Campus Commentaries
The following below are my campus commentaries, which are small pieces we write about certain events we go to on campus. It is organized by semester and chronological order.
Fall Semester
Campus Commentary Number One
On September 30, 2025 from 7:00pm to 8:30pm, the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative (DCI) held an expert roundtable on the issues of unity, equality, and their relationship to citizenship and immigration. This was the first of four roundtables the DCI will hold in collaboration with Duke and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill this academic year as part of the 250th Anniversary American Values Deliberative Forum Series, exploring key constitutional and social issues that have historically and currently impacted the United States. Participating in this discussion were four expert professors: Danielle Battisti, an Associate Professor of History at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, Fernando Tesón, an Eminent Scholar Emeritus at Florida State University’s College of Law, Philip Cafaro, a Professor of Philosophy at Colorado State University, and Hrishikesh Joshi, an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of Arizona. For one and a half hours, they all discussed their viewpoints on unity, equality, citizenship, and immigration while taking questions during the last 15 minutes. Davidson College’s John Wertheimer, a Professor of History, moderated the discussion.
The conversation first began with Dr. Wertheimer introducing each professor and then each professor spoke about how they approached the issue of immigration. Every professor seemed to agree on the idea of unity as a sense that Americans are united through beliefs such as civil discourse, liberty, justice, and democracy for all, with Professor Battisti coining the term “civic nationalism”. Since this country is not ethnically or religiously homogenous in any way, the only factor uniting us is values. The disagreements were primarily focused on the principle of equality and it was primarily a debate between Professors Cafaro and Tesón. Cafaro offered a rare progressive view in favor of restricting immigration, arguing that it increases economic inequality and hurts workers’ position in the economy. Professor Tesón, by contrast, argued that immigration helps the economy and everyone feels the benefits. The debate specifically focused on the disparity between rich and poor, and whether or not immigrants increase or decrease it. Cafaro heavily focused on the impact of immigrants on a nation and argued that they increase inequality, focusing on the 1920s through the 1980s, a time of restrictive immigration which correlated with a rise in worker power and standing in the economy. Tesón responded by saying that the gap does not matter so long as the poor benefit the most when considering a policy’s impact, which applies to immigration. Even with this disagreement, they both agreed that the welfare state could not survive with completely open borders as too many people would come. Tesón also agreed that there needs to be limits and he focused on the United States’ position in the globe, basing his beliefs on the idea that this country has a role to play on the global stage. Professors Battisti and Joshi also made succinct points about immigration policy but focused more on history and philosophy. Overall, however, they all agreed that there have to be limits on immigration, with the disagreement being on how far those limits should go.
The audience seemed very receptive to what the professors were saying, with almost every seat in the room taken. There were never any interruptions and many people even took notes. The professors almost never interrupted each other and always backed their opinions through logic and reasoning. During the question and answer section, students and faculty asked plenty of questions to clarify points the professors were making. In the follow-up conversations about the topic and roundtable, students and faculty were thoughtful in their points, trying to find agreement while respecting differences.
As a member of the audience, I learned more about the reasoning of the views I disagree with. Generally speaking, I consider myself pro immigration with a belief in expanding legal immigration while having reasonable limits. However, I did find myself agreeing with Professor Cafaro on many points, specifically when he talked about the economy and welfare state. While I generally believe that immigrants are good for the economy, having a larger labor pool could result in wage depreciation, a widening of the income gap between the wealthy and poor, and an increasing burden on the welfare state. Cafaro really focused on that consequence and the fact that the welfare system could not survive an onslaught of immigrants, which Professor Tesón agreed with. I found myself taking a middle ground position between Professors Cafaro and Tesón. I agree with Cafaro that immigration should be generally used for the benefit of the country, but I believe that as a world power, the United States does have a responsibility to take in those who need help, especially since a lot of instability and refugee crises have been the result of US involvement in global conflicts. Sometimes, I felt like the conversation strayed too far from the original topic of immigration when the New Deal or philosophical discussions about equality and liberty were discussed, confusing me in regard to their relations with immigration as it was not connected. However, the professors succinctly explained their points, helping me understand what they were generally saying. Overall, I went into the roundtable discussion with the goal of learning more about the issue with immigration, but I learned more about opposing viewpoints, philosophy, and American history. It was a conversation that expanded my knowledge on more than just immigration.
Campus Commentary Number Two
On November 6, 2025 from 6:00pm to 7:00pm, Dr. Gerardo Marti’s Writing 101 Class, “Race, Religion, and Representation”, invited Dr. Ben Boswell to give a talk on the relationship between Christianity, race, and politics in the South. Dr. Boswell, a pastor who was born, raised, and currently lives in the South, spoke on this topic through the lens of his life, using it to offer honest insights on Christianity’s role in modern politics.
The talk began with Dr. Marti introducing Dr. Boswell as a friend along with the work he has done. Dr. Boswell then proceeded to talk, starting off with a disclaimer about the issues he would be discussing. He first started with some statistics on how different religious groups voted in the last Presidential election based on their race, showing a stark contrast between white and black Christian Americans. He then proceeded to talk about the topic throughout his life. He was born in Lynchburg, Virginia, where Jerry Falwell founded the right-wing Moral Majority Movement. Growing up, Dr. Boswell discussed how he was taught the “Lost Cause” myth, or the idea that the Confederacy was heroic and noble when fighting against the Union in the Civil War. Being raised in a devoutly Methodist Christian family, he was taught colorblind ideology which denied racism and preached that everyone was God’s child. However, as Dr. Boswell reflected, there were dog whistles against black people, Muslims, and Jews. He then described his experience going to a military college in Alabama. Black history was ignored but there was an openly white supremacist group on campus. After serving in the military and then training to become a pastor, Dr. Boswell worked in churches across North Carolina and Virginia. He described multiple instances of racism, such as when a white man interrupted a black wedding by spreading vitriol about a “bad precedent” set by accepting them into the predominantly white church. However, there were three instances which struck Dr. Boswell the most. The first was when he went through the adoption process. The social worker came to his house and asked if he and his wife had a racial preference, to which he became furious and said no. The second instance happened during Dr. Boswell’s tenure at Myers Park Baptist in Charlotte, a church famous for championing civil rights and busing. After Donald Trump’s 2016 victory, Reverend Dr. William Barber gave a sermon which criticized and warned against Trump. The backlash was swift, as Dr. Boswell took heat for inviting Dr. Barber which shocked him. Finally, when creating a course titled “Confronting Whiteness” after George Floyd’s murder, many questioned why the course was needed and said they were not racist. Criticizing Trump’s racism and authoritarianism after the 2024 election resulted in him being abruptly forced out of the church. Since then, he has founded a new church focused on social justice and an understanding of “whiteness” in religion and politics. Dr. Boswell then focused more broadly. He said we were in the midst of white backlash which required us to refuse to live in denial and work to break the chains of racial oppression and injustice. The talk ended with the following note: if America is to become a multiracial democracy, it will be because Christians along with people of faith and good conscience work together to extract whiteness from church and America.
The audience, composed of people of all ages and races, seemed engaged in what Dr. Boswell was saying. It was mostly silent, with moments of audible gasps and shock on people’s faces. Afterwards, there was some time for questions, where Dr. Boswell made key points about the relationship between whiteness and society. As he put it, we live in a world where we are not enslaving others but in one which enslavers created, making it our duty to change it. Another key point was made on how Confederate ideology is embedded in US foreign policy. Dr. Boswell mentioned how Confederate officers were integrated in the US Military without repenting for their actions, which allowed for an ideology of fighting for slavery to spread into wars against Native Americans and other countries in our quest for empire.
As a member of the audience, it was refreshing to hear from someone who grapples with these issues everyday. While I have heard and read people who discuss the intersectionality of race, representation, and politics, they discuss it more abstractly. This was the first time I listened to a person who experiences it first-hand. It also helped me understand political trends that are taking place in the United States, such as the massive influence of Evangelical Christians on American conservatism. The talk made me realize that no one or no institution, including religion, is ever unbiased or more specifically colorblind. Centuries of history and norms cannot just be eliminated by denying their existence. As Dr. Boswell put it, it requires all of us with good conscience to work together and extract “whiteness” from church and society. The call to action at the end of the speech was inspiring, and it gave me hope about a better future worth fighting for during these tough times in our country.
Spring Semester
Campus Commentary Number Three
On February 18, 2026 from 4:30pm to 6:00pm, Director Pamela Yates and Producer Paco de Onis had a screening of their documentary Borderland: The Line Within in Duke Performance Hall. Ms. Yates and Mr. Onis are award-winning documentary filmmakers, having made films on genocides and dictators with a specific focus on legal responses and holding power to account.
Before the film began, Pamela Yates was introduced and made some remarks about the documentary’s production. It took 5 years to make with the goal of highlighting the people who are organizing and forming support groups to protect undocumented immigrants. Eventually, they added an investigation into federal money, companies, and people that were involved in the immigration system for undocumented immigrants, or the “border industrial complex” as they put it. It was released in 2024, two months before the Presidential Election. The film then started and it explored the border from three different perspectives: Gabriela Castañeda, Kaxh Mura’l, and digital humanists.
Kaxh Mura’l was originally a Mayan activist from Guatemala who was a known leader in the fight against a mining operation that was to happen on Mayan lands. For years, he led his community to successfully fight against the mining industry despite threats. However, in 2019, when the film was starting to be produced, Mr. Mura’l started facing bigger threats, and ultimately was forced to flee home without his family. For months, he had to endure human trafficking and when he finally made it to the border, he waited months to get asylum. Once he did, in 2021, he was forced to wear an ankle brace and regularly report to ICE until 2024, when he connected with other activists and immigrants to fight against the border industrial complex.
Gabriela Castañeda came to the United States in the mid-2000s with her husband and started a family. While her husband was deported, she was able to stay back but was under threat of deportation at all times. When she learned about her constitutional rights and started fighting back, she was detained and ICE tried to deport her but failed. Ultimately, she was able to get legal status as a green card holder, becoming a prominent immigrant activist and training others in the process.
Finally, the documentary explored the work of digital humanists, or people who use data forensics to expose the border industrial complex. All three of them are immigrants and have a personal connection to the immigration system. Their work revealed numerous insights into ICE’s operations and the vested interests that benefit from immigration detention. It revealed how detention centers exist across the country, not just at the border and how it is unseen for most people. The border industrial complex also relies on private prisons, who donate to politicians across the political spectrum to support strict immigration policies to keep the profits going. Finally, they showed how the border industrial complex has brought surveillance and the police state beyond the border and to every American town and city. Using El Paso as an example, they show how ICE and militarized local police use the same tools of surveillance and intimidation to catch their targets.
The audience was mostly quiet as the documentary was playing and the lights were dimmed, making it hard to see the reactions. I noticed a lot of minorities, primarily Latinos, in the room but that could be because it was an OLAS event. After the screening, there was a brief Q&A between the moderator, Pamela Yates, and Paco de Onis. In one of her remarks after the screening, Ms. Yates said that the film was supposed to serve as a warning, but instead became a prediction especially after Donald Trump was elected in the 2024 Presidential Election. Students were enthusiastic about asking questions but I had to leave early and could not hear them.
Throughout the documentary and after, I made a lot of connections between the film and topics discussed in Humanities. For example, when the discussion of El Paso came up, I immediately thought about Predict and Surveil by Sarah Brayne. There was a mention of a fusion center in the film, something that Brayne brings up often when discussing the growing use of surveillance by police. The mention of private prisons reminded me of 13th, which I watched one hour after Borderland. In 13th, it mentioned that private prisons and other industries had become so profitable with prison labor that it is impossible to eliminate mass incarceration.. Likewise, in the border industrial complex, the private prison complex thrives on immigrants being detained, preventing any humane immigration reform from happening. This film combined our discussion of mass incarceration and surveillance.
The biggest thing I took away from this film was the humanity shown. When discussing immigration, specifically undocumented immigrants I think of it as a complex and abstract policy issue. This film humanized immigration to me and helped me visualize the true impact of our nation’s immigration policies on people. Undocumented immigrants are not some pest or parasite in our country. Rather, they play an integral role in our country, and we need to consider the impact of policies on their lives.
Campus Commentary Number Four
On April 22, 2026 from 7:00pm to 8:00pm, the Jewish Studies Department, in collaboration with the Music Department, hosted the music group A Glezele Tey in Tyler-Tallman Hall. A Glezele Tey, or A Glass of Tea in Yiddish, is a musical group that specializes in Klezmer music, or a musical tradition that grew out of Yiddish-speaking communities in eastern Europe. It is a type of folk music that serves as a reflection of different experiences ranging from marriage, resistance, and death. The group is composed of three musicians: Rachel Leader, who played the violin, Ariel Shapiro, who played the accordion and sang, and Richie Barshay, who played percussion and also sang.
The event began with an introduction of the group and Klezmer music by Dr. Lipsker. After his introduction, we heard more from Ms. Shapiro about what Klezmer music is and what A Glezele Tey does. Klezmer originated in Eastern Europe with a mix of Russian, Ottoman, and Austrian influences. In the 1920s, with Eastern European Jews having settled in the United States for a few decades, there was some jazz influence and in the 1970s, there was a renaissance with the civil rights movement. Specifically, A Glezele Tey mostly focuses on tkhines, or traditional Ashkenazi prayers which center on the experience of marginalized groups. The group has reinvented old tkhines through translation, new tunes, and centering the message in the present day.
After these introductions, we heard seven songs, five of which were tkhines. The topics ranged from tears, generational inclination, horrors of war, and an anti-dictator song. The tkhines most interesting to me were the fifth and sixth songs out of the seven heard. The fifth song, which was about the horrors of war, significantly contrasted with the rest of the songs. While all of them had happy and hopeful tunes behind them even if it had a sad message, the fifth one had sad tones, felt heavier, was slower, and more solemn. It was a profound sensory experience. The sixth song was the anti-dictator song, originally written in Catalan in Fascist Spain. It has since been translated and used as a general anti-dictator song in Poland, Belarus, Tunisia, and even in the United States during the Black Lives Matter protests. The song had a message of hope and building a new world against the oppressive powers. In general, the tkhines came from the city of Vilna in modern-day Lithuania, known as the “Jerusalem of Lithuania” due to its prominent Jewish population before the Holocaust. The other two songs were about having a child and marriage.
The audience was very receptive to the music. There were many moments when impromptu clapping broke out as the song was playing. During every song, there was the Yiddish version of “la la la la” sung, something the audience was invited to join and they often did. It was, however, mostly quiet as most audience members wanted to hear and feel the music. I was in love with the music. The tunes combined with the message made catchy songs, and there were many parts that were stuck in my head for days after. There were also a lot of connections going through my head during the performance. During the anti-dictator song, I thought a lot about how Italian anti-fascists rallied and still rally around the song “Bella Ciao” and how that situation parallels the Spanish experience. The fact that it has been used in other anti-dictator protests across the world reminded me of the Ring Shout we learned about in December. One instrument we learned about was the talking drum and how its use correlated with rebellion in the Americas. This song, similarly, correlated with revolutions and resistance movements around the world, organizing people around it. This tradition of song encapsulates a whole range of emotions and history, making it an integral part of crafting together the Yiddish experience. It continues a long tradition of orally passing down stories, something seen negatively in the Western tradition as being uncivilized and without a history, a concept elaborated on by Michel Trouillot in Silencing the Past. Through the Klezmer, we find a whole narrative from the Yiddish people, perfectly capturing their experiences while reflecting what influenced them.
