A message from WPSA 2017 President, Julie Novkov

Dear Member of WPSA:
The Western Political Science Association has long had a reputation for hosting a welcoming annual meeting where scholars consciously orient their presentations toward significant problems in politics. It is also the home of annual pre-conference workshops on Latino politics, environmental politics, feminist political theory, and other specialized inquiries. WPSA prides itself on its spirit of lively inquiry with a critical focus on political issues that matter not just to political scientists, but to anyone who cares about the health and vitality of politics, policy, democracy, and civic engagement. 
As the association has grown over the years, we have enjoyed providing a space for inquiry that brings together scholars from the western United States, but also scholars based in other regions of the United States and abroad. Our welcoming reputation has also made the annual meeting a magnet for graduate students, many of whom hold student visas and enrich our proceedings with perspectives spanning earlier educational experiences from across the globe. One acknowledgement of our recognition that the world of political science is not solely an American world was our decision to be the first regional American association in the discipline to hold an annual meeting outside of the United States, traveling to Vancouver in 2009. This year, we return to Vancouver to reinforce this understanding.
The “we” who return to Vancouver, however, is not universal. Our program team did its usual excellent job of constructing a wonderful program during the fall as the US election campaign was unfolding, and our invitations to accepted participants went out as usual in late October. However, in the wake of President Trump’s executive orders banning migration from seven, and then six, Muslim-majority nations, coupled with multiple verified reports of highly aggressive border policing, scholars at risk began to withdraw from the conference. Approximately a dozen have been in touch with WPSA to inform us that they would be unable to attend. Some were directly affected by the travel ban, and even with the legal injunction in place, felt directly targeted and threatened by the President’s words. Some, though not from the targeted nations, received advice from private legal counsel that traveling on a visa outside of the United States was risky because problem-free reentry could not be guaranteed. Others were advised by their universities to err on the side of caution. And some simply observed the many reports of non-citizens, even green card holders, having had to endure interrogations, delays, and detentions at the border and quite reasonably concluded that the risks were too great. Further, the chaos in the federal bureaucracy charged with processing visa renewals has produced unreasonable and unanticipated delays for other scholars.
As President of the Association, I saw the notes from the scholars who informed us about the reasons for withdrawing from the conference. These fine scholars were regretful and apologetic, some even expressing some shame for their fears. Their words saddened me but angered me as well, and I am sure that beyond those who expressed their regrets, more simply opted out without explaining. I wrote back to each person who contacted WPSA, but wanted to make all members of the association aware of the loss that we have all incurred.
The inhumane, unconstitutional, and irrational executive orders and apparent policy directives that target immigrants and visa holders have directly harmed our association and our members. Of course, those who cannot travel or who reasonably fear traveling lose out by not being able to attend the annual meeting. However, those who will attend the meeting also lose out by not being able to engage with these crucially important members of our community. The comparative experiences and insights of our immigrant and visa-holding members help to advance the scholarly interests of everyone who gets to hear about them, think about them, and use them as lenses to reflect critically on their own research and experiences. The knowledge we generate in Vancouver will be impoverished through its exclusivity. This impoverishment hits in part precisely where it does the most harm – because of the diminishment of our scholarly circle, our attending members have less capacity to understand and address the comparative and international dynamics that have contributed to the backwards mindset behind these travel policies.
I am sorry as your President that this annual meeting, no matter how wonderful it is, will fall short of its greatest potential. I’m sorry for the squandered opportunities for attendees to engage with the fullest possible range of political science scholarship. But most of all, I am terribly sorry that some of our members will be unable to come to the conference that means so much to all of us. I hope, of course, that we will have full and robust participation next year, but far more than that, I hope that next year we can come together in a political environment in the United States that respects and honors the tremendously valuable intellectual contributions of immigrants and visa holders.
                                    Julie Novkov
                                    WPSA President

Pink Cat-Ear Hats, Knitted Solidarity, and Women’s Rights

By Meaghan Charlton

Pink, cat-ear hats emerged as the symbol of the Women’s March on Washington through the Pussyhat Project.  In response, some have suggested that the pink hats might be a goofy distraction to the women’s rights movement or a visual that problematically reduces femininity to biological characteristics. However, approaching the pink hat initiative from this angle neglects to recognize knitting’s long-standing deployment as a social movement and solidarity-building tactic, , its inclusivity of disabled, caretaker, and LGBTQ populations, and the reclaiming function the pink hat project embodies.

Continue reading

#APSA2016 Twitter Analysis

By Eric C. Vorst


The 2016 American Political Science Association annual meeting in Philadelphia was a great place to highlight new research, to learn from our peers, and to make new professional connections. It also provided an exciting opportunity to gain new insight into how networks of discussion evolve in real time over the duration of a major academic conference. Data mining software, content analysis, and social network visualization tools were used to observe how communities of discussion evolved as the conference unfolded, to identify the emergence of key themes, and to map the extent to which these themes reached different communities within the network.  Ultimately, this project helps to provide a unique insight into what political scientists talk about during a political science convention.

Continue reading

Empathy as a Method for Understanding Why 53% of White Women Voters Voted for Trump

By William J. Kelleher

Several recent news articles, including one from The New York Times and The Atlantic, offer up an explanation for why 53% of white women voters voted for Donald Trump, despite the disrespect he has shown for women, particularly white women. For example, The New York Times article presents political scientist Kathleen Dolan’s explanation of this political behavior. That explanation can be stated in the form of this syllogism:

Empirical studies show that

  • A) voters generally tend to vote according to their party identification, and that
  • B) a majority of white women identify with the Republican Party;
  • C) therefore, a majority of white women voted for Trump rather than Clinton.

This “explanation” has the virtue of being relatively straight forward insofar as it consists of explicit inferences drawn from accepted facts. But I’m not satisfied with the explanation given. The implication that party ID caused the voting results seems overly mechanistic, shallow, and insufficient. I still want to know why so many white women voters voted for Donald Trump.

Continue reading

Civil Rights Advocacy and Unsupportive White Attitudes: Lessons from World War II

By Steven White


Civil rights advocates frequently work in the context of unfavorable public opinion among white Americans. For example, attitudes towards the Black Lives Matter movement remain strikingly racially polarized, with whites generally much less supportive of the movement than African Americans, even in the presence of video evidence of police misconduct. Such attitudes can be difficult to change. What, then, does it take to radically alter white racial attitudes? And what might civil rights advocates do if negative white attitudes toward the Black Lives Matter movement remain unchanged?


Continue reading

Rejecting ‘Nationality Swapping’ and ‘Imposter-Children’ in Refugee Politics

By Stephanie J. Silverman

This month saw France violently demolish the migrant settlement known as The Jungle. Situated on the shores of Calais, facing the Cliffs of Dover, the camp had become home to between 7,000 – 10,000 mostly African, Middle Eastern, and Southern Asian people, including men, women, families, and unaccompanied children. Despite its being physically wiped away, The Jungle remains a symbol of Europe’s failure to deal humanely with African and Middle Eastern asylum seekers.

Continue reading

“The Emperor Has No Balls”: Virility, Masculinity, and the American Presidency

By Meredith Conroy and Caroline Heldman

Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 12.20.17 PM.png

Two weeks ago, the guerilla art collective Indecline unveiled a series of statues featuring a naked Donald Trump in New York City, Cleveland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle. Indecline entitled the installation “The Emperor Has No Balls” in reference to Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Andersen’s parable is about a vain emperor who is duped into parading around naked by two weavers who convince the leader his suit is only invisible to those who are incompetent or unfit for their positions. No one dares to call out the naked emperor until a child cries out that he has no clothes.

A multitude of meanings could be drawn from the statue, and many have already criticized the Indecline installation for being fat shaming and transphobic. Our critique lies in the most obvious of Indecline’s statements—an assault on Trump’s masculinity. The artist created statues with no balls and a very small penis; a trimming of Trump’s “manhood.”

The problem with this seemingly radical installation is the underlying theme that feminized men are less fit to lead. That Trump is without his balls unwittingly elevates masculinity in the presidential contest at the expense of femininity. This is certainly not the first time this message has circulated in presidential politics, and these messages incentivize both men and women to take on more masculine behaviors and positions, which limit political diversity and representation.

Continue reading