Ankle monitors are not the bright, kind alternative to incarceration that they are made to be. Advocates propose them as a solution to overcrowded carceral sites and excessive federal expenditure on public corrections agencies. Their logic being we can release certain incarcerated people to reduce prison, jail, and detention center populations and require them to pay for their monitoring to reduce prison expenditures. While there is potential for ankle monitors to achieve these aspirations, it is necessary to recognize how and where they can produce harm. Rather than being an alternative to incarceration, ankle monitors are a method of incarceration. They serve the same functions and hold the same power as prisons and jails with a more elusive form. In the current implementation of ankle monitors, we see individual bodies being transformed into sources of data to be capitalized upon by the government and private companies. Along with this, there is a shift of the financial burden of incarceration from prisons to the person being punished. This acts to further perpetuate the cycles of poverty and financial oppression that are seen within traditional forms of incarceration. Ankle monitor advocates also claim ankle monitors allow incarcerated people to enjoy freedom beyond prison walls and reintegrate into society. In reality, this is an oversimplification of freedom. Individuals with ankle monitors find themselves to be limited in their freedoms by restricted movement and stigmatization. They are unable to live a “normal” life because their ankle monitors prevent them from doing so. These people cannot move as they please, they cannot find and hold employment, and they cannot interact with people like they normally would. Ankle monitor usage must be critically examined and altered if it is to be considered a meaningful, gentle alternative to incarceration.

This study looked at student’s perceptions of COVID-19 and differences in how universities handled COVID-19. It aimed to assess what measures made students feel safe and were the most effective in lessening spread. A risk-perception survey scored feelings of safety/risk, and semi-structured interviews provided context. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis showed mixed opinions on university measures, and interviews identified wearing masks, social distancing, isolating, and limiting social contacts as measures that were effective in curbing spread.

Developing a vaccine during the midst of a pandemic requires a careful balance between <br/>speed, safety, and efficacy. For the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. implemented Operation Warp Speed to accelerate the timeline for vaccine development. The FDA also imposed specific guidelines for granting Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). As of April 1st, 2021, Operation Warp Speed resulted in three different vaccines receiving EUA, all of which are currently being administered to the public. However, the rapid production and changes in the approval process intensified public scrutiny on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. This thesis analyzes the differences in fast-tracking a vaccine, which consolidated the authorization process into months rather than years, and delineates the main concerns of the public regarding the COVID-19 vaccine through a media analysis. Although the EUA raised questions about the safety of the vaccine, polls indicate that most Americans would still be willing to receive the vaccine.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a tremendous impact on people’s lives and it has reemphasized health inequities in the United States. Historically, minority communities have faced barriers to accessing health care and demonstrated hesitancies to getting vaccinated for various diseases. This has led to disparities in terms of how different diseases affect different communities. This same pattern has been seen regarding how COVID-19 has affected different ethnicities in the U.S. Statistics have shown vaccination disparities for COVID-19 among different ethnicities and organizations in the U.S. have employed different strategies to address this health inequity. This thesis analyzes the hesitancies and barriers to getting vaccinated for COVID-19, specifically among African Americans and Hispanics. Additionally, this thesis looks at the strategies that have been used to address the vaccination inequities that have affected these two ethnicities with a focus specifically on how mass vaccination sites and mobile health clinics try to address the vaccination disparity.