“” was published in April by Rowman & Littlefield. Lone is an affiliate associate professor of philosophy and director of the 91̽»¨-based .

Lone said the book is intended for “anyone who has children in their lives, personally or professionally.” As with her 2013 book, “The Philosophical Child,” she based her writing in part on a series of conversations with school children about life’s most important questions.

“For most people, childhood is the time of perhaps the most sustained and persistent wondering about our lives,” Lone writes in her introduction. “Yet it is also the period of life in which one’s reflections and ideas are least appreciated. Influenced by our beliefs that children’s lack of life experience and dependence on adults renders their judgments and reflections of little value, we often ignore the interesting and creative ideas that they attempt to express.”

Jonathon Kozol, author of “Amazing Grace: The Lives of Children and the Conscience of a Nation,” praised “Seen and Not Heard” as “a stirring and important book” that explores “the ways that children think and speak of important matters such as friendship, justice, happiness, childhood, and death.”

And the UW’s own Charles Johnson, author and professor emeritus of English, said Lone’s interactions with children “reveal not only themes of timeless importance but often wisdom from their youthful experiences.”

91̽»¨Notebook caught up with Lone over email for a few questions about her book and her work.

What was the motivation for writing this book?ÌýÌý

Jana Mohr Lone: “Seen and Not Heard” came from a growing recognition of how much I’ve learned from children in 25 years of talking with them about their philosophical questions and ideas. Despite the fact that our homes and schools have become more child-centered than in the past, I think that children’s thoughts and insights continue to be discounted and dismissed simply due to age.

I wanted to describe many of the deep and thoughtful conversations I’ve had with children to illustrate the unique and profound insights that can emerge from childhood and the ways that children’s perspectives can expand our philosophical universe.

“Genuine listening,” you write, “requires both openheartedness and receptivity.” What do you mean by openhearted listening, and why do you feel children naturally excel at it?Ìý

Openhearted listening involves attempting to take in what another person says with as few assumptions, as little prejudice, and as much generosity as possible. I think children are particularly good at it because they are curious about what other people think and are less inclined to assume that they already understand what someone else means to say or that they already know what someone should think.

“Silence plays a part in the collective acts of listening,” you write. What is the value of silence in communication with and among children?Ìý

In my experience, an explicit acknowledgement of the importance of silence in exchanges with and among children fosters a quieter and slower conversational pace. The development of a collective comfort with silence also makes space for students who need more time for reflection before being ready to speak, who are not the first to jump into a discussion.

Additionally, silence encourages attentiveness to the nonverbal: facial expressions, body language, and the physical presence and location of a conversation’s participants. All of this enhances the quality of listening.

What sorts of things have you learned from children in your talks?

I’ve noticed that children’s thoughts regarding friendship are particularly insightful. This is because, I think, friendship is so central in their lives. Especially once they begin school, learning how to develop and sustain friendships is one of childhood’s principal tasks.

Most philosophers and most psychological and sociological research considers a relationship a friendship only if it is reciprocal, if each person defines the other as a friend. But I had a conversation about friendship with a group of 11-year-olds who disagreed, and it led me to think differently about this topic.

The children observed that sometimes one person wouldn’t call a relationship a friendship and the other person would, but the two might just have different ideas of what it means to be a friend. Sometimes we are friends without knowing it, they said.

You ask how society might be different if children were in fact recognized as independent thinkers, capable of valuable contributions to the world. What’s your view?

I think society would be different both for children and for adults. When they try to express serious thoughts, children often have the experience of being ignored or treated condescendingly. Acknowledging children as possessing important perspectives gives them a real opportunity to regard themselves differently, to develop confidence that their voices matter. If this were the case, I think children would be more likely to grow up seeing themselves as full and valuable members of society.

Children are relatively unburdened by expectations about the way things should be and assumptions about what they think they already know, and they’re less concerned about making mistakes or sounding silly. As a result, they are more fearless than adults about exploring new ideas and more open to considering imaginative possibilities. As one 10-year-old put it: “Because adults know so much about what is real and what isn’t, they have less imagination about the possibilities.”

Taking what children say seriously would allow adults greater access to the special capacities present in childhood — wonder and curiosity, vibrant awareness and imagination, openness and a fresh way of looking at the world. I often think about a comment a child once made, “So much more is possible than we think.” If adults really listen to children, it can remind us that we can be unafraid to try out ideas that might seem far-fetched or naïve, and that possibility is alive in the world.

For more information, contact Lone at mohrlone@uw.edu.

“The human relationship with oceans under current political economies is unsustainable, unstable and inequitable,” Yoshitaka Ota, director of the center.

“We need to create a new platform for ocean governance to recognize injustices, embrace diverse knowledge systems and actually embody these values to make oceans equitable for everyone.”

And that is the goal of the Ocean Nexus Center, a 10-year collaboration between the a global leader addressing challenges facing the world’s oceans, and , the UW’s multidisciplinary institute that researches key environmental challenges.

The United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development 2021-2030 — called the , or just the Decade — is an international initiative toward achieving the environmental standards set in the agenda. These include “improving equity in the design, conduct and utilization of ocean science.”

Ocean Voices is a program of the Nippon Foundation Ocean Nexus Center dedicated to advancing equity in Ocean Decade activities by identifying barriers to and enabling conditions for fairness and justice in ocean science “so that no one is left behind through the Decade.”

Now, the Ocean Voices program has been officially by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO, as one of its first 28 “” — or programs to be undertaken in the next 10 years to help “create the ocean we want” by 2030.

Ota, who is a research assistant professor in the 91̽»¨School of Marine and Environmental Affairs as well as director of the Ocean Nexus Center, praised the Decade Actions designation for Ocean Voices.

“This program will advance equity in the Decade through interdisciplinary research and partnerships that will examine how ocean science can support a more equitable and sustainable world, and how to prevent the science from being used, misused or ignored.”

Read more on the Nippon Foundation Ocean Nexus Center’s .

Radnitz is an associate professor in the Jackson School of International Studies. His book, “,” was published this month by Oxford University Press. His first book,Ìý, was published by Cornell University Press in 2010.

“Revealing Schemes” explores “causes, consequences and contradictions” from a collection of 1,500 conspiracy claims from a dozen countries in the post-Soviet region from 1995 to 2014, as well as national surveys and focus groups.

“My book looks at how politicians use conspiracy theories,” Radnitz said. “While people tend to associate the use of conspiratorial rhetoric with dictators — who seek to dominate, distract or otherwise manipulate their citizens — one of my main findings is that conspiracy theories (or claims, more precisely) emerge in the course of political competition.

“In other words, they come in handy to rulers whose power is in some doubt, rather than those who enjoy unrivaled control. I argue that incumbent leaders deploy conspiracy claims to send signals about their knowledge and power, and to pre-empt future threats.

“For this reason, rulers also frame as conspiracies certain kinds of events that threaten their power: mass protests, challenges to sovereignty, or militant or terrorist violence — all of which are visible and palpable challenges to authority.”

91̽»¨News: Who believes conspiracy theories, and why?

S.R.: In the U.S. and other Western countries, conspiracy theories are popularly believed — according to some studies, by half the population. Yet they did not enter into mainstream politics — until recently — for two reasons: first, these democracies developed together with, and thanks to, civil society watchdogs and knowledge-producing institutions that held politicians in check.

And second, conspiracy theories have long had a pejorative connotation, such that politicians who endorsed them would be stigmatized and not taken seriously. It’s evident now that neither condition holds as they once did.

Independent institutions are coming under attack by illiberal forces within democracies, making it easier to get away with political lies and disinformation. And certain politicians — and here, I don’t think I need to mention a particular master of the craft — thrive on conspiracy theories. Such rhetoric is not only not shunned by their followers; instead it is rewarded electorally and used to amass power and money.

Needless to say, this development should concern citizens who value the quality of democracy and prefer leaders who are accountable and responsive to their needs.

There are news reports that Russia, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia all have recently pushed QAnon narratives as part of disinformation campaigns aimed at the United States. Is this a new phenomenon? What are their goals?Ìý

S.R.: The conspiracy theories thriving in the United States just now, mostly on the political right, are highly politicized and vicious. Once people are as divided and vulnerable as we are, it’s easy for political opportunists, whether here or abroad, to play their hand at exacerbating anger and distrust.

For countries seeking to advance their geopolitical interests, different kinds of propaganda work at different times. For example, during the Cold War, the U.S. government sought to advertise the American way of life as a way to turn people in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe against their governments, which was highly effective.

Today, stoking distrust in American elections, or making people afraid of getting vaccinated, or more generally, encouraging Americans to hate each other, appears to be an effective tactic for U.S. adversaries, and it’s cheap and easy to do through social media.

But it’s important to keep in mind that as much Russia or Iran has sought to degrade American political discourse, it is Americans themselves who bear the brunt of responsibility for this dismal state of affairs. And it’s here that the problem needs to be fixed.

For more information, contact Radnitz at srad@uw.edu.

Ìý

A new 91̽»¨Libraries explores the history of the 91̽»¨’s century-old fight song, “Bow Down to Washington” in text, video and lots of music.

The exhibit was curated for the 91̽»¨Music Library by , arts and humanities librarian, with Catherine Matthews, a former graduate student assistant, in partnership with the “,” a virtual (for now) space supporting the use of digital tools to create and share research openly.

Burns, a Husky football fan, said the Music Library gets a lot of inquiries about the fight song, and he grew curious about it as well. The song was written in late 1915 by Lester J. Wilson, responding to a contest held by the 91̽»¨Daily.

“It starts in a unique minor key and it is super difficult to sing. It generates a lot of interest,” Burns said, “especially around football season. So Catherine and I decided to connect these stories and items with photographs from the university archives, sheet music and recordings.”

The result is an entertaining multimedia presentation of history, video and music of “Bow Down to Washington” — including the 1915 lyrics and a 2018 rewrite that updates “Mighty are the men who wear the Purple and the Gold,” to “mighty are the ones.” An earlier lyrical variation from 1917, also featured, called “Bow Down to Uncle Sam,” was used to recruit troops during World War One.

Popular videos are featured as well, including a 2011 Boeing Credit Union video of famous 91̽»¨alumni crooning the tune, as well as BECU’s more recent “Bow Wow Down to Washington” commercial — where the fight song goes to the Dawgs.

The 91̽»¨Music Library’s Special Collections area already had about and recordings of the famous fight song that Burns and Matthews called upon. The sheet music to “Bow Down” is part of the Music Library’s of about 1,000 songs from the first half of the 20^th century.

The of “Bow Down,” Burns said, was a 1928 big band foxtrot by Vic Meyers and the Hotel Butler Orchestra. Meyers later served as Washington state’s lieutenant governor for 20 years.

“The coolest one, I think, is the 1964 one from Jerden Records,” Burns said. “It is a jazzy vibraphone combo and features a young jazz fusion innovator on guitar.

* * *
To learn more, contact Burns at dburns5@uw.edu; or Erin Conor, head of music, art and drama libraries, at econor@uw.edu. Contact the Open Scholarship Commons to learn more about creating digital exhibits such as this for classes or research, contact the

The answer, he writes, isn’t as simple as building “bland or pastiche developments, nor throwing out the old entirely and imposing an ultra-modern monolith.” The book, published in February by Rowman and Littlefield, addresses “how to enact blended and contextualized urban change, using the past and the status quo as catalysts rather than castaways.”

It offers examples that emphasize the importance of context and offer solutions “to blend the past with the future.” These include moving a small Swedish city, and the revitalization of Irish market towns and property alongside London’s Waterloo Station.

is an attorney with experience in environmental, land use and real estate law and an affiliate associate professor of urban design and planning in the 91̽»¨. The book’s co-author is , associate professor of urban and regional studies at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden, where Wolfe is also a guest affiliate scholar.

Wolfe will discuss “Sustaining a City’s Culture” with journalist Steve Scher at .

“Sustaining a City’s Culture and Character” is third book in a trilogy by Wolfe on urbanism. The others are ” (2013, rev. ed. 2019), and “” (2017).

Wolfe blogs at sustainingplace.com. To learn more, contact him at chuck@seeingbettercities.com.

Chirot, also a sociology faculty member, became professor emeritus this spring. He has joined the editorial board of , a moderately conservative online publication that he said is responding to the growing divide by “trying to strengthen the middle.” The publication to defend liberal democracy “not in the modern American political sense, but in the sense” of ensuring equal protection under the law, basic civil liberties and respect for individual rights.

In February he published an essay on the site titled “” calling for empathy and compromise in creating a new, equitably shared American narrative. Though “the United States is not about to dissolve” like the Austro-Hungarian or Soviet empires in their 20th century times of crisis, Chirot wrote, “our deep divisions will not heal unless a new, more viable history comes to sustain national unity.”

Chirot is the author of the 2020 book “,” which he discussed with 91̽»¨Notebook last April. Given the unprecedented events of the last year, and January 6, 2021, a follow-up conversation seemed appropriate.

In the essay you discuss the role of commonly held historical narratives and myths in the life of nations. “We no longer have a common history,” you write. “This is a root cause of American division … the historical visions of the left and right cannot be bridged because they are based on drastically different histories.” Did we ever really have a true common history?

We did have a common history that excluded African-Americans and others. At one time large numbers of new immigrants were also excluded: Irish, Chinese, Japanese, Italians and Jews. Native Americans were acknowledged only as marginal people slated for disappearance. Gradually most of these groups were absorbed into a common history that celebrated the “melting pot” theory of America. With theÌýcivil rights revolution of the 1960s and 1970s African-Americans were brought in too.

Since the 1990s, this hard-won, emerging but still incomplete consensus has collapsed. Many people had never accepted it, but they appeared to be a diminishing number of racist whites. Unfortunately the rise of a new far right fueled by religious fundamentalists, Southern whites, and an increasingly insecure white rural and working class has broken the consensus. TraditionallyÌýconservative Republicans used the culture wars to get their tax cuts and extra privileges, but they lost control of the narrative. First Newt Gingrich and then Trump took advantage, and now we are as far from having a consensus about our history as we were in the old days. We increasingly have two entirely different stories. In one, America has always been white and blameless with others being marginal and treated pretty well. In the other, whites are guilty of centuries of prejudice and all those stories about democracy and a melting pot were lies. The more we get pulled toward either one of these versions of our history, the less likely that we will begin to heal our deep divisions.

Empathy and compromise will be needed to create “a new, more viable history” to bring forward, you write. How could such a process begin? And what might the result look like?
A well-reviewed 2015 book I wrote with made the claim that much ideology has started when leading intellectuals put forward new ideas. That was certainly the case with the 17th and 18th century Enlightenment and the consequent great changes in thinking in the 19th and 20th centuries. I still believe this. So professional intellectuals in universities and among otherÌýpublic intellectuals have to do their part. My sense is that politically active university faculties are very far from having recognized this.

It is in a way far easier to take sides by emphasizing all the wrongs committed by the United States. Finding a synthesis requires much harder work. Balancing an honest appraisal of past sins and past accomplishments at the same time is an effort. There is also a growing but still small effort by some slightly right-of-center public intellectuals ( and at Stanford, for example) to do this too. The hope is that decent former moderate conservatives can break decisively with the dishonesty of the far right and somewhat moderate leftist intellectuals can join them in the project of creating a viable historicalÌýsynthesis.

A lot of “willful forgetting” goes into the making and maintaining of a nation, you write. “And a good deal of that forgetting is now being remembered.” You ask: “If so much is now being unforgotten, can the nation survive?” What were your conclusions?

As I have spelled out above, we cannot forget past wrongs, but that does not mean that we should throw out past efforts to remedy those wrongs. There is effective political mobilization to counter the most egregious efforts to suppress voting rights and police brutality. But that needs to be accompanied by a new historical synthesis that will eventually be taught in schools. This is a generational project that will take a couple of decades, at best.

With the Biden administration underway, what foreign policy and international matters do you think need the most attention, diplomacy and possibly healing?

Basically, the United States has to help restore faith in democracy by starting at home. It needs to rally its natural foreign allies and regain their trust. We have to find a way of dealing with China while avoiding war. The details are daunting. Something that is crucial and will also take time is to rebuild our demoralized diplomatic service and the many parts of our government thatÌýparticipate in conducting foreign policy (for example the U.S. Trade Representative’s office, parts of Treasury, Commerce, intelligence, and of course the State Department). That goes for the even larger core of necessary experts to staff our federal government.

The Biden administration recognizes this. Unfortunately, the Trump period greatly accelerated the rot, but that had been underway for a long time before. Modern societies need effective government, and that can only work if there is a capable civil service guided by expertise.

You discuss insurrection and revolt in your 2020 book. The Jan. 6 riot made the topic all too real to Americans. What are your thoughts on the meaning of that event?Ìý

There were two main conclusions I drew in the book. One is that when a society does not address its major problems for a long time, the potential for revolution increases. That has happened in the United States. Growing inequality, our bizarrely complex health care system, infrastructural decay, the rise in overt racism, the inability of Congress to pass laws, the lack of help for those hurt by globalization, and many other issues have accumulated. That is dangerously destabilizing.

The second conclusion I drew is that once a potentially revolutionary period arrives, all the forces at work strengthen the extremes. The middle collapses, civil war ensues, and whether the far right or far left wins, the results tend to be catastrophic. That does not always happen, but such a dire result is too common.ÌýIt can no longer be ruled out for the United States. If anyone had told me that even 10 years ago I would have laughed. After the TrumpÌýadministrationÌýand its sorry climax on JanuaryÌý6, I no longer believe this is a laughing matter.

Looking forward, what causes you the most concern? And what, if anything, are you able to feel optimistic about?

The last time the United States was so divided we had a terrible civil war. We are far from that now, but much closer than just a few years ago. I think I do see some reaction against the extremes in both popular opinion and even among some business elites. I hope that we as professional academic intellectuals learn to join in the efforts to strengthen enlightened moderation.

The association, also called , represents construction educators and industry practitioners seeking the advancement of construction education through the 150-some construction management programs at colleges in the United States, Canada and Europe.

The is given each year to recognize the work of someone who has advanced construction education through “knowledge, inspiration, guidance and/or the promotion of excellence in curricula, teaching, research and service.” The ASC praised Schaufelberger as an accomplished scholar, servant leader and student-focused educator. He will receive his award on April 5, during the group’s annual .

Schaufelberger’s resumé is lengthy indeed. He joined the 91̽»¨in 1994 after a 30-year career with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, managing public construction projects internationally and even representing the U.S. in negotiations with some foreign governments. At the UW, he was chair of the Department of Construction Management from 2002 to 2014, and dean of the College of Built Environments from 2012 to 2019. He served in the 91̽»¨Faculty Senate from 1997 to 2012.

Schaufelberger has written a number of textbooks on construction management as well as journal articles, papers and technical reports. He has been active in the American Council for Construction Education and serves on its board of trustees. He was associate editor of the ASC’s International Journal of Construction Education and Research for many years.

The ASC quoted Renée Cheng, current dean of the College of Built Environments, praising her predecessor: “Most people try to follow the ‘golden rule,’ treating others as we would like to be treated ourselves. John follows what you might call the diamond rule, treat others better than yourself. He never hesitates to take on tasks that, given his seniority and roles, would seem to be beneath him. But he does not consider what is above or beneath, merely that if he can help, he will.”

91̽»¨Notebook caught up with Schaufelberger for a couple of questions about his work.

You came to the 91̽»¨after retiring from the U.S. Army, where you were a teacher and administrator for many years. Has your Army experience been helpful to your work at the UW? In what ways?

Yes. Both the Army and academia are in the people business, heavily focused on mentoring, training and education. I found the intellectual engagement with students just as rewarding as mentoring young Army officers. In the Army, I learned to be a servant leader and to make decisions based on incomplete information. Both skills have been very useful at the UW.

What was your most challenging construction project or negotiation during your Army Corps of Engineers years?

I think that the most challenging construction project on which I worked was constructing a military city for 75,000 people in Saudi Arabia in a remote area near the border with Kuwait and Iraq. It is called King Khalid Military City and involved an international workforce of 15,000 workers installing $2 million dollars of construction per day.

What are the effects of climate change on the construction industry? How will 21st century construction — and construction education — differ from that of the 20th century?Ìý

I think that the major changes will occur in reducing carbon emissions from construction activities. New construction materials will be developed, construction equipment will become electrified, and use of modularization in construction will increase. The challenge in construction education will be to remain current with the rapid adoption of technology for planning and executing construction.

What’s next for you?

My plans are to retire from 91̽»¨at the end of December but to continue to work with the American Council for Construction Education to mentor construction educators.

• Watch a video produced by the College of Built Environments to congratulate Schaufelberger on his award.

The documentary film is brief but its message is powerful: We humans are losing our connection to the natural world, at our great peril.

“In some sense, we think we are the most advanced culture — we take such pride in technology and advancement,” says , 91̽»¨ professor in the Department of Psychology and the School of Environmental and Forest Sciences.

“But in some other ways, we are more distant from the natural world than any culture has been. Potentially also more distant from the human spirit.”

Kahn’s words are featured in “,” a new short documentary by British-based filmmaker that will begin streaming for free on March 17.

The film, production notes say, is “an urgent call to examine the effects of technology on our experiences, and the way wild nature is being squeezed out of our lives.”

Harrison creates documentaries, campaign films and events coverage; he has traveled to Cambodia, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Tasmania working on projects about rainforest conservation, education inequity, tribal rights and more.

He visited Seattle and interviewed Kahn extensively for a planned feature-length documentary project, but then the COVID virus hit, delaying the project. Now Harrison has completed and is releasing a five-minute version of the film.

Among the concerns Kahn discusses in the film is what he terms “environmental generational amnesia,” where each new generation inherits a more depleted natural world, with less understanding of what is being lost.

These are topics Kahn knows well, as director of the at the UW, or HINTS.

“Our older generations have a vital perspective,” he said. “They grew up in a time before much of the damage to the natural world that has happened in recent decades. They are also the last generations ever who will have lived in a world without social media and smart phones, often having more experiences in wild nature.”

Kahn’s book, “ was published in 2011. Harrison and Kahn are asking viewers to join a conversation about remembering nature — to offer memories of wildlife, or how nature has changed over the years — with #RememberingNature.

Read a about the film. For more information, contact Kahn at pkahn@uw.edu or Harrison at ross@r-harrison.com.

The elderly victim of an attack feels empty after winning justice from a “panel of metal judges” in a future courtroom beyond human biases.

An online karate class is taught by artificial intelligence and robots, but over the decades, even as the sport thrives, much of its crucial human element is forgotten.

These tales of AI and its effects on future life — and many more, from points around the world — are gathered in “,” presented by the 91̽»¨ . The lab is an interdisciplinary collaboration of the 91̽»¨Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, Information School and School of Law, to “enhance technology policy through research, education and thoughtful leadership.”

Together, the 19 stories are meant to ask: “What world — what worlds? — will we build with artificial intelligence?” The stories were written by authors all over the world and edited by a five-member 91̽»¨team led by Information School professor , law school professor and computer science and engineering professor , who are the directors of the Tech Policy Lab. Joining them in editing were , an iSchool doctoral student, and , an alumna of the lab.

The volume, which is available free in , is intended for policymakers, educators and technologists as well as general readers. Authors in Canada, Chile, China, India, Rwanda, Sri Lanka and more submitted work.

Calo, Friedman and Kohno all penned stories for the book, as did Darren Byler, a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Anthropology. The tales are fiction — though at least one stems from a real-world scenario. Friedman’s entry about a futuristic court, called “What Justice,” evolved from her years of work on the project, investigating the grim realities of genocide in that country.

The “Telling Stories” project grew from the Tech Policy Lab’s Global Summit on Culturally Responsive AI, underway since 2016, convening 20 to 30 scholars representing design, ethics, governance, policy and technology. The lab’s 2018 Global Summit focused on “grand challenges for developing and disseminating artificial intelligence technologies that maintain respect for and enhance culture and diversity of worldview.”

Participants to that summit brought pieces of fabric meaningful to their culture, which then sparked enactments, storytelling and conversations. “Telling Stories” employs the wisdom from these talks, and the resulting tales are meant for retelling.

In a story by law professor Ian Kerr of the University of Ottawa (who died in 2019 and to whom the volume is dedicated), one character borrows words from late astronomer Carl Sagan that seem to speak to the technological dilemmas at hand:

“We are creating world-altering contrivances and we have choices to make. We can relinquish control and roll the bones in a strange game of digital Russian roulette. Or we can rely on the bright light of human wisdom to place limits on what may and must not be done, and safely pass through times of peril.”

A hardcover edition of “Telling Stories” will be available in May through the University Bookstore.

For more information, contact Calo at rcalo@uw.edu, Friedman at batya@uw.edu or Kohno at yoshi@cs.washington.edu.

“” is hosted by , associate professor of history, and , professor of international studies and director of the , which is in the 91̽»¨Jackson School of International Studies.

As Marhoefer says in the first episode, the series is “a deep dive podcast on stuff that matters now in Jewish life, politics, history and culture — from a scholarly perspective.”

Each of five episodes features a 91̽»¨faculty member. The series begins with history professor talking with Marhoefer and Pianko about anti-Semitism in the United States and the “historical amnesia,” as Glenn said, Americans seem to have about their country’s anti-Semitic past.

Pianko said events of recent years such as the Charlottesville, Virginia, “Unite the Right” rally and the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting have affected colleagues on scholarly and personal levels. Since many Stroum Center affiliates teach and conduct research related to anti-Semitism, he said, it made a fitting topic for the podcast series.

“As a historian, I recognized anti-Semitism as a part of American history,” Pianko said. “However, the scholarly narrative of American Jewish history focused on the exceptional nature of the American Jewish experience. The U.S. never experienced the same degree of anti-Semitism or persecution that shaped the European Jewish experience.

“Watching recent events unfold has challenged the assumption of American exceptionalism and raised a host of new scholarly questions with very broad public implications,” Pianko said.

In subsequent episodes:

• Marhoefer discusses the rise of Nazi Germany and asks: Can it happen here?
• , professor of Spanish and Portuguese studies, explores how anti-Semitism has changed over time
• , associate professor of history and Jewish studies, examines Jewish prejudice against other Jews; and
• , associate professor of history, discusses Russian anti-Semitism experienced by 19th-century Jewish settlers to Ottoman Palestine.

“Jewish Questions” is produced, recorded and edited by Stroum Center communications manager. The podcast series is funded by a grant from the Jewish Federation of Seattle and by the center.

For more information, contact Marhoefer at marl@uw.edu. Pianko at npianko@uw.edu or Schoonmaker at kschoon@uw.edu.