Studies have previously found a significant relationship between student writing center usage and demographic factors including gender, GPA, and English-language proficiency (Salem, 2015). Additional research has been conducted on writing center outcomes and student conceptions and misconceptions of writing centers as academic resources. However, previous scholarship has attested to the need for continuous research into writing center usage patterns and the factors that affect them. This will allow centers to make the necessary changes and improvements to become more accessible and inclusive for the benefit of all students. The present research contributes to the ongoing discussion about why students choose to use or not use the writing center and how their identities and pre-existing ideas about the center inform this decision. Further, it addresses research gaps by surveying students in an honors college setting at a large public university and considering new decision-making factors such as race, mental health, and social stigma. By comparing students demographics and impressions of the Barrett Writing Center (BWC) on the ASU campus, the study draws conclusions about the significant gap between positive perception and usage, the influence of social anxiety and stigma amongst honors students, the successes and failures of tutoring for second language English speakers, and the benefit derived by students who attend multiple writing center sessions. Suggestions to improve the BWC and guide future research are offered based on these observations and significant trends in the data.

This paper focuses on the impacts of climate change on the Two-Spirit, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and/or Questioning, Intersex, Asexual (2SLGBTQIA+) population. The paper seeks to fill in the current gap within research in this particular area. I utilize a decolonial and intersectional framework to determine how to achieve queer climate justice. In doing so, I conduct interviews with different climate activists and review current research to come up with possible responses.

Animal agriculture is a growing industry worldwide as the global demand for animal products increases. This has resulted in many harmful unintended consequences for human health, the environment, and animal welfare. This paper aims to uncover the hidden costs of negative externalities by answering the question: What types of subsidies is the US government distributing to the animal agriculture industry and in what amount? This paper will begin with some background on a few of the externalities created by the animal agriculture industry focusing specifically on environmental issues of water, air, and deforestation. Once this background is established, this will show that animal agriculture is in fact a negative-externality-generating industry. Next, subsidies will be defined and the principal findings of the research will reveal the different forms of support that the US government provides to animal agriculture. Lastly, these subsidies, both direct and indirect, will be quantified.