Political Science

College of Arts and Sciences faculty win 2025 Best Should Teach Awards

Rachel Sauer — Tue, 22 Apr 2025 13:30:00 +0000

College of Arts and Sciences faculty win 2025 Best Should Teach Awards Rachel Sauer Tue, 04/22/2025 - 07:30

Peter Hunt, Warren Sconiers and Josh Strayhorn will be honored during an awards ceremony May 1

Three College of Arts and Sciences faculty members have been recognized as 2025 Best Should Teach Award winners.

Peter Hunt, a professor of classics; Warren Sconiers, an associate teaching professor of ecology and evolutionary biology; and Josh Strayhorn, an associate professor of political science, will be recognized for their excellence in teaching and academic leadership at an awards ceremony from 6 to 9 p.m. May 1 in the CASE Chancellors Hall and Auditorium.

Peter Hunt (left), Warren Sconiers (center) and Josh Strayhorn (right) have been recognized as 2025 Best Should Teach Award winners.

The Best Should Teach Initiative was established in 1996 by Lindley and Marguerite Stiles to support the idea that “the best should teach.” It celebrates excellence in teaching at primary, secondary and higher education levels and supports the preparation of college and university faculty, as well as public school teachers, in their disciplinary fields.

Hunt, who has been a faculty member at the ɫ��Ƶ�� since 2000, is a classical Greek historian who studies warfare and society, slavery, historiography and oratory.

Sconiers trained as an insect ecologist, studying the effects of drought stress and changes in nutritional plant physiology and insect species composition. He also researches how to increase student engagement and learning in large classroom settings, focusing on peer-to-peer collaboration, self-efficacy, bridging biology teaching and research experiences and building instructor approachability.

Strayhorn, who joined the ɫ��Ƶ�� faculty in 2013, specializes in formal theory, political institutions and judicial politics. His research applies game-theoretic models in a variety of contexts. His work examines the implications of delegation, oversight and accountability mechanisms for outcomes within political and judicial hierarchies and for democratic governance.

The Best Should Teach Award ceremony is free and open to the public. The keynote speaker will be Alphonse Keasley, former associate vice chancellor in the Office of Diversity, Equity and Community Engagement at ɫ��Ƶ�� who has more than 30 years of experience as a faculty member, staff and administrator.

Best Should Teach events and awards are co-funded by the Ira and Ineva Baldwin Fund in the CU Foundation and Brian Good's private Best Should Teach Fund, with additional support from the Center for Teaching and Learning, the School of Education and the College of Arts and Sciences.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about arts and sciences? Show your support.

Peter Hunt, Warren Sconiers and Josh Strayhorn will be honored during an awards ceremony May 1.

Traditional

White

Exploring the changing politics of science

Rachel Sauer — Tue, 15 Apr 2025 14:50:58 +0000

Exploring the changing politics of science Rachel Sauer Tue, 04/15/2025 - 08:50

Students invited to enjoy a slice and discuss interaction of science policy and politics at Pizza & Politics event April 21

A study conducted by the Pew Research Center in October 2024 found that 76% of Americans express “a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests.” That’s the good news. The not-do-good news is that number is down from 86% in January 2019.

Also, the same study found that 48% of respondents feel scientists should “focus on establishing sound scientific facts and stay out of public policy debates.”

So, these are interesting times at the nexus of science policy and politics. This will be the theme of the Politics & Pizza discussion from 6:15 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Monday, April 21, in HUMN 250.

If you go

What: Politics & Pizza, "Science Policy and Politics"

When: 6:15 to 7:30 p.m. Monday, April 21

Where: HUMN 250

Free Cosmo's pizza!

The aim of the Politics & Pizza discussion series—which was initiated and will be moderated by Glen Krutz, a professor of political science—is to “encourage productive, substantive deliberation of specific topics, rather than rancorous and ideological macro-thoughts.”

Politics & Pizza, which includes free Cosmo’s pizza, is modeled on similar sessions offered in Harvard University’s Institute of Politics. Each session features expert speakers who give a few introductory thoughts about the session’s topic and then open the session to a question-and-answer with students.

In the sessions, which are designed to be highly interactive with the student audience, the panel of experts individually make initial comments on the session topic.

“However, the majority of the time is spent in questions and answers in a lively, interactive format that often induces nice interaction between the experts as well,” Krutz says. “The panelists can also ask questions of one another and feel free to banter as they wish.”

The expert panel for the Science Policy and Politics discussion will be Michael Detamore, alumnus of ɫ��Ƶ�� College of Engineering and Applied Science (CEAS) and director of the Translational Medicine Institute and professor of biomedical engineering and mechanical engineering at Colorado State University; Lori Hunter, director of the ɫ��Ƶ�� Institute of Behavioral Science and professor of sociology; Keith Molenaar, dean of the ɫ��Ƶ�� College of Engineering and Applied Science (CEAS) and K. Stanton Lewis Professor of Construction Engineering and Management; and Massimo Ruzzene, ɫ��Ƶ�� senior vice chancellor for Research & Innovation (RIO), dean of the Institutes and Slade Professor of Engineering.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about political science? Show your support.

Students invited to enjoy a slice and discuss interaction of science policy and politics at Pizza & Politics event April 21.

Traditional

White

Come for the cheese and pepperoni, stay for the lively political discussion

Rachel Sauer — Wed, 05 Mar 2025 19:38:10 +0000

Come for the cheese and pepperoni, stay for the lively political discussion Rachel Sauer Wed, 03/05/2025 - 12:38

Politics & Pizza event March 17 will let students and experts discuss the relationship between business and politics

Many noteworthy images of the current political moment have included titans of business—in the Oval Office, speaking at a recent Cabinet meeting, gathered around the U.S. president during Inaugural events.

The relationship between business and politics has long been a fraught topic of discussion and, sometimes, contention—perhaps never more so than now.

If you go

What: Politics & Pizza, "The Business of Politics"

When: 5:30 to 6:45 p.m. March 17

Where: Muenzinger E0046

Free Cosmo's pizza!

Learn more

This will be the topic of the first Politics & Pizza event this semester from 5:30 to 6:45 p.m. March 17 in Muenzinger E0046. The discussion will explore the proper relationship of business leaders and organizations to politics and the political system.

“These events are meant to help CU students sink their minds into key, specific political issues while they are sinking their teeth into delicious pizza!” Krutz says. “The other main goal is to have experts get the discussion started, but then to very much have a discussion between the students and one another and the students and the experts. The interaction piece is central, rather than a one-way information flow that sometimes we see at talks on university campuses.”

Politics & Pizza, which includes free Cosmo’s pizza, is modeled on similar sessions offered in Harvard University’s Institute of Politics. Each session will feature expert speakers who give a few introductory thoughts about the session’s topic and then open the session to a question-and-answer with students.

The theme of the Pizza & Politics event March 17 is “The Business of Politics,” with panelists Scott Flanders, a former CEO of eHealth, Playboy Enterprises Inc., Freedom Communications Inc. and Columbia House Company and board member for Fathom Holdings Inc., Fellow Health and 890 5^th Avenue; Paula Hildebrandt, former vice president for corporate development and integration planning with FedEx Corp. and former economic research associate with the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City; Taylor Jaworski, ɫ��Ƶ�� associate professor of economics; Midge Korczak, former executive director of the Boulder County Bar Association; and Brian Morgan, founder and CEO of Ranch Bucket Brands.

Upcoming Politics & Pizza events will focus on current topics including science and politics.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about political science? Show your support.

Politics & Pizza event March 17 will let students and experts discuss the relationship between business and politics.

Traditional

White

CU foreign policy expert not optimistic on Syria’s outlook

Rachel Sauer — Mon, 27 Jan 2025 17:03:19 +0000

CU foreign policy expert not optimistic on Syria’s outlook Rachel Sauer Mon, 01/27/2025 - 10:03

Bradley Worrell

Political science Professor Federiga Bindi says the new, Islamic rebel-led government is telling the West what it wants to hear but that the situation on the ground is concerning

In May, ɫ��Ƶ�� Department of Political Science professor and foreign policy expert Federiga Bindi was asked to spearhead the creation of a conference sponsored by the American Friends Service Committee regarding the future of Syria. The Middle Eastern country had been mired in a grinding civil war for 13 years with no end in sight, and AFSC was concerned the world had largely forgotten about the conflict and its resulting humanitarian crisis.

By the time the two-day conference, titled Reframing the Conversation Around Syria in Europe, convened in early December at the European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium, the Assad regime that had governed the country for more than 70 years collapsed spectacularly as Muslim rebels swept through the country and seized the capital of Damascus.

“Everybody was surprised—even that the rebel attack took place,” says Bindi, noting the war had essentially settled into a stalemate for some time. “That’s the interesting thing, because to prepare for this conference, I talked to a lot of experts. I went to Brussels several times—and nobody expected something like this. So, everybody was taken by surprise, and everyone was surprised how quickly things happened.”

In past years, the Assad regime had been able to successfully battle insurgents with support from Russia and Iran. However, with Russia bogged down in its war in Ukraine and Iran on the defensive after Israel’s attacks on it, as well as allies Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon—following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attack on Israel—the situation on the ground in the Middle East is very different today, Bindi says.

“Also, there are indications that they (the rebels) were not alone—the U.S., Israel and Turkey directly or indirectly supported them, because Syria was an ally of Iran, and if you take away Syria as an ally of Iran, then Iran can’t resupply Hezbollah in Lebanon,” she says. “So, the change (in leadership in Syria) is bad for the Russians, but I think it’s even worse for Iran.”

Meanwhile, Israel and Turkey can be considered the winners resulting from the outcome and the new major regional power in the Middle East, she adds.

What next for Syria?

At the December conference in Brussels, attendees—including foreign policy experts and Syrian activists—were “clearly happy that Assad was gone, but they were also very wary,” Bindi says. “Their first message was, ‘We shouldn’t just say this is great, because we don’t know what happens next.’”

While many Syrians at home and abroad—and many in the West—hope for peace and healing in Syria, Bindi says there are too many variables to know if that’s possible. One particular concern is whether the new government, composed of leaders from the Islamic rebel group Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS), will show tolerance for the country’s religious and ethnic minorities and support basic human rights.

While noting that Ahmed al-Sharaa, the charismatic leader of HTS, has swapped his combat fatigues for business suits, dropped his wartime pseudonym for his real name, and downplayed his past jihadist views for a more moderate form of Syrian nationalism in interviews with Western media, Bindi says the news that has been coming out of Syria is not encouraging.

“The way he (Sharaa) presents himself, dressed in a suit and speaking with western media, he’s been very conciliatory. For example, he just met with the custodian of religious sites in Jerusalem. He said, ‘Christians are going to be allowed to live in peace. Don’t worry. I’m a big supporter of the Pope.’ So, the rhetoric is very conciliatory, very Western, but the acts are not. The little news we have out of Syria is that Alawi (members of a religious minority to which previous President Bashar al-Assad belongs and drew power from) have been beaten and even killed.”

Separately, when the German foreign minister, who is a woman, recently visited Syria with a European delegation, HTS leaders declined to shake hands with her but did shake hands with male delegation members. Bindi says that could suggest HTS endorses strict Muslim prohibitions regarding interactions between men and women, in contrast with Syria’s recent past as a Muslim but largely secular country that allowed women many of the freedoms found in the West.

“At the moment, there is no territorial integrity in Syria,” says ɫ��Ƶ�� political scientist Federiga Bindi. (Photo: Umayyad Mosque and surrounding neighborhood in Damascus, Syria; Bernard Gagnon/Wikimedia Commons)

“So, that may suggest they (HTS) are not that liberal after all,” she says. “A former envoy to Syria, who I know very well, told me he’s convinced Syria is going to be a theocracy-style government like in Afghanistan.”

Meanwhile, Bindi says rightwing leaders in Europe are using the change in leadership in Syria to say that the roughly 2 million Syrian refugees can safely return home, but it’s her view that “Syria is not safe by any means.”

Foreign troops occupy Syria

Currently, several foreign governments have military troops occupying portions of Syria, and Bindi says the potential for clashes with Syrian forces and with each other remains ever-present, noting that those foreign powers have sometimes competing objectives. Israel has occupied the Golan Heights and nearby areas in Syria for what it says are security reasons, the United States has occupied portions of the country with the stated objective of fighting ISIS while also supporting the Kurds, and Turkish armed forces have occupied the northern portion of Syria to support rebel forces and to potentially combat what it calls Kurdish terrorists. Meanwhile, Russia, which maintained naval and air bases in Syria during Assad’s regime, still has some troops in the country.

“At the moment, there is no territorial integrity in Syria,” Bindi says. “I don’t see the Kurds giving up their territory in Syria. I don’t see the Turks giving up their territory. I don’t see the Russians leaving, if they can keep their bases. And I don’t see the Americans and the Israelis withdrawing. Nobody wants to give up their territories, so it’s a big mess.”

The new leadership in Syria likely isn’t happy that portions of the country are occupied by foreign powers, but it’s not in a position to demand their withdrawal, and it may grudgingly accept the status quo if it is allowed to implement a theocracy, she says.

Given the situation in Syria today, it’s hard to predict what comes next, Bindi says. Still, one scenario that Bindi says is very unlikely is that Bashar Assad, who fled to Moscow as the rebels closed in on Damascus, will ever return to power.

“I think he’s gone, just like the Shah in Persia,” she says. “He’s going to have a golden exile in Russia, and that will be it. He should be happy he saved his skin, unlike Saddam Hussein (in Iraq) and unlike Muammar Gaddafi (in Libya).”

The other scenario that Bindi finds very unlikely is that the United States and Europe will commit major military forces to Syria to attempt to promote nation-building and democracy, like they attempted with Iraq and Afghanistan.

“The strategy of exporting democracy to the Middle East has failed miserably, because our understanding of the region was faulty and the Middle East is such a kaleidoscopically complex region,” she says. “So, I don’t think we will put boots on the ground in Syria. That, I think, is fairly certain. The more plausible is that we just let them be, like we ultimately did in Afghanistan.”

Risks remain for the West, as well as Syria

Bindi says such a scenario does not automatically mean that the risks to the West are minimized, however, with the new Republican U.S. administration and Congress.

“To be frank, the most important variable is what will happen in Washington, D.C., after Jan. 20. That’s the true reality,” she says. “Syria is definitely not a priority for Trump, but the neighboring states are. The loss of (Assad) was a blow to Iran, and we know that for Trump, Iran is a foe, so what might the (new administration) allow Israel to do? I say that because Israel can only attack with the support of the U.S. It’s a very dangerous situation.”

Meanwhile, with so much recent conflict in the Middle East, Bindi says she is concerned that people in the West have become numb to all the fighting.

“I think we’ve gotten way too used to violence,” she says. “The images don’t touch us anymore. Kids die. We’ve become accustomed to the horror. We’ve lost our humanity, and I think that’s very scary.”

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about classics? Show your support.

Political science Professor Federiga Bindi says the new, Islamic rebel-led government is telling the West what it wants to hear but that the situation on the ground is concerning.

Traditional

White

Talking politics with a side of pizza

Anonymous — Thu, 10 Oct 2024 12:08:46 +0000

Talking politics with a side of pizza Anonymous (not verified) Thu, 10/10/2024 - 06:08

New Politics & Pizza sessions give students and experts and space for productive and lively discussion of timely political topics

Today’s elections bear little resemblance to elections 50 or even 20 years ago. One key change: Digital and social media have become more central to how voters receive information—or misinformation—about candidates and issues.

For example, a recent Pew Research Center survey found that of those ages 18 to 29 surveyed, 48% use TikTok to keep up with politics or political news and 52% use TikTok to get news. Another recent Pew survey found that 54% of U.S. adults surveyed often or sometimes get local political news from social media.

If you go

What: Politics & Pizza, “The Role of Digital/Social Media in U.S. Elections”

When: 5:30-6:45 p.m., Monday, Oct.14

Where: Bruce Curtis Building (MCOL), W100 – CC

Free Cosmo’s pizza!

Learn more

The role of these new media will be the focus of the inaugural Politics & Pizza session, set for 5:30-6:45 p.m. Oct. 14. The aim of Pizza & Politics—which is being initiated by Glen Krutz, a professor of political science—is to “encourage productive, substantive deliberation of specific topics, rather than rancorous and ideological macro-thoughts.”

Politics & Pizza, which includes free Cosmo’s pizza, is modeled on similar sessions offered in Harvard University’s Institute of Politics. Each session will feature expert speakers who give a few introductory thoughts about the session’s topic, and then open the session to a question-and-answer with students.

The theme of the first Pizza & Politics event Oct. 14 is “The Role of Digital/Social Media in U.S. Elections” with speakers Stephen Frost, an assistant professor in the College of Media, Communication and Information Department of Media Studies; Vivek Krishnamurthy, an associate professor in the CU Law School and director of the Samuelson-Glushko Technology Law and Policy Clinic; and Alexandra Siegel, an associate professor of political science.

The second Politics & Pizza is scheduled for Oct. 28 and will focus on the Electoral College and institutional reform. A third date is set for Nov. 18 and will offer an analysis of the election outcome and the upcoming transition.

Spring 2025 sessions will focus on the new U.S. Congress, business and politics, and state universities in America.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about political science? Show your support.

New Politics & Pizza sessions give students and experts and space for productive and lively discussion of timely political topics.

Traditional

White

Getting out the vote and hashing out the issues

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Sep 2024 20:14:17 +0000

Getting out the vote and hashing out the issues Anonymous (not verified) Mon, 09/09/2024 - 14:14

Rachel Sauer

Nonpartisan, campuswide initiative aims to help students get registered and vote, as well as learn about the candidates and issues

A significant and growing body of research shows that whether people vote in their first two elections can significantly alter their voting behavior for the rest of their lives.

“We know that voting and civic participation habits get set in your 20s—so basically, people who are college age and just a little bit older,” explains Janet Donavan, a teaching professor and director of undergraduate studies in the ɫ��Ƶ�� Department of Political Science. “If we can get people voting in their first or second election, it helps set the habits of a lifetime for them. If they miss those first two elections, they’re unlikely to vote throughout their lives.”

Any challenges associated with voting can be compounded for college students—from learning about eligibility and how to register to figuring out how to request a ballot if they live outside their home counties or states.

If you go

What: Presidential Debate Watch Party

When: 6:30-9:30 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 10

Where: Center for Teaching and Learning, CASE Building, E390

Who: All CU students are invited

Learn more

However, a campuswide initiative between now and election day, Nov. 5, aims not only to help eligible students get registered to vote and to the polls, but to offer information and opportunities for discussion as they become lifelong participants in civic and political process.

One of the first events will be a non-partisan presidential debate watch party from 6:30 to 9:30 p.m. Tuesday with faculty moderators Regina Bateson, Carol Conzelman, Leah Sprain and Donavan, who also is Higher Education and Democracy Fellow with the Office for Public and Community-Engaged Scholarship.

“One of the things that we’re excited about, doing this debate watch—and we also have one planned for Oct. 1 for the vice-presidential debate—is we haven’t had organized debate watches of any large scale since 2012,” Donavan says.

“In 2016, people were afraid, which was a new thing for us to have such a polarized campus, and in 2020 it was COVID. But I and some of the other people who are part of this, we have decided that if we do live in this contentious political world, we do need to find ways to move forward and talk about it, even if it’s hard.”

Fostering civic culture

The voter registration events scheduled for the next two months dovetail with ɫ��Ƶ��’s participation in the ALL IN Campus Democracy Challenge, which aims to “foster civic culture and institutionalize democratic engagement activities and programs at colleges and universities, making them a defining feature of campus life.” The initiative also works to close voting gaps based on age and race.

An element of ALL IN is that participating colleges and universities can compete with each other for highest voter turnout “and the idea there is that it will be motivating for students if it’s a little bit of a competition,” Donavan says.

The events and initiatives that Donavan and her colleagues in departments and offices throughout the university are planning focus not only on voting, but on education about candidates and issues.

A significant body of research demonstrates that an individual's lifetime voting habits are established in young adulthood. (Photo: iStock)

“For example, with the debate watch party, a big part is going to be just learning what the different candidates think,” Donavan says. “Because it’s a non-partisan event, it’s going to be a little different environment than if you were watching with your friends, because your friends might all have similar partisan commitments. This is for students who are supportive of Harris, who are supportive of Trump and those who just don’t know yet.

“We’re also emphasizing that it’s not just focused on political science. There are so many people who care about politics who are business majors or engineering majors or any other major and just want to learn more about the candidates and issues. We hope this is an opportunity for people to get more involved in the CU community while learning more about each other.”

A lifetime habit

Donavan and her colleagues, as well as campus and community partners, also are coordinating classroom visits to present information about registering to vote and voting. For example, in partnerships with the Byron White Law Centerand the American Indian Law Clinic, law students trained in voting law will have tables at various events to help students who might be having trouble registering to vote.

“It all goes back to the fact that if people don’t vote in their first or second elections, they might not vote for the rest of their lives,” Donavan says, adding that an aspect of the educational efforts will be the importance of non-presidential elections and down-ballot issues.

“If you’re voting in Colorado, the presidential race probably not going to be tightly competitive race, but we have two hot House races and issues on the ballot that are going to matter to students a lot.

“How many people were kicking themselves was over that they could have voted for if only they’d voted? We want help students make voting a lifetime habit.”

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about arts and sciences? Show your support.

Nonpartisan, campuswide initiative aims to help students get registered and vote, as well as learn about the candidates and issues.

Traditional

White

Scholar learns that ‘language links us all’

Anonymous — Thu, 05 Sep 2024 16:46:45 +0000

Scholar learns that ‘language links us all’ Anonymous (not verified) Thu, 09/05/2024 - 10:46

Doug McPherson

Political science undergrad Cooper Baldwin wins prestigious U.S. Department of State Critical Language Scholarship to learn ‘one of the most critical languages for future United States policy’

Cooper Baldwin, a junior from San Antonio, Texas, majoring in political science and journalism, has been named a recipient of the 2024 Critical Language Scholarship (CLS) from the U.S. Department of State.

The scholarship allows American college and university students to learn languages that are key to America's engagement with the world.

Baldwin is the only ɫ��Ƶ�� student to receive the CLS in the last two years. Just 500 undergraduate and graduate students in the United States are chosen each year from an application pool of more than 5,000 students, according to the Department of State.

Cooper Baldwin, a junior majoring in political science and journalism, received a 2024 Critical Language Scholarship from the U.S. Department of State and studied Russian over the summer.

As a CLS recipient, Baldwin chose to study Russian (over Arabic and Chinese) and spent the summer learning the basics of the language online from what he calls “an awesome instructional team” based in Chișinău, Moldova. Russian was the language he’s most interested in learning, he says, and he wanted to get the basics down before he applied to go to a Russian-speaking country next summer and study the language in more detail.

“In my opinion, Russian is one of the most critical languages for future United States policy facilitators, executors and diplomats to learn,” Baldwin says. “Not only is it primarily spoken in many Eastern European countries, it’s the cornerstone of many languages and dialects worldwide. So, with such a broad reach, the choice seemed obvious to me.”

He says his initial curiosity about Russian stems, in part, from the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: “The invasion … stoked a connection to that part of the world. To be honest, the invasion seemed entirely surreal to me, and the onset of a full, unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country rattled the conceptions I had about the relative peaceful nature of nations worldwide. I’ve never lived in a world without Russian aggression and a tense atmosphere from the Kremlin toward the United States.”

'A patriot above all'

Baldwin—who is interested in international relations, geopolitical relations, history and national security—calls himself “a patriot above all” who wants to give back to the United States.

“I believe the CLS program is the perfect way to do that. To learn a language critical to the U.S.'s national security and economic interests nationwide will allow me to pursue this commitment and philosophy fervently, which I intend to do.”

He calls his career goals “big and numerous” and says that working on political campaigns boosted his interest in politics and government.

“To those who know me, it's no secret that I’m thoroughly committed to entering the field of politics, campaigns or government when I graduate from CU. I intend on using my studies and experiences to seek a role in the federal government.”

He hopes to work in the Department of State, Homeland Security, intelligence services, civil military service or policy administration.

I want to live a life of service to the country that has given me so much. I know it is my birthright to be an American, but I see it as an incredible and awe-inspiring privilege to say I am.”

“I want to live a life of service to the country that has given me so much. I know it is my birthright to be an American, but I see it as an incredible and awe-inspiring privilege to say I am.”

Baldwin says that for as long as he can remember, he’s had a “deep interest” in language and linguistics.

“They’ve been an intellectual love of mine,” he says. “I taught myself to read at age 4 because I was so deeply invested in language and its capability for beautiful, complex expression. I find it incredibly interesting that people worldwide have such different ways of expressing themselves. Language links us all.”

He credits his middle school Spanish teacher in San Antonio for bolstering his interest in languages, and adds that she encouraged him to excel in class.

“My teacher never told me to slow down, to stay on pace with the class, to stop answering all the questions she asked,” he says. “She always gave me more material to push my studies further and took time … to give me additional practice with the language. The CLS program was the perfect opportunity to pursue language at the rapid pace I’m capable of, and it challenged me every day. I absolutely loved that.”

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about political science? Show your support.

Political science undergrad Cooper Baldwin wins prestigious U.S. Department of State Critical Language Scholarship to learn ‘one of the most critical languages for future United States policy.'

Traditional

White

From harmony to civil war: when language turns deadly

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Aug 2024 19:40:40 +0000

From harmony to civil war: when language turns deadly Anonymous (not verified) Mon, 08/26/2024 - 13:40

Bradley Worrell

ɫ��Ƶ�� political scientist Jaroslav Tir argues it’s not just what a government says about its ethnic minorities, but also the language it uses that can be threatening

For years, Jaroslav Tir has been pondering a perplexing mystery: Why do some countries where a multi-ethnic populace once lived together in harmony devolve into civil war, slaughter and ethnic cleansing?

“If we look at the former Yugoslavia, where I was born and raised, it’s a big puzzle: why the country went from one of the most ethnically harmonious countries to ethnic cleansing and genocide in a few short years,” says Tir, a professor in the ɫ��Ƶ�� Department of Political Science, whose research focus includes armed conflicts and how to stop them.

In Yugoslavia after World War II, “you had multiple ethnic groups that lived in relative harmony. There was evidence that this was real because people intermarried and neighborhoods were ethnically mixed. A lot of people were of mixed ethnic origin,” he says. “And then things took a 180-degree turn that ended up in the 1990s with very brutal conflicts.”

ɫ��Ƶ�� political scientist Jaroslav Tir finds in new research that it’s not just what the governing authority says about its ethnic minorities that can be potentially threatening, but also the language in which it communicates about those groups.

While some of the dynamics of ethnic conflicts remain unknown, Tir says, in recent years researchers have come to believe that dehumanizing ethnic “others” can help explain how seemingly ordinary individuals become willing not only to fight but also to commit horrific crimes against their former neighbors. In turn, researchers have suspected that dehumanization stems from perceptions that ethnic others pose a violent threat to one’s own group, he says.

Expanding upon that research, Tir and co-author Shane Singh of the University of Georgia recently authored the paper “Less Human Than Human: Threat, Language and Relative Dehumanization,” published in the British Journal of Political Science, in which they made the case that it’s not just what the governing authority says about its ethnic minorities that can be potentially threatening, but also the language in which it communicates about those groups.

“A government’s choice to communicate [a sense of threat] in a native language, rather than a commonly used and understood non-native tongue, puts the audience on notice that the message is explicitly meant for them to the exclusion of ethnic others,” the authors state, adding that “such messaging can exacerbate us-versus-them perceptions and lead to extreme negative attitudes such as dehumanization.”

Communicated threats

For their study, Tir and Singh specifically looked at India, where a native (Hindi) and non-native (English) language are understood and used by a sizeable portion of the population. In a survey-based experiment, the authors hired an international market research firm to ask Indian respondents about their views toward Muslims and Chinese. Notably, in recent years, both Islamic terrorists and the Chinese military have threatened India’s security.

Bilingual Indian respondents were randomly assigned to take the survey in Hindi or English. They were asked about their perceptions of the humanness of Muslim or Chinese people and the groups to which they belong. Responses to that portion of the survey showed that those receiving the survey in the Hindi language triggered the dehumanization of Muslims, while the dehumanization of Chinese was not affected by survey language assignment.

Tir says those findings are likely due to the fact that the government of Narendra Modi has repeatedly demonized India’s Muslim population in Hindi while remaining comparatively silent about the threat from China.

Survey respondents also were randomly assigned to a control condition (a short article about ship recycling) or one of two recent news briefs about violent events that recently took place: a terrorist attack by an Islamic group or Chinese military aggression. In that case, the threat conveyed in Hindi, rather than English, does the most to prompt dehumanizing attitudes toward Chinese, Tir says.

Conversely, the story about the Islamic terror attack did not have a detectable effect on survey respondents’ attitudes toward Muslims. At first blush, that would seem to be counterintuitive, but Tir says that Modi’s frequent anti-Muslim rhetoric has likely saturated the populace, making respondents insensitive to additional communicated threats.

A man in Jaisalmer, India, reads a Hindi newspaper. (Photo: Ihsan Iqbal/Shutterstock)

Impacts beyond the Indian subcontinent

Tir says the survey findings have implications for political communication beyond India, noting that many countries in Africa and Asia have populations that speak both native and non-native languages, typically French or English, depending on their colonial history.

“Compared to communication in a commonly used and understood non-native tongue, a native language environment exacerbates the effect of threat on dehumanization of a rival ethnicity,” Tir and Singh write, adding that “this suggests that unscrupulous leaders in multilingual countries with identity-based cleavages and a widely understood non-native language can select the language of communication to incite xenophobic attitudes.”

Such was the case with Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian strongman who came to power in the late 1980s. Tir says Milosevic broke with the tradition of using the more neutral Serbo-Croatian language blend written in the Latin alphabet and popularized in Yugoslavia after WWII in favor of “pure” Serbian and the Cyrillic alphabet. Milosevic built his political career on demonizing essentially powerless ethnic minorities—initially ethnic Albanians, who he argued posed an existential threat to Serbs.

Tir is quick to note that India is not the former Yugoslavia. Also, he says that just as leaders can use native language to incite xenophobic attitudes, it is possible for more peaceable leaders to communicate in a non-native language to help promote interethnic harmony. He cites India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, who chose English as the language in which to deliver his landmark speech celebrating his country’s newfound freedom, which took place against a backdrop of interethnic strife.

However, the risk remains that when the leaders of a country essentially weaponize native language against its ethnic others, it can be very difficult to pull back from the brink, Tir says.

“The traditional ethnic conflict literature highlights the concept called outbidding. When an attention-seeking leader starts to reference the threat to their group by ethnic others, things tend to get more extreme, as opposed to going toward moderation. So essentially, if someone is already delivering an extremist message, the way for someone else to get attention in the political space is with an even more extremist message. It’s radicalization upon radicalization upon radicalization. It’s then very hard to go the other way; moderate voices tend to get ignored and it’s the more extremist voices that get listened to in response to a sense of threat to the group.

“That is, more or less, how things played out in the former Yugoslavia,” he says. “Things got ever more extreme, destroying the original sense of interethnic harmony.”

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about political science? Show your support.

ɫ��Ƶ�� political scientist Jaroslav Tir argues it’s not just what a government says about its ethnic minorities, but also the language it uses that can be threatening.

Traditional

White

Remembering Nixon’s resignation, five decades later

Anonymous — Thu, 08 Aug 2024 06:00:00 +0000

Remembering Nixon’s resignation, five decades later Anonymous (not verified) Thu, 08/08/2024 - 00:00

Bradley Worrell

ɫ��Ƶ�� political science professor Kenneth Bickers reflects on what made the ex-president’s decision to step down following the Watergate scandal a watershed moment in American history and how it has influenced politics today

In a solemn television address 50 years ago this week, on Aug. 8, 1974, President Richard Nixon announced he would resign from office—becoming the first American president ever to do so.

It was a stunning turn of events for Nixon, who just two years earlier won his reelection bid by a landslide. However, as details of a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Complex in Washington, D.C., became public, leading to congressional hearings and impeachment proceedings, Nixon finally bowed to pressure from Congress and the public to leave the White House.

“By taking this action,” Nixon said in an address from the Oval Office, “I hope that I will have hastened the start of the process of healing which is so desperately needed in America.”

Kenneth Bickers, a ɫ��Ƶ�� professor of political science, notes that Richard Nixon's resignation "exposed the kind of deceit and corruption that can reach the highest office in the land."

At the time, Kenneth Bickers was a young teenager spending the summer at his grandparents’ house in Cheyenne. In the days leading up to Nixon’s resignation, Bickers would spend his mornings watching TV broadcasts of the congressional hearings regarding the Watergate break-in, as new damning details became public about the White House’s involvement and its attempts to cover up the affair.

“That was my education in politics. It was what got me interested in what would eventually be a major in political science and later a PhD in political science, and it was the seminal event of my development,” says Bickers, a ɫ��Ƶ�� Department of Political Science professor since 2003, whose area of focus is American politics and public policy.

With the 50th anniversary of Nixon’s resignation, Bickers recently reflected on what he believes made Nixon’s resignation a watershed moment in U.S. history, its lasting impact upon American politics, and offered his thoughts on how things might have gone very differently if Nixon had pursued a different path. His remarks have been lightly edited and condensed.

Question: Can you set the scene prior to Nixon’s election in 1972 and into 1973, as details of the Watergate break-in started to become public?

Bickers: In 1972, Nixon was the incumbent going into that election, and the economy was actually in really good shape. We were certainly mired in the Vietnam War, and there had been a lot of protests in the street, but those had kind of diminished from the high point of 1968 to 1969.

And then the Democrats had a catastrophic convention in 1972, with the naming of a Democratic vice-presidential choice, (Thomas Eagleton), who was subsequently replaced. It was one of the most poorly managed conventions since the 1920s, and so Nixon benefited from the ineptitude of the Democrats in 1972.

But Nixon also had a lot of assets going into that year, which was part of what made the whole Watergate break-in totally inscrutable. I mean, it should have been clear to anybody that he was going to win in a huge way. Nobody could have foreseen the magnitude at the time, but it certainly looked like he was going to win.

So why the third-rate burglary of the DNC in the Watergate building? And then why cover it up? None of that made any sense.

Question: Today, some may see Nixon’s resignation as inevitable, but a poll taken in 1973 found only 25 percent thought he did anything wrong that would reach the level where he should be removed. So, he still enjoyed widespread support at the time?

Bickers: That’s true. He still enjoyed wide support, and I think there was disbelief at the time that things could be as bad as the allegations suggested.

And I think if he’d been honest about how stupid that burglary was, if he had simply fessed up and taken his lumps at the time, none of that would have happened (the congressional investigations ultimately leading to his resignation).

This is where we learned that the cover-up is often worse than the crime, because it was the cover-up that was at the heart of the allegations against Nixon. He didn’t break into the Watergate; it was this team of former CIA operatives that did that, or it included some former CIA operatives. Whether it was paid for by his campaign or not, obviously a presidential candidate isn’t in charge of the books for a multimillion-dollar campaign operation.

So, it was the cover-up. And then the thing that ultimately sealed the deal was the Oval Office tapes with the famous missing section that had somehow inadvertently been erased.

Remember, at the time trust was still very high of our national leaders. And remember, huge majorities had voted for him just before that in the 1972 election—it was the second-largest victory in American history at that point. So, there were a lot of people who had supported him. And it takes a lot to move people away from their prior commitments, their prior beliefs and their prior expectations.

Question: Is it fair to call Nixon’s resignation a watershed moment in American political history? If so, what makes it so?

Bickers: It certainly was watershed, because he was the first president and the only president to resign. We’d never experienced that before.

The other thing is that it’s a watershed event because it exposed the kind of deceit and corruption that can reach the highest office in the land—and it changed the way people view politicians.

Confidence in the national government—trust in the institutions of our national government, the presidency, Congress, and so forth—absolutely craters starting in about 1973 and 1974, and it has never recovered. It has come back some, but never to the levels that existed when Nixon was first elected president, or when he was reelected president.

That loss of confidence in public officials has been a permanent change, and I don’t think it was just Watergate. The shifting (and in many cases untrue) stories about the Vietnam conflict, the protests and riots over civil rights, and the assassinations in 1968 of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.—all of those play into the absolute loss of faith in our leaders.

Here we are five decades later, and that’s still true. People are much less trusting of national leaders than was routinely the case before Nixon’s resignation. We are a much more jaundiced people than we were in the pre-Watergate era.

Question: In the 1970s, Republican and Democratic lawmakers came together in a bipartisan way on challenging issues, including pushing for Nixon’s ouster once details of the Watergate break-in came to light. Do you think it’s possible for Democrats and Republicans to work together that way today?

Bickers: We’re living in one of the most polarized periods in American history. We’ve had periods that were as polarized, but you’d have to go back a long way to find that, as in the decades leading up to the Civil War, and obviously the Civil War itself.

Maybe unusually, in the period coming out of World War II—when America was clearly on the top in the world in terms of its economic and military and political powers—while there were obviously differences between Republicans and Democrats, those differences were smaller, and there were more places where they could agree. It was Nixon who created the Environmental Protection Agency. It was under Nixon that the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were passed, with Democratic support.

That’s gone. It’s hard to imagine anything big happening in a bipartisan way today.

Richard Nixon leaving the White House grounds in Marine One on Aug. 9, 1974. (Photo: Bettmann Archive/Getty Images)

Question: In his resignation announcement, Nixon said he hoped his action would hasten the healing process in the country. Do you believe it did that?

Bickers: Probably. We don’t get to replay history with a change where Nixon doesn’t resign and compare what did happen to what might have happened, but probably it did. And I think Vice President Gerald Ford showed quite a lot of courage in pardoning him. That may well have cost Ford the opportunity to be elected in 1976.

There were a lot of people—particularly on the Democratic side—who wanted to see Nixon criminally charged and potentially sent to prison, and that was short-circuited by the pardon.

But the pardon probably did help lower the temperature some, because I think to watch a former president tried in court for crimes and then potentially sent to prison, that inflames the supporters of that party and unites them in a way that might otherwise not happen.

Question: Any thoughts as to how Nixon would be remembered today, had it not been for Watergate?

Bickers: There were a lot of other things happening after Nixon’s reelection in 1972. The economy began to start showing signs of problems that were later going to swamp the Carter administration in the late 1970s. So, wage and price controls were instituted by Nixon after his reelection to try to bring down inflation. The post-World War II legacy of American manufacturing that was in Nixon’s period as president had turned and started going south—and permanently so at that point.

In the war in Vietnam, we were not getting out in a way that looked like it was going to be a success. We were going to have to abandon South Vietnam in some way, which of course did happen, but not until after Ford was president.

All of that was happening, and so that would have been part of his legacy. Had he finished the second term successfully, those would have been marks against him. But a lot of presidents have had recessions. A lot of presidents have had economic issues. Unfortunately, a lot of presidents have had foreign policy failures.

Nixon would have had all of those things on his record, but were it not for Watergate, he would have finished out his term of office and been viewed as a president of two consequential terms. That’s not how we remember him today.

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about political science? Show your support.

Traditional

White

When economies falter, governors respond similarly, regardless of party

Anonymous — Thu, 20 Jun 2024 21:43:43 +0000

When economies falter, governors respond similarly, regardless of party Anonymous (not verified) Thu, 06/20/2024 - 15:43

Bradley Worrell

Political scientists find that partisan divide shrinks among governors who are responding to economic downturns

In today’s hyper-partisan environment, do states led by Republican governors have different budgetary priorities than those led by Democrats?

They do indeed, in normal economic times. However, in times of negative economic shocks—either within a state or in neighboring states—Democratic and Republican governors tend to share a similar budgetary response by increasing spending in certain categories while also cutting discretionary spending.

That’s the assessment made in a research paper, “Bad times keep us together: Policy priorities and economic shocks,” co-authored by Andrew Q. Philips, associate professor in the ɫ��Ƶ�� Department of Political Science. Social Science Quarterly published the work this year.

Andrew Q. Philips, an associate professor in the ɫ��Ƶ�� Department of Political Science, studies political economy, specifically budgets as a reflection of government priorities.

While much has been made of the political divide between Republicans and Democrats, research on their spending priorities at the state level in several budgetary categories remains somewhat sparse, according to Philips, whose research focus includes political economy, specifically budgets as a reflection of government priorities.

To gauge the budgetary priorities of state governments, Philips and his three co-authors focused on 10 budgetary categories that compose most state expenditures: elementary education, higher education, transportation, social services, housing, natural resources and sanitation, public safety, labor market policy, interest on the debt and “other.” The data came from U.S. Census Annual Survey of Government Finance for the 48 contiguous states between the years 1977 and 2007.

Partisan spending priorities

“Our research finds support for the idea that partisanship drives the allocation of budgetary expenditures. So, to answer the question: Do Democratic and Republican governors have different ideological priorities regarding spending? In good economic times, the answer is ‘yes,’” Philips says.

“That makes sense, and we are certainly not the first ones to show that—although I believe we do it in a different way, because of the compositional approach we take to spending, rather than focusing on certain categories, such as unemployment.”

The research found that Democratic governors tended to spend comparatively more on labor market policy (which includes unemployment, workers’ compensation and jobs training programs) as well as housing, while Republicans tend to spend a bit more on public safety and transportation, according to Philips.

“A lot of these are the usual suspects,” he says of spending priorities relating to a governor’s political affiliation. “I think the cooler part of the paper is: What happens when the economy is not doing well? In those cases, what we find is that it actually matters less what the party of the governor is, because no matter their (party affiliation), they tend to respond in a similar manner to these shocks that we look at within a state.”

For example, if a state’s unemployment rate increases, Philips says both Democratic and Republican governors will allocate a larger portion of the budget to cover unemployment, worker’s compensation and job retraining. At the same time, because most states are required to have balanced budgets, increases in those segments will come at the expense of discretionary expenses in other areas.

“Economic pressures constrain the ability of governors to act,” Philips explains. “And so, I might be a Republican governor who wants to increase spending on public safety as a percentage of the budget, but if—all of a sudden—there’s more unemployment, I likely have to address that more direct need. So, even if public safety is what I want to spend more on, I need to address the more pressing need.”

It’s not surprising that governors—regardless of party affiliation—pursue similar policies when faced with economic shocks, because as politicians, they face pressures to act from other elected officials, the media and—perhaps most importantly—voters, Philips says.

“The worry is that, if you are an incumbent and the (state) economy is not doing well, there’s lot of evidence from political science that they get punished at polls,” he adds.

“If there are negative economic shocks in nearby states—no matter the partisanship—they (governors) tend to respond relatively similarly,” says ɫ��Ƶ�� political scientist Andrew Philips

Still, because budgets are established in advance, Philips says there’s generally not a lot a governor can do in the immediate aftermath of an economic shock.

“I think the overarching statement is that, in the short run, like a one-year period, they tend to do the same thing—and often they often don’t do much,” he says of both Democratic and Republican governors. “These (state) budgets are really sticky. They get allocated the year before … and it’s hard to make changes, even if they (governors) want to.”

Another possible economic shock is a drop in a state’s per capita personal income, which Philips says in the longer term (five years or more) can reduce budgets for social services, labor market policy, public safety and interest on the debt.

In that case, both Republican and Democratic governors will cut spending for labor market policy, he says, adding that Republican governors will cut it slightly more, as a percentage of the budget. And Democratic and Republican governors will both cut funding for elementary education and higher education, although Democrat governors will cut expenses by a larger amount, percentage-wise, he says.

Negative effects from neighboring states

Philips says another interesting aspect of the paper is that it found economic shocks to states had correlating effects on the budgets of neighboring states.

“I think there are various mechanisms as to how that could happen,” he says. “For example, there could be a common factor, such as the national economy going down and everyone is receiving this simultaneous shock. Or, there could be a spillover effect. For example, on the East Coast, where the states are pretty close together, it’s not uncommon for people to live in New Jersey and commute to New York. So, if the economy is suddenly doing poorly in New Jersey, that could be felt in New York, and in how New York responds to setting its budget.”

When a neighboring state experiences negative economic shock in the form of a decrease in personal income, in the short run, both Republican and Democratic governors in their home state respond in nearly identical ways, by sharply decreasing elementary education and increasing social services and labor market policy, the research paper found.

“If there are negative economic shocks in nearby states—no matter the partisanship—they (governors) tend to respond relatively similarly,” Philips says.

Notably, the study illustrates that that for negative economic shocks—specifically, increases in unemployment or decreases in personal income—budgetary reactions are similar when the shock happens within a state versus when a shock occurs in surrounding states, he adds.

As a governor, I might wake up to an economic crisis, and even if at the end of the day I want my budget to look like budgetary menu A, the events at the time might force me to make my budget look like budgetary menu B."

Phillips says he believes there are many aspects of budgetary policy at the state level that could still be explored. For example, Philips says his paper compared states where the Republican or Democratic governor also had a state legislature of the same party, which raises the question of whether a governor serving in a state where the legislature is controlled by the opposition party would be required to make more compromises to get things done.

Another possible area to study: Comparing whether governors who are term-limited with those who are not to determine if it had any impact on whether governors kept their budget priorities after experiencing an economic shock.

Still, Philips says he believes his research has broken new ground on the similarities in budgetary priorities between Republican and Democratic governors during in times of economic shock, particularly when partisanship appears to be on the rise.

“It’s very easy in today’s age to think that the policies of Democrats and Republicans couldn’t be more different, and certainly on the national stage I think that’s true to some extent,” he says.

“For a variety of reasons, during periods of economic shock, I think our research has shown that it’s a bit different at the state level. Because, as a governor, I might wake up to an economic crisis, and even if at the end of the day I want my budget to look like budgetary menu A, the events at the time might force me to make my budget look like budgetary menu B. And there’s a trade-off between: When can I stick with my priorities versus being stuck with menu B.”

Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to our newsletter. Passionate about political science? Show your support.

Political scientists find that partisan divide shrinks among governors who are responding to economic downturns.

Traditional

White

Political Science

College of Arts and Sciences faculty win 2025 Best Should Teach Awards

Related Articles

Exploring the changing politics of science

Related Articles

Come for the cheese and pepperoni, stay for the lively political discussion

Related Articles

CU foreign policy expert not optimistic on Syria’s outlook

Related Articles

Talking politics with a side of pizza

Related Articles

Getting out the vote and hashing out the issues

Related Articles

Scholar learns that ‘language links us all’

Related Articles

From harmony to civil war: when language turns deadly

Related Articles

Remembering Nixon’s resignation, five decades later

Related Articles

When economies falter, governors respond similarly, regardless of party

Related Articles