Critical Race Theory in education has been a hot button issue in politics of the United States. From states completely banning ethnic studies to creating anti-CRT legislation, there is a clear line for and against CRT. As some studies have shown, students that take ethnic studies classes are more understanding of other cultures and better rounded students. CRT can be broken down into central tenets: interest convergence, material determinism, race as a social construction, and intersectionality. These are essential to understanding CRT and how they can apply to education. My research question is how are states responding to the rise of CRT in education. To address this I will look at Southern California counties high school curriculum along with comparable counties in states that have passed numerous anti-CRT legislation. I also plan to look at two case studies on the attack of CRT and the embracement of it by looking at California’s AB 1460, which made ethnic studies a standard in the curriculum and Arizona’s HB 2281, which banned ethnic studies in the state. The expected findings of this research is that California will be the leading role model of how to implement CRT into education along with offering the most diverse selection of ethnic studies courses.

Poster Presentation

Session 3

2:45pm – 4:00pm
Grand Salon

Political Science

Thesis:
The don’t say gay bills aims to “protect” children without taking into account the potential mental health effects these bills will have on LGBTQ youth and their families.

Question:
Will these policies negatively impact LGBTQ youth?

Background on the bill:
HB1557 was introduced by republican Florida governor Ron Desantis in 2022. This bill aims to prohibit instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in schools. “To prohibit the use of Federal funds to develop, implement, facilitate, or fund any sexually-oriented program, event, or literature for children under the age of 10, and for other purposes.””

Methodology:
The method I am using is interviewing 5 people in the LGBTQ community (and maybe a couple people who don’t identify as LGBTQ and/or who support the bill)

Questions:

1. Do you identify as LGBTQIA? How much do you know about the don’t say gay bills?
2. Do you think that same sex relationships should be talked about openly at school?
3. In these bills there is no mention of a ban on opposite sex relationships conversations, if legislators want to ban the conversation on same sex relationships/identity, should they also ban opposite sex conversations?
4. How do you think these bills will impact LGBTQIA youth?
5. Do you think these bills will negatively impact or positively affect the learning experience?
6. Do you think these bills will have no impact?
7. If you answered question 1 saying you do identify as LGBTQ could you share your coming out story?
   a. What was it like for you to come out?
   b. Do you think it will be harder for these students to accept their sexuality with these laws?
8. Do you think these laws will impact the mental health of LGBTQ youths?
9. In what ways do you think sexuality/gender identity should be discussed at school?

Expected findings:
I expect to find that these bills will have a negative impact on LGBTQ individuals and their mental health.”

Poster Presentation

Session 3

2:45pm – 4:00pm
Grand Salon

Political Science

In Mexico the violence towards women is monumental, every year about 2,600 women are victims of Feminicide, the highes causator of all abuses stem from communal places with the second being within relationships. I will unlayer, tracing back and finding correlations of how this problem boiled up (using both concurrent satistics, and various individual case studies embodying the entire topic). I will show the evidence on how corroded, and implicitly biased the judicial and criminal justice system is in Mexico. I will specifically present reccomended policy proposals, for how the justice system can appropriately address these abuses, and how the community as a whole can stop attacks towards women from escalaing. I will delve into how investigative authorities mishandled cases and in what places these problems are hapening more, and societal norms, such as distrust or disencouraged towards police/authorities…where people stay silent because of the insecurity. And i will try to narrow down why it is happening so much to suggest policy proposals to uproot the cancer and the provokers of it. There is so much evidence and research i am using to back up my claim (like the female feminkcide victim Mariana Lima buendia, whose husband unalived her and since he was a forscenic investigator in the government he had a ugly foot into deciding how her case was handled, he canceled it and messed up the investigation, all while Mariana’s family claimed him the suspect since Mariana spoke of his abususes) (how only protective laws came into place after the families had to fight for the female victims, like in 2010 the grandparent had to fight for the custody of the grandchild to not end up with the dad who commited the killing) that will give you a vivid eyewitness documentation of going into countries without much freedom of speech, and how deeply embedded with pain and fear the lives of families and girls are in Mexico.

Poster Presentation

Session 3

2:45pm – 4:00pm
Grand Salon

Political Science

The research question that I am focusing on is how does political participation differ among Latino subcultures in the U.S. My findings based on the literature helped conclude that there are a multitude of factors that can affect the overall. These factors include, but are not limited to: socioeconomic factors, representation, group identity, ethnicity, immigration status, language, and religion. These factors may contribute to the differences of some or most Latino groups being politically active because they correlate with the political awareness of these Latin groups and how they are to participate depending on results or attitudes. This can explain and connect on certain behaviors of the Latino groups in the U.S. but can also show distinction between the different groups as well. The assumption that the U.S. Latino group is a monolithic voting group and will be challenged with the varying affective factors that alter the level of political participation for certain voting individuals/groups. It is important to consider these factors in order to understand the behavior and level of political participation within these groups because they can cause differences in understanding and participating in politics in the United States. Political participation is a central point to seeing how Latino subgroups interact and how political aware they are.

Poster Presentation

Session 2

1:00pm – 2:15pm
Grand Salon

Political Science

LGBTQ+ identity and gender expression are important aspects in the lives of many queer individuals, and recognizing its call for diversity is a sustainable concept for better understanding the queer experience. The history relating to the categorization of queer identity, such as sexual orientation and gender identity/expression holds a noteworthy effect on the way society, especially those not identifying with the LGBTQ+ community, view LGBTQ+ individuals, from both a social and employment sector standpoint. This paper considers how LGBTQ+ identity and gender expression are understood and presented within public human resources policies for diversity and accommodation, alongside exploring the importance of such accommodations to the queer experience, and finally diving deep into a comparison between multiple U.S. states, and the differences their policies pose relating to rights based policy. Methods utilized include data collection, data analysis, and quantitative analysis of California and Texas public human resources policies. Better understanding the association and importance of these topics aids in the productivity of a more collaborative and broad-minded understanding of the LGBTQ+ experience.

Poster Presentation

Session 2

1:00pm – 2:15pm
Grand Salon

Political Science

History has been taught to us as a kid in a way that justifies wars in early American History. Revolutionary War, Civil War, and both world wars have sought justification for why the American military has been involved in fighting. Over the last century, the justification has faded and the reasons for fighting became more and more difficult to go along with, causing distrust in the American people. Vietnam, Iraq, and Palestine have all been examples of America being involved in warfare with little to no justification to convince the American public that the wars are beneficial to the country and the foreign land involved. The expansion and improvement of technology, television, and free-flowing information have shown people in real-time the atrocities of war and horrors that the members of the military and the people of foreign countries have to live through for “freedom” to be achieved. The uprising of morals and beliefs now convinces the American public that warfare is no longer needed to achieve a peaceful world. The significance of this topic lies in the belief that warfare is no longer needed in today’s environment to achieve goals and instead, it causes more damage than benefit. A question we can ask is what can be done to repair the damage that warfare has caused in the world today. Statistics and money patterns can help determine why the military has determined to fight wars as well as compare the priorities of the American people. We can expect to find out that if warfare brings in a financial benefit to congress on either their political or personal expenses, they tend to disregard the damage that warfare causes, and instead advocate for a new war.

Poster Presentation

Session 2

1:00pm – 2:15pm
Grand Salon

Political Science

Prescription drug prices significantly strain individuals and the healthcare system. This research study would analyze how patent reforms can be incorporated into a broader strategy to address drug affordability. While this approach might not directly address the struggles of individuals already facing financial limitations, the findings can inform policymakers and stakeholders in crafting a multi-faceted solution that balances innovation with ensuring essential medications are accessible to those who need them. Reforming policies, particularly those impacting patents, holds the potential to increase access to essential medications, reduce healthcare costs  and promote innovation. Patent laws grant pharmaceutical companies exclusive rights to produce specific drugs for a set period. This incentivizes R&D but can also lead to high drug prices due to limited competition.  Questioning how reforming patent policies, contribute to improving the affordability of prescription drugs for individuals and the healthcare system as a whole. A mixed-method approach would be beneficial between qualitative data and quantitative data. Potential benefits might lead to increased competition through measures like allowing generic production after a shorter patent period could lead to lower drug pricing. Exploring alternative R&D funding models, potentially involving government grants or public-private partnerships, could lessen the reliance on high drug prices as the sole means for pharmaceutical companies to recoup their investment.

Poster Presentation

Session 1

9:15am – 10:30am
Grand Salon

Political Science

Recreational use of marijuana is legal in twenty-four states and the District of Colombia. Using the initiative process, voters in Colorado and Washington State voted to support adult consumption of cannabis in 2012. How did legalization spread from two states to half of the country? Diffusion theory proved a potential explanation. States adopt new policies based on the internal political environment in the state and in the context of the policies other states adopt. The research is divided into two parts. Using binary logistic regression, I examine the probability of state(s) adopting a new policy as a function of voter initiative and the variable suggested by diffusion theory. Early results support the contention that voter initiative plays a large part in cannabis policy diffusion. Second, I examine the diffusion of regulatory policy at the county level in California. Which counties opted for retail sales? Is there a relationship between the county’s vote for Proposition 64 and consistent with diffusion theory; how do internal and external variables influence a county’s decision? Tentative results suggest that counties are somewhat responsive to the votes in their county. However, internal and external opportunities and constraints may play a more prominent role at the county level.

Poster Presentation

Session 1

9:15am – 10:30am
Grand Salon

Political Science