least favorite part? Why? These questions are meant to guide you only and are not exhaustive.

1. 13th (2016, Netflix): documentary, 100 minutes

Slavery has been abolished since the end of the Civil War in 1865. However, Ava Duvernay’s 13th explores the 13th amendment and the abolition of slavery with a more critical eye, explaining the post-Civil War racist legislation and practices that replaced it (discusses the prison system and the politics behind it).

2. Sorry to bother you (2018, Netflix): feature film, 112 minutes

The film follows a young black telemarketer who adopts a white accent to succeed at his job. The movie offers a radical class analysis of capitalism. The original screenplay was written during Barack Obama's administration. The movie is not a specifical critique of an elected official, and some lines were removed from the initial scrip ("Worry Free is making America great again”) to avoid appearing to critique Trump, after he used this line in the presidential campaign in 2016.

3. 42, the Jackie Robinson Story (2013, HBO Max): feature film, 128 minutes

Born in Cairo, Georgia, Jackie Robinson was the first African American baseball player in Major League. If you are a sports’ fan this movie is for you! However, the story is about something bigger than just baseball, as it’s a depiction of deeply entrenched institutional racism and how about black player broke the color barrier because of how good he was. The movie investigates relationships between race in sports, leading into questions about the role of professional athletes in promoting racial justice and into questions about cases of discrimination and prejudice nowadays.

4. If Beale Street Could Talk (2018, Amazon Prime); feature film, 117 minutes

The movie portrays systemic racism, and the injustice of the prison system. It is also a powerful testimony of the lack of education and opportunity, unfair policing, mass incarceration that plague black communities. Although heartbreaking, it is also a story of love and hope of a young couple to survive and prevail over the unfair, racist society surrounding them.

5. The Visitor (2007, Tubi or Amazon Prime); feature film, 103 minutes

Monday: You will be split into groups to work on your movie presentations (presentations have to be around15 minutes each)

Wednesday: Movie presentations and Q&A class discussion about each movie presentation.
 

Week 4. Connecting the dots

Monday: Systemic racism is individual and institutional
  • Class discussion on what we understand through is systemic racism and how is perpetuated

 

BENJAMIN HOYT

Module 3.
The deceptive social hologram: Promoting truthfulness and combating misinformation in the new media landscape. Ben Hoyt, Grad student, Political Science.
Monday & Wednesday from 1-3 p.m.

The “deceptive social hologram:” Promoting truthfulness and combating misinformation in the new media landscape

Module Leader: Benjamin Hoyt UCI PhD Candidate Department of Political Science

Model Outline: In this module students will be asked to examine the problem of online misinformation within liberal democratic societies and critically assess different possible solutions for combatting the problem and facilitating a better system for constructive online political discussion. The solutions in question are meant to bear some realistic relation to something that could be implemented in a democratic society (i.e. no mass brainwashing or appointing a philosopher king) even if they are not terribly likely to be put in place in America today (which, if we are being realistic, nothing along these lines is). We will be investigating a number of different concurrent research questions such as: 1) What online misinformation is exactly and why it’s bad? 2) What role does trust and truthfulness play in healthy (i.e. non-pathological) political discussion? 3) What possible legal/institutional remedies can be imagined to address misinformation or, conversely, promote truthfulness and trust online? 4) What strategies could help build support for these kinds of remedies amongst a democratic populace?

Module Schedule:
  • Week 1: The Basics. We will spend this week discussing the preliminary readings (which hopefully everyone will have read :) ) and organizing into topic specific groups. These groups will be responsible for helping to lead the discussion in subsequent weeks.
  • Week 2: What’s so funny about fake-news, misinformation and mass polarization? / The sustaining role of trust and truthfulness in a polarized world. During these sessions we will try to establish what is so important about the values of truthfulness and social trust in a liberal democratic society
  • Week 3: Can misinformation be stopped and can trust and truthfulness be promoted online? This week we will be discussing a number of different possible remedies involving everything from legislative solutions to workarounds that involve the current system of private content moderation.
  • Week 4: Promoting Pt. 2 / Selling the truth: How can these solutions be put into practice? We will continue our discussion of how to create greater space for truthful political discussion online, which ones seem the most likely to work, which are the most realistic, etc. We will discuss how our preferred range of solutions might be popularized.
Required Preliminary Readings (Please complete at least two). Link to google drive will be sent June 1st.
  • Muirhead, Russell and Nancy Rosenblum. 2019. A Lot of People are Saying: The New Conspiracism and the Assault on Democracy (Princeton, Princeton University Press), Chapter 1.
  • Settle, Jamie. 2018. Frenemies: How Social Media Polarizes America (New York, Cambridge University Press), Chapter 9.
  • Vosoughi, Soroush, Deb Roy and Sinan Aral. 2018 “The Spread of True and False News Online,” Science, 359.
  • Williams, Bernard. 1996. “Truth, Politics, and Self-Deception,” Social Research, 63.

 

MONICA DEROCHE AND JYNEL ZEITZ (a rising sophomore at Georgetown University)

Module 4.
Surviving life’s traumas: A study of resilience in the face of crises, from war and genocides to domestic abuse and sexual violence to death, divorce and COVID-19.
Monica DeRoche, Grad student, Political Science. Tuesday and Thursdays, 10-12 p.m.

Module Description
Extensive research has been done over the past few decades to assess the role of resilience in providing a buffer against the negative effects of trauma and toxic stress; something that we will all be affected by at some point in our lives. Together, we will examine this research through a critical lens, asking ourselves how a greater understanding of resilience may be applied to current crises - from the COVID-19 pandemic to domestic violence, divorce, and upheaval within the home. We will start by examining this literature and the ways in which resilience is defined and evaluated in current research studies. We will spend some time looking at how to read a research article to gain the most insight from its often-dense content, and we will begin the process of critically analyzing research articles. We will then use standardized resilience scales to run our own resilience tests among a self-selected sample of participants and compare our findings to those obtained in the research studies. Finally, we will look at some ways that resilience can be fostered, or developed, as a mindful practice in order to enable an individual to utilize resilience as a tool with which to withstand the negative effects of trauma and toxic stress.

Meetings
Our meetings will be held twice per week on Tuesday and Thursday from 10am—12 pm (PST). Considering the very brief 4-week period of this internship, we encourage all interns to attend each of the 8 sessions for the duration of the internship. I understand that some people may be zooming in from different countries at different time zones, but whenever possible, I would appreciate you having your zoom camera on in order to facilitate active participation with myself and others. The general format of each meeting will be as follows:
  • Informal check-in with each other (15 minutes)
  • Brief lecture on that day’s topic/reading (20-25 minutes)
  • Questions/Follow-up Discussion (10 minutes)
  • Collaborative Groups (3 with 10 interns each) for a more in-depth review of the material (30 minutes)
  • Coming back together as a group to share our collective findings (30 minutes)
  • Next steps and closing comments (10 minutes

Expectations
There will be 2 short, assigned readings prior to every session (A reading list will be sent out via e-mail to all interns on June 1st). One reading will be a peer-reviewed academic journal article and the second reading will be a news piece offering a practical application of the article. I expect each intern to have read both pieces prior to that day’s meeting and to come ready to discuss them together in a group setting. At the end of each week, interns will be expected to submit a 1-page personal reflection on that week’s content to me via e-mail. This is not meant to be a “heavy” assignment, but rather a way in which you can weigh into me in a more private context what is interesting and informative to you; what has “clicked” and what you would like more clarification on moving forward. At the end of the internship, each of the groups (3 total) will be expected to turn in a “white paper” [which we will discuss in detail during our first session together], and a brief 3–4-minute video presentation of the group’s observations and findings.

Breakdown of Sessions

Week 1:
  • Tuesday: Introduction to Trauma and Toxic Stress - Contemporary Examples
  • Thursday: What is Resilience and Why does it Matter?
Week 2:
  • Tuesday: The ABC’s of Literature Reviews
  • Thursday: How to Measure Resilience using Standardized Scales
Week 3:
  • Tuesday: Resilience Tests via Community Data Collection
  • Thursday: Describing and documenting findings
Week 4:
  • Tuesday: How to foster resilience to create a buffer against life’s traumas (if time allows)
  • Thursday: Course wrap-up & Group presentations

 

KRISTEN RENWICK MONROE AND ALEXIS KIM (a rising college freshman at Georgetown and past intern).

Module 5.
Moral courage: What is it? What drives it? If moral courage reflects those core values that effectively constitute our identity, how closely is moral courage related to the underlying values of a society? Can we find moral courage in societies whose values we do not fully share? Whose values we even find morally repugnant? And what separates acts of moral courage from fanaticism? To answer these questions, we engage in a two-part analysis. Students who wish to may read a draft of a book on moral courage, written by Professor Monroe. A pdf will be sent out on June 1st upon request. This is not required reading.

Week 1-2. Part 1 reviews baseline data on what constitutes moral courage, which reveals the close line between moral courage and individual values. For most of us, those values correspond closely to the values underlying liberal, democratic, humanistic values. But what about moral courage in polities whose values we do not share; can we still find moral courage and, if so, does it differ from moral courage in liberal democracies? Here we examine the moral courage of Sir Thomas More (in Tudor England) and Martin Luther (a founder of the Protestant Reformation in medieval Europe). By examining archival material, including legal documents from trials, we what – if anything -- the moral courage of More and Luther shares with moral courage found in our own society, which reflects liberal democratic humanistic values. We then study the moral courage of three Nazi leaders, all of whom claimed to have demonstrated moral courage in opposing the Nazi state. Their claims were accepted – to varying degrees – by the courts at the time; but was this moral courage real, and does it have much in common with moral courage in our society today?

Weeks 3 and 4. Part 2, we turn to an examination of the double-edged aspect of moral courage: each act of moral courage also constitutes a betrayal. Here we examine whistleblowers, spies/patriots, and rogue Republicans in the age of Trump. In particular, we examine:
  1. acts reflecting liberal, democratic moral courage by people living in societies whose values we abhor via Volker Heinz (who helped people flee communist East Germany) and Nini (a young woman who hid Jews from the Nazis).
  2. the moral courage of those who break with their own political groups in the fight for democracy (Janusz Reykowski and the Roundtable talks in Poland circa 1980s.)
  3. the moral courage of whistleblowers via Richard Ceballos (an assistant district attorney who sued the LA DA for corruption); Linda Tripp (friend of Monica Lewinsky who helped break the Lewinsky-Clinton sex scandal), Mark Felt (who was Deep Throat during the Watergate scandal), and Coleen Rowley (the FBI agent in Minnesota office who warned of 9/11 attacks and was ignored).
  4. The moral courage of witnesses and Senators who voted against their party during the Trump impeachments. Here we examine testimony by Marie Yovanovitch (former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine), Fiona Hill(former Russia expert for the National Security Council, George Kent (Deputy Assistant Secretary of State), Gordon Sondland (Trump supporter and U.S. ambassador to the European Union), and Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman (Director of European affairs for the National Security Council).
  5. Spies and traitors or patriots? Moral courage/patriotism or treason via Spies and traitors or patriots? Here we examine Daniel Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers), Chelsey/Bradley Manning (WikiLeaks), Edgar Snowdon (spying, documenting US human rights abuses), and if time permits, The Cambridge Five (British spies for the USSR during the Cold war). Extensive interview material exists for Snowdon (Manchester Guardian; NBC, Brian Williams interview: Barton Gellman for Washington Post). We may examine MI5 archival copies of the testimony of Anthony Blunt and John Cairncross.
  6. Rogue Republicans in the age of Trump. Senator Jeff Flake, Senator Mitt Romney, Congresswoman Liz Cheney (Wyoming), Lincoln Project players: Steve Schmidt, George Conway, Rick Wilson, and Jennifer Horn.

 

KRISTEN RENWICK MONROE AND MONICA DEROCHE

Module 6.
It’s hard to hate up-close: The neuroscience and policy of discrimination, prejudice, and us-versus-them thinking. Professor Kristen Monroe, Political Science and Monica DeRoche, Graduate student in Political Science. We will construct a literature review on programs designed to overcome such prejudice and hate. Monday and Wednesdays, 3-5 p.m. This module encourages students to think deeply about their own attitudes toward people judged different, whether these differences are associated with race, ethnicity, religion or with age, disability, sexual orientation, or something else. These discussions can become heated and we want to ensure that everyone feels comfortable and respected, even when your views/positions may not be those expressed by others. Please be civil and respectful toward others and, if certain material feels offensive to you in any way, let us know. Remember your participation is voluntary and you are not required to view all the material.

Week 1. Overview of the module:
What causes prejudice, discrimination and the us-versus-them attitude toward people who are deemed different? Why are ethnic, racial, or religious differences frequently politically significant while differences in height, musical ability, or physical agility are not? Why are linguistic differences sometimes relevant politically, and other times are not salient? What about age? Gender, or sexual orientation? What fosters tolerance of differences judged ethically and politically salient? What encourages respect for these differences, leading some of us to reach out across divides that isolate others? These questions take on a poignant immediacy when we read news reports of continuing prejudice, discrimination, ongoing ethnic, religious, and sectarian violence -- even genocidal activities and war -- and increasing polarization over issues of difference, whether of race, religion, gender, ethnicity and so on, at home and abroad. They are questions you will need to consider as you go out into a world where you will meet new people, from diverse cultures, religions, and ethnicities.

Week 1. Day 2.
To address these questions, we will combine viewing of documentaries/movies with journal writing in response to prompts, class discussion and joint projects focusing on programs – such as Jane Elliott’s – designed to increase tolerance. In the first session, we will view and discuss Jane Elliott’s blue-eyed/brown-eyed experiments and will discuss and take the IAT (implicit association tests) to determine/measure tolerance/prejudice. View Frontline Special: A Class Divided.

Week 1. Day 2.
We will watch Gentleman’s Agreement, about anti-Semitism and how complicity allows intolerance to continue. Writing prompt: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Attributed to various speakers, from Burke to Jefferson.

Week 2. Day 1.
View “I am not your negro.” Story of James Baldwin’s life. Writing prompts. Prompt A. “It’s about class and poverty, not skin color.” Versus “No matter how well dressed, how rich, how well educated, your skin color always identifies, classifies and limits you.” Discuss.
 
Prompt B. Black people in this country have been the victims of violence at the hands of the white man for 400 years. And following the ignorant negro preachers, we have thought it was godlike to turn the other cheek to the brute that was brutalizing us. Malcolm X. Versus Martin Luther King, Jr. who called the principle of nonviolent resistance the “guiding light of our movement. Christ furnished the spirit and motivation while Gandhi furnished the method” (Papers 5:423). King's notion of nonviolence had six key principles and the first one was to resist evil without resorting to violence. Discuss. Which view appeals best to you? What are the pros and cons of each view?

Week 2. Day 2.
Empathy as the foundation for increasing tolerance and the downside of this approach. Break into groups and divide literature into various topics. Begin discussion of projects. View the movie and write the following prompt from To Kill a Mockingbird: Atticus Finch to his daughter Scout: “First of all … if you can learn a simple trick, Scout, you’ll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view—until you climb into his skin and walk around in it” Incidentally, ever since its publication in the 1960s, To Kill a Mockingbird has faced challenges from inclusion in classrooms and libraries because of its language and subject matter. In 2019, the American Library Association listed it as No. 15 in its top 100 most banned and challenged books of the last decade. If you have not read this book, we suggest you do so.

Week 3. Day 1.
View Crash and discuss what it says to us about tolerance, prejudice and us-versus-them thinking.

Week 3. Day 2.
Discussion of various approaches to tolerance that rely on empathy.

Week 4.
Presentation of projects. Develop a video to go up on our website and a written working paper evaluating the various programs. All who participate will be acknowledged for their work.


 

ANDRADA COSTOIU AND HANNAH DASTGHEIB. ISABELLE DASTGHEIB AND MAX RAZMJOO, Past interns.

Module 7.
Human Rights and Young People. Andrada Costiou with Hannah Dastgheib and Isabelle Dastgheib and Max Razmjoo, Special Summer Assistants to the Director. A student-initiated blog presents findings from social media, blogs, surveys, etc. about what human rights young people care about. Monday and Wednesdays, 12-2 p.m.

Module description:
Whatever our age, we all have human rights. This includes the right to express opinions, as well as rights to equality, health, education, a clean environment, and many other rights. Promoting and protecting human rights is everyone's responsibility and young people have always been major drivers of political, economic and social change. In this module, we aim to learn about the history of human rights and then learn about topics of human rights that are important to you. In this module, we will aim to answer questions such as: what are some important areas of human rights for young people? Why? How can we improve these areas of human rights? What can be done better? What can young people do?

Assignments & Group projects
Week 1: group written assignment: each group should submit a list of articles that are related to their topic of choice
Week2: disseminate the survey and collect the data and group presentation on your topic
Week4: a group short movie about what you learned in this module (each group will talk on their topic- each student 30 seconds) & 5-page group paper (6 students/group) on the research and data analysis you have done on your topic (since the number of topics might not be exactly 6, we will tailor the number of pages based on how many students are in each group). These papers will be complied into a collective working paper, that will be put on the Ethics Center Website. You will be listed as authors.

This module is supposed to be fun learning so please do not stress about assignments. You will find that working in groups makes it an easy and valuable learning experience. Written assignments should be emailed to andradac@uci.edu before the due date. We expect that for group projects everyone to make an equal contribution.

Readings
The module is designed to teach you about human rights and also to help you learn more about a topic of human rights that interests you. There are a few readings for this module that you do not need to acquire from a library or anywhere online. These, together with other materials for this module will be placed in a common google folder and you will be given access to the folder in May (in case you want an early start with the materials).
 

Week 1.

Monday: The history of human rights and findings of a recent research
  • Lecture: a short lecture about the history of human rights
  • Presentation on the results of the study conducted by Hannah, Isabelle and Max
  • Discussion on the readings and on what topic of human rights are important for each of you
  • You will be split in groups (# students/group) based on the human rights topic that is important to you. We aim to have at least 6 different topics, but this number is provisional and depending on the # of topics we will end up with, student groups could range from 5-7 students each.
Readings:
  1. Kenneth Cmiel, The Recent History of Human Rights, The American Historical Review, Volume 109, Issue 1, February 2004, Pages 117–135
Some discussion questions:
  1. What are the origins of human rights?
  2. Are human rights universal or culturally bound?
  3. Is globalization eroding or advancing human rights?
Wednesday: What we consider human rights in a diverse world
  • Lecture: What we consider human rights in a diverse world
  • Discussion based on the readings
  • Fill out the survey
  • Break out into different groups based on interest, research-based on your topic of interest
Readings:
  1. Repucci, Sarah, and Amy Slipowitz. "Democracy under siege." Freedom House (2021).

Group written assignment due Sunday:
Find scientific papers (10-12) that talk about the topic of your choice. Each student should read at least 2 and think about: what is the main argument? What is the historical context? What does it tell us about your topic? You do not need to write the answers to these questions on the paper, at this time- you need to just submit the list.
 

Week 2.

Monday: How to write a paper & group projects
  • Lecture: What is a literature review and what is the structure of an academic paper
  • Class discussion, each group will tell us what found on-line about their topic
  • Small groups: work on ways to disseminate the survey, discuss format on how to can reach audience (presentation, survey, social media, paper etc.); discuss adding new questions, new social markers
  • Start working on your presentation (we will discuss this in class)

Assignment: disseminate the survey and collect survey data

Wednesday: Group projects
  • Work your presentation
    The format of the presentation should be: 1) background (what research does current research tell us about the topic); 2) why is this topic important? 3) how can we improve this area of human right? what can be done better? 4)What can young people do?

Assignment: prepare your group presentation on your topic
 

Week 3.

Wednesday: Data collection and analysis
  • Lecture: how do we analyze data?
  • Each group will analyze the data they have collected: by age group, ethnicity (and everything else that is included in your survey).
  • Each group should combine the data analysis with the presentation from the previous week

There is no written assignment due this week, however you should start thinking and working on your group paper.

Week 4.

Monday: Group project
  • Work on the final presentation that will include 1st presentation(shortened) + data analysis + conclusion
  • Work on your 5-page paper that will have the following format 1) background on your topic (1 paragraph) 2) why is this topic important? (1 paragraph) 3) what does the data you collected tells us about it (data analysis 4-5 paragraphs) 4) how can we improve this area of human right? what can be done better? (2 paragraphs) 4) What can young people do? (2 paragraphs)
Wednesday: Final group presentations + module movie
  • Each group will present their work to the larger group / how they can build off
  • Last hour we will record your presentations that will be shared with everyone from all the modules. The final movie for all groups combined should be 15 minutes (we might adjust the duration to less than this- but we will know more about it as we approach this final week).

Assignment: 5-page group paper


 

ANDRADA COSTOIU AND ANGELIKI KANAVOU

Module 8.
The Ukrainian Crisis. Due to popular request, we are also offering a new module dealing with the crisis in Ukraine. Taught by Andrada Costoiu and Angeliki Kanavou, Tobis Fellows at UCI. The first two weeks of the module review material that helps us understand the history of the Ukrainian crisis. After a discussion of the history of the region, we turn to the political psychology and political acts of Vladimir Putin. Week 3 we ask what the crisis means for democracy and the international institutions developed to ensure economic well-being and peace in that region. The module concludes Week 4 with group projects developed by the adventurous students interested in asking what they can do to help in this region. Tuesday and Thursdays; 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.

Module description:
A former Soviet Republic, Ukraine has played an important, often overlooked role in the international security order. Now in the front line, Ukraine and the ongoing war is reactivating and intensifying geopolitical rivalries that are sending shockwaves that reverberate throughout Europe and the entire world. The first two weeks of the module we will review material that will help us understand the history of the Ukrainian crisis. After a discussion of the history of the region, we turn to the political psychology and political acts of Vladimir Putin. Week 3 we ask what the crisis means for democracy and the international institutions developed to ensure economic well-being and peace in that region. The module concludes week 4 with group projects developed by the adventurous students interested in asking what they can do to help in this region.

Assignments & Group projects

Week 1: written assignment -2 pages (see the questions provided for the assignment on Thursday-fist week) & prepare to present your reading and thoughts about it on Monday next week

Week 2: send a proposal (or your choice) for the group project

Week 3: no assignment

Week 4: a 30 second movie about what you learned in this module & 5-page group paper (5 students/group) on one of the questions assigned (or approved) for the group projects. The papers will be complied into a collective working paper, that will be put on the Ethics Center Website. You will be listed as authors.

Written assignments should be emailed to andradac@uci.edu before the due date. I expect that for group projects everyone to make an equal contribution.

Readings
The module is designed to teach you about geopolitics, the situation in Ukraine and in the world, in a fun way. Besides the academic readings included here, I might include short movies and rational choice games, which are not listed below. There are a few readings for this module which you do not need to acquire from a library or anywhere online. These, together with other materials for this module will be placed in a common google folder and you will be given access to the folder in May (in case you want an early start with the materials).
 

Week 1. The Big Picture

Tuesday: Cold war and geopolitics
  • Discussing your assignments and projects
  • Lecture: Place matters, the importance of geography as a driver of state behavior; Cold War and geopolitics
  • Discussion on the readings
Readings:
  1. Snyder, Glenn H. "Mearsheimer's World-Offensive Realism and the Struggle for Security: A Review Essay." International Security 27.1 (2002): 149-173.
  2. Warner, Geoffrey. "Geopolitics and the Cold War." The Oxford Handbook of the Cold War. 2013.
Discussion Questions and areas:
  • What is geopolitics?
  • Why the antagonism between these two states developed in such a way as to eventually divide the European continent in two?
  • In analyzing and evaluating the Cold War as a geopolitical system, consider who was likely to benefit politically, financially, and otherwise from such a conflict. What do you think?
Thursday: Russia, imperialism post-Cold War
  • Lecture: Russia, imperialism post-Cold War
  • Discussion on the readings
  • Lecture: What is a literature review and what is the structure of an academic paper
Readings:
  1. Kropatcheva, Elena. "Russian Foreign Policy towards Ukraine: a Case of New Imperialism?" Annual International Young Researchers Conference “Eurasian Empire: Literature, Historical, and Political Responses to Russian Rule in the Twentieth Century, Center for OSCE Research Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hanburg. 2006.
  2. Desai, Radhika, Alan Freeman, and Boris Kagarlitsky. "The conflict in Ukraine and contemporary imperialism." International Critical Thought 6.4 (2016): 489-512.
Discussion Questions:
  1. Getting Russia right - assessing its capabilities and intentions
Written Assignment: Find a scientific paper that talks about one of the following themes and write a 2-page reaction paper about it (paper due on Monday). Prepare to talk about the theme you choose in class.
  • Different perceptions of the end of the Cold War
  • Different perceptions of what kind of state would Russia become after the end of the Cold war and rejection of communist
  • Different perceptions of Russia as a great power and of what is required for Russia to remain such
  • Different perceptions of the international order – both in terms of power distribution, and in terms of rules and norms.

Week 2.

Tuesday: The push to expand NATO
  • Each student presents what they read and the argument of their reflection paper (1 minute/each)
  • Lecture: Russia, imperialism post-Cold War
  • Discussion on the readings
Readings:
  1. Kramer, Mark. "The myth of a no-NATO-enlargement pledge to Russia." The Washington Quarterly 32.2 (2009): 39-61.
  2. Feinstein, Scott G., and Ellen B. Pirro. "Testing the world order: strategic realism in Russian foreign affairs." International Politics 58.6 (2021): 817-834.
Thursday: Putin's Road to War
  • Watch Putin's Road to War (full documentary) | FRONTLINE
  • Discussion on the movie
  • Discussion on the readings
  • Discuss group projects
Readings:
  1. Semenova, Elena, and David G. Winter. "A motivational analysis of Russian presidents, 1994–2018." Political Psychology 41.4 (2020): 813-834.
  2. Alkan, Abdulmelik. "Barber's Typological Analysis of President Erdogan and President Putin." PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATION 58.4 (2021): 1025-1033.

Discussion Questions: Putin’s motives and why they matter

Week 3.

During this week we learn what the crisis means for democracy and for the international institutions developed to ensure economic well-being and peace in this region. Students will also begin working on their group projects (each group will talk on their topic- and have a presentation + 5-page group paper by the end of the 4th week (6 students/group)

Tuesday: The Ukrainian crisis and rising stakes in the struggle for democracy
  • Lecture: rising stakes in the struggle for democracy
  • Discussion on the readings
  • Start group projects: work on your 5-page paper that can be based (but not limited/ you can propose your own topic) to the topics below
Readings:
  1. The Ukraine War and the Struggle to Defend Democracy in Europe and Beyond, IDEA, March 2022
  2. RADIN, ANDREW, et al. Understanding Russian Subversion: Patterns, Threats, and Responses. RAND Corporation, February 2020.
  3. Gershman, Carl. “A FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY: Why Ukraine Matters.” World Affairs, vol. 177, no. 6, 2015, pp. 47–56.
Potential project topics:
  1. Could the Ukraine crisis have been avoided?
  2. Is there potential for the United States and its partners to rethink their approaches to the region and chart a new path for peace?
  3. What more should we be doing? (e.g. Tighten our economic (and other) sanctions? No fly zone?)
  4. How can Ukraine meet its economic challenges and reconstruction when the war will be over?
  5. Discuss the humanitarian impact of the war
Thursday: Group projects
  • Work on your paper + presentation

Week 4.

Tuesday: Peace in Ukraine
  • Discussion on the readings
  • Work on your presentation
Readigns:
  1. ÅSLUND, ANDERS, et al. Biden and Ukraine: A Strategy for the New Administration. Atlantic Council, 2021.
Wednesday: Final group presentations + module movie
  • Each group will present their work to the larger group
  • Last hour we will record your presentations that will be shared with everyone from all the modules. The final movie for all groups combined should be 15 minutes (we might adjust the duration to less than this- but we will know more about it as we approach this final week).

Assignment: 5-page group paper + module movie


 

KIYAAN PARIKH.

Module 9.
Ghosts’ Stories: Trauma, Memory and Legacies of Violence.
Kiyaan Parikh, Graduate Student in Political Science. Ksparikh@uci.edu

Module Description:

Welcome and excited to work with everyone over the coming summer. This module looks at intimate violence and seeks to understand its long-term legacies. Big ideas that we will cover include generational trauma, victimhood and perpetration and collective memory. Together, we want to explore how violence is remembered, how it is processed in a community and the politics that surround and inform those processes. The goal of the module is to explore both broad theories of trauma and its impact and more case-specific analyses of how memory is practiced on a day-to-day level.

Readings for this module will be fairly interdisciplinary across social science and humanities providing a sampling platter of how various traditions research, define and unpack these questions. Specific cases include the Cultural Revolution in China, the wars during the breakup of Yugoslavia, the Partition of South Asia, and the Grenada Revolution among others. I will provide pdfs of the readings in most cases once an email list is assembled.
 

Structure and Assignments:

We will meet twice a week, Monday and Wednesday from 3-5 PM Pacific Time. Generally the module will be more reading and discussion heavy, but light on lecture and written assignments. When there are lectures, they will be focusing on big themes of how research is done and how we engage with the material, especially on such heavy topics.

Asignments:
  1. Participants are expected to have read the assigned readings, but having questions or being a bit confused is always ok; indeed, that is why we are discussing the topics.
  2. Active participation is a must. Participation takes many forms and does not just mean how many times you talked. It also includes active listening, engaging with other people’s points and critically thinking about how the discussion changes or challenges your thoughts and interpretations of the reading.
  3. At the end of the module interns will write a brief (about 5 pages double spaced, no more than 7) literature review that puts the readings in dialogue with each other. We will discuss what makes a good lit review and general writing fundamentals throughout our time together.
     

Content Warning and Expectations for Discussion:

It should be said that the content of this module carries a variety of trigger warnings that I want to make clear at the start. In exploring intimate violence this module will cover some heavy themes including violent conflict, sexual violence, mental health struggles, racial and ethnic prejudice and others. We will discuss how to discuss these topics in a responsible way, but be aware of this when signing up. If you find yourself overwhelmed by the content of the discussion please feel free to look after yourself in the way you need or reach out for support.

When discussing, please keep the following in mind, more on this in meeting 1:
  1. Be aware of the space you are in and taking up. This includes allowing others to finish their points without interruption and allowing room for everyone who wishes to speak to have a chance to.
  2. At no time should we expect or ask a person to be a “spokesperson” for their background or experiences. At the same time, we all have various identities and perspectives that we bring to the conversation and critically examining your own perspectives is encouraged.
  3. Call people in rather than calling them out. Feedback and critiques should always be constructive and respectful.
     

Week 1: Introduction and Broad Theory:
In meeting one we will get to know each other, introduce the module concepts and discuss research practices. In meeting two we will discuss David Scott’s book and how it functions as a broad lens to view trauma through. Meeting one is purposefully reading light to allow for you to get ahead on reading Scott.

Monday: Intro, writing fundamentals and lit reviews:

Reading: Writing A Literature Review. Bring a previous paper of your own as well

Discussion:
  1. Icebreakers, check-in and welcome to the course! (30 mins)
  2. Mini Lecture: What makes good writing? What is a lit review? (15 mins)
  3. Activity: Writing workshop. (15 mins)
  4. Break (10 mins)
  5. Small groups: How do you synthesize literature? Why would we do it? How do we keep it interesting? (20 mins)
  6. Large group: Priors and setting the stage. What is trauma? Memory? Legacy? How do we define and measure these ideas? What role does intimacy play? (30 mins)
     

Wednesday: Trauma, Time and Memory Broad Theory:
Reading: Ch1-2 in Scott, David. 2014. Omens of Adversity: Tragedy, Time, Memory, Justice. Durham: Duke University Press. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/68625 (April 26, 2022).

Discussion:
  1. Check in (10 mins)
  2. Agenda Setting: Time, Memory and Trauma (10 mins)
  3. Small groups: Unpacking Scott. How does he define Time, Memory and Trauma? What other ideas relate to these? What role does violence play? (~30 mins)
  4. Break!
  5. Large groups: Scott as a broad theory. How does this book help us understand its big ideas? What are we missing? What evidence would we want to add? When and where is it helpful?

Week 2: Generational Memory Part 1
This week we will focus on how violent legacies transfer through families and across time. We will look at two broad theories here, finishing David Scott and exploring Emily Ng’s book on China and the legacy of Maoism. Both serve as ways to think about memory and time relating to traumatic events.

Monday:
Reading:
Ch 3-4 in Scott, David. 2014. Omens of Adversity: Tragedy, Time, Memory, Justice. Durham: Duke University Press. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/68625 (April 26, 2022).

Intro and Ch 1 in Ng, Emily. 2020. A Time of Lost Gods: Mediumship, Madness, and the Ghost after Mao.

Discussion:
  1. Check in (10 mins)
  2. Agenda setting: Defining concepts and historical background (15 mins)
  3. Small groups: Unpacking ideas. How does the search for justice impact memory? How is individual memory different from collective? How does memory impact language and thought in Ng’s work? Where is truth in all of this? (40 mins)
  4. Break! (10 mins)
  5. Large groups: Putting ideas in dialogue. How do the two books so far talk to each other? Strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches? How do their definitions impact their theories? (rest of class)
     

Wednesday:
Reading:
Ch 3-5 in Ng, Emily. 2020. A Time of Lost Gods: Mediumship, Madness, and the Ghost after Mao.

Discussion:
  1. Check-in (10 mins)
  2. Agenda setting: Generational memory, mental health and passing on history. (~10 mins)
  3. Small groups: What is the relationship between mental health, tradition and memory? Do we find her account compelling? How are big events like the Cultural Revolution remembered differently in urban and rural spaces? Is spirituality and madness just a coping mechanism or a sign of something more? (30 mins)
  4. Break! (10 mins)
  5. Large groups: Scott and Ng part 2: Madness, justice and meaning. What do their accounts say about how people give meaning to political and violent trauma? How is the memory of these events a political project? Comparing approaches and frameworks.
     

Week 3: Generational Memory Part 2: Ethnic Conflict.
This week our focus will go to specific conflicts among different identity groups invoking the same themes of trauma and memory. We will start with the Wars in Yugoslavia and then move to the South Asian Partition. Themes include community and responsibility as we explore how memory influences who is a victim and who is a perpetrator of violent conflict.

Monday:
Reading: Jones, Lynne. 2002. “Adolescent Understandings of Political Violence and Psychological Well-Being: A Qualitative Study from Bosnia Herzegovina.” Social Science & Medicine 55(8): 1351–71.

Klarić, Miro, Branka Klarić, Aleksandra Stevanović, and Jasna Grković. “Psychological Consequences of War Trauma and Postwar Social Stressors in Women in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” Croat Med J: 11.

Discussion:
  1. Check-in (10 mins)
  2. Agenda setting: Documentary Once Brothers (80 mins)
  3. Large Groups: Perpetrators vs. Victims. How does memory work to place blame or allow for healing? How does ethnic violence differ from previous forms of intimate violence? What impact do meaning and justice have on how violence is remembered? (rest of class)

Wednesday:
Reading: Ch1 and 2 in Varshney, Ashutosh. 2008. Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life: Hindus and Muslims in India. Yale University Press.

Ray, Avishek. 2021. “Post-Memory and the Third Generation’s Inheritance of the Indian Partition (1947): A Comparative Study of the Linguistic Register across Spatial Axes.” Memory Studies: 175069802110333.

Discussion:
  1. Check-in (10 mins)
  2. Agenda Setting: Victims and Perpetrators (10 mins)
  3. Small groups: How do we view reconciliation after reading Varshney? How do communities rebuild after conflict? What makes a community less likely to have later instances of conflict? What makes them more likely? (30 mins)
  4. Break! (10 mins)
  5. Large groups: Does memory always imply being the victim? How does memory impact responsibility and perpetration? Putting ideas in dialogue: Community, meaning, justice and healing across class readings so far (1 hour)
     

Week 4. Review and legacies.
Most of this week will be about putting the different course readings together and having them talk to each other. As such it will be freeform and mainly to help everyone prepare their short lit reviews for the end. Time segments are not given as we will emphasize sections depending on the strength of discussion

Monday:
Reading: Review readings from previous weeks and outline your reviews.

Discussion:
  1. Check in
  2. Agenda Setting: Lit Reviews and tying themes together
  3. Small groups: Which reading had the best explanation of trauma? Memory? Healing? Violence? What gaps in some did others fill? What are we still missing? What are we most interested in?
  4. Break!
  5. Large groups: How have our priors changed about these issues? What do we still need to know? What do we want to focus our reviews on? Broad theory vs. Case specific examples?
     
Wednesday:
Reading: Review from previous weeks and write your reviews.
Discussion:
  1. Check in
  2. Agenda Setting: Argument and theme in Lit Reviews
  3. Small groups: What is your argument? Which readings are you favoring? Where does that help and hurt your framing?
  4. Break!
  5. Large groups: Who had the biggest impact on you? Who had the least? Candid discussion and review of the module so far and big takeaways.

 


 

2022 Module on human rights

 


 

 

Navigating Ethics and Morality in the Modern Era: Results from the 2021 Summer Internship Program

 

 


 

 

 


 

 

UCI Ethics Center - Summer Internship Testimonial Summer 2021

 

 


 

Working Paper

 Sexual Violence and the Shifting Faces of Feminism in the Age of #MeToo and Donald Trump

 

Testimonials
 

During the 2020 Summer Internship at the Ethics Center, I studied about moral courage on historical and current figures. I really enjoyed the internship because it was challenging as well as interesting simultaneously. It was challenging to read about Aristotle’s ancient interpretation about moral courage but was intriguing to see how our perceptions of morality and courage have shifted over time. My favorite part was studying about the moral dilemma around Dr. Fauci and Dr. Rick Bright during the COVID-19 pandemic. Even though both of them are scientists, they were entangled by the politicized pandemic response. The topic was complex whereas my mentor was ready to help and always encouraged and directed me to try harder and try a different way. I love how my mentor Professor Kristen Monroe always raised new questions during every meeting and expect us to look for various explanations. In a nutshell, the most important lesson I have learnt is that it is crucial to view my research topics from a nonjudgmental perspective and to welcome ideas I like and dislike at the same time. Additionally, I find out that research is not as complicated as I used to expect and is an avenue for exploration into ourselves and societies.
 
– Anqi Wang
(2020 CEM summer intern)

 


 

 

We are always told “do the right thing”. But is it really that simple? The answer lies in our ethics, our decision making processes, our culture, and so much more.

I went on to discover my own answer to this question through the UCI Center for the Scientific Study of Ethics program. In module 4 we studied moral courage in times of despair. This opportunity to research moral courage led by Professor Kristen Monroe and Ben Hoyt gave me the opportunity to further understand what sparks courage among individuals, specifically researching times where Senators Mitt Romney and Jeff Flake have taken a public stand and spoken out against their party. As an intern, I was assigned to the research study of moral courage in liberal democracies. I collaborated with other students to collect data through analyzing legal testimonies, interviews, social media, and editorials.

I began by exploring literature for findings of moral courage and the differences that exist for elected officials and party officials. My research started far before the founding of the Republic: Athenian democracy in Ancient Greece. Together with my fellow interns, we compiled our findings into a paper that was based on acts of moral courage where politicians placed principle over party loyalty and the implications of their actions. Compiling modern congressional records and news articles discussing the fallout showed me that these acts require courage and confidence in one’s beliefs. At its core, it became clear that moral courage is connected with one’s personal values of integrity, authenticity, and truthfulness, and is triggered by the circumstances people find themselves in. Integrity is as unique as those that possess it.

When the internship on module 4 was completed, Professor Monroe and a small group of us interns went on to research COVID and the outcomes and differences in public compliance in various locations. Our research led us to discover the political influence of COVID and medical advice in relation to public compliance. The outcomes differed between states and countries but ultimately, the successful countries had strong collectivist civic cultures.

Through this experience, I learned more than I could have imagined about empirical research conducted at the university level. I had a pleasure working with Mr. Hoyt and Professor Monroe. However, the lesson I will carry with me in my personal life is about people. I had the opportunity to learn how to analyze behavior that is deeply personal and draw conclusions that can be applied to our society as a whole. My hope is that by studying moral courage and helping define what leads to courageous acts, that this research can inspire it in all of us.
 
– Lauren O’Neill
(2020 CEM summer intern)

 
 

 

© UC Irvine School of Social Sciences - 3151 Social Sciences Plaza, Irvine, CA 92697-5100 - 949.824.2766