On Attending the 2024 Northeastern Political Science Association Conference

Dear Students:

You are owed an explanation about conferences. Academic conferences are large meet-and-greets centered around papers and roundtables. People talk about their work and get feedback; their papers and presentations receive peer-review. For much of my career as a student–both at the undergraduate and graduate levels–I was scared to death to present a paper. Specifically, I had no idea they were worth anything. It is weird why I thought that way. Other people got compliments, some won awards, I even learned from what others wrote. It just never occurred to me that I could do the same.

Now things are a bit different. I have attended the Northeastern Political Science Association Conference for a number of years now. This year, I helped out with their social media, I was a discussant for a panel (read and commented on a few papers), and I presented on the question of genre and political philosophy. I still have work to do on my own paper–I have to locate more relevant scholarly conversations and address them–but I feel like I've learned how to use a complicated resource. More importantly, I'm giving back. I give attention and informed feedback. I help other scholars and students become aware of each other and strive to build professional, comfortable learning spaces for everyone.

You might ask what a bunch of people talking about papers could achieve. But the first panel I attended was about whether women could be recognized as equals when they deliver as leaders. It's hard to accept that the politics of backlash are so strong they almost erase the memory of those who led a nation to safety and security. The empirical literature, though, tells that story. I heard papers on transportation policy addressing the needs of different people, ancient philosophy and the initial development of concepts like science and politics, students learning how to trust their own reporting on the election, social scientists using a misleading definition of power, and the White House employing explicitly aristocratic imagery in the portraiture of First Ladies. Political science really does allow for a full, thoughtful consideration of the human experience. It is just so obvious that while all of us can't make every conference, it is a loss to not hear people pose and develop their questions. To be sure, some I've known would say that all these topics are useless. However, they have to narrow and warp the notion of what life is so badly they cannot even account for why they are reacting.

But as for you, I'm hoping you'll push yourself and try and ask one question seriously. It isn't easy. What you'll usually find is that you are assuming so much that it is a bit scary. What else do I think I know and have never bothered to ask about? One question leads to another and the challenges are multiple. One of the toughest is to make your questions convincing to other people. And some are not going to accept what you have to say no matter what. Learning that they're more interested in control and power can hurt on the deepest level. Curiosity isn't just natural; it affirms humanity. That we have entered an age when people would shut down every school they can see is more than sad. The worst evils can come from carelessness and ignorance because people don't even know how angry and bullying their actions are.

No, you don't need to go to the conference. You don't need to write 4,000 words on whether Plato develops a coherent account of wisdom. I just need you to think about why someone would believe it valuable. Why they would think the next generation is owed at least that much, and so much more.