The Psychagogic Work of Examples in Plato's Statesman

This paper concerns the role of examples (paradeigmata) as propaedeutic to philosophical inquiry, in light of the methodological digression of Plato’s Statesman. Consistent with scholarship on Aristotle’s view of example, scholars of Plato’s work have privileged the logic of example over their rhetorical appeal to the soul of the learner. Following a small but significant trend in recent rhetorical scholarship that emphasizes the affective nature of examples, this essay assesses the psychagogic potential of paradeigmata, following the discussion of example in Plato’s Statesman. I argue that, by creating an expectation for finding similarities, the use of examples in philosophical pedagogy cultivates in the soul of the learner a desire to discern the intelligible principles the ground experiential knowledge. Thus, examples not only serve as practice at the dialectician’s method of abstraction, but also cultivate a dialectical ethos, characterized by the desire to know the logoi of all things

Effects of Emotional Intelligence Training on Incarcerated Adult Males Involved in Pre-Release Programming

This dissertation summarizes a study conducted to explore the effectiveness of emotional intelligence (EI) training for adult male inmates. Acts of crime and violence cause psychological repercussions to crime victims and financial burdens on our society. Historically, those involved in the criminal justice system have strived to gather knowledge about criminal behavior in order to guide interventions. Furthermore, research on potential interventions has been encouraged in order to support evidence-based rehabilitative efforts that may ultimately impact recidivism. Emotional intelligence is a relatively new construct that may be related to social functioning. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of completing EI training on emotional intelligence scores for adult male inmates participating in a pre-release vocational training program in two medium security Mid-Atlantic state correctional facilities. This research examined Total EQ Scale scores and five Composite Scale scores (Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Stress Management, Adaptability, and General Mood) as measured by a pretest and posttest on the Bar-On EQ-i. The treatment group received a standardized EI training program, The Emotionally Secure Community Adaptation Program (ESCAPe) in conjunction with a pre-release vocational training program and those in the control group received the pre-release vocational training program only. Subjects included 65 adult male inmates, ages 21-53, divided into a treatment group (N=31) and control group (N=34). A 2x2 mixed model analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the hypotheses in this research. Although means increased from pretest to posttest, significant differences were found only for the main effect of Group on the Intrapersonal Scale and the main effect of Time on the Total EQ, Intrapersonal, Adaptability, and General Mood Scales. No interaction effects were found to be significant. Results may be impacted by the type of sample, choice of testing instrument, and design of the EI training program. Recommendations for future research and program implementation are included

A Book Review: The Ten Golden Rules of Leadership

In The Ten Golden Rules of Leadership: Classical Wisdom for Modern Leaders, authors Panos Mourdoukoutas and M.A. Soupios present a different approach to leadership. The authors take a back to basics approach with this book, segmenting leadership into ten main points derived from ten quotes from philosophers (or leaders) of ancient times. These quotes (or philosophies) are then further examined and applied to the meaning of leadership (as the author’s interpret them), resulting in The Ten Golden Rules of Leadership

Plato\u27s analogical thought

The philosophical concept of analogy is fundamental to the theory of imaging that characterizes Plato’s metaphysics, cosmology, and methodology. While Plato never explicitly conceptualizes the philosophical role of analogy, his dialogues are rife with analogies and images that are often pivotal to the thought expressed there. An analysis of celebrated analogies such as the sun and the good in the Republic, the “second sailing” in the Phaedo, the “receptacle” (chōra) in the Timaeus, and the example of weaving in the Statesman reveals that even if the theory each elucidates is not explicitly concerned with analogy, the theories these images enable are structured by analogy. Thus, although there is no theory of analogy in Plato’s dialogues, the dialogues’ theory is itself analogical. Given this, the broader philosophical point that any account of reflection will have recourse to the structure of analogy because of the unique capacity of the analogical form to reflect the nature of similarity without occluding difference, something a mere likeness is unable to accomplish. It is concluded, therefore, that i) in its thinking, rather than merely in its expression, Plato’s philosophy is analogical and ii) analogy is key to philosophy’s self-reflection

Informing High School Choices: The Progress & Challenges of Small High Schools in Philadelphia

In the School District of Philadelphia in 2007-08, almost one third of high school students attend one of the district's 32 small high schools. Of these, 26 have been newly created or significantly changed since 2002. These small schools have a range of admissions criteria with two thirds being selective admission and one third neighborhood high schools. Along with this increase in high school options has been a growing interest in high school choice, with 73% of eighth graders applying to high schools outside their neighborhood in 2006. However, within the School District of Philadelphia, there is only one 'choice'-the neighborhood high school-for the 51% of rising ninth graders who try to exercise choice but are not accepted to any of their preferred choices. For those students who do attend small high schools, our research suggests that this more personalized environment is demonstrating promising outcomes with regard to improved school climate, improved interpersonal relationships between adults and students and student-to-student, and students' perceptions of their school experience. The small high school model is particularly promising for neighborhood high schools where positive relationships may help stem high dropout rates. Among our five case study high schools, the one small neighborhood high school reported great improvements in climate compared to its previous large configuration, although some lingering climate challenges remained. While positive relationships and improved climate create the conditions for learning, principals and teachers at all five case study schools reported that more was needed to develop and maintain a rigorous academic program for all students. They described the need for common faculty planning time to strengthen their academic program and more flexibility and resources to meet the unique staffing and rostering challenges of small high schools

Transformative Learning: Lessons from First-Semester Honors Narratives

Although the National Collegiate Honors Council has clearly articulated the common characteristics of “fully developed” honors programs and colleges, these elements describe the structures and processes that frame honors education but do not directly describe the intended honors outcomes for student learners (Spurrier). Implicitly, however, the intended outcomes of distinct curricula, smaller course sizes, honors living communities, international programming, capstone or thesis requirements, and any number of other innovative forms of pedagogy are qualitatively different from faster degree completion, better jobs, or higher recognition at graduation. When intentionally directed, honors education promotes the full transformation of the student (Mihelich, Storrs, & Pellet). Both the potential and challenges inherent in promoting transformative learning have a long and rich tradition in the scholarship of pedagogy, with different theorists prioritizing distinct features of the process and targeting different outcomes. Dewey, Freire, and Mezirow (in Transformative Dimensions), for instance, each argue—independent of the specifics of their models—that transformation is best accomplished when it is the explicit goal and attention is given to facilitating key learning processes. While honors programs may be well positioned to support these learning processes and while transformation may be an implicit goal of honors education, few honors mission statements frame learning goals in these terms (Bartelds, Drayer, & Wolfensberger; Camarena & Pauley). Working from the premise that honors education is well-situated to make transformative learning a higher-order goal in an era of debates about learning outcomes and metrics of change (e.g., Digby), we examine the personal transformation experiences of first-semester honors students and explore how the intentional processes integrated into these experiences played a role in that transformation. To put this work in context, we first describe the transformative learning models and identify the intentional structures built into the first-semester honors experience

Family-centered caregiving from hospital to home: Coping with trauma and building capacity with the HOPE for Families model

Informal caregivers and families play a significant role in the recovery process of trauma survivors. However, the needs and outcomes of orthopedic caregiving family members in the months following traumatic injury have received almost no attention in the literature. Our study sought to understand the factors impacting orthopedic trauma families’ experience and their ability to cope and provide care post-acute hospitalization. Based on these findings, we designed a hospital-based program to enhance family coping and adjustment post-discharge. Caregivers (N=12) of patients with orthopedic trauma injury engaged in three in-depth semi-structured face-to-face interviews to identify their most salient concerns. Once home, subjects described caregiving life at home, their coping strategies for managing the patient’s recovery, and help they received from formal and informal sources. Analysis of the qualitative data found that trauma care lacks a unified system of coordination after the patient’s return home. Thus, the role of “secondary caregivers” - longtime friends, family members, church groups, neighbors - was significant. Without an organized system of support and information, the caregivers in our study turned to their established communities for comfort and assistance. Conclusions: Based on these findings, we designed a family caregiver program, Holistic Orthopedic Patient-centered Engagement (HOPE for Families), to support families in this early transition, and to enhance collective and continuous caregiving capacity. HOPE for Families uses peer mentors as “central care organizers” to identify and engage the family’s secondary caregivers system, using the HOPE Care Planning tool to identify stressor/demands and caregiver resources to meet anticipated needs

Making A Difference: Year Two Report of the Pennsylvania High School Coaching Initiative

This report examines the implementation of the second year of three for the Pennsylvania High School Coaching Initiative (PAHSCI). Funded by the Annenberg Foundation, this initiative focuses on literacy and math coaches providing support to teachers from across the major subject areas to create literacy-rich classrooms in which students actively engage in learning tasks that deepen their content knowledge and strengthen their abilities to think critically and communicate well. This report presents findings from the first two years of research. It includes survey research as well as in-depth qualitative research in participating schools and districts and provides recommendations for PAHSCI stakeholders as they refine the program and for other education reformers as they consider the benefits of instructional coaching as a strategy for improving high schools and student achievement

LRH-1 mitigates intestinal inflammatory disease by maintaining epithelial homeostasis and cell survival.

Epithelial dysfunction and crypt destruction are defining features of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, current IBD therapies targeting epithelial dysfunction are lacking. The nuclear receptor LRH-1 (NR5A2) is expressed in intestinal epithelium and thought to contribute to epithelial renewal. Here we show that LRH-1 maintains intestinal epithelial health and protects against inflammatory damage. Knocking out LRH-1 in murine intestinal organoids reduces Notch signaling, increases crypt cell death, distorts the cellular composition of the epithelium, and weakens the epithelial barrier. Human LRH-1 (hLRH-1) rescues epithelial integrity and when overexpressed, mitigates inflammatory damage in murine and human intestinal organoids, including those derived from IBD patients. Finally, hLRH-1 greatly reduces disease severity in T-cell-mediated murine colitis. Together with the failure of a ligand-incompetent hLRH-1 mutant to protect against TNFα-damage, these findings provide compelling evidence that hLRH-1 mediates epithelial homeostasis and is an attractive target for intestinal disease

Supporting Solidarity

Photo ID 72893750 © Rawpixelimages|Dreamstime.com ABSTRACT Solidarity is a concept increasingly employed in bioethics whose application merits further clarity and explanation. Given how vital cooperation and community-level care are to mitigating communicable disease transmission, we use lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic to reveal how solidarity is a useful descriptive and analytical tool for public health scholars, practitioners, and policymakers. Drawing upon an influential framework of solidarity that highlights how solidarity arises from the ground up, we reveal how structural forces can impact the cultivation of solidarity from the top down, particularly through ensuring robust access to important social determinants of health. Public health institutions can support solidarity movements among individuals and communities by adopting a lens of social justice when considering public health priorities and, in turn, promote health equity. INTRODUCTION Over the past two decades, scholars have invoked the concept of solidarity when assessing a wide range of topics in bioethics, from CRISPR-Cas9 technology to organ donation to structural racism.[1] However, the growing literature on solidarity has not fully examined the roles and responsibilities of institutions and governments in fostering solidarity, especially regarding public health measures that implicate entire populations. We argue that it remains unclear how public health institutions should engage with solidarity and how their engagement will affect public health and its ethics. We first take Prainsack and Buyx’ three-tiered framework as an analytical starting point.[2] We then explore how public health institutions can foster solidarity by carefully considering factors that may bolster it on an interpersonal, community, and national scale. We conclude that public health institutions should adopt a lens of social justice to promote solidarity at the interpersonal and community levels, thereby promoting equity in future public health efforts. BACKGROUND Calls for solidarity in bioethics raise longstanding normative questions about the nature and limits of our duties to one another and how to weigh autonomy over considerations of justice.[3] Though the term is diversely applied, Prainsack and Buyx propose a potentially unifying definition in the 2011 Nuffield Council report, “Solidarity: Reflections On An Emerging Concept in Bioethics.” The report defines solidarity as an activity involving “shared practices reflecting a collective commitment to carry financial, social, emotional, and or other ‘costs’ to assist others.” Their conceptualization also includes important features that distinguish solidarity from other values like empathy or altruism: solidarity emphasizes action rather than mere internal feeling and recognition of connection as motivation.[4] Bioethicists have since applied this conceptualization when analyzing issues in public and global health, given that population-level efforts need cooperation from individuals and communities. Prainsack and Buyx further note that solidarity is relevant in bioethics discourses about justice and equity, in support of providing aid to low- and middle-income countries, and as a value exemplified by European welfare states.[5] Other bioethicists have argued that promoting solidarity can contribute to community engagement, partnership with Tribal communities, and global health equity.[6] Most recently, scholars have applied solidarity as a lens to assess the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the pitfalls of national mitigation efforts and global disparities in disease outcomes.[7] I.     Solidarity at Three Levels It seems impossible to foster solidarity in public health if we cannot identify it in general contexts. Prainsack and Buyx articulate three levels of solidarity: interpersonal solidarity, group solidarity, and legal or contractual codifications of solidarity.[8] They argue that each level inherently informs the one ‘above’ it in a unilateral direction. In other words, solidarity is fundamentally a bottom-up phenomenon. Solidarity among individuals influences group norms, which then have the potential to shape policy and institutional practice.[9]  Within the Prainsack and Buyx framework, it would seem nonsensical to posit how solidarity might be expressed vertically or from the “top down.” It appears intuitively odd to imagine how a government entity might ‘be’ in solidarity with a person or group if solidarity requires some cognition about their condition per Prainsack and Buyx’ definition. Some have argued that solidarity does not seem like something that one can impose, as instances of it arise from agents recognizing and acting upon some bond rather than in response to a command. Indeed, people may be rightfully hesitant to engage in solidarity if the official messaging is overly paternalistic or coercive.[10] However, some authors have countered that governments can express solidarity through enacting structural and policy changes, though it is ambiguous how these actions are distinct from a justice-driven approach.[11] If a bottom-up approach is thus the most practical means of achieving policy that reflects solidarity, then it does not add much to public health. Institutions would be ineffective without the population’s initiation of the corresponding social norms. However, we find this conclusion overly pessimistic. Fostering a culture of solidarity to improve public health has potential merit. Prainsack and Buyx’ framework overlooks how public health actors can influence solidarity between individuals and across communities. To clarify, we agree with the view that solidarity is a bottom-up phenomenon. Solidarity may not be able to originate in a top-down fashion, but we suggest that public health institutions can take a more active role in providing the public with accurate information, promoting social justice, and intervening in the social determinants of health. II.     The COVID-19 Pandemic as a Case Study Lessons learned from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic support our argument. The pandemic deepened socioeconomic disparities in the US and hindered access to vital resources such as food, housing, and healthcare.[12] Prainsack recently noted: “[n]ext to the immediate health effects of the virus, poverty and grave inequalities have been the root causes of human suffering during the pandemic.”[13]  Prior to the pandemic, many rural and low-income populations lacked reliable access to the internet and devices like laptops or smartphones. This continued lack of access restricts the flow of information and prevents people from accessing telemedicine services.[14] Preexisting social, political, and health inequities worsened health outcomes among many marginalized racial and ethnic groups. It is well-documented that communities of color, including Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Latinx populations, had greater COVID-related mortality and morbidity due to the effects of structural racism.[15] Although federal US agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention enacted laws that provided safety nets (e.g., the Federal Eviction Moratorium), the majority of such programs have ended, leaving many with little assistance and the threat of further hardship.[16] These disparities are relevant because Prainsack, Buyx, and others note that solidarity arises from agents recognizing and acting on some perceived attainable collective goal(s). Income inequality and disparate access to food, education, and health care may lead people to consider public health goals unattainable. This could limit the desire to work toward those goals collectively.[17] The existing literature on collective action theory supports this intuition. It emphasizes that structural conditions, such as an absence of perceived hope for social change among a group, can lead to low ‘group efficacy’ and little willingness to cooperate, both within and across socioeconomic strata.[18] The pandemic spurred countless messages from public health agencies. The messaging did not recognize or attend to the different material realities and circumstances of the US population. How can people feel comfortable getting vaccinated if they deeply distrust the government, including public health institutions? How can people remain motivated to wear masks and distance themselves if they cannot afford basic necessities and work jobs without adequate pay and leave policies? We ask these questions to illustrate how socioeconomic disparities can marginalize people if they feel ignored, apathetic, or resentful of those better off or those in power whom they perceive to “not be doing enough.” This marginalization precludes the formation of solidarity. There are instances when a population has disparate access to resources and social capital, but solidarity may still emerge from a shared goal or vision for the future. For example, a heterogeneous population living in the same town may come together to protest an environmental injustice that impacts their water supply with the common goal of securing access to safe drinking water. However, many populations in the US failed to recognize shared goals of this kind during the COVID-19 pandemic. A significant minority of the US population was reluctant to acknowledge the severity of COVID-19 infection and thus refused to participate in efforts to mitigate its spread. Even between groups who shared the goal of slowing COVID-19 transmission, the methods were widely debated. Approximately 20 percent of the adult population eligible for vaccination remains unvaccinated.[19] Governmental bodies responsible for disseminating information, coordinating the allocation of resources, and establishing guidelines have a large role in mediating these disagreements and intervening in socioeconomic conditions that impact people's ability and willingness to engage in solidarity. III.     Solidarity, Social Justice, and the Role of Public Health Institutions Adopting a lens of social justice provides further insights into how public health actors impact solidarity. Powers and Faden argue that the “foundational moral justification for the social institution of public health is social justice.”[20] Their theory of social justice has two aims. First, it ensures that everyone has a sufficient amount of the six core elements of well-being and that public health institutions are responsible for “adopting policies and creating environments” where all can flourish.[21] Second, public health institutions should distribute resources meant to promote well-being and focus on the “needs of those who are the most disadvantaged.”[22] Public health institutions should enact policies that address injustice. In doing so, public health institutions can seed the opportunity to build solidarity from the bottom up. Equipping individuals and communities with resources will foster cooperation and adherence to policies that require solidarity, such as masking and vaccination. This is consistent with arguments illustrating how institutions such as Tribal governments promote the conditions needed for their group, and especially its most vulnerable members, to flourish.[23] Addressing social determinants of health with a social justice lens will create the circumstances under which more individuals and groups can find common causes and foster solidarity. In the long run, such efforts may result in the establishment of values and practices from the bottom up. There are societal and public health preconditions required before institutions can expect their audience to act in solidarity with one another. Through their great influence over information and resources, public institutions do have the power to impact what values are most widespread. Furthermore, public health may foster trust and hope, which are important psychosocial factors that influence collective action,[24] if policies increase access to resources that promote well-being. Messaging efficacy also depends on the context of public trust, education, and whether the institutions meet one’s basic needs. Disparate messaging across different public institutions may confuse or disillusion individuals. To apply our theory of solidarity to the decision to vaccinate, a policy would be to foster conditions that facilitate access to vaccines and information about vaccine efficacy instead of imposing a top-down mandate without first eliciting public trust. IV.     Counterargument Some argue that discordant public health messaging, ineffective government, and inadequate social programs can also bring people together under pressure and foster solidarity. One may argue that the most powerful motivators towards solidarity are strife and disparity, as evidenced throughout history. During the pandemic alone, political struggle and personal hardship inspired solidarity in the US, from individual neighbors helping each other to mutual aid groups forming across communities. We thus do not claim that solidarity is possible only when our government programs and public health institutions are most effective. We instead point out that solidarity can be further hindered when people feel alienated, hopeless, and pitted against each other. CONCLUSION Many competing conceptualizations of solidarity persist in the bioethics literature, and Prainsack and Buyx offer one compelling framework that public health ethicists continue to draw upon.[25] However, their framework fails to acknowledge how public health institutions impact interpersonal and group solidarity. Public health institutions can foster solidarity through actions other than mere messaging, invoking catchphrases like “we are all in this together.” Efforts to address socioeconomic preconditions and alleviate health disparities can cultivate group solidarity. As we saw during the pandemic, cooperation and solidarity go hand-in-hand with disease mitigation efforts; solidarity has clear intrinsic value.[26] As this relationship becomes more apparent, we will continue to see attempts from public health institutions to foster or invoke solidarity. Therefore, public health institutions would be remiss to ignore their role in addressing the social determinants of health. Adopting a social justice lens when planning public health interventions will clarify and strengthen their role in facilitating solidarity. Ultimately, if health disparities continue to persist or widen, it is very hard to imagine how group solidarity can ever be achieved. The widescale adoption of many public health measures needed to promote health and well-being would be conducive to solidarity. - Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are the authors’ and do not represent the views of the NIH, DHHS, or the U.S. government. Funding Disclosure: This work was supported in part by the Intramural Program of the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center. - [1] John J Mulvihill et al., “Ethical Issues of CRISPR Technology and Gene Editing through the Lens of Solidarity,” British Medical Bulletin 122 (2017): 17–29, https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldx002; Ben Saunders, “Altruism or Solidarity? The Motives for Organ Donation and Two Proposals,” Bioethics 26, no. 7 (September 2012): 376–81, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01989.x; -Vanessa Y Hiratsuka, “SPECIAL REPORT: A Critical Moment in Bioethics: Reckoning with Anti-Black Racism through Intergenerational Dialogue A Call for Solidarity in Bioethics: Confronting Anti-Black Racism Together,” 2022, https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.1380. [2] Prainsack and Buyx, Solidarity: Reflections on an Emerging Concept in Bioethics London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2011; Prainsack and Buyx, “Solidarity in Contemporary Bioethics--towards a New Approach.” Bioethics 26, no. 7 (September 2012): 343–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-8519.2012.01987.X. [3] Bob Simpson, “A ‘We’ Problem for Bioethics and the Social Sciences: A Response to Barbara Prainsack,” Science, Technology, & Human Values 43, no. 1 (January 12, 2018): 45–55, https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243917735899. [4] Barbara Prainsack and Alena Buyx, Solidarity: Reflections on an Emerging Concept in Bioethics (London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2011). [5] Barbara Prainsack and Alena Buyx, “Solidarity in Contemporary Bioethics--towards a New Approach,” Bioethics 26, no. 7 (September 2012): 343–50, https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-8519.2012.01987.X. [6] Bridget Pratt, Phaik Yeong Cheah, and Vicki Marsh, “Solidarity and Community Engagement in Global Health Research,” The American Journal of Bioethics : AJOB 20, no. 5 (May 3, 2020): 43–56, https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2020.1745930; Sara Chandros Hull, F. Leah Nez (Diné), and Juliana M. Blome, “Solidarity as an Aspirational Basis for Partnership with Tribal Communities,” The American Journal of Bioethics 21, no. 10 (October 3, 2021): 14–17, https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2021.1965258; Mbih J. Tosam et al., “Global Health Inequalities and the Need for Solidarity: A View from the Global South,” Developing World Bioethics 18, no. 3 (September 1, 2018): 241–49, https://doi.org/10.1111/DEWB.12182. [7] Peter West-Oram, “Solidarity Is for Other People: Identifying Derelictions of Solidarity in Responses to COVID-19,” Journal of Medical Ethics 47, no. 2 (February 1, 2021): 65–68, https://doi.org/10.1136/MEDETHICS-2020-106522; Barbara Prainsack, “Solidarity in Times of Pandemics,” Democratic Theory 7, no. 2 (December 1, 2020): 124–33, https://doi.org/10.3167/DT.2020.070215; F. Marijn Stok et al., “Social Inequality and Solidarity in Times of COVID-19,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 12 (June 2, 2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH18126339; Ming Jui Yeh, “Solidarity in Pandemics, Mandatory Vaccination, and Public Health Ethics,” American Journal of Public Health 112, no. 2 (February 1, 2022): 255–61, https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306578; Barbara Prainsack, “Beyond Vaccination Mandates: Solidarity and Freedom During COVID-19.,” Am J Public Health 112, no. 2 (February 1, 2022): 232–33, https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306619. [8] Prainsack and Buyx, Solidarity: Reflections on an Emerging Concept in Bioethics London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2011; Prainsack and Buyx, “Solidarity in Contemporary Bioethics--towards a New Approach.” Bioethics 26, no. 7 (September 2012): 343–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-8519.2012.01987.X. [9] Prainsack and Buyx, Solidarity: Reflections on an Emerging Concept in Bioethics London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2011; Prainsack and Buyx, “Solidarity in Contemporary Bioethics--towards a New Approach.” Bioethics 26, no. 7 (September 2012): 343–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-8519.2012.01987.X. [10] Yeh, “Solidarity in Pandemics, Mandatory Vaccination, and Public Health Ethics”; Prainsack, “Beyond Vaccination Mandates: Solidarity and Freedom During COVID-19.” [11] Ho, Anita, and Iulia Dascalu. "Relational solidarity and COVID-19: an ethical approach to disrupt the global health disparity pathway." Global Bioethics 32, no. 1 (2021): 34-50; West-Oram, Peter. "Solidarity is for other people: identifying derelictions of solidarity in responses to COVID-19." Journal of Medical Ethics 47, no. 2 (2021): 65-68. [12] Monica Webb Hooper, Anna María Nápoles, and Eliseo J. Pérez-Stable, “COVID-19 and Racial/Ethnic Disparities,” JAMA 323, no. 24 (June 23, 2020): 2466, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.8598. [13] Prainsack, Barbara. “Beyond Vaccination Mandates: Solidarity and Freedom During COVID-19.” Am J Public Health 112, no. 2 (February 1, 2022): 232–33. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306619. [14] Camille A Clare, “Telehealth and the Digital Divide as a Social Determinant of Health during the COVID-19 Pandemic,” Network Modeling Analysis in Health Informatics and Bioinformatics 10 (2021): 26, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13721-021-00300-y. [15] Patrick Nana-Sinkam et al., “Health Disparities and Equity in the Era of COVID-19,” Journal of Clinical and Translational Science 5, no. 1 (March 16, 2021): e99, https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2021.23. [16] Kathryn M Leifheit et al., “Expiring Eviction Moratoriums and COVID-19 Incidence and Mortality,” American Journal of Epidemiology 190, no. 12 (December 1, 2021): 2503–10, https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwab196. [17] Barbara Prainsack, “Solidarity in Times of Pandemics,” Democratic Theory 7, no. 2 (December 1, 2020): 124–33, https://doi.org/10.3167/DT.2020.070215 [18] Maximilian Agostini and Martijn van Zomeren, “Toward a Comprehensive and Potentially Cross-Cultural Model of Why People Engage in Collective Action: A Quantitative Research Synthesis of Four Motivations and Structural Constraints.,” Psychological Bulletin 147, no. 7 (July 2021): 667–700, https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000256. [19] Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (HHS/CDC), “COVID Data Tracker,” 2023, https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker. [20] Powers, Madison, and Ruth Faden. Social Justice: The Moral Foundation of Public Health and Health Policy. 1st editio. New York: Oxford Press, 2006, p. 9 and Chapter 4 [21] Powers and Faden, Social Justice: The Moral Foundation of Public Health and Health Policy; Madison Powers and Ruth Faden, Structural Injustice: Power, Advantage, and Human Rights (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019). [22] Powers, Madison, and Ruth Faden. Social Justice: The Moral Foundation of Public Health and Health Policy. 1st editio. New York: Oxford Press, 2006, p. 10 [23] Bobby Saunkeah et al., “Extending Research Protections to Tribal Communities,” The American Journal of Bioethics 21, no. 10 (October 3, 2021): 5–12, htt