Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
November has been a busy month for Cedarville University’s Mark Caleb Smith. As the Director of the Center for Political Studies at Cedarville, Smith has found himself doing double duty as both professor and the go-to person and pundit for local, state and national political coverage In November Smith was interviewed by TV, radio and print for issues pertaining to impeachment, Michael Bloomberg entering the presidential race and the DNC debates. Mark Caleb Smith averages approximately 160 media interviews a year – and for good reason. He teaches courses in American Politics, Constitutional Law, and Research Methodology/Data Analysis and has fast become a media-ready expert who provides accurate, objective and laser-cut insight to reporters and journalists covering politics. If you’re a journalist covering politics – let Mark Caleb Smith help with your stories. He’s available, simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today.
This month, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced a shift in U.S. policy toward settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Pompeo announced that the Trump administration does not view the settlements as inconsistent international law, and rescinded a 1978 state department legal opinion that held that view. The move now leaves the issue of individual settlements up to Israeli courts. Assistant Professor Sandy Marshall has spent time as a volunteer instructor in a Palestinian refugee camp in the West Bank and returned to the region this past summer to advance his research into the experiences of Palestinian refugee children. A human geographer, he has conducted extensive research into the impact of conflict, division and displacement on children and youth in the Middle East. Asked for a brief comment on the shift in U.S. policy, here’s what Marshall had to say: “Coming on the heels of the U.S. embassy move to Jerusalem and recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, the change in policy on West Bank settlements is another nail in the coffin of a negotiated peace-settlement based on the two-state solution, represent U.S. rejection of broad international legal consensus . This move undermines any remaining legitimacy the U.S. has in the region as a peace-broker and threatens further destabilization of the region.” If you're interested in talking with Professor Marshall as you continue to cover this important topic, please reach out to Owen Covington, director of the Elon University News Bureau, at ocovington@elon.edu or (336) 278-7413. Professor Marshall is available for phone, email and broadcast interviews.
Minority of Twitter users responsible for vast majority of political tweets
Associate Professor of Law David Levine recently lent his expertise to a Washington Post article looking at who is posting tweets about U.S. politics on the popular social media platform. The Oct. 24 article by reporter Marie Baca examined a recent report by the Pew Research Center that found that 10 percent of U.S. adult Twitter users generated 97 percent of tweets mentioning national politics. Those who were most prolific accounted for just 6 percent of all U.S. adult Twitter users, but authored 73 percent of all political tweets, the report found. "It can be quite dangerous if you’re not taking a step back and saying, ‘What do I know about the sources of this information and who or what is behind it?’” — David Levine, associate professor of law Levine, who is the founder of the "Hearsay Culture" radio show about modern technology issues, noted that Twitter users who find themselves in an echo chamber populated by others who mirror their views could take less time to determine the origin or assess the truthfulness of information they receive in that chamber. “It can be quite dangerous if you’re not taking a step back and saying, ‘What do I know about the sources of this information and who or what is behind it?’” he said. “It’s very easy psychologically, especially if you’re coming into it with a particular perspective, to go along with it.” If Professor Levine can assist with your reporting about social media and online extremism, please reach out to Owen Covington, director of the Elon University News Bureau, at ocovington@elon.edu or (336) 278-7413. Professor Levine is available for phone, email and broadcast interviews.
Analyzing U.K. Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled that Prime Minister Boris Johnson illegally suspended Parliament, putting lawmakers back in session to debate Brexit. Villanova political science professor Catherine Warrick, PhD, says that, while the circumstances are unusual, the court has acted in defense of the constitution and the rule of law by protecting Parliament's powers. She notes there are two key factors in the court's ruling. "First, the ruling wasn't about Brexit itself. The Supreme Court made it clear that their decision was about the limited question of the power to prorogue Parliament—and was taken on the basis of constitutional principles, not political questions. Interestingly, the government had claimed (implausibly) that the prorogation was not about Brexit at all, but now that it has been ruled illegal, a lot of conservative commentators are suddenly depicting the decision as an attempt to derail Brexit. Bit of trying to have it both ways there. "Second, there seems to be a lot of commentary on social media claiming that the court said that the prime minister lied to or misled Queen Elizabeth in order to get her to agree to prorogation. This isn't really true—the inference can be drawn that Johnson behaved dishonestly, but I don't think the Court said so outright."
Can Understanding the History of Drug Addiction Help Address the Opioid Epidemic?
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, more than 130 people die every day after overdosing on opioids. Lives have been lost, families shattered, and billions spent as experts, elected leaders, health care professionals, and law enforcement officials try to address the country's opioid epidemic. A professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute can help shed light on the forces at work in this crisis and its history. Professor Nancy Campbell is an expert is in the history of science, technology, and medicine as it relates to drug policy and the social significance of drugs. She is a professor and head of the Department of Science and Technology Studies (STS) in the School of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. "We found her to be one of the most knowledgeable people on the history of opioids and how that history fits into the context of today’s problem," reporters for CBS 6 News in Albany wrote of Campbell. In a recent interview with the station, Campbell discussed her extensive research on the history of drug addiction, as well as her approach to educating students about it. “I actually want my students to go out of the class, knowing more about where our current opioid epidemic came from, the endemic that it built upon and also knowing more about drug markets and the social aspects,” Campbell said. August 15 – CBS 6 News Are you a reporter covering the opioid crisis and need to know what’s being done and what more needs to be done? Let our experts help with your questions. Campbell is available to speak to media regarding the opioid crisis and the history of drug addiction – simply click on her icon to arrange an interview.
Privilege Creates a Different Starting Line in “Race to the Jobs”
College is a unique microcosm of society where students from a variety of backgrounds come together in one place. Many times, students have not been exposed to people from backgrounds that differ from their own. I consider this an opportunity to teach my students at Otterbein University about social inequality and privilege. In my Sociology of Sport course, I illustrate to students that the societal “playing field” isn’t always equal for everyone in visible or obvious ways. I use athletics as an entry point to teach them about the different privileges – or disadvantages – each of us have. I take students to the football field, where everyone starts at the 25 yard line facing the end zone. Standing in the end zone, I represent each student’s dream job or career path. Then I proceed to read statements out loud – and if that statement applies to them, students take a step forward or step back, depending on the directions given. My statements range from “if you have immediate family members who are doctors, lawyers, or other professionals, take one step forward” to “if you were ever called names or ridiculed because of your race, ethnicity, or social class background, take one step backward.” Each of the statements read are beyond the students’ control. Once I’m through reading all of the statements, I ask students to look around, noticing who is in front of them, who is behind them. Then they sprint to my position, and the first one to reach me is the winner of the race, representing the competition to the dream job.. However, through this activity, it’s clearly seen that not everyone had the same advantages as the others. Before they begin the race to me in the end zone, ready to run toward their dream job, students are already noticing the advantages some have over others. It really begins to sink in once they look around and see how everyone is staggered across the field. There is no even starting line – we all start from positions on the field. This Race to the Jobs activity, originally conceived by social justice activist Paul Kivel, becomes a springboard in our class for a better understanding of our own privilege and how we can all help create more opportunities for those who need help to overcome an obstacle. Doing this active learning makes it that much more impactful and poignant. Taking a different approach to showing these issues can make a big difference in student’s perceptions. They open their minds up to new – and sometimes difficult or challenging concepts of privilege and oppression – becoming more self-aware. The students begin to see that, just as in our classroom discussions and course readings, not everyone can be a LeBron James, born into a relatively difficult situation, and rise to his level of success on luck or talent alone. We need to examine our own privilege because if we don’t know who we are, we will never see our blind spots. Kristy McCray, Ph.D., is an Otterbein assistant professor in sport management. Contact her if you have any questions or wish to arrange an interview by clicking on her icon at the top.
IU Kelley School expert: $170 million fine of Google, YouTube probably not enough
In the largest fine ever, Google agreed to pay $170 million to settle a case with the Federal Trade Commission and New York’s attorney general over charges that YouTube made millions from violating children’s privacy laws. Scott Shackelford, associate professor of business law and ethics at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business, chair of IU’s Cybersecurity Program in Risk Management and director of the Ostrom Workshop Program on Cybersecurity and Internet Governance, doubts it will have much of an effect. “Google, via YouTube, has been held accountable by the FTC and the New York Attorney General’s Office for its practices that violated children’s privacy, but it’s questionable whether a $170 million fine is sufficient to change business practices,” Shackelford said. “Similar to its $5 billion fine against Facebook, the FTC needs to do more to both increase these penalties, and even more importantly require the necessary steps to ensure that these violations do not recur. This is the FTC’s third fine against Google since 2011, for example, and it will likely not be the last.”
The Gun Control Debate is at a Stalemate. Can Smarter Weapons Help to Solve it?
The gun control debate is at a stalemate. America seems incapable of finding common ground on background checks, waiting periods, weapons registries and restrictions or bans on select weapons. Shooting after shooting has resulted in decades of debate but little substantive change. But Professor Selmer Bringsjord from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, who recently weighed in on the issue, presented a concept that could turn the entire topic on its head by using artificial intelligence. Bringsjord accepts that America won’t get rid of its guns – so why not just make our guns smarter? Ethically AI-enabled weapons can put American politicians back to work by shifting the debate from the weapons we should ban, to the targets we will accept. Do we allow guns to kill school children, shoppers, concert-goers? The technology of ethical AI changes the conversation. His idea was just recently published in the Times Union: “Yet there is a solution, a technological alternative to the fruitless shouting match between politicians: namely, AI — of an ethical sort. Guns that are at once intelligent and ethically correct can put an end to the mass-shooting carnage. Consider the rifle apparently used by the human killer in the El Paso Walmart shooting. But now suppose that time is turned back to before his shots were fired on Aug. 3, and that his rifle, radically unlike the stupid one that killed, is both intelligent and ethical. This alternate-future rifle would know that it's approaching the Walmart by car and would accordingly know that it has no business being used anytime soon. Move forward in time a bit; the rifle is now in the hands of the aspiring, ear-muffed killer outside his car; but his weapon has fully disengaged itself and is locked into a mode of utter uselessness with the finality of a sealed bank vault. On the other hand, the guns in the hands of law enforcement officers who have dashed on scene know in whose hands they rest, and accordingly know that if they are trained on the would-be killer, they have every right to work well, if this criminal reveals some new threat. Notice: If people who don't actually pose a threat sufficient to warrant being shot by police can't be shot by smart, ethical guns, a fact that could lead to the welcome evaporation of a different but also vitriolic political shouting match.” -Times Union, August 16, 2019 Could AI be the answer to America’s gun problem? It’s truly a new perspective on an old issue. If you are a reporter covering this topic, let our experts help with your story. Dr. Selmer Bringsjord is the Chair of the Department of Cognitive Science expert in logic and philosophy, specializing in AI and reasoning. Dr. Bringsjord regularly speaks with media about AI and is available to speak about the concept of intelligent, ethical guns. Simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.
Surviving a mass shooting – let our experts help with your coverage and understand what’s next
At least 15 people were injured and three were killed, including a six-year-old boy, when a gunman opened fire on a crowded festival in California on Sunday. Investigators are still left searching for a motive and reason. But in the wake of any tragedy there lies countless numbers of witnesses, relatives and first responders who will be impacted mentally, physically and psychologically from this event. Those wounds are often deep and difficult to treat. If you are a reporter covering this shooting or any other incident of this magnitude – that’s where our experts can help with your questions and coverage. Dr. Laura C. Wilson is a clinical psychologist whose expertise focuses on post-trauma functioning, particularly in survivors of sexual violence or mass trauma (e.g., terrorism, mass shootings, combat). Her research interests extend to predictors of violence and aggression, including psychophysiological and personality factors, as well as indicators of PTSD following mass trauma, long-term functioning among first responders, outcomes among survivors of sexual violence, and the influence of media on mental illness stigma. Dr. Wilson is available to speak with media – simply click on her icon to arrange an interview today.
'The wrong way to fix social media'
In a recent column published by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Associate Dean and Professor Enrique Armijo of the Elon School of Law addresses flaws in a plan to crack down on social media content many find objectionable. Armijo, an expert on how new technologies affect free speech issues, explains how the Communications Decency Act prevents internet websites and applications from being liable for the content of their users. Now more than 20 years since that protection was codified, there is a movement to legislatively revoke that immunity from liability as debate about whether internet platforms should assume more responsibility for the content they publish and distribute. Anyone who calls himself a conservative should be embarrassed to be associated with this idea. As an initial matter, the legislation ignores the fact that a publisher's decisions as to what to publish are protected First Amendment speech. Armijo goes on to note that "the actual First Amendment rights of platforms cannot be sacrificed to protect rights of access to the platform's users claims but don't exist. We can all hope that neutrality will guide the hands of power, but the government cannot command neutrality from the powerful." If Dr. Armijo can assist with your reporting about free speech, social media and new technologies, please reach out to News Bureau Director Owen Covington at ocovington@elon.edu or (336) 278-7413. Dr. Armijo is available for phone, email and broadcast interviews.