William Paul Simmons

A test of the grapevine: An empirical examination of conspiracy theories among African Americans

This research examines the prevalence of belief in conspiracy theories among African Americans in one Deep South state and identifies the factors related to these beliefs . Overall , there is a surprisingly strong belief in most conspiracy theories involving government . Over 85 % of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that African Americans are harassed by police because of their race and that the criminal justice system is not fair to Blacks . The theories with the least support involved transracial adoption , family planning , and needle - exchange programs as genocide . Through factor analysis , the 11 conspiracy theory questions were combined into conceptual scales . The theories grouped into two distinct factors - malicious intent and benign neglect , with benign theories the more prevalent of the two . Suprisingly , age , gender , and education were not significant in explaining beliefs in malicious intent or benign neglect conspiracy theories . Among the interesting differences between the t...

Human rights law and the marginalized other

This groundbreaking application of contemporary philosophy to human rights law proposes significant innovations for the progressive development of human rights. Drawing on the works of prominent “philosophers of the Other,” including Emmanuel Levinas, Gayatri Chakravorti Spivak, Judith Butler, and, most centrally, Argentine philosopher of liberation Enrique Dussel, this book advances an ethics based on concrete face-to-face relationships with the Marginalized Other. It proposes that this ethics should inspire a human rights law that is grounded in transcendental justice and framed from the perspective of marginalized groups. Such law would continuously deconstruct the original violence found in all human rights treaties and tribunals and promote preferential treatment for the marginalized. It would be especially attentive to such issues as access to justice, voice, representation, agency, and responsibility. This approach differs markedly from more conventional theories of human rights that prioritize the autonomy of the ego, state sovereignty, democracy, and equality.

Culpability, social triage, and structural violence in the aftermath of Katrina

Hurricane Katrina and its effects are often talked about in terms of what has been made visible, as if the hurricane swept through and stripped away our structural blinders along with the levees, revealing social disparities within. Here, we focus instead on whom and what Katrina and its aftermath have rendered invisible. We are concerned with how the seen and the not seen have influenced the ways the purported tabula rasa of New Orleans has been (re)constructed and marked since 2005. We engage with recent debates in political science about power, agency, structure, and culpability, arguing that efforts to prioritize the pursuit of culpability over critique in power analyses, such as the approach advocated by Steven Lukes, risk perpetuating structural violence. We employ the concepts of an ocular ethic and social triage to understand why the storm of the century that was supposed to reveal all has in the end left much concealed, with shocking levels of human devastation unaddressed. Only through careful excavation of the ruins can we begin to comprehend the sedimented inequality and layers of vulnerability that structure violence.

Binational Human Rights: The U.S.-Mexico Experience

When businessman and real estate mogul Donald Trump envisioned making “America great again” he thought politics. So, on 16 June 2015, he launched his bid to become the Republican Party nominee for the presidency of the United States of America by boldly declaring he would build a wall across America’s southwestern border at Mexico’s expense.1 The proposal dismayed critics and attracted backers. Early in the campaign, an August 2015 CNN/ORC International Poll identified that, from a total of 466 surveyed Republican voters, forty-four percent identified Trump far and away as the candidate who they believed could best handle illegal immigration.2 Similarly, a Pew Research survey of 496 registered GOP voters noted thirty-four percent supported Trump as a candidate keen on deporting all illegal immigrants residing in the United States (U.S.).3 Midway into the race, several surveys and Republican presidential state primary and caucus victories foreshadowed Trump’s rise atop the party.4 Ultimately, Trump’s meteoric campaign defeated Hillary Clinton and the Democrats in the 2016 presidential election by winning the Electoral College vote and the White House. President Trump’s plan for a secure America has life.