This study seeks to understand the role that media coverage of the Red for Ed movement and related teachers strike in Arizona had on college students’ views toward the issues of teacher pay and education funding. I conducted a survey of 448 students from Arizona State University who were first administered a pre-test gauging their initial views on teacher pay and education funding. Participants were then divided into three groups, with the first group watching a video montage of Red for Ed media clips that contained a minute-long clip showing the average annual teacher salary level in Arizona. The second group watched an identical video montage as the first group but without the average teacher salary clip, while the third group watched an unrelated and politically insignificant video. Participants were then given the same series of questions after watching their respective stimulus videos to gauge post-test views. The results show that students exposed to media coverage that showed what teachers make on an annual basis saw significant decreases in what they thought teachers should earn and how much the state should devote to education funding in comparison to those who saw similar media coverage of Red for Ed but did not see what teachers earn. In contrast, the latter group saw no significant difference compared to those who were not exposed to any media coverage of Red for Ed, challenging the widely-touted “protest paradigm” trap often highlighted in current academic literature. Finally, the study shows that while ideology plays a role in support for higher teacher pay and willingness to raise taxes to fund education, liberal students showed no overall difference in how much they would fund education in comparison to moderate and conservative students. This study, therefore, provides insight into how interactions and portrayals in the media can influence public opinion towards teachers protests and their goals, as well as how educators can adapt to this dynamic by adopting specific protest strategies to more effectively build political and public support.

ABSTRACT
The right to vote is widely considered as one of the fundamental pillars of a democratic society. Throughout the history of the United States, this pillar has gradually grown in strength as voting has become a far more inclusive and accessible exertion of political power and expression of political will. Currently in the United States, for the first time in decades, that pillar is slowly yet steadily eroding. There is a narrative, one that has been cultivated and carefully constructed for centuries, that the United States is a bastion of democracy. Although various groups have been oppressed and excluded from the voting franchise historically, the narrative promotes the idea that the right to vote is now fully enjoyed. But what does “the right” to vote really mean? Additionally, is the narrative that the United States is a true democracy with robust voter protections a reality, or is it a deceptive tactic meant to shroud the fact that voter power is undeniably waning?
This paper challenges that narrative, as well as argues that having “the right” to vote is hollow. The power of voters has always been diluted by the blanket exclusion of certain groups. Currently, however, the power of voters is being diluted by various forms of political, legal, and financial manipulation. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, and big money all contribute to the distortion and destruction of democracy in the United States, preventing it from fully realizing the ideals that have, ostensibly, guided it since its inception. This paper will examine each of these forms in terms of their history, their implementation, and their effects and consequences on voter power, as well as their influence on democracy in the United States as a whole. Additionally, this paper analyzes the potential solutions to these pernicious forms of voter dilution, seeking to discover if democracy in the United States can avoid becoming unrecognizable from the narrative that has supported it for centuries.

If one were to go to Virginia today and visit Monticello, the former home of Thomas Jefferson, they would find a building that resembles a museum more so than a home. Inside are paintings, maps, sculptures and even the antlers of many great beasts. But the first thing that will come to a visitor's sight aren’t these wonders, but rather the busts of two men that glare at each other at the entrance of the home. One stands on a pedestal, large and draped in cloth, the other a simple marble statue of a younger man. The former statue depicts Monticello’s owner and the latter is of the first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton . One may find this curious, as the two didn’t have a friendship and were often thought of as the cause for the United States becoming a two-party system, due to their disagreements. For Thomas Jefferson the placement of these busts seemed natural as it put him into eternal combat with a man he considered his main political rival.
These two men could not have had more different upbringings; Thomas Jefferson was born to a wealthy family that owned land and slaves, whereas Alexander Hamilton was born on a Caribbean island in poverty, only to be orphaned early on in his life . Despite these differences both men found a common goal in fighting for independence for the American colonies. Jefferson would do so as a diplomat and author of the Declaration of Independence, Hamilton would be a patriot through being a soldier and assistant to General George Washington. Once the war was over, the two continued their service to the country and would find themselves as the first heads of the United States’ cabinet departments. By being in Washington’s cabinet, the two came in conflict with one another frequently on the policy of the time such as the country’s neutrality in foreign affairs. No issue put them more in conflict than their stances on the country’s economic state.

Over the last 30 years, the public has become somewhat less willing to accept the “feminist” label. However, most Americans indicate support for general feminist ideals. In fact, many of these ideals have become so prevalent in American culture that they are not considered feminist anymore. This thesis will examine the reason behind this disparity and analyze where public opinion began to shift. The disparity between the definition of feminism and the definition perceived by the public will be explored along with the idea that the American people still want and need a “feminist movement,” but that its current state is not resonating with the majority of the public.

Youth voters in the US have had a steadily declining turnout since the right to vote was expanded to include 18-20 year old citizens in 1971. The decline appears to be related to both internal reasons and external reasons. Internal reasons include apathy about the political process, while external reasons can include voter suppression tactics such as voter identification laws and laws preventing felons from voting. For those that currently participate in the political process, social media appears to play a big part in youth spreading their political opinions. The recent expansion of early voting has resulted in more young people voting by early voting, showing that making voting more accessible allows young people to exercise their political voice through voting. Despite internal and external obstacles young voters face while voting, new voting methods have the potential to expand the turnout of youth voters.

In this paper, I will be arguing for the adoption of compulsory voting legislation in the United States. More specifically, for the implementation of compulsory voting in all federal elections. I begin my paper by stating essential democratic principles and how they demand this kind of voting policy in a country that prides itself as a beacon of democracy. Secondly, I will discussing voter suppression in the United States, both in the past as well as currently. My goal with this section is to show how compulsory voting would reduce voter suppression and bring about a democratically legitimate elected government. Thirdly, I will discuss how countries across the globe have already implemented compulsory voting in their elections. Primarily, I will show how Australia and Brazil require voting in their elections, as they are the most similar in size and culture to the United States out of the nations that currently operate with it. Lastly, I will refute any arguments against compulsory voting and argue why it is imperative for the United States to implement it in their elections.

This study intends to understand the extent to which media coverage of the sexual assault and/or harassment allegations against federally elected officials during the #MeToo Movement impacted male and female college students' trust in government. To answer this question, we conducted a survey of 377 Arizona State University students. Participants were administered a pre-test gauging their experience with issues of sexual assault and harassment, their awareness of sexual assault campaigns and their trust in government to uphold their civil liberties. A video montage of #MeToo media coverage that reported the accusations made against federally elected officials followed the pre-test for the experimental group. The control group viewed a video unrelated to the #MeToo movement. Participants were then given the same survey after watching the stimulus video. Our findings show that females have more experience with issues of sexual assault and harassment and are more aware of sexual assault campaigns than males. Most notably, our results determined that females were generally impacted at a higher level than their male counterparts after watching media coverage of the #MeToo movement. This study provides insight into the extent to which the #MeToo movement has had an impact on attitudes and perceptions of rape culture as well as government accountability amongst male and female college students. It also reaffirms the urgent need to increase male engagement on these issues and provides evidence supporting future research.

In the midst of our nation's heightened political climate, it seems as if politics is polarized more than ever. Voters witnessed the impact of identity politics in the previous national election. As Facebook and Twitter are flooded with political debate, it seems as if the ability to engage in civil discourse has been lost. In the past election cycle, women's issues were a major focal point. Firstly, the country was presented with the potential to elect its first female president. Discussions of workplace diversity, the gender pay gap, and racial divide brought up serious concerns of inequality. Women were infuriated so much so that they organized all across the nation and came out strong, but not unified, in the notable Women's March. The March was arguably politically fueled and perceived by conservatives as an anti-conservative movement. Since the March was purposefully scheduled the day after President Trump's inauguration, the idea of "resistance" was interpreted as "anti-Trump." Interestingly enough, a pro-life feminist population was excluded from being sponsors of the movement. This story received national coverage, and is a topic of debate. The 2018 Women's March proved to be just as political with speeches encouraging people to only vote Democrat in the following elections. The Women's March is a microcosm of our nation's inability to find common ground. This project will explore the ideologies of conservatism and feminism and develop the concept of the "conservative feminist." In this study, we surveyed students studying political ideologies at Arizona State University, assessed results, and then conducted informational interviews to explore those results in greater depth. Accordingly, this thesis explores questions such as: Why did a civil rights movement become seemingly polarized? What are the semantic and conceptual obstacles to "conservative feminism?" The goal of this analysis is to explore the stigma of political ideologies and labels, and to open the discussion for better understanding of feminism, conservatism, and conservative feminism.

Civic education in America should be focused on empowering future generations to take full advantage of their rights as citizens and realize their potential to incite change. Even at a young age, it is important that we educate children on what it means to be a United States citizen so that they can begin cultivating their personal political experience. As soon as the child is at the age where they can begin to understand basic political and governmental concepts, they should be encouraged to start thinking about their roles as citizens in a Democratic government. More often than not, young adults express that they wish they had been exposed to the political climate earlier on in life. When a lot of these adolescents reach voting age, they are woefully under-educated and apathetic towards their participation in the civic sphere. This activity booklet was designed to not only educate but also empower and inspire kids, and to really get them excited for their futures in the civic sphere.

In 2016, the Western world was shocked by the victory of the "Leave" campaign in the referendum on European Union membership in Great Britain and by the victory of Donald Trump in the United States' presidential election. These two electoral successes have been called "populist" campaigns in their respective countries. In this paper, I ask whether the widespread populist sentiment in the United States and Great Britain qualifies as "populist" and should be regarded as part of the same movement. I then explore whether Trump and Leave voters are motivated by a common issue or set of issues. Initially, I frame my argument by defining populism and showing how both campaigns meet the definition. Next, I compare the Leave campaign with the Trump campaign and explore the similarities and differences in the demographics and opinions of their supporters. I determine that while the Trump and Leave campaigns certainly have differences, they should ultimately be treated as two branches of the same movement. Finally, I conclude that both campaigns are more motivated by versions of cultural resentment than economic anxiety.