Buffalo Philosophers Receive $4 Million Grant for Civil Discourse Initiative
The faculty of the Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) program at the University at Buffalo were awarded a $4 million grant from the US Department of Education for an initiative on “civil discourse”.
[Adam Pendleton, untitled (We Are Not) (detail)]
Professor Bruner writes that “the SUNY [State University of New York] system has adopted a civil discourse curricular requirement, so this grant is an opportunity to get students into contact with issues in social epistemology, political epistemology, and of course social and political philosophy.”
Part of the grant goes towards curricular development, which will include, according to a press release about the grant, “three new undergraduate courses on free expression and civil discourse; a new certificate program in civil discourse and civic leadership; as well as an executive education program for civic leaders.”
The project will also include “a longitudinal study on the social norms of civil discourse to be conducted during the grant period.”
Related: “$2.5 Million Grant for Philosopher-Led Project on Diversity & Disagreement“, “Philosopher Wins $3.8m Grant for Work on Aging & Loneliness“, “Buffalo PPE Nets Big Grant for Local, Empirical, Philosophical Project on Immigration“
Huge congrats to the Buffalo crew! A great thing for philosophy and (if I may slightly double-count) for PPE.
Congrats! Buffalo has been doing very impressive things around PPE.
That this Dept. of Education in this administration is giving a multimillion dollar grant for an initiative on civil discourse is ironic, for lack of a better word, considering that one of the effects of their daily statements and activities is to undermine and degrade discourse, civil or otherwise.
To be fair, years ago, some were claiming that it “undermine[d] and degrade[d] discourse” to claim that anyone now making up this administration was far right, fascist, or anything else that might be considered unpleasant. To some, it was beyond the bounds of civil discourse to suggest that, and those suggesting it weren’t to be taken seriously. Now, though, some have decided that it’s within the bounds of civility to at least have that conversation, to seriously contemplate it. It’s important to pay attention to this as well, as too often we’re directed to engage in “civil discourse” by those who also position themselves to decide what counts as “civil.” The very idea itself is contentious, and the rhetoric surrounding it can be used to marginalize as much as it can be used to anchor discussions in a serious and respectful mode of engagement. Hopefully this initiative delves into that.