SOURCE: The Nation
by Erin Pineda
"Protesters may be a loud minority of citizens, a set of especially motivated and impassioned individuals who are in many ways not representative of the general public. But the silent majority of voters are not as disconnected from—or dismissive of—protest as many assume."
SOURCE: Boston Review
by Andrew J. Douglas and Jared Loggins
Atlanta's Institute of the Black World struggled to negotiate its mission to theorize and document Black oppression and resistance without being captured or controlled by outside institutions, including the established historically Black colleges in Atlanta. Its history raises difficult and important questions about the relationship of universities and freedom today.
SOURCE: Martinsville (VA) Bulletin
"Offering a response to Anderson’s criticism, Sabato tweeted Thursday night: 'Thanks to the Republicans for the hearty laugh you’ve given me...There goes my reserved seat at your next #insurrection'."
SOURCE: New York Times
Political scientist Robert Pape's work suggests that the prime driver of participation in the Capitol Riots was a sense that the election result reflected a threat to the power and influence of whites in American culture, with familiar echoes to racist and nativist movements of the past.
SOURCE: New York Times
by Martha Crenshaw
An expert on terrorism and political violence looks to other examples of insurrection to ask what the hardcore extremists at the center of the Capitol riots are likely to do next. Such groups and the recruits they gained on January 6 are likely to become more isolated, but more extreme, and have access to guns unlike any other extremists in the world.
by Julia Azari
In earlier eras, one-term presidencies were more the rule than the exception, but Donald Trump is a rarity among modern presidents in losing his bid for reelection. A scholar of the presidency examines the shift.
SOURCE: The Conversation
by John A. Tures
One of the biggest myths about government shutdowns is that presidents usually win.
SOURCE: AHA Today
On March 20, 2013, the United States Senate approved an amendment offered by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) to the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013, which would restrict the use of federal funds in the National Science Foundation’s Political Science Program. In response, the Council of the American Historical Association approved the following statement of concern:The American Historical Association vigorously opposes the recent Senate appropriations amendment restricting National Science Foundation funding for research in political science to specific topics. The amendment, which requires the agency to limit funding to projects which it can certify “as promoting national security or the economic interests of the United States,” is wrong-headed in many ways.First, the amendment represents an intrusion by politicians into the well-established and generally successful peer-review process by which the agency reviews grant applications. Peer review ensures that grant decisions are made by individuals with the necessary expertise through a reliable, widely accepted, process which minimizes bias. Imposing even innocuous-sounding political criteria for research compromises the autonomy that is necessary for intellectual progress—the first responsibility of the National Science Foundation.
- Marking the 500th Anniversary of the Americas' First Slave Revolt
- 6 Inspiring Stories From Those who Remember the Pearl Harbor Attack
- When Culture War Politics Consume School Boards, Basic Functions Suffer
- Australia's Spy Agency Identified Climate Risk 40 Years Ago; The Government Protected the Coal Industry Instead
- Rebecca Traister: Betrayal of Roe Decades in the Making