Partisan politics has created an increasingly polarized political climate in the United States. Despite the divisive political climate, women’s representation in politics has also increased drastically over the years. I began this project to see if there is a partisan rivalry between women in politics or a sense of shared “womanhood.” This thesis explores the role political parties play for women in office by examining how they vote on bills, what type of bills they propose, and whether or not they work collaboratively with their female counterparts at the Arizona State Legislature. My main goals for this project are to see how strong or weak political parties are in shaping political behavior at the Arizona State Legislature and to determine if there is a sense of “womanhood” despite different political affiliations. I also explore the role party affiliation plays within women legislators at the Arizona State Legislature.

In recent years, immigration, especially concerning those individuals immigrating from Central America and Mexico, has become increasingly controversial. Within the last five presidents, policies concerning immigration have shifted. Under President Bill Clinton in 1997, the Flores Settlement, an agreement between immigration activist organizations and the government that created standards for detaining accompanied and unaccompanied minors was made. Following 9/11, in 2005, President George W. Bush increased the amount of money spent on immigration enforcement in an effort to deport more immigrants. President Barack Obama increased the number of deportations from President Bush during his first term. However, in 2014, an already imperfect immigration system was disrupted by an influx of child immigrants. As a result, detention centers were at capacity and unable to accommodate the increasing numbers of immigrants. Child migrants were placed in caged-areas, immigration lawyers and courts quickly became overwhelmed with cases, and children were alone and could barely communicate. This thesis explores the various relationships between accompanied and unaccompanied minors from Central America, the American legal system, and the media and broadcast news outlets’ rhetoric concerning child migrants. Focusing on the ways in which immigrant minors are objectified by the legal system and the framing of immigrants in the media, it is evident that their complex interaction allows for the oppression of the child migrants. Since the American legal system and the media influence and respond to each other, the responsibility of the child migrants’ dehumanization is on both the legal system and the rhetoric of the media and broadcast news outlets.

In an effort to address the lack of literature in on-campus active travel, this study aims to investigate the following primary questions:<br/>• What are the modes that students use to travel on campus?<br/>• What are the motivations that underlie the mode choice of students on campus?<br/>My first stage of research involved a series of qualitative investigations. I held one-on-one virtual interviews with students in which I asked them questions about the mode they use and why they feel that their chosen mode works best for them. These interviews served two functions. First, they provided me with insight into the various motivations underlying student mode choice. Second, they provided me with an indication of what explanatory variables should be included in a model of mode choice on campus.<br/>The first half of the research project informed a quantitative survey that was released via the Honors Digest to attract student respondents. Data was gathered on travel behavior as well as relevant explanatory variables.<br/>My analysis involved developing a logit model to predict student mode choice on campus and presenting the model estimation in conjunction with a discussion of student travel motivations based on the qualitative interviews. I use this information to make a recommendation on how campus infrastructure could be modified to better support the needs of the student population.

This research analyzes lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/ questioning (LGBTQ) students’ experiences with sex education in Arizona. This research is a grey literature review of Arizona’s previous state policies, current state sex education curricula law, and legislative proposals within the past few years. Analysis focuses on changes after the repeal of the “no promo homo” law in 2019. Through defining the differences between abstinence only and comprehensive sex education (CSE), this will provide a framework to better understand approaches to sex education. As of now, Arizona stresses abstinence-based education. Delving into LGBTQ students’ general experiences in schools provides a foundation to better understand why these students especially benefit from CSE. Since LGBTQ students are disproportionately affected by bullying and are at increased sexual health risks, it is important to address misperceptions surrounding the LGBTQ community. The purpose of this research is to push for more LGBTQ inclusive sex education curricula in Arizona.

Americans today face an age of information overload. With the evolution of Media 3.0, the internet, and the rise of Media 3.5—i.e., social media—relatively new communication technologies present pressing challenges for the First Amendment in American society. Twentieth century law defined freedom of expression, but in an information-limited world. By contrast, the twenty-first century is seeing the emergence of a world that is overloaded with information, largely shaped by an “unintentional press”—social media. Americans today rely on just a small concentration of private technology powerhouses exercising both economic and social influence over American society. This raises questions about censorship, access, and misinformation. While the First Amendment protects speech from government censorship only, First Amendment ideology is largely ingrained across American culture, including on social media. Technological advances arguably have made entry into the marketplace of ideas—a fundamental First Amendment doctrine—more accessible, but also more problematic for the average American, increasing his/her potential exposure to misinformation. <br/><br/>This thesis uses political and judicial frameworks to evaluate modern misinformation trends, social media platforms and current misinformation efforts, against the background of two misinformation accelerants in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic and U.S. presidential election. Throughout history, times of hardship and intense fear have contributed to the shaping of First Amendment jurisprudence. Thus, this thesis looks at how fear can intensify the spread of misinformation and influence free speech values. Extensive research was conducted to provide the historical context behind relevant modern literature. This thesis then concludes with three solutions to misinformation that are supported by critical American free speech theory.

Fluoroquinolone antibiotics have been known to cause severe, multisystem adverse side effects, termed fluoroquinolone toxicity (FQT). This toxicity syndrome can present with adverse effects that vary from individual to individual, including effects on the musculoskeletal and nervous systems, among others. The mechanism behind FQT in mammals is not known, although various possibilities have been investigated. Among the hypothesized FQT mechanisms, those that could potentially explain multisystem toxicity include off-target mammalian topoisomerase interactions, increased production of reactive oxygen species, oxidative stress, and oxidative damage, as well as metal chelating properties of FQs. This review presents relevant information on fluoroquinolone antibiotics and FQT and explores the mechanisms that have been proposed. A fluoroquinolone-induced increase in reactive oxygen species and subsequent oxidative stress and damage presents the strongest evidence to explain this multisystem toxicity syndrome. Understanding the mechanism of FQT in mammals is important to aid in the prevention and treatment of this condition.

The right to cast a meaningful vote, equal in value to other votes, is a fundamental tenet US elections. Despite the 1964 Supreme Court decision formally establishing the one person, one vote principle as a legal requirement of elections, our democracy consistently falls short of it. With mechanisms including the winner-take-all format in the Electoral College, disproportioned geographic allocation of senators, extreme partisan gerrymandering in the House of Representatives, and first-past-the-post elections, many voters experience severe vote dilution. <br/><br/>In order to legitimize our democratic structures, American elections should be reformed so every person’s vote has equal weight, ensuring that the election outcomes reflect the will of the people. Altering the current election structure to include more proportional structures including rank choice voting and population-based representation, will result in a democracy more compatible with the one person, one vote principle.