Celebrating Europe Day and our European Office

“Europe Day is commemorated on May 9th by the European Union in recognition of the peace and prosperity it has brought to the region since its inception.

This offers a perfect opportunity to celebrate our European Office, opened just outside Oxford twenty years ago.  Starting with three people in an attic office above a dancewear shop, we quickly outgrew the space.  Since then we have gone from strength to strength and there are now eighteen in our current more spacious offices, though we are threatening to outgrow this too, very soon.  The team includes commissioning editors in the humanities, sciences and social sciences, publicity, marketing, international rights, and most recently the publisher for PUP Audio.

We are a key part of PUP’s global reach, offering the ability to achieve excellent publicity coverage throughout Europe, acquiring editors who can capitalise on our location to build up their European networks and a superb international translation rights team. On May 9th we wish the European office a happy twentieth birthday. Here’s to the next twenty years.”—Caroline Priday

 

InDialogue with Marcia Bjornerud and Mark Serreze: Why long-term thinking on the natural world matters

The dangers of a colonial attitude toward the Earth

Marcia Bjornerud

Anthropologist Clifford Geertz famously defined culture as the constellation of stories that groups of humans tell themselves about their place and purpose in the world.  In western culture, with its Judeo-Christian underpinnings grafted to principles of social democracy and capitalism, the stories we share about who we are largely exclude the Natural World.  Nature is at most a passive backdrop – the scenery against which the ‘real’ stories unfold, not a central protagonist in the narrative.

As a result, most of us believe we can simply opt out of Nature’s own long-term plans for the future.  We tend to confuse technological prowess with wisdom.  The people we call “visionaries” base their conceptions of the future on the notion that we should do everything in our power to circumvent the bothersome constraints of the natural world.  We love the stories these great and powerful wizards tell us of how they will make life ‘frictionless’ and reality virtual.  Bedazzled by their shiny gadgets and habituated to the constant streams of novelty they feed us, we in the audience can¹t be bothered to look up and think for ourselves about where exactly we might be going.

And so we behave like bad tourists, entitled conquerors, on Earth, enjoying its amenities and ransacking its bounty without ever having noticed that it has its own ancient language and customs.

This colonial attitude toward the Earth leads to insanities like our continued collective inaction on climate change, or the idea that it could be solved by a silver bullet solution like injecting sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere — and that this will have no unintended consequences.  Or in the extreme case, the delusion that we could create a livable space for ourselves on another planet (once we wreck this one).  Engineering the climate or terraforming Mars sound easy if you are completely unaware of the intrinsic timescales of geological and biological phenomena, the deep evolutionary pathways that gave rise to the world we live in, the intricately choreographed, behind-the-scenes biogeochemical cycles – the housekeeping crew — that make Earth habitable.

We are naïve and impetuous. Earth is old and patient. It has seen good times and bad, hosted biospheres through mass extinctions and evolutionary radiations, reshuffled its continents in countless configurations, constructed and dismantled mountains many times over.  Whether we like it or not, our long-term plans must conform to its long-established practices.  We can alter and accelerate some of these, temporarily, but nature will take notice and take action.  That is, the scenery is going to start directing the play.

We imperil ourselves both physically and psychologically if we don’t bring our conceptions of time in line with nature’s rhythms.  Environmental malefactions and existential malaise are both rooted in a distorted view of humanity’s place in the history of the natural world. 

The solution is to tell different stories about who we are as Earthlings.  That’s all it will take – nothing more than a simple cultural revolution.

Marcia Bjornerud is professor of geology and environmental studies at Lawrence University. She is the author of Timefulness: How Thinking Like a Geologist Can Help Change the World,  Reading the Rocks: The Autobiography of the Earth, and a contributing writer for Elements, the New Yorker’s science and technology blog. She lives in Appleton, Wisconsin.

Beating climate change: Taking action and accepting hard realities

Mark Serreze

Mitigating climate change promises to be a defining battle of the 21st century.  Climate change has already taken hold across the planet. In the Arctic, it is already leading to a radically new environment, with the impacts of rapid warming and shrinking sea ice cascading through the food chain. As a climate scientist who has spent 35 years studying the north, I’ve had a front row seat to watch it all unfold.  Can we beat climate change and maintain a livable planet?   We can, but we must take a long-term view, and accept some hard realities.    

SerrezeCarbon dioxide has a long residence time in the atmosphere, so even if emissions were quickly reduced, much of what we’ve added still will be up there for the foreseeable future.  We are making strong inroads in transitioning to renewable energy sources, notably solar and wind, and have become more efficient in how we use energy.  But for many years to come, we will still be largely dependent on fossil fuels, and greenhouse gas levels will continue to rise.   

It also takes quite a while for the climate to adjust to a change in greenhouse gas levels, mostly because of the immense thermal inertia of the oceans.  The planet has yet to come into balance with the greenhouse gases we’ve already put in the atmosphere – there is heat “in the pipeline”.  Similarly, it will take time for the planet to cool in response to a reduction in carbon dioxide levels.  Simply put, we can’t simply stop climate change in its tracks.

Where does this leave us?  First, stop the blame game and accept where we are.  We have built a modern global society around the immense amount of energy in a lump of coal and a barrel of crude oil.   What we didn’t realize, or perhaps chose not to realize, is that it was a trap.  We need to move on.   Second, prepare to adapt to a warmer world.  It promises to be a rough road, and climate change will have the biggest impacts on those in less developed parts of the world that are least responsible for causing it (and are justified in pointing fingers).  I believe that the planet will manage, provided that we can get a handle on limiting the amount of warming but we have to act quickly – the window of opportunity is closing.

We need to further develop renewables and increase efficiency but also be pragmatic as we transition.  We must to be willing to make honest assessments of the risks and benefits of all energy sources.  As we mobilize against climate change, we must be prepared to be in it for the long haul, and understand that when it comes to powering our future, nothing comes for free. 

Mark C. Serreze is director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, professor of geography, and a fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He is the coauthor of Brave New Arctic and The Arctic Climate System. He lives in Boulder, Colorado.

      

InDialogue with Eelco Rohling and Sean Fleming: Earth’s changing bodies of water

Earth’s bodies of water have gone through considerable changes over time—can these changes tell us anything about climate change—and the future?

Earth’s History and the Oceans

Eelco J. Rohling

Earth’s bodies of water have gone through considerable changes over time—over a lot of time. We have clear geological signs that rivers and lakes have been around for at least 4,400 million years. It never ceases to amaze me that, within 140 million years of its red-hot formation, Earth’s surface had cooled down sufficiently for it to hold fluid water. Then, starting from about 4,000 million years ago, oceans of some shape and form have been around.

Within those ancient bodies of water, life evolved. The earliest signs of life date back to 3,700 million years ago. Then followed a long wait until the first complex life-forms appeared, at around 650 to 700 million years ago. Carbonate coral and shell-reefs became important in shallow waters from about 550 million years ago; many reef systems were formed ever since. And then another major transition took place as late as 125 to 150 million years ago, when carbonate-shelled micro-organisms evolved that rapidly occupied open-ocean surface waters across the world. These organisms are responsible for the formation of geological deposits like the striking white (chalk) cliffs of Dover. Their appearance heralded the start of a fully modern style of operation of the carbon cycle, which includes also atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.

Throughout the long history of Earth and its oceans, the carbon cycle and climate changes have been intimately linked. Water is a fantastic substance for absorbing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, and the presence of major bodies of water therefore puts a strong check on greenhouse gas (especially carbon dioxide) concentrations in the atmosphere. Life in the oceans in turn affects the carbon cycle because it involves interaction between dissolved carbon dioxide and both organic matter and carbonate skeletal parts that get (partially) buried and preserved as sediments.

Many ocean sediments eventually get transported into Earth’s hot mantle in subduction zones (think of the Pacific ‘ring of fire,’ where oceanic crust is thrust underneath continental crust). Heating and chemical reactions cause vapour and gas releases, which vent out via volcanoes.  This drives up carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and in the oceans. The oceanic part goes directly back into the oceanic carbon cycle. The atmospheric part gets involved in rock weathering on land. This consumes carbon dioxide and releases breakdown products (ions) that flow via rivers back to the oceans, where they help new carbonate formation.

It seems a perfect circle, but it isn’t. There are periods of tiny net carbon dioxide losses or gains. You would not be able to measure these from year to year, but over the multi-million-year timescales of Earth history, they add up to large atmospheric carbon dioxide variations. When this goes up, it gets warmer and weathering increases, which then slowly draws down more carbon dioxide (and vice versa). This way, Earth, with the oceans in a central role, regulates the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels under natural circumstances. It still allows for long, warm periods like the time of the dinosaurs, and excessively cold periods like ice ages or—worse—the exceptional Snowball Earth periods of about 700 million years ago. But overall, the intricately inter-linked long-term carbon cycle processes have held Earth within a ‘habitable’ climate range. Everything changed all the time (and sometimes a lot), but the pace of change was always very slow.

Enter humanity, and our fossil-fuel addiction. We have increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in an important manner since the start of the industrial revolution, and especially in the last 60 years. We’re not pushing the actual levels beyond the envelope of where they have been in the natural past—not by a long shot, because we’ve gone from 275 to 410 parts per million, while natural variations have been much greater than that. That’s not the worry. The worry is how fast we’re doing it. We’re doing it easily some 30 to 100 times faster than natural processes have ever done it before (even supervolcanoes cannot get close). Even if all natural removal mechanisms were fired up to 100% their known capacity, then they could offset only about one tenth of our annual emissions.

It is clear, then, that we must drastically reduce our emissions. In addition, it is clear that we must rapidly develop and implement major human-assisted processes of carbon drawdown; that is, we must help nature with the clean-up job. This is important first to deal with ongoing residual emissions that are unavoidable (for example, from cement industry or petrochemical manufacturing), and second to draw down a large part of our past emissions. Both new and existing carbon drawdown approaches are desperately needed at large scales to be able to do this. The sheer amount of carbon removal to be done is enormous.

What can we learn from Ocean and Earth history? That we’re ourselves responsible for the current climate change, and that it’s up to us to deal with it. Mother Nature by itself can and will clean up our greenhouse gases, but don’t wait up for it—it will take her several hundred thousands of years even when working flat-out. We urgently need to lend her a helping hand if we want improvement on societally relevant timescales. Doing so will, incidentally, be a major driver for innovation, development, job creation, and growth potential. What an opportunity!

Eelco J. Rohling is author of The Oceans. He is professor of ocean and climate change in the Research School of Earth Sciences at the Australian National University and at the University of Southampton’s National Oceanography Centre Southampton.

 

Global Warming and our Rivers

Sean W. Fleming

A common misconception about climate change and its impacts on environmental and social systems, like our rivers and water resources, is that it’s something that will only happen at some point in the future.  In reality, climate change is happening now.  Not only does climate vary both naturally due to processes like El Niño, and in response to local-scale human activities like urban heat islands, but global anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming has also been going on for generations – and these signals can be directly detected in actual observational datasets! 

FlemingIn fact, doing so is a crucially important part of understanding the reality and broader impacts of climate change.  When people talk about climate change, they often talk about climate models: math and software that simulate the global climate system.  And because climate models are exactly that – detailed representations of climate, but not of everything climate affects – to understand the impacts on water resources, the predictions of those climate models are taken by hydrologists and other scientists and engineers and run through still other models, such as simulations of watershed hydrology, water quality, habitat quantity and quality, or reservoir operations.  All these models are amazing technical feats, and they’re fantastic for isolating the impacts of human-caused global climate change from other sources of environmental variability.  But by necessity, they contain a lot of simplifications.  Rivers are immensely complex systems that integrate the effects of just about everything in their watersheds, from weather and climate, to forests and icefields, to land use changes like forestry and urban sprawl.  It turns out they’re also full of unexpected surprises. 

So, while the physics-based virtual realities of process simulation models are great tests of what we know about the world and are our best bet for making predictions based on that knowledge, they can only contain what we know, not what we don’t know.  In contrast, drawing sophisticated data analytics algorithms from statistics, digital signal processing, information theory, and artificial intelligence, and applying them to actual measurements of climate and the things it affects, provides a valuable “ground truth” – giving direct empirical evidence for the impacts of climate change on rivers, and often revealing previously unknown patterns that the next generation of models must then seek to explain and, ultimately, predict.

My favorite example is how mountain glaciers control water resource responses to climate change.  My doctoral studies began in 2001 with a glacier science expedition to the high peaks of the Yukon-Alaska-British Columbia border region.  Hearing summer melt water run deep in the crevasses of Trapridge Glacier and watching white-water streams gushing from its terminus, I decided to focus my research on statistical and machine learning studies of decades-long historical streamflow data in glacial watersheds.  The goal was to understand how these gigantic ice cubes modify the downstream expressions of climate change – specifically, by comparing climate variability and change responses in several glacier-fed rivers to a control population of nearby rivers that didn’t have glaciers in their headwaters. 

We made a few discoveries.  One revelation was that recent global warming affected the net downstream flow of glacial rivers in a completely different way from non-glacial watersheds: glacial rivers grew larger while non-glacial rivers shrank.   It was solid evidence of the present reality of climate change, but at the same time, specific patterns like this were poorly represented, if at all, in environmental models.  With further refinement by many scientists worldwide, this knowledge has since become part of a standard model of how water resources downstream of mountain glaciers – which lie at the heart of the continental “water towers” of the Rockies, Andes, Alps, and Himalayas, in turn feeding the headwaters of the Columbia, Amazon, Danube, Brahmaputra, and Yangtze rivers, among others – are affected by climate change.

Sean W. Fleming is author of Where the River Flows. He has two decades of experience in the private, public, and nonprofit sectors in the United States, Canada, England, and Mexico, ranging from oil exploration to operational river forecasting to glacier science. He holds faculty positions in the geophysical sciences at the University of British Columbia and Oregon State University.

InDialogue with Thomas Seeley and Nick Haddad: Why is insect conservation important?

The PUP Ideas blog is pleased to announce our new InDialogue series. In keeping with our mission to provide a range of perspectives and voices, each month we’ll be posing a big question to a pair of authors. With Earth Day fast approaching, we’ve asked a series of questions to our natural history authors on issues from the central role of oceans to climate science. Today we asked PUP authors Thomas Seeley and Nick Haddad to sound off on why insect conservation is important, and to reflect on the magnitude of the loss of key populations. Watch this space for more Earth Day posts in the coming days.

Being stewards to the bees

Thomas D. Seeley

There is no doubt that humans are now the primary movers and shakers of the natural world.   We are busy tearing down the planet’s forests and, in one way or another, we are appropriating some 40 percent of the solar energy captured by plants.  But we are not self-sufficient.  We depend on what Edward O. Wilson has called “the little things that run the world”:  the insects and other invertebrates, which together form most of the biomass in terrestrial habitats.  If humans were to disappear from the planet, then life on Earth would certainly go on.  Indeed, it would begin to heal itself.  But if insects were to disappear, then our species and countless others would go extinct, because most of the flowering plants—including those that produce the fruits and vegetables we eat—would die out for lack of pollination.   

There is one insect whose pollination services are especially important to us:  the honey bee, Apis mellifera.  This bees’ paramount value to humans was recently quantified in an authoritative, 59-author paper on the contributions of various bee species to crop pollination.  It reports that honey bees provide nearly half of all crop pollination services worldwide.  Remarkably, this one species’ contribution to humanity’s food production nearly equals the combined contributions of the many thousands of other bee species.  Clearly, the conservation of honey bees merits special attention. 

One way we can support Apis mellifera is by conserving forests.  They provide habitat for wild colonies of honey bees, and these colonies are important to their species’ long-term survival.  Recent studies of the population genetics of honey bees in the southern and western states of the U.S. have found that wild colonies—those living on their own in hollow trees and the walls of buildings—have far higher genetic diversity than the managed colonies in these states.  This is because commercial beekeepers typically replace the queens in their colonies every year or so using queens purchased from large-scale queen producers, and these replacement queens are the daughters of a small number of “breeder queens” (ca. 600 for the entire U.S.).  These practices create a genetic bottleneck in the population of managed honey bee colonies within the U.S. 

Other studies have revealed recently that the wild colonies of honey bees—those not living in beekeepers’ hives—possess effective mechanisms of resistance to a species of parasitic mite (Varroa destructor) introduced from east Asia.  The females of this species feed on the adult and immature honey bees.  They also spread a virus that deforms the bees’ wings and destroys their health.   Approximately 40% of the managed colonies in the U.S. die each year from infections of the deformed wing virus.  The wild colonies are also infested with these mites, but they have better survival because they have experienced strong natural selection for mechanisms of resistance to Varroa destructor.   These include chewing the legs off adult mites and destroying cells of bee brood infested with mites.

Besides conserving forests that support populations of wild colonies, we can help Apis mellifera by revising the practices of beekeeping, to find a better balance between the needs of bees and the desires of beekeepers.  Most of the practices of conventional beekeeping—such as encouraging colonies to grow extremely large, and packing them close together in apiaries—boost the productivity of colonies as honey makers and crop pollinators, but also increase their vulnerability to parasites and pathogens, including deadly Varroa destructor.   To conserve Apis mellifera, we must build a new relationship between human beings and honey bees.  We must revise our methods of beekeeping to bring them more in harmony with the honey bee’s natural way of life.  Only then will we be truly responsible stewards of Apis mellifera, our greatest friend among the insects.

Thomas D. Seeley is author of The Lives of Bees. He is the Horace White Professor in Biology at Cornell University. He is the author of Following the Wild BeesHoneybee Democracy, and Honeybee Ecology (all Princeton) as well as The Wisdom of the Hive. He lives in Ithaca, New York.

 

The value of the rarest butterflies

Nick Haddad

When I began writing The Last Butterflies in 2013, I worried that the title was over the top. After all, I was writing about just a handful of the rarest butterflies in the world. The five rarest butterflies number from a few hundred to a few tens of thousands of individuals. Could these be in any way representative of the last butterflies on the earth?

One way they are not representative is in their “value”. Their value might be to ecological systems. However, the earth’s thirty thousand individual Fender’s Blue butterflies might weigh as much as a basketball. These simply cannot be of consequence to interactions with other plants or animals as parts of functioning foodwebs. They are not effective pollinators or herbivores of, or food sources for, other species in their environments. Perhaps their value is in the bigger lessons the understanding of their declines holds for the declines of other butterflies. If so, then knowledge accrued during their decline can provide guidance to avert catastrophic declines of other insects.

Also when I started writing this book, I did not imagine broad implications to other insects that have economic value that can be measured. Data had not yet amassed to support the “insect apocalypse,” a phrase used to refer to catastrophic loss of abundance and diversity of insects. Then in 2014, reports surfaced that Monarchs reached epic low numbers, 97% below their peak two decades earlier. Later that year, a more general survey found declines across butterfly and insect species at the rate of 10% or more per decade. Such broad losses across insects must have substantial cost.

In this context, the rarest butterflies have higher value. Most of what we know about the insect apocalypse is what we know about butterflies. Are the rarest butterflies and Monarchs representative? A chilling picture has emerged. My former student Tyson Wepprich just completed an analysis of butterfly abundances using data collected across Ohio in surveys conducted every week for two decades. He found that butterfly abundances are declining by 2%  / year; abundances are now a third lower than twenty years ago. This is not an isolated case. Tyson reviewed other, decades-long studies in the UK, the Netherlands, and Spain. All of them have found 2%/ year decline in butterfly abundances. It appears that, after all, The Last Butterflies is an appropriate book title.

This rate and magnitude of loss is perhaps the best indicator of the cost of insect decline. Considered together, butterflies are the best known group of the earth’s 5.5 million insects. The less substantial evidence that exists for other insects points in the same downward direction. Like butterflies, those insects are herbivores, prey, and pollinators (and, of course, many are predators). They are exposed to the same levels of habitat loss, pesticides, and climate change. The scale of loss of butterflies, even if it is only partially representative of loss of other insects, will cause catastrophic loss of functioning ecosystems on which we all depend.

Circling back around to the rarest butterflies in the world: what is their value? It is certainly not in their importance within their ecosystem, at least not now. Their decline has generated some value in the sense that is provides some guidance for conservation of other insects, animals, and plants. Their true value, however, is intrinsic; when driven to extinction by global environmental changes, loss of value will be to people, and to the earth.

Nick Haddad is author of The Last Butterflies. He is a professor and senior terrestrial ecologist in the Department of Integrative Biology and the W. K. Kellogg Biological Station at Michigan State University. He lives in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Twitter @nickmhaddad

Princeton University Press and Cornell Lab of Ornithology to Partner

Princeton University Press is proud to announce a new publishing partnership with the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, a world leader in the study, appreciation, and conservation of birds.

Starting with the Autumn 2019 season, Princeton University Press and the Cornell Lab will publish diverse books and other products uniquely designed for everyone from experienced and amateur birders to the environmentally conscious and generally “bird curious.” The partnership will officially launch with the release of two interactive, regional bird-a-day 2020 calendars, and a comprehensive, beautifully illustrated birder’s life list and journal. Cornell Lab of Ornithology books for children will continue to be published by the Cornell Lab Publishing Group, an imprint of WunderMill children’s books.

“We are delighted to be working with Cornell Lab,” says Robert Kirk, Princeton University Press Executive Editor and Publisher of Field Guides and Natural History. “The Lab leads the world in bird-related citizen-science initiatives and is home to an impressive array of experts in many fields. We look forward to harnessing the individual and collective knowledge within the Lab to create innovative books and products that will appeal to birders everywhere.”

John Fitzpatrick, Director of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, says, “The Lab is looking forward to this new publishing partnership to engage ever-growing audiences in learning about and protecting birds and nature.”

A Celebration of Mathematics Editor Vickie Kearn

This month, across the world, we have celebrated the enduring contributions of all women. For those of us at PUP, it is a chance as well to focus on a particularly generous, intelligent, and dynamic publisher, Vickie Kearn. In April, Vickie will retire from the Press after 18 years of synergistic and inspiring collaborations in math and computer science publishing, leaving us with a library of books that have educated and entertained millions, billions, and zillions of readers (borrowing from the title of one of her recent acquisitions).

Vickie has also been a powerful role model for women in STEM publishing, and one who empowered a population of publishers, myself included, and our new math editor Susannah Shoemaker as another. Vickie’s strength as a competitive publisher set the bar dauntingly high, but in that competition was also always an admirable collaboration, knowing that a cohort of us were changing the face of scholarly STEM publishing. It has been such a great privilege to be a colleague of Vickie’s since 2017, to travel to a math meeting with her, to meet incredibly creative authors with whom she has worked, and to learn from her at weekly project meetings. The PUP math list, particularly the popular math list, has grown exponentially and in multiple dimensions under Vickie’s leadership. If there are theorems or rules in math publishing, I would attribute these to Vickie’s rule: be smart, be curious, be generous, and be strong.

–Christie Henry

CH: Some say math is its own language. How did you learn to speak it?

I grew up in Venezuela and the English school only went through the 9th grade, so when I was 15, I went away to boarding school in North Carolina. There were only 125 girls in the whole school and there were two math teachers. One taught the girls who liked math and another taught those who did not like math. My class was very small since fewer of us liked math. Elsie Nunn was my teacher for three years and she made me fall in love with math. Before she taught anything new, she taught us about the person responsible for what we were about to learn. There was always a face behind the numbers, a person who had a family and hobbies. I found I could connect with these people. We had math club every day after school and she always had wonderful stories to tell. When I went to the University of Richmond, I knew I was going to major in math. This led to an unexpected benefit and a bit of a surprise. In the late 1960’s, University of Richmond was a Baptist school, and the classes for the men and women were held on separate sides of a lake. The one exception was that the upper level math classes were on the men’s side. Men and women were only allowed to talk with one another on Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday, but I was able to talk with them every day because we had math class together. The surprise for me was that I was the only female math major. This felt strange at times, but Ms. Nunn had prepared me well and I got along fine with my classmates. The classes were small and we stuck together because unlike many people at UR we were more interested in math and less interested in parties.

CH: How can we continue to empower girls and women in STEM- as authors and publishers?

Based on conversations I have had with other women my age, I have had a very easy time in my career. This could be because I only have an undergraduate degree and did not experience the problems that arise in graduate school and a career as a mathematician. However, I would advise young women to join an organization that focuses on confidence building, like the Girl Scouts. I would also recommend finding a mentor—someone to look up to who can advise about a field that has long been male dominated. After I got my undergraduate degree, I taught school for 8 years, five of them in elementary school and 3 teaching math in junior high school. Most of the elementary teachers were female and the math teachers were both men and women. Although all of my college classmates in my math courses were male, it wasn’t until I went into publishing and attended my first mathematics meeting that I realized how gender specific math was.  I believe that as more women with math PhD degrees publish books and give plenary talks at conferences, the more visible they will be, and in turn, young women majoring in math will feel more a part of the mathematics community. It is critical for publishers to encourage female mathematicians to write scholarly books and ask them to review books under consideration for publication. We need more women who are advising publishers on the decisions we are making about the books we are publishing and not rely only on male scholars to help us make these decisions. Publishers need to ask female scholars to blurb books and endorse scholarly publications. There are many terrific female mathematicians and we need to increase their visibility in the book publishing community.

CH: You have published textbooks, popular math books, graphic works, works of magic, and monographs, all successful. What are the 5 essentials of a great math book?

A great book is not always measured by the number of copies it sells. It is sometimes measured by the impact it makes on a small community of scholars. Did it provide that one missing piece of information that led to the solution of an unsolved problem? Did it inspire a high school student to major in math? Did it turn a “math hater” into someone curious about math? Nevertheless, they all can benefit from some essential advice.

First, I feel that the most essential thing is that the author writes on something that she or he is passionate about. If this is the case, the reader will be engaged and love reading the book. Second, the author needs to clearly define the audience. No book can be for everyone. If the author defines the audience that way, then the book will be for no one. Third, the author needs to write for the audience and keep the mathematical level consistent throughout the book. One problem I have had with authors writing for audiences without an advanced math degree is over and under explaining math concepts. Fourth on my list is authors often introduce terms without defining them or define them by introducing other terms that need elaboration but instead lead to further confusion. Always provide examples that clarify definitions. Finally, if you have included any jokes or explanation marks in your manuscript, please delete them before sending the manuscript to your editor.

CH: What are the 5 math books you would gift to every aspiring female mathematician to learn about the art and science of math? 

Before I reveal my suggestions, I would like to say that I think that the books I have suggested would make anyone want to learn about the art and science of math. They are particularly important to me because they point out the personal relationships that can develop out of the love of a subject. It is so hard for me to select only five because each book one selects to publish is special. Each one has a backstory. Most of my choices are, OF COURSE, Princeton University Press books because they are the ones I know the best and ones I have the time to read. 

My first suggestion is not a book but a wonderful website, MacTutor History of Mathematics. I have spent many hours there and there is a link to Female Mathematicians, which is updated regularly.

The Calculus of Friendship: What a Teacher and a Student Learned about Life while Corresponding about Math by Steven Strogatz (Princeton University Press) is a book about a teacher and a student and their love of calculus as chronicled over thirty years through their letters. As you know by now, my love of math came from my high school math teacher. This author tried to help me find her. Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful. Later, at my 50th high school reunion I found out that she had passed away but it was the act of trying to find her that is illustrative of how tightly knit and wonderful I find the math community to be.

The Housekeeper and the Professor by Yoko Ogawa (Picador) was translated from Japanese. This is a novel about a math professor whose memory, due to an accident, is reset every 80 minutes, his housekeeper, and her young son. It is a wonderful story about how mathematics can bind three very different people.

Mathematics and Art: A Cultural History by Lynn Gamwell (Princeton University Press) covers the history of mathematics through exquisite works of art from antiquity to the present. I believe that learning about the history of mathematics is as important as the mathematics itself because you understand the time and place in which it is set and the math takes on more meaning.

The Seduction of Curves: The Lines of Beauty that Connect Mathematics, Art and the Nude by Allan McRobie (Princeton University Press) connects mathematics with art and engineering. This book focuses on the seven curves that are the basis of the catastrophe theory of mathematician René Thom. It is an accessible discussion of their role in nature, science, engineering, architecture, art, and other areas. Also included are their use in the work of David Hockney, Henry Moore, Anish Kapoor, and the delicate sculptures of Naum Gabo. The final two chapters focus on the collaborative work and friendship of Thom and Salvador Dalí. I searched for a book that could explain the work of René Thom for over twenty years before I found this one so it is pretty special.

CH: If you could invite five historic women mathematicians to join you at a dinner, who would they be, and why?

There are so many wonderful women mathematicians, historical and modern, that it is hard to choose just five. There are also many women who have made terrific contributions to mathematics who do not have advanced math degrees. See the references at the end of this post for additional resources.

At the top of my list would be Olga Taussky-Todd. Early in my career, I had the privilege of working with her on a book and got to know her a bit. I would love to spend more time with her. Not only was she smart, she had a great sense of humor. She made many contributions to the field of linear algebra, as did her husband, John, and we spent many hours talking about results in which, at the time, was one of my favorite topics in math. After Olga died, John gave me the poster from which the photo here was taken.

Emmy Noether is very important to me as I published a biography of her in my first position as an acquiring editor. I learned a lot about her work and would like to know more about her as a person. She has been described by many as the most important woman in the history of math. She developed the theories of rings, fields, and algebras.

Sophie Germain and I share a birthday, so of course I have to have dinner with her. Due to the great opposition against women in mathematics Sophie was not able to have a career in mathematics. Even her parents opposed her. She learned from books in her father’s library, often secretly after everyone was asleep. In spite of this she made many contributions to math such as her work on Fermat’s Last Theorem.

CH: What are five of your favorite mathematical puzzles?

Instead of listing single puzzles, I’ve chosen my favorite puzzles as types or groups. The following are some illustrations.

Word logic puzzles are fascinating and can also drive you crazy. Here is an example from Brain Food:

At a family reunion were the following people: one grandfather, one grandmother, two fathers, two mothers, four children, three grandchildren, one brother, two sisters, two sons, two daughters, one father-in-law, one mother-in-law, and one daughter-in-law. But not as many people attended as it sounds. How many were there, and who were they? Go to Rinkworks.com for more excellent puzzles and the answer to this one. However, you should try to solve it first.

Kakuro is like a crossword puzzle with numbers. Each word” must add up to the number provided in the clue above it or to the left. Words can only use the numbers 1 through 9, and a given number can only be used once in a word. Every kakuro puzzle has one and only one solution and can be solved through logic alone.

Martin Gardner was a master puzzler. If you don’t know who he is, or his puzzles (like cutting the pie, twiddled bolts, and the mutilated chessboard) head over to martin-gardner.org You will be glad you did.

I love playing Yahtzee which is more a game of logic, luck, and chance but always a lot of fun.
Jenga also does not strictly fall into the category of math but a lot of my math friends love playing it and it often appears at math meetings.

CH: how should we best compute the impact of mathematical publishing on the world?

From teaching in rural and inner-city schools for 8 years, I learned that there were so many students and adults who knew nothing about surviving in an increasingly complicated world that depends on a mastery of basic math skills. Over the past 42 years, I have seen the publication of numerous wonderful books for this very audience. These are books coming from university presses, commercial presses and society presses. These are books that have been published for the “math haters” and those who think math is hard. They present math through music and art and in graphic novels, detective stories, and puzzle books. There are ancillary materials posted on websites where readers can manipulate equations and discover new math of their own invention. As the number of books being published continues to increase, more people are clearly reading them. I am finding that there is much more enthusiasm for mathematics than there was four decades ago. There has been an increase in math clubs, math circles are very active, and the Girl Scouts announce many new STEM badges each year. I believe that publishers will continue to produce high quality books from mathematical writers around the world. This includes books that are being translated from one language into another, fostering an understanding of cultural differences through books about mathematics. I take every opportunity I can to tell people about the cool factor of math. If you are reading this post and have not discovered the wonder and empowerment of math, I’d advise you to go find a mathematician or anyone who has and ask them to let you in on the secret.

Additional Resources for inspiring information on women in STEM
MacTutor
Grandma Got STEM
A Mighty Girl

90 Years Ago Today: Einstein’s 50th Birthday

This post is made available by the Einstein Papers Project

Einstein’s fiftieth birthday appears to have been more of a cause for celebration by others than for himself. Having lived under intense scrutiny from the (mostly) adoring public and intrusive journalists for 10 years already, Einstein made valiant efforts to avoid attention from the press on this momentous occasion. He was particularly keen to avoid the hullabaloo ratcheting up for his fiftieth in Berlin. The day before his birthday, a New York Times article, Einstein Flees Berlin to Avoid Being Feted reported that: “To evade all ceremonies and celebrations, he suddenly departed from Berlin last night and left no address. Even his most intimate friends will not know his whereabouts.”

Einstein’s decision allowed him and his family relative respite. While Einstein hid in a countryside retreat, “[t]elegraph messengers, postmen and delivery boys had to wait in line hours today in front of the house No. 5 Haberland Strasse, delivering congratulations and gifts to Albert Einstein on the occasion of his fiftieth birthday today,” according to the March 15 issue of the Jewish Daily Bulletin. Above is one card of the many that Einstein received on and around his birthday; it was made by a pupil at the Jüdische Knabenschule, Hermann Küchler.

After all, an intrepid reporter did find Einstein – in a leafy neighborhood of Berlin called Gatow, half an hour from the city center. A report for avid fans, Einstein Found Hiding on his Birthday, in the March 15 edition of The New York Times provides a gamut of details from the color of his sweater to the menu for his birthday dinner and the array of gifts found on a side table. Happy reading, on this, the 140th anniversary of Einstein’s birth!

03-07-19

Einstein’s 50th will be covered in Volume 16 of The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein. Of the many and various resources we refer to for historical research, the two used for this web post were: The New York Times archive: Times Machine and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency Archive. Access to the Times Machine requires a subscription to The New York Times. The card, item number 30-349, is held at the Albert Einstein Archives at HUJI.

First-Time Author Spotlight: Adom Getachew’s Worldmaking after Empire

Decolonization revolutionized the international order during the twentieth century. Yet standard histories that present the end of colonialism as an inevitable transition from a world of empires to one of nations—a world in which self-determination was synonymous with nation-building—obscure just how radical this change was. Drawing on the political thought of anticolonial intellectuals and statesmen such as Nnamdi Azikiwe, W.E.B Du Bois, George Padmore, Kwame Nkrumah, Eric Williams, Michael Manley, and Julius Nyerere, Adom Getachew’s important new account of decolonization reveals the full extent of their unprecedented ambition to remake not only nations but the world.

In the book you argue that anti-colonial critics and nationalists in Africa and the Caribbean were worldmakers. What do you mean by worldmaking?

I use the term worldmaking in contrast to nation-building in order to highlight the global ambitions of anticolonial nationalism. In the book, I chart three different projects of worldmaking: the institutionalization of a universal right to self-determination, the constitution of regional federation in Africa and the Caribbean, and the effort to create a New International Economic Order. In these worldmaking projects, anticolonial nationalists took the international arena as the central stage for the politics of decolonization. In this context self-determination came to have a domestic and international face. Domestically, self-determination entailed a democratic politics of postcolonial citizenship through which the postcolonial state secured economic development and redistribution. Internationally, self-determination created the external conditions for this domestic politics by transforming conditions of international hierarchy that facilitated dependence and domination. Setting aside the better known story of the domestic politics of anticolonialism, I examine its forgotten international vision.

It’s surprising that nationalists seeking independence and national self-determination pursued these global projects. Why did anticolonial nationalists become worldmakers?

For anticolonial figures like Kwame Nkrumah, Eric Williams, Michael Manley, and Julius Nyerere the end of empire could not be limited to the achievement of national independence because empire itself was a globalizing force. For these anticolonial nationalists, empire had created a modern world, by politically and economically integrating disparate lands and peoples. However, this was always an unequal from of integration that engendered international racial hierarchy and produced dependence and domination. The hierarchical world of empire was not limited to colonies that had not achieved national independence. As I show in the book independent states like Ethiopia and Liberia were also subject to the consequences of unequal integration and racial hierarchy.

Studying the fate of these states, Nkrumah, Williams, Manley and others warned against a decolonization limited to the achievement of national independence. They argued for projects of anticolonial worldmaking that could overcome empire’s world of hierarchy by creating the legal, political, and economic foundations of an egalitarian and domination free international order.

While we often consider nationalism to be illiberal and parochial, I show that attending to the animating role the problem of international hierarchy played in anticolonial thought and excavating the worldmaking projects it inspired reveals the universalism of anticolonial nationalism.

Can you tell us about the research process? What inspired the project, how did you select actors and archives?

I started this project at a graduate student in African-American studies and Political Science at Yale University. I came to the project animated by what I thought were gaps in my two fields. First, studies of black internationalism and Pan-Africanism tended to stop at 1945, suggesting that the postwar period was one where the nation-state triumphed over alternative institutional imaginaries. In relation to this body of work, I wanted to trace the afterlives of black internationalism in the age of decolonization and excavate the forms of internationalism that anticolonial nationalists believe the postcolonial state required. Second, over the last two decades political theorists have turned their attention to the problem of empire tracing the ways in which canonical figures in this history of political thought developed their accounts of sovereignty, liberty, and justice against the backdrop of European imperial expansion. Emerging in the context of the post-2001 resurgence of American empire, this body of work has highlighted the way sin which earlier entanglements between liberalism and empire or domination and international law continue to shape our international order. Yet, political theorists have yet to systematically consider the political actors and movements that articulated the most far-reaching challenges to the world of empire. Worldmaking after Empire is a step in this direction. It traces how in the thirty years after World War II, anticolonial nationalists launched the most ambitious project of remaking the world.

I tell the story of this effort trough a Black Atlantic perspective that centers African and Caribbean anticolonial nationalists as well as their African-American interlocutors. The figures in the study— Nnamdi Azikiwe, W.E.B. Du Bois, Michael Manley, Kwame Nkrumah, Julius Nyerere, George Padmore, and Eric Williams—were worldmakers in part because they had emerged from black international and Pan-African circuits. While empire had created a world of inequality, it also facilitated connections between colonial subjects and created the conditions in which they developed a common language of critique and collectively envisioned a world after empire. In tracing the connections between these figures and in reconstructing their political projects, I traveled to archives in Barbados, Ghana, Switzerland, Trinidad, and the United Kingdom.  

Your book charts both the rise and fall of self-determination. What contributed to the fall and perhaps failure of these projects?

 I argue that we can locate the fall of self-determination in both the internal crisis of anticolonial nationalism and the external challenges to its vision of a world after empire. Internally, authoritarianism, secession, and humanitarian crises called into question the anticolonial insistence that the postcolonial state was the site of an egalitarian politics of citizenship that could accommodate religious, ethnic, and racial pluralism. Critics exploited these internal crises to repudiate anticolonial worldmaking. By the 1970s, North Atlantic intellectuals and statesmen such as Daniel Patrick Moynihan argued that the anticolonial right to self-determination and demand for equality amounted to no more than a hypocritical mobilization of liberal ideals to legitimize illegitimate states. This critique set the stage for a counterrevolution that dejected and displaced the short-lived moment of anticolonial worldmaking. Faced with these internal and external challenges, postcolonial statesman who had boldly called for the a post-imperial world retreated into a minimalist and conservative defense of the postcolonial state against domestic dissent and international critique.

One might say that Worldmaking after Empire is a history of unrealized political projects. Why is it important to recover these histories?

It might be easy for readers to walk away from this book thinking that the anticolonial visions of a world after empire were utopian, unrealistic or otherwise doomed to fail. But my hope is that in recovering these histories we are better able to grasp our present political predicaments and find resources in the past with which we can imagine new futures. We have inherited from the anticolonial worldmakers an incomplete and as yet unrealized project of decolonization. While we take imperialism to be a feature of our past, the world of hierarchy empire created remains with us in the erosion of sovereign equality, the dominance of unrepresentative institutions such as the Security Council, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, the unrestrained power of private corporations, and the rise of American unilateralism. The persistence of international hierarchy demands new efforts at making a world after empire. To be sure we cannot simply recuperate the projects of worldmaking anticolonial nationalists pursued half a century ago. We will have to come up with our own languages for worldmaking, but we might learn anticolonial worldmakers that our efforts will depend on our ability to combine domestic and international transformation.

Adom Getachew is the Neubauer Family Assistant Professor of Political Science and the College at the University of Chicago.

Princeton University Press Partnership with Public Books

Princeton University Press is pleased to announce that we have entered into a nonexclusive partnership with Public Books to reprint an ongoing series of essays containing press-related content to be featured concurrently on our respective sites. Princeton University Press publishes peer-reviewed books that connect authors and readers across spheres of knowledge to advance and enrich the global conversation, and embrace the highest standards of scholarship, inclusivity, and diversity. Public Books unites the best of the university with the openness of the internet. The digital magazine was founded in 2012 by Princeton University Press authors Sharon Marcus, a literature professor, and Caitlin Zaloom, an anthropologist. Their mission was simple: to publish essays and interviews that are erudite without being esoteric and brings scholarly depth to discussions of contemporary art, ideas, and politics.

Public Books began with these precepts: that experts who devote their lives to mastering their subjects need to be heard. That it is desirable for academics to speak to a broader audience, and exciting for readers outside of the academy to debate what scholars have to say. Most importantly, that boundaries between disciplines and ways of knowing deserve to be bridged—and that barriers between the academy and the public deserve to be broken.

Princeton University Press and Public Books share a commitment to bringing scholarly ideas to the world. We look forward to promoting exciting content that speaks to this mission in the Ideas section of our new website, launching later this month. 

Inaugural essays from this partnership can be found here and here. Future contributions will be found in the new Ideas section of our redesigned website, launching soon.

Public Thinker: Issa Kohler-Hausmann on Misdemeanors and Mass Incarceration

Issa-Kohler-Hausmann

This article was originally published by Public Books and is reprinted here with permission.

Thinking in public demands knowledge, eloquence, and courage. In this new interview series, we hear from public scholars about how they found their path and how they communicate to a wide audience.

While most critics of the American criminal justice system condemn mass incarceration, fewer have turned a critical eye to practices that result in punishment other than imprisonment. In Misdemeanorland: Criminal Courts and Social Control in an Age of Broken Windows Policing, Issa Kohler-Hausmann argues that we must understand non-carceral policing and punishment in order to fully appreciate the reach of the American criminal justice system.

She focuses on the rapid expansion of these practices in New York City during the early 1990s, following the introduction of a new policing regime targeting allegedly disorderly conditions throughout the city. While felony cases had outpaced misdemeanor ones in the city’s criminal courts prior to the implementation of this regime, misdemeanors—and especially crimes like possessing marijuana or jumping the subway turnstiles—increased dramatically and far outpaced felonies from the mid-1990s to the present.

This growth in misdemeanor arraignments, Kohler-Hausmann observes, has produced a new model of criminal law administration. Rather than turning on questions of guilt or innocence, the “managerial model” uses criminal records, procedural hassles, and behavioral evaluation to achieve social control over the tens of thousands of people annually ensnared by the city’s misdemeanor courts. These practices disproportionately burden low-income communities of color, but imprisonment or even formal convictions are rare.

Kohler-Hausmann is an associate professor of law and sociology at Yale University. In May, we met at a café near Washington Square Park to discuss her new book, the legacy of Broken Windows policing, and the politics of criminal justice reform. The interview lasted an hour and has been significantly edited for length, clarity, and precision.


Jackson Smith (JS): Most of the infractions adjudicated in “misdemeanorland” are not violent, but violent crime does appear to haunt misdemeanorland. As you note in the book, it is at the core of the Broken Windows theory of policing. Could you speak to how conceptions of violent crime shape misdemeanorland, even if violent crime is not what is being adjudicated there?

Issa Kohler-Hausmann (IK): Haunting is a great way of putting it. Violent crime haunts misdemeanorland in a couple of ways. First, policing is concentrated in spaces with more crime. The police will always say that and they are mostly right. I don’t think that necessarily answers the fairness question, or the justice question, but let’s just say for the sake of argument that this is true. The important thing to remember is that what Broken Windows policing is doing is essentially casting a very, very wide net over those spaces and essentially asking everyone who is hauled in to prove that they are not a bad guy. It feels acceptable to have this vast dragnet, because we essentially think it is fair to put the burden on the people who live in high-crime neighborhoods to prove that they are not high-crime people. This is acceptable because they are black and brown people.

The other point is that people will ask, “Well, isn’t it true that this policing diminished serious crime in New York?” The answer is that nobody knows and certainly nobody knows the magnitude and the extent to which this may be true. You also have to think about the mechanism for reducing crime. Is it by virtue of bringing in a lot of people for misdemeanors? By definition, somebody who is arrested for a misdemeanor is not arrested for a felony. If they stopped you for smoking weed and found a gun on you, your top arrest card would be a felony, not a misdemeanor.

The idea is to arrest a lot of people who might grow up to be serious felons, but the mechanism has always been a little unclear to me. The data that I show in the book is that very few of the people arrested for misdemeanors end up with a violent felony conviction after a number of years. This is unsurprising given that we were arresting 100,000–150,000 people at the height of it—that would be a lot of people who would become serious felons.

JS: The first part of your book outlines how and why misdemeanor arraignments reached those peaks of 100,000–150,000 per year in New York City during the 1990s. You trace what you call the “managerial model” of criminal court adjudication back to the rise of Broken Windows policing, but also to the limits of the due process revolution. What can the rise of mass misdemeanors tell us about the unintended consequences of such policy reforms?

IK: What is interesting about misdemeanorland is that the whole thing was sort of unintended, but there were theoretical tenets that underspinned the Broken Windows policing experiment. First, the theory says that people inherently care about disorder, and they might care about it just as much as—if not more than—serious violent crime. Second, it says that there is a developmental sequence between tolerating low-level disorder and the conditions under which serious street crime and violent crimes flourish. The claim is that if you enforce basic norms of civility, people will not think that they have a license to do very serious things.

But no one seemed to give any thought whatsoever to what would happen if you essentially doubled the volume of human bodies moving through a system that is supposed to do adjudicatory work. This system is charged with using the pretty finicky rules of criminal procedure that were established in the due process revolution. It turns out those processes are costly. They involve using resources and time, and people are always going to look for ways not to use resources and time—especially if they are overburdened.

So it was interesting to me to not see any real forethought as to what might happen or even what should happen to these cases. I have not seen anyone write about people who piss on the sidewalk, jump the turnstile, take candy bars from bodegas, walk into buildings that they are not authorized to walk into, or have small amounts of narcotics or marijuana. The people charged with actually doing something with these cases had to make a series of adjustments. They had to solve a series of problems—basically, what do I do with all these cases when I can’t actually adjudicate them? I can’t actually use the rules of criminal procedure to properly figure out if this person did in fact piss on the sidewalk, jump the turnstile, take the candy bar from the bodega, or push or harm or strangle or threaten to hurt this person. It turns out that instead of figuring out if it happened in the past, they could use a series of tools to try to figure out if they think it is likely to happen again in the future.

JS: That temporal orientation is very interesting to me. The penal law looks backwards, as you note in the book, but the “managerial model” evaluates a defendant’s future behavior. This struck me as consistent with the temporality of policing, which also looks forward to essentially safeguard public order. Did the increase in misdemeanor arrests entail a “police-ification” of the lower criminal courts? To what extent does policing dictate the terms of engagement in misdemeanorland?

IK: This is why I spent extended time in the first part of the book talking about the logic of Broken Windows policing. The “managerial model” was an acceptable solution to the daily problems faced by legal actors, because it was quite contiguous with and complementary to the policing model that generated it. It is an ingenious set of answers for dealing with all those cases in a way that did not create conflict with the organization sending you all those cases. It actually vindicated the very logic of that organization. For example, you are a young black man in a high-crime neighborhood, you are smoking weed, or maybe I just put my hands in your pocket and found weed. I don’t know what you are up to, so I demand that you come into this space and prove to me that you are not up to no good. That logic is entirely consistent with the policing model, as you said.

JS: I want to switch directions now to discuss the role of fees and fines in misdemeanorland, as my own research concerns the role of money in what you call “non-carceral criminal justice encounters.” There is a popular understanding that fees and fines reveal a hidden profit motive. Your research complicates that narrative, however, because the immense volume of misdemeanor arraignments also entails an immense public cost. It costs a lot of money to cast that very wide net. Moreover, the lack of public resources apportioned to misdemeanor courts casts doubt on this idea that fees and fines are purely motivated by profit—the costs appear to outpace any revenue generated. In lieu of a profit motive, what can your concepts of “procedural hassle” and “performance” tell us about the logic of misdemeanor fees and fines? Is there something like an austerity logic operative here, such that defendants and their communities are made to bear the costs and responsibilities for their own punishment?

IK: The symbolic logic of profit might be there, but that doesn’t mean it is effective. It is very important to realize this disconnect. That is not to say that it is not punitive, unfair, and burden-shifting. It is certainly a regressive tax on the poorest communities, because the most heavily policed places are where you are going to find infractions like dogs not wearing a leash and public consumption of alcohol, because it is exactly in those places that you have the most police officers wandering around seeing those things. As we know, there is a hell of a lot of Sauvignon Blanc sipping in Prospect Park and very few summonses being issued there. But I think you are right to question this fiscal motive.

As the name of a great article says, you can’t get blood from a stone.[1.See Alexes Harris, Heather Evans, and Katherine Beckett, “Drawing Blood from Stones: Legal Debt and Social Inequality in the Contemporary United States,” AJS, vol. 115, no. 6 (May 2010).] The number one conviction in New York City for decades has been disorderly conduct. Disorderly conduct entails a mandatory court surcharge of $120. I would be shocked if more than 30 percent can or do pay it. If you refuse to pay and there is a finding that you are willfully refusing to pay, you could be subject to jail time, but usually what happens is that civil judgment is entered and civil judgment basically just ruins people’s credit. What we are essentially doing is ruining the credit of people who are already impoverished. It is a really stupid thing to do, but it is not successfully getting blood from a stone. We are saying, “We’re not going to pay for courts; you have to pay for them.” But we end up entangling people in a web of debt, a web of being out-of-compliance with legal rules and orders. We push you further outside the boundary of civic inclusiveness and make you an outlaw, make you out of compliance, and express that you are not a deserving taker of state services. You are a special type of person that does not even deserve the standard things of the state.

JS: Many of the problems in misdemeanorland that you identify throughout your book stem from the outsized power of prosecutors, so I am curious what you make of the nationwide movement to elect progressive prosecutors in local jurisdictions. Do you see it having any impact on what happens in misdemeanorland?

IK: What I say about prosecutors is a line I read somewhere about it being more power than a bad man should have or a good man should want. Once people are given power they tend to think they are the right ones to have it. Very few people in power think, “You know what, I should have some of my discretion taken from me.”

Take [New York County District Attorney] Cy Vance. Here is a guy who for years had probably the most punitive offer policies in the five boroughs. According to my estimates, you had a higher probability of being convicted and going to jail for turnstile jumping in Manhattan than in any other borough. He is now claiming that he will decline to prosecute those cases, which is great. But he is fighting tooth and nail against discovery reform, which would actually give leverage to the other side. In terms of legal reform, we need to give more leverage points to defense attorneys. Prosecutors who fight against that don’t get to call themselves progressive.

Having said that, does the view of the person in power matter? Of course it matters, so I am happy that there is light on this because, as we know, district attorney races have been largely uncontested.

JS: On that note, what is your appraisal of the broader movement for criminal justice reform?

IK: I am often leery of our newfound alliance with the Right on Crime people. What we have in places like Brownsville is the thoroughly anticipated upshot of hundreds of years of racial injustice and a deeply unequal economic system that actually does not care about people who have been left behind. What we need is a huge investment in fundamentally rupturing intergenerational poverty. That is where we are going to part ways with the Right on Crime people, because it is not going to be cheaper and might even be more expensive. Ultimately, we need a Marshall Plan for the ghetto. We need to be willing to put in massive amounts of resources into addressing the very real social problems in many of the heavily policed spaces.

Crime is a real problem because violence disproportionally affects the most vulnerable communities, mainly low-income and minority communities. Violence is a terrible intergenerational harm, and we need to start by recognizing that. But that is why we need to simultaneously be fighting for distributive justice, a union movement, school reform, and the basic social good. Because those are social controls, they are just the benign ones that we think are good.

 

This article was commissioned by Caitlin Zaloom.

PUP Seminary Co-op Notables for 2018

We’re thrilled and honored to see so many Princeton University Press titles featured as notables for 2018. Thanks to our friends at the Seminary Co-op!

 

Kieran Healy on how to create effective graphics from data

Kieran Healy’s accessible primer, Data Visualization: A Practical Introduction explains what makes some graphs succeed while others fail, how to make high-quality figures from data using powerful and reproducible methods, and how to think about data visualization in an honest and effective way. Check out a few particularly successful examples from Healy:

1. Age distribution of U.S. Representatives, 1945-2019.

This is a “heatmap” of the ages of all U.S. House members, by party. Time runs from left to right, and age from bottom to top. The brighter the area, the more people there are of that age in that year. You can see, for example, the bright streak of Democrats elected in the early 1980s who have remained in the House since then.


2. Age distribution of U.S. Senators, 1945-2018.

The panels show the average ages of all Democratic and Republican Senators, with the colored ribbons covering the range of the 25th to 7th percentiles. The oldest and youngest 5% of Senators are shown by name. You can see Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond outliving everyone.


3. Men and Women in the House of Representatives

 

Every two years, some candidates are elected to Congress for the very first time.

This is the “Freshman Class”. This chart shows the proportion of those first-timers who have been women. The incoming Democratic freshman class has a record number of women in it. 


4. White Guys Named John vs African Americans in Congress

A slightly frivolous way to make a serious point. For most of the past seventy five years, there have been more white men named “John” in Congress than there have been African American representatives.


5. Mean Age of Congressional Members

Congress has been getting older. Many of the young representatives elected in the late 1970s and early 1980s are still in the House.


6. Business & Law in the House of Representatives

When it comes to former occupations, Lawyers and Business people predominate in the House, but there are differences by party, and in addition the predominance of a legal background has declined over the decades.


7. Men and Women elected to Congress

Winning Party by District

In this kind of map, called a cartogram, Congressional Districts are shown by shape. Districts are joined together to approximate the shape of the country while still representing the fact that more densely-populated regions have many more congressional districts than sparsely-populated ones.


8. U.S. Representatives by Race