We are gratified that Prof. Bennett has now read the full Task Forceon Inequality and American Democracy report that he critiqued in theJanuary 2006 issue of PS, but we find his responsepuzzling. He characterizes our report as “illustrative of manypolitical scientists' left-wing tilt” and buttresses his assertion,not by analyzing the report itself, but by referring to studies ofthe political leanings of college faculty. Clearly, the test of ourheavily annotated work—the bottom line of which is that “there areno easy conclusions when it comes to changing inequality ofpolitical voice” (APSA Task Force 2004, 35)—is whether we have beenfaithful to the relevant scholarly research. Since Bennett providesno evidence to the contrary, we leave it to the reader to decide whois driven by ideological, rather than scholarly, concern.

Professor Schlozman feels that unless one also assesses three longmemos that accompanied the report by the APSA's Task Force onInequality and American Democracy, one should refrain fromcommenting. She accuses me in my response to the Task Force reports(Bennett 2006) of “not bother[ing] toread the full materials on which … [I comment]” (Schlozman 2006, 55). Schlozman indicates she'd be“interested in … [my] reactions to the whole report instead of anabbreviated version” (55). Since she asks, here goes.

When I was looking for a quotation to garnish the introduction to mydoctoral dissertation on Senate committees, I turned, like hundredsof graduate students before and since, to Woodrow Wilson'sCongressional Government. “Congress in sessionis Congress on public exhibition,” he wrote (1885) and I quoted(1972), “whilst Congress in its committee-rooms is Congress atwork.” But the book deserves better than simply to be mined forquotations. As Wilson's doctoral dissertation, it offers insightsinto his developing political thought. It illumines the operationsof the national government during what was indeed a period ofcongressional and standing-committee ascendancy, although Wilson'saccount was neither objective nor totally reliable. And it promptsreflection on certain recurring dilemmas in the practice of Americandemocracy.This essay is adaptedfrom a presentation at the Woodrow Wilson International Centerfor Scholars, November 14, 2005.

The European Union is going about its regular business. It is puttingforth proposals to keep the Doha Round alive, continuing tonegotiate a major trade agreement with Mercosur in South America,keeping peace-keeping troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina, spendingdevelopment aid in numerous poor countries, financially supportingthe Palestine Authority while giving Israel preferential access tothe EU market, investigating Microsoft's business practices, andbattling over the reach and scope of an ambitious new legislativeattempt to regulate the chemical industry. The EU Greenhouse TradingScheme, the largest greenhouse emissions trading scheme in theworld, is up and running. The European Central Bank is makingmonetary policy decisions while the euro makes up almost 20% ofcentral banks' foreign currency holdings. The European MedicinesAgency (EMEA) has called for suspending the sale of the children'svaccine Hexavac. The European Court of Justice, for its part, hasrecently declared illegal a high profile Italian law designed toprevent foreign takeover of Italian energy companies. And thecommissioner for Health and Consumer Protection is playing a leadingrole in the EU's response to the threat of a pandemic of avian birdflu.

The Dutch have been counted among the staunchest supporters ofEuropean integration ever since the parliamentary ratification ofthe European Community for Coal and Steel in late 1951. The majorpolitical parties—the Christian Democrats (CDA) and its forerunners,the Labor Party (PvdA), and the liberal parties VVD andD66—supported all important European treaties of the past decades.Only the smaller orthodox-Calvinist parties, some smaller left-wingparties, and, more recently, the List Pim Fortuyn (LPF) have opposedthese treaties in parliament. This overwhelmingly large support inthe Second Chamber of the Dutch parliament included the Treaty ofRome of 2004—the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe. Onehundred twenty-eight out of 150 members of parliament favored theratification of the European Constitution. This article draws on several chapters in Aarts and van der Kolk 2005.

The Spanish, French, Dutch, and Luxembourg referenda on theConstitutional Treaty are the latest, but certainly not the last,flashpoints in a contentious European Union. The era in which EUpolitics was determined by national and European elites ended about15 years ago. With the Maastricht Accord of 1991, decision making onEuropean integration entered the contentious world of partycompetition, elections, and referenda.

The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe is widely regardedas a turning point in the history of European integration. It wasdesigned to reconcile two key dimensions of the Europeanconstruction: the deepening of integration and the need to ensurethe democratic character of the European Union (EU). TheConstitution provides for the convergence of the model of regionalintegration and that of democratic government. It containssimplified legal instruments and procedures which enhance the statusof the Union as a political system. The open deliberations on theconstitutional text and its ratification through popular referendaor parliamentary endorsement extend democratic principles andprocedures typical of domestic politics to regional integration.

I spent the 2004–2005 academic year in France, culminating with theMay 29th referendum on the European Union constitutionaltreaty. Fifty-five percent of voters rejected it. Three days later,62% of Dutch voters followed suit. These were unexpected results,especially in France, a country where 80% declare themselves infavor of European integration. In other member states, a simple rulegenerally applies: those whose priority is to strengthen the EU areon the “yes” side, while the “no” is identified with those whoemphasize national interests. In the Netherlands, though the murderof filmmaker Theo van Gogh by an Islamic radical was a factor, the“no” forces won essentially because they persuaded enough peoplethat the direction the Constitution would take the Netherlands wentagainst Dutch interests. To do so, they played on the resentmentthat Brussels took their money but ignored Dutch concerns—“the samepeople who fooled you with the euro are fooling you now with thisconstitution.”

For the second time in the history of the French Vth Republic, thefirst having led to the resignation of Charles De Gaulle in 1969, apresident lost a national referendum. On May 29, 2005, 54.7% ofFrench voters rejected the European Constitutional Treaty, eventhough France was one of the major proponents of the EuropeanConvention which led to the Constitution's drafting. The victory ofthe “no” vote had been foreseen, but neither the margin of victory,nor the high turnout (almost 70.5%) were expected. The rejection ofthe Constitution raised two concerns: the first related to theposition of France in Europe, the second to its domestic impact. Whydid the French electorate vote as it did? Did voters make up theirminds based on national cues, the European issue being generally oflittle importance even in European elections (Franklin, Marsh, and McLaren 1994; Van der Eijk and Franklin 1996)? Is the referendumresult the consequence of a growing anti-European attitude, whichcould cause considerable damage to the process of EU integration?Will a new cleavage grounded on attitudes to Europe and capable ofaltering the traditional left-right organization emerge in theFrench political system?Our warmestthanks to our colleagues, Chantal Barry, Arianne Chebeld'Appolonia, and Manlio Cinnalli for their remarks on and theirhelp with this piece.

On the evening of May 26, 2005, with the polls suggesting that theEuropean Constitution was veering toward defeat, Jacques Chirac madea final exhortation to the French public. He argued that the Frenchwere voting not on a sectarian political issue but on an issue thatwould determine the future of themselves, their children, France,and Europe. Chirac characterized the choice before French citizensas “neither right nor left.” His use of a phrase more commonlyassociated with Vichy displayed an uncharacteristic historicalamnesia and suggests that Chirac and his party were grabbing atstraws in those final days.

In his 1987 presidential address to the American Political ScienceAssociation,” One Soul at a Time: Political Science and PoliticalReform,” Samuel P. Huntington (1988, 3–10)argued at some length that “political science … is not just anintellectual discipline (but) also a moral one,” and that “theimpetus to do good in the sense of promoting political reform is …embedded in our profession.” Therefore, “it is impossible to havepolitical scientists in the absence of political participation, andpolitical science has only developed with the expansion of politicalparticipation. In a society in which there is no participation—nocompetition for power—political scientists would have nothing todo.” It logically follows that “the connection between democracy hasbeen a close and continuing one.”

Data matter. Protest data are no exception. Not all datasets areequal, nor do all have equal validity and reliability. Thus far,there has been no serious debate regarding the quality of protestdatasets. Increasing attention to protest studies suggests that nowis the time to talk about the sine qua non forgrowing knowledge in this sub-field of comparative politics. In thispaper I emphasize the importance of the underlying data sources. Inparticular, I argue that protest datasets should be drawn from manysources, particularly as many local sources as possible, in order toprovide accurate and meaningful data. To support this contention, Ifirst discuss traditional protest datasets and their limitations andprovide suggestions about how to overcome these limitations. Second,I explain an alternative type of dataset coding and itscharacteristics. And finally, I use statistical tests to illustratethe importance of local sources.I givemy sincere and deep thanks to Erik S. Herron and Ronald A.Francisco for reviewing drafts of this paper and giving meindispensable comments and continuous encouragements. I wouldalso like to thank Elizabeth Collins and Omur Yilmaz who editeddrafts of this manuscript. My appreciation also goes toanonymous reviews of this paper and the editors of PS:Political Science and Politics. I would like tothank my late farther, Ki-Dae whose love and support were simplyendless. I'll share any compliment with them, but only I willtake responsibility for any error.

Justin is not alone. In a recent study of high school seniors fromCalifornia, for example, only 28% agreed that “I think people ingovernment care about what people like me and my family need” (Kahne and Middaugh 2005). Related findingsare common. A survey by the National Association of Secretaries ofState, for example, revealed that two-thirds of all young peopleagreed that “our generation has an important voice, but no one seemsto hear it.” Moreover, those youth who were least trusting were alsothe least likely to vote, to believe that government can affecttheir lives, or to pay attention to politics (National Association of Secretaries of State 1999).These findings, combined with numerous other indicators that showlow and in many cases declining civic and political participation,indicate that forms of engagement required for a participatorydemocracy to thrive are in need of attention (Macedo et al.2005).The initial research forthis essay was generously supported by a grant from the SurdnaFoundation. Subsequent research and writing was generouslysupported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Councilof Canada. We also wish to thank Melinda Fine, Barbara Leckie,Tobi Walker, and James Youniss for helpful feedback on earlierdrafts. The authors are solely responsible for any and allconclusions.

On April 19, 2005, after just four rounds of voting, the College ofCardinals announced that 78-year-old Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger hadbeen selected as the new pope. This announcement startled many. Tobe sure, as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of theFaith for nearly a quarter of a century Ratzinger had helped selectthe vast majority of the cardinals who gathered to choose asuccessor to John Paul II, so his selection as pope could be seen asfulfillment of a simple quid pro quo. Even so, ithad been widely speculated that Ratzinger's conservative beliefswould spark passionate opposition among the electors and that hisage and reputed poor health would also work against him (Novak 2005).

The 2005 Workshop for Department Chairs was dedicated to discussingthe legal issues that face department chairs. Themes included sexualand racial harassment, tenure, and hiring. APSA's DepartmentalServices Committee (DSC) sponsored the workshop and Edie N.Goldenberg (University of Michigan), a member of the DSC, moderatedthe panel. American University Counsel Hisham Khalid, LoyolaUniversity Chicago's Susan Gluck Mezey, and retired Wheaton CollegePresident Dale Rogers Marshall were also part of the panel. TheWorkshop drew 75 attendees to hear the four presentations and toconsider how to deal with legal issues. The 2006 Workshop forDepartment Chairs is “Planning for Assessment & AccountabilityIssues”—more information will follow in the coming months.

The January 2005 issue of PS: Political Science andPolitics carried a report compiled by the APSA TaskForce on Graduate Education which provides numerous suggestions topolitical science programs nationwide on preparing graduate studentsfor professional careers, improving mentoring and advising, andrevising financial package/plans to support ABDs in their finalstretch (Beltran et al. 2005). Among those proposals was a sectionspecifically designed to address unique problems internationalstudents, international graduate assistants (IGA), and internationalgraduate student instructors (IGSI) face at U.S. institutions:

Ph.D.-granting institutions want students to complete their doctoraldegrees. Most graduate departments in political science focus theirtraining on preparing students to pursue academic careers. Weprovide valid and reliable empirical data about the factors thataffect students' prospects for successfully completing politicalscience doctoral degrees and finding academic jobs. Because NationalScience Foundation data (2002, Table 53) reveal significantdifferences in the number of doctoral degrees awarded to womencompared with men, we test a series of hypotheses based on theexisting literature that may account for these differences. Ourpaper applies knowledge gained from previous studies, such as in thearea of mentoring (Wasby 2001; Andersen 2001; Benesh2001), to explain observed gender differences in doctoraldegree completion and success in gaining academic employmentthereafter.The research wascommissioned and funded by the Executive Council of the MidwestPolitical Science Association; additional funding was providedby the department of political science at the University ofIowa. Barbara Burrell of Northern Illinois University oversawthe data collection for round two of the panel study. KimberlyM. Lewis of the University of Iowa provided researchassistance.

Internationalization is a hot topic on college and universitycampuses today. It is also one of the hot button topics facing theAPSA (see Varshney 2004; Breuning 2005). Although relatively recentto APSA, internationalizing the higher education curriculum has longbeen a concern of educational scholars. Arum (1987) identifies three areas in which campuses canpursue internationalization: promoting the international content ofcurricula, tracking the international movement of scholars andstudents, and providing technical assistance and educationalcooperation programs that engage American education in effortsabroad. Rivers (1994) adds a fourthdimension: promoting awareness of other cultures and ways ofthinking through extracurricular cross-cultural experiences, whichwould ideally include outreach to the surrounding community.

College teachers are increasingly using instructional technology tosupplement or substitute for face-to-face instruction. Theincentives and arguments for doing so are many, includingfacilitation of higher education for non-traditional students andchanging student demographics, skill building to improve studentpreparation for workplaces that are likely to use computertechnology, space restrictions in universities with growingenrollment, the opportunities that Internet classrooms provide fororganizing and monitoring student work and assignments, and so on.However, little is known about how online instruction affects thelearner. Online instruction is, in many ways, fundamentallydifferent from face-to-face instruction (see, for example, Lee 2003; McCormack andJones 1998; Palloff and Pratt1999). For instance, instructors are unlikely to simplypost their lecture notes online in the hope that the students willread, take notes, memorize, and retain the information, which wouldbe the closest equivalent to a traditional lecture classroom.Consequently, it cannot be assumed that different instructionalmodes (such as lectures or online instruction) necessarily have thesame learner outcomes. This lack of knowledge concerning the effectsof online instruction on learner outcomes also extends to thequestion of gender equality.Authorsare listed in reverse alphabetical order. We gratefullyacknowledge financial support for both the redesign and theevaluation of the course from the Pew Learning and TechnologyProgram, Center for Academic Transformation, Pew Grant Programin Course Redesign.

Many assume that young Americans are apathetic, self-absorbed, andindifferent to civic matters. It is a turned-off generation, we aretold. But nothing could be further from the truth. A host of datasuggests young Americans give their energy, time, and money to theirschools, community, and nation. A recent report by the Center forInformation and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE),for example, suggests young Americans volunteer at higher rates thando older Americans (Lopez 2003). The frequency of pitching-in hasalso increased: In 1990 some 65% of college freshman reportedvolunteering in high school, and by 2003 that figure had risen to83%. Rates of volunteer work for those under 25 are now twice ashigh as for those over 55. Perhaps this is theactivist generation.