Featured Post from Villanova University

In Poland, the Debate Over Solidarity's Legacy Continues

Dec 5, 2023

5 min

On November 13, 2023, Poland’s parliament convened for the first time since a centrist-progressive coalition won a legislative majority, ending the eight-year rule of the right-wing Law and Justice party.


The recent political shift has been heralded by some as the most significant since 1989, when the then-Soviet-controlled government allowed the country’s first elections in over four decades. That year, an anti-authoritarian movement called “Solidarity” seized all but one seat in the Senate and every contested seat in the Sejm (or lower chamber). A stunning rebuke for the Soviet regime, the landslide victory effectively signaled the end of Communism in Poland—and served as a harbinger of the Eastern Bloc’s collapse.


Gerald Beyer, PhD, is a professor of Christian ethics in Villanova University’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the instructor of the class “Solidarity and Peacebuilding in Central and Eastern Europe” and the author of Recovering Solidarity: Lessons from Poland’s Unfinished Revolution. He recently shared his thoughts concerning the parallels being drawn between 1989 and 2023, the complicated legacy of Poland’s anti-Communist struggle and what can be gleaned from studying and reconsidering the Solidarity movement.


Q: As a new Polish government takes shape, how would you describe the current political situation in the country?


Dr. Beyer: At the present moment, Poland finds itself at a major crossroads. Like the United States, the country is very divided, politically speaking. On the one hand, you have people who believe that Poland has turned away from the European Union (EU) to a troubling extent and backslid into authoritarianism under the Law and Justice party’s rule. So, you have a significant portion of Polish society who believe that this recent election [in October] was about protecting democracy and ensuring the future of democracy in the country. On the other hand, you have an equally significant portion of the population who think democracy has not been in peril—and that, in this year’s election, what’s at stake was a sense of Polish national values and national sovereignty.


Q: Is there any credence to the new legislative majority’s claims that the Law and Justice party “overstepped” while in governance?


DB: I think there’s reason to ask that question. The EU has sanctioned Poland during the present ruling party’s tenure for weakening the autonomy of the judicial system, and there has been concern over the ruling party exerting undue influence on state-based Television Poland (TVP). Poland, however, has a very vibrant free press—and has since 1989… I would contend that there’s been some backsliding on measures that would not score well on the democracy metrics, but I would not say that Poland has been existing under an authoritarian regime.


Q: Do you consider this year’s election comparable to the election of 1989?


DB: It’s certainly one of monumental significance. You may have noted the turnout of 74-plus percent. That’s historic for Poland, that massive turnout. At the same time, the overthrow of the Communist system in ’89 stands out as a unique and discrete moment in Polish history. So, there are ways that a comparison can be made, but there are ways in which I don’t believe it’s particularly apt.


Q: What makes tying the events of 1989 and 2023 a complicated issue?


DB: Whether or not 2023 is directly comparable to 1989 is a matter of perspective, and there are a number of different perspectives that exist in Poland today. Since the fall of Communism, there has been an ongoing conflict over Solidarity, its history and its legacy, and various political actors and parties have claimed their objectives are in concert with the values and principles of the movement.


In this year’s election, the Law and Justice party’s candidates presented themselves as guarantors of freedom, which was at the heart of the Solidarity movement, by stressing their opposition to external forces like the EU. In addition, during their time in leadership, the party’s officials worked to institute a number of social welfare programs that were designed to help people economically, providing something akin to what Catholic social teaching calls a “family living wage.” So, they were actively trying to raise the standard of living in a way that was arguably analogous to Solidarity.


On the other side of this equation, the election-winning opposition parties emphasized their status as defenders of democracy—once again, a core tenet of Solidarity. As we discussed, many members of that alliance and their supporters felt that the independent judiciary had been stifled by the Law and Justice-run government; they also voiced concerns about the free press.


On both sides, there has existed and continues to exist a sense that they are the ones best suited, maybe even solely suited in the current political landscape, to carry on Solidarity’s legacy and to ensure Poland thrives. Herein lies the source of conflict.


Q: Despite the ongoing debate over Solidarity’s legacy, are there any lessons from the movement’s history that might prove helpful today?


DB: Sadly, much of Poland’s current political acrimony can be traced to the “war at the top” that emerged within Solidarity in the wake of 1989, when longstanding tensions within the movement manifested in political rivalries. Once united, anti-Communist organizers became adversaries in the years after the Soviet regime’s dissolution, laying the groundwork for the divisive rhetoric of the current day.


Looking beyond what’s transpired over the past three decades, however, I think much can be learned from Solidarity in its early years and at its core. When the movement first took shape, its central aim was attaining a society characterized by unity among differences. And, to achieve this end, its leaders and supporters recognized the “necessity of dialogue,” a concept frequently invoked in Father Józef Tischner’s The Spirit of Solidarity.


Given the stark divides that currently define Polish politics, I think these origins and these concepts should be revisited—and that it’s important to look at Solidarity not just as a political moniker, but as an objective and a virtue. Personally, I believe that people can change. And if they are reacquainted with the principles that inspired and guided their struggle for freedom and democracy, perhaps Poland’s elected officials can change for the better.


You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Villanova University

4 min

Roderick Cooke, PhD, French and Francophone Studies Professor, Shares Thoughts on Louvre Heist, Artifacts Stolen

On Sunday, October 19, at 9:34 a.m., four masked individuals surged into the Louvre’s Galerie d’Apollon from a severed, second-floor window. Hurriedly, they smashed open two display cases, seized eight pieces of jewelry, then shimmied down a ladder and sped off on motorbikes toward Lyons. In seven minutes’ time, in broad daylight, they absconded with an estimated $102 million in valuables from the world’s most famous museum. This past Saturday, October 25, French authorities announced the first arrests in connection with the daring heist. However, despite the police’s progress, the country continues to litigate the matter—embroiled in discussions of heritage, history and national identity. Recently, Roderick Cooke, PhD, director of French and Francophone Studies at Villanova University, shared his perspective on the situation as well as the artifacts lost. Q: The Louvre heist has been described as “brazen,” “shocking” and a “terrible failure” on security’s part. Is there any sort of precedent for this event in the museum’s history? Dr. Cooke: Nothing on this scale has ever happened to the Louvre since its founding as a museum during the Revolution. The closest equivalent is the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa by a former employee who claimed it should be returned to Italy. However, that was one painting, the heist was not committed by organized crime, and the Mona Lisa did not have the renown it enjoys today. The impact of the theft was thus lower, although it did cause major outrage and a sweeping law-enforcement response at the time. Ironically, that theft is often credited with making da Vinci’s painting the global icon it continues to be. Q: What has the reaction to this event been among the French people? DC: It’s harder to get a sense of reactions across French society, because so much of the aftermath has focused on the intellectual milieux’s opinions. And in those realms, it has immediately become a political football. Individuals positioning themselves as anti-elite or anti-status quo, such as Jordan Bardella of the National Rally party, have called the theft a “humiliation,” immediately tying it to French national prestige. Former President François Hollande has conversely and vainly called for the event to be de-polemicized, citing national solidarity. This is happening because the Louvre is one of the most visible manifestations of French soft power—the most-visited museum anywhere on Earth. As such, anything attacking its integrity becomes an attack on the nation, and how individual French citizens feel about the theft is closely tied to their broader view of the nation. Q: Several of the items stolen from the Louvre once belonged to Empress Eugénie. Could you share a bit of information on her story? DC: Eugénie de Montijo was a Spanish aristocrat who married the Emperor of the French, who ruled as Napoleon III between 1852 and 1870. It was a time of authoritarian repression and sham democracy—Napoleon III installed the Empire through a coup. Its clearest legacy is that Paris looks the way it does today largely because of the thorough modernizations overseen by Napoleon III’s appointee Baron Haussmann. So, Eugénie and her now-lost jewels represent a complex point in French history, when culture and the economy developed quickly, but did so in a climate of fear for any French person who opposed the regime too loudly (like Victor Hugo, who went into exile on the Channel Islands and wrote poems savaging Napoleon III and his deeds). Some accused the Empress of being responsible for the more hardline and conservative stances taken by her husband’s government. On a different note, she was a diligent patron of the arts and arguably the most significant figure in the contemporary fashion world, famous for setting trends such as the bustle that radiated across Europe. This explains the mix of anger and admiration that followed her depending on the sphere she was operating in. A new English-language biography argues that far from being a traditionalist, she was a pioneering feminist by the standards of the time. It looks like her historical importance will continue to be debated. Q: Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez described the stolen items as “of immeasurable heritage value.” How significant of a cultural loss do you consider this theft? DC: These jewels are referred to in French as “les Joyaux de la Couronne” (the Crown Jewels), but of course that phrase lands very differently in republican France than it does across the water in the United Kingdom. The items actually represent several different dynasties of French rulers, some of whom came to power through direct conflict with others. The now-ransacked display at the Louvre smoothed over these historical divisions, for which many French people died over the centuries. President Macron referred to the stolen items as embodying “our history,” which is emblematic of the French state’s work to create a conceptual present-day unity out of the clashes of the past. At a time when France is arguably more divided than at any point since World War II, any unitary symbol of identity takes on greater significance. Q: Do you have any closing thoughts on the artifacts taken and what they represent? DC: I’d reemphasize the previous point about the smoothing effect of the museum display on the violent history that made it possible. Much of the reporting on the stolen jewels lists off the different queens and empresses who owned them, without giving readers a sense of the complicated succession of regime changes and ideologies that put those women in power in the first place. The relative stability of the last 60-odd years is an anomaly in modern French history. This set of jewels and the names of their original owners may seem far removed from the concerns of an ordinary French citizen today, but just beneath their surface is a legacy of changing governments and tensions between social classes that survives in new forms in 2025.

4 min

Villanova Astrophysicist Joey Neilsen, PhD, Plays Prominent Role in Groundbreaking XRISM Collaboration Study

A global team of researchers using the new X-ray Imaging and Spectroscopy Mission (XRISM) telescope, launched in fall 2023, discovered something unexpected while observing a well-studied neutron star system called GX13+1. Instead of simply capturing a clearer view of its usual, predictable activity, their February 2024 observation revealed a surprisingly slow cosmic wind, the cause of which could offer new insights into the fundamental physics of how matter accumulates, or “accretes,” in certain types of binary systems. The study was one of the first from XRISM looking at wind from an X-ray binary system, and its results were published in Nature—the world's leading multidisciplinary science journal—in September 2025. Spectral analysis indicated GX13+1 was at that very moment undergoing a luminous super-Eddington phase, meaning the neutron star was shining so brightly that the radiation pressure from its surface overcame gravity, leading to a powerful ejection of any infalling material (hence the slow cosmic wind). Further comparison to previous data implied that such phases may be part of a cycle, and could “change the way we think about the behavior of these systems,” according to Joey Neilsen, PhD, associate professor of Physics at Villanova University. Dr. Neilsen played a prominent role as a co-investigator and one of the corresponding authors of the project, along with colleagues at the University of Durham (United Kingdom), Osaka University (Japan), and the University of Teacher Education Fukuoka (Japan). Overall, the collaboration featured researchers from dozens of institutions across the world. GX13+1 is a binary system consisting of a neutron star orbiting a K5 III companion star—a cooler giant star nearing the end of its life. Neutron stars are small, incredibly dense cores of supergiant stars that have undergone supernovae explosions. They are so dense, Dr. Neilsen says, that one teaspoon of its material would weigh about the same as Mount Everest. Because of this, they yield an incredibly strong gravitational field. When these highly compact neutron stars orbit companion stars, they can pull in, or accrete, material from that companion. That inflowing material forms a visible rotating disk of gas and dust called an accretion disk, which is extremely hot and shines brightly in X-rays. It’s so bright that sometimes it can actually drive matter away from the neutron star. “Imagine putting a giant lightbulb in a lake,” Dr. Neilsen said. “If it’s bright enough, it will start to boil that lake and then you would get steam, which flows away like a wind. It’s the same concept; the light can heat up and exert pressure on the accretion disk, launching a wind.” The original purpose of the study was to use XRISM to observe an accretion disk wind, with GX13+1 targeted specifically because its disk is persistently bright, it reliably produces winds, and it has been well studied using Chandra— NASA’s flagship X-ray observatory—and other telescopes for comparison. XRISM can measure the X-ray energies from these systems a factor of 10 more precisely than Chandra, allowing researchers to both demonstrate the capabilities of the new instrument and study the motion of outflowing gas around the neutron star. This can provide new insights into accretion processes. “It's like comparing a blurry image to a much sharper one,” Dr. Neilsen said. “The atomic physics hasn't changed, but you can see it much more clearly.” The researchers uncovered an exciting surprise when the higher-resolution spectrum showed much deeper absorption lines than expected. They determined that the wind was nearly opaque to X-rays and slow at “only” 1.4 million miles per hour—surprisingly leisurely for such a bright source. Based on the data, the team was able to infer that GX13+1 must have been even brighter than usual and undergoing a super-Eddington phase. So much material was ejected that it made GX13+1 appear fainter to the instrument. “There's a theoretical maximum luminosity that you can get out of an accreting object, called the Eddington limit. At that point, the radiation pressure from the light of the infalling gas is so large that it can actually hold the matter away,” Dr. Neilsen said, equating it to standing at the bottom of a waterfall and shining light so brightly that the waterfall stops. “What we saw was that GX13+1 had to have been near, or maybe even above, the Eddington limit.” The team compared their XRISM data from this super-Eddington phase to a set of previous observations without the resolution to measure the absorption lines directly. They found several older observations with faint, unusually shaped X-ray spectra similar to the one seen by XRISM. “XRISM explained these periods with funny-shaped spectra as not just anomalies, but the result of this phenomenally strong accretion disk wind in all its glory,” Dr. Neilsen said. “If we hadn’t caught this exact period with XRISM, we would never have understood those earlier data.” The connection suggests that this system spends roughly 10 percent of its time in a super-Eddington phase, which means super-Eddington accretion may be more common than previously understood—perhaps even following cycles—in neutron star or black hole binary systems. “Temporary super-Eddington phases might actually be a thing that accreting systems do, not just something unique to this system,” Dr. Neilsen said. “And if neutron stars and black holes are doing it, what about supermassive black holes? Perhaps this could pave the way for a deeper understanding of all these systems.”

4 min

Two Decades Later, Villanova Engineering Professor Who Assisted in Hurricane Katrina Investigation Reflects on Role in the Storm's Aftermath

Twenty years ago, Hurricane Katrina hit the southeastern coast of the United States, devastating cities and towns across Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama and beyond. The storm caused nearly 1,400 fatalities, displaced more than 1 million people and generated over $125 billion in damages. Rob Traver, PhD, P.E., D. WRE, F.EWRI, F.ASCE, professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Villanova University, assisted in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) investigation of the failure of the New Orleans Hurricane Protection System during Hurricane Katrina, and earned an Outstanding Civilian Service Medal from the Commanding General of USACE for his efforts. Dr. Traver reflected on his experience working in the aftermath of Katrina, and how the findings from the investigation have impacted U.S. hurricane responses in the past 20 years. Q: What was your role in the investigation of the failure of the New Orleans Hurricane Protection System? Dr. Traver: Immediately after Hurricane Katrina, USACE wanted to assess what went wrong with flood protections that had failed during the storm in New Orleans, but they needed qualified researchers on their team who could oversee their investigation. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), an organization I have been a part of for many years, was hired for this purpose. Our job was to make sure that USACE was asking the right questions during the investigation that would lead to concrete answers about the causes of the failure of the hurricane protection system. My team was focused on analyzing the risk and reliability of the water resource system in New Orleans, and we worked alongside the USACE team, starting with revising the investigation questions in order to get answers about why these water systems failed during the storm. Q: What was your experience like in New Orleans in the aftermath of the hurricane? Dr. Traver: My team went down to New Orleans a few weeks after the hurricane, visited all the sites we were reviewing and met with infrastructure experts along the way as progress was being made on the investigation. As we were flying overhead and looking at the devastated areas, seeing all the homes that were washed away, it was hard to believe that this level of destruction could happen in a city in the United States. As we started to realize the errors that were made and the things that went wrong leading up to the storm, it was heartbreaking to think about how lives could have been saved if the infrastructure in place had been treated as one system and undergone a critical review. Q: What were the findings of the ASCE and USACE investigation team? Dr. Traver: USACE focused on New Orleans because they wanted to figure out why the city’s levee system—a human-made barrier that protects land from flooding by holding back water—failed during the hurricane. The city manages pump stations that are designed to remove water after a rainfall event, but they were not well connected to the levee system and not built to handle major storms. So, one of the main reasons for the levee system failure was that the pump stations and levees were not treated as one system, which was one of the causes of the mass flooding we saw in New Orleans. Another issue we found was that the designers of the levee system never factored in a failsafe for what would happen if a bigger storm occurred and the levee overflowed. They had the right idea by building flood protection systems, but they didn’t think that a larger storm the size of Katrina could occur and never updated the design to bring in new meteorological knowledge on size of potential storms. Since then, the city has completely rebuilt the levees using these lessons learned. Q: What did researchers, scientists and the general population learn from Katrina? Dr. Traver: In areas that have had major hurricanes over the past 20 years, it’s easy to find what went wrong and fix it for the future, so we don’t necessarily worry as much about having a hurricane in the same place as we’ve had one before. What I worry about is if a hurricane hits a new town or city that has not experienced one and we have no idea what the potential frailties of the prevention systems there could be. Scientists and researchers also need to make high-risk areas for hurricane activity in the United States known for those who live there. People need to know what their risk is if they are in areas where there is increased risk of storms and flooding, and what they should do when a storm hits, especially now with the changes we are seeing in storm size.

View all posts
Powered by