The 2008 Simulations and Role Play (S&RP) II track focused on issues in American politics and theory. Building on conversations in previous tracks (see S&RP track summaries from 2006 and 2007 in PS), the 25 discussants focused the dialogue mainly on best practices with some discussion on faculty research.

Student resistance to learning about race and racism is pervasive and well-documented. Scholars have noted an array of direct and indirect resistance tactics. These range from withdrawal from class discussion or course withdrawal; questioning professorial authority in classrooms; and verbal and physical harassment and assault (Painter 2000; Tatum 2001; Tusmith and Reddy 2002; Lee and Johnson-Bailey 2004). In response, scholars have developed a variety of pedagogical approaches and techniques for confronting student resistance and/or providing the optimal context for teaching on race and other sensitive subjects. These responses to resistance to learning about race and racism include, but are not limited to: “frontloading” (i.e., providing a substantial amount of data establishing the reality of social inequality at the beginning of the course, and telling students ahead of time that they will be engaging in difficult subjects, and to expect discomfort) (Samuels, Fervber, and Herrera 2003); setting ground rules for discussion to ensure respect in the classroom (Allen, Floyd-Thomas, and Gillman 2001); assigning privilege inventories and/or other exercises, such as journaling, that encourage self-examination (Allen, Floyd-Thomas, and Gillman 2001; Sue 2003); and creating opportunities for self-generated knowledge (e.g., assigning interviews on racial topics) (Tatum 2001).Thanks to my two anonymous reviewers, Gena Chandler, and Emily Satterwhite for their helpful comments on the manuscript. Also, this work was presented as a faculty development workshop in 2004 sponsored by Virginia Tech's Center for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching and at a panel on teaching and learning at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the APSA.

What is the political significance of difference? Why are ethnic, racial, or religious differences frequently politically significant while differences in height, hair color, or weight are not? Why are linguistic differences sometimes relevant politically, and other times are not salient? What about age? Gender or sexual preferences? What fosters tolerance of differences judged ethically and politically salient? What encourages respect for these differences, leading some of us to reach out across divides that isolate others? These questions take on a poignant immediacy with reports of continuing prejudice and discrimination; ongoing ethnic, religious, and sectarian violence—even genocidal activities and war; and increasing polarization over issues of race, religion, and ethnicity, at home and abroad. They are questions students need to consider as they go out into a world where they will meet new people, from diverse cultures, religions, and ethnicities. How can we best prepare them for this?

A Look at the Centennial Center for Political Science & Public Affairs.

Simulations and role-playing exercises have been used effectively as a teaching device in all areas of political science and international relations. One such simulation, with 20 years of success, is the Model NATO Conference, currently sponsored annually in Washington, D.C., by Howard University and Kent State University's Center for International and Comparative Studies. Model NATO is an intercollegiate, competitive, and experiential learning exercise that models the decision-making and crisis management processes of NATO. Student delegations, representing different NATO member-countries, negotiate consensus agreements while promoting their often conflicting national interests. According to the Model NATO web site, this competition is designed to

Chieko Kitagawa Otsuru is professor of American politics and international politics at Faculty of Law of Kansai University, located in Osaka, Japan. She has written on various aspects of American politics and U.S. foreign policies, as well as led several joint projects, focusing on the function of American democracy. Throughout her academic career, her interests have rested on grassroots activists, and she has tried to connect her works with the activities on the ground.

The Core Curriculum/General Education track comprised a wide range of institutions, different areas of expertise, and levels of teaching. Institutions represented were both private and public, and four year colleges and community colleges. Participants were made up of seasoned and experienced teachers, novice teachers, and graduate students. Presenters described their innovative teaching techniques and how they could be effectively employed both inside and outside the classroom. Presentations gave rise to the discussion of various teaching methods and how to tailor the techniques to fit specific needs. In the ensuing discussion one thing became apparent. The goal of the successful teacher is to engage students in a number of ways.

Critical analysis, which is defined as the reasoned and logical process of skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information (Scriven and Paul 2001), is at the heart of the research process that propels our profession's knowledge-base forward. In this essay, I describe an effective method that I developed to help inculcate and hone students' critical analysis skills. Indeed, critical analysis skills are crucial foundational skills necessary for all students, especially those who intend to thrive successfully as researchers in our profession.I am grateful to A.B. Assensoh, Joan Middendorf and the three anonymous reviewers, respectively, who offered helpful comments on earlier versions of this essay.

If comparative politics is in one if its periodic states of theoretical collapse (Blyth 2006, 493), no one feels the lack of roof and walls more acutely than instructors in undergraduate comparative politics classes. With professional colleagues and graduate students one preaches to the choir, but with college students, many of whom may be non-majors, we must work in partibus infidelium, among those who have not yet been converted. Without an orthodox doctrine to work from, this can be a challenging task indeed. The approach used here, combining detailed socio-political narratives with strong analytic theory, tends to engage students because it fills in a full range of national life, rich in national eccentricities, cultural exaggerations, and hidden motives, and because it controls the proliferation of detail by emphasizing its logic. In a sense the abstract becomes concrete and the concrete becomes abstract.

Faculty are always grappling with how to get their students to actively participate in learning about politics. Interest in active learning, service learning, and other pedagogical approaches demonstrate this concern. At the same time we are witnessing a parallel and related mission promoting civic engagement. For example, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities' American Democracy Project has a civic engagement series in which it collaborates with campuses across the United States to encourage increased political participation and civic awareness of topics such as the stewardship of public lands and jury service, to name a few. What can instructors do in the classroom to bring these learning methods together and accomplish these goals? We suggest that outlining and describing the political dynamics of interest group activity in an interesting issue area, and then requiring students to advocate on behalf of these interests in class role-play scenarios and other exercises, help to accomplish active learning, which may lead to greater civic engagement.The authors thank Michael J. Yochim for his insightful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript and George L. Mehaffy, vice president for Academic Leadership and Change at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities and the founder of the American Democracy Project, for organizing our visit to Yellowstone National Park.

Political science has always pondered questions of civic engagement. Socrates described and defended his intimate engagement with Athens in the Apology and Aristotle argued in the Politics that it was only through engagement with the polis that humans could set forth and discuss notions of justice. Stephen Leonard (1999) and Hindy Schachter (1998) pointed out in earlier volumes of this journal that at the end of the nineteenth century the “founding fathers” of modern academic political science were motivated by ideas of improving citizens through civic education. And this has continued to be a focus for the American Political Science Association (APSA) through collaborative efforts such as the 1996 Task Force on Civic Education for the Next Century or, more recently, tracks during the association's Teaching and Learning Conference.

My nascent book project seeks to identify and assess the effectiveness of European state strategies since September 11, 2001, to navigate the policy contradictions raised by the securitization of immigration. Framing my research is a nearly universal dilemma for politics and policy in a post-September 11 international and domestic security environment: Is the liberal state's traditional role as the guarantor of the physical safety of its citizens reconcilable with its pursuit of expansive immigration policies and inclusive immigrant incorporation policies? While I cannot answer this question definitively, I hope to illuminate the broad parameters of states' policy making freedom under the unfavorable domestic and transnational security conditions within Europe and, by extension, other advanced industrial democracies including the United States.

The participants in the Civic Engagement II track focused our attention on what we termed “the trifecta of civic engagement,” namely engaging students, contributing to the community, and changing institutional commitments of the university.

Why are teachers afraid of sentences that begin with “I feel …” or that draw on personal experience? When Enid Bloch, a former practitioner of political science, asked her colleagues these questions, she was given the standard answer of “subjectivity” or “when someone brings up personal feelings there is nothing to discuss” (1999, 69–73). That may be true for other subfields of political science but surely the books we teach in political theory are brimming with subjectivity. Aren't they? And surely the essays we assign call for injecting the writing self into the broader political discussion. Don't they? So what gets in the way?

In recognition of their outstanding academic and personal achievements, APSA is pleased to announce the APSA Minority Fellows for the 2008–2009 academic year. Awards are based on the students' undergraduate course work, GPA, GRE scores, extracurricular activities, and recommendations from political science faculty. A selection committee designated 15 Fellows to receive financial support from the Association. Members of the selection committee for this year's Fellows included Jessica Lavariega Monforti, University of Texas, Pan American; Angela Lewis, University of Alabama; and Janelle Wong, University of Southern California. This year's Minority Fellows are:

Activities, administrative appointments, new appointments, promotions, awards, and retirements.

For the record.

People in Political Science.

The Teaching Across the Discipline track explored the ways in which political scientists can enhance student learning through innovative techniques that connect political science to other academic disciplines and co-curricular activities. Participants in the discussion agreed that using such techniques require instructors willing to take a risk. That risk, which may involve borrowing from other disciplines, sharing power with students in the classroom, requiring students to engage with civic leaders, pitting students in debate and competition with each other, and recognizing that political science does not exist in a vacuum, can have great rewards for students and faculty alike. Those rewards include students' true engagement in the learning process and with it enlightenment on political issues and theories; and for professors, the satisfaction of knowing that they have helped to bring their students “out of the cave.”

On January 19, 2008, long-time APSA member and Damon Wells Professor Emeritus of political science at Yale University H. (Holt) Bradford Westerfield died from complications of Parkinson's disease in Watch Hill, Rhode Island. He was 79. Douglas Martin's obituary in the January 27 issue of The New York Times provided a full account of his illustrious career, the details of which do not need to be repeated here. The APSA archives would not, however, have included the fact that over four decades of teaching at Yale, from 1957 when he joined the faculty as an assistant professor of international relations until his retirement in 2001, Professor Westerfield's largely undergraduate classes attracted some 10,000 students. Those classes included President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Senators John Kerry and Joseph I. Lieberman, and other public officials who “… cited his influence in framing their approach to public policy. Mr. Cheney repeatedly said Dr. Westerfield helped shape his hard-line approach to foreign policy. But an article in The Nation in 2004,” noted Martin, “reported that Dr. Westerfield came to regret the hard-nosed lessons Mr. Cheney said he had learned. Dr. Westerfield explained that his own politics had become much more dovish since.”