Barrett, The Honors College Thesis/Creative Project Collection
Barrett, The Honors College at Arizona State University proudly showcases the work of undergraduate honors students by sharing this collection exclusively with the ASU community.
Barrett accepts high performing, academically engaged undergraduate students and works with them in collaboration with all of the other academic units at Arizona State University. All Barrett students complete a thesis or creative project which is an opportunity to explore an intellectual interest and produce an original piece of scholarly research. The thesis or creative project is supervised and defended in front of a faculty committee. Students are able to engage with professors who are nationally recognized in their fields and committed to working with honors students. Completing a Barrett thesis or creative project is an opportunity for undergraduate honors students to contribute to the ASU academic community in a meaningful way.
Filtering by
Did He Kill the Mockingbird? provides an alternate ending to To Kill a Mockingbird. In the original play, the townspeople never discovered that Arthur Radley killed Bob Ewell. In Did He Kill the Mockingbird? a townsperson overhears Atticus Finch and Heck Tate discussing Bob Ewell's death. This leads the townsperson to tell others in Maycomb County of the events that had unfolded the night Bob Ewell died.
As the play progresses, we explore how ignorance, willful and not, change the daily lives and actions of individuals who have mental illnesses and disabilities such as Autism. The townspeople may not see a problem with the way they treat Arthur Radley, as he is just a man who they believe stabbed his mother. However, in reality, they are causing more harm by encouraging and perpetuating rumors about Arthur Radley. In turn, the rumors enhance the stigma that plagues Arthur Radley.
Jean Louise Finch is the main character in Did he Kill the Mockingbird? Jean supports Arthur Radley, and is able to see the good in him although the rest of the townspeople continue to believe he is a bad person.
I hope that my version of this alternative ending to original play brings to light the changes that we need to make as a society to encourage the acceptance of all people. As a society, we need to treat all people, whether disabled or not, as equals. Rather than perpetuating stereotypes, we need to encourage everyone to work hard and reach for their goals whatever they may be.
Both great civilizations achieved their empires due to their innovative supply chains, organizational tactics, and culture. Each, however, presented their own unique solutions to the problem of world conquest by capitalizing on their respective strengths. For the Romans, this meant placing an emphasis on infrastructure, adopting and modifying the technologies of other peoples, and instituting a culture that emphasized achievement and resilience among an aristocratic elite. The Mongol’s, however, focused on their force’s mobility rather than infrastructure, emphasized recruiting of outsiders to supplement their weakness, and developed a meritocratic system largely free of aristocratic structure. Both empires, however, emphasized the importance of each soldier as a self-sufficient unit to ease the strain of the overall supply chain.
These two civilizations therefore provide valuable insight for two diametrically opposed business environments. The first being manufacturing companies, with the need for rigid processes and investments in infrastructure not unlike the Romans. The second being startups with their need for speed and flexibility much like the Mongols. Thus, by examining the past modern companies gain valuable insights in how to structure their organizations for the future.
The text of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) states that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” The amendment was authored by Alice Paul and was first introduced into Congress in 1923. The ERA did not make much progress until 1970, when Representative Martha Griffiths from Michigan filed a discharge petition demanding that the ERA move out of the judiciary committee to be heard by the full United States House of Representatives. The House passed it and it went on to the Senate, where it was approved and sent to the states for ratification. By 1977, 35 states had voted to ratify the ERA, but it did not reach the 38 states-threshold required for ratification before the 1982 deadline set by Congress. More recently, Nevada ratified the ERA in March 2017, and Illinois followed suit in May 2018. On January 27th, 2020, Virginia finalized its ratification, making it the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.
Supporters of the ERA argue that we have reached the required goal of approval by 38 states. However, opponents may have at least two legal arguments to challenge this claim by ERA advocates. First, the deadline to ratify was 1982. Second, five states have voted to rescind their ratification since their initial approval. These political and legal challenges must be addressed and resolved before the ERA can be considered part of the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, ERA advocates continue to pursue certification. There are complicated questions to untangle here, to be sure, but by listening to a variety of perspectives and critically examining the historical and legal context, it may be possible to find some answers. Indeed, Arizona, which has yet to ratify the ERA, could play a vital role in the on-going fight for the ERA.
male bias in the English language. Male bias can be traced through American history in the form of laws of coverture and the categorization of women in law. Taking into account the connections between sexist language, history, and law, this paper investigates 1) how and why legal language is biased, 2) why male bias has persisted in law over time, and 3) what impact male-biased law has on women. The works of ancient philosophers, feminist historians, psycholinguistic scientists, and modern philosophers of law are used to explain the patriarchal gender hierarchy’s influence on law. Case law and legal policies demonstrate that sexism has been maintained through history due to the preservation of male-biased language and the exclusion of women from the public sphere. Today, the use of masculine generics continues to taint the legal profession by reflecting, rather than denouncing, its patriarchal roots.
The paper is meant to serve as a base of reference material for future, real world, project proposals to historical organizations. A mock proposal to the Fullersburg Historic Foundation, proposing the digital mediums and methods discussed, is included at the end of the paper.
In concluding thoughts, Matt I appears to have the depth and breadth of skills needed to make impactful media. And the mediums of media have been as diverse as the subjects they cover. But upon reviewing his own review, it took someone else smarter had to tell me that though there is diversity abound in his portfolio, there is a single baseline: Keeping history alive. Every one of these mediums can be used to infuse a sense of digital energy, simulated life, back into historical artifacts and documentation. The historical characters return to live when a medium brings back the motion, the energy, of the thing it is showing. If the medium infuses this life back into the story. The results are nothing short of magic.