The COVID-19 pandemic has had a tremendous impact on people’s lives and it has reemphasized health inequities in the United States. Historically, minority communities have faced barriers to accessing health care and demonstrated hesitancies to getting vaccinated for various diseases. This has led to disparities in terms of how different diseases affect different communities. This same pattern has been seen regarding how COVID-19 has affected different ethnicities in the U.S. Statistics have shown vaccination disparities for COVID-19 among different ethnicities and organizations in the U.S. have employed different strategies to address this health inequity. This thesis analyzes the hesitancies and barriers to getting vaccinated for COVID-19, specifically among African Americans and Hispanics. Additionally, this thesis looks at the strategies that have been used to address the vaccination inequities that have affected these two ethnicities with a focus specifically on how mass vaccination sites and mobile health clinics try to address the vaccination disparity.

Passed in April of 2010, Arizona Senate Bill 1070 is nationally recognized as the first state-level anti-immigration legislation of its kind that deputized local police officers to enforce immigration laws. Though response strategies varied widely across activists and organizations, many community organizations devised strategies specifically aimed to protect and assist the undocumented community during the reign of terror that accompanied SB 1070. In looking at the reflections of activists and organization leaders on their own actions and decision-making rationale, I analyze how their strategies and tactics worked to both counter and reconceptualize hegemonic notions of citizenship, belonging, and community through the creation of networks and knowledge funds. By specifically examining the efforts made by No Mas Muerte, Puente Human Rights Movement, and the Calle Dieciseis Mural Project, I show that efforts that go beyond voter mobilization and legal action, which not only work to combat dominant rhetoric but also center the voices of the targeted population through disrupting public space, are essential to responding to political efforts designed to target vulnerable communities. Given their necessity, academics and institutional actors must acknowledge the importance of grassroots efforts in contributing to inter-institutional strategies and ensure that a ground-up analysis of community-based organizations informs their actions taken against state-level anti-immigration laws.

Lithium ion batteries are quintessential components of modern life. They are used to power smart devices — phones, tablets, laptops, and are rapidly becoming major elements in the automotive industry. Demand projections for lithium are skyrocketing with production struggling to keep up pace. This drive is due mostly to the rapid adoption of electric vehicles; sales of electric vehicles in 2020 are more than double what they were only a year prior. With such staggering growth it is important to understand how lithium is sourced and what that means for the environment. Will production even be capable of meeting the demand as more industries make use of this valuable element? How will the environmental impact of lithium affect growth? This thesis attempts to answer these questions as the world looks to a decade of rapid growth for lithium ion batteries.

Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome (MRKH) is a congenital disease that affects the female reproductive organs, causing them to be either malformed or completely absent. Much of the research regarding MRKH primarily focuses on the biological aspects of the disease and ignores the social impacts of the disease. I have conducted research to assess three of the underlying factors affecting women with the disease and gained a better understanding of how this disease affects these individuals and creates new obstacles for them throughout their lives. I found that for many women with MRKH, the decision to pursue treatment is greatly influenced by their environments and communities. Treatments range from something minor like vaginal dilation to much more controversial and riskier experimental treatments like uterine transplant surgery to experience pregnancy. Patients often experience “gender role insecurity” based on the cultural norms of their society. Gender role insecurity is the concern that gender norms may go unfulfilled, and even affects the relationships between women with MRKH and those who do not have the disease. This is a concern that women feel due to social pressures and standards. Gender role insecurity is important because it lets us understand what women with MRKH feel they lack in terms of their femininity and why medical intervention is so highly prioritized. Some societies and cultures with a more traditional background have a greater influence regarding the treatment options that MRKH women pursue. By analyzing support groups and online message boards, it seems that these support groups give women with MRKH the support and freedom to explore a range of treatment options, away from significant social pressures.

Brundtland’s definition of sustainability is the ability to “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” (IISD, 2021). But what if there are no future generations? Social sustainability, the sector of sustainability that foregrounds the well-being and livelihoods of people (and thereby continuation of humanity), is included in definitions within the sustainability field, but less developed in sustainability practice. In an effort to bridge this gap of knowledge, 14 U.S. cities and over 100 sustainability policies were analyzed for their social sustainability performance. An eight-item analytical framework that deals with differing areas of social equity guided the analysis. Results found that most cities’ sustainability departments fell short of truly addressing social sustainability concerns. Out of the eight items, the most frequently addressed were housing security and racial and gender equality whereas few, if any, cities addressed the more specific social concerns of immigration, technology and media, or arts/cultural preservation. Future research is recommended to gain a better understanding of the ways existing cities can improve in this area.

Ankle monitors are not the bright, kind alternative to incarceration that they are made to be. Advocates propose them as a solution to overcrowded carceral sites and excessive federal expenditure on public corrections agencies. Their logic being we can release certain incarcerated people to reduce prison, jail, and detention center populations and require them to pay for their monitoring to reduce prison expenditures. While there is potential for ankle monitors to achieve these aspirations, it is necessary to recognize how and where they can produce harm. Rather than being an alternative to incarceration, ankle monitors are a method of incarceration. They serve the same functions and hold the same power as prisons and jails with a more elusive form. In the current implementation of ankle monitors, we see individual bodies being transformed into sources of data to be capitalized upon by the government and private companies. Along with this, there is a shift of the financial burden of incarceration from prisons to the person being punished. This acts to further perpetuate the cycles of poverty and financial oppression that are seen within traditional forms of incarceration. Ankle monitor advocates also claim ankle monitors allow incarcerated people to enjoy freedom beyond prison walls and reintegrate into society. In reality, this is an oversimplification of freedom. Individuals with ankle monitors find themselves to be limited in their freedoms by restricted movement and stigmatization. They are unable to live a “normal” life because their ankle monitors prevent them from doing so. These people cannot move as they please, they cannot find and hold employment, and they cannot interact with people like they normally would. Ankle monitor usage must be critically examined and altered if it is to be considered a meaningful, gentle alternative to incarceration.

This study looked at student’s perceptions of COVID-19 and differences in how universities handled COVID-19. It aimed to assess what measures made students feel safe and were the most effective in lessening spread. A risk-perception survey scored feelings of safety/risk, and semi-structured interviews provided context. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis showed mixed opinions on university measures, and interviews identified wearing masks, social distancing, isolating, and limiting social contacts as measures that were effective in curbing spread.