Posts

Posted on

Reason and Rationality Program at Princeton Summer 2027

Peter and team with Reason and Rationality are hosting another program for rising freshmen through recent high school graduates summer 2027, and they’d like to invite Ethics Bowl participants to apply. From the program’s FAQ, why do R&R rather than another soccer camp?

“We are designed from the ground up for joyful, authentic inquiry. Our classes are concentrated dives into the most important ideas — from justice and democracy to game theory and the nature of consciousness — led by Ph.D. students and graduates from top philosophy programs. Our faculty don’t vanish after class; you’ll find them in the lounge at midnight still debating with students. The result is a rare atmosphere where sharp reasoning, open-minded dialogue, and genuine friendships thrive. To make it all work, Reason & Rationality instructors are picked from the most dynamic and energetic young scholars who love connecting with their younger peers and audiences.”

Check out the promo video and review the website. It’s not for everyone, but the program seems very much aligned with Ethics Bowl, and Peter’s team also hosts an annual Ethics Bowl seminar and scrimmage for nearby students, so they’re friends of the movement for sure.

Posted on

Generous Review of Ethics Bowl to the Rescue by EB OG Karen Mizell

I’m honored to share the attached glowing review of Ethics Bowl to the Rescue! Saving Democracy by Transforming Debate from Ethics Bowl founding mother, Karen Mizell. Recently published in the journal of Precollege Philosophy and Public Practice, Karen is way too kind. But I shall not complain! Thanks so much, Karen, and for any readers of the blog who’d like a review copy, just shoot me an email and confirm where to send it (click Resources above for the address). Cheers, Matt

Posted on

Share Your Perspective in New Ethics Bowl Study

Earlier this week I spoke with John Haugland, the student credited with bringing Ethics Bowl to South Texas College. He’s working on a capstone project studying Ethics Bowl – why new recruits are attracted to it and ways existing Bowlers have benefited.

Context and links to the surveys are below. Please take a few minutes and complete whichever applies to you! There are two for high schoolers and two for college Bowlers. And thanks to John for taking the time – empirical info on how Ethics Bowl can better attract new recruits and tout benefits cited by veteran participants is definitely welcome. Plus, John agreed to provide an analysis of the results here at EthicsBowl.org when the project is complete. Looking forward to sharing soon, and special thanks to John’s faculty advisor, Sociology professor Jenny Chamberlain!

From Student John Haugland: 

Hello,

I am a South Texas College student working on an Ethics Bowl research project, consisting of two surveys, with results due November 13th.

The first is for students who are not currently participating in Ethics Bowl. It attempts to assess their interest in participation in Ethics Bowl. Our Informed Consent statement is at the top of the survey: Interest in Participation Survey for High School Students or for College Students.

The second is for anyone – including students, moderators, coaches, and judges – who HAS participated in Ethics Bowl, and attempts to assess the improvement of their skills and knowledge in different areas due to participation in Ethics Bowl. Our Informed Consent Statement is at the top of the survey: Assessing Improvement Survey for High School Students or for College Students.

We plan to use these surveys to strengthen the available data about Ethics Bowl. If you would like a copy of the results, or have any further questions, please contact me via email [email Matt via contact info on Resources page and he’ll connect you].

Thank you very much for your time,

John G. Haugland

Posted on

Ethics Bowler Insights from 2026 SEAC Conference

Greg Wright, Michael Andersen and I attended the annual conference of the Society for Ethics Across the Curriculum (SEAC) in Harrisonburg, VA two weekends ago and hosted a panel discussion on – what else – Ethics Bowl! Brought together by Karen Mizell, we covered the ease and usefulness of using Ethics Bowl cases in most any classroom, a faculty development program leveraging Ethics Bowl to teach critical thinking, and strategies for encouraging more sincere collaboration. Audience participation was fantastic, and between our panel and the other sessions we attended, we came away with the following takeaways. 

Matt:

  • The broad appeal and applicability of Ethics Bowl cases to a wide range of disciplines, confirmed by a panel of graduate students from anthropology, computer science, media studies, and biochem who had been leading ethics discussions for their respective departments at the University of Virginia, and who were very receptive to the idea of using Ethics Bowl cases in the future (I was able to share several current and recent cases that spoke directly to their areas of expertise).
  • The value and importance of scrimmaging early and often, reinforced by two highly respected and successful IEB coaches who attended our panel session.
  • Growing encouragement for ethicists to more proactively civilize public discourse – I was so glad to hear of new grants and programs and tools – the reasonable majority is officially awake and mobilizing, and educators in particular can expect to hear more and more about “Integrating Civil Discourse into the Curriculum” or ICDC.

Greg:

  • All institutions of higher education are struggling to find their place in this new generative AI landscape. Departments across campuses encounter the same opportunities and challenges. At least one panel in each session focused on the role ethics education can play in determining future AI policies and practices.
  • The Society for Ethics Across the Curriculum seems to get smaller every year. This is a real shame because attendees are passionate about extending ethics education across all levels of education, from K-12 to graduate school. While the world feels so unsettled right now, ethics education can serve as a guiding star as we navigate the perilous world of generative AI, economic uncertainty, rampant inequality, and global conflicts.

Michael:

  • The most widely discussed topic at this year’s SEAC was the negative impact of students’ overreliance on generative AI to bypass the skill development, knowledge acquisition, and conceptual understanding that philosophy and related courses are intended to foster.  Beyond familiar concerns about plagiarism, intellectual property, environmental costs, and labor displacement, numerous speakers presented recent psychological and neurological research documenting adverse effects on student learning, including diminished autonomy and growing dependence on AI tools for completing assignments, preparing for and participating in seminars, and conducting research.
  • Closely related to these concerns was widespread unease about the growing influence of powerful tech companies and other corporate interests on colleges and universities.  Speakers expressed concern that aligning institutional priorities with corporate objectives is shifting higher education away from its broad educational mission toward the narrower goals of workplace readiness and vocational skill development.  Although vocational preparation has long been part of American higher education, the growing influence of Big Tech on institutional leadership appears to be intensifying this narrowing of what it means to be educated, increasingly privileging measurable vocational outcomes.
  • On a more encouraging note, I was pleasantly surprised by the enthusiasm for Ethics Bowl as a model for teaching and exploring contemporary ethical issues.  Our presentation on Ethics Bowl pedagogy (Greg Wright, Matt Deaton, and me) was warmly received by an audience of ethics professors and graduate and undergraduate students.  The response suggested considerable interest in Ethics Bowl as a form of immersive learning that engages students with the complexity and nuance of ethical issues.
  • The extended discussion following our presentation also revealed a strong interest in improving the Ethics Bowl experience, particularly in how we teach and assess substantive engagement with cases rather than merely performative civility or rhetorical polish.  Many audience members were enthusiastic about refining the language of the “Respectful Civil Dialogue” criterion to better capture the Principle of Charity.  One suggested formulation was:

(Version A)  “Did the tone and substance of the team’s interactions demonstrate respectful, fair-minded engagement with a charitable interpretation of the other team’s ideas, thereby fostering collaborative discussion rather than combative debate?”

OR  (Version B)  “Did the team’s interactions reflect genuine respect for the other team’s perspective, including a good-faith effort to understand and engage with its ideas in their strongest reasonable form, rather than treating the exchange as a contest to be won?

Which version do you think most accurately and helpfully captures the “Spirit of the Ethics Bowl” and the ideal of collaborative and respectful, civil dialogue?

There was much more, but those are the ideas that stood out most to us. Special thanks to David McGraw of James Madison University for putting so much of it together, and to Ethics Bowl leader Karen Mizell for inspiring our panel discussion!”

Posted on

2026-2027 NHSEB Regionals Case 14: Face Off Study Guide

NHSEB case 14, Face Off, is on movie studios digitizing actors’ likenesses and employing their AI “doubles,” sometimes in perpetuity, sometimes without additional compensation. For a comprehensive overview and analysis plan, check out the study guide from all-star HSEB coach Michael Andersen above.

My own team discussed the case at practice earlier today and thought the issue boiled down primarily to informed consent – that studios need to make the implications of any such agreements painfully clear, but that if actors agreed to the terms, the practice would be generally OK.

At first they thought musical artists’ work might be off limits to avoid more severely deceiving fans, since listeners might assume there’s sincere emotion behind a passionately sung performance as opposed to passionately acted performance. We know movie actors are just playing a role, but maybe singers sing from the heart? However, that difference didn’t withstand scrutiny – many singers don’t write their own music, and in any case can fake anger, heartbreak, fear, etc. in their vocal performance just as an actor might in a physical performance.

Anyway, I like to use multimedia when I can, and stumbled across the below option. It appears to be AI-generated itself – the voice is AI for sure, mispronouncing “Tom Hanks,” of all the easy-to-pronounce celebrity names. Some of the “actors’” emotions depicted seem over-the-top AI as well. But it otherwise does a nice job broaching the issue in an entertaining, concise way, it held my team’s attention, and I recommend it as a complement to the case itself and the links provided by the case writing committee in the footnotes.

Enjoy Coach Michael’s study guide, and if you find a better video option, please share it in a comment (Michael’s study guide includes one!).