UCI scholars discuss how 9/11 changed America

Sep 9, 2021

3 min

In recognition of the 20th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the U.S., we asked UCI scholars a single question: How did 9/11 change America? They responded according to their expertise – which ranges from collective trauma, media, air travel, foreign relations, false narratives, political divisiveness, and the war on terror. Contact Tom Vasich at 949-285-6455, tmvasich@uci.edu, to arrange interviews.


Roxane Cohen Silver, Distinguished Professor of psychological science, public health and medicine

E. Alison Holman, professor of nursing

Topic: Media and collective trauma

Quote: “The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks – which hijacked our television screens that Tuesday morning as people who sought to do us harm hijacked four airplanes – captured people’s attention throughout the days and weeks that followed. It also ushered in 24/7 media attention to what has become known as a “collective trauma,” transmitting the horrible events of that day throughout the country and, indeed, throughout the world in a matter of seconds. …The 9/11 attacks were tragic for American residents, but they also taught us that the media can broadcast distress alongside the news it’s covering.”



Jan K. Brueckner, Distinguished Professor of economics

Topic: Air travel

Quote: “In response to the revenue shock of 9/11 and to new competition from low-cost carriers, the major airlines behaved conservatively in adding back capacity as traffic returned, so that the carriers eventually offered fewer seats to an ultimately larger number of passengers, leading to fuller flights and today’s less comfortable flying experience. Even though 9/11 is long past, the airline industry continues to operate in a climate of fear of terrorism from the air.”


Erin Lockwood, assistant professor of political science

Topic: U.S. foreign policy

Quote: “The attacks – and the U.S. response – set in motion decades of war, anti-Arab and anti-Islamic bias and violence, and a willingness to sacrifice military and civilian lives and civil liberties for the perception of security. As we mark the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan this month, it’s all too apparent that many of those trends continue to reverberate today.”


David Kaye, clinical professor of law

Topic: National security

Quote: “Despite my hopes for something better that might emerge, the attacks reinforced a cult of national security that the United States transformed into the torture of terrorism suspects, drone warfare, the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo Bay’s indefinite detentions, anti-Muslim discrimination at home and the emergence of the contemporary surveillance state. … The predominance of national security as an ideology and apologia remains among the most significant legacies of that day, a feature of American political life that continues to constrain creativity and a return to normalcy in American law and policy.”


Matthew Beckmann, associate professor of political science

Topic: War on terror

Quote: “To understand the legacy of 9/11 is to define the legacy of George W. Bush. For after the deadliest terrorist attacks on U.S. soil in our nation’s history, American citizens and lawmakers gave President Bush broad support and broader authority to wage the “war on terror” as he saw fit. … Twenty years after the attacks, having seen those lofty aspirations dashed in Afghanistan and Iraq, disregarded in Guantanamo Bay and black site prisons, and discounted even by our staunchest allies, the biggest legacy of Sept. 11 for the United States is that the “shining city on a hill” has less luster and a shorter reach.”


David Theo Goldberg, professor of comparative literature

Topic: Rise of false narratives

Quote: “The events of 9/11 lent themselves to make-believe. The smoke hadn’t yet cleared when conspiracies began to abound, from “weapons of mass destruction” to “the deep state.” That the Trump administration adopted this as its own playbook while insisting on “draining the swamp” required cooking the rules. … Fabrication had become the rule book of the game. Invention and inventedness, disruption and innovation fueled the movement. The “truth” was, well, oh so yesterday.”




You might also like...

Check out some other posts from UC Irvine

3 min

UC Irvine expert on metacognition: Megan Peters

How do our brains take in complex information from the world around us to help us make decisions? And what happens when there’s a mismatch between how well your brain thinks it’s performing this function and how well it’s actually doing? UC Irvine cognitive scientist Megan Peters takes a deep dive into metacognition - our ability to monitor our own cognitive processing. To reach Prof. Peters, contact Heather Ashbach at hashbach@uci.edu or 949-284-1577. “Our brains are fantastically powerful information processing systems. They take in information from the world around us through our eyes, ears, and other senses, and they process or transform that sensory information into rich internal representations — representations that we can then use to make useful decisions, to navigate effectively without running into things, and ultimately, to stay alive. And interestingly, our brains also can tell us when they’re doing a good job with all this processing, through a process called metacognition, or our ability to monitor our own cognitive processing. My name is Megan Peters, and I’m an associate professor in the department of Cognitive Sciences at UC Irvine. I’m also a Fellow in the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research Brain, Mind, & Consciousness program and I am president and chair of the board at Neuromatch. My research seeks to understand metacognition — how it works in the brain, and how it works at a computational or algorithm level — and it also seeks to understand what this metacognitive processing might have to do with the conscious experiences we have of our environments, of each other, and of ourselves. So in our research group, we use a combination of behavioral experiments with humans, brain imaging (like MRI scans), and computational approaches like mathematical modeling and machine learning or Artificial Intelligence, to try to unravel these mysteries. I think my favorite overall line of research right now has to do with cases where our brains’ self-monitoring sometimes seems to go wrong. So what I mean is, sometimes your brain “metacognitively” computes how well it thinks you’re doing at this “sensory information processing” task, but this ends up being completely different from how well you’re actually doing. Imagine it this way: you’re driving down a foggy road, at night in the dark. You probably can’t see very well, and you’d hope that your brain would also be able to tell you, “I can’t see super well right now, I should probably slow down.” And most of the time, your brain does this self-monitoring correctly, and you do slow down. But sometimes, under some kinds of conditions or visual information, your brain miscalculates, and it erroneously tells you, “Actually you can see just fine right now!” So this is a sort of “metacognitive illusion”: your brain is telling you “you’re doing great, you can see very clearly!” when in reality, the quality of the information that it’s receiving, and the processing it’s doing, is really poor, really bad — in essence, that means that you can feel totally confident in your abilities to accurately process the world around you, when in fact you’re interpreting the world totally incorrectly. Now normally, in everyday life, this doesn’t happen of course. But we can create conditions in the lab where this happens very robustly, which helps us understand when and how it might happen in the real world, too, and what the consequences might be. So this is fascinating both because it is a powerful tool for studying how your brain constructs that metacognitive feeling of confidence, and also because — in theory — it means that your subjective, conscious feeling of confidence might be doing something really different than just automatically or directly reading out how reliably you brain is processing information. And that could eventually provide a better way to investigate how our so-called phenomenological or conscious experiences can arise from activity patterns in your brain at all.” To reach Prof. Peters, contact Heather Ashbach at hashbach@uci.edu or 949-284-1577.

1 min

UC Irvine NATO expert available to discuss Finland membership

Heidi Hardt, associate professor of political science at UC Irvine, is a scholar whose expertise is in transatlantic security, US foreign policy, national security and European security and defense, including NATO, the EU and OSCE. She is the author of the book, NATO's Lessons in Crisis: Institutional Memory in International Organizations (Oxford UP, 2018). She recently completed a 2021-2022 Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellowship for Tenured International Relations Scholars (IAF-TIRS). During the year, she worked for the US State Department (NATO Desk). Professor Hardt can be reached via email at hhardt@uci.edu.

1 min

UCI expert: federal standards of chemicals in country's waterways

The Biden Administration announced today that they are prepared to finally set federal standards on the amount of PFAS chemicals in the country’s waterways. This is long overdue oversight into regulating chemicals, specifically perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, which when exposed to can cause debilitating, deadly diseases, and conditions such as cancer, liver damage, fertility and thyroid problems, asthma and more. For an expert source on this breaking news, Scott Bartell, MS, PhD, UC Irvine professor of environmental and occupational health, is available for interviews. For the past 25 years, Bartell has dedicated his research to quantifying human exposures and health effects caused by environmental contaminants such as PFAS – specifically the presence and epidemiology of PFAS in U.S. water sources. He is also the lead researcher on a study surveying Orange County, Calif. residents to find a link between PFAS and adverse health effects. To reach Prof. Bartell, reach out to Brianna Aldrich at brianna.aldrich@uci.edu or 760-809-5193.

View all posts