In an article published in the Journal of Political Philosophy, Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule argue that the government and its allies ought to activelyundermine groups that espouse conspiracy theories deemed “demonstrably false.” They propose infiltrating such groups in order to “cure” conspiracy theorists by treating their “crippled epistemology” with “cognitive diversity.” They base their proposal on an analysis of the “causes” of such conspiracy theories, which emphasizes informational and reputational cascades. Some may regard their proposal as outrageous and anti-democratic. I agree. However, in this article I merely argue that their argument is flawed in at least the following ways: (1) their account of the popularity of conspiracy theories is implausible, and (2) their proposal relies on misleading “stylized facts,” including a caricature of those who doubt official narratives and a deceptive depiction of the relevant history.

This article argues that the US school system is partly to blame for the mutilated educational dreams among African-born war refugee students resettled in the United States. Feeling mistreated, unprotected, and unsupported, these students have slim chances to integrate successfully in the public school system. Evidence from research and first-hand refugee testimonies provide an insight into the factors that blockade the educational success for “multiple-stop” refugeechildren, that is, refugees who move from one camp to another before reaching final destination. Included among these factors are: overlooked interruptedschooling, social/peer rejection, and unmet special needs. Recommendations stress the need for a reform in school policy and administration to ensure thatrefugee children receive the dignity they crave and the support they need in order to progress educationally, and eventually achieve their utmost dreams.

Roman Catholic teaching on torture has undergone evolution. At one time the Church endorsed the use of torture in trials and investigations. Today theproscription of torture is absolute, according to the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. What accounts for this development? This essaymaintains that Catholicism’s increased appreciation for the centrality of freedom to the experience of human dignity provides the rationale for the church’steaching on torture. While utilitarian and other forms of argument may be used by opponents to torture, the Catholic argument is fundamentally deontological.Contemporary forms of torture have as their aim the breakdown of a victim’s inner freedom. For that reason torture, as it is practiced today, is judged to beespecially antithetical to the Catholic understanding of the image of God within the person, the exercise of freedom as self-determination.

As an adherent to the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United States has made a commitment to social justice. As a part of this commitment, the U.S. maintains that the right to an education is both innate and compulsory. This paper addresses U.S. government’s failure to uphold its citizens’ educational rights, made clear by the inadequacy of the educational programs currently offered to juvenile offenders. Based on the findings of recent scholarly literature, this paper argues that both juvenile and adult correctional institutions lack the resources necessary to provide proper educational instruction and adequately address the special educational needs of juvenile offenders. To help the U.S. maintain its commitment to social justice, alternatives to juvenile incarceration are proposed.

The “moral equivalence” objector—appealing only to certain moral considerations, e.g., wellbeing and consent—argues that no inherent moral significanceattaches to the distinction between intended means and foreseen side-effects: If an act of direct killing is wrong, then a morally comparable act of indirect killingis wrong as well; if an act of indirect killing is right, then so is a morally comparable act of direct killing. One secular version of double effect is vulnerable to the objection unless it can provide a principle of justice which prohibits direct but justifies indirect killing. Both the secular version and the moral equivalence view depart (in different ways) from a theological interpretation of double effect as “delegated dominion.”