Category: Political science

Who or what do you perceive as “the enemy”?

If you ask me, I will say homework. Also, midterms and finals.

The quips aside, there are serious ramifications for what individuals believe to be the enemy. The word holds a gravity and seriousness that outmatches that of other words used to describe displeasure or opposition.

Why so much attention on a diction choice? It turns out that the recent framing of institutions, particularly universities, as the “enemy” by various political figures is causing great concern amongst academics. This was one of many topics discussed during the two-part series hosted by the Kenan Institute of Ethics, titled “When Universities are the ‘Enemy’: Academic Freedom, Institutional Autonomy, and the Future of American Higher Education.”

Dr. Eric Mlyn, moderator of both components of the series on higher education

The series began with a webinar featuring three panelists, all of whom were experts on the history and politics of American higher education. Moderated by Dr. Eric Mlyn, Distinguished Faculty Fellow in the Kenan Institute, Doctors John Douglass (UC Berkeley), Don Moynihan (University of Michigan), and Ellen Schrecker (Yeshiva University) all shared insights into the recent potent attacks on universities leveled by conservatives. Examining the evolution of academic freedom, the panelists each described potential backsliding of freedoms under a prospective second Trump Administration.

Ultra-conservatives’ view higher education as a “hotbed of radicalism,” Schrecker said. Arguing that various forces on the political right have been villainizing universities for the past five decades, Schrecker stated that “today’s attack on universities is much, much more dangerous than McCarthyism.” Even more dangerous than McCarthyism, arguably the most famous period of repression and nationwide hysteria over a political ideology? This quote immediately captured my attention, and I assume many of my peers on the Zoom were equally captivated. Schrecker also mentioned many surprising statistics during her opening statement, for instance pointing out the austerity measures present in modern higher education led to 75% of university faculty being adjunct professors. Her talk shined a light on the inherent perils in the education system, which is evidently much more intricate and complex than most of us imagine.

Another thought-provoking comment during the webinar came from Moynihan, who focused his comments on the impact of federal actions under a possible Trump administration. Cautioning that intruding upon academic freedom is a tell-tale sign of potential democratic backsliding, Moynihan articulated potential paths that conservative appointees could use to target university activities, the most probable being withholding federal research grants. If Republican officials blacklist institutions sponsoring research into “controversial topics,” this will remove institutions’ ability to access NIH, NSF, and other funds, constituting “a huge setback for many R1 researchers.” The power to influence funding could be a point of leverage that, combined with heightened media scrutiny of universities, could target and destroy innumerable administrators and professors.

After the webinar, many student attendees, including myself, met in West Duke 101 four days later for a lunch discussion about the panel. Consisting of four freshmen, one sophomore, one senior, Mlyn, and Jac Arnade-Colwill, a program coordinator at the Kenan Institute, the meeting featured diverse perspectives on the causes for the whirlwinds confronting higher education.

A few memorable quotes stuck with me. One remark, “university politics is opaque”, struck me as we students indeed know little about Duke’s operations and institutional policies. Why is this the case? Would the mistrust in universities lessen if there were more transparency and openness? Additionally, a participant’s note of the partisan stereotypes associated with higher education was uniquely insightful. As they admitted their own tendency of associating conservatives with being less educated, they highlighted some “self-inflicted wounds” universities grapple with, one important one being limited ideological diversity and increasing ostracization of conservatism on campuses.

As universities seek to defend themselves against vicious criticism, there is a need for students, including undergraduates, to involve themselves in civic action and voice their thoughts on the education system they partake in. According to Mlyn, the Kenan Institute of Ethics is actively trying to discern “the undergraduate voice” on these issues and hosting many opportunities for student participation. There are also other outlets for civic engagement on campus for students to consider, including many centers and initiatives housed at the Sanford School of Public Policy.

Are we the enemy? How do we mitigate skeptics and critics’ pointed feelings? How do we legitimize our educational philosophies? Open questions for those craving food for thought.

Nathan Thrall’s “A Day in the Life of Abed Salama”

By Sarah Pusser

On October 30, 2024

In Lecture, Political science, Religion

Nathan Thrall, the 2024 Pulitzer Prize Winner for General Nonfiction, sat with Rebecca Stein, discussing his book, “A Day in the Life of Abed Salama: Anatomy of a Jerusalem Tragedy.” Published October 3, 2023 by Metropolitan Books, Thrall’s book tells the story of the people whose lives became intertwined by a tragic bus accident near Jerusalem 12 years ago, serving as a spotlight that identifies the corrupt powers that Israel has over Palestine.

Author Nathan Thrall and his book “A Day in the Life of Abed Salama.” (Judy Heiblum)

Beginning with a synopsis of the book, Thrall shared the history of the West Bank enclave. Annexed and neglected, 130,000 people live between 26-foot tall concrete walls with only two exits. Within the enclave are no play areas, no sidewalks, and often trash burnings in the middle of the night; on the other side of the wall are rich images of middle-upper class housing and Hebrew University (the most prestigious university in Israel).

An Isreal wall separating Palestine and Jerusalem *The Irish Times* (Atef Safadi/EPA)

Students at a school within the enclave, in hopes of finding an area to play, walked with their teacher along the wall (along the apartheid road) and were devastatingly hit by a quarry semi-trailer. The truck proceeded to flip over and catch fire. The road where the accident took place, though used entirely by Palestinians, is under Israeli control, and therefore Palestinian authority is prohibited. Passerbys stopped and tried to help however they could, but the flames were too big. In the end, it took 30 minutes for Israeli fire trucks to show up to the burning semi-truck. Six children and one teacher died.

The book focuses on Abed Salama, the father of a boy who was involved in the accident, who after hearing about the accident, spent the next 24 hours trying to work his way through the restrictions placed on him as a Palestinian in order to find his son and make sure he was safe and alive. Abed went into the burning bus and rescued children, was rejected at many checkpoints in between hospitals where he thought his son may be–all of which are just a few of the many incommensurably heartwrenching tragedies he went through.

Abed Salama *The New Yok Review* (Ihab Jadallah)

After giving us the synopsis, Thrall then began to read a passage from his book, making it clear why he won a Pulitzer Prize. His writing, not only transformed a world of non-fiction into a very digestible piece of literature, but his ability to extract such emotion through his voice is truly inspiring. Looking around, I could see everyone leaning forward in their chairs–the room, was silent enough for the turning on and off of the air conditioning to turn my head.

I knew walking into this talk, that this book’s meaning in the world and civil discourse would have more of an impact given the increasingly dire situations in Palestine over the past 12 months. While beginning her questions, Rebecca Stein did not shy away from this topic either.

“It’s a very ordinary event, it’s not like the kind of events that we see splashed across, you know, our television screens or our phones on social media, where we’re looking at tragedies at a much bigger scale…” “…why did you take this intimate incident as a way to try to tell this much bigger story?” she asked.

While I first was a bit taken aback at this question, I realized Rebecca was right. What makes the news is usually what will grab the most attention and the most emotion. And so rarely do we see the “smaller tragedies” (smaller as in fewer casualties).

Thrall answered very calmly, and very methodically.

“I wrote this book out of a sense of, uh, despair,” replied Thrall. “…what I was really aiming to do with this book was to draw, uh, our attention to the situation for Palestinians in their ordinary lives.”

And as Thrall continued to explain why he chose to write about the bus accident, he continued to show us his brilliance as both an author and speaker. For he was able to tell a story that shows readers how something so (unfortunately) common as a car accident, can lead to such heavy consequences when the systems in place are corrupt.

“…the best way to make a systemic critique, I think, is to show the everyday, um, because otherwise, if you choose something exceptional, something that a journalist might be drawn to, it’s easier to dismiss and say, this was the action of one, uh, bad commander.”

I was moved by how open the room was. Everyone was captured by the moment of Thrall spilling truths–some of which we were familiar with and some of which we had never heard before. I could see the weight of the subject, heavy in people’s faces and postures, and yet everyone remained, and many asked more questions. Some asked where Abed Salama is now. Thrall told us how the book was published on October 3rd, four days before the Hamas-led attack on Israel; Abed and Thrall had plans to travel together and tour the book, but after the war began, Abed had to miss many of their destinations. Thrall said that Abed, though he was able to attend some of the destinations for the book tour, is mostly at home mourning for and supporting his community.

There was a sort of ambiguity as the night came to a conclusion. Thrall’s book is living as a teacher and voice for those who don’t get the opportunity to tell their stories in Palestine. Thrall doesn’t know what is next, only that tragedies will continue to be treated as accidents, and systems, unjust as they are, are much easier continued, than broken.

Riots and Reconciliations: Revisiting ‘The Kerner Report’

By Sarah Pusser

On October 14, 2024

In Anthropology, History, Political science

When we think of some of the most important milestones in America’s civil rights movement, rarely do people talk about “The Kerner Report.”

“U.S. Riot Commission Report. REPORT OF THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON CIVIL DISORDERS” from *Center for Lost Objects*

In a conference room in the John Hope Franklin Center, I sat amidst a gathering of curious people, and at the front of the room was Rick Loessberg, the author of “Two Societies: The Rioting of 1967 and the Writing of the Kerner Report.” If you couldn’t tell from Loessberg’s contagious smile, you could certainly tell from his extensive knowledge that he was excited to be introducing us to this report, which looks at the causes of the 1967 civil rights riots.

Giving us some background history, Loessberg first acknowledged the importance of the very building we were all in. The John Hope Franklin Center, where Dr. John Hope Franklin held an office and worked until he died in 2009, was built in 2001 to create a space for everything Dr. Franklin believed in–a welcoming environment that encouraged considerate debate and discussion. Dr. Franklin was also known for writing the 5th chapter of “The Kerner Report,” which connected African American’s history in the United States and their riots in 1967. As I sat in the conference room, I couldn’t help but feel the weight and proximity of the building’s history emphasizing the importance of Loessberg’s discussion.

Loessberg then began to explain the catalyst for creating “The Kerner Report,” enumerating the tragedies of the riots in 1967. On July 23, 1967, Detroit Police raided an after-hours nightclub. The raid quickly turned violent, and the civilians in the city did not let this go unnoticed. The following five days were marked by extreme violence, with 43 people killed, over 7200 arrests, and 600 fires started. It wasn’t until 5,000 elite paratroopers came into Detroit that the riots finally stopped.

“Burning Buildings in Detroit after Riots” from *Getty Images*

In response to this, Lyndon B. Johnson created a commission of 11 members, which examined FBI reports, studied the attitudes of 13,000 people who had been arrested, and looked at U.S. Census data to discover why the riots were happening. The Census concluded that the rioting was not the fault of what the majority of Americans believed–the rioters were “losers,” “communists,” you get the point–but instead, the riots were a reaction to the years of discrimination and racism that Black people had been facing throughout their lives (which though not surprising to many today, was an incredibly progressive conclusion for the 1960s).

“Chair of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, Otto Kerner with President Lyndon Johnson” from *LBJ Presidential Library*

Additionally, “The Kerner Report” found that most of the people rioting had gone to school, had jobs, and did not have arrest records–findings that went against the stereotypes white people assigned to the rioters. The bravery of these successful people willing to risk everything in order to riot against what they knew was wrong stood out to me (however, not to say that violence should ever be encouraged). I also found it quite surprising how successful “The Kerner Report” was, given the lack of knowledge on it today, with over 1 million copies being sold in the first week.

Here are five key points “The Kerner Report” can teach us if implemented in today’s time, Loessberg said:

Be courteous: During the creation of “The Kerner Report,” the commission always made sure to have appropriate discussions, never name-calling or blaming, similar to what we see in politics today.
Focus on what everyone has in common: The commission worked hard to make sure that everyone’s voice was heard. They addressed everyone’s concerns, and even if they couldn’t explicitly “fix” their concern, by holding a space where people could voice their upset, the commission was more successful at creating a report most approved of.
Know how to read the room and when to temporarily regroup: The commission was very aware of when they would get stuck in arguments rather than discussions, and because of this, they were able to acknowledge that they needed to regroup and try to tackle the issue again.
You don’t have to win every argument: Being successful alone doesn’t make a group or society successful. The Kerner Commission knew this and always kept this in mind when researching and writing the report. Because of that, not one person was in charge of the narrative, allowing for the narrative to be a collection of ideas.
“The Kerner Report” can apply to all work settings and relationships: By observing how to tackle systemic issues and address the country about such things, we can learn about how to approach this issue today, both at large and in smaller settings. Every relationship needs respect and a facilitation of conversation to be successful.

Moving forward, Loessberg said that we must have proper education about the impacts of systemic racism on the Black community. Additionally, and something I found quite interesting because I have never heard before, Loessberg said that there is a need for a wider variety of terms that mean racist–arguing that the fact that KKK members in white sheets are called racists just as the white cashier who has inherently racist actions is racist does not allow for a deeper understanding of systematic racism.

As I looked around during the final Q&A, I saw people from all different backgrounds facilitating respectful discourse–something I can’t say I see often. When I asked if Loessberg believed this text should be taught in schools if allowed, he answered, agreeing that (absolutely) “The Kerner Report” should be in schools today, but unfortunately “…it would be accepted as critical race theory,” meaning it would not be allowed in schools today. As others asked questions, I began to put into words what I had been observing throughout this entire presentation and discussion; even when opposing opinions were shared, everyone could eventually come together to agree on one thing–How the United States is today is in need of fixing, and “The Kerner Report” can provide insightful and guiding information if implemented correctly.

Understanding the Shifting and Complex Views of Muslim American Voters

By Noor Nazir

On October 7, 2024

In Policy, Political science

“We are techies in Silicon Valley, but we are also laborers in rural areas.”

That’s how the head of one of the nation’s largest Muslim voter-mobilization groups described the diverse socio-economic backgrounds of Muslim voters during a Sept. 30 talk held as part of the Provost’s Initiative on the Middle East.

Wa’el Alzayat is a first-generation Arab and Muslim American who serves as the CEO of Emgage, an organization that educates and mobilizes Muslim American voters in support of policies that enable our communities to thrive and democracy to flourish.

At his talk at the Sanford School of Public Policy, he showed the predominantly South Asian and Arab audience the political trajectory Muslims are undertaking this election; highlighting important turning points for the community – specifically, the events of October 7, 2023, and September 11, 2001.

Who Are Muslim American Voters?

“They are the most diverse religious group in America, consisting of Black Muslims, South Asians, Arabs, Hispanics, and others,” said Alzayat. This diversity meant that when we talk about Muslim voters, we’re not looking at a homogenous group but rather one with a wide range of perspectives, backgrounds, and priorities.

This is a community not confined to one particular industry or region but spread across the economic and social spectrum, contributing to the U.S. in a wide variety of ways.

But, just because Muslims make up 1-2% of the electorate doesn’t mean their vote doesn’t matter.

After all, in the 2000 presidential election, the deciding factor was the state of Florida, where Bush won by just 537 votes after a contentious recount process. This is 0.0034% of the population, so it’s fair to assume that the Muslim American voting bloc — more than three and a half million people — matters.

Post 9/11 and the War on Terror

Before 9/11, many Muslims supported the Republican Party. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney earned significant support from the Muslim community due to their positions on Palestine and their alignment with conservative values, including opposition to same-sex marriage.

However, the post-9/11 landscape changed everything. Alzayat shared data showing how Muslim Americans, once allied with the GOP, shifted toward the Democratic Party in response to policies like the Patriot Act, increased Islamophobia, and the Iraq War. These events alienated many Muslims, who felt targeted by the government. Since then, the Democratic Party has made strides in embracing Muslim Americans, especially during Obama’s presidency, when over 92% of Muslims supported him.

Post-October 7: The War in Gaza

Alzayat also addressed the current moment, particularly in light of the events in Gaza that began on October 7. He noted that foreign policy has always been central to Muslim voting behavior, especially regarding Palestine, Syria, Kashmir, and other Muslim-majority regions. The Gaza conflict has reignited these foreign policy concerns, driving more political engagement but also creating new divisions within the community.

Post 9/11, Muslims shifted to the Democrats. In the wake of October 7, Muslims are once again, conflicted. Since, according to Alzayat, most of the people in the community are issue voters – the Gaza war serves as one of the most colossal issues.

But neither party, Republican or Democrats, seem to side with defunding the Israeli military.

To no one’s surprise, Alzayat’s data shows a growing number of Muslims leaning toward third-party candidates, a significant shift from the 75% who voted for Biden in 2020.

Other Issues and Where Muslims Stand

As the research from Emgage illustrates, the Muslim community is not monolithic in its political beliefs. While some support progressive causes, such as gay marriage, others align more closely with traditional conservative values. This generational divide is becoming more pronounced, with younger Muslims more open to progressive social policies while older generations hold onto more conservative positions.

Issues like abortion are far from settled within the community, with different sects interpreting Islamic law differently. Alzayat pointed out that this diversity of opinion adds another layer of complexity to understanding Muslim American political behavior.

The Road to 2024: Green Party, Trump or Harris?

Alzayat went on to explain how there is no third party alternative, it’s just Trump or Harris, and Emgage has decided to endorse Harris. While he didn’t delve into this deeply, it’s reasonable to assume his stance is rooted in the historical impact of third-party votes. In key battleground states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, Jill Stein’s votes in the 2016 election arguably swung the result. Clinton lost these states by less than a percentage point and merely half of Stein’s votes could have reversed her losses.

Alzayat explained why he endorsed Harris, and not Trump.

According to him, there is no black-or-white answer and his organization could be wrong. It could be business as usual when Harris is elected, but with Trump the “could” will be a “will.”

With Trump’s presidency comes a threat of white supremacy, “We believe there is a dual threat of white supremacy and anti-Palestinians should Trump win based on what he said he will do. Jared Kushner wants to build condos in Gaza and he has been given 100 millions by funders who want to annex the West Bank,” he said.

“That fight has an option to continue if Trump isn’t an option,” he said.

Why Gen Z Must Recognize and Protect the Power of Their Vote

By Noor Nazir

On September 17, 2024

In Political science, Students

Is the upcoming national election essentially a wartime election? According to award-winning journalist Kyle Spencer, it is.

“It’s not the Democratic Party versus the Republican Party,” Spencer said. “It’s the Democratic Party vs the possibility of an authoritarian regime.”

During Spencer’s hour-long Sept. 11 talk, her voice wavered, her cheeks flushed, and her tone brimmed with excitement; she was here to tell Duke why they must fight for democracy, and she sure did leave an impression.

Kyle Spencer, Journalist

Spencer had a way of making us – the youth in the audience – feel seen, reminding us of the influence we held. It wasn’t just about politics. It was about empowering us to recognize the undeniable volume of our voices in shaping the future.

The Gen Z vote matters perhaps “more than any generation in history,” Spencer claimed. According to her, we’re the most diverse generation, and therefore, suppressing our vote would leave a grave impact.

“Voter suppression of young people can be understood as suppressing the vote of people of color,” Spencer said. Her comment sent chills down my spine. I’m a person of color. That comment felt close to home.

On the topic of voter suppression, the crowd expressed their frustration about the government not accepting Duke student’s virtual ID as an authentic form of identification. To which Spencer warned us about the predominant effects nation-wide to render the logistics of voting complex and arduous.

“You have to be savvy about the fact that there is a huge effort to discount your votes,” she said.

Students have power through their votes, but Spencer’s research suggests that organizations and political parties may be doing their best to suppress it. The reality is, if the logistics of voting are hard, you really need to care to go through those hurdles to cast it. This is rare, and certainly not enough to convince all eligible student voters to vote.

When I asked a member of the audience what she thought about efforts by organizations to bully Democrats, she pointed toward social media as a widely used tool — something Spencer mentioned in her talk.

“She mentioned all these organizations, such as ‘Turning Point USA’, and it really got me thinking – were all these YouTubers who were showcasing liberals to be extremely unintelligent even showing us the full debate? Is it just another jab at spreading false propaganda by twisting the reality?” Mariam, a sophomore at Duke, said.

Honestly, I felt seen — because same! There was a time when my YouTube feed was home to Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, and Candace Owens. It felt like a suffocating echo-chamber (blame the algorithm!).

When Spencer talked about YouTuber and political activist Charlie Kirk under the heading “Bullies or Buddies,” I felt an instant connection with the crowd, as if we were all telepathic. Mariam, Shreya, and a plethora of other students at the talk knew him as the guy who visits college campuses, debates liberal ideologies, and embarrasses his opponents. Spencer’s research for her book “Raising Them Right” may provide us insight to his possible agenda: such YouTubers tend to bully the opponents of their ideologies to discourage their votes, and be buddies with their proponents to create a fraternity-like atmosphere.

Why? To discourage votes!

Spencer’s research accentuated how voter suppression is strategically used as an authoritarian tool, particularly targeting young people and minority groups. She highlighted historical examples, such as the Lindy Johnson Act and the Civil Rights Movement, which fought against voter intimidation tactics.

She referenced the Beachhead theory, teleporting us to the dialogue of well-known Republican donors: “Get ourselves on campus then go from there” she quoted. Spencer described these as “war-like references.”

The audience seemed to nod in disappointment. Perhaps our telepathy striked again: if this was true, what has, and will, become of America?

Spencer was here to spark a conversation about civic engagement and the importance of staying informed. While “Raising Them Right” explores the rise of conservative youth movements, the real takeaway was a reminder that young people today have a critical role to play in shaping the future; and it’s crucial to be informed on the myriad of ways organizations from either political spectrum might try to take away our voice. So, we are equipped to steal our voices back.

Spencer left us with a sense of responsibility, encouraging all of us—regardless of political leaning—to recognize the power of our vote and the importance of participating in the democratic process.

I Watched as Democracy Was Stolen in Pakistan This Year

By Noor Nazir

On September 7, 2024

In Political science

Editors Note: I want to tell you a story about voter suppression and political chaos on the eve of a national election. My country, Pakistan, has some unfortunate first-hand experience in what might happen if your leaders abandon the Constitution.

On May 9, 2023, I had just finished my Pakistani A-levels, and was preparing to give my final examinations (Cambridge Board). Unfortunately, it wasn’t just a routine day of losing myself into a thick – boring – textbook. My phone blew up with every news outlet I subscribed to sending ‘breaking news’ notifications: 90 people had barged into the Islamabad High Court to arrest former Prime Minister Imran Khan on charges of corruption with the Al Qadir trust. He had been accused of illegally selling state gifts.

This sensationalized arrest was no surprise, Khan, who had been removed from office by a no confidence vote in 2022, had been criticizing the military of Pakistan for months. This was the first time this had ever happened, but no one was surprised. After all, we have never had a Prime Minister complete a five-year term since 1947.

Even though the public had seen it coming, they weren’t going to remain silent; violent protests broke out everywhere. I was at my friend’s house at the time. We heard something was going on but didn’t make much of it. Protests are normal.

We were wrong. The public was outraged by Khan’s arrest, and their reaction matched that anger.

I didn’t know all the facts to make up a strong opinion. Honestly, no one did. We just knew that we had to fight for Khan – the evidence behind his charges weren’t strong and his arrest seemed illegal. (It was, the Supreme Court recently ruled.) The arrest felt planned by the military and the PMLN (Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz – a dynastic political party run by Nawaz and Shahbaz Sharif, one of the richest men in Pakistan).

I remember returning from my friend’s house during a media and electricity blackout. We were minutes away from the protest happening in my city, Lahore. With no uber or signals on our phones, we took a Rickshaw (open-air taxi) to get closer. Little did I know I would be witnessing the protest first-hand; it quickly turned violent. As chaos erupted around me, I sat in the rickshaw, covering my face, praying for my dear life while people mere feet away from me were wielding sticks, breaking cars and windows. They were angry at the system and this was their way of vocalizing it.

Tear gas, chaos, defiance, protest, unrest, confrontation.

I was so shaken by the experience that I didn’t leave my house for weeks after. But I was also constricted by choice. The protests spiraled into brutality.

Protesters stormed the General Headquarters of the Pakistan Army in Rawalpindi and torched the corps commander’s residence in Lahore. They also attempted to vandalize the ISI headquarters. In retaliation, the army resorted to using firearms to scatter the demonstrators, further intensifying the unrest.

I recall discussing this with my mother: were the protestors wrong? The governance of the country had failed them – it had imposed unlawful methods to arrest not only Imran Khan, but over 105 workers of PTI (Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf), the party he led.

Perhaps the truth is that there is no right or wrong answer to this question. From a democratic perspective, the people wanted Khan to lead them. And from a legal standpoint, his arrest was illegal. But the violence in the protests seemed rather extreme.

On the other hand, if it wasn’t extreme, would they even be noticed?

Ultimately, all these questions amounted to nothing: PTI workers were leaving the party or getting arrested with over 3,100 protestors country-wide. Essentially, demolishing the political party. The military was not going to tolerate unrest, and their actions were a testament to that. The protests stopped, by force, not choice.

A few months later, the Election Commission of Pakistan set a date for elections on February 8, 2024.

Imran Khan? Still in jail. PTI workers? Still in jail.

Who would stand for elections? PTI party members as independents, and of course, PMLN and PPP (Pakistan People’s Party – another dynastic political party – led by Bilalwal Bhutto).

My Instagram story from the day I voted.

I was lucky enough to leave Duke for a week to visit Pakistan during this time. Voting has always been important to me, so I wasn’t going to waste that right (just as Americans should vote on November 5th!).

From what I witnessed, Punjab (the province I live in) was largely in favor of Khan and supported the PTI independents, and the opinion polls proved that. The elections, however, didn’t go as planned. Allegedly, the elections were rigged by the PMLN and the army.

I thought so too. Casting a vote was hard. There was a media blackout and the voting process was way more complicated than it needed to be. In Pakistan, you vote by stamping a symbol of a political party on your ballot. Most people rely on symbols rather than the name written next to it. The famous cricket bat symbol long associated with PTI was instead being used by PMLN members. It seemed like an attempt to baffle the public. A vote for the bat symbol was no longer a vote for PTI.

The Pakistani ballot uses symbols for each party. You vote by stamping a symbol. This year, the cricket bat changed parties, probably to create confusion.

When I went to vote, there were tents outside the building: hundreds of people were attempting to educate the public on the meaning of the symbols. They gave out a pamphlet explaining in detail who you should vote for, given who you support. This was a sight I had never witnessed. People weren’t spreading awareness on the significance of voting, they were spreading awareness on the logistics of voting. It was that complicated.

Election results were supposed to come out 24 hours after polling had stopped, but they were delayed for more than 48 hours. Many of the voting numbers didn’t add up while, in my house, we had the news on constantly that week. First, the independents were winning. Suddenly, the votes for PMLN skyrocketed overnight. We already had an inkling of the impossibility of PTI’s win, despite the overwhelming sentiment of the public. The initial nation-wide celebrations took a sharp turn.

A part of us already knew the outcome, but the feeling of defeat still lingered. The PTI independents had lost in Punjab. A coalition government between PMLN and PPP was officially in office. The rest is history.

This is a story that began two years ago and still remains unresolved. Imran Khan is still behind bars, and people are left disillusioned. Something has felt ‘off’ from the start, and it continues to feel that way. Yet, despite the uncertainty, we find ourselves unable to act. Protesting leads to arrests, and questioning the system is seen as defiance.

My love for Pakistan runs deep. It’s not just the corrupt system or the unanswered questions that frustrate me—it’s the silencing of a nation that, at its core, is full of resilient, passionate people. Pakistanis are fighters. We’ve always stood up for what we believe in. What we need now is the freedom to express that belief without fear.

Until then, the fight continues in Pakistan, in whatever form it can take.

Democracy isn’t just a word, it’s an action, a responsibility. When the people’s voice is stifled, when powerful figures twist the law for their gain, it’s not just the system that crumbles—it’s the spirit of a nation. Don’t take your freedoms for granted, because once they’re stripped away, it’s a long, painful battle to win them back. So, let’s fight for our future on November 5th!

Navigating the Complex World of Social Media and Political Polarization: Insights from Duke’s Polarization Lab

By Noor Nazir

On April 19, 2024

In Artificial Intelligence, Behavior/Psychology, Computers/Technology, Lecture, Political science

This February, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments challenging laws in Florida and Texas that would regulate how social media companies like Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) control what posts can appear on their sites.

Given the legal challenges involved over the concerns of the role social media plays in creating polarization, there is a need for further research to explore the issue. Enter Duke’s Polarization Lab, a multidisciplinary research hub designed to explore and mitigate the societal effects of online engagement.

In an April 17 seminar, Polarization Lab postdoc Max Allamong delved into the workings and discoveries of this innovative lab, which brings together experts from seven disciplines and various career stages, supported by twelve funders and partners, including five UNC affiliates.

Duke postdoctoral associate Max Allamong

Unless you’re okay with people stealing your data for their own research, conducting studies based on social media is next to impossible, Allamong explained.

In their attempt to conduct research ethically, the lab has developed a tool called “Discussit.” This platform enables users to see the partisanship of people they are communicating with online, aiming to reduce polarization by fostering dialogue across political divides. To put it simply, they’ll know if they’re talking to someone from the left or if they’re talking to someone from the right. Building on this, Allamong also introduced “Spark Social,” a social media simulator where researchers can adjust variables to study interactions under controlled conditions. This system not only allows for the modification of user interactions but also employs large language models (like those used in ChatGPT) to simulate realistic conversations.

Allamong highlighted a particularly revealing study from the lab, titled “Outnumbered Online,” which examined how individuals behave in partisan echo chambers versus balanced environments. The study placed users in forums where they were either in the majority or minority in terms of political alignment, revealing that being outnumbered led to increased self-censorship and perceptions of a toxic environment.

The lab’s ongoing work also explores the broader implications of polarization on political engagement. By manipulating the type of content users see, researchers are examining variables like believability and replicability of data generated by AI. This approach not only contributes to academic knowledge but also has practical implications for designing healthier online spaces.

As social media continues to shape political and social discourse, the work of Duke’s Polarization Lab and Allamong serves as a safe space to conduct ethical and meaningful research. The insights gained here will better equip us to analyze the polarization created by social media companies, and how that affects the political landscape of the country. The longstanding questions of the effects of echo chambers may soon be answered. This research will undoubtedly influence how we engage with and understand the digital world around us, making it a crucial endeavour for fostering a more informed and less polarized society.

Following the people and events that make up the research community at Duke

Category: Political science

Enemies, Politics, and the Future of Higher Education

Nathan Thrall’s “A Day in the Life of Abed Salama”

Riots and Reconciliations: Revisiting ‘The Kerner Report’

Understanding the Shifting and Complex Views of Muslim American Voters

Why Gen Z Must Recognize and Protect the Power of Their Vote

I Watched as Democracy Was Stolen in Pakistan This Year

Navigating the Complex World of Social Media and Political Polarization: Insights from Duke’s Polarization Lab