We are gratified that Prof. Bennett has now read the full Task Force on Inequality and American Democracy report that he critiqued in the January 2006 issue of PS, but we find his response puzzling. He characterizes our report as “illustrative of many political scientists' left-wing tilt” and buttresses his assertion, not by analyzing the report itself, but by referring to studies of the political leanings of college faculty. Clearly, the test of our heavily annotated work—the bottom line of which is that “there are no easy conclusions when it comes to changing inequality of political voice” (APSA Task Force 2004, 35)—is whether we have been faithful to the relevant scholarly research. Since Bennett provides no evidence to the contrary, we leave it to the reader to decide who is driven by ideological, rather than scholarly, concern.

Professor Schlozman feels that unless one also assesses three long memos that accompanied the report by the APSA's Task Force on Inequality and American Democracy, one should refrain from commenting. She accuses me in my response to the Task Force reports (Bennett 2006) of “not bother[ing] to read the full materials on which … [I comment]” (Schlozman 2006, 55). Schlozman indicates she'd be “interested in … [my] reactions to the whole report instead of an abbreviated version” (55). Since she asks, here goes.

When I was looking for a quotation to garnish the introduction to my doctoral dissertation on Senate committees, I turned, like hundreds of graduate students before and since, to Woodrow Wilson's Congressional Government. “Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition,” he wrote (1885) and I quoted (1972), “whilst Congress in its committee-rooms is Congress at work.” But the book deserves better than simply to be mined for quotations. As Wilson's doctoral dissertation, it offers insights into his developing political thought. It illumines the operations of the national government during what was indeed a period of congressional and standing-committee ascendancy, although Wilson's account was neither objective nor totally reliable. And it prompts reflection on certain recurring dilemmas in the practice of American democracy.This essay is adapted from a presentation at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, November 14, 2005.

The European Union is going about its regular business. It is putting forth proposals to keep the Doha Round alive, continuing to negotiate a major trade agreement with Mercosur in South America, keeping peace-keeping troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina, spending development aid in numerous poor countries, financially supporting the Palestine Authority while giving Israel preferential access to the EU market, investigating Microsoft's business practices, and battling over the reach and scope of an ambitious new legislative attempt to regulate the chemical industry. The EU Greenhouse Trading Scheme, the largest greenhouse emissions trading scheme in the world, is up and running. The European Central Bank is making monetary policy decisions while the euro makes up almost 20% of central banks' foreign currency holdings. The European Medicines Agency (EMEA) has called for suspending the sale of the children's vaccine Hexavac. The European Court of Justice, for its part, has recently declared illegal a high profile Italian law designed to prevent foreign takeover of Italian energy companies. And the commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection is playing a leading role in the EU's response to the threat of a pandemic of avian bird flu.

The Dutch have been counted among the staunchest supporters of European integration ever since the parliamentary ratification of the European Community for Coal and Steel in late 1951. The major political parties—the Christian Democrats (CDA) and its forerunners, the Labor Party (PvdA), and the liberal parties VVD and D66—supported all important European treaties of the past decades. Only the smaller orthodox-Calvinist parties, some smaller left-wing parties, and, more recently, the List Pim Fortuyn (LPF) have opposed these treaties in parliament. This overwhelmingly large support in the Second Chamber of the Dutch parliament included the Treaty of Rome of 2004—the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe. One hundred twenty-eight out of 150 members of parliament favored the ratification of the European Constitution. This article draws on several chapters in Aarts and van der Kolk 2005.

The Spanish, French, Dutch, and Luxembourg referenda on the Constitutional Treaty are the latest, but certainly not the last, flashpoints in a contentious European Union. The era in which EU politics was determined by national and European elites ended about 15 years ago. With the Maastricht Accord of 1991, decision making on European integration entered the contentious world of party competition, elections, and referenda.

The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe is widely regarded as a turning point in the history of European integration. It was designed to reconcile two key dimensions of the European construction: the deepening of integration and the need to ensure the democratic character of the European Union (EU). The Constitution provides for the convergence of the model of regional integration and that of democratic government. It contains simplified legal instruments and procedures which enhance the status of the Union as a political system. The open deliberations on the constitutional text and its ratification through popular referenda or parliamentary endorsement extend democratic principles and procedures typical of domestic politics to regional integration.

I spent the 2004–2005 academic year in France, culminating with the May 29th referendum on the European Union constitutional treaty. Fifty-five percent of voters rejected it. Three days later, 62% of Dutch voters followed suit. These were unexpected results, especially in France, a country where 80% declare themselves in favor of European integration. In other member states, a simple rule generally applies: those whose priority is to strengthen the EU are on the “yes” side, while the “no” is identified with those who emphasize national interests. In the Netherlands, though the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh by an Islamic radical was a factor, the “no” forces won essentially because they persuaded enough people that the direction the Constitution would take the Netherlands went against Dutch interests. To do so, they played on the resentment that Brussels took their money but ignored Dutch concerns—“the same people who fooled you with the euro are fooling you now with this constitution.”

For the second time in the history of the French Vth Republic, the first having led to the resignation of Charles De Gaulle in 1969, a president lost a national referendum. On May 29, 2005, 54.7% of French voters rejected the European Constitutional Treaty, even though France was one of the major proponents of the European Convention which led to the Constitution's drafting. The victory of the “no” vote had been foreseen, but neither the margin of victory, nor the high turnout (almost 70.5%) were expected. The rejection of the Constitution raised two concerns: the first related to the position of France in Europe, the second to its domestic impact. Why did the French electorate vote as it did? Did voters make up their minds based on national cues, the European issue being generally of little importance even in European elections (Franklin, Marsh, and McLaren 1994; Van der Eijk and Franklin 1996)? Is the referendum result the consequence of a growing anti-European attitude, which could cause considerable damage to the process of EU integration? Will a new cleavage grounded on attitudes to Europe and capable of altering the traditional left-right organization emerge in the French political system?Our warmest thanks to our colleagues, Chantal Barry, Arianne Chebel d'Appolonia, and Manlio Cinnalli for their remarks on and their help with this piece.

On the evening of May 26, 2005, with the polls suggesting that the European Constitution was veering toward defeat, Jacques Chirac made a final exhortation to the French public. He argued that the French were voting not on a sectarian political issue but on an issue that would determine the future of themselves, their children, France, and Europe. Chirac characterized the choice before French citizens as “neither right nor left.” His use of a phrase more commonly associated with Vichy displayed an uncharacteristic historical amnesia and suggests that Chirac and his party were grabbing at straws in those final days.

In his 1987 presidential address to the American Political Science Association,” One Soul at a Time: Political Science and Political Reform,” Samuel P. Huntington (1988, 3–10) argued at some length that “political science … is not just an intellectual discipline (but) also a moral one,” and that “the impetus to do good in the sense of promoting political reform is … embedded in our profession.” Therefore, “it is impossible to have political scientists in the absence of political participation, and political science has only developed with the expansion of political participation. In a society in which there is no participation—no competition for power—political scientists would have nothing to do.” It logically follows that “the connection between democracy has been a close and continuing one.”

Data matter. Protest data are no exception. Not all datasets are equal, nor do all have equal validity and reliability. Thus far, there has been no serious debate regarding the quality of protest datasets. Increasing attention to protest studies suggests that now is the time to talk about the sine qua non for growing knowledge in this sub-field of comparative politics. In this paper I emphasize the importance of the underlying data sources. In particular, I argue that protest datasets should be drawn from many sources, particularly as many local sources as possible, in order to provide accurate and meaningful data. To support this contention, I first discuss traditional protest datasets and their limitations and provide suggestions about how to overcome these limitations. Second, I explain an alternative type of dataset coding and its characteristics. And finally, I use statistical tests to illustrate the importance of local sources.I give my sincere and deep thanks to Erik S. Herron and Ronald A. Francisco for reviewing drafts of this paper and giving me indispensable comments and continuous encouragements. I would also like to thank Elizabeth Collins and Omur Yilmaz who edited drafts of this manuscript. My appreciation also goes to anonymous reviews of this paper and the editors of PS: Political Science and Politics. I would like to thank my late farther, Ki-Dae whose love and support were simply endless. I'll share any compliment with them, but only I will take responsibility for any error.

Justin is not alone. In a recent study of high school seniors from California, for example, only 28% agreed that “I think people in government care about what people like me and my family need” (Kahne and Middaugh 2005). Related findings are common. A survey by the National Association of Secretaries of State, for example, revealed that two-thirds of all young people agreed that “our generation has an important voice, but no one seems to hear it.” Moreover, those youth who were least trusting were also the least likely to vote, to believe that government can affect their lives, or to pay attention to politics (National Association of Secretaries of State 1999). These findings, combined with numerous other indicators that show low and in many cases declining civic and political participation, indicate that forms of engagement required for a participatory democracy to thrive are in need of attention (Macedo et al. 2005).The initial research for this essay was generously supported by a grant from the Surdna Foundation. Subsequent research and writing was generously supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. We also wish to thank Melinda Fine, Barbara Leckie, Tobi Walker, and James Youniss for helpful feedback on earlier drafts. The authors are solely responsible for any and all conclusions.

On April 19, 2005, after just four rounds of voting, the College of Cardinals announced that 78-year-old Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had been selected as the new pope. This announcement startled many. To be sure, as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for nearly a quarter of a century Ratzinger had helped select the vast majority of the cardinals who gathered to choose a successor to John Paul II, so his selection as pope could be seen as fulfillment of a simple quid pro quo. Even so, it had been widely speculated that Ratzinger's conservative beliefs would spark passionate opposition among the electors and that his age and reputed poor health would also work against him (Novak 2005).

The 2005 Workshop for Department Chairs was dedicated to discussing the legal issues that face department chairs. Themes included sexual and racial harassment, tenure, and hiring. APSA's Departmental Services Committee (DSC) sponsored the workshop and Edie N. Goldenberg (University of Michigan), a member of the DSC, moderated the panel. American University Counsel Hisham Khalid, Loyola University Chicago's Susan Gluck Mezey, and retired Wheaton College President Dale Rogers Marshall were also part of the panel. The Workshop drew 75 attendees to hear the four presentations and to consider how to deal with legal issues. The 2006 Workshop for Department Chairs is “Planning for Assessment & Accountability Issues”—more information will follow in the coming months.

The January 2005 issue of PS: Political Science and Politics carried a report compiled by the APSA Task Force on Graduate Education which provides numerous suggestions to political science programs nationwide on preparing graduate students for professional careers, improving mentoring and advising, and revising financial package/plans to support ABDs in their final stretch (Beltran et al. 2005). Among those proposals was a section specifically designed to address unique problems international students, international graduate assistants (IGA), and international graduate student instructors (IGSI) face at U.S. institutions:

Ph.D.-granting institutions want students to complete their doctoral degrees. Most graduate departments in political science focus their training on preparing students to pursue academic careers. We provide valid and reliable empirical data about the factors that affect students' prospects for successfully completing political science doctoral degrees and finding academic jobs. Because National Science Foundation data (2002, Table 53) reveal significant differences in the number of doctoral degrees awarded to women compared with men, we test a series of hypotheses based on the existing literature that may account for these differences. Our paper applies knowledge gained from previous studies, such as in the area of mentoring (Wasby 2001; Andersen 2001; Benesh 2001), to explain observed gender differences in doctoral degree completion and success in gaining academic employment thereafter.The research was commissioned and funded by the Executive Council of the Midwest Political Science Association; additional funding was provided by the department of political science at the University of Iowa. Barbara Burrell of Northern Illinois University oversaw the data collection for round two of the panel study. Kimberly M. Lewis of the University of Iowa provided research assistance.

Internationalization is a hot topic on college and university campuses today. It is also one of the hot button topics facing the APSA (see Varshney 2004; Breuning 2005). Although relatively recent to APSA, internationalizing the higher education curriculum has long been a concern of educational scholars. Arum (1987) identifies three areas in which campuses can pursue internationalization: promoting the international content of curricula, tracking the international movement of scholars and students, and providing technical assistance and educational cooperation programs that engage American education in efforts abroad. Rivers (1994) adds a fourth dimension: promoting awareness of other cultures and ways of thinking through extracurricular cross-cultural experiences, which would ideally include outreach to the surrounding community.

College teachers are increasingly using instructional technology to supplement or substitute for face-to-face instruction. The incentives and arguments for doing so are many, including facilitation of higher education for non-traditional students and changing student demographics, skill building to improve student preparation for workplaces that are likely to use computer technology, space restrictions in universities with growing enrollment, the opportunities that Internet classrooms provide for organizing and monitoring student work and assignments, and so on. However, little is known about how online instruction affects the learner. Online instruction is, in many ways, fundamentally different from face-to-face instruction (see, for example, Lee 2003; McCormack and Jones 1998; Palloff and Pratt 1999). For instance, instructors are unlikely to simply post their lecture notes online in the hope that the students will read, take notes, memorize, and retain the information, which would be the closest equivalent to a traditional lecture classroom. Consequently, it cannot be assumed that different instructional modes (such as lectures or online instruction) necessarily have the same learner outcomes. This lack of knowledge concerning the effects of online instruction on learner outcomes also extends to the question of gender equality.Authors are listed in reverse alphabetical order. We gratefully acknowledge financial support for both the redesign and the evaluation of the course from the Pew Learning and Technology Program, Center for Academic Transformation, Pew Grant Program in Course Redesign.

Many assume that young Americans are apathetic, self-absorbed, and indifferent to civic matters. It is a turned-off generation, we are told. But nothing could be further from the truth. A host of data suggests young Americans give their energy, time, and money to their schools, community, and nation. A recent report by the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), for example, suggests young Americans volunteer at higher rates than do older Americans (Lopez 2003). The frequency of pitching-in has also increased: In 1990 some 65% of college freshman reported volunteering in high school, and by 2003 that figure had risen to 83%. Rates of volunteer work for those under 25 are now twice as high as for those over 55. Perhaps this is the activist generation.