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

Question for 2026-2027 Academic Year:

“If artificial intelligence lives up to the hype, will it make people “dumber” and less skilled, thereby making us less free?”

Due Date: March 1, 2027

---

Eligibility:

You may not use A.I. to write this essay. Finalists may be contacted to discuss their essay before the award is given. Those who cannot explain their writing and ideas will be deemed ineligible for the award.

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, 2027-2028. 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.

The question explained:

Artificial intelligence is getting a lot of attention with its creators promising a variety of utopian futures, not the least of which is a reduced need to work because of a universal high-income. There are many people who argue that none of this will come to pass, that A.I. advocates are just trying to make money and prevent a stock market crash. However, if we assume their promises to be true, it is worth asking what the actual consequences of A.I. will be. For instance, if computers do all the intellectual work, the only jobs left will be unskilled manual labor. There will no longer be teachers or scientists. People will be relegated to the tasks that computers can’t do such as picking crops, sewing clothes, construction projects, and factory work.

At the same time, the modern liberal-democratic tradition tells us that knowledge is a form of power and that freedom is the consequence of each of us making the best and most informed decisions for ourselves. Political and personal liberty, we are told, means self-governance and working in coalition with fellow citizens. Yet, this is precisely what A.I. is supposed to do best.

The conflict between these two aspects is the focal point of this year’s essay topic.

The purpose of the essay is to explore the tensions between A.I. and individuality from a philosophical perspective. It is to ask about the relationship between intelligence and freedom. To put it another way, this essay investigates whether abdicating the intellectual work to computers will enslave everyday people or whether democracy is even possible when computers do the thinking for us.

There are many related issues you might discuss along the way. Abstractly, one might ask about the difference between brain and mind, reasoning and calculating, biological predispositions and human nature as a contrast to programming and hardwiring. Is A.I. really intelligence or is it something else and how important is the “artificial” element of it. Does an A.I. have rights? Can it choose purpose or impose meaning on its actions or statements?

More concretely, essays can address the nature of education and training, the importance of skills-development, the value of creativity and imagination, the impact of curiosity on human life, the role of humanity in discovery, and the sense of ownership people have over their own work. What will A.I. mean for class relations, equality, and equity? How much power will the owners of particular A.I. systems have over those whom they effect? Can algorithms be objective or neutral, and how does one respond to conclusions made by a machine with no transparency?

Finally, it is important to consider what intelligence and freedom mean. Can a machine have “street smarts”? Can it be wise? How can it have knowledge when randomness is built into its programming? As for freedom, consider the famous distinction between negative and positive freedom, the difference between political and cultural freedom, and the tension between individual freedom and collective self-determination.

This is a rich topic with almost endless possible approaches. We will look both at the philosophical content and how evident it is that the author has “sunk their teeth” into the issue.

How to write it:

We reiterate, do not use A.I. Last year, over 100 essays were eliminated for being computer generated. Finalists may be contacted by the judges to have a conversation about their essay. If they cannot explain their writing and their ideas, their contributions will be disqualified.

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.

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.

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.

Due Date: March 1, 2027.

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.

---