Jacob T. Levy

2009-11-29T07:11:00.001-06:00

News that is both terrible and stupid

Swiss voters appear to approve a constitutional amendment banning the construction of minarets.

2009-11-25T19:52:00.003-06:00

Reading recommendation

I recommend very highly this Robert Goodin essay on the state and history of political science as a discipline via), from a new supplemetary volume to the Oxford Handbooks in Political Science.

While political theory is the least integrated field with the rest of the discipline (read the chapter for explanation of the measure), I'm struck by Table A1.4, the integrators of the discipline. John Rawls appears in the top category (the only person in that group who was never a member of a political science department). The next rank includes Barry, Elster, Hardin, Shapiro, and Przeworski; the next, Goodin, Habermas, and Sen. Walzer, Taylor, Mansbridge, Berlin, Lukes, Holmes, Adorno, Ackerman, Bordieu, Held, Sunstein... The theorists on the list are, I think, generationally set apart from the others on the list, overall. There are reasons for this, though I'd still wish it were otherwise. But theorists (and part-theorists, which is part of the point) are hardly so absent from the list as the most persecuted-feeling among my colleagues might have predicted.

Anyway: go read the whole thing! (Those charts at the back seem to me like a plausible resource for comps prep, for those who are into that kind of thing....)

2009-11-25T11:54:00.002-06:00

Onto the reading list

A new article by my colleague Hasana Sharp:

"The Impersonal Is Political: Spinoza and a Feminist Politics of Imperceptibility", 24(4) Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy 84-103 (2009).

Abstract:

This essay examines Elizabeth Grosz's provocative claim that feminist and anti-racist theorists should reject a politics of recognition in favor of "a politics of imperceptibility." She criticizes any humanist politics centered upon a dialectic between self and other. I turn to Spinoza to develop and explore her alternative proposal. I claim that Spinoza offers resources for her promising politics of corporeality, proximity, power, and connection that includes all of nature, which feminists should explore.

2009-11-24T08:34:00.000-06:00

Tomorrow: Christopher Hamel, "L'esprit républicain: droits naturels et vertu civique dans la pensée d'Algernon Sidney"

Wednesday November 25 2-4 pm
UQAM Room W-5303

Christopher Hamel (Université de Rouen)
"L'esprit républicain: droits naturels et vertu civique dans la pensée d'Algernon Sidney"

Résumé:

L'objectif de cette conférence sera de donner, à partir de l'exemple d'Alergnon Sidney (1622-1683) un aperçu des raisons pour lesquelles on peut soutenir, contre une interprétation largement répandue dans l'histoire des idées, que le langage du droit naturel et celui de la vertu civique ne sont aucunement incompatibles, mais s'articulent au contraire de manière parfaitement cohérente chez cet auteur incontestablement républicain.
L'esprit républicain est l'expression qu'utilise Sidney lui-même pour décrire ce que son adversaire, Robert Filmer, veut détruire dans son ouvrage Patriarcha. Si les principes de Filmer détruisent l'esprit républicain, prétend Sidney, c'est à la fois parce qu'ils violent le principe de liberté dans lequel tout individu est né, et parce qu'ils rendent impossible la vertu des citoyens, nécessaire au maintien de la liberté.
Plus précisément, il est possible de montrer que Sidney conceptualise les notions de droits et de vertu d'une manière telle que loin d'être en tension, elles apparaissent au contraire comme complémentaires : chez Sidney, le droit individuel n'est pas un simple désir de sûreté juridicisé, mais un droit moral à vivre émancipé de toute domination; et la vertu n'est pas la finalité première de la cité, mais le soutien nécessaire des lois qui protègent la liberté.

La conséquence principale de cette hypothèse est double: d'une part, elle permet de montrer, par le biais de la reconstruction rationnelle de la pensée politique et morale de Sidney, que le concept de droits individuels n'est pas un concept exclusivement libéral, puisqu'au moment même où Locke, le père fondateur du libéralisme des droits, écrit ses Traités sur le gouvernement civil, un républicain tel que Sidney inscrit au coeur de sa pensée républicaine l'idée que l'individu est naturelle doté d'un droit naturel inaliénable à la liberté. D'autre part, elle ouvre la voie à une relecture d'un certain nombre d'auteurs du XVIIIe siècle, tant Italiens (Genovesi, Alfieri, Filangieri) que Français (Mably, Diderot) ou Anglais (Price, Priestley, Burgh) qui utilisent conjointement les deux langages de la vertu et des droits. En ce sens, ce travail sur les républicains anglais du XVIIe siècle débouche sur l'hypothèse plus large de l'existence d'une tradition républicaine moderne que l'on pourrait appeler le républicanisme des droits.

2009-11-23T11:14:00.001-06:00

The un-abolition of feudalism

Via Tyler Cowen, jobs in an Italian bank being made (conditionally) hereditary.

2009-11-23T09:08:00.002-06:00

G.A. Cohen in Memoriam: A Critical Celebration of His Life and Work

This Friday, 27 November 2009, 10am - 4pm
McGill University, Old McGill Room, Faculty Club

[Schedule updated as per Will Roberts' comment below]

10 h - 11 h 30

* Joseph Carens, Toronto
Motivation and Equality in Cohen

* Jurgen De Wispelaere, CRÉUM
Cohen in the Real World ? Equality, Justice and Social Institutions

- 11 h 45 - 13 h 15

* Pablo Gilabert, Concordia
Cohen on Socialism, Equality, and Community

* Jacob T. Levy, McGill
Cohen on the Tasks of Political Philosophy

- 14 h 30 - 16 h

* William Clare Roberts, McGill
Analysis Terminated ? Towards a Post-Analytical Marxism

* Daniel Weinstock, CRÉUM
Cohen and Cohen on Jokes

2009-11-18T11:58:00.001-06:00

New on the blogroll

The dean of the Montreal school of political theory, Daniel Weinstock, is now blogging about music.

2009-11-12T21:28:00.002-06:00

Hither and yon:

Tomorrow: "Contra politanism: Against the moral teleology of political forms," Nathanson Centre Legal Philosophy Series, Osgoode Hall Law School, Toronto.

2009-11-11T11:11:00.001-06:00

The eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month

There's commemorative cannon-fire outside my office right now, and I'm more disgusted than moved. Yet more artillery fire seems to me to miss what should be the point.

A Veteran's/ Armistice/ Remembrance Day observed on November 11 in particular shouldn't just mean a gauzy and somber honoring of live veterans and fallen soldiers. It should be in part a day of anger and horror about the particular war that ended on this day, the stupid brutality of it, and the evil that followed in its wake. Of course, no continuously-existing government (US, UK, Canada) is likely to create a day officially dedicated to pointing out that its predecessor contributed to the deaths of millions for no good cause. But we have the capacity to remember lessons other than the official ones.

John Quiggin strikes the right note here.

2009-11-06T08:25:00.002-06:00

No great surprise, but noteworthy:

Senate defeats Coburn amendment on NSF funding of political science.

2009-11-05T07:07:00.001-06:00

Remember, remember...

one of the most-read posts ever on this blog: Guy Fawkes Day, V for Vendetta, and American politics.

2009-11-02T09:34:00.002-06:00

This week

Tuesday, November 3: Deadline for proposals for the Canadian Political Science Association, June 1-3 in Montreal. Proposals in all areas of political theory welcome; and there's a thematic workshop on "non-ideal and institutional theory."

Wednesday, October 4, 6 pm: Thomas Pogge (Philosophy, Yale) will deliver the Osler Lecture at McGill: "The Health Impact Fund: Pharmaceutical Innovation Also For the Poor?", Palmer Howard Amphitheater, McIntyre Medical Sciences Building

Thursday, October 5 12 pm: Dwight Newman, "Untangling Equality-Based Arguments for Indigenous Rights," CREUM room 309.

Friday, October 6, 2 pm: Andrew March (Political Science, Yale), GRIPP/ Montreal Political Theory Workshop, "Islamic Legal Theory, Secularism and Religious Freedom : Is Modern Religious Freedom Sufficient for the Shari’a ’Purpose’ [Maqsid] of ’Preserving Religion’ ?" UQAM room W 5215

2009-10-27T20:11:00.001-05:00

GRIPP Manuscript Workshop Award

THE ANNUAL MONTREAL POLITICAL THEORY MANUSCRIPT WORKSHOP AWARD

Call for applications: The Groupe de recherche interuniversitaire en philosophie politique de Montréal (GRIPP), spanning the departments of political science and philosophy at McGill University, l'Université de Montréal, Concordia University, and l'Université du Québec à Montréal, invites applications for its 2010 manuscript workshop award. The recipient of the award will be invited to Montreal for a day-long workshop in March/April 2010 dedicated to his or her book manuscript. This "author meets critics" workshop will comprise four to five sessions dedicated to critical discussion of the manuscript; each session will begin with a critical commentary on a section of the manuscript by a political theorist or philosopher who is part of Montreal's GRIPP community. The format is designed to maximize feedback for a book-in-progress. The award covers the costs of travel, accommodation, and meals.

Eligibility:

A. Topic: The manuscript topic is open within political theory and political philosophy, but we are especially interested in manuscripts related to at least one of these GRIPP research themes: 1) the history of liberal and democratic thought, especially early modern thought; 2) moral psychology and political agency, or politics and affect or emotions or rhetoric; 3) democracy, diversity, and pluralism. 4) democracy, justice, and transnational institutions.

B. Manuscript: Unpublished book manuscripts in English or French, by applicants with PhD in hand by 1 September 2009, are eligible. Applicants must have a complete or nearly complete draft (at least 4/5 of final draft) ready to present at the workshop. In the case of co-authored manuscripts, only one of the co-authors is eligible to apply.

C. Application: Please submit the following materials: 1) a curriculum vitae; 2) a table of contents; 3) a short abstract of the book project, up to 200 words; 4) a longer book abstract up to 2500 words; and, in the case of applicants with previous book publication(s), (5) three reviews, from established journals in the field, of the applicant's most recently published monograph. Candidates are not required to, but may if they wish, submit two letters of recommendation speaking to the merits of the book project. Please do not send writing samples. Send materials to GRIPP Manuscript Workshop Award, Department of Political Science, McGill University, 855 Sherbrooke St W, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3A 2T7. Review of applications begins 10 January 2010. Contact Arash Abizadeh with questions.

Previous GRIPP Manuscript Workshops:
Kinch Hoekstra (UC Berkeley), Thomas Hobbes and the Creation of Order, March 2009
Alan Patten (Princeton), Equal Recognition: The Moral Foundations of Minority Cultural Rights, April 2009

------------------------------------------------

LE PRIX ANNUEL DE L’ATELIER DE MANUSCRIT DE PHILOSOPHIE POLITIQUE DE MONTRÉAL

Appel à candidature: Le groupe de recherche interuniversitaire en philosophie politique de Montréal (GRIPP), qui réunit des chercheurs des départements de science politique et de philosophie de l’Université McGill, de l’Université de Montréal, de l’Université Concordia et de l’Université du Québec à Montréal, fait un appel à candidature pour son prix 2010 de l’atelier de manuscrit. Le lauréat sera invité à Montréal en mars/avril 2010 pour un atelier d’une journée complète consacré au manuscrit de son livre. Cet atelier du type « l’auteur rencontre ses critiques » comprendra quatre ou cinq séances de discussions critiques sur le manuscrit ; pour chacune d’entre elles, un spécialiste de théorie politique ou un philosophe membre de la communauté montréalaise du GRIPP lancera la discussion par un commentaire critique d’une des sections du manuscrit. Ceci a pour but de faciliter les échanges sur un livre en chantier. Le prix couvre les dépenses de voyage, d’hébergement et de repas.

Éligibilité :

A- Sujet : De façon générale, le manuscrit doit traiter de théorie politique ou de philosophie politique, mais nous sommes tout particulièrement intéressés aux manuscrits qui correspondent à l’une des thématiques de recherche du GRIPP : 1) l’histoire de la pensée libérale et démocratique, et notamment du début de la pensée moderne; 2) la psychologie morale du sujet (ou encore de l’agent) politique, ainsi que la politique et les affects, les émotions ou la rhétorique; 3) la démocratie, la diversité et le pluralisme; 4) la démocratie, la justice et les institutions transnationales.

B- Manuscrit : Sont éligibles tous les manuscrits de livres en français ou en anglais, non encore publiés, et dont l’auteur a reçu un doctorat avant le 1er septembre 2009. Les candidats devront avoir une version complète, ou presque (au moins 4/5e de la version finale), à présenter à l’atelier. Pour ce qui concerne les manuscrits coécrits, seul l’un des coauteurs est éligible.

C- Soumission : Vous voudrez bien fournir les documents suivants : 1) un curriculum vitae; 2) une table des matières; 3) un court résumé du projet du livre de moins de 200 mots; 4) un résumé plus long, de moins de 2 500 mots; et, dans le cas de candidats ayant déjà publié, 5) trois recensions parues dans des revues spécialisées et reconnues dans le domaine de la plus récente monographie publiée. Les candidats peuvent, s’ils le souhaitent, joindre deux lettres de recommandation présentant l’intérêt de leur projet de livre. Nous vous prions de ne pas envoyer d’extraits de manuscrit. Envoyez ces documents à : GRIPP Manuscript Workshop Award, Département de science politique, Université de McGill, 855, rue Sherbrooke ouest, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H3A 2T7. L’examen des candidatures commencera le 10 janvier 2010. Pour toute information supplémentaire, veuillez contacter Dominique Leydet

Les précédents lauréats des ateliers de manuscrit du GRIPP furent :

Kinch Hoekstra (UC Berkeley), Thomas Hobbes and the Creation of Order, mars 2009

Alan Patten (Princeton), Equal Recognition: The Moral Foundations of Minority Cultural Rights, avril 2009

2009-10-27T16:38:00.000-05:00

Hither and Yon

Thursday, October 29: "Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom," at the Program in Ethics and Public Affairs, Princeton.

Friday, November 13: "Contra Politanism," at Osgoode Hall Law School's seminar series "Legal Philosophy between State and Transnationalism."

2009-10-19T20:57:00.002-05:00

Taylor on Habermas

At "The Immanent Frame," an essay written on the occasion of Habermas' eightieth birthday.

2009-10-19T14:36:00.002-05:00

Perking lots

"The chancellor's job had come to be defined as providing parking for the faculty, sex for the students, and athletics for the alumni." --Then-President of the University of California Clark Kerr.

The University of California at Berkeley rewards Nobel prize-winners with free parking spots in desirable on-campus locations.

2009-10-19T09:39:00.003-05:00

1999 movies

NYT movie critic A.O. Scott, in an article about the movies of 1962, writes

Searching beyond the dozen at the Brooklyn Academy you find enough riches to support the contention of Armond White, the current chairman of the Critics Circle, that 1962 was as bountiful a cinematic year as 1939. Or maybe 1999, or for all we know 2010.

I'm not on the film geek memo distribution list, so I wouldn't have heard if this were the case, but: is there some consensus that 1999 was an especially great year in movie history? I can't say that it felt that way to me at the time; it seemed like the indie/ Miramax wave of creativity had crested and become a new kind of routine. See: Holy Smoke, starring Kate "naked again!" Winslett and Harvey Keitel; combine ingredients, press play.

The Matrix, of course, was epoch-making in its way. Toy Story 2 seems to be many people's choice for the best Pixar movie ever, or until the last three years. And The Sixth Sense, The Blair Witch Project, and Being John Malkovich do make for a pretty impressive trio of creativity.

But that was the year of the greatest anticlimax in anticipated-blockbuster history (Star Wars Episode 1); a bunch of award-bait that I think are in retrospect agreed to have been overrated at best and really quite bad at worst (American Beauty, Cider House Rules, The End of the Affair, Eyes Wide Shut); some truly awful mass-market stuff (Wild Wild West); and I guess a couple of things that still inspire love-it-or-hate-it arguments (Magnolia, Three Kings, Talented Mr. Ripley).

And then it's the year of Runaway Bride, Never Been Kissed, The Mummy, Notting Hill, and Analyze This. Doesn't come any more ordinary than that, no matter how many "new classics" Turner anoints. I've never seen Notting Hill or Analyze This, and I do think The Mummy was a terrific ordinary movie, but I still think the overall judgment is sound.

Looking at the list, it turns out I can assemble a list to get enthusiastic about:
Being John Malkovich, Sixth Sense, Election, ExistenZ, Run Lola Run, South Park, Pushing Tin, The Matrix, Iron Giant, Dogma, Girl Interrupted, 200 Cigarettes, Better Than Chocolate. That seems like an impressive list, and maybe I'm letting my distaste for American Beauty carry too much weight.

But that's just my list, my tastes. Does that list make film geeks' hearts go a-twitter? Does it really tower over any other year of the 90s-- say, 1994, the year of Pulp Fiction, Clerks, Ed Wood, Muriel's Wedding, Reality Bites, two of the Three Colors movies, and Barcelona?

Or are American Beauty and Eyes Wide Shut really remembered as movies for the ages?

2009-10-15T11:45:00.004-05:00

Jeff Isaac in the Chronicle on political science

Jeffrey Isaac takes to the pages of the Chronicle to discuss political science, the NSF, and the Coburn amendment. Jeff has recently assumed the editorship of Perspectives on Politics, a journal in part meant to bridge the gap between peer-reviewed social science and public accessibility and relevance, and he urges the discipline to take the occasion of the NSF fight to reflect on that gap-- not to so emphasize our science-ness as to lose sight of our public-ness.

2009-10-12T19:21:00.003-05:00

Elinor Ostrom

In 2008, political scientist Elinor Ostrom was awarded an honorary degree from McGill University. In 2009, she was awarded the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Coincidence? Well, yeah.

I've only met Professor Ostrom once, when her husband Vincent Ostrom guest-lectured in my class in... 2002, I guess. But I certainly know, admire, and draw on her work, and am delighted with this outcome!

See discussions from Henry Farrell, Sean Safford, Alex Tabarrok, Arnold Kling, and Mike Munger (and for giggles, click through Munger's link to the anonymous econ grad students blowing gaskets), among people who (unlike Paul Krugman and Steven Levitt) had heard of Ostrom before today.

Update: On Henry's post, be sure to read down the comments thread far enough to see the illuminating exchange between him and Pete Boettke.

2009-10-08T09:46:00.003-05:00

Hither and yon: UC Berkeley edition

Tomorrow I'll be giving "Federalism and constitutional entrenchment" at the Berkeley political theory workshop, Harris Room (Rm 119), Moses Hall, 3 pm.

Saturday I'll be giving "From Liberal constitutionalism to pluralism" at a Center for British Studies conference on "Modern Pluralism: Anglo-American Debates since 1880", Moses Hall 223, 9:30 am.

2009-10-08T09:27:00.002-05:00

A good week for bragging

Two McGill alumni were awarded Nobel prizes this week: Jack Szostak, (BSc'72) (cell biology) was a co-winner of the Prize for Medicine and Willard Boyle (BSc'47, MSc'48, PhD'50) was a co-winner of the Prize in Physics.

And in the new Times Higher Education Supplement rankings, McGill was ranked 18th in the world, top in Canada, and top public university in North America. McGill was ranked 10th in life sciences, 17th in social sciences,and 14th in arts and humanities. Rankings need to be taken with many, many grains of salt, of course. But still: yay us.

2009-10-07T14:16:00.003-05:00

And speaking of the Chronicle...

I happily endorse this plea from an editor at the University of Virginia Press: "If you don't buy 'em, we can't afford to publish 'em."

2009-10-07T13:38:00.003-05:00

Great Books

From the Chronicle, an essay by W.A. Pannapacker called "Confessions of a Middlebrow Professor," parts of which strike home for me.

In my early 20s, when I was starting out as a graduate student in the humanities, I hosted a small gathering at my apartment. It didn't take long for my guests to begin scrutinizing my bookshelves. (I do the same thing now, of course, whenever I am at a party.) I remember that there were numerous battered anthologies, at least a hundred paperback classics, the Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (acquired as a Book-of-the-Month Club premium), probably six copies of PMLA, and several shelves of books that I had retained from childhood, including the Time-Life Library of Art and the Old West Time-Life Series in "hand-tooled Naugahyde leather."

Perhaps the most revered set of volumes from my childhood—proudly displayed—was Great Books of the Western World, in 54 leatherette volumes. I remember I bought them all at once for $10 at a church sale when I was about 13; it took me two trips to carry them home in plastic grocery bags.

"Your clay feet are showing," said one of my guests, another graduate student, as she removed Volume 1 of the Great Books from my shelves. I caught the biblical allusion, but it took me a couple of years to realize the implication of the remark: My background was lacking. If graduate school was a quiz show, then I was Herbert Stempel trying to make it in the world of Charles Van Doren.[...]

The Great Books were expressions of hope for many people who had historically not had access to higher education.

There was something awe-inspiring about that series for me, even if I acquired it a generation late. The Great Books seemed so serious. They had small type printed in two columns; there were no annotations, no concessions to the beginner.[...]
there was a reason that you could buy the Great Books for $10 by that time. The whole notion of a stable canon of books had gone out of fashion, and not even recently: Writers such as Dwight MacDonald had been mocking the Great Books since they first appeared. As Beam observes, "The Great Books were synonymous with boosterism, Babbittry, and H.L. Mencken's benighted boobocracy." Display them in your living room, and you might as well put plastic covers on the colonial couch beneath your reproduction Grandma Moses with the copy of The Power of Positive Thinking on your coffee table. Great Books, Beam writes, "were everything that was wrong, unchic and middlebrow about middle America."

As Paul Fussell wrote in Class: A Guide Through the American Status System, "It is in the middle-class dwelling that you're likely to spot the 54-volume set of the Great Books, together with the half-witted two-volume Syntopicon, because the middles, the great audience for how-to books, believe in authorities."

I'm about the same age as Pannapacker, and like him, was not to the academic or highbrow manner born. I read my first Marx, Smith, Mill, Shakespeare, Plutarch, and Plato in that Great Books set. In sixth grade I carried the Marx and Smith volumes by turn into school with me and read them during reading time-- and if I didn't understand much, I also didn't understand nothing, when I worked at it.

And, like Pannapacker, I've received the occasional smirk or snarky comment about them, in my life as it is now.

Of course, lots of the substantive criticisms are right-- the two-volume Synopticon is bizarre. And the books themselves as physical objects, which once impressed me, now don't. I don't read from them anymore. The paper on which they're printed is unbelievably thin and fragile, the print ridiculously small. Even before all those public-domain works went online, it was easier to get a cheap Penguin or Dover paperback of whatever I wanted to read than to try to do serious scholarly reading out of those volumes. But they're still on the top shelf of the bookcases in my living room, and I'm still grateful to them-- and to Mortimer Adler's democratizing middlebrowness.

2009-10-07T06:07:00.005-05:00

Come to Montreal: Canadian Political Science Association Annual Meeting, June 1-3 2010

Call for papers: open call in political theory as well as call for papers on "non-ideal and institutional theory

The CFP for the 2010 CPSA in Montreal is now open: Call for papers, Instructions for submitting, Proposal submission form.

Proposals are due by November 3, 2009.

For political theorists:

We welcome paper, panel, and roundtable proposals in all areas of political theory. In addition, we will be holding a conference within the conference on "Non-ideal and institutional theory." That CFP is below.

Workshop 8 – Political Theory: Non-ideal and Institutional Theory
Organizers: Jacob T. Levy (McGill) and Jennifer Rubenstein (Viriginia)

From the ethics of conduct during wartime to justice in transitional societies to restitution for collective harms, political theorists have long been concerned with understanding political morality in morally compromised or materially constrained settings—in what Arendt termed “dark times.” Since Rawls, we have come to call this “non-ideal” theory: theory about moral choices and political circumstances that wouldn’t arise at all under ideal conditions. In recent years, political philosophers have done a great deal of methodological and metatheoretical work on the ideal/non-ideal distinction, while political theorists have undertaken non-ideal normative analysis of a wide range of problems. We seek both papers that are explicitly about non-ideal political theory and papers that do non-ideal theory, in order to encourage engagement between methodological reflections and normative arguments.

We especially welcome papers that do these things with attention to political institutions, by—for example— proposing institutional designs for non-ideal settings, analyzing ideal versus non-ideal ways of thinking about the justice of institutional structures, or showing how particular institutions are themselves the sources of the morally compromised settings in which decision-making must take place. In other words, we invite papers that construe institutions as either sources of injustice or as mechanisms for mitigating injustice, as obstacles to reform or as frameworks for pursuing it.

While the workshop focuses on issues that have thus far been taken up primarily in the context of analytic normative theory, we actively encourage papers with historical or critical perspectives on these issues. Finally, while the workshop itself addresses substantive problems in non-ideal and institutional theory, papers need not be explicitly framed in those terms.

2009-09-29T08:08:00.002-05:00

More American students enrolling at Canadian universities

See this story.