Jennifer Saul Professor of Philosophy

“Dogwhistles and Figleaves: Techniques of Racist Linguistic Manipulation”

April 5, 4:00-5:30 Babbidge Library, UCHI Conference Room

Jennifer’s primary interests are in Philosophy of Language, Feminism, Philosophy of Race, and Philosophy of Psychology. Her most recent book was Lying, Misleading and What is Said: An Exploration in Philosophy of Language and in Ethics (Oxford University Press 2012). Currently, she is working on racism in political speech. In 2011, she received the 2011 Distinguished Woman Philosopher Award in Washington, DC; she has also been chosen as Mind Association President for 2019-20.

Abstract: Until recently, it was widely believed that explicit expressions of racism would doom a political candidacy in the United States. Yet nonetheless racism was a frequently used tool that won many elections. This talk examines one of the methods, the dogwhistle, that allowed such racist electoral victories. It then turns to the present day, in which explicit racism is proving remarkably successful. Here I explore a different linguistic technique, the fig leaf, which I take to have enabled this success.

Working Group

Sanford Goldberg
“Your Attention Please!  (The Ethics of Address)”

March 26, 4:00-5:30 Babbidge Library, Heritage Room (4th Floor)

Sandy Goldberg (PhD Columbia University, 1995) works in the areas of Epistemology, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Mind. Goldberg’s interests in Epistemology include such topics as reliabilism, the epistemology of testimony, the theory of epistemic justification, social epistemology, self-knowledge, and skepticism. In the Philosophy of Mind and Language, his interests center on the individuation of the propositional attitudes, externalist theories of mental content and linguistic meaning, the semantics of speech and attitude reports, and speech act theory. A good sample of his work can be found in his four recent books, Anti-Individualism (Cambridge University Press, 2007), Relying on Others (Oxford University Press, 2010), Assertion (Oxford University Press, 2015), and To the Best of Our Knowledge (Oxford University Press, 2018).

There are various ways through which we try to capture another person’s attention. One of these ways – a particularly sophisticated way! – is to address them. After trying to highlight what it is to address another person, I argue that doing so generates a reason (for you, as addressee) to attend to the act. When the act of address is a speech act, matters are further complicated by the expectations parties bring, and (I argue) are entitled to bring, to an (anticipated) speech exchange.  The upshot is that speakers who address an audience have a defeasible claim on the audience’s attention. To fail to attend to a speaker who addresses you and whose claim on your attention is not defeated, I argue, is to disrespect her as a rational subject. ​That this is an underexplored topic in social epistemology is unfortunate, since if I am right addresses form the foundation of most, if not all, attempts at joint action, including those that arise in the course of our attempts to share information with one another.

Working Group

People on all sides of the political spectrum often view their opposites as arrogant know-it-alls—as not really being willing to listen to alternative voices. The goal of this workshop is examine the role that a certain kind of arrogance—arrogance about one’s view or beliefs—plays in divisive, polarized political debate. Is arrogance or perceived arrogance a consequence or a cause of polarization? Could promoting a more open-minded or intellectual humble attitude help make politics less divisive? A dozen researchers from around the world will gather in Hartford to discuss these questions and the broader issue of whether reasonable, constructive public dialogue is even possible in our political moment – and if it is, what concrete interventions and/or strategies might be helpful in addressing this problem.

The workshop is sponsored by Humility and Conviction in Public Life (HCPL), an applied research project funded by the John Templeton Foundation and the University of Connecticut, which aims to shed new light on how democracies can balance the value of strong moral conviction with the need for citizens to dialogue with one another, to have some sense of humility about their own values. The hope is that the workshop will be a launching pad for future collaborations and practical interventions.

Register here! Registration is free, but limited.

Trystan Goetze 
“Moral and Epistemic Responsibility for Conceptual Ignorance”

March 1, 1:00-2:30 Babbidge Library, Heritage Room (4th Floor)

Trystan is currently a Ph.D. Candidate in Philosophy at the University of Sheffield, and a Visiting Research Scholar in the Ph.D. Program in Philosophy at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. His research interests lie at the intersection of epistemology, ethics, and analytic feminism. His dissertation is a novel investigation of our moral and epistemic responsibilities concerning the concepts we use.

Working Group

CT Civic Ambassadors Summit

“A Bayesian Explanation of the Irrationality of Sexist and Racist Beliefs Involving Generic Content”

Thursday, November 30th, from 11:00 AM – 12:30 PM in the UCHI conference room

Paul was a lecturer in philosophy at Monash University from 2013-2016, and is presently a visiting faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania. He completed his PhD in

2013 at the University of Connecticut. His current research is primarily in epistemology, but he also works in metaphysics and ethics.

On Tuesday September 20, 2016, Humility and Conviction in Public Life celebrated its formal launch with “Humility in Politics,” a night of conversation and celebration including panelists David Brooks, of the New York Times, NPR’s Krista Tippett, New Yorker columnist Jelani Cobb and Washington University’s Liz McCloskey .
The Humility in Politics forum was held at the Folger Shakespeare Theater in Washington, DC .

‘Humility and vulnerability are no longer values that are rewarded in the political arena, and it’s up to individuals, and their relationships, to begin a sea change that could “trickle up” into political leadership.’

Read the full story here