Media Release

Back to School: UM-Dearborn experts on students' rights, classroom tech, smartphone bans, PreK for All, and more

kapalm — Tue, 12 Aug 2025 20:53:01 +0000

Back to School: UM-Dearborn experts on students' rights, classroom tech, smartphone bans, PreK for All, and more kapalm Tue, 08/12/2025 - 16:53

Contact: Kristin Palm | kapalm@umich.edu | 313-593-5542

Experts from the ÿ�մ��’s College of Education, Health and Human Services are available to discuss a range of back-to-school topics, including preparing preschoolers, technology in the classroom and at home, learning to read, and student rights and privacy, including what to do if ICE comes to school.

Brian Boggs is an assistant professor of policy and educational leadership. He is available to speak on:

ICE in schools
Students’ constitutional liberties, LGBTQ+ students in particular
Education-related politics and governance
the Michigan Department of Education and state education budget issues
Matters related to school superintendents

Read Boggs’ article, “ICE can now enter K-12 schools − here’s what educators should know about student rights and privacy,” in The Conversation.

Mesut Duran is a professor of educational technology, a former high school teacher and the author of Learning Technologies: Research, Trends, and Issues in the U.S. Education System. He is available to speak on:

Technology and its impact on K-12 classrooms
Online learning
K-12 STEM learning.

He has discussed the problems with adapting commercial technology for classrooms with the New York Times.

Dara Hill is a professor of reading and language arts and a co-founder of the Best Classroom Project, which helps Detroit parents assess and select the right schools for their children. She is available to speak on:

School choice
Desegregation
The pandemic learning gap
Best practices in literacy instruction

Read Hill’s article, “How do children learn to read? This literacy expert says ‘there are as many ways as there are students’” in The Conversation.

Margaret Murray is an associate professor of communication who studies the impacts of smartphone use in schools. She is available to discuss:

The academic and mental health impacts of smartphone use in K-12 schools
Smartphone ban legislation nationally and in Michigan

Read Murray’s article, “School smartphone bans reflect growing concern over youth mental health and academic performance” in The Conversation.

Catherine Stone is the director of UM-Dearborn’s Early Childhood Education Center. She is available to speak on:

Preparing your child for preschool
Best practices in early childhood education/Reggio Emilia preschool model
Preschool teacher training
Technology and early childhood
PreK for All

Learn more about UM-Dearborn's Early Childhood Education Center.

###

Media Release

Off

Tue, 08/12/2025 - 20:52

News

How far will Donald Trump take executive power? UM-Dearborn expert on its reach — and limits

kapalm — Mon, 02 Dec 2024 19:28:09 +0000

How far will Donald Trump take executive power? UM-Dearborn expert on its reach — and limits kapalm Mon, 12/02/2024 - 14:28

Media contact: Kristin Palm | kapalm@umich.edu | 313-593-5542

President-elect Donald Trump has announced plans to use a range of executive powers to quickly achieve his sweeping agenda once he assumes office in January. While some see this as an unprecedented attempt to bypass legislative checks, many of his proposed tactics are authorized by Congress and have been employed by previous presidents as well, explains ÿ�մ�� Professor of Political Science Mitchel Sollenberger. Sollenberger discusses the conditions that have led to such widespread use of presidential powers and what it may take to begin to rein in their use.

Mitchel Sollenberger

Sollenberger is the author of four books examining the reach and limits of executive powers: The Unitary Executive Theory: A Danger to Constitutional Government (with Jeffrey Crouch and Mark J. Rozell), The President’s Czars: Undermining Congress and the Constitution (with Mark J. Rozell), Judicial Appointments and Democratic Controls and The President Shall Nominate: How Congress Trumps Executive Power.

President-elect Trump is pledging to use a range of executive powers to achieve his agenda. While there are concerns about potential overreach, Trump's expected approach is rooted in long-standing practice, correct?

That’s true. The use of broad executive powers — war powers, signing statements, executive orders, executive privilege, and czars — is a trend that began long before Trump, Obama or Bush came into the White House. With each new administration, there is typically a ratcheting up in the scope of certain power claims, which has become the norm for all presidents regardless of political party. What sets Trump apart is his aggressive approach and distinctive style. I believe style, rather than the exertion of power, is more significant when assessing Trump. Is Trump’s chaotic style that lacks a sense of decorum and decency exhibited during his first term unusual? Yes, but that doesn’t constitute an extraordinary exertion of power that falls outside the typical “ratcheting up” of authority seen in nearly all modern presidents.

One might not agree with Trump’s policy objectives, and a good example of this is the so-called “Muslim Ban,” which was a series of executive orders to restrict travel to the United States from several countries which the Trump administration deemed had predominantly Muslim populations. You had people protesting at airports and advocacy groups going to federal courts trying to stop the ban. With the legal challenges, the administration adjusted its orders but, ultimately, the Supreme Court — in a narrow 5-4 decision — said that Trump’s actions were perfectly within his sphere of influence when it comes to national security. There's a lot of discretion that executive branch officials have in this area, particularly the president. And that's why, when people worry about the president doing x, y and z, they need to understand there's an underlying legal rationale that justifies these power claims, and it's built up over 100 plus years. This didn't happen overnight.

Say more about that buildup.

One could trace the foundation for the modern presidency back to George Washington who helped establish confidence in the office. However, the clear delineation towards what we now consider the “modern” presidency came with Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson in the early 20th century. These presidents championed a broader view of presidential power, advocating for an executive who did not always rely on Congress or adhere strictly to the confines of the Constitution or laws. Under Wilson, for example, Congress passed the Overton Act, which was World War I legislation that basically gave the president authority to marshal forces in order to put the nation on war footing. However, Wilson used that law in an expansive way to create agencies and positions not authorized by Congress to carry out functions not expressly provided for in law. Those things were unprecedented but set the stage for laws and actions, such as the detention of Japanese Americans, that occurred under Franklin Roosevelt.

For a period of 50 to 60 years — from Teddy to Richard Nixon — norms were broken and presidential power expanded to such a degree that we reached what has been called the “imperial presidency,” a term coined by Arthur Schlesinger. By the 1970s, Congress and the public recognized the excesses and risks of a strong presidency that had become disconnected from traditional checks and balances. The country ended up with a president who thought he was above the Constitution and laws, using, for example, misappropriated funds to expand the Vietnam war, resulting in secret bombing campaigns. Eventually, Nixon thought he was so untouchable he ordered the wiretapping of his political “enemies,” which resulted in the Watergate scandal and the downfall of his presidency.

The “downfall” of the presidency was short lived. Ronald Reagan’s victory ushered in a slow but steady march to expand executive authority in response to what many considered to be unnecessary and unconstitutional overreaches by Congress to constrain the presidency through such laws as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, the Ethics in Government Act, and the War Powers Resolution.

Since Reagan, the country has had a series of presidents who have built up power in foreign and domestic affairs in ways that were unimaginable even to Nixon. Congress has done little or nothing to stop this buildup and in some ways actively supports expansive presidential powers. For example, the country is 23 years removed from 9/11 and, still, presidents utilize the Authorization for Use of Military Force, an “emergency” war power granted by Congress, to justify killing people, including American citizens, in countries that have nothing to do with Afghanistan or have any relation to the original premise of the legislation that Democratic and Republican lawmakers were voting to approve back in the early 2000s. So, yes, there has been a buildup and it involves not only presidents “taking” power slowly but Congress also acquiescing or even supporting such power expansions.

Will the ratcheting up ever stop?

I think history shows clear examples where countries and people grew tired of tyrants. You have chief executives throughout time who have exerted power and the other side, the legislative branch or the people, has taken it away. Julius Caesar comes to mind. The Glorious Revolution in English history resulted in King James being removed and the establishment of a stronger parliament. If you look at executives pushing their power limits externally there are clear examples in Hitler and Mussolini with both ultimately losing to Allied forces. I’ve spoken of Watergate, but that’s not been the happy precedent that many believed it would be.

Partially, the failure of the constraints placed on presidents post-Watergate is the result of how fundamentally important the presidency has become in modern politics, not just in terms of power growth but in changes to the political party system which has become much more centralized in presidents and less dispersed among various factions and party leaders. Some of this was the result of "populist" reforms under the McGovern-Fraser Commission which, in my view, has resulted in a more top-down approach to campaign and governing. For example, whether you look right after Nixon or right after Trump's first term, what we see in the succeeding election are presidential campaigns with candidates who aren’t concerned about presidential power but, instead, promise the moon to the public and claim that they will fix the economy, housing, etc. so the public's hopes grow even more for some transcendent leader who will do all those things and finally fix a government that is either too corrupt, too inept or too unresponsive. In such a world, there is no room for a restrained vision of the presidency.

So, what will it take to rein in the broad use of executive powers?

Short of a complete overhaul of the governing system through a constitutional convention, a more gradual approach is likely needed to shift away from executive-centered politics and governance. This shift should be a long-term process aimed at decentralizing power and fostering more inclusive, deliberative policymaking that emphasizes collective decision-making over top-down leadership. Some of this would have to happen through the passage of laws, but more is cultural and norm-based within government. However, for any reforms to gain traction and be taken seriously, there must be a fundamental shift in the public’s perceptions and expectations. People need to genuinely believe that their concerns will be addressed by a new model of governance — one that moves beyond the over-reliance on the executive branch.

The current expectation is that the executive, whether the president or a governor, will provide solutions to public policy challenges, but this model has often proven inadequate and divisive. The system needs to evolve into a structure where policymaking is more collaborative, with a focus on legislative action, local governance and citizen participation. Without a shift in mindset and the development of trust in such a system, reforms of the presidency will likely fail or at best be ineffective or superficial.

President-elect Trump is also talking about making recess appointments. What do you think the likelihood is that we’ll see cabinet appointments made while the Senate is adjourned?

I’m a hopeful person so I think the likelihood is quite small. That has a lot to do with the failure of Rick Scott to win the Senate majority leader position. With John Thune’s victory, the Senate has a traditional, establishment-type Republican who doesn’t seem likely to dismiss long-standing Senate prerogatives like ensuring senators are vetting and confirming a president’s cabinet nominations. But I’ve been wrong before, so don’t think you can take me to Vegas with my predictive powers.

As for the recess appointment issue, to give a bit of a background, in the early 2000s, George W. Bush recess-appointed a couple of judges, and it incensed the Senate. And ever since then, the Senate hasn’t given presidents enough time to recess appoint anyone. This stayed true under Obama, who tried to force a recess appointment but ended up losing his fight in NLRB v. Noel Canning — a 2014 Supreme Court case dealing with the president’s recess powers — and it's been true ever since. What the Senate has done over the last 20 years is have just a couple senators come in during a long holiday weekend or whenever the Senate is going on break and they will briefly bring the Senate into session for a few minutes, and then take it out of session. These are referred to as “pro forma” sessions and that's the way the Senate gets around the adjournment issue to prevent recess appointments.

The confirmation of presidential appointments is one of the things the Senate holds dear and is one of only a few areas where we have seen any pushback against presidential power grabs in the last few decades. Now, the Constitution allows for recess appointments, so if the Senate is adjourned for a time, can President Trump do it? Yes. But is the Senate likely to be in adjournment? I don't think so.

What does this say about our democracy, that our Senate is holding makeshift meetings to keep the president — whomever that president may be, not just Donald Trump — from doing an end run around them?

I think the Senate holding these “pro forma” sessions is a good thing for governance as it signals that some lawmakers still see Congress as a co-equal branch of government and are unwilling to simply acquiesce to presidential power. However, more broadly, members of Congress are much more divided ideologically than they used to be, which limits the opportunities for cooperation and compromise where Congress can contribute effectively to policy solutions. What people often see is constant partisan infighting and the failure of Congress to get things done which, understandably, leads us back to this pursuit for a “savior” in the presidency.

Unfortunately, the parties are now so ideologically divided. There used to be moderate Republicans, moderate Democrats, and, even in the Obama administration, early on, there were a good number of “Blue Dog” Democrats who were considered moderate to conservative. After the passage of the Affordable Care Act, I think over 20 lost their election and got replaced by conservative Republicans. And the same trend has occurred in the Republican party, where moderates like Chris Shays or Mike Castle, both defeated over 10 years ago, no longer constitute a significant minority of the party. Today, both parties have little to nothing in common that can help bridge the huge ideological gap, which is why you hear so much about polarization and see the results of it through so many party-line votes.

How has this polarization impacted politics and elections?

Of course, polarization is not just within Congress, but within the electorate. And you're seeing more of this divisiveness, a lack of decorum and social norms and graces that have gone to the wayside. But, most importantly, you see people looking for answers to basic policy problems they face. Answers that have not yet come so some may see that as a failure of the governing system. When systems fail, people are more susceptible to extreme actions, whether that be through ratcheting up executive power claims or implementing extreme policy solutions.

It’s important to recognize that susceptibility to extremism isn’t necessarily an individual failure, but I think, rather, a natural response to deeper, systemic failures in our political and economic systems. What's causing them isn't presidential power for presidential power’s sake. Things like recess appointments only matter if there are other things that are failing us. When people are living paycheck to paycheck and can no longer afford groceries and basic necessities they could just a few years ago, it’s understandable that they see their situation as a problem that demands urgent attention and solutions. The populist movement that started in 2016 under Sanders and Trump resurfaced somewhat in this election. For reasons ranging from the Democrats’ incumbency disadvantage to messaging and policy issues, more people were convinced that Trump could more effectively deal with their problems. Moving forward, as the losing party, Democrats need to regroup and assess what went wrong. However, both parties must grapple with the changes taking place in the electorate and what that means moving forward, not just with elections but governance.

Media Release

Off

Mon, 12/02/2024 - 19:28

News

Flooding risk higher in historically redlined Detroit neighborhoods, UM-Dearborn researchers find

kapalm — Thu, 03 Oct 2024 16:15:36 +0000

Flooding risk higher in historically redlined Detroit neighborhoods, UM-Dearborn researchers find kapalm Thu, 10/03/2024 - 12:15

Media contact: Kristin Palm | kapalm@umich.edu | 313-593-5542

Heavy rains have become a regular concern in southeast Michigan, and projections indicate these rain events – and the flooding that follows – will only become more intense and frequent each year. Low-income neighborhoods in Detroit are hit especially hard by these storms. A new study by researchers at the ÿ�մ�� details a little-examined flooding risk impacting these neighborhoods: ghost streams and wetlands. The research has implications for urban areas across the U.S.

Ghost streams and wetlands are waterways that previously existed but, as urban areas built up, were filled in to support new housing and other development. Detroit is estimated to have lost at least 85% of its urban streams since 1905.

The UM-Dearborn researchers used historical maps to identify these once-active waterways. They then correlated those waterways with flood risk data and historic Home Owners’ Loan Corporation maps that graded neighborhoods on perceived financial risk, a process known as redlining. Although redlining is now outlawed, its lasting effects on people of color, immigrants and residents of lower socioeconomic status – who were effectively barred from more affluent neighborhoods – have been pervasive. The team confirmed that flooding disproportionately impacts historically redlined neighborhoods, and that the buried waterways contribute to flooding risk.

“Across Detroit, historically redlined neighborhoods are interwoven with these ghost channels and wetlands,” explains Jacob Napieralski, professor of geology and GIS at UM-Dearborn and lead author of the study. “Although these waterways have been buried and built upon, they still flow during heavy rainstorms. They then flood basements, low-lying roads and large swaths of property, causing significant damage.”

Other effects of redlining compound the problems in these neighborhoods, the study found. In particular, once-redlined neighborhoods are often located near industrial sites, and contaminants from those sites can be washed in with the floodwaters.

“No matter if those industrial sites are active or relics, when it floods out, you have what is referred to as cumulative pollution,” Napieralski explains. “Of course, if you're close by, you're more likely to get hit with some really toxic waters.”

Redlined neighborhoods also have less vegetation and more impermeable surfaces. Vegetation, like trees and native grasses, can mitigate flooding, while concrete and exposed rooftops compound it. Residents in redlined neighborhoods are also less likely to have flood insurance.

“The communities that have wealth can afford insurance, they can afford rain gardens, they can manage coastlines,” Napieralski says. “Redlined neighborhoods are struck with the legacy of 70 to 80 years ago and the continued impacts on the quality of life.”

The study has implications far beyond Detroit. Napieralski says it’s critical for urban areas across the U.S. to identify their buried waterways in order to better protect vulnerable neighborhoods. Mitigation measures can include installing green infrastructure and informing residents on or near buried waterways of their increased flood risk.

“Cities should begin mapping their ‘hidden hydrology’ so that residents know they are at increased risk of flooding. Then, they can make informed decisions and prepare,” Napieralski says. “We need to step back and evaluate how we manage water in urban environments, and also think about the people and history and mitigating factors that we invest in one community and not the other. All these things add up and people who have the least bear the greatest burden.”

The study was conducted by Napieralski with graduate students Atreyi Guin and Catherine Sulich and published in the January 2024 issue of City and Environment Interactions.

Read the full paper

###

Media Release

Wed, 01/17/2024 - 14:00

News

UM-Dearborn researchers awarded $1M to fight counterfeit vehicle electronics

kapalm — Thu, 03 Oct 2024 16:01:58 +0000

UM-Dearborn researchers awarded $1M to fight counterfeit vehicle electronics kapalm Thu, 10/03/2024 - 12:01

Media contact: Kristin Palm | kapalm@umich.edu | 313-593-5542

The market for counterfeit electronic components that go into cars, airplanes, trains and other vehicles is likely in the hundreds of billions of dollars. But this underground industry is not just a headache for companies and consumers. It’s a huge safety risk. While no one wants to drive or ride in a vehicle that has fake parts, many commuters and travelers probably already have.

Two ÿ�մ�� researchers are developing a system to make it easier to identify this rogue equipment. Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering Hafiz Malik and Associate Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering Alireza Mohammadi recently received a $1 million grant from the National Science Foundation to support their work.

“3D printing makes it simple to create counterfeit batteries, motors, sensors, circuit boards and more, which are then stamped with fake serial numbers or logos,” explains Mohammadi. In 2023, a Portuguese airline’s discovery of a counterfeit part in one of its planes sent waves through the industry. Ultimately, dozens of airlines, including all major U.S. carriers, discovered they had aircraft in the skies with counterfeit parts.

Malik and Mohammadi’s system would collect “digital fingerprints” — the unique patterns contained in a device’s electrical output . Those fingerprints could then be compared to a vast digital library to determine whether a component is authentic.

Not only will the researchers’ system make vehicles safer, it could speed up repairs. That’s because their system will also be able to identify the source of everyday malfunctions more quickly than current diagnostic tools. “No matter what the source of the malfunction in the electronic control unit, the technology can pick the fault up in a very fast and targeted way,” says Mohammadi.

They expect the time savings to be significant. “We’re hoping to shrink the diagnostic time from 90 minutes to 30 minutes,” explains Malik “That’s a very big deal in today’s world, where maintenance of large fleets of delivery vehicles for, say, Amazon or FedEx, is essential to their profitability.”

Malik and Mohammadi began developing their system in 2019. The federal grant will support their work for the next three years. They’ll be working with industry partners and, when the grant project is complete, expect to have prototypes ready to bring to market.

Read more about Malik and Mohammadi’s project.

###

Media Release

Tue, 09/17/2024 - 15:58

News

Election ’24: UM-Dearborn expert on political deepfakes and how to stop them

kapalm — Wed, 25 Sep 2024 19:40:24 +0000

Election ’24: UM-Dearborn expert on political deepfakes and how to stop them kapalm Wed, 09/25/2024 - 15:40

Media contact: Kristin Palm | kapalm@umich.edu | 313-593-5542

Hafiz Malik

With the U.S. presidential election less than six weeks away, concerns about the spread of misinformation through deepfaked robocalls, videos and more are on the rise. California recently enacted legislation to try to curtail the spread of digitally altered election-related content, after a fake video of Vice President Kamala Harris was shared by Tesla CEO and X owner Elon Musk. But it’s not just the election that’s at stake — it’s our entire democracy, argues ÿ�մ�� Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering Hafiz Malik.

Malik has been studying deepfake technology for more than 15 years and routinely provides analysis for news organizations. He recently wrote an op ed on the dangers of political deepfakes for The Hill. In the below Q&A, Malik discusses the reasons for their rise — and what must be done to minimize the grave threats they pose.

Why are we seeing a rise in political deepfakes?

There are a number of reasons. One is the ease with which you can create deepfakes today. There are hundreds of open source or subscription-based generative AI models that allow even a non-technical person to generate deepfakes easily, which was impossible even four years ago. Second, the United States is more polarized than we’ve ever been. There is more motive to malign the other party. Third, in the last decade or so, we are seeing that if you create something, it can spread incredibly quickly on social media. Finally, we’re seeing a rise in social media influencers, which hugely increases the extent to which you can spread misinformation. An influencer can just put a deepfake or other misinformation on their feed and it can reach millions of people, as opposed to, say, an email list. For instance, Elon Musk recently posted manipulated video of Kamala Harris on X, reaching his more than 160 million followers. When you have that large of an audience, you bear responsibility. You are damaging institutions not just within the United States, but across the globe.

How serious are the threats political deepfakes pose?

The threats are incredibly serious. Deepfakes create more polarization because they perpetuate disinformation, whether it’s about new Covid variants or the war in Gaza or anything else. This disinformation spreads like wildfire, and it creates more and more division in society. Ultimately, our democratic institutions are at risk. When people start not believing in the government, they lose trust in the system. Once they lose trust in the system, they stop trusting institutions altogether. For example, the city government or the school system or the local court or the police department, they are supposed to provide services and protect us. If our trust in those institutions is eroded, then basically we will be seeing chaos in society.

What are the implications beyond the U.S. – and beyond elections?

Geopolitics are at play and bad actors want to create chaos in certain countries. Wherever there were elections this year, there was some trace of deepfakes. We saw it from South Africa to India to Moldova.

Beyond elections, we know, for instance, that before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a deepfake was created of Ukrainian President Zelensky. US intelligence warned the Ukrainians and they were able to inform the public: if you see the surrender video of Zelensky, do not believe it.

What can be done to minimize these threats?

There's no silver bullet that can solve this problem. We need a multi-pronged approach here in the United States. Tech companies need to develop more robust technology to detect deep fakes. Right now, the bad actors have too much power. They are not only creating but also tampering with created content and then bypassing the checks and balances. We need reliable technology that can detect deepfakes in real time. Technology companies also need to develop better traceability technology — also known as digital watermarking — that is robust enough that, even with content tampering, you can still detect which platform was used to generate the deepfake and then find the culprit.

We also need to come up with a legislative agenda to tackle this problem. The thing is, there's a genuine business case behind the use of generative AI. There are many business opportunities out there. You don’t want to inhibit those, but we need responsible regulation to discourage the negative uses. The EU has done this and we need to follow their lead. And regulators need to enforce those policies. Social media companies so far have been operating with a wild west mentality, saying, “Hey, we are not going to moderate.’ Perfect. Don’t moderate. But the thing is, if you know for sure something is deepfaked content, then why is it still on your platform, especially when it is contributing to disinformation and misinformation? That is not a blurred line. If it is disinformation, it is disinformation. These platforms need to take the responsibility and take that content down.

We also need better awareness efforts. The public needs the proper education to identify what is a deepfake — and what is not.

How do legislative efforts in the U.S. compare with those of the European Union?

EU policies have been much more progressive. They are years ahead of us on this agenda. They have recognized this problem. I mean, we did also but our legislative model is being driven more by politics than by the science and technology. We are far ahead of the EU in developing technology but our policy and regulation agenda is mainly motivated, unfortunately, by politics. We need to get out of that mindset and show that the public and society at large are going to be protected.

###

Media Release

Thu, 09/26/2024 - 11:00

News

Election '24: UM-Dearborn expert on Kamala Harris, reproductive freedom, Gen Z

kapalm — Wed, 07 Aug 2024 19:52:53 +0000

Election '24: UM-Dearborn expert on Kamala Harris, reproductive freedom, Gen Z kapalm Wed, 08/07/2024 - 15:52

Media contact: Kristin Palm | kapalm@umich.edu | 313-593-5542

Kamala Harris will formally accept her nomination as the second female major-party presidential candidate at the Democratic National Convention August 19-22. ÿ�մ�� Professor of Sociology Pamela Aronson discusses what has changed since Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2016, the role reproductive freedom is likely to play in the election and the issues important to Gen Z voters.

Pamela Aronson

Aronson is a nationally recognized expert on Gen Z and the author of “Gender Revolution: How Electoral Politics and #MeToo are Reshaping Everyday Life.” She has also extensively studied voters’ opinions on the gender self-presentations of political candidates. Her latest project examines the influence of reproductive freedom concerns in the 2022 and 2024 elections.

What has shifted with the way women candidates present themselves now, as compared with 2016 when Hillary Clinton was the Democratic nominee?

Women candidates face an impossible dilemma: They are expected to be competent, tough and nice all at the same time. In 2016, Hillary Clinton was berated for the tone of her voice and her “tough” style. Although she tried to “soften” her image, she was ultimately unable to overcome the sexism that she faced on the campaign trail. A lot has changed since then.

Since Trump was elected in 2016, women have been running for office in record numbers, winning seats at unprecedented rates and achieving offices that they have never occupied before. They have also effectively created more multifaceted ways of being a woman candidate that are simultaneously unapologetically confrontational, assertive, overtly feminist and yet feminine. So, for instance, starting with the 2020 Democratic primary, we saw Kamala Harris striking a balance between showing she’s tough enough to do the job of president and being likable. She uses the word “fight” a lot — “We’re going to fight for justice,” for example — and presents herself as a strong leader. At the same time, she shows a more traditionally feminine side, with things like cooking videos. I think that what we've seen so far in her short candidacy for president is that she's very relatable.

What these newer women candidates for executive positions — Harris, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and others — end up with is a more authentic self-presentation, because they don’t have to pretend that gender isn't an issue and they don't have to pretend that they’re nice all the time. They're now presenting themselves in more complex ways. So with Hillary Clinton and that generation of women politicians, there was a real focus on trying to be gender-neutral in their self presentation — we're not going to focus on gender, we're going to focus on the issues. Starting in 2018, we saw a lot of women candidates across the country leaning into gender in a new way. That’s really different than what we’ve seen before.

How have voters changed since 2016?

One of the things that's different is that candidates and voters have both leaned into women's anger — about reproductive freedom, for example. Harris has made reproductive freedom a big piece of her core campaign. For some voting groups, abortion is the number one or number two issue. In Michigan in 2022, we saw that the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative drew a lot of people to the polls. The state had the highest turnout of young voters in the country that year and, in one survey, 69% of women said that it was at least somewhat important in their decision to turn out. And turnout is ultimately what the election comes down to.

The #MeToo movement has also had a broad-scale impact on how people are thinking about living their everyday lives. Because so much of it was social media and electronic media, it's sort of supercharged, how the ideas spread. We had what was called the Women's March, which was another resurgence of the Women's Movement, in relation to Trump's election. In the middle of the pandemic, Black Lives Matter became very, very visible, and was also being organized through social media. We've seen, particularly among young adults, the campus protests against the war in the Middle East. All these movements and issues have arisen or evolved since 2016 and will be influencing factors.

How important a role will Gen Z play in the election and what are their concerns?

Gen Z were born between 1997 and 2012, which means that they are between 12 years old and 27 years old right now. For many voting members of Gen Z, this is their first presidential election. So it's hard to predict how they're going to vote because they haven't voted yet. But what I can say about Gen Z is that it's the most ethnically diverse generation in many ways. That’s important in thinking about what issues may be important to them.

The defining characteristic of Gen Z is coming of age in the pandemic and the aftermath of the pandemic. They faced so much disruption. My research has found that Gen Z is really feeling abandoned by older adults. And they feel sort of caught adrift from political leadership, from institutions that are supposed to nurture them, like higher education. So they're concerned about things like: How are they going to financially support themselves when there's an affordable housing crisis? How are they going to move into the career that they want when education costs a lot? There was a recent survey that found that young adults had two times the anxiety as teenagers. They were worried about their financial future and pressure to do well at school, but they also mentioned abortion bans, school gun violence and climate change. So these are the political issues that are affecting young people the most and we could expect that those kinds of concerns would have a role in how they choose to vote — and whether they choose to vote.

What is the political significance of memes to younger voters, like the recent one based on Kamala Harris and a quote about falling out of a coconut tree?

When we think about memes, what happens is, it's not just that people are reposting the same thing. There's an interaction with others and with the ideas. So you do see reposting but you also see creativity going into it and tweaking it a little bit to be representative of what the author is trying to express.

What I found really interesting about the particular example of the coconut tree meme was how much it spread. It was a spontaneous thing that young adults took upon themselves to embrace. Some people don't know the context, but they find that one line funny and they find Harris’ laugh funny, so they're interacting with her and in a way they're engaging in the election. Now, it might not be a very politically informed engagement because they might not know anything else about her. But it's something that gives her event visibility and perhaps credibility in the eyes of young voters. When they see other people posting about this, and when they themselves spend time creating a meme, they’re interacting. It shows that they're engaged, that young adults are engaged.

###

Media Release

Tue, 08/13/2024 - 19:49

News

Summer flooding: UM-Dearborn expert on what cities can expect

kapalm — Fri, 21 Jun 2024 17:02:53 +0000

Summer flooding: UM-Dearborn expert on what cities can expect kapalm Fri, 06/21/2024 - 13:02

Media contact: Kristin Palm | kapalm@umich.edu | 313-593-5542

As summer ramps up, the potential for intense rain and flooding increases, especially in urban areas. ÿ�մ�� geology professor Jacob Napieralski talks about what U.S. cities can expect, the outsize impact on flooding in low-income neighborhoods — and how communities can best prepare.

Jacob Napieralski

Napieralski specializes in urban environments, water, historical mapping and flood risk equity. He recently published a study on the impact of buried streams and wetlands on flooding in historically redlined Detroit neighborhoods.

How much flooding should our cities expect this summer?

That’s the question everyone wants an answer to. But predicting the next flood is nearly impossible, so we can only rely on reporting the probability of a flood. Of course, we have short-term projections for weather, but it's really hard to say, “In July, we're going to be hit with a really bad event. Brace yourself.” So we play the probability game, and it's based on historical records and observations and then we combine that with forward-thinking models that tell us how the environment is changing.

With hotter summer days, for example, we expect more intense precipitation events, and those are the events that overwhelm infrastructure and cause flooding. So should we expect a flood? We should. But will the next flood impact everyone equally? No. Is it something that, once we experience it, we're done for the summer? Again, no. We are beginning to see relatively rare flood events occur more than once in a year. It's a probability game, but the more we understand the capacities of our urban stormwater infrastructures and about rapidly changing, localized climate, the better we are at projecting the next flood event and the impact it will have on communities.

Is flooding no longer exclusively a spring and summer thing?

Flooding is certainly no longer just a one or two season event. It's something that is now a four-season problem. In Michigan, we are experiencing quicker transitions from winter to spring and, in general, a shorter winter season. Sporadic warm days in the winter might correspond with winter flooding. Rain falls on frozen ground, and since water cannot percolate into the soil, the frozen ground acts like impervious material. This causes winter flooding. So in the winter, smaller precipitation events may actually cause more intense flooding than the same event in the summer.

Why are urban areas more prone to flooding?

Urban floods are not caused by a single reason. Urban areas are built with a lot of concrete and rooftops, which are not pervious, so water has no place to go but horizontally. Water naturally flows toward low spots in the landscape, which tend to be rivers and wetlands, but also human-made structures. That’s why you see the really memorable flood pictures in the news, with people kayaking underneath freeway bridges, because that's a depression and the excess water has overwhelmed the stormwater system and has no other place to go.

Also, there are more people in cities. Rural areas have very low density populations. So a farmer can get hit with a devastating flood that has minimal impact on other farmers in the area. The devastation means everything to that farm family, but if that same event hits an urban area, there are entire communities that can be underwater. In most rural areas, the priority is to direct the water away from homes and properties, but in cities, we have fewer options and sometimes must capture flood water, treat it, and then slowly release it once the flood recedes. We can't just let water do its own thing because urban flood damage is expensive and problematic.

The Environmental Protection Agency recently announced the availability of nearly $41 million in funding to help communities address stormwater and sewer infrastructure needs. How should these federal dollars and other resources be directed?

That’s a good question for each municipality and water authorities, as they know the quality or limitations of their stormwater systems. But it is important to stress that a lot of research shows that socioeconomically vulnerable communities have some of the highest risks, including urban heat, but also urban flooding. Many of these communities have more impervious surfaces and less green space than in high income communities. It seems equitable to consider these communities as priorities with funding opportunities to update stormwater and sewer infrastructure.

Beyond infrastructure upgrades, are there actions communities can take to minimize flood risk?

Keep in mind there are mitigation measures — those that actively work to reduce flooding — and adaptation measures, which accept flooding as a new normal and attempt to minimize the impact of flooding. These measures can be part of larger watershed initiatives, or priorities for municipalities, or even be implemented by homeowners who are actively working to protect their property.

We have learned the importance of using nature-based solutions to reduce the impact of excess heat and flooding in urban areas. A relatively simple approach is to increase the greenness of neighborhoods through gardens and trees. Trees offer some protection from heat and contribute to the uptake of excess flood waters. Although this is a small solution, the ecosystem services offered by trees and urban gardens are actually substantial.

Other inventions include building levees or other structures to divert water, or relying on pervious materials that reduce runoff during rain events. Some buildings and even individual homes capture gray water, frequently from rooftops, and then reuse that water to support lawns or flushing toilets.

Watershed education is also critical — informed citizens tend to make good decisions about their communities, so interacting with residents, school-aged children and small business owners can yield very positive results. While some of these interventions seem small, if a lot of people are doing it, then it reduces the stress put on stormwater systems.

###

Media Release

Tue, 06/25/2024 - 16:59

News