College students have an increased need for mental health assistance. Poor mental health affects a student’s social and academic success. To combat this, higher education institutes should assist students with the negotiation of constraints to visiting the U.S. National Parks. This study investigated the current barriers to visitation of the U.S. National Parks faced by college students. Additionally, it identified potential resources that could be provided to improve their negotiation strategies. Undergraduate students at Arizona State University (n=99) were asked to participate in a survey to identify current visitation rates, constraints, and demographics. Students in two Arizona State University classes were also asked to participate in a focus group. A total of four focus groups were conducted to determine the potential resources needed in higher education to assist students with the negotiation of constraints. Based on the quantitative and qualitative data, two themes emerged to determine current barriers: prioritization of U.S. National Parks and networking. Two additional themes emerged to identify potential resources for negotiation: planning and perception of time. After an integration of the quantitative and qualitative data, it was determined that cost is an assumed barrier, negative attitudes toward outdoor recreation affect participants’ leisure preferences, and there is a perception of a lack of time. Finally, two significant recommendations are proposed. First is the regularly available communication of knowledge produced by higher education institutions. Second, implementation of planned trips conducted by higher education institutes will help students negotiate barriers to visiting the U.S. National Parks.

Climate change has necessitated the transition from non-renewable energy sources such as coal, oil, and natural gas to renewable, low-carbon energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydroelectric. These energy sources, although much better equipped to reduce carbon-induced climate change, require materials that pollute the environment when mined and can release toxic waste during processing and disposal. Critical minerals are used in low-carbon renewable energy, and they are subject to both the environmental issues that accompany regular mineral extraction as well as issues related to scarcity from geopolitical issues, trade policy, and geological rarity. Tellurium is a critical mineral produced primarily as a byproduct of copper and used in cadmium-telluride (CdTe) solar panels. As these solar panels become more common, the problems that arise with many critical minerals’ usage (pollution, unfair distribution, human health complications) become more apparent. Looking at these issues through an energy justice framework can help to ensure availability, sustainability, inter/intragenerational equity, and accountability, and this framework can provide a more nuanced understanding of the costs and the benefits that will accrue with the transition to low-carbon, renewable energy. Energy justice issues surrounding the extraction of critical minerals will become increasingly prevalent as more countries pledge to have a zero-carbon future.

The right to cast a meaningful vote, equal in value to other votes, is a fundamental tenet US elections. Despite the 1964 Supreme Court decision formally establishing the one person, one vote principle as a legal requirement of elections, our democracy consistently falls short of it. With mechanisms including the winner-take-all format in the Electoral College, disproportioned geographic allocation of senators, extreme partisan gerrymandering in the House of Representatives, and first-past-the-post elections, many voters experience severe vote dilution. <br/><br/>In order to legitimize our democratic structures, American elections should be reformed so every person’s vote has equal weight, ensuring that the election outcomes reflect the will of the people. Altering the current election structure to include more proportional structures including rank choice voting and population-based representation, will result in a democracy more compatible with the one person, one vote principle.

The Honorable Anthony Blinken<br/>Secretary of State<br/>U.S. Department of State<br/>2201 “C” Street NW<br/>Washington, D.C.<br/><br/>Dear Secretary Blinken,<br/>I am writing you to bring to your attention a potential policy solution in regards to the struggled implementation of the Colombian Peace Accords with the FARC Insurgency. This policy brief has been written with extensive research and input from experts in Colombian foreign policy and general foreign and domestic policy alike. <br/>The research has found that due of the current status of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia on the Foreign Terrorists Organization (FTO) Classification list, aid and protections that have been promised to the former members has not been provided, causing a rise in members re-arming themselves against the national Colombian government. This policy brief recommends that the State Department authorize the removal of the FARC from the FTO Classification list in order for U.S. AID and other forms of finance can reach former FARC members and deter them from becoming actively violent once again.<br/>Thank you for taking the time to consider this policy proposal, I look forward to hearing back from your office. <br/><br/>Sincerely,<br/>Kyle Slaughter<br/>Honors Student<br/>Arizona State University

Our thesis is a cross collaboration between international relations and industrial engineering. We used a combination of database logic, programming, and Microsoft Visual Studio to organize and analyze Middle Eastern politics. Not only does the final product show raw data entry, but it also can answer complex questions about Middle Eastern relations- queries so complex that Google can’t answer them. We organized and analyzed geopolitical data to make it more accessible and easy, hopefully you enjoy!

This podcast highlights the voices of organizers and activists across the nation. Representatives from various organizations and individual activists provide their experiences in working within reproductive health activist spaces. By listening to their stories and expertise, the hope is for listeners to center Reproductive Justice as a point of view. The goal is to encourage the audience to join an organization, support their local organizations, or at the very least, learn about resources provided to them by local and national organizations.

In recent years, immigration, especially concerning those individuals immigrating from Central America and Mexico, has become increasingly controversial. Within the last five presidents, policies concerning immigration have shifted. Under President Bill Clinton in 1997, the Flores Settlement, an agreement between immigration activist organizations and the government that created standards for detaining accompanied and unaccompanied minors was made. Following 9/11, in 2005, President George W. Bush increased the amount of money spent on immigration enforcement in an effort to deport more immigrants. President Barack Obama increased the number of deportations from President Bush during his first term. However, in 2014, an already imperfect immigration system was disrupted by an influx of child immigrants. As a result, detention centers were at capacity and unable to accommodate the increasing numbers of immigrants. Child migrants were placed in caged-areas, immigration lawyers and courts quickly became overwhelmed with cases, and children were alone and could barely communicate. This thesis explores the various relationships between accompanied and unaccompanied minors from Central America, the American legal system, and the media and broadcast news outlets’ rhetoric concerning child migrants. Focusing on the ways in which immigrant minors are objectified by the legal system and the framing of immigrants in the media, it is evident that their complex interaction allows for the oppression of the child migrants. Since the American legal system and the media influence and respond to each other, the responsibility of the child migrants’ dehumanization is on both the legal system and the rhetoric of the media and broadcast news outlets.

This research analyzes lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/ questioning (LGBTQ) students’ experiences with sex education in Arizona. This research is a grey literature review of Arizona’s previous state policies, current state sex education curricula law, and legislative proposals within the past few years. Analysis focuses on changes after the repeal of the “no promo homo” law in 2019. Through defining the differences between abstinence only and comprehensive sex education (CSE), this will provide a framework to better understand approaches to sex education. As of now, Arizona stresses abstinence-based education. Delving into LGBTQ students’ general experiences in schools provides a foundation to better understand why these students especially benefit from CSE. Since LGBTQ students are disproportionately affected by bullying and are at increased sexual health risks, it is important to address misperceptions surrounding the LGBTQ community. The purpose of this research is to push for more LGBTQ inclusive sex education curricula in Arizona.

Americans today face an age of information overload. With the evolution of Media 3.0, the internet, and the rise of Media 3.5—i.e., social media—relatively new communication technologies present pressing challenges for the First Amendment in American society. Twentieth century law defined freedom of expression, but in an information-limited world. By contrast, the twenty-first century is seeing the emergence of a world that is overloaded with information, largely shaped by an “unintentional press”—social media. Americans today rely on just a small concentration of private technology powerhouses exercising both economic and social influence over American society. This raises questions about censorship, access, and misinformation. While the First Amendment protects speech from government censorship only, First Amendment ideology is largely ingrained across American culture, including on social media. Technological advances arguably have made entry into the marketplace of ideas—a fundamental First Amendment doctrine—more accessible, but also more problematic for the average American, increasing his/her potential exposure to misinformation. <br/><br/>This thesis uses political and judicial frameworks to evaluate modern misinformation trends, social media platforms and current misinformation efforts, against the background of two misinformation accelerants in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic and U.S. presidential election. Throughout history, times of hardship and intense fear have contributed to the shaping of First Amendment jurisprudence. Thus, this thesis looks at how fear can intensify the spread of misinformation and influence free speech values. Extensive research was conducted to provide the historical context behind relevant modern literature. This thesis then concludes with three solutions to misinformation that are supported by critical American free speech theory.