Eliot Glassheim Essay Award on Capitalism and the Public Good

This annual essay contest awards a $1000 scholarship to the university of North Dakota student who submits the best essay on a question related to the theme Capitalism and the Public Good.

By establishing this award, Dr. Glassheim hopes to encourage critical analysis of capitalism’s claims, especially: whether there is such a thing as a self-regulating “market” based on self-interest; whether corporate capitalism functions by different rules than small scale capitalism; and whether unregulated capitalism is good for the economy, the environment, and the common good.

The contest is non-partisan and prioritizes no specific ideological position. IPPL welcomes all submissions as long as the essay is representative of thoughtful reflection and critical evaluation of the contest themes.

This contest is only open to students who will be enrolled at The University of North Dakota during the academic year following the submission deadline. The prize is awarded as a scholarship. 

Questions about the contest should be sent to ippl@und.edu

“Should the idea of “wage theft” include paying employees what they are worth?”

Due Date: march 1, 2026

---

eligibility:

Prize money will be dispersed through UND in the form of a scholarship. As such, entrants will have to be enrolled as a UND student next year, 2026-2027. Part-time students, international students, and graduate students are all eligible, including those at the law and medical schools. Only one’s own work can be submitted, and group essays are not eligible. Essays must be original, never published, and be between 1500 and 2000 words. You may not use A.I. to write this essay.

the question explained:

“Wage theft” is a legal term that refers to withholding salary from workers that they otherwise earned. It is a crime in the United States and elsewhere. But there is a deeper philosophical idea that wage theft occurs when people aren’t paid what they’re actually worth, as opposed to what they agreed to contractually. Under this conception, wage theft happens when someone’s labor is not properly valued.

Imagine you accept a job for $15 an hour because you have no other option, but the job is hard, or dangerous, or requires a lot of skill, and you decide that you should really be paid twice that. Does it make sense to claim that wages “should” be a certain amount? Is it defensible to argue that the market is “wrong” in its estimation of what work is worth? Should there be more to determining wages than just supply and demand?

Many countries argue this, at least a little. They set a minimum wage to ensure that pay does not fall below a certain level, even if some people are willing to work for less. There are also those who argue that employers should pay even more, not a minimum wage, but a “living wage,” that guarantees everyone a good quality of life. Are they right that employees should be paid enough to flourish, not just survive? Is there a moral standard that supersedes economics? Is undercutting workers for profit unethical, even if it is legal?

For this essay, you should engage this debate directly. You must take a position on whether modern economics is correct that the market alone should arbitrate wages or whether there should be other considerations, such as human dignity, work-life balance, social and civic responsibilities, familial needs, and the aesthetic experience and pleasures of work (or lack thereof).

In essence you are asking whether the following statement is true or false: when employers pay less than what work is worth, they are stealing from their employees.

There are many related issues you might discuss along the way. Are law and morality different, and if so, how or why? Who gets to decide what kind of life people should live? Is the market actually free or is it rigged? How do people negotiate for fair pay when they are desperate or have no power? How important should morality be to a society? Are there different rules for our economic lives than there are for our social lives, and if so, is this okay? What responsibilities does the government have to protect its citizens? What responsibilities do employers have to their workers and vice versa? Do we have moral obligations to other people or is it “every person for themselves”? Should people who can’t argue for themselves have advocates to speak for them? Are employers less entitled to self interest when they are wealthy? You should also feel free to ask more technical questions such as: Is there such a thing as “the deserving poor?” Is a rent-seeking society immoral? Are the assumptions modern economists make during their modeling of human behavior accurate and justifiable?

How to write it:

The point of this essay is to examine the controversy and connect to it key philosophical ideas. You may take any position you want, including finding some middle ground, but you must explain the opposing positions in the debate. Compare claims and evidence for each side—persuasively argue against yourself while you defend your conclusion. Do not rely on straw man arguments; make the best case for each position and then come to a defensible conclusion.

The essay must conclude with a clear and definitive position. It should strive to be fair, not polemical, and can connect examples from popular culture, literature, science, or any other arena that helps clarify the controversy. It may also use evidence from political science, anthropology, psychology, history, economics, sociology, or other disciplines that ask about the human social experience. However, it is first and foremost a philosophy essay and the argument must be philosophical in character. Examples from other disciplines should complement, not eclipse the philosophical argumentation.

The essay should be written for a general audience, not for a class or a teacher. Do not think of it as a research paper, but more like a magazine article or long-form blog post. It should be clear, thoughtful, and accessible to an average college student, not super-technical or confusingly abstract. The essay should not have extensive quotes or excessive footnotes, although it should have some quotes, at least. Classroom assignments will not be accepted without significant revision. Prospective authors are encouraged to look at previous years’ essays online to see some winning examples. Visit https://philosophyinpubliclife.org/eliot-glassheim-essay-contest/ for more details and past winners’ papers.

Finally, essays will not be evaluated on what position they argue for, but on how well they argue. All conclusions have equal opportunity to win. IPPL is non-partisan and non-ideological.

Where to start:

We encourage you to find secondary sources from newspapers, magazines, and reputable websites, to bolster your position. But again, all roads must lead to philosophy. Since this is a philosophical essay, it should examine the key ideas and terms found in and around the question. Explicit connections to specific philosophers and schools of thought are welcome, although these ideas and references must be presented without using jargon or overly academic prose.

Some examples of related philosophical questions you can address are: What is citizenship? Is citizenship different now than it was historically? Does increased diversity (including women, minorities, immigrants, etc.) make citizenship more or less special? What is human nobility? Is there such a thing as capitalist-citizenship? Can people overcome their selfishness? How important is education and can you teach people to be citizens?

Furthermore, it is worth asking which moral standards apply here. Are we supposed to judge the nobility of citizenship by its consequences, by the intentions of those involved, or by its promise to contribute to a good life? And does it make sense to even ask whether a way of life is noble at all: isn’t politics just a neutral tool as good or bad as those who participate? How do ethics, politics, and economics interact?

Due Date: March 1, 2026.

Click here to submit your essay via UND’s Scholarship Central.

For more information and to read past winners’ essays, visit www.philosophyinpubliclife.org and look under the “projects” menu for the Glassheim essay contest, or contact us at ippl@und.edu.

---

Previous Winners

click on the title to read past winning papers:

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Citizen Glassheim

Eliot Glassheim’s father was a businessman, a Rockefeller Republican. His mother, a special education teacher, was a Democrat. From them, he learned he learned the art and potential of compromise, the importance of respect and decency in public life, and the rightness of listening to people who might think differently.

For more than four decades, that has been the Eliot Glassheim way in Grand Forks. He brought those two parts of himself here from his New York origins, not as hobbling contradictions but as a template for honest engagement in public life. As a poet, philosopher, Educator, bookseller and activist—as a long-serving City Council member and state legislator—he has earned the title he prizes above all others, that of citizen.

He enjoys vigorous argument, but there is no spite, no dishonesty in it. He craves engagement despite an enduring shyness, and he listens actively, never passively. He can be eloquent and self-deprecating, New York urbane and North Dakota nice, and he is among the best at making a serious point with humor. He has taken to radio, TV and newspaper editorial pages, as well as to the City Council chambers and the floor of the North Dakota House of Representatives, to defend the idea of self-government at a time when many see government as the source of their problems, not the answer.

He literally wrote the book on the essential role of kindness in public life: Sweet Land of Decency: America’s question for a more perfect union.

We are a better community for it, and we say: Well done, citizen Glassheim.

— Written by Chuck Haga, from Eliot Glassheim: A Day of Recognition, May 2, 2015.

Some books that influence Eliot’s thinking:

Paul Goodman, Communitas.

Earnest Hemmingway, Old Man in the Sea.

Arthur Miller, The Crucible

He was particularly influenced by the 1957 film version of the Crucible, co-written by Jean-Paul Sartre.

Arthur Miller, Death of A Salesman.

Charles E Silberman, Crisis in the Classroom.

Thomas Wolf, Look Homeward Angel

Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States.

---