Philosophy Professor and Chair, Sam Liao, pointed towards the special role this graduating class had in bringing the spirit of philosophy back to the campus’ community following the period of fully remote and hybrid learning. Prof. Liao highlighted the many other roles and studies Philosophy and Neurophilosophy students show up in all across campus.

At the reception, Prof. Ariela Tubert, who led this year’s senior research seminar course, The Constitution of the Self, donned Philosophy majors with the department’s traditional sapphire blue and white graduation cords as they walked up to the front of the room (the blue color symbolizes philosophy and the white the liberal arts.) Later that afternoon, with Prof. Justin Tiehen introducing all awardees on the stage, Prof. Sara Protasi recognized Tad Wolcott at the annual Academic Convocation for being designated as the 2025-2026 recipient of the John and Kathryn Magee Memorial Scholarship Award. Lily Steinmetz ’26 was the 2024-25 recipient of the award. The following day, Prof. Justin Tiehen would congratulate the Philosophy students he has worked with and advised over the years (along with the entire graduating class of 2026!) from up on the commencement stage in his capacity as Faculty Senate Chair.

Left to Right: Dominique Langevin (Molecular and Cell Biology BS; Neuro Philosophy BA), Riley Bennett (Communication Studies BA; Philosophy minor), Lily Steinmetz (Philosophy BA; Art Studio minor), Jordan Steinhart (Politics and Government BA; Philosophy BA), Chloe Ivy-Curwen (Philosophy BA; Studio Art BA), Ellan Ober (Philosophy BA; English BA), Tad Wolcott (Philosophy BA; English BA), Kiana Reedy-Schneider (Psychology BA; Neuro Philosophy BA; Philosophy minor; Honors Program).

The University-wide Commencement Ceremony took place the next day. Philosophy students enjoyed sunny weather on campus as they walked the stage to complete their undergraduate studies!

In PHIL 353, students studied how film differs from theater, investigated different perspectives on if film is art, learned about film realism, photographic transparency, neorealism, Auteur theory and creativity, the paradox of horror, representations of race and class in film, the concept of “good bad movies”, and whether we should enjoy the work of immoral artists.

It was a wonderful event. At the end of the film, the audience had the opportunity to ask the film crew questions, and a few laughs were shared!

/rom.com/ (2026) Cast and Crew:

Writers: Owen Yerrington, Maeve Crawford, Nina Lopes, and Maya Dertinger

Directors of Cinematography: Fin Ashenmiller, Quinn Reublin-Geer, and Vincent Wills

Editors: Toni Wyatt, Quinn Reublin-Geer, and Vincent Wills

Actors: Donna Shaw, Jacob Zwiernikowski, Mason Tinsley, Chloe Ivy-Curwen, Nina Lopes, Fin Ashenmiller, Maeve Crawford, Maya Dertinger, Jayden Mizuno, Quinn Reublin-Geer, and Owen Yerrington.

Left to Right: Toni Wyatt, Vincent Wills, Chloe Ivy-Curwen, Quinn Reublin-Geer, Donna Shaw, Fin Ashenmiller, Prof. Sara Protasi, Jacob Zwiernikowski, Nina Lopes, Mason Tinsley, Maeve Crawford, Owen Yerrington

Quincy Hutchinson ’27, “The Unconscious and the Limits of Self-Constitution”

Quincy Hutchinson ’27 presents their project and converses with Philosophy Professors Tiehen (left) and Liao (right). Hutchinson how a self-constitution theory like Marya Schechtman’s could accommodate a notion of the unconscious like Sigmund Freud’s.

Chloe Ivy-Curwen ’26, “Is my AI assistant the co-author to my life?”

Chloe Ivy-Curwen ’26, presents their project to a crowd and converses with fellow philosophy students. Ivy-Curwen built upon the works of Marya Schectman, Katsunori Miyahara, Shogo Tanaka, and Richard Heersmink to emphasize the embodied and social aspect of a self-constituting narrative and propose a possible special role for AI Assistants as neither objects nor agents.

Magnus Mansfield ’27, “Value Capture and Agential Self-Constitution”

Magnus Mansfield ’27, presents his project on value capture to student attendees and had a great discussion with Professor Sam Liao. Mansfield discussed Thi Nguyen’s notion of value capture and how it can be a threat to a person’s agency. Mansfield builds on Nguyen’s work by exploring how value capture would fit with Christine Korsgaard’s view of agency.

Ellan Ober ’26, “Dreams, Continuity, and Identity”

Ellan Ober ’26 is shown presenting to students and professor Justin Tiehen, and listens to engaging questions from the attendees. Ober’s project delved into the role of dreams in personal identity drawing on Derek Parfit’s account of personal identity.

RJ Rosales ’27, “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Determinants of Personal Identity: How Our Diachronic Selves Persist Throughout Time”

RJ Rosales ’27, discusses how joint-memories and relationships with others builds upon one’s self constitution by exploring different scenes and themes from popular 2004 film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Rosales expands upon Richard Heersmink’s stance that personal identity includes one’s relationship to other people and to the objects that surround us.

Jordan Steinhart ’26, “When AI Kills: Responsibility Without a Self”

Jordan Steinhart ’26 holds a large group discussion after presenting a side-by-side comparison of Derek Parfit and Marya Schectman’s core claims on how personal identity is constituted. Steinhart then applies these philosophical frameworks to current discussions on AI and investigates whether autonomous weapons could be held responsible for the deaths they cause.

Lily Steinmetz ’26, “Agency and Self Constitution Under Oppression”

Lily Steinmetz ’26 is pictured presenting while Professors Ariela Tubert and Justin Tiehen listen on, whose co-authored manuscript, “I, Robot”, is referenced as supporting evidence for their central argument. Steinmetz took a unique approach and analyzed how oppression restricts one’s agency and how people can still move forward to create their own identities that can support their liberation.

Tad Wolcott ’26, “The Posthumous Persistence of Ourselves”

Tad Wolcott ’26 is shown explaining his project to student attendees and conversing with project mentor and Professor of Philosophy Ariela Tubert (right). Wolcott argued that personal identity can in some sense survive after one’s death and can extend through others in the form of psychological connections. He focuses his claims through Derek Parfit’s work on psychological connectedness and continuity, and contrasts it to Marya Schectman’s four features of identity (survival, moral responsibility, self-interested concern, and compensation).

Overall, it was a wonderful evening, and the once-quiet plaza transformed into a lively forum of philosophical discussion!

Great work, everyone!

On Thursday, April 16, 2026, scholars, elected officials, government employees, private contractors, and community members filed into Tahoma Room in University of Puget Sound’s Thomas Hall for the Puget Sound Symposium on AI and Privacy. The schedule was stacked with cutting-edge speakers, robust panels, lively Q&A sessions and connecting chats over coffee. Discussions throughout the day ranged from AI use in art and government to how user data is increasingly being gathered, stored, and tracked.

The symposium was organized as part of the AI and Human Values Initiative at the University of Puget Sound is led by a group of faculty, including Professors of Philosophy Ariela Tubert and Justin Tiehen, as well as America Chambers (Mathematics and Computer Science), Suzanne Holland (Bioethics and Religion), Robin Jacobson (Politics and Government) and Siddharth Ramakrishnan (Biology and Neuroscience).

See a summary of the panels below:

Privacy in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Ryan Calo, University of Washington

The opening session explored the impact of contemporary AI on individual and societal privacy. Ryan Calo (University of Washington) outlined what is distinct about privacy in the age of AI—how large-scale data inference, automated decision-making, and anthropomorphic interfaces create new forms of vulnerability, reshape expectations of control, and challenge existing legal and ethical frameworks.

Ryan Calo is the Virginia and Prentice Bloedel Professor at the University of Washington. He is a founding co-director of the interdisciplinary UW Tech Policy Lab and a co-founder of the UW Center for an Informed Public. Professor Calo holds a joint appointment at the Information School and an adjunct appointment at the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering. Professor Calo’s research on law and emerging technology appears in leading law reviews (California Law Review, Columbia Law Review, Duke Law Journal, UCLA Law Review, and University of Chicago Law Review) and technical publications (MIT Press, Nature, Artificial Intelligence) and is frequently referenced by the national media. He has testified four times before the United States Senate, most recently about artificial intelligence and privacy.

Blurred Boundaries: Bodies, Brains, and Identity

Jennifer King, Stanford University • Adam Moore, University of Washington • Mayu Tobin-Miyaji, Electronic Privacy Information Center

This session examined the complex challenges that arise when AI can interpret, infer, or predict information from our bodies, brains, and digital archives. The discussion explored how technological tools blur the boundaries between personal data and the most intimate markers of identity. The session highlighted the distinctive vulnerabilities created when personal data become legible to AI systems.

Jennifer King is the Privacy and Data Policy Fellow at the Stanford University Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. An information scientist by training, Dr. King is a recognized expert in information privacy. Her scholarship has been recognized for its impact on policymaking by the Future of Privacy Forum, and she has been an invited speaker before the Federal Trade Commission and has testified before the U.S. Congress. Dr. King completed her doctorate and master’s degrees in Information Management and Systems at the University of California, Berkeley School of Information. In 2024 UC Berkeley awarded her their inaugural Tech Integrity Award for excellence in academic research. She was the Director of Consumer Privacy at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law school from 2018 to 2020. Prior to entering academia, she worked in security and in product management for several Internet companies, most notably Yahoo!.

Adam D. Moore is a Professor in the Information School at the University of Washington and examines the ethical, legal, and policy issues surrounding intellectual property, privacy, freedom of speech, accountability, and information control. He holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Ohio State University (1997) and is the author of 3 books, 3 edited anthologies, and over 50 articles.  His most recent book, Intellectual Property: Moral and Legal Foundations (Cambridge 2026), considers, in part, how AI systems may undermine human innovative capacities and copy the ‘look and feel’ of authors and artists.

Mayu Tobin-Miyaji is an EPIC Law Fellow focusing on AI and Human Rights. Her work spans advocating to limit unfair and harmful commercial AI practices, scrutinize how automated decisionmaking systems harm the wellbeing of everyday people, and increase accountability for AI-enabled government surveillance that harm civil rights and democratic values. She also co-leads EPIC’s work on worker privacy with Abigail Kunkler. Mayu is a graduate of Fordham University School of Law, where she was a Stein Scholar in Public Interest Law and Ethics. She served as co-president of Fordham Information Law Society, and a member of the Fordham OUTLaws board, the Fordham Moot Court board, and Fordham Law Review. While at law school, she interned at the Federal Trade Commission and Knight First Amendment Institute, and externed with the New York Civil Liberties Union on the Voting Rights Project. She holds a B.A. from Rice University in Computer Science and Cognitive Sciences and worked as a software engineer before law school.

Art & AI Discussion: New Privacy Practices

Afroditi Psarra, University of Washington • Cam Smith, independent artist • James Wenlock, independent artist and software developer

This panel brought together three artists working across new media, wearable technology, and creative software to examine how artistic practice intersects with critical inquiry into AI and privacy. Cam Smith creates immersive, interactive work that confronts how governments and corporations deploy AI as instruments of exploitation and control, pushing audiences to grapple with questions of consent and ownership. Afroditi Psarra works across machine learning, wearable systems, and performance to explore how algorithmic structures govern bodies and reshape identity. James Wenlock is a composer and software developer whose practice spans brainwave-driven instruments, data sonification, and interactive installation. Together, they consider what art can reveal about AI’s encroachments on privacy–and what a creative resistance might look like.

Afroditi Psarra is a multidisciplinary artist and an Associate Professor of Digital Arts and Experimental Media (DXARTS) at the University of Washington in Seattle, where she runs the DXARTS Softlab. Her practice builds on and extends the work of Cyber and Techno-Feminism(s) and the idea of gendered bodies as matrices of information. Her work has been presented at international media art festivals such as Getty PST, Ars Electronica, Transmediale and CTM, Eyeo, Piksel, Videobrasil, and WRO Biennale, and at exhibitions in venues such as EMST, Onassis Stegi, Bozar, and Walker Art Center, among others. Her research interweaves media art, technology, and craft through the creation of artifacts shaped by a critical lens. She views the act of crafting technological objects—through textiles, electronics, or handmade visual forms—as a form of resistance to black-box systems, and as a method of world-building, enabling speculation about alternative presents and desirable futures. Drawing on Haraway’s notion of SF (string figures, speculative fabulations, science facts/fictions), her practice juxtaposes the softness of textiles with the rigidity of data infrastructures, proposing new visual and material vocabularies.

Cam Smith is a Seattle-based independent artist whose work explores how artificial intelligence is used for exploitation and control. Before becoming an artist, Cam was an NLP engineer on the Siri team at Apple and a data scientist at Change Healthcare. His experience in Silicon Valley informs his critical approach to technology. Cam’s art practice includes interactive work that has appeared at the Tacoma Art Museum, the Bellevue Arts Museum, and many galleries in the PNW and nationally. He also creates interactive public art pieces, most recently an installation for the Redmond Winter Lights festival. Cam is a member of the artist collective Common Area Maintenance and is deeply involved in Seattle’s art community. He recently co-authored the zine AI MUST DIE with AI-policy expert Michael Walton. The zine has appeared at national and international events and conferences, including the upcoming Cultural Studies Conference in Izmir, Türkiye.

James Wenlock is a Seattle-based founder, composer, and software developer who merges music, acoustics research, and practical plugin development. With eight years of experience and a degree in Computational Auricular Acoustics from the University of Washington, he leads DeanosDSP, building innovative audio plugins at the intersection of sound, software, and user experience. His work spans hands-on C++/JUCE audio systems, data-driven sonification, and browser-based interactive sound tools, including Star Sounder, which makes thousands of stellar time-series sonifications accessible online. He has a track record of moving research prototypes—such as brain–computer interfaces that translate neural data into musical performance—into usable formats for artists and developers. Based in Seattle, he combines entrepreneurial drive with deep technical craft, turning ambitious sonic ideas into shipping products and demos. He is known for a curious, cross-disciplinary approach that spans ambisonics, ML-assisted sound, and live performance interfaces.

Attendees also had the opportunity to see an art exhibit created in tandem with the symposium. “New Privacy Practices” was featured in the Digital Media Studio in Kittredge Hall throughout the day, and brought together works from all three artists. The exhibition pulled attendees into a vibrant, interactive installation that explored wearable systems and invited viewers to experience their unease, and also their curiosity, about these new systems.

.

Privacy by Design

Akshita Bhagia • AI2Yuval Marton, AI consultant and independent researcher • Kaiwen Sun, Indiana University Bloomington

This session highlighted emerging technical strategies for addressing privacy concerns at the design and development stages of AI systems. It explored innovations such as data obfuscation and manipulation techniques that disrupt unwanted inference, new privacy-preserving methods for data sharing and research, and engineering practices that embed privacy considerations directly into system architecture. Drawing on work ranging from adversarial tools that protect individuals from AI-driven identification to large-scale efforts to rethink how datasets are constructed and released, the discussion examined how technologists are reimagining privacy as a core design challenge.

Akshita Bhagia is a Senior Research Engineer on the AllenNLP team, involved in R&D for natural language processing (NLP), with a current focus on large language models (LLMs). She has worked on building Olmo and FlexOlmo family of models. Her work has been published at top conferences including ACL, ICLR, and EMNLP, and has been featured in articles published in TechCrunch, GeekWire, and others. In the past, she has also worked on open-source libraries such as allennlp. She graduated with a Master’s degree in Computer Science from the University of Massachusetts Amherst in 2020.

Yuval Marton, Ph.D., is a Computational Linguist and an expert consultant on Artificial Intelligence, Natural Language Processing, and Data Science. He has a long track record in both the industry (including IBM, Microsoft, Bloomberg, and Genentech) and academia (affiliate professor at the University of Washington; industry mentor at Columbia University, UCSC and UMass). Dr. Marton’s experience spans Generative AI, multi-agent / agentic AI, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), lexical semantics, paraphrasing, semantic role labeling, thematic fit estimation, syntactic parsing, statistical machine translation, dialog systems / chatbots, and more. He is also interested in increasing awareness of various forms of bias in NLP/AI, and how to develop and use these disruptive technologies ethically, given their substantial potential social impact for good or bad. Dr. Marton received his Ph.D. in Linguistics from University of Maryland, concentrating on computational linguistics, with a Neuroscience and Cognitive Science (NACS) Program Certificate. He also holds a Masters in Computer Science from Polytechnic University (now NYU Polytechnic Institute).

Kaiwen Sun is an Assistant Professor at the Luddy School of Informatics, Computing, and Engineering at Indiana University Bloomington. Her research sits at the intersection of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Usable Security and Privacy, and Human-Centered AI. She focuses on understanding and designing digital experiences that enhance the safety, privacy, and participation of populations such as children, older adults, and families, especially in digital contexts such as smart homes, telepresence robots, and generative artificial intelligence. Her work has been published in top-tier venues in human-computer interaction (ACM CHI, CSCW, and IDC) as well as in computer security and privacy (IEEE Security and Privacy Symposium, Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium). Kaiwen is a recipient of the Meta Ph.D. Research Fellowship, and Best Paper and Honorable Mention awards at CHI. Kaiwen holds a Ph.D. in Information Science from the University of Michigan.

Emerging Privacy Governance

Mike Hintze, Hintze Law • Austin Jenkins, Pluribus News • Representative Shelley Kloba, Washington State Legislature • Ben Merkel, Anthropic • Chris Riley, Data Transfer Initiative • Kathryn Ruckle, Washington State Chief Privacy Officer

This session examined the evolving landscape of privacy protection in the age of artificial intelligence, considering the roles of policymakers, civic organizations, and businesses in shaping rules, norms, and practices around data collection, processing, and algorithmic decision-making. Discussions covered a range of privacy governance models, including industry self-regulation through privacy-by-design principles, government-driven data protection regulation, and hybrid public–private approaches to safeguarding personal information in AI systems. Panelists explored how different actors interact, coordinate, and influence the development of privacy-preserving AI technologies and oversight mechanisms, gaining a broad perspective on the practical and strategic choices shaping privacy governance in AI deployment today.

Mike Hintze is a partner at Hintze Law and a recognized leader in data protection and AI law, policy, and strategy. With more than 25 years of experience in privacy and data security, Mike emphasizes pragmatic and actionable advice that enables his clients to meet their objectives while complying with the law and managing risk. Mike also teaches privacy law at the University of Washington School of Law and is a Senior Fellow with the Future of Privacy Forum. He has served on advisory boards for the American Law Institute, the International Association of Privacy Professionals, and other organizations. Mike has testified before Congress, state legislatures, and European regulators; and is a sought-after speaker and regular writer on data protection. Mike was previously Chief Privacy Counsel at Microsoft, where he counselled on data protection compliance globally and helped lead the company’s strategic initiatives on privacy differentiation and public policy. Mike can be found on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/mhintze/.

Austin Jenkins covers AI policy for Pluribus News, a digital news site focused on emerging policy trends in states and state legislatures. Austin is also the longtime host of “Inside Olympia” on TVW, Washington State’s C-SPAN network. Previously, Austin spent nearly two decades covering the Washington State legislature and state politics for Northwest NPR stations. Prior to that, Austin worked as a television news reporter. He earned his B.A. in government from Connecticut College and his Master in Communication from the Communication Leadership program at the University of Washington. Austin is a proud inductee of the UW School of Communication Hall of Fame.

Representative Shelley Kloba is Washington’s foremost advocate for data privacy. As the sponsor of the People’s Privacy Act, she is leading the fight for individuals to have the right to control their own data as well as for a meaningful avenue for recourse when those rights are violated. During the 2026 legislative session, she worked on bills to address data broker registries, the use of AI in healthcare settings, and the use of AI chatbots. Representative Kloba was first elected to serve District 1 in 2016. This followed years of public service, including two years as the Washington State PTA Legislative director and three years on the Kirkland City Council.

Ben Merkel works on federal affairs and legislative policy strategy at Anthropic, PBC. Prior to working at Anthropic, Ben served as a Special Assistant to the President and Senate Liaison in the White House Office of Legislative Affairs. Ben spent 12 years working in the United States Senate, including five years as Legislative Director for Senator Patty Murray. Ben is a graduate of the University of Puget Sound and lives in Washington, DC.

Chris Riley is the executive director of the nonprofit Data Transfer Initiative and a distinguished research fellow at the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. Previously, he worked at the R Street Institute, the Mozilla Corporation, and the U.S. Department of State, among others. Chris has published in computer science, law, and technology policy; taught at the American University’s School of International Service and Johns Hopkins University’s Department of Computer Science; and guest lectured at the Harvard Kennedy School, Stanford Law School, and other institutions. He has worked on tech policy in D.C. and San Francisco and managed teams based in those cities as well as Brussels, New Delhi, London, and Nairobi. Chris earned his bachelor’s in computer science from Wheeling Jesuit University, his Ph.D. in computer science from Johns Hopkins University and his J.D. from Yale Law School.

Katy Ruckle, JD was appointed as Washington state’s Chief Privacy Officer in 2020. In 2025 she was named one of the nation’s inaugural AI 50 honorees by the Center for Public Sector AI, recognizing her leadership in shaping ethical and effective use of artificial intelligence in government. Ruckle has been at the forefront of Washington’s AI efforts, playing a key role in developing the first AI policy for the state to ensure its ethical and transparent use. Katy also co-founded the state’s Artificial Intelligence Community of Practice, which brings together experts from state and local agencies, as well as academia. Since being appointed in 2020 to lead WaTech’s Office of Privacy and Data Protection, Ruckle has developed foundational privacy principles, launched statewide training programs, and is leading a nationally recognized privacy program. She was also appointed to the state’s AI Task Force by the former Attorney General, now Governor Bob Ferguson. Her latest honor adds to a growing list of accolades, including recognition as one of GovTech’s Top 25 Doers, Dreamers & Drivers in 2024, a StateScoop Top 50 award, and the Governor’s Outstanding Leadership Award in 2023.

Panelists From Left to Right: Ben Merkel ’11, Anthropic; Austin Jenkins, Pluribus News; Representative Shelley Kloba, Washington State Legislature; Chris Riley, Data Transfer Initiative; Mike Hintze, Hintze Law; Kathryn Ruckle, Washington State Chief Privacy Officer.

Keynote Address, “The Battle for Your Brain: Mental Privacy in the Age of Brain-Sensing Technology”

The symposium came to a close with the highly anticipated keynote address, delivered by Nita Farahany, the Robinson O. Everett Distinguished Professor of Law & Philosophy and Founding Director of the Duke Initiative for Science & Society. She is a widely published scholar on the ethics of emerging technologies, including the book The Battle for Your Brain: Defending Your Right to Think Freely in the Age of Neurotechnology. She was appointed by President Obama to the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, where she served for seven years. Farahany currently serves on the National Advisory Council for the National Institute for Neurological Disease and Stroke, as an elected member of the American Law Institute, and on the Global Future Council on Frontier Risks for the World Economic Forum, among others. Farahany is a frequent commentator for national media and radio shows. She presents her work to diverse academic, legal, corporate, and public audiences including at TED, the World Economic Forum, Aspen Ideas Festival, Judicial Conferences for US Court of Appeals, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. She is a co-editor-in-chief of the Journal of Law and the Biosciences and is on the Board of Advisors for Scientific American.

.

This year’s presentations focus on theories of self-constitution, or the idea that the self is created or constituted throughout a person’s life. The student projects connect these theories to timely and interesting topics like survival after death, artificial intelligence, dreams, oppression, film, the unconscious, value capture, and more.

Check out the titles for each project below.

Monday, April 27, 2026  |  Wyatt Courtyard  |  5-6 p.m.

Quincy Hutchinson

The Unconscious and the Limits of Self-Constitution

.

Chloe Ivy-Curwen

Is my AI assistant the co-author to my life?

.

Magnus Mansfield

Value capture and Agential Self-Constitution

.

Ellan Ober

Dreams, Continuity, and Identity

.

RJ Rosales

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

and Determinants of Personal Identity: 

How Our Diachronic Selves Persist Throughout Time

.

Jordan Steinhart

When AI Kills: Responsibility Without a Self

.

Lily Steinmetz

Agency and Self Constitution Under Oppression

.

Tad Wolcott

The Posthumous Persistence of Ourselves

.

See The Bowl (2025), a 30-minute short film documenting a team’s journey in preparing for the National High School Ethics Bowl. If you’d like to learn more about Ethics Bowl 2026, stay to hear from students on the Puget Sound ethics bowl team about their experience at the Regionals. Classic movie snacks will be provided!

The movie will begin at 3:00pm.

Still want to learn more about Ethics Bowl? See the flyer below for information on this great class, offered in the Fall 2026 semester!

Democracy is in trouble. What is going wrong?  What should we do?  In this talk, I argue that, perhaps surprisingly, the problem is with the heart of modern democracy: the election. Elections are failing as accountability mechanisms. Elections provide powerful short-term incentives, leading elected politicians to downplay long-term catastrophic concerns. Elections create division where none need exist. The most powerful among us take advantage of this to control who is elected, what policies are enacted, and which problems are ignored.  What should we do?  I suggest that we should move past the fatalist, Churchillian shrug (“the worst system, except for all the others that have been tried”) and try a new form of democracy: lottocracy.  Lottocratic systems include many new elements, but the most striking is the shift from using elected representatives to using representatives selected through lottery.  The talk presents and defends lottocracy as an alternative political system worth taking seriously.

The Puget Sound department of Philosophy interviews alumni and graduating seniors about their experiences as philosophy majors, how philosophy has prepared them for post-graduation, and what advice they have for current students (you can find some of those interviews here and here.) In this post, Puget Sound Philosophy major, Emma Cole ’25 describes her favorite areas of philosophy, talks about how she decided to become a philosophy major, and shares advice for other students.

Is there an area of philosophy that interests you the most?

While I enjoy a lot of different fields I find that I am most interested in moral philosophy and metaphysics.

What about these areas are interesting to you?

I feel a lot of philosophy is abstract and less practicably applicable, and while I enjoy engaging with that as well, I like that moral philosophy is a tangible field that is important to everyone in their daily lives. The questions asked by moral philosophy interest me because they are so pressing and important and their answers have a profound effect on our world.

Has your study of philosophy informed your day to day life or how you make decisions?

Studying philosophy has definitely impacted my life in the way I see the world and make decisions. I feel like understanding philosophy is important for being able to understand and change the world around you. Philosophy is deeply enmeshed in every facet of our lives even when we don’t see it. How we view ourselves, others, and the way we live has implicit values built into it. I feel like studying philosophy has helped me make these connections and allowed me to better question the systems around me.

How has your other major shaped your philosophical studies and vice versa?

Alongside my major I also studied communication. I find the two disciplines overlap a significant amount. Rhetorical theory especially, the area that interested me the most, often touches on aspects of philosophy of language and ethics. Rhetorical theory studies meaning making and how messages and certain meanings are communicated to us. Having a philosophical background was incredibly helpful for understanding what philosophical framework the media asks you to employ or buy into when you are engaging with it.

When and why did you ultimately decide to become a philosophy major?

I didn’t originally plan to major in philosophy. When I first got to school I thought I would major in biology. However, I got placed into an intro philosophy class my first semester and ended up really enjoying it. I found it to be my most engaging class, I was excited to go every day and always had so much to say about the readings. I’m not sure when I actually decided to declare it as my major. I was resistant for a while because I didn’t know what one was supposed to do with a philosophy major. However, at some point I realized that even though I was resistant, I kept signing up for more classes. They were always my favorite to take.

How did your parents and strangers react when you told them you were a philosophy major?

Often strangers, when you tell them, ask you kind of jokingly what you plan on doing with that. I think there is a perception that philosophy is just about eating grapes and saying esoteric stuff which unfortunately isn’t really a job anymore. I find this idea funny as, while I don’t plan on becoming a philosopher, the skills that you learn studying it are valuable both in your life and in your career. My parents were really supportive of my decision. They always emphasized to me that college isn’t just a step to finding a career but also about becoming a more well rounded and educated person, philosophy certainly helped me do that.

Do you have a particular memory as a philosophy major at Puget Sound that stands out to you?

I can’t think of any particular time but my favorite thing about philosophy, and the classes here, is the emphasis on group discussion. My favorite memories have been when I’m discussing philosophy with my peers during and after class or forcing my friends to listen to me explain my essay. I got to help organize the undergraduate philosophy conference this past semester and I loved the philosophical community that came with doing it. I have found that philosophy is far more fun when it’s done with other
people than just alone in your room.

Do you have any advice for current philosophy students?

Looking back on my time I wish I had gone to office hours more with my teachers. They are a great resource, especially when working on papers, for helping you develop arguments or better understand confusing readings. If not your teachers however, I greatly recommend forcing your friends or fellow students to discuss your papers with you. I found my best papers came when I was able to bounce ideas off someone and test out my arguments to a critical ear.

What is Ethics Bowl?

Ethics bowl is a competition between two teams on solving moral dilemmas. It is kind of like debate, but less adversarial, and more focused on coming to the right answer. As the official site describes it, “Teams spend hours analyzing and preparing for regional and national competitions to see who has thought most deeply and presented their arguments most clearly on cases based on today’s most pressing issues. Students develop ethical understanding of complex, ambiguous, and difficult to resolve issues, as well as key virtues associated with democratic deliberation.”

The Preparation

To prepare for the competition, the team met every week to talk about the cases and engaged in practice matches. The team also bonded over a trivia night at E9 and won! Right before the competition, there was also a grueling final preparation session that went until 11pm.

The Competition

The team competed at the Northwest Regional Ethics Bowl on November 15th, 2025 at Seattle University. Every team competes in three preliminary rounds. In the first round, on the criminal justice system, the team lost against Seattle Pacific University. In the second round, on government authority, the team won against Western Washington University. In the third round, also on government authority, the team won against Pacific Lutheran University.

With five teams tied with the same record from the preliminary rounds, the Puget Sound ethics bowl team advanced to the semifinals on point differential as the 4th seed. In the semifinal round, on art and religion, the team lost against the 1st seed, regional powerhouse and host Seattle University.

Reflections

The students reflected on their experience throughout this semester:

Chloe Ivy-Curwen ’26: This year being my last in undergrad, I decided to challenge myself by signing up for Ethics Bowl. My only experience was Ethics Bowl during my high school senior year when it was online, and like then, being in my final year pushed me outside my comfort zone. As a philosophy major, I love philosophy, but I have never felt confident in my ability to write, read, or even associate myself with academic philosophy. I joined Ethics Bowl to gain experience thinking on my feet and speaking publicly, hoping to overcome this feeling of inferiority. While it wasn’t a cure-all, Ethics Bowl helped me feel more comfortable in academic spaces and confident in my abilities.

Most of class was spent developing arguments for each ethical case. I felt comfortable making mistakes because the environment was welcoming. My classmates made it that way, making small talk about their lives or often times my favorite girl group TWICE. These moments of bonding, including E9 trivia with the team, made the experience incredibly meaningful. These friendships made competition day less scary since we were going in as a team. I was nervous about failing my part, but knowing we were all stressed meant we’d at least end the day together, grateful to have at least done the work that we did.

I did better than I ever would’ve expected. I was coherent, steady, and able to support our arguments on the fly. My teammates were excellent, and presenting as a group, looking to each other for support while addressing opponents and judges, felt incredible. We made it to the semi-finals and left feeling good about our performances. Presenting as a team felt good not just because we scored well, but because we flowed together as friends and “colleagues” (which we jokingly called each other when passing the mic). I’m grateful to have done Ethics Bowl this past semester, and I hope anyone doubting themselves while considering signing up will think about it TWICE!

Lily Steinmetz ’26: When I initially came across the posters in Wyatt advertising Ethics Bowl, I thought that something like that was way too far outside of my comfort zone; I have never been a person who enjoys public speaking, and my nerves tend to get the best of me. However, I didn’t want to be beholden to my fear forever, so, on a bit of a whim, I signed up. I had no experience with Ethics Bowl or debate, and the whole process was very new to me. As we analyzed cases in class discussions and debated different viewpoints, I started to really enjoy it, even with the looming threat of public speaking in the future. The more we practiced, the closer we became as a team, and I started to feel more comfortable presenting in front of my teammates and professor.

Going into the competition was nerve-racking: it felt like the culmination of all my efforts to combat my performance anxiety and speak in front of strangers whose jobs were to judge me. And even though I was very scared in the first match, I was less so in the second, and even less in the third. As my nerves died down, I began to enjoy the matches and feel confident in our arguments and my articulation of them.

Ethics Bowl was an amazing experience, and I am extremely glad I decided to do it. I gained so much confidence in my public speaking and thinking on the fly, I learned how to make an argument with others and present effectively as a group, and I had fun doing it! Getting to talk about ethical dilemmas with my classmates and peers from other schools was a great way to spend my Friday evenings (and one Saturday). The confidence I gained from it is immense – I proved to myself that I am capable of doing things outside my comfort zone and rising to unexpected challenges (not to mention, we did pretty well in getting to the semifinals!). Overall, I would strongly recommend Ethics Bowl to anyone looking to improve their public speaking, overcome performance anxiety, or just have fun talking about ethics!

Tad Wolcott ’26: This was my first time participating in Ethics Bowl, and going, I wasn’t exactly sure what to expect. Up to this point, philosophy has primarily felt like an individually pursued activity, where arguments and reasoning are the responsibility of a single person. Building cases and strengthening reasoning as part of a team was an adjustment, but a valuable one at that! As we continued to hone our skills, I felt the team get closer and learn how to function as a unit. This was especially true during the competition, where the more we did it, the better we became. Our last session in particular felt like we were all in sync, and we presented the best case we possibly could have. I feel that participating in Ethics Bowl not only improved some vital philosophical skills, such as public speaking and communication, but it also enhanced my teamwork and collaborative skills, and made me a better teammate.

Magnus Mansfield ’27: Ethics bowl is a great way to spend (part of) a Friday evening. I learned a lot! (I even learned a little bit about the girl group Twice.) I particularly enjoyed the preparation stage, getting to discuss contemporary moral issues with the group and forming a consensus was both challenging and engaging. This preparation didn’t stop until we were at the bowl, huddled around a table across from the other team, making final decisions on what argument we were running with—“bite the baby bullet?” “Yes, bite the baby bullet.” Coming back from the bowl, I was surprised by how fun the whole experience had been. Usually, events like this, involving public speaking—especially the “debatey” kind, are not my thing. I like to sit in class, take my notes, maybe make a remark or two, and then pack up my stuff and get out. And so I’m grateful for the group I got to work with, and that, despite the competitive structure, we were all in agreement to approach the ethics bowl as a productive conversation rather than a debate. This ended up working well, and we exceeded our own expectations in the bowl.

Donna Shaw ’27: Being a part of Ethics Bowl was a great experience for me. I did something similar in high school (Mock Trial), but Ethics Bowl was something entirely new where I learned many new things. I learned how to be more confident in myself as a public speaker thinking on her feet. I made new connections, with this experience allowing for a great amount of team bonding. As a Philosophy major, I am so grateful I took this class, but I think I would be just as thankful if I was any other major. This experience and the people involved in it helped me grow so much academically and personally!

The Conclusion

To close out, the team returned to trivia night to spend its winning from earlier in the semester. And then the team won again! So… that’s a wrap on a successful return of ethics bowl!

In her recent article “If you fall for an AI model, will it love you back? Tacoma experts weigh in”, The News Tribune reporter Becca Most discusses the lecture and her interview with the professors. The lecture and article focus on the connection between romantic relationships with AI and theories of consciousness. A growing number of people consider AI to be conscious, especially people who have romantic relationships with AI models — an especially relevant fact given that a recent poll suggests that about a third of American adults have had a romantic relationship with an AI system. The consensus among experts however is that the existing AI models are not conscious. As professors Tubert and Tiehen put it, they are “zombies” (beings who may act like humans but lack consciousness) and can play a role similar to “imaginary friends”. The professors discussed how current AI models are evidence that a dissociation between intelligence and consciousness is possible, a point that they developed by discussing the Global Workspace Theory, a leading theory of consciousness.

Here is the abstract for the talk:

Artificial Intelligence (AI) romantic companions are increasingly used today, with a recent poll estimating that almost one third of Americans have had a romantic relationship with an AI model. “I’d divorce and leave my husband for ChatGPT, if he could be put in a physical body,” exclaimed a recent Reddit post that gathered attention. And yet, despite this, and despite their apparently impressive intelligence in various domains, none of the leading AI models of today are conscious, according to our best theories of consciousness. Such models are “zombies” who lack consciousness, as philosophers say. In our talk, we explore the implications of the apparent dissociation between intelligence and consciousness demonstrated by such models. Or in other words, what is the philosophical significance of dating an AI zombie?

The Regester lecture series was established in 1965 to honor Puget Sound faculty member John D. Regester, who also taught philosophy. The lecture is an honorable recognition of the scholarship and accomplishments of the lecturers and an opportunity to explore ideas with colleagues.