Academic literature on the topic 'Amy May Stuart'

This is the second of three articles on “Sources of Authority in Education”. All use the work of Amy Gutmann as a heuristic device to describe and explain the prevalence of market-based models of Education Reform in the United States as part of what Pasi Sahlberg terms the Global Education Reform Movement (GERM). This movement is based on neoliberal tenets and encourages the enterance of private business and the adoption of business practices and challenges long standing notions of democratic education. The first article is “Negating Amy Gutmann: Deliberative Democracy, Education and Business Influence” (to be published in Democracy and Education) and the third is “The Odd Malaise of Democratic Education and the Inordinate Influence of Business” (to be published in Policy Futures in Education). My intent is to include them, along with a fourth article, “Profit, Innovation and the Cult of the Entrepreneur: Civics and Economic Citizenship,” as chapters of a proposed volume, Democratic Education and Markets: Segmentation, Privatization and Sources of Authority in Education Reform. The “Negating Amy” article looks primarily at Deliberative Democracy. The present article considers the promise of Egalitarian Democracy and how figures such as Horace Mann, John Dewey, and Gutmann have argued it is based largely on the promise of public education. “The Odd Malaise” article begins by offering some historical background, from the origins of the common school in the 1600s to market emulation models, No Child Left Behind and how this is reflected in a “21st century schools” discourse; it ends by considering and underlying theme: what happens to the Philosophy of Education when Democracy and Capitalism are at odds. The “Profit, Innovation” article then looks at how ideological forces are popularized, considering Ayn Rand’s influence, the concept of Merit, Schumpeter’s concept of ‘creative destruction,’ and the ideal of the entrepreneur as related sources in a changing common sense, pointing out that the commonplace of identifying the innovator and the entrepreneur is misplaced. The present article accordingly begins to question business influence and suggest show we may outline its major features using Amy Gutmann’s work as a heuristic device to interpret business-influenced movements to reform public education. Originally the title was Turning Amy Gutmann on her Head. Consequently it returns to Gutmann’s Democratic Education and its three sources of authority, suggesting that the business community is a fourth source. As such, it is in a contest to supplant the systems of deliberative democracy for which Gutmann advocates. It continues with a consideration of what might be called a partial historical materialist analysis – the growth of inequality in the United States (and other countries) since the 1970s; this correlates with much of the basis for changes in the justifications and substance of Education reform. After casting this question in principal-agent terms, it then looks at both those who sought to create a public will for public education and recent reform movements that have sought to redirect public support from a unified education system and instead advocate a patchwork of charters, vouchers for private schools, on-line education, home schooling, virtual schools and public schools based on market emulation models. Drawing from other theories of education, especially Plato (and the Spartan model), Locke, and John Stuart Mill, it also suggests that it might be instructive to compare Gutmann’s three sources of authority to Abraham Kuyper’s concept of Sphere sovereignty. It concludes that ultimate authority for education is —or should be—, somewhat paradoxically, vested in the adult the child will become, creating practical problems regarding the education of the sovereign that are never fully resolved and which may, in fact, be unresolvable based on rational deliberation. Finally, it looks at one instrument of business, market segmentation, and its importance as a motivating factor for education reform.

Pediatric AML is a heterogeneous disease in which treatment resistance remains an unsolved problem that is responsible for most deaths (Yeung and Radich 2017). Recently we have come to learn that resistance may be driven by mechanisms that extend beyond somatic mutations and DNA methylation changes (Ghasemi et al. 2020; van Galen et al. 2019; Bell et al. 2019). Transcriptional changes within specific primitive and committed cell types in AML tumours, which may be accompanied by alterations in chromatin structure and topology, can also contribute to disease progression (Ghasemi et al. 2020). To study such changes at the single-cell level, we analyzed single-cell RNA-seq (scRNA-seq) and matched scATAC-seq data from primary, remission and/or relapse samples obtained from three pediatric AML patients enrolled in the AAML1031 clinical trial (Alpenc et al. 2016) (Figure 1). Using the 10X Genomics single-cell platforms, we profiled a total of 39,738 cells using scRNA-seq (~4,826 cells per sample, 1,571 genes per cell), and 46,580 cells and 197,128 peaks using scATAC-seq (~6,718 cells per sample, 5,628 unique reads per cell). We then integrated these data types to determine the extent to which these two modalities corroborated and/or complemented each other in analyses of these longitudinally-obtained samples. Cell subpopulations detected in scRNA-seq through Leiden clustering on a k-nearest neighbor graph were generally consistent with recent observations of malignant and normal cell types detected in the bone marrow and peripheral blood compartments (van Galen et al. 2019; Hay et al. 2018). Malignant-like subpopulations at primary and relapse stages exhibited similar levels of cell type diversity along the myeloid lineage. These included hematopoietic stem-like cells, progenitors, granulocyte-monocyte progenitors, monocytes and dendritic cell-like subpopulations. Remission samples appeared to contain normal blood cell types including natural killers (NK), B and T cells, platelets and erythrocytes, consistent with the clearance of blasts. However, we also observed putative malignant-like conventional dendritic cell subpopulations at remission (50% and 16% in the respective samples), noting that these cells displayed increased expression of genes involved in antigen presentation and lysosomal protein processing. To integrate scATAC-seq with scRNA-seq data we performed clustering of transformed and reduced scATAC-seq data through iterative latent semantic indexing (Granja et al. 2020), and aligned cells in scATAC-seq to cells from scRNA-seq data using canonical correlation analysis (Stuart et al. 2019). We observed similar patterns of T cell expansion, presence of monocyte-like populations and NK cells at remission in the scATAC-seq data. However, scRNA-seq subpopulations dominated by malignant-like cells showed variability in mapping to distinctive chromatin states, with a few notable exceptions (Figures 2 and 3). One such exception is a subpopulation in scRNA-seq, found mostly at relapse, marked by high expression of genes involved in proliferation and growth factor-mediated cellular processes such as YBX3 (binds to GM-CSF promoter), CYTL1, and EGFL7 (regulator of vasculogenesis) (Figures 3 and 4). Cells within this subpopulation mapped to two scATAC-seq clusters whose significantly more highly accessible regions were enriched for functional processes such as blood vessel remodeling and neutrophil/granulocyte activation (Figure 4). These observations are consistent with recent evidence that AML tumour cells can activate the immune system to acquire resistance (Melgar et al. 2020). The scRNA-seq subpopulation, however, did not display high expression of myeloid/granulocyte factors such as CD15, ELANE, and MPO (Figure 4), perhaps consistent with the notion that such transcriptional programs may be primed but not yet activated within these malignant cells. We thus evaluated the potential of scATAC-seq to complement scRNA-seq in understanding transcriptional changes within cell types in AML tumours. We observed that normal cell types and specific malignant cell states could occupy distinctive chromatin states. Through integrative analyses, we conclude that scATAC-seq results can add additional information to complement scRNA-seq data, including identifying nascent transcriptional programs that may be poised for activation within malignant cells. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Recurrent isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) 1 mutations are observed in 6-10% of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Ivosidenib (AG-120), a potent, selective, oral, small-molecule inhibitor of the mutant IDH1 (mIDH1) protein, is a promising therapeutic candidate for the treatment of patients with mIDH1 AML. Through inhibition of mIDH1, ivosidenib suppresses the abnormal production of the oncometabolite 2-hydroxyglutarate (2-HG), leading to clinical responses via differentiation of malignant cells. AIM: To report safety and efficacy data from the first-in-human phase 1 study of ivosidenib in patients with mIDH1 advanced hematologic malignancies including relapsed/refractory (R/R) AML (NCT02074839). This is the first report of data from the 4 expansion cohorts, with a total of 258 patients treated on study. METHODS: The ongoing phase 1 study assesses the safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity of ivosidenib in mIDH1 hematologic malignancies. Enrollment was completed on May 8, 2017. During dose escalation, patients received ivosidenib as a single agent orally once daily (QD) or twice daily (BID) in 28-day cycles. The MTD was not reached and 500 mg QD was selected as the recommended dose to be tested in 4 expansion cohorts: R/R AML (Arms 1 and 4, where Arm 1 patients are those with relapse after transplantation, second or later relapse, resistance to initial induction or reinduction treatment, or relapse within 1 year of initial treatment, and Arm 4 patients have R/R AML but are not eligible for Arm 1); untreated AML (Arm 2); and other advanced hematologic malignancies including myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) (Arm 3). Updated safety data will be presented for all patients. Efficacy outcomes will be presented for all R/R AML patients treated at 500 mg QD across the dose escalation and expansion cohorts who received their first dose of ivosidenib at least 6 months prior to the analysis cut-off date of May 12, 2017, as well as for the poorest prognosis Arm 1 subset. Efficacy data for all treated patients from the other expansion cohorts (untreated AML and other advanced hematologic malignancies including MDS) will also be presented. RESULTS: In all, 258 patients (78 in dose escalation, 180 in expansion) were treated with ivosidenib. As of May 12, 2017, 62 of 258 (24%) patients were continuing on treatment. The median duration of exposure to ivosidenib was 3.5 months (range 0.1-33.5). Twenty-two (8.5%) patients discontinued treatment to proceed to allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Treatment was well tolerated; the most common adverse events (AEs) (n=258) of any grade irrespective of causality occurring in ≥20% of patients were diarrhea (33%), leukocytosis (30%), nausea (30%), fatigue (29%), febrile neutropenia (25%), dyspnea (24%), anemia (23%), QT prolongation (23%), peripheral edema (22%), pyrexia (21%), and decreased appetite (20%). The majority of these AEs were grades 1-2 and reported as unrelated to treatment. Differentiation syndrome (DS) was observed in 29 of 258 (11.2%) patients, including grade ≥3 DS in 14 (5.4%); study drug was held owing to DS in 11 patients (4.3%), and no instances of DS led to permanent treatment discontinuation or death. The primary efficacy endpoint for R/R AML is the CR+CRh rate, i.e., the rate of complete remission (CR according to modified IWG 2003 criteria plus CR with partial hematologic recovery, defined as CR except absolute neutrophil count >0.5 × 109/L [500/µL] and platelet count >50 × 109/L [50,000/µL]). Among 125 Arm 1 R/R AML patients receiving ivosidenib 500 mg QD across dose escalation and expansion who received their first dose at least 6 months prior to the analysis cutoff date, the CR+CRh rate was 30.4% (95% CI 22.5%, 39.3%), including CR in 27 (21.6%) and CRh in 11 (8.8%) patients. Median duration of CR+CRh was 8.2 months (95% CI 5.5, 12.0), and duration of CR was 9.3 months (95% CI 5.6, 18.3). The overall response rate (CR+CRi/CRp+PR+MLFS) was 41.6% (95% CI 32.9%, 50.8%) (52/125 patients). CONCLUSION: Ivosidenib monotherapy is well tolerated in patients with mIDH1 AML and other advanced hematologic malignancies. In a high-risk, molecularly defined R/R AML patient population with unmet medical need, ivosidenib induced durable remissions and improved patient outcomes. These findings support the role of ivosidenib as an effective, oral, targeted treatment for patients with mIDH1 AML. Disclosures DiNardo: Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. De Botton: Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Stein: GSK: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Constellation Pharma: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Travel expenses; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Roboz: AbbVie, Agios, Amgen, Amphivena, Array Biopharma Inc., Astex, AstraZeneca, Celator, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, CTI BioPharma, Genoptix, Immune Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Juno, MedImmune, MEI Pharma, Novartis, Onconova, Pfizer, Roche Pharmace: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding. Mims: Novartis: Honoraria. Pollyea: Takeda, Ariad, Alexion, Celgene, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, Gilead, Jazz, Servier, Curis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios, Pfizer: Research Funding. Altman: Syros: Consultancy; NCCN: Other: Educational speaker; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Ceplene: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; ASH: Other: Educational speaker. Collins: Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Arog: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Mannis: Curis: Honoraria; Juno: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria. Uy: GlycoMimetics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel Suppport; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy. Fathi: Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medimmune: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stein: Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Stemline: Consultancy. Erba: Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Scientific Steering Committee , Speakers Bureau; Incyte: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; MacroGen: Consultancy; Ono: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; Agios: Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; Juno: Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; Astellas: Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; Celator: Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: all research support paid to University of Alabama, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee. Traer: ImmunoGen: Consultancy; Tolero: Consultancy; Notable Labs: Equity Ownership. Stuart: Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Agios: Research Funding; Celator/Jazz: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; ONO: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Cantex: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding. Arellano: Cephalon Oncology: Research Funding. Sekeres: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yen: Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kapsalis: Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu: Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Goldwasser: Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Agresta: Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Attar: Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stone: Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Fuji Film: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Arog: Consultancy; Ono: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Sumitomo: Consultancy. Kantarjian: ARIAD: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Delta-Fly Pharma: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: CPX-351 (United States: Vyxeos ®; Europe: Vyxeos ® Liposomal), a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of daunorubicin and cytarabine in a synergistic 1:5 molar ratio, is approved for the treatment of newly diagnosed therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes in adults and pediatric patients aged ≥1 year in the United States and in adults in the European Union. In a phase 3 study in adults aged 60 to 75 years with newly diagnosed high-risk/secondary AML who were eligible for intensive chemotherapy (IC), after 5 years of follow-up CPX-351 significantly improved median overall survival versus conventional 7+3 cytarabine/daunorubicin, with a comparable safety profile. Venetoclax (VEN; BCL-2 inhibitor) + low-dose cytarabine has demonstrated efficacy in unfit patients with AML, and preclinical data support a rationale for combining CPX-351 + VEN. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of lower-dose CPX-351 + VEN in adults with newly diagnosed AML who are considered unfit to receive IC. Methods: This is an ongoing, open-label, multicenter, phase 1b study (NCT04038437) to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and evaluate the safety and efficacy of lower-dose CPX-351 + VEN in adults with newly diagnosed AML who are considered unfit to receive IC. The dose-exploration phase (3+3 design; n ≤24) evaluated multiple dose levels of CPX-351 on Days 1 and 3 + VEN 400 mg on Days 2 to 21 of each cycle to determine the RP2D. Patients who achieve at least partial remission after 1 or 2 cycles may receive up to 4 similar cycles of CPX-351 + VEN. During the expansion phase, 20 additional patients will receive CPX-351 + VEN at the RP2D. Patients are assessed for response by morphology and measurable residual disease (MRD) testing and are monitored for safety and survival. Results: This preliminary analysis includes data from 14 enrolled patients. Patients were considered unfit for IC based on age ≥75 years (n = 7 [50%]) or health (aged 18 to 74 years with an EGOC performance status of 2 or 3 [n = 3 (21%)] and/or comorbidities [n = 5 (36%]). Overall, 50% of the patients had poor-risk cytogenetics, 64% were male, 71% had a diagnosis of de novo AML, and 29% had mutated TP53 (Table 1). Four patients received dose level 1 (CPX-351 20 units/m 2 [daunorubicin 8.8 mg/m 2 + cytarabine 20 mg/m 2] + VEN), with no dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) observed in the 3 evaluable patients. Seven patients were subsequently enrolled in dose level 2 (CPX-351 40 units/m 2 [daunorubicin 17.6 mg/m 2 + cytarabine 40 mg/m 2] + VEN), with 6 patients evaluable for DLTs. At dose level 2, 1 patient experienced 2 DLTs (grade 3 tumor lysis syndrome and liver injury); review of the overall safety profile led to a protocol amendment that permitted de-escalation to dose level 1b (CPX-351 30 units/m 2 [daunorubicin 13.2 mg/m 2 + cytarabine 30 mg/m 2] + VEN). Three patients received dose level 1b with no DLTs and a safety profile comparable to dose level 1. Together, these data established dose level 1b as the RP2D. The most common nonhematologic treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were gastrointestinal events and peripheral edema (Table 2). The majority (86%) of patients experienced a grade ≥3 TEAE, primarily myelosuppression; the only nonhematologic grade ≥3 TEAE in >10% of patients was tumor lysis syndrome (14%). No patient experienced early mortality by Day 30; the mortality rate at Day 60 was 7% due to 1 death in the dose level 1 cohort (myocardial infarction considered unrelated to treatment). Among the 12 patients evaluable for efficacy across dose levels, 8 (67%) achieved a best response of complete remission (CR): 3/4 (75%) in dose level 1, 3/5 (60%) in dose level 2, and 2/3 (67%) in dose level 1b. All patients who achieved a best response of CR entered into either CR or CR with incomplete neutrophil or platelet recovery after the first treatment cycle. Confirmation of MRD status is currently ongoing. Conclusions: Preliminary results from this ongoing phase 1b study established a RP2D of CPX-351 30 units/m 2 on Days 1 and 3 + VEN 400 mg on Days 2 to 21 in adults with newly diagnosed AML who were considered unfit to receive IC. The combination of lower-dose CPX-351 + VEN was generally well tolerated and demonstrated promising initial efficacy, with achievement of CR in the majority of patients. This study is ongoing and enrolling 20 additional patients to further evaluate the RP2D. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Uy: Novartis: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Astellas: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy. Pullarkat: AbbVie, Amgen, Genentech, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, and Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen, Dova, and Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Baratam: Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Stuart: Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel Support; Agios, Astellas Pharma, Bayer AG, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Ono Pharmaceuticals, and Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Faderl: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Chandrasekaran: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wang: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Chakravarthy: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Cheung: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Lin: AbbVie, Aptevo Therapeutics, Astellas Pharma, Bio-Path Holdings, Celgene, Celyad, Genentech-Roche, Gilead Sciences, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Prescient Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Tolero, Trovagene: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: combination of CPX-351 [Vyxeos] and venetoclax in adults with previously untreated AML

‘It is I think the most radical Book that has been written in these late centuries . . . and will give pleasure and displeasure, one may expect, to almost all classes of persons.’ Carlyle Thomas Carlyle's history of the French Revolution opens with the death of Louis XV in 1774 and ends with Napoleon suppressing the insurrection of the 13th Vendémaire. Both in Its form and content, the work was intended as a revolt against history writing itself, with Carlyle exploding the eighteenth-century conventions of dignified gentlemanly discourse. Immersing himself in his French sources with unprecedented imaginative and intellectual engagement, he recreates the upheaval in a language that evokes the chaotic atmosphere of the events. In the French Revolution Carlyle achieves the most vivid historical reconstruction of the crisis of his, or any other, age. This new edition offers an authoritative text, a comprehensive record of Carlyle's French, English, and German sources, a select bibliography of editions, related writings, and critical studies, chronologies of both Thomas Carlyle and the French Revolution, and a new and full index. In addition, Carlyle)s work is placed in the context of both British and European history and writing, and linked to a variety of major figures, including Edward Gibbon, Friedrich Nietzsche, George Eliot, John Stuart Mill, Hegel, and R. G. Collingwood.

John Stuart Mill is a liberal icon, widely praised in particular for his stirring defense of freedom of speech. A neo-Millian theory of free speech is outlined and contrasted in important respects with what Frederick Schauer calls “the free speech ideology” that surrounds the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and with Schauer’s own “pre-legal” theory of free speech. Mill cannot reasonably be interpreted to defend free speech absolutism if speech is understood broadly to include all expressive conduct. Rather, he is best interpreted as defending an expedient policy of laissez-faire with exceptions, where four types of expression are distinguished, three of which (labeled Types B, C, and D) are public or other-regarding, whereas the fourth (labeled Type A) is private or self-regarding. Types C and D expression are unjust and ought to be suppressed by law and public stigma. They deserve no protection from coercive interference: they are justified exceptions to the policy of letting speakers alone. Consistently with this, a moral right to freedom of speech gives absolute protection to Type B public expression, which is “almost” self-regarding. Type A private expression also receives absolute protection, but it is truly self-regarding conduct and therefore covered by the moral right of absolute self-regarding liberty identified by Mill in On Liberty. There is no need for a distinct right of freedom of expression with respect to self-regarding speech. Strictly speaking, then, an expedient laissez-faire policy for public expression leaves the full protection of freedom of private expression to the right of self-regarding liberty.An important application of the neo-Millian theory relates to an unjust form of hate speech that may be described as group libel. By creating, or threatening to create, a social atmosphere in which a targeted group is forced to live with a maliciously false public identity of criminality or subhumanity, such a group libel creates, or significantly risks creating, social conditions in which all individuals associated with the group must give up their liberties of self-regarding conduct and of Type B expression to avoid conflict with prejudiced and belligerent members of society, even though the libel itself does not directly threaten any assignable individual with harm or accuse him or her of any wrongdoing of his or her own. This Millian perspective bolsters arguments such as those offered by Jeremy Waldron for suppressing group libels. America is an outlier among advanced civil societies with respect to the regulation of such unjust hate speech, and its “free speech ideology” ought to be suitably reformed so that group libels are prevented or punished as immoral and unconstitutional.

Ministerial training throughout the nineteenth century was dogged by persistent uncertainties about what Dissenters wanted ministers to do: were they to be preachers or scholars, settled pastors or roving missionaries? Sects and denominations such as the Baptists and Congregationalists invested heavily in the professionalization of ministry, founding, building, and expanding ministerial training colleges whose pompous architecture often expressed their cultural ambitions. That was especially true for the Methodists who had often been wary of a learned ministry, while Presbyterians who had always nursed such a status built an impressive international network of colleges, centred on Princeton Seminary. Among both Methodists and Presbyterians, such institution building could be both bedevilled and eventually stimulated by secessions. Colleges were heavily implicated not just in the supply of domestic ministers but also in foreign mission. Even exceptions to this pattern such as the Quakers who claimed not to have dedicated ministers were tacitly professionalizing training by the end of the century. However, the investment in institutions did not prevent protracted disputes over how academic their training should be. Many very successful Dissenting entrepreneurs, such as Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Thomas Champness, William Booth, and Adoniram Judson Gordon, offered unpretentious vocational training, while in colonies such as Australia there were complaints from Congregationalists and others that the colleges were too high-flying for their requirements. The need to offer a liberal education, which came to include science, as well as systematic theological instruction put strain on the resources of the colleges, a strain that many resolved by farming out the former to secular universities. Many of the controversies generated by theological change among Dissenters centred on colleges because they were disputes about the teaching of biblical criticism and how to resolve the tension between free inquiry and the responsibilities of tutors and students to the wider denomination. Colleges were ill-equipped to accommodate theological change because their heads insisted that theology was a static discipline, central to which was the simple exegesis of Scripture. That generated tensions with their students and caused numerous teachers to be edged out of colleges for heresy, most notoriously Samuel Davidson from Lancashire Independent College and William Robertson Smith from the Aberdeen Free Church College. Nevertheless, even conservatives such as Moses Stuart at Andover had emphasized the importance of keeping one’s exegetical tools up to date, and it became progressively easier in most denominations for college teachers to enjoy intellectual liberty, much as Unitarians had always done. Yet the victory of free inquiry was never complete and pyrrhic in any event as from the end of the century the colleges could not arrest a slow decline in the morale and prospects of Dissenting ministers.

Stuart Hall has inspired, influenced, and often provoked at least two generations of scholars and activists, across Britain and far beyond. He has held distinguished academic positions in both Cultural Studies (a discipline, or discourse, in whose making and remaking he has been a central figure) and Sociology. But his ideas and their impact have not been, and could not be, confined to any disciplinary mould, nor to the academic world alone. He has written on and been a significant and original voice in debates on popular culture, media and the arts, Thatcherism and the future of the Left, Marx and Gramsci, modernism and postmodernism, racial theories and race relations, concepts of diaspora, globalization, ethnicity, identity, and hybridity—and even that is just a near-random selection from among the themes that his work has addressed. His influence may be encountered, his name invoked, among artists and film-makers, especially younger black British ones, as well as academics. Strikingly, in a recent poll seeking to rank the ‘100 Greatest Black Britons’, Hall was the only living intellectual to feature at all prominently (at no. 10) among musicians, sportspeople, and TV personalities. This polymathic presence does not, however, extend to absolute ubiquity: it should be pointed out that the presenter of the once-popular TV show ‘It’s a Knockout’ was an entirely different Stuart Hall. Our Stuart Hall is, on the face of it, very much a ‘public intellectual’. This is a label more familiar in America than in Britain, and one which sometimes seems to mean ‘glib, media-friendly polemicist’. That is clearly not Hall at all, and perhaps the idea of the public intellectual fits him better if it is redefined: not (just) as someone who appears frequently in the public sphere, but as one whose efforts have always been directed towards defending and extending that sphere, its integrity, democracy, and inclusiveness. It is an ethical as well as a political endeavour. Hall’s lifelong adherence to it, no less than the subject-matter and intellectual power of his essay here, makes him an apt choice to open this collection of Oxford Amnesty Lectures.

While his own preference may have been for an engaging book over an exciting ballgame, John Stuart Mill’s distinction in Utilitarianism between higher and lower pleasures offers a useful framework for thinking about contemporary sport. This first became apparent while teaching Utilitarianism to undergraduates, whose interest is often piqued by using Mill’s distinction to rank popular sports such as baseball, football and basketball. This paper explores more seriously the relevance of Mill’s distinction for thinking about sport, focusing specifically on his claims about intellectual complexity and aesthetic value. It finds that while the distinction of higher and lower pleasures does support a hierarchy among sports, it remains problematic to assert that any sport could in fact constitute a genuine higher pleasure.

This chapter discusses how 1626 was to be a dangerous year for those wedded to Elizabeth Stuart's cause. The first casualty was a minor Protestant polemicist and fervent supporter of hers named Thomas Scott. Then the Duke of Brunswick died at Wolfenbüttel; Brunwick's death damaged not only Elizabeth's cause, but also her well-being. Meanwhile, in November, Gabor agreed terms with the Holy Roman Emperor, signing the Peace of Pressburg in December. With Gabor making peace, Elizabeth had lost yet another champion. The chapter then looks at how Buckingham's invasion of the Isle of Rhé started the Franco-Stuart war of 1627–1629. Frederick V and Elizabeth were fully committed to two complementary struggles: regaining the Palatinate and keeping up appearances. Just when nothing seemed to be going right for Frederick and Elizabeth, the good news that the Swedish king's army had landed at Usedom in July of 1630 arrived. Gustavus Adolphus died on the battlefield on November 16, 1632, shortly after the taking of Frankenthal. His death was presumably received with mixed emotions by Elizabeth, as while she may have joined in the general mourning of a lost Protestant champion, his passing must also have seemed timely, not least because of the disrespect that he had accorded her husband and his stance on the Palatinate.

In the freezing winter of 1659–60 an army marched south from Scotland. Under the command of General George Monck, its men made ‘their Beds upon the Ice’ and travelled ‘over Mountains of Snow, to redeem their Countrey’.¹ In England the republican regime that had existed for over a decade since Charles I’s execution was in crisis. Oliver Cromwell, the man who had held the regime together, was dead and his son and successor, Richard, had failed to unite the different political and military groupings who were striving for power. Monck, the regime’s military commander in Scotland, decided to intervene and set out on the long journey to London. Monck’s arrival in the English capital with his soldiers proved pivotal to the republic’s demise and led to the restoration of the Stuart monarchy in May 1660. Monck’s military strength, based on his careful management of his army’s interests, enabled him to bring about a pro-monarchist parliament, who invited the exiled Charles II to return to England as king....

Generally speaking, all societies in history were knowledge societies. However, the modern, conceptualization of the ” knowledge society’ can be traced to John Stuart Mill’s (1831) The Spirit of the Age where social progress was explained through the diffusion of knowledge (intellectual wisdom) and increased opportunities for individual choice arising from industrialization. This was an early indicator foreshadowing the transformation of modern society into a knowledge society. Beginning in the early 20th century, industrialized nations became increasingly reliant on economic investment in the production and distribution of knowledge in training, education, work, research and development (Abramovitz & David, 2000). Also, the importance of knowledge in society became even more pronounced through the advent of specialized areas of science and technology in society. As stated by Stehr (2002), “Contemporary society may be described as a knowledge society based on the extensive penetration of all its spheres of life and institutions by scientific and technological knowledge.”

Generally speaking, all societies in history were knowledge societies. However, the modern, conceptualization of the ” knowledge society’ can be traced to John Stuart Mill’s (1831) The Spirit of the Age where social progress was explained through the diffusion of knowledge (intellectual wisdom) and increased opportunities for individual choice arising from industrialization. This was an early indicator foreshadowing the transformation of modern society into a knowledge society. Beginning in the early 20th century, industrialized nations became increasingly reliant on economic investment in the production and distribution of knowledge in training, education, work, research and development (Abramovitz & David, 2000). Also, the importance of knowledge in society became even more pronounced through the advent of specialized areas of science and technology in society. As stated by Stehr (2002), “Contemporary society may be described as a knowledge society based on the extensive penetration of all its spheres of life and institutions by scientific and technological knowledge.”

Cyberbullying is a growing phenomenon among adolescents, teens, and young adults who either perpetrate and/or are the recipients of harassing and threatening behaviors through the use of technologies such as emails, Internet communities and social networking Web sites, chat rooms, and cell phones. The incidences of cyberbullying have increased predominantly among students who are residents of technologically advanced countries throughout North America, Europe, and Asia (Anderson & Sturm, 2007; Li, 2006). Several studies have shown that as many as 57% of school age students in the U.S. have experienced some types of cyber harassment (Cook, Williams, Guera & Tuthill, 2007; Hinduja & Patchin, 2005; Lenhart, 2007; Li, 2004). However, many schools and teachers may not fully be aware of the increase of cyberbullying and the psycho-emotional and physical problems that arise from both the perpetuation and the receipt of cyberbullying. The purpose of this chapter is to present the characteristics and theoretical frameworks that define and contextualize cyberbullying including the international prevalence and related statistics, backgrounds and profiles of perpetrators, and adults’ roles (Campbell, 2005; Cook, et al., 2007; Kennedy, 2005; Lenhart, 2007; Willard, 2005). This chapter will also provide educators and parents with prevention and intervention strategies to address cyberbullying among youth. Useful Web resources and additional readings are listed as well.

In the 1990s, stalking emerged as a new category of criminal offense and a distinct type of disordered behavior. A substantial fraction of stalkers suffer from delusional disorders or other severe mental illnesses, and many persons charged criminally with stalking adduce irrational beliefs to explain and justify their conduct. Such beliefs pose special challenges for mental health professionals who assess or help restore an accused stalker’s competence to stand trial, or who evaluate an accused stalker’s criminal responsibility. This chapter explores the clinical and forensic problems that arise when severe psychiatric symptoms—in particular, disruptions in reality testing (e.g., erotomanic delusions)—affect legal determinations concerning competence to stand trial, mens rea, and insanity. The term “stalking” unites under a single rubric behavioral patterns that until recently might have been regarded variously as manifestations of erotomanic delusions (Esquirol, 1845/1976), harassment (Jason, Reicher, Easton, Neal, & Wilson, 1984), or quaint expressions of courtly love (Singer, 1987). Beginning in the early 1990s, a confluence of social trends and news events—including heightened fears of stranger violence, increasing fragility of interpersonal relationships, and the stalking and murder of actress Rebecca Shaeffer—led the English-speaking world to construe stalking as a major mental health problem and a new category of criminal offense (Mullen, Pathé, & Purcell, 2001a). In turn, the existence of stalking as a distinct offense led to increased public recognition of the problem and, in some jurisdictions, to the filing of an unexpectedly large number of criminal stalking charges (Nadkarni & Grubin, 2000). The acts that constitute stalking bear a superficial similarity to common (if annoying) behaviors in which “normal” people engage and that may have roots in human evolution (Brüne, 2003). Familiar examples include awkward attempts to start a dating relationship, persistent and insistent requests for attention or services, and unwanted pursuit by a former lover who hopes to rekindle a relationship (Mullen, Pathé, Purcell, & Stuart, 1999; Mullen et al., 2001a). By contrast, the types of persistent stalking toward which antistalking laws are directed involve approaches and intrusions repeated over weeks, months, or even years, in which the victim reasonably experiences fear and psychological distress.

During the 1880s a number of Oxford students took an interest in political economy, many of whom as students of history developed what has come to be seen as a ‘historical economics’ distinct from the kind of economics fostered in Cambridge by Alfred Marshall. Prominent among these was William Ashley, and also Arnold Toynbee, whose posthumous Lectures on the Industrial Revolution for the first time linked early nineteenth-century political economy directly to the idea of an ‘industrial revolution’, and interpreting British historical experience in these terms. Ashley had attended Toynbee’s lectures in Oxford and then co-edited them into the book; this chapter examines the kind of arguments that Toynbee put forward in the light of Ashley’s own early writings, and his teaching in Toronto and Harvard, where he was founding Professor of Economic History. Detailed examination of Toynbee’s text suggests that Ashley had a larger role in shaping it than hitherto realised, and this insight is then employed to make sense of Ashley’s subsequent ambivalence about contemporary economics, and his occasional disparagement of any economic reasoning that moved beyond the work of John Stuart Mill’s Principles of Political Economy (1848).

IN 1869, CHARLES KINGSLEY wrote a review of John Stuart Mill’s The Subjection of Women for Macmillan’s Magazine, praising its message about women’s fitness for participation in the political realm. He notes, ‘What women have done for the social reforms of the last forty years is known, or ought to be known, to all…. Who will say that Mrs Fry, or Miss Nightingale, or Miss Burdett Coutts, is not as fit to demand pledges of a candidate and the hustings on important social questions as any male elector?’ (Oct 1869: 558). In this way, he provided support for Mill’s argument in favour of women’s enfranchisement while at the same drawing attention to their ongoing influence in discussions of social and political questions – as recounted in and facilitated by the periodical press. Indeed, by 1869 women had been contributing to political discourse for many years, due largely to the convention of anonymity in most periodicals and newspapers. Hidden behind the ‘editorial we,’ women journalists did not have to write from gendered subject positions. The rapid expansion of the press during the same period, facilitated by advances in printing technology and reductions in the taxes on print, provided women with increased opportunities to enter the profession and contribute to political debates....