Suchergebnisse

Frontmatter -- CONTENTS -- Prologue: Taking Sides -- I Politics All the Way Down -- 1 At the Federalist Society -- 2 Sauce for the Goose -- 3 Of an Age and Not for All Time -- 4 Boutique Multiculturalism -- II Fish on the First -- 5 The Rhetoric of Regret -- 6 Fraught with Death -- 7 The Dance of Theory -- III Reasons for the Devout -- 8 Vicki Frost Objects -- 9 Mission Impossible -- 10 A Wolf in Reason's Clothing -- 11 Playing Not to Win -- 12 Why We Can't All Just Get Along -- 13 Faith before Reason -- IV Credo -- 14 Beliefs about Belief -- 15 Putting Theory in Its Place -- 16 Truth and Toilets -- Epilogue: How the Right Hijacked the Magic Words -- Notes -- Acknowledgments -- Index

Academic freedom studies : the five schools -- The "It's just a job" school : professionalism, pure and simple -- The "For the common good" school : academic freedom, shared governance, and democracy -- Professionalism vs. critique : the post-Butler debates -- Academic exceptionalism and public employee law -- Virtue before professionalism : the road to revolution -- Coda.

An der Sprache des Rechts wird Kritik geübt, seit die Aufklärung die Verständlichkeit der Gesetze zu ihrem Anliegen gemacht hat. Mit den großen Kodifikationen des Rechts im ausgehenden 19. Jahrhundert hat die Kritik am angeblich schlechten, unverständlichen Juristendeutsch eine besondere demokratietheoretische Legitimation bekommen. Diese Sprachkritik sucht seit den siebziger Jahren vermehrt bei der Linguistik Rat, wie denn eine bessere Allgemeinverständlichkeit von Rechtstexten verwirklicht werden könnte. Der Band versammelt systematisch aufeinander bezogene Beiträge ausgewiesener Linguisten, Juristen und Schriftsteller zur Problematik des Verständnisses juristischer Sprache, zur Methodik empirischer Verständlichkeitsmessung und zu den Möglichkeiten transdisziplinärer Kooperation zwischen Rechts- und Sprachwissenschaftlern.

Contends that developing moral character, respect for others, or certain types of citizenship ought not be a primary objective in the higher education classroom. It is argued that college & university teachers should aim to introduce bodies of knowledge & traditions of inquiry to & foster analytical skills in students. However, while no question, issue, or topic should be off limits in the classroom, they should be objects of academic rather than political or ideological attention. How to make this distinction is explained, imagining the kind of classroom where truth & its pursuit are the prime foci & teachers should not try to make their students into "good people.". D. Edelman

Although J. Judd Owen's account of my work is on target in many ways, on some points he mischaracterizes my argument by making it claim or do too much. His misunderstandings flow in part from a conflating of two assertions: (1) that our convictions cannot be grounded in any independent source of authority and (2) that our convictions are ungrounded. I certainly assert the first but never the second. Rather, it is my contention that while we have no independent grounds—grounds implicated in no particular vision of life or comprehensive doctrine—we have, because we live within them, the grounds that are constitutive of our everyday lives, their practices and routines. What are the consequences of this argument? My answer is none whatsoever. If you are persuaded that no independent grounds are available, but that the grounds of your everyday practice are sufficient, you will feel neither disabled by what you do not need nor enabled by recognizing the nonindependent foundations you have always rested on and will continue to rest on. In the end, the most salient characteristic of my argument, a characteristic Owen resists, is its minimalism.

Why censorship is a pre-condition of free speech -- Why hate speech cannot be defined -- Why freedom of speech is not an academic value -- Why the religion clause of the first amendment doesn't belong in the Constitution -- Why transparency is the mother of fake news -- Epilogue or What does it all mean?

From 1995 to 2013, Stanley Fish’s provocative New York Times columns consistently generated passionate discussion and debate. In Think Again, he has assembled almost one hundred of his best columns into a thematically arranged collection with a substantial new introduction that explains his intention in writing these pieces and offers an analysis of why they provoked so much reaction.Some readers reported being frustrated when they couldn’t figure out where Fish, one of America’s most influential thinkers, stood on the controversies he addressed in the essays—from atheism and affirmative action to plagiarism and postmodernism. But, as Fish says, that is the point. Opinions are cheap you can get them anywhere. Instead of offering just another set of them, Fish analyzes and dissects the arguments put forth by different sides—in debates over free speech, identity politics, the NRA, and other hot-button topics—in order to explain how their arguments work or don’t work. In short, these are essays that teach you not what to think but how to think more clearly.Brief and accessible yet challenging, these essays provide all the hard-edged intellectual, cultural, and political analysis one expects from Fish. At the same time, the collection includes a number of revealing and even poignant autobiographical essays in which, as Fish says, "readers will learn about my anxieties, my aspirations, my eccentricities, my foibles, my father, and my obsessions—Frank Sinatra, Ted Williams, basketball, and Jews." Reflecting the wide-ranging interests of one of America’s leading critics, this is Fish’s broadest and most engaging book to date

From 1995 to 2013, Stanley Fish's provocative New York Times columns consistently generated passionate discussion and debate. In Think Again, he has assembled almost one hundred of his best columns into a thematically arranged collection with a substantial new introduction that explains his intention in writing these pieces and offers an analysis of why they provoked so much reaction.Some readers reported being frustrated when they couldn't figure out where Fish, one of America's most influential thinkers, stood on the controversies he addressed in the essays-from atheism and affirmative action to plagiarism and postmodernism. But, as Fish says, that is the point. Opinions are cheap; you can get them anywhere. Instead of offering just another set of them, Fish analyzes and dissects the arguments put forth by different sides-in debates over free speech, identity politics, the gun lobby, and other hot-button topics-in order to explain how their arguments work or don't work. In short, these are essays that teach you not what to think but how to think more clearly.Brief and accessible yet challenging, these essays provide all the hard-edged intellectual, cultural, and political analysis one expects from Fish. At the same time, the collection includes a number of revealing and even poignant autobiographical essays in which, as Fish says, "readers will learn about my anxieties, my aspirations, my eccentricities, my foibles, my father, and my obsessions-Frank Sinatra, Ted Williams, basketball, and Jews." Reflecting the wide-ranging interests of one of today's leading critics, this is Fish's broadest and most engaging book to date.