POLI 630 (1.10.13)
CONTESTATION IN EUROPE
Department of Political Science
UNC at Chapel Hill
Instructor: Dr. Erica E. Edwards
Email: eedwards@email.unc.edu
Ph: (919) 962-6765
Office Hrs : M 4:00-6:00
and by appointment (GEC 3210)
Spring 2013
W 3:00-6:00
Tate Turner Kuralt, Rm 226A
Website: http://www.eedwards.eu/
COURSE OVERVIEW
With the expansion of the European Union’s jurisdictional authority over a range of policy areas, the
introduction of a single currency, EU enlargement, and the negotiation of four successive treaties in less
than two decades, European integration is motoring full speed ahead. But not all citizens are pleased with
the speed or direction in which the European endeavor is moving. There appears to be real potential for
political mobilization against the European project within national political arenas.
This course ties into these latest developments in the European integration process by exploring the
potential for political contestation concerning EU matters in national politics. The aim of this course is to
familiarize students with both the main theoretical approaches and the extensive empirical work dealing with
the effects of European integration on domestic politics. Specifically, we will focus on the impact of the
integration process on political parties and party strategy, electoral campaigns as well as voting behavior in
national elections and EU referenda.
COURSE EXPECTATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
Response Papers
Each student will complete three written critiques of the readings, 5-6 pages (1200-1500 words) each. Each
paper should be distributed to all class members via email by 12:00 pm the Tuesday before class. These
response papers will be the starting point for our discussion each week. The authors will also be expected to
help lead the discussion during their week. Each student will choose one session from each of the following
groups: 3-8, 9-11, and 12-14. To ensure even coverage, we will coordinate response papers during the first
session.
I expect the papers to be analytical response papers, not simply restatements of the main arguments. Rather
than summaries, you should focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the readings, including addressing any
debates between the readings as well as discussing any interesting unanswered research questions raised by
the authors. Do not feel obliged to address each article from the week. Rather, you may want to focus on
one issue or debate and follow it through several pieces. The supplementary readings provide additional
resources for this purpose and you are welcome to incorporate them. For these readings, though, be aware
your classmates will not have read them so a little more summarizing may be in order.
Discussant
Each student will choose one session in Part I or Part II of the course to act as discussant. The discussant
will prepare a 10-15 minute introduction to the topic, incorporating the required (and perhaps supplemental)
readings for the week. The discussant will also gather discussion questions from the class. Based on this
input, the discussant should prepare three topics or questions to help structure the class discussion.
Current Themes & Perspectives Group Assignment
Part III of the course will focus on some of the salient issues that are being contested in Europe. Early in
the semester, we will decide as a class which three topics we are interested in learning more about. Groups
of 2-3 students will then be responsible for finding the readings (3-5 articles/chapters, depending on length)
and leading discussion for the sessions. Groups should submit their reading selections to me two weeks
prior to their assigned session.
Research Design Paper
Each student will write an original research design, between 15-20 pages (3,750-5,000 words). These papers
should look like an empirical journal article or conference paper, with only the actual empirical analysis
missing. The papers should include a research question or puzzle, a short review of the relevant literature,
theoretical arguments and hypotheses, and a proposed method of researching the question (empirical
evidence, methodology, i.e. how you would potentially test these hypotheses etc.). The papers can focus on
any of the literature or questions raised in the class.
Prior to spring break, each student should prepare and circulate a paper proposal similar to what you would
submit for a conference. We will discuss the proposals in class to generate constructive feedback and
directions for research. Based on the proposals, I will select 4-5 papers to be presented at a Mock
Conference held on the day of the final exam session (May 1). Those students not presenting papers will
serve as discussants for a colleague's paper. Presentations are expected to be conference-style, meaning 1015 minutes, preferably with Power-Point. Discussant comments should last between 10-15 minutes. To
facilitate the discussion, the paper drafts will be circulated on April 24.
The final paper is due April 24. Please submit both a hard copy and an electronic copy.
Participation
Active student participation is essential to a successful seminar. As this is a graduate seminar, each
participant will be expected to attend class and be prepared to discuss the assigned readings. You are also
responsible for submitting three weekly discussion questions to the discussant. Your questions should be
emailed to the discussant (cc’d to me) by 12:00 pm the Tuesday before class. You are given one “free”
absence for which I will ask no questions.
Evaluation
Response Papers (3)
Discussant
Current Themes & Perspectives
Group Assignment
Research Design Paper &
Participation in Mock Conference
Class Participation
30%
10%
10%
30%
20%
Required Readings
There are no required texts for this course. Rather, there will be numerous required readings from other
scholarly sources. The titles and page assignments for most of these readings are listed in the schedule
below, though others will be added as the semester progresses. The actual documents will be available on
Sakai. Throughout the semester, I may email or post newspaper articles and other short pieces to all
students. Students are responsible for informing me of any changes to their email address and for checking
their email and Sakai at least once per day from Monday to Friday.
2
Academic Integrity
Students are expected to complete their assignments with due regard to academic integrity. In order to do
so, they should familiarize themselves with the relevant sections of the student honor code
(http://instrument.unc.edu/). By signing all work submitted on paper, or by identifying themselves in work
submitted electronically, students affirm that they neither gave nor received unauthorized aid. Students
found guilty of academic misconduct will, at minimum, be given an F for the assignment and have their
behavior reported to the office of student affairs.
3
LESSON SCHEDULE
Session 1: Introduction to the Course (Jan 9)
No readings this week.
Session 2: Democratic Deficit: Fact or Fiction? (Jan 16)
Response papers: no response papers this week
Required Readings (117 pages)
Dobsom, L. and A. Weale. 2003. “Governance and Legitimacy.” In E. Bomberg and A. Stubb, eds. The European
Union: How Does it Work? pp. 156-73.
Moravcsik, A. 2002. “In Defense of the Democratic Deficit: Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union,’ JCMS,
40(4): 603-24.
Majone, G. 1998. “Europe’s ‘Democratic Deficit’: The Question of Standards.” European Law Journal 4: 5-28.
Follesdal, A. and S. Hix. 2006. “Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and
Moravcsik.” JCMS 44: 533-62.
Hix, S. 2008. What's Wrong with the European Union and How to Fix It. Polity Press: Malden, MA, Chapters 1 & 6.
I. From Consensus to Conflict? Examining the Politicization of EU Matters in
National Politic
Session 3: Citizens - Post-Maastricht Blues? (Jan 23)
Response papers: Emily (discussant)
Required Readings (128 pages)
Hix, S. & B. Høyland. 2011. “Public Opinion.” In S. Hix & B. Høyland. The Political System of the European Union, 3rd ed.
New York: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 105-29.
Gabel, M. 1998. “Public Support for European Integration: An Empirical Test of Five Theories.” Journal of Politics
60(2): 333-54.
Eichenberg, R. C. and R. J. Dalton. 2007. “Post-Maastricht Blues: The Transformation of Citizen Support for
European Integration, 1973-2002.” Acta Politica 42(2/3): 128-52.
Brinegar, A. and S. Jolly. 2005. “Location, Location, Location: National Contextual Factors and Public Support for
European Integration.” European Union Politics 6(2): 155-80.
McLaren, L. 2002. “Public Support for the European Union: Cost-Benefit Analysis or Perceived Cultural Threat?”
Journal of Politics 64.2: 551-66.
4
Rohrschneider, R. and S. White. 2007. “Political Parties, Public Opinion and European Integration in PostCommunist Countries.” European Union Politics 7(1): 141-60.
Supplementary Readings
Brinegar, A., S. Jolly and H. Kitschelt. 2004. “Varieties of Capitalism and Political Divides over European
Integration,” in G. Marks and M. R. Steenbergen, eds. European Integration and Political Conflict. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, pp. 62-89.
Eichenberg, R. and R. Dalton. 1993. “Europeans and the European Community: The Dynamics of Public Support for
European Integration.” International Organization 47(4): 507-34.
Gabel, M. 1998. Interests and Integration. Market Liberalization, Public Opinion, and European Union. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press.
Gabel, M. 1998. “Economic Integration and Mass Politics: Market Liberalization and Public Attitudes in the
European Union.” American Journal of Political Science 42(3): 936-53.
Gabel, M. and C. A. Anderson. 2004. “The Structure of Citizen Attitudes and the European Political Space,” in G.
Marks and M. R. Steenbergen, eds. European Integration and Political Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, pp. 13-31.
Ray, L. 2004. “Don't Rock the Boat: Expectations, Fears, and Opposition to EU-level Policy-Making,” in G. Marks
and M. R. Steenbergen, eds. European Integration and Political Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, pp. 51-61.
Rohrschneider, R. 2002. “The Democracy Deficit and Mass Support for an EU-wide Government.” American Journal of
Political Science 46(2): 463-75.
Rohrschneider, R. and S. White, eds. 2004. “Support for Foreign Ownership and Integration in Eastern Europe.”
Comparative Political Studies 37.3: 313-39.
Scharpf, F. 1999. Crisis and Choice in European Social Democracy. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
Special issue on “What Drives Euroskepticism” European Union Politics 8, 1 (2007).
Special issue on “Understanding Euroscepticism” in Acta Politica 42, 2/3 (2007).
Steenbergen, M. R. and G. Marks. 2004. “Introduction: Models of Political Conflict in the European Union,” in G.
Marks and M. R. Steenbergen, eds. European Integration and Political Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, pp. 1-10.
Tucker, J. A., A. Pacek, A. Berinsky. 2002. “Transitional Winners & Losers: Attitudes Toward EU Membership in
Post-Communist Countries.” American Journal of Political Science 46.3: 557-71.
Session 4: Political Parties – Differences in EU Positioning I (Jan 30)
Response papers: Josh (discussant), Ben (discussant)
Required Readings (119 pages)
Hix, S. 1999. “Dimensions and Alignments in European Union Politics: Cognitive Constraints and Partisan
Responses.” European Journal of Political Research 35(1): 69-106.
Marks, G. and C. Wilson. 2000. “The Past in the Present: A Cleavage Theory of Party Positions on European
Integration.” British Journal of Political Science 30: 433-59.
Hooghe, L., G. Marks and C. J. Wilson .2004. “Does Left/Right Structure Party Positions on European Integration,”
in G. Marks and M. R. Steenbergen, eds. European Integration and Political Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, pp.
120-141.
5
Kriesi, H. et al. 2006. “Globalization and the Transformation of The National Political Space: Six European Countries
Compared,” European Journal of Political Research 45(6): 921-56.
Supplementary Readings
Edwards, E. E. 2009. “Products of their Past? Cleavage Theory and Intra-Party Dissent over European Integration.”
Institut für Höhere Studien (IHS) Political Science Series 118.
Evans, G. 2002. “European Integration, Party Politics and Voting in the 2001 Election.” British Elections & Parties
Review 12: 95-110.
Hix, S. and C. Lord. 1997. Political Parties in the European Union. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Hooghe, L. and G. Marks. 1999. “The Making of a Polity: The Struggle over European Integration,” in H. Kitschelt,
G. Marks, P. Lange and J. Stephens, eds. Continuity and Change in Contemporary Capitalism Cambridge: Cambridge UP,
pp. 70-97.
Jolly, S. K. 2007. “The Europhile Fringe? Regionalist Party Support for European Integration.” European Union Politics
8.1: 109-30.
Lipset, S. M. and S. Rokkan. 1967. “Cleavage structures, party systems and voter alignments: An introduction,” in S.
M. Lipset and S. Rokkan, eds. Party systems and voter alignments: Cross national perspectives New York: Free Press, pp. 164.
Mair, P. 2000. “The Limited Impact of Europe on National Party Systems.” West European Politics 23(4): 27-51.
Marks, G., C. Wilson, and L. Ray. 2002. “National Political Parties and European Integration.” American Journal of
Political Science 46.3: 585-94.
Mattila, M. and T. Raunio. 2006. “Cautious Voters - Supportive Parties. Opinion Congruence between Voters and
Parties on the EU Dimension.” European Union Politics 7(4): 427-49.
Pennings, P. 2002. “The Dimensionality of the EU Policy Space. The European Elections of 1999.” European Union
Politics 3: 59-79.
Taggart, Paul. 1998. “A Touchstone of Dissent: Euroscepticism in Contemporary Western European Party Systems.”
European Journal of Political Research 33.3 (April): 363-88.
Session 5: Political Parties – Differences in EU Positioning II (Feb 6)
Response papers: Megan, Bridget (discussant)
Required Readings (102 pages)
Grzymala-Busse, A. and A. Innes. 2003. “Great Expectations: the EU and Domestic Political Competition in East
Central Europe.” East European Politics and Societies 17(1): 64-73.
Marks, G. L. Hooghe, M. Nelson, and E. E. Edwards. 2006. “Party Competition and European Integration in East
and West: Different Structure, Same Causality.” Comparative Political Studies 39(2): 155-75.
Rohrschneider, R. and S. Whitefield. 2007. “Representation in New Democracies: Party Stances on European
Integration in Post-Communist Eastern Europe.” Journal of Politics 69(4): 1133-1146.
Taggart, P. and A. Szczerbiak. 2004. “Contemporary Euroscepticism in the Systems of the European Union
Candidate States of Central and Eastern Europe.” European Journal of Political Research 43(1): 1-27.
Vachudova, M. & L. Hooghe. 2009. “Postcommunist politics in a magnetic field: How transition and EU accession
structure party competition on European integration.” Comparative European Studies 7(2): 179-212.
6
Supplementary Readings
Kopecky, P. and C. Mudde. 2002. “The Two Sides of Euroskepticism: Party Positions on European Integration in
East Central Europe.” European Union Politics 3(3): 297-326.
Rovny; J. and E. E. Edwards. 2011. “Struggle Over Dimensionality: Party Competition in Western and Eastern
Europe.” East European Politics and Societies, forthcoming 2012.
Vachudova, M. 2009. “Tempered by the EU? Political parties and party systems before and after accession.” European
Journal of Public Policy 15(6): 861-79.
Rohrschneider, R. and S. Whitefield. 2009. “Understanding Cleavages in Party Systems: Issue Position and Issue
Salience in 13 Postcommunist Democracies.” Comparative Political Studies 42(2): 280-313.
Session 6: National and/or European Identity (Feb 13)
Response papers: Johan, Jake (discussant)
Required Readings (104 pages)
Bruter, M. 2003. “Winning Hearts and Minds for Europe: The Impact of News and Symbols on Civic and
Cultural European Identity.” Comparative Political Studies 36(10): 1148-79.
Carey, S. “Undivided Loyalties: Is National Identity and Obstacle to European Integration?” European Union
Politics 3(4): 387-413.
Citrin, J. and Sides, J. 2004. “More than Nationals: How Identity Choice Matters in the New Europe,” in R.
Herrmann, M. Brewer and T. Risse, eds. Transnational Identities: Becoming European in the EU. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield, pp.161-85.
De Vries, C. & E. Edwards. 2009. “Taking Europe to Its Extremes: Extremist Parties and Public
Euroscepticism.” Party Politics 15(1): 5-28.
Supplementary Readings
Diez Médrano, J. 2003. Framing Europe; Attitudes to European Integration in Germany, Spain, and the United
Kingdom. (esp. Ch.2, Ways of Seeing European Integration)
Risse T. 2010. A community of Europeans?: Transnational identities and public spheres. Cornell University Press.
Risse, T. 2001. “A European Identity? Europeanization and the Evolution of Nation-State Identities,” in M.
Green Cowles, J. Caporaso, and T. Risse, eds. Transforming Europe: Europeanization and Domestic Change.
Session 7: Cueing Effects – Political Parties and the Media (Feb 20)
Response papers: Christopher, Ian (discussant)
Required Readings (121 pages)
Hooghe, L. and G. Marks. 2005. “Calculation, Community and Cues.” European Union Politics 6.4: 419-43.
7
Steenbergen, M. R., E. E. Edwards and C. E. de Vries. 2007. “Who's Cueing Whom? Mass-Elite Linkages and the
Future of European Integration.” European Union Politics 8(2): 13-35.
Bruter, M. 2009. “Time Bomb?: The Dynamic Effect of News and Symbols on the Political Identity of European
Citizens.” Comparative Political Studies 42(12): 1498-1536.
De Vreese, C. H. 2007. “A Spiral of Euro-Skepticism: The Media’s Fault?” Acta Politica 42(2/3): 271-86.
Jochen, P. H. A.. Semetko and C. H. De Vreese. 2003. “Politics on Television in Europe: How European Is It?’”
European Union Politics 4 (3): 305-27.
Supplementary Readings
Carrubba, C. J. 2001. “The Electoral Connection in European Union Politics.” Journal of Politics 63.1: 141-58.
Fossum, J. E. and P. Schlesinger, eds. 2007. The European Union and the Public Sphere: A Communicative Space in the
Making? New York: Routledge.
Koopmans, R.. 2007. “Who Inhabits the European Public Sphere? Winners and Losers, Supporters and Opponents in
Europeanised Political Debates.” European Journal of Political Research 46(2): 183-210.
Peter, J., H. A. Semetko, and C. H. de Vreese. 2003. “EU Politics on Television News A Cross-National Comparative
Study.” European Union Politics 4(3): 305-27.
Ray, L.. 2003. “When Parties Matter: The Conditional Influence of Party Positions on Voter Opinions about
European Integration.” Journal of Politics 65.4: 978-94.
Semetko, H. A. and P. M. Valkenburg. 2000. “Framing European politics: a content analysis of press and television
news.” Journal of Communication 50(2): 93-109.
Semetko, H. A., C. H. de Vreese, and J. Peter. 2000. “Europeanised politics - Europeanised media? European
integration and political communication.” West European Politics 23(4): 121-41.
Trenz, H. 2007. “’Quo vadis Europe?’ Quality Newspapers Struggling for European Unity,” in J. E. Fossum and P.
Schlesinger, eds. The European Union and the Public Sphere: A Communicative Space in the Making? New York: Routledge,
pp. 89-109.
Session 8: Interest Groups, Civil Society, and Lobbying (Feb 27) – Guest lecture by Adriana Bunea
Response papers: no response papers this week
Required Readings
TBA
Supplementary Readings
Hix, S. & B. Høyland. 2011. “Interest Representation.” In S. Hix & B. Høyland. The Political System of the European
Union, 3rd ed. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 159-86.
Beyers, J. 2004. “Voice and Access: Political Practices of European Interest Associations.” European Union Politics 5(2):
211-40.
Bouwen, P. 2002. “Corporate Lobbying in the European Union: The Logic of Access.” Journal of European Public Policy
9(3): 365-90.
Bouwen, P. 2007. “Lobbying versus Litigation: Political and Legal Strategies of Interest Representation in the
European Union.” Journal of European Public Policy 14(3): 422-43.
8
Dür, A. 2008. “Interest Groups in the European Union: How Powerful Are They?” West European Politics 31(6): 121230.
Imig, D. 2004. “Contestation in the Streets: European Protest and the Emerging Euro-Polity,” in G. Marks and M. R.
Steenbergen, eds. European Integration and Political Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 216-34.
Mahoney, C. 2004. “The Power of Institutions. State and Interest Group Activity in the European Union.” European
Union Politics 5 (4): 441-66.
Mahoney, C. 2008. Brussels versus the Beltway. Advocacy in the United States and the European Union. Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University Press.
Pollack, M. 1997. “Representing Diverse Interests in EC Policy-making.” Journal of European Public Policy 4(4): 572-90.
Woll, C. 2006. “Lobbying in the European Union: From Sui Generis to a Comparative Perspective.” Journal of European
Public Policy 13 (3): 456-69.
II. Expressing Views on Europe – Elections and Referenda
Session 9: European Parliamentary Elections (March 6)
Response papers: Ian, Bridget, Christopher (discussant)
Required Readings (116 pages)
Marsh, M. and S. Mikhaylov. 2010. “European Parliament Elections and EU Governance.” Living Reviews in EU
Governance 5(4): 1-30.
Hix, S., Noury, A., and G. Roland. 2006. “Dimensions of Politics in the European Parliament.” American Journal of
Political Science 50(2): 494-511.
Schmitt, H. 2005. “The European Parliament Elections of June 2004: Still Second-Order?” West European Politics 28(3):
650-79.
Hobolt, S., J. Spoon, and J. Tilley. 2008. “A Vote Against Europe? Explaining Defection at the 1999 and 2004
European Parliament Elections.” British Journal of Political Science 39: 93-115.
Hix, S. and M. Marsh. 2011. “Second-order effects plus pan-European political swings: An analysis of European
Parliament elections across time.” Electoral Studies 30: 4-15.
Schuck, A. et al. 2011. “Party contestation and Europe on the news agenda: The 2009 European Parliamentary
Elections.” Electoral Studies 30: 41-52.
Supplementary Readings
Special issue on “Democracy in the European Union” in Electoral Studies 30, 2 (2011).
De Vries, C. E., W. van der Brug, M. H. van Egmond, and C. van der Eijk. 2011. “Individual and contextual variation
in EU issue voting: The role of political information.” Electoral Studies, forthcoming.
Farrell, D. and R. Scully. 2005. “Electing the European Parliament: How Uniform are ‘Uniform’ Electoral Systems?”
Journal of Common Market Studies 43: 969-84.
Session 10: National Elections (March 20)
9
Response papers: Josh, Ben Johan (discussant)
Required Readings (125 pages)
Gabel, M. 2000. “European Integration, Voters and National Politics.” West European Politics 23(4): 52–72.
Mair, P. 2000. “The Limited Impact of Europe on National Party Systems.” West European Politics 23(4): 27-51.
Evans, G. 1998. “Euroscepticism and Conservative Electoral Support: How an Asset Became a Liability.” British
Journal of Political Science 28(4): 573–90.
Eijk, C. van der and M. N. Franklin. 2004. “Potential for Contestation on European Matters at National
Elections in Europe,” in G. Marks and M. R. Steenbergen, eds. European Integration and Political Conflict.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 32-50.
De Vries, C. E. 2007. “Sleeping Giant: Fact or Fairytale? How European Integration Affects Vote Choice in
National Elections.” European Union Politics 8(3): 363-85.
De Vries, C. E., E. E. Edwards, and E. R. Tillman. 2011. “Clarity of Responsibility beyond the Pocketbooks: How
Political Institutions Mediate EU Issue Voting.” Comparative Political Studies 44(3): 339-63.
Supplementary Readings
De Vries, C. E. and E. R. Tillman. 2011. “European Union Issue Voting in East and West Europe: The Role of
Political Context.” Comparative European Politics, forthcoming.
Evans, G. 2002. “European Integration, Party Politics and Voting in the 2001 Election,” in L. Bennie, C.
Rallings, J. Tonge and P. Webb, eds. British Elections and Parties Review London: Frank Cass, pp. 95–110.
Tillman, E. R. 2004. “The European Union at the Ballot Box? European Integration and Voting Behavior in the
New Member States.” Comparative Political Studies 37(5): 590–610.
Session 11: Referenda (March 27)
Response papers: Jake, Emily, Megan (discussant)
Required Readings (128 pages)
Franklin; M., C. van der Eijk, and M. Marsh. 1995. “Referendum outcomes and trust in government: Public support
for Europe in the wake of Maastricht.” West European Politics 18(3): 101 - 117
Svensson, P. 2002. “Five Danish referendums on the European Community and European Union: A critical
assessment of the Franklin thesis.” European Journal of Political Research 41(6): 733-50.
Garry, J. et al. 2005. “’Second-Order’ versus ‘Issue Voting’ Effects in EU Referenda: Evidence from the Irish Nice
Treaty Referenda.” European Union Politics 6(2): 201-21.
Hobolt, S. B. 2006. “How Parties Affect Vote Choice in European Integration Referendums.” Party Politics 12(5): 62347.
Ivaldi, G. 2006. “Beyond France's 2005 Referendum on the European Constitutional Treaty: Second-Order Model,
Anti-Establishment Attitudes and the End of the Alternative European Utopia.”West European Politics 29(1): 47–69.
De Vries, C. E. 2009 “The Impact of EU Referenda on National Electoral Politics: The Dutch Case.” West European
Politics 32(1): 142-71.
Supplementary Readings
10
Hobolt, S. B. 2009. Europe in Question: Referendums on European Integration. Oxford University Press.
Hug, S. 2002. Voices of Europe: Citizens, Referendums, and European Integration. New York: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc.
III. Current Themes and Perspectives
Session 12: (April 3)
Students will select readings on a topic of their choice.
Session 13: (April 17)
Students will select readings on a topic of their choice.
Session 14: (April 24)
Students will select readings on a topic of their choice.
**Mock Conference – May 1, 4:00pm**
11