Baker Hall 148
Dr. Cavalier was Director of CMU's Center for the Advancement of Applied Ethics and Political Philosophy from 2005-2007 (currently the Center for Ethics and Policy). He is currently Director of the Department’s Program for Deliberative Democracy, which won a 2008 Good Government Award from the Pittsburgh League of Women Voters.
Co-Editor of Ethics in the History of Western Philosophy (St. Martin's/Macmillan, England, 1990), Editor of The Impact of the Internet on Our Moral Lives (SUNY, 2003) and other works in ethics as well as articles in educational computing, Dr. Cavalier is internationally recognized for his work in education and interactive multimedia. He was President of the "International Association for Computing and Philosophy" (2001 - 2004) and Chair of the APA Committee on Philosophy and Computers (2000-2003). Dr. Cavalier has given numerous addresses and keynote speeches here and abroad.
In 1996 Cavalier was designated "Syllabus Scholar" by Syllabus Magazine in recognition of his life long work with educational technologies. In 1999 he received an award for "Innovation Excellence in Teaching, Learning and Technology" at the 10th International Conference on College Teaching and Learning. In 2002 he was recipient of the H&SS Elliott Dunlap Smith Teaching Award and in 2006 he was awarded a Fulbright Senior Specialist Grant in Education. In 2010 he received the prestigious award in “Ethics” from the World Technology Network.
Today Dr. Cavalier’s interests focus on the field of deliberative democracy. He is a PI in projects involving deliberative polling and other forms of democratic dialogue at the local, regional and national level. His recent books are Democracy for Beginners (For Beginners LLC, 2009) and Approaching Deliberative Democracy: Theory and Practice (Carnegie Mellon University Press, 2011).
In 2013 he co-authored, with David Miller from Pitt’s Center for Metropolitan Studies, the Pittsburgh Civic Health Index (National Conference on Citizenship, Washington DC). The report recommends that City government institutionalize the principles and practices of deliberative democracy in its citizen engagement efforts, and these recommendations are currently being implemented through the City’s Planning and Development process.
In the tradition of JS Mill’s Considerations on Representative Government, I explore the ways political institutions can have an effect on the quality of our public discourse and the cultivation of our civic virtues. I embed the discussions of, for example, the concepts of Liberal Equality, Libertarianism, and Communitarianism or topics such as euthanasia and abortion in deliberative forums, where frameworks and detailed examples can play off one another in public argument. This approach has been used at the campus level through a series of Campus Conversations and at the local and regional level through a series of Community Conversations. It is an approach that values the need for foundational thought and normative principles, but also appreciates the need for housing our disagreements over both fundamental matters and particular policy in concrete institutional settings. Congressman Mickey Edwards speaks about the importance of reorganizing the way our political parties approach each other and the country and Jonathan Haidt speaks about the need to change the settings in which our political frameworks work against one another. My teaching and research is in line with these recent efforts.
One of the important consequences of my work is the manner in which inclusive, civil, informed and well-structured deliberation leads to an increased appreciation of civic engagement. This connects nicely to work in citizenship theory and leads to my current research project. In line with 2011 and 2012 reports from the National Conference on Citizenship (NCoC) indicating a causal relation between a community's civic health and its economic health, I will explore the relation of civic health to economic resiliency by using TETRAD to investigate any underlying causal models that may reinforce or challenge the thesis stated in the NCoC reports. The data to be used in this study comes from the work of The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (Tufts). A second, long range study, will involve collecting data from citizen deliberations in the Pittsburgh area to see in what ways participation in these activities increases civic engagement and eo ipso civic health (should a causal model be established).
Toward a More Deliberative Democracy
Liberal democracies of the kind we see forming around the world are only the beginning of what Benjamin Barber has called strong democracies. Thin, liberal democracies provide the constitutional essentials of universal suffrage, freedom of press and assembly, etc. but this in no way guarantees that the citizens of these societies will see themselves as any more than isolated individuals who periodically vote (if they choose to do so). Recent work in "Citizenship Theory" has made clear that "the health and stability of a modern democracy depends, not only on the justice of its basic institutions, but also on the qualities and attitudes of its citizens" (Kymlicka). These qualities and attitudes are often highlighted by proponents of Deliberative Democracy and emphasize the role of the citizen in becoming a truly informed and engaged individual, a person willing to listen to all sides and willing to let the force of the better argument (in all its richness) become a guide to opinion formation.
There is strong scientific consensus on the issue of climate change, both the fact that it is happening and the post-industrial causes for its happening in a particular way at a particular time. There are, to be sure, differences in opinions about the degree to which climate change is happening and the urgency with which we should address the fact of climate change. There are also principled policy differences over how we as a nation ought to address this and what roles the government and private sector should play in addressing this issue.
Discussions of climate change thus involve both scientific analysis and policy analysis. And in a democracy, these discussions must involve the people themselves, not only as voters, but as educated citizens. This leads to another kind of climate change – that seen in the civic life of our nation. Over the past 20 years, public discourse has grown more divisive, fed recently by the rhetoric of political television, year-round campaign ads and vitriolic blogs and websites. Hence, the task of discussing climate change and public policy is daunting, not only in regard to the challenges of translating technical information into a public language accessible to our citizenry but also in regard to kinds of forums in which such a discussion can take place.
Seen in this way, the challenge caused by these two types of climate change becomes the following: 1) how can we make scientific knowledge and complex policy choices accessible to the general public and 2) what mechanism is there for developing an informed public opinion that can serve as a useful feedback loop to policy makers?
In this talk, I will use the principles and practices of deliberative democracy address the issue of climate change. In the course of doing so, I will identify the causes of our current political climate and propose solutions to our current political situation regarding the discussion of climate change.
Duquesne University - Ph.D. (Philosophy) 1978, M.A. (Philosophy) 1973 (Honors)
New York University - B.A. (Philosophy) 1971 (Dean's List)
Grants and Awards (Selected, since 2006):
1987 - Present: Carnegie Mellon University
Director, Program for Deliberative Democracy (2003-present)
Teaching Professor, Department of Philosophy (2006 – present)
Director: Center for the Advancement of Applied Ethics and Political Philosophy (2005 - 2007)
Theory and Practice of Deliberative Democracy
Books (since 2005)
Selected Conference Presentations (since 2005)
Professional Offices (since 2000):
2014: Advisory Board, Fox Rothschild Center for Law and Society, Community College of Philadelphia
2013 – Mayor-Elect Bill Peduto’s Transition Team subcommittee: Economic Development (Planning and Development Process)
2005 – Present: Director, The Program for Deliberative Democracy
2003 – 2013: Editor, Digital Media Teaching Philosophy Journal
2003 – 2005: Advisory Board, Department of Philosophy, Rochester Institute for Technology
2001- 2004: President, International Association for Computing and Philosophy
2000 – 2003: Chair, the APA Committee on Philosophy and Computers
Introduction to Ethics
Introduction to Political Philosophy
As Director of the Program for Deliberative Democracy, I have overseen numerous student and community deliberative events. These include a 2010 County-wide Deliberative Poll on “Local Government at the Crossroads: Critical Choices for Our Communities” and a 2008 State-wide Deliberative Poll on the “Issue of Marriage in America.”
Working with Grad Students Tim Dawson (English) and Shannon Deep (Heinz), we developed the concept of a ‘Deliberative Theatre” (where the ‘background’ materials are presented in a 30 minute play) and in 2011 we worked with the League of Women Voters to host a series of these kinds of events entitled “Managing Marcellus."
In conjunction with the Climate and Energy Decision Making Center (Inês Azevedo, Co-Director), developed materials for and implemented a 2012 nation-wide series of Campus Conversations on the “Climate Change and the Campus” (over 20 campuses participated).
In 2012 we worked with colleagues at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics and Center for Biosecurity of UPMC, on a citizen discussion of the allocation of scarce resources (e.g. reparatory ventilators) entitled “Too Many Patients, Too Few Resources.”
In 2013 we assisted the League of Women Voters in a public conversation on “Gun Safety in a Free Society” and in 2014 worked with Jess Kline (Student Life) on a Campus Conversation on the “Issue of Abortion In America” as part of the 2014 MOSIAC Conference.