The Hauenstein Center Collection

Today, we hear, to begin with, a portion of a recently released documentary about President Gerald R. Ford. The documentary premiered on National Geographic. The portion we are about to hear was presented to a packed audience at the Hauenstein Center on October 3, 2017, as part of the Center’s Character and the Presidency Series. A sponsor of that series is also a producer of the Ford documentary: he’s former ambassador to Italy Peter Secchia.

Secchia and President Ford were friends. Following the screening, Secchia gave brief remarks about President Ford’s character; he says he’s always thought that Ford’s presidency should be taken a bit more seriously by historians, and that Ford’s decision to pardon Nixon was a testament, in fact, to his character. That’s the view explored in the documentary.

After Secchia’s address, we hear from David Brooks, who needs no introduction—everyone’s familiar with his widely read column in the New York Times as well as his bestselling book The Road to Character. Brooks talks with presidential historian Ronald White about character and the presidency generally. They ask what qualities a good leader, a good president, should have. Their discussion is moderated by Gleaves Whitney, director of the Hauenstein Center.

Today, we hear, to begin with, a portion of a recently released documentary about President Gerald R. Ford. The documentary premiered on National Geographic. The portion we are about to hear was presented to a packed audience at the Hauenstein Center on October 3, 2017, as part of the Center’s Character and the Presidency Series. A sponsor of that series is also a producer of the Ford documentary: he’s former ambassador to Italy Peter Secchia.

Secchia and President Ford were friends. Following the screening, Secchia gave brief remarks about President Ford’s character; he says he’s always thought that Ford’s presidency should be taken a bit more seriously by historians, and that Ford’s decision to pardon Nixon was a testament, in fact, to his character. That’s the view explored in the documentary.

After Secchia’s address, we hear from David Brooks, who needs no introduction—everyone’s familiar with his widely read column in the New York Times as well as his bestselling book The Road to Character. Brooks talks with presidential historian Ronald White about character and the presidency generally. They ask what qualities a good leader, a good president, should have. Their discussion is moderated by Gleaves Whitney, director of the Hauenstein Center.

Today we hear from Rebekah Warren, a Michigan state senator from the 18th district. Considered by some to be the most liberal member of the Michigan State Senate—after all, Ann Arbor, the home of the University of Michigan, is in her district—Senator Warren is in fact known for her ability and her willingness to reach across the aisle. By working effectively with Republicans on the senate, Warren has been able to champion bipartisan legislation on human rights and the environment.

Today we hear from Rebekah Warren, a Michigan state senator from the 18th district. Considered by some to be the most liberal member of the Michigan State Senate—after all, Ann Arbor, the home of the University of Michigan, is in her district—Senator Warren is in fact known for her ability and her willingness to reach across the aisle. By working effectively with Republicans on the senate, Warren has been able to champion bipartisan legislation on human rights and the environment.

Today, we hear from Andrew Spear, a professor of philosophy at Grand Valley State University. More specifically, Andrew is an epistemologist. His primary interest is in knowledge—he asks how we come to our beliefs about the world; how we come to know things, or believe that we know things; how we justify our beliefs.

I wanted to talk with Andrew because I wanted to know how his work as an epistemologist has responded to our present anti-epistemological political moment: “fake news,” Kellyanne Conway's “alternative facts.” All facts are politicized; what one chooses to believe seems entirely dependent on one’s politics. Andrew and I talk about the dangers of this state of affairs. One such danger: to become addicted to what Andrew calls, quite aptly, epistemic porn. In this episode, Andrew offers a definition of epistemic porn. We discuss the implications of the definition, as well as the definition itself.

Today, we hear from Andrew Spear, a professor of philosophy at Grand Valley State University. More specifically, Andrew is an epistemologist. His primary interest is in knowledge—he asks how we come to our beliefs about the world; how we come to know things, or believe that we know things; how we justify our beliefs.

I wanted to talk with Andrew because I wanted to know how his work as an epistemologist has responded to our present anti-epistemological political moment: “fake news,” Kellyanne Conway's “alternative facts.” All facts are politicized; what one chooses to believe seems entirely dependent on one’s politics. Andrew and I talk about the dangers of this state of affairs. One such danger: to become addicted to what Andrew calls, quite aptly, epistemic porn. In this episode, Andrew offers a definition of epistemic porn. We discuss the implications of the definition, as well as the definition itself.

In today’s episode, we offer a conversation between Janet Napolitano—21st Governor of Arizona, former secretary of homeland security, and current president of the University of California system—and Christine Todd Whitman, 50th governor of New Jersey and former administrator of the EPA. The pair talk about how they each got involved in politics at the local and state level, and what it ultimately took to win their gubernatorial races. They discuss what life was like once they got into office: how their leadership styles evolved and adapted to the demands of their roles.

In today’s episode, we offer a conversation between Janet Napolitano—21st Governor of Arizona, former secretary of homeland security, and current president of the University of California system—and Christine Todd Whitman, 50th governor of New Jersey and former administrator of the EPA. The pair talk about how they each got involved in politics at the local and state level, and what it ultimately took to win their gubernatorial races. They discuss what life was like once they got into office: how their leadership styles evolved and adapted to the demands of their roles.

Today, we hear from Martha Jones, the Society of Black Almuni Professor of History at Johns Hopkins University, and formerly a professor at the University of Michigan. Jones brings some of her experience especially at that latter institution to bear on our topic today: politics on college campuses.

We’re lucky she does. There’s been a lot of talk about campus politics, on both the left and right. On the right, we often hear about so-called liberal snowflakes who can’t bear to hear arguments that they don’t agree with, so they attempt to banish conservative speakers from their campuses and threaten to undermine the principle, the right, of freedom of expression. And on the center-left, we hear from some critics that identity politics is the problem: that students are so obsessed with the dynamics of personal identity and are thus incapable of or uninterested in the hard work of coalition building, sustained organizing, especially on the left.

This latter position was stated pretty succinctly by the liberal critic Mark Lilla recently in the Chronicle of Higher Education, in an article titled “How Colleges Are Strangling Liberalism.” Martha Jones and I reference that piece because it does sum up the critique from the center-left quite well, and it relates to Lilla’s widely discussed and debated piece in the New York Times, “The End of Identity Liberalism.” We also address the future of free expression on campus: where Jones thinks that debate is headed, and how, in the wake of Charlottesville, it’s entered the mainstream.

Today, we hear from Martha Jones, the Society of Black Almuni Professor of History at Johns Hopkins University, and formerly a professor at the University of Michigan. Jones brings some of her experience especially at that latter institution to bear on our topic today: politics on college campuses.

We’re lucky she does. There’s been a lot of talk about campus politics, on both the left and right. On the right, we often hear about so-called liberal snowflakes who can’t bear to hear arguments that they don’t agree with, so they attempt to banish conservative speakers from their campuses and threaten to undermine the principle, the right, of freedom of expression. And on the center-left, we hear from some critics that identity politics is the problem: that students are so obsessed with the dynamics of personal identity and are thus incapable of or uninterested in the hard work of coalition building, sustained organizing, especially on the left.

This latter position was stated pretty succinctly by the liberal critic Mark Lilla recently in the Chronicle of Higher Education, in an article titled “How Colleges Are Strangling Liberalism.” Martha Jones and I reference that piece because it does sum up the critique from the center-left quite well, and it relates to Lilla’s widely discussed and debated piece in the New York Times, “The End of Identity Liberalism.” We also address the future of free expression on campus: where Jones thinks that debate is headed, and how, in the wake of Charlottesville, it’s entered the mainstream.