Feed on

Reblogged from: ENGAGE - Wesleyan University. (Go to the original post…)


From our dear friends at WESU 88.1 FM:

Don’t miss the WESU Fall Record Fair (and sale) on Sunday October, 26 from 11am-4pm. The event features dozens of vendors, from throughout the North-East, selling music in all formats. Plus, there’s other cool merchandise and WESU DJs spinning vinyl all day long. So, come on down and do some crate digging! You might find that album you’ve been searching for!

The WESU Fall Record Fair is free and open to the public and happens in Beckham Hall in the Fayerweather building at 55 Wyllys Ave on the Wesleyan Campus (06459).

To make a record donation, contact our events coordinator at events@wesufm.org.

Reblogged from: Wesleyan Photo. (Go to the original post…)

The Wesleyan Cardinals charge towards Corwin Stadium Saturday prior to their Homecoming game against Amherst College. The Cardinals lost in overtime, 33 to 30. 

Reblogged from: Wesleyan Photo. (Go to the original post…)

Go HOME(coming), dogs! Many canine companions joined their humans for Wesleyan’s Homecoming football game Saturday.

Reblogged from: class of 2015. (Go to the original post…)


WesleyanWorldWednesdays, Academic Affairs, and the Allbritton Center for the Study of Public Life present a panel discussion with Wesleyan alum Dr Matthew Cartter, CT State Epidemiologist, Profs Anna Geltzer and David Constantine, on the public health response to Ebola, this Thursday, Oct 23rd.

Reblogged from: Wesleyan Student Assembly. (Go to the original post…)

This past Sunday, October 12th, the Wesleyan Student Assembly took part in Bystander Intervention training with Tonya Purdy and Alysha Warren. We addressed our own barriers to intervention, discussed potential strategies for intervening, and thought about the kind of community we want to build. Bystander intervention goes beyond helping a drunk friend or intervening in a potential assault, and it goes beyond addressing an abusive relationship or a substance abuse issue. In my eyes, it was about character. It was about community. It was about who you are going to be when nobody is watching, and it is about the kind of language and behavior that you as an individual and we as a community will or will not tolerate. And finally, it was about coming into a situation with good intentions, with a goal not of changing people or making them conform to your idea of what is right, but engaging in open and respectful conversation to create a safer and more inclusive community.

I hope that more and more groups and individuals take the opportunity to experience this training. The training goes quickly, it’s very informative, and it gives you space for self-reflection, as well as a chance to think about who we are and where we are going as a community. Contact tpurdy@wesleyan.edu orawarren@wesleyan.edu for more information on We Speak We Stand Bystander Intervention.

The post Bystander Intervention Training appeared first on Wesleyan Student Assembly.

Reblogged from: Class of 2017. (Go to the original post…)

directionClick on the schedule below for Open Houses offered by departments and programs this fall semester.  Check out any major in which you think you might be interested so that you can get your questions answered!

There will be a “Choosing Your Major” workshop with Dean Brown and Persephone Hall of the Wesleyan Career Center on Wed., Oct. 22 from 6-7 p.m. in Usdan 108.  Grab your dinner and come join us to talk about academic direction and majors.


Open House Schedule Fall 2014

Reblogged from: Friends of the Davison Art Center. (Go to the original post…)



  • wine and hors d’oeuvres
  • a special preview of new additions to the collection
  • a final viewing of the fall exhibition before its closing
  • discussion of new acquisitions with curator Clare Rogan at 7pm

Davison Art Center • 301 High Street • Middletown, CT 06459



Reblogged from: class of 2015. (Go to the original post…)

The National Academies is accepting applications for the 2015 Ford Foundation Fellowships Programs for Achieving Excellence in College and University Teaching. Full eligibility information and online applications are available on our website at: http://nationalacademies.org/ford

Eligibility Requirements:

U.S. citizens, nationals, permanent residents, or individuals granted deferred action status under the DACA program
Planning a career in teaching and research at the college or university level in a research-based filed of science, social science or humanities
Stipends and Allowances:

Predoctoral — $24,000 per year for three years
Dissertation — $25,000 for one year
Postdoctoral — $45,000 for one year
Awardees have expenses paid to attend one Conference of Ford Fellows.

Approximately 60 predoctoral, 30 dissertation, and 18 postdoctoral fellowships sponsored by the Ford Foundation and administered by the National Research Council of the National Academies.

Application Deadline Dates:

Predoctoral: November 19, 2014
Dissertation: November 14, 2014
Postdoctoral: November 14, 2014
For Further information please contact:

Fellowships Office, Keck 576
National Research Council of the National Academies
500 Fifth Street NW
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202.334.2872
Fax: 202.334.3419

Reblogged from: The WesPress Blog. (Go to the original post…)

This week’s Throwback Thursday selection is Ed Roberson’s “All at Once,” from his 2010 collection To See the Earth Before the End of the WorldEnjoy the poem, and a discussion of Roberson as a writer of “nature poetry”.



All At Once

Trees have whole streets
of when they were planted
plaqued with when the city is
to inherit them dead
of age almost all at once as if
a natural bombing.


People see a bill not figured in,
a blood red
collection come
like fall’s leaf   due without fail
an unseen cost of the design:
pale bud and yellow blossom—


though seeming little to do this time
with tense spring
in the window
of dead and dying trees’ terms up,
with expecting a life by life replacement—
not this plague of life’s time


as seasons across the city.
By trial we do, but don’t
know how death counts the rings
from trees to clocks,
species to singled soul
at its hour. or on history’s days we all die at once.


*  *  *  *  *

In the essay “The Earth Before the End of the World: Ed Roberson’s Radical Departure from Romantic Tradition,” John Yau explains that Roberson self identifies as “a Black poet who writes nature poems.” Yau continues, “Roberson didn’t say, though he certainly could have, that his view of nature breaks as well as critiques the historical conventions of nature poetry, which is the picturesque view that enables the poet to believe there is sanctuary outside of human reality. In contrast to much nature poetry written in this vein, particularly as the subject was initially formulated in English Romantic poetry, Roberson’s work does not view landscapes as sublime or transcendent, or as embodying proof of God’s existence. He has consciously broken with a radical literary and artistic tradition that includes William Wordsworth,William Blake, and Vincent van Gogh, but that is now both dated and diluted.” Read John Yau’s complete essay here.

If you are interested in reading more nature poetry from black authors, check out this book, from our friends at University of Georgia Press: Black Nature: Four Centuries of African American Nature Poetry.

Ed Roberson is the author of numerous books of poetry. He is the recipient of the Poetry Society of America’s Shelley Memorial Awards and the Lila Wallace-Reader’s Digest Writer’s Award. Having retired from Rutgers University, Roberson currently lives in Chicago where he has taught at Columbia College Chicago, Northwestern University, and the University of Chicago.

Reblogged from: Wesleyan Media Project. (Go to the original post…)

As part of our ongoing focus on interest group advertising and dark money in elections, we are pleased to welcome our first guest post by Conor Dowling (University of Mississippi) and Amber Wichowsky (Marquette University).


Total outside group spending in federal elections with no disclosure of donors saw a 60-fold increase between 2006 ($5.17 million) and 2012 ($310.8 million). This “dark money” can in large part be explained by increased spending by nondisclosing entities—particularly 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) groups that are not required to disclose the identities of their donors as long as their primary purpose is not “political.” In 2010, 501(c)(4) groups outspent Super PACs by a 3-2 margin. And though Super PACs and 527s are required by federal law to disclose the identities of their donors, many of these groups are able to hide the original source of their funding by attributing contributions to these tax-exempt groups rather than to individual donors, effectively creating a “shell game” that makes it more difficult to follow the money trail.


It is unclear whether this increase in “dark money” is a surprise to Justice Kennedy, who in writing to uphold disclaimer and disclosure laws argued: “The First Amendment protects political speech and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.” Or to current House Speaker John Boehner, who told reporters after the Court’s decision in Citizens United was announced: “I have always believed that sunshine was the best disinfectant…Let the American people decide how much money is enough…Sunshine really does work if you allow it to.” Since Citizens United, the Supreme Court has had several opportunities to strike down or weaken disclosure requirements, but it has not, giving confidence to advocates of transparency in campaign finance. Indeed, in the recent McCutcheon decision, Justice Scalia wrote that with “modern technology, disclosure now offers a particularly effective means of arming the voting public with information.”


In denouncing the increase in undisclosed campaign spending, critics of “dark money” argue that voters would evaluate campaign communications differently if they had more information about the messenger behind the message. But is this true? Are there advantages to anonymity? Do voters’ opinions shift in response to greater campaign finance transparency? Several recent experimental studies, including our own, suggest that the answers to these questions may be yes.


First, to the advantages of anonymity. Recent experimental studies manipulated a negative ad’s sponsorship to test the effectiveness of ads sponsored by unknown groups. (Research in this area tends to focus on negative advertising because the bulk of ads sponsored by groups are “negative.”) In one study, participants were randomly assigned to watch an ad that attacked a fictitious congressional candidate’s record on crime sponsored by a different fictitious candidate, the National Rifle Association (NRA), or a fictitious, unknown group. Although those already favorable to the NRA were more persuaded by the NRA-sponsored ad than the candidate-sponsored one, the unknown group ad was persuasive regardless of participants’ feelings about the NRA, suggesting participants found the unknown group ad more credible than the NRA-sponsored attack. Another study found a candidate was less likely to be penalized for an attack ad if it was sponsored by an unknown group. In our own work, we also find that candidates can escape voter backlash for “going negative” if the attack ad is sponsored by an unknown group. Further, when we showed our subjects a vague attack that did not include any partisan content, participants evaluated the candidates differently if they were told the sponsor was either the Republican or Democratic Party, but made no such distinction between unfamiliar conservative and liberal groups. Thus, despite the media scrutiny of these non-disclosing groups, it appears that many voters remain unaware of their ideological or policy positions.


Does campaign finance disclosure correct for these advantages of anonymity? Here the evidence is more suggestive. We have conducted two studies to test the effects of greater campaign finance transparency. In one study, we showed subjects an attack ad sponsored by an unknown group and then randomly varied the amount and format of information about the group’s donors. We found that the attack ad was less effective at moving participants’ opinions of the candidates when participants were provided additional information about donors, suggesting that voters may discount an attack ad when they have more information about the financial interests behind the message. But we also found some evidence that the form of disclosure may matter, too. In particular, the attack ad was less effective when participants were subsequently shown a list of the top five donors to the group, a treatment that we modeled after congressional legislation proposed back in 2010 as part of the Disclose Act. However, presenting subjects with a news article that also included this information produced no such effect.


More recently, we examined the potential effects of disclosure in non-federal elections. In this study, participants were asked to read a newspaper account of a fictional state legislative race and were then randomly assigned to one of seven conditions that varied the amount of information about the donors to an outside group. Subjects were either told that the outside group supported the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate. We were particularly interested in whether information about out-of-state donors or donations from a wealthy individual are especially meaningful to voters, and whether campaign finance disclosure has a greater effect on evaluations of Republican or Democratic candidates. As the figure below shows, we found that candidate evaluations changed the most when subjects were told the outside group received the majority of its contributions from out-of-state donors (note the separation between the out-of-state D and out-of-state R bars). There was a smaller treatment effect for the conditions where subjects were told about a wealthy contributor to the outside group (note the smaller separation between the individual D and individual R bars). And we observed very little difference in candidate evaluations for our conditions in which subjects were simply given information about how much the outside group had spent, but were not provided any additional information about the group’s donors.


The figure displays averages (dots) with 95% confidence intervals for each treatment condition. For example, participants who were told out-of-state spending by outside groups benefited the Democratic candidate (Out-state D) were more likely to vote for the Republican candidate than those who were told out-of-state spending by outside groups benefited the Republican candidate (Out-state R).


These experimental studies suggest that outside groups have an advantage when they sponsor negative ads: given their unfamiliarity and innocuous-sounding names, few voters link their attacks back to the candidates, and in some situations, may even find their claims to be more credible. This research also provides suggestive evidence that under some conditions voters do care about where the money comes from, and use that information to make more informed judgments about candidates. What form campaign finance disclosure should take, however, remains an open question. Should individual donors to the outside group be identified during the ad? Or, might voters care more about aggregate data, such as how much particular industries and/or interests are spending to influence electoral outcomes? Future work in this area (to paraphrase Speaker Boehner) should be able to shed light on the best way to produce sunshine that will act as a disinfectant.



« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Log in