Ask anyone who knows her and they’ll tell you the same thing: Larissa Martinez is built for service and thrives on connection.

Service is the through line of her life, stitched in early by her mother, a public educator who volunteered in every community the family called home—and who, Martinez notes with a laugh, still spends her retirement volunteering in Blue Ridge, Georgia. Her father, a small business owner, passed along his entrepreneurial spirit to Martinez which would later shape her approach to politics and nonprofit work. Her grandfathers’ military service—one a Navy veteran of World War II, the other a pilot who survived being shot down, held in a concentration camp, and later became the first Hispanic deputy Wing Commander at Nellis Air Force Base—deepened her commitment to serve and take on tough challenges.

When Martinez landed in Georgia as a high school junior, she found herself drawn to SPIA. The Benson-Bertsch Center for International Trade and Security (BBCITS), in particular, spoke to her interests in national security and foreign affairs. Once at UGA, she made the most of every experience available to her. Through BBCITS, she helped plan a conference in Denmark on the misuse of technologies in the post-Soviet world. She studied abroad in Italy with Dr. Charles Bullock, who served as a mentor to her and helped her navigate the political landscape of the southeastern United States.

After graduation, Martinez took her ambitions to Washington, D.C. She began as a volunteer in then-Congressman Johnny Isakson’s office, working under fellow ��è����Ƶ alumna Tempe Stephen. “Tempe let me show up three days a week unpaid,” Martinez recalls. “Eventually they were impressed enough to let me come five days a week. And by impressed, I mean I answered the phone faster.” She laughs, but the truth is clear: she showed up—and she kept showing up.

From that unpaid internship, Martinez built a career that touched nearly every corner of Capitol Hill. She earned a staff position with the newly elected Senator Isakson, then moved to the House of Representatives to join Nathan Deal’s office. She returned to the Senate for positions with Nebraska’s two senators—a state with family connections—and leaned on the UGA alumni community in Washington for grounding and support.

When Deb Fisher decided to run for U.S. Senate, Martinez’s career in campaigns began. “We put 46,000 miles on the Senator’s car during the underdog campaign and won!” she recalls. Next, she joined Carly Fiorina’s 2016 presidential campaign. Later, she worked in lobbying and assisted with transition efforts for the first Trump administration, by supporting communications for Cabinet nominees. The variety of her work, she says, reflects her father’s entrepreneurial philosophy: identify a need and fill the gap. At each stop, Martinez learned more about people, policy, and processes that led her to where she is today.

But one thing troubled her throughout her career: there were not enough women at the proverbial table where policies are being created. Martinez saw a gap and decided to fill it. In 2019, she founded WPLN to equip center-right women with the tools, training, and community they need to step into public leadership. “When women aren’t in the room,” she says, “half the population isn’t represented.”

In just six years, WPLN has grown into a national force with more than 20,000 women served and between 500 and 600 candidates trained. Yet when praised for the impact, Martinez waves it off. “I just want to help people and see better leaders in office,” she says simply. It’s safe to say she is helping, and her service extends far beyond her work with the WPLN. To amplify the work, she has also created a political ecosystem to support women seeking office and those looking to work on campaigns. Martinez mentors young leaders through the ��è����Ƶ Alumni Board, shares her experience as an Applied Politics visiting practitioner, and nurtures community through the Women of ��è����Ƶ group. She even brought her family into the mission, co-authoring a children’s book with her sister titled “My Mommy Is a Candidate.”

This year, as ��è����Ƶ honors Larissa Martinez with the Alumni Impact Award for Political Science, the recognition feels fitting. She is the embodiment of the school’s mission—inspiring and preparing tomorrow’s leaders by living the example herself.

By Ryan Leonard

The post Alumni Impact Award: Larissa Martinez appeared first on ��è����Ƶ.

��Judicial review—the power of courts to��strike down��laws passed by elected officials—is often portrayed as undemocratic, an obstacle to the will of the majority imposed by unelected judges.��

Alexander Kaufman, professor of��Political��Science��at the ��è����Ƶ’s School of Public and International Affairs, argues that this view fundamentally misunderstands��the nature of a truly democratic political culture.��

In his new book,��Democracy, Liberty, and Judicial Review, Kaufman makes a forceful case that judicial review is not a threat to democratic governance but one of its most important safeguards. Far from undermining democracy, courts play a vital role in protecting the basic liberties that make democracy��possible.��

“The idea that democracy is simply��majority��rule is historically and philosophically mistaken,” Kaufman explained. “Pure democracy was long viewed as one of the most unstable forms of government.��Democracy became��a viable��form of government only after it��was recognized that democracy requires the��constitutional��protection of liberty.”��

Beyond Majority Rule��

At the heart of Kaufman’s argument is a challenge to what��scholars��call “majoritarianism”—the��view��that��democracy��simply requires implementation of the will of the majority. Critics of judicial review often argue that laws passed by elected representatives should not be overturned by an unrepresentative judiciary.��

Kaufman responds by��situating��democracy within a broader framework of constitutional design. From the Bill of Rights to the principle of checks and��balances, democratic systems were intentionally built to limit��the power of the��majority,��particularly when the��exercise of that power��threatens��fundamental rights.��

“The purpose of a constitution,” Kaufman said, “is to restrict the power of the majority. Rights��guarantees��have no function if they do��not��do exactly that.”��

Drawing on��the work of��thinkers such as John Locke, JeanJacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and the American founders, Kaufman argues that democracy has never been understood as simple responsiveness to public opinion. Instead,��democracy��requires institutions that ensure minorities always have a��real��opportunity to become majorities.��

Lessons from History��

To illustrate the stakes, Kaufman points to some of the most consequential moments in American constitutional history. Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, and other forms of legal segregation were all enacted by elected representatives and supported by majority sentiment in many states. It was judicial intervention—often deeply unpopular at the time—that dismantled these systems.��

“Those laws were simply the will of the majority,” Kaufman noted. “If we had accepted the majoritarian argument consistently, segregation and voter suppression would have remained intact far longer.”��

Court decisions such as��Brown v. Board of Education, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional,��demonstrate��a key distinction Kaufman emphasizes throughout the book: the difference between unpopular decisions and antidemocratic ones. While decisions like��Brown��were fiercely opposed in parts of the country, they strengthened democracy by enforcing the principle of equal protection under the law.��

“An antidemocratic decision is one that undermines democratic��participation itself—by allowing exclusion from voting or dismantling core rights,” Kaufman explained. “Unpopular decisions can still be democratically necessary.”��

Why Courts Matter��

According to Kaufman, the judiciary plays a role that no other democratic institution can fully replace��by��enforcing entrenched rights protections while��remaining��insulated from immediate political pressure. Legislatures, controlled by majorities, cannot restrain��majority��power.��

“Without��enforcement by��an institution independent of popular opinion,” he said, “restrictions on majority power are meaningless.”��

Kaufman warns that weakening judicial review would make profound rights violations not only possible but likely. History, he argues, shows how quickly rights can erode when their guarantees of liberty��are treated as optional rather than absolute.��

Defending Judicial Review—Not Every Court��Decision��

Importantly, Kaufman stresses that defending judicial review does not mean defending every��court��decision. In fact, he is sharply critical of contemporary jurisprudence that relies on weak reasoning or selective appeals to history.��

His book argues that many of the most catastrophic failures in Supreme Court history—from��Plessy v. Ferguson��to��Korematsu—were failures of restraint, not overreach. The Court erred by refusing to intervene when democratic values were at risk.��

At the same time, Kaufman calls��for��comprehensive reform of the��judicial confirmation process.����An acceptable confirmation process must require full disclosure from nominees��regarding��their judicial philosophy and their approach to legal reasoning.����Failure to provide satisfactory��disclosure must��constitute��a sufficient basis for a vote to reject a nominee.����A senator’s judgment that a nominee’s substantive views are unacceptably extreme must��also��constitute an uncontroversial basis for a vote to reject the nominee.����Deceptive statements in the nominee’s��disclosure—as��revealed in opinions, concurrences, or dissents issued after the nominee has been confirmed—must constitute a complete and uncontroversial basis for impeaching and removing a Justice from the Court.������

“The solution to bad judging is��not��abandoning judicial review,”��Kaufman argues. “It��is��taking judicial reasoning seriously.”��

A Democratic Necessity��

Ultimately,��Democracy, Liberty, and Judicial Review��invites��readers to rethink what democracy��actually��requires.����

“Democracy is a complicated��form of government,” he says. “It requires checks, balances, and restrictions on majority power. It cannot be reduced to simply satisfying the preferences of the majority.”��

Kaufman’s book offers a clear and challenging reminder: protecting democracy sometimes requires limits on majority rule,��and a serious commitment to principled,��well-reasoned��judicial��review.����

The post When Courts Protect Democracy: Why Judicial Review Still Matters appeared first on ��è����Ƶ.

In her new book, The Politics of Perception, ��è����Ƶ political scientist Katelyn E. Stauffer tackles this question head-on. Drawing on nearly a decade of research, Stauffer argues that Americans don’t just care about who holds office—they care about what they think government looks like. And those perceptions have far-reaching implications for trust and legitimacy.

From Dissertation to Definitive Study

“This book started as my dissertation,” Stauffer explains. “I realized early on that in American politics, we tend to focus on individual candidates—specific women—and how they shape attitudes. But comparative politics scholars think about representation differently, looking at memberships as a whole. That approach made more sense to me.”

The idea crystallized during graduate school when Stauffer read an article assuming people knew what their state legislature looked like. “I had a visceral reaction,” she recalls. “I wrote in the margins, ‘There’s no way that’s true.’ That moment sparked a decade-long project.”

Her research zeroed in on a critical gap: most Americans have little idea how many women actually serve in Congress. Stauffer’s research addresses contradictions in previous studies by introducing a new framework. She distinguishes between descriptive representation—what government looks like—and symbolic representation—how people feel about government’s responsiveness and legitimacy. “The debate has always been whether these two are linked,” she says. “My argument is that they are—but what matters most is perception, not reality.”

What the Data Reveals

To test this idea, Stauffer analyzed survey data from 2015 to 2022, asking respondents to estimate the percentage of women in Congress and then measuring attitudes like trust, approval, and perceptions of legislative effectiveness. She supplemented these surveys with experiments that corrected people’s assumptions.

The results were striking: when people believe women are well-represented, they view government more positively. They trust Congress more, see the legislative process as cleaner, and rate institutions as more capable of producing effective policy.

One surprising finding? “This isn’t just a story about women,” Stauffer notes. “Men also trust government more when they think women are included.”

Implications for Politics

Stauffer’s findings carry important lessons for policymakers and political parties. “Including women is one way to help repair the fractured relationship between Americans and their institutions,” she says. “But it’s not enough to elect women—you have to make their presence visible. If Congress became 50/50 tomorrow, it wouldn’t matter if nobody knew.”

Her research also suggests opportunities to reduce polarization. Stauffer explains that when people perceive greater gender diversity within political groups, they tend to express more trust across party lines.

A Call to Rethink Representation

For Stauffer, the book’s core message is clear: perceptions matter. “In politics, it’s not just about objective indicators—it’s about what people believe,” she says. “Inclusion is a legitimizing force. I hope this book helps settle a long-standing debate and gives students and scholars a new way to think about representation.”

The post The Politics of Perception: How Women’s Inclusion Shapes Trust in Government appeared first on ��è����Ƶ.

What if the data we use to understand Congress— you know, those neat, numbered roll call votes shown on the screen on C-SPAN—were telling us more about political theater than actual lawmaking? That’s the premise behind , a new book that’s over a decade in the making.��

Born out of a conversation started during graduate school, Broken Record��is the product of a 14-year investigation into how Congress decides which votes to record—and whether those votes truly reflect the legislative work that experts and the public rely on to understand partisanship and guide electoral choices. Authors Michael Lynch and Anthony Madonna, associate professors in the department of political science at the UGA School of Public and International Affairs, began with a simple question: Are roll call votes the transparent window into congressional decision-making that we believe they are?��

The answer, as their research reveals, is far more complicated than most Americans, as well as political experts, realize.��

“Understanding how the roll call record is created is important, not just because��political scientists use recorded votes in their research, but because recorded votes are how members and campaigns explain their legislative work to the public,” said the authors.��

A Record of Division—By Design��

The practice of roll call voting is rooted in the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 5, Clause 3 grants members of either chamber the right to request a recorded vote on any question, provided one-fifth of those present support the request. This mechanism was designed by the Founders to ensure transparency and accountability, allowing constituents to see how their representatives voted on key issues. ��

Often hailed as the gold standard for tracking congressional activity, roll call voting records have historically been the��foundation of academic analysis into political polarization over time and the primary tool voters use to keep tabs on their representatives’ voting behavior.��Broken Record��reveals that this emphasis on roll call votes may be misleading.��

Over time, Congress has shifted from using roll call votes to document meaningful legislative decisions—like passing bills or debating key amendments—to using them as messaging tools. Increasingly, votes are cast on procedural maneuvers, doomed amendments, or bills with no chance of becoming law. These votes often fall along strict party lines—with nearly all Republicans voting one way and all Democrats the other—not because the issues are substantive, but because the votes serve as signals of partisan identity. These votes are not about governance; they’re about optics.��

“Congress gets to pick what it votes on,” stated the authors. “If party leaders want to highlight party differences, they schedule more votes on issues that divide the parties. If they want to hide division within their own party, they avoid votes that could divide their members.”��

This strategic use of roll call votes creates a distorted picture of congressional activity. It makes lawmakers appear more ideologically divided than they actually are, and it overwhelms the public with data that is difficult to interpret. The result? A voting record that is mostly for show, making it harder for citizens to make informed decisions during election cycles.��

A Book Built by Students��

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about��Broken Record��isn’t just what it reveals—but how it came to be made. Professors Lynch and Madonna took a regular undergraduate classroom experience and turned it into an opportunity to dive deeper. More than 160 students contributed to the data collection, coding thousands of votes and helping to trace how congressional behavior has changed over time. For many of these students, the project was a gateway to careers in academia, public service, and legislative work.��

“It was a teaching tool as much as a research project,” the authors note. “We weren’t just teaching the proceedings of��Congress, we were helping students understand how Congress works through a deep analysis of policy decisions and voting records.”��

Some of those students are now professors themselves, publishing their own books and continuing to work on American and congressional politics. ��

Why It Matters��

At its core, Broken Record is a call to rethink how we evaluate partisanship and the effectiveness of congress. If the tools we use to measure polarization are flawed, then solutions like “voting out the bums” may be equally misguided. The book suggests that simplifying congressional procedures and reducing the number of roll call votes could help restore clarity and accountability. In an age of information overload and partisan spin, Broken Record offers a reminder: transparency without context can mislead rather than inform. ��

��

The post What Congress Wants You to See: The Hidden Story Behind Roll Call Votes�� appeared first on ��è����Ƶ.

Q: What motivated the creation of Realizing Equality in Policy? What kinds of conversations or interventions did you hope this book would generate within academic and policy communities?

A: The difficulty of connecting basic principles and values to policy is widely recognized in the political science and public policy literatures.�� In order to realize our culture’s basic commitments to fairness, liberty, and political equality, policy makers must find ways to connect values to policy.�� Unless policies are connected to principles and values in a coherent manner, those policies fail to serve our real interests and cannot be justified to the public.

Q: What were the unifying themes or tensions that emerged across the contribution

A:

• The operation of free markets, alone, cannot produce just outcomes.
• A just society requires ambitious policies to counteract barriers to equal opportunity generated by hereditary privilege.
• “Left” policies—if well designed—are entirely consistent with market efficiency.
• Embedded social norms that confer social privilege on certain groups continue to constitute important sources of injustice.

Q: How does bridging theory and practice enhance our understanding of persistent social and economic disparities?

A: Democracy is grounded in the idea of human equality, and the American tradition is explicitly committed to the view that all persons are created equal.�� Our political culture has, however, found it difficult to converge on an understanding of the policy implications of that view.�� In the dimension of political liberties, there is general commitment to the ideas that all persons are equally entitled to the liberty protections of the Bill of Rights.

In the economic realm, however, there is less agreement.�� At the most abstract level, most members of western democratic societies would agree that all persons are entitled to equal opportunity and fair compensation.

But what constitutes equal opportunity and fair compensation?�� Some would argue that these values are generated by the unregulated output of free markets.�� Others would argue that markets produce just results only when federal policies address market failures. Others would argue that even after market failures have been addressed, there is no reason to believe that markets generate anything resembling just outcomes.�� Rather, policies must address the effects of hereditary privilege and unequal bargaining power.�� But what policies are required and justified?

Theoretical work addressing the connection between theory and practice must address these questions.

Q: Did any of the essays offer especially novel or surprising perspectives on familiar policy areas like healthcare or education?

A: The Gerver chapter made the case that harm from wrongful discrimination does not become less morally problematic if the discrimination is against the very rich.�� The Wall chapter made the case that a commitment to equal protection of basic liberties is consistent with significant paternalism in public policy.�� Vrousalis argued persuasively that Kant’s political theory justifies socialism.

Q: How do you hope this volume will be used in classrooms, research projects, or by policymakers?

A: The chapters explore ideas (e.g. the (in)justice of markets, the gendered division of labor, the kind of toleration required in liberal foreign policy) that should be of interest to students of politics and public policy.�� Chapters could be used in courses to illustrate the practical commitments implicit in the western political tradition.

Q: If there is one key takeaway you hope readers will reflect on, what would that be?

A: Serious thought and analysis is required to connect values to policy.

The post Kaufman Publishes Realizing Equality in Policy appeared first on ��è����Ƶ.

To test this, the researchers conducted two large-scale survey experiments in which participants read hypothetical news articles about Supreme Court cases on affirmative action and gun rights. In each scenario, the race and gender of the litigant were randomly varied. After reading, participants were asked to rate their support for the Court using a standard “feeling thermometer.” This approach allowed the authors to isolate the effect of litigant identity on public reactions to rights-affirming decisions.

“Understanding the role litigants play in generating support for the Supreme Court is really important because attorneys are increasingly looking for counter-stereotypical litigants to front their cases,” said Schoenherr. “Our findings suggest attorneys can find some success with counter-stereotypical litigants, but they need to be really careful about who they select, because people can respond badly to certain types of appeals.”

Through these experiments, the authors found that litigant identity can significantly affect public opinion, though not always in expected ways. For example, support for overturning affirmative action policies increased when the case was brought by a Black man, but decreased when brought by an Asian American man. In gun rights cases, a White female litigant generated the most widespread support for the Court’s decision to expand Second Amendment protections.

This study not only offers new insights into identity politics and judicial strategy, but also highlights the impactful work of Dr. Schoenherr, who recently joined the School of Public and International Affairs at the SPIA. Her research strengthens the department’s expertise in American politics, enhances its focus on judicial behavior, and underscores the importance of academic inquiry in understanding the relationship between courts, the public, and democratic institutions.

Access the full article:

The post You Better Shop Around: Litigant Characteristics and Supreme Court Support appeared first on ��è����Ƶ.

How do you teach political science, statistics, psychology, and humility—all in one semester? For Dr. Joe Ornstein, the answer is simple: make it fun. His course, How to Predict the Future (POLS 3220), offers students an unexpected entry point into the serious business of forecasting real-world events and understanding how the world works.

“It’s a really fun way to engage with political science,” says Ornstein, assistant professor of political science. “Making predictions is inherently probabilistic, so you end up learning the foundations of quantitative reasoning along the way.”

Designed as an interdisciplinary experience, the course blends material from political science, economics, cognitive psychology, and statistics. Each week, students read a chapter from Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction by Philip Tetlock and Dan Gardner, followed by a short quiz that tests their understanding of key concepts. But the core of the course lies in its forecasting challenges. Throughout the semester, students submit predictions for more than 40 sociopolitical events, each framed as a yes-or-no question (e.g., Will SB 68 pass the Georgia General Assembly? or Will Beyoncé win a Grammy in a country music category?). Students assign a probability and offer a short explanation, essentially conducting a mini research project several times a week.

“It’s a little bit of everything—political science, critical thinking, creativity,” says Ornstein. “You get better by doing, and there’s nothing quite like putting your ideas on the line.”

Each prediction is scored using the Brier score, a statistical measure of forecast accuracy that rewards honest, well-calibrated predictions. “It’s like a mathematical truth serum,” he explains. “You get the best score by being honest about what you actually think will happen, not by hedging or exaggerating.”

And yes, there’s a leaderboard—updated throughout the semester to track the top forecasters in the class. Ornstein himself participates, and while he’s often near the top, he’s not guaranteed a win.

Beyond the daily predictions, students also serve as Discussion Leaders throughout the semester. They write short briefing papers that are well-researched, well-sourced, and clearly written in order to guide classroom conversations about each forecast. These briefings must present at least two different perspectives, reinforcing the course’s emphasis on intellectual humility and diverse viewpoints.

“One consistent theme is learning to incorporate multiple perspectives into your thinking,” Ornstein says. “The best forecasters have a habit of looking at problems from every angle. And that’s a valuable lesson not just for forecasting, but for life.”

For Ornstein, the class also serves as a kind of “mini focus group,” giving him insight into how students are thinking about the world—and offering him a steady stream of clever, surprising, and sometimes prophetic questions.

Despite the lighthearted tone, the class delivers meaningful takeaways. Students walk away with a sharper understanding of probability, stronger research skills, and a more nuanced way of thinking about uncertainty. It’s not a coding course or a heavy stats class, but it lays the groundwork for both.

“In any career in government, law, consulting, etc. being able to think probabilistically and make informed decisions is essential,” Ornstein says. “This class helps students build that skillset.”

So, can you predict the future? Maybe not with total certainty. But thanks to Dr. Ornstein’s class, students are learning how to get closer—one question, one probability, and one Brier score at a time.

The post Predicting the Future appeared first on ��è����Ƶ.

“Increasingly, people who work in and around politics are skillful with data,” says Dean Matthew Auer. “Predictive analytics, understanding political risk, understanding voting patterns – all of these subjects – and many more – are steeped in data and information science. This is the heart of the MA track in Political Analytics.”

Political decision-making and strategy have become increasingly reliant on data. The Political Analytics track provides hands-on training in data visualization, predictive modeling, and survey research methods. These skills are essential for professionals in political consulting, government affairs, and public leadership.

“Students can launch their career with this Political Analysis track,” says Shane Singh, Professor of Public and International Affairs and Co-Graduate Coordinator of Political Science & International Affairs. “It prioritizes practical skills, professional experience, and data-driven decision-making in the world of policy and public affairs. And they can graduate in as little as one year.”

The program integrates the disciplines of political science and international affairs, ensuring graduates have a comprehensive understanding of applied political analysis in both domestic and global contexts.

Program Highlights

• Real-World Experience: Engage in a political analytics practicum to gain hands-on experience in politics, international affairs, and political consulting.
• Advanced Analytics Training: Learn data-driven approaches, including predictive modeling and survey research, tailored for political analysis.
• Career-Ready Skills: Graduate with practical experience and a competitive edge in politics, public affairs, and beyond.
• Non-PhD Career Focus: Specifically designed for students aiming for practitioner-based careers rather than academic paths.
• Flexible Completion Timeline: Earn your degree in just one calendar year.

Who Should Apply?
This program is ideal for:

• Early- and mid-career professionals seeking expertise in data-driven decision-making, campaign analysis, and public affairs.
• Political consultants, legislative staffers, think tank professionals, government affairs specialists, and nonprofit leaders looking to enhance their analytical capabilities.
• Aspiring elected officials who want to leverage data analytics for strategic decision-making.

Take the Next Step in Your Career
If you’re ready to become a leader in the fast-changing worlds of political science and international affairs, apply now to the Political Analytics track at SPIA. Gain the skills, experience, and network needed to excel in today’s data-driven political environment.

Learn More

The post Introducing ��è����Ƶ’s New Political Analytics Track appeared first on ��è����Ƶ.

Think back to your first semester as an undergraduate; how engaging were your introduction classes? Most of us just muscle through our 1000-level courses, anticipating the excitement of major-specific courses. Dr. Katelyn Stauffer, assistant professor of political science, challenges that norm in her Introduction to American Government course. “I hope that the importance of politics will really stick with the students and they’ll have a greater appreciation for all the ways that politics shapes all of our lives,”�� she said.

Dr. Stauffer earned her undergraduate degree in Political Science and History from Gettysburg College in 2013. She recalls the monotony of her lecture-heavy courses; her friends in the biology department, however, had more opportunities to be creative, specifically on a project entitled “Biology as Art.” This memory, coupled with the New Faculty Tour, which spawned a professional collaboration with the director of the Georgia Museum of Art, David Odo, led to the genesis of Dr. Stauffer’s project, “Politics as Art.”

Driven by the aspiration “that students will come away with a better understanding of the multiple ways that political ideas can be communicated,” Dr. Stauffer tasked her small but mighty class to think about politics differently this semester. “Politics as Art” requires students to select pairs of artwork from the Georgia Museum of Art and critically analyze their political bearing. Together, Dr. Stauffer and her class (about 25 students) came up with the theme of the project: Light and Darkness; or, Positive and Negative. Working in groups, students endeavored into the Georgia Museum of Art’s online catalog�� and selected pieces that embodied the dichotomy of light and darkness in politics.

Chelsea Yates and Hannah Jones, both freshmen in Dr. Stauffer’s class, rave about the project. Yates, who is working towards a political science major and an international affairs minor, and Jones, a political science and international affairs double major, are in the same group for the class; the pair is also in the same sorority, yet it was Dr. Stauffer’s Introduction to American Government class that fostered the growth of their friendship. Jones, specifically, credits the “Politics as Art” project as a catalyst for much of her peer network allowing her to connect with her classmates and appreciate new perspectives.

Borne out of Jones’ and Yates’ group is the dichotomy of Ronnie Goodman’s “Black Lives Matter,” a linocut on paper, and Kevin E. Cole’s “Living Off the Wall for Forsyth County,” composed of acrylic on wood. This pairing reflects the group’s chosen theme of resilience and activism in the face of adversity. Goodman’s piece, which draws from his own experience as a Black man in America, represents the positive side of resilience, showcasing a persevering fight against systemic racial inequality.

Conversely, Cole’s “Living Off the Wall of Forsyth County,” a response to the 1987 race riots in Forsyth County, Georgia, portrays the negative side of the group’s theme: adversity. Cole’s piece demonstrates profound pushback by Black Americans in the face of adversity perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan in 1980s��Georgia.

Jones and Yates both remarked that they were initially skeptical of this assignment, wondering how much politics and art could really overlap. Now, being further into the semester, Jones says that the class has “deepened [her] understanding of elections and their significance to our country” more so than any other class. Yates says that she “look[s] forward to [her] political science class because of the Politics through Art project,” and finds that the project has not only helped her to find her own voice, but “it creates a space for others to be heard, blending our stories into one��powerful narrative, Light and Darkness.”

Overall, by merging political analysis with artistic expression, Dr. Stauffer’s “Politics as Art” project sublimates a basic introduction course into something much more meaningful. Her innovative approach not only engages students but also fosters critical thinking about the political landscape. Through their exploration of themes like resilience and adversity, students like Chelsea Yates and Hannah Jones have gained a deeper appreciation for how politics intersects with art. Ultimately, this initiative enriches their academic experience and cultivates a stronger sense of community, empowering students to recognize the profound impact of politics in their lives.

–

The political exhibition: “What are you voting for?” will be presented as a pop-up exhibition at the Georgia Museum of Art November 5-7 in the Shannon and Peter Candler Collection Study Room during regular hours. For more information, visit:

The post Politics as Art: POLS 1101 class to host pop-up exhibit at GMOA during election week appeared first on ��è����Ƶ.

Originally posted in

��è����Ƶ junior Alex Drahos was one of 60 undergraduates from across the nation��to be selected as a 2024 Truman Scholar, a prestigious award given each year to students who demonstrate academic excellence, outstanding leadership potential, and commitment to a career in government or the nonprofit sector.

Drahos is a Foundation Fellow from Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He is majoring in international affairs, political science and urban studies through the School of Public and International Affairs and the Morehead Honors College.

Drahos is UGA’s 22nd Truman Scholar since the program began in 1977. The Truman Scholarship provides funding for graduate studies and opportunities for training, internships and fellowships. This year’s Truman Scholars were selected from 709 candidates who were nominated by 285 colleges and universities.

“The ��è����Ƶ is immensely proud of Alex for becoming our institution’s 22nd Truman Scholar,” said President Jere W. Morehead. “His achievement represents the boundless potential of our students to use their UGA education to develop solutions to some of the world’s greatest challenges.”

After graduating from UGA in 2025, Drahos plans to pursue a master’s degree focusing on urban innovation and the built environment. He wants to use this knowledge to create human-centered cities.

Drahos was a development intern for Reimagining the Civic Commons, a national initiative that supports strategic investments in urban assets to foster social engagement, equity and economic development. He used AI software to summarize 11,000 federal earmarks to inform legislative priorities and analyzed digital data to create marketing strategies.

He was a program manager for the Center for Advancing Innovation, a nonprofit focused on technology transfer and commercialization in biotechnology, artificial intelligence and quantum computing. He helped coordinated a nine-partner, $75 million grant program to launch 75 biotech and AI startups.

“Alex is a dynamic thinker, and we are so proud that he has been named a Truman Scholar,” said Meg Amstutz, dean of the Morehead Honors College. “His investment in public service and in building better futures for communities across our nation is truly inspiring.”

Drahos’ interests at UGA stretch across campus. He is the managing editor of the Georgia Political Review, plays cello in the Chamber Music Society and serves as a team lead in the UGA Student Industry Fellows Program.

He conducts research with Andrew Owsiak, a Meigs Distinguished Teaching Professor in international affairs, studying hate crimes in post-conflict societies in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. He received a CURO Research Award to support his research and presented his work at the 2023 CURO Symposium. The study is expected to be published in 2025.

Drahos was named a Sam Nunn Scholar for his work as a Security Leadership Program Fellow in the UGA Center for Trade and International Security. He was executive chair of the UGA Active Learning Ambassadors and a housing affordability analyst through the Arch Policy Institute, a student-run nonpartisan policy think tank.

Drahos is currently studying abroad at Istanbul Technical University in Istanbul, Turkey.

UGA’s major scholarships office, housed in the Morehead Honors College, works closely with all students across campus as they apply for national, high-level scholarships. For more information, contact Jessica Hunt at��jhunt@uga.edu.

Established by Congress in 1975 as the living memorial to President Harry S. Truman and a national monument to public service, the Truman Scholarship supports and inspires the next generation of public service leaders. For more information, visit��.

The post ��è����Ƶ Student Named 2024 Truman Scholar appeared first on ��è����Ƶ.