Search results

This book critically interrogates three sets of distortions that emanate from the messianic core of 21st century public discourse on LGBT+ rights in the United States. The first relates to the critique of pinkwashing, often advanced by scholars who claim to be committed to an emancipatory politics. The second concerns a recent US Supreme Court decision, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), a judgment that established marriage equality across the 50 states. The third distortion occurs in Kenji Yoshino's theorization of the concept of gay covering. Each distortion produces its own injunction to assimilate, sometimes into the dominant mainstream and, at other times, into the fold of what is axiomatically taken to be the category of the radical. Using a queer theoretic analysis, I argue for the dismantling of each of these three sets of assimilationist injunctions.

"Although we live in a period of unprecedented globalization and migration, citizenship matters more than ever. Here, Elizabeth F. Cohen and Cyril Ghosh examine multiple facets of the concept, including classic and contemporary theories, historical development, and lived experience. This book is essential reading for students and scholars alike"--

Building relationships between traditional college students and adults with disabilities is an important yet little understood aspect of civic engagement. The case study presented in this paper built one such relationship by utilizing a shared narrative project to construct an equitable collaborative experience between a set of students from Wagner College and some adults with intellectual disabilities from a community organization, Lifestyles for the Disabled. We also discuss learning outcomes of this project, which included a deeper understanding and connection between people who learn differently. David S. Gordon is Assistant Professor of Education at Wagner College in Staten Island, NY. Cyril Ghosh is Assistant Professor of Political Science and Public Affairs at Wagner College.

Beginning with Rawls's claim that the Supreme Court is the exemplar of public reason, we develop a theory of how reasoned arguments are used in political disputes. We argue that justices often make piecemeal arguments and that this fragmented style of argumentation extends beyond the bench. The result is that many political disputes are "legalized" -- not because public arguments are necessarily about laws, but because public arguments often unfold in the same ambiguous way that they do on the Court. We illustrate our argument by examining the use of American Dream talk in the dispute over same-sex marriage (SSM). [Copyright Elsevier Ltd.]