Indigenous presence has become a hallmark of recognition for the colonial violence that takes place at universities, but the labor required from Indigenous students often demands that they absolve the university of wrongdoing. Refusal has been a research method used amongst indigenous scholars to intervene in the extractive method of documenting pain narratives. Ethnographic refusal is one way of emphasizing the relationship between indigenous researchers, communities, and the ethnographic data appropriated by institutions. However, scholars have theorized refusal largely in the context of ethnographic research of Indigenous subjects. Additionally, these discussions do not explore the history of Jesuit universities and Indigenous communities, given the violent history against Indigenous peoples in California. Through an analysis of the relationship between Indigenous researchers and universities, I use various archives at Loyola Marymount University (LMU) to understand the absence of Indigenous presence within the university. My research asks, what can the absence of indigenous life within LMU archives tell us about the refusal to comply with LMU’s desire to extract and co-opt the labor of recognition? By focusing on LMU and its Indigenous presence, I provide a unique Jesuit context to discussions on refusal. My research primarily looks at archived newspapers, photographs, film negatives, and email exchanges found within LMU’s library, and digital sources outside of the university. My research interrogates refusal, not simply as a relation of withholding information, but as an active denial of the labor the university seeks from indigenous students to remedy its own harm.

Anti-immigrant messaging by the Trump administration frequently portrays immigrants, particularly Latinos, as threats to public safety and national security, despite evidence showing lower rates of criminal activity among immigrant populations. This study investigates how exposure to Trump-era anti-immigrant messaging affects college students' and U.S. adults' beliefs, trust in government institutions, and willingness to share political content. Using an online survey, approximately 200 UCLA students will report their media exposure, evaluate the credibility of selected messages, and respond to ICE recruitment materials. Approximately 200 non-UCLA participants recruited via Prolific will enable comparison with a broader population. Attitudes toward immigrants, emotional reactions, and behavioral intentions will be measured using Likert-scale and closed-ended items, then analyzed through correlations, multiple regression, and analysis of variance. We anticipate that exposure to anti-immigrant propaganda will influence perceived credibility, reduce institutional trust, and shape intentions to discuss or share content. We further expect men to be more likely than women to identify as politically conservative and, consequently, to perceive anti-immigrant messages as more credible. Complementing this, a thematic analysis of interviews with approximately 20 immigrant participants will examine how those directly affected interpret, experience, and respond to such messaging, offering deeper insight into its personal and social impacts. This study advances understanding of how state-sponsored political messaging circulates among young adults, shapes public perceptions, and influences civic engagement. Findings may inform media literacy initiatives, public communication strategies, and educational programs that foster critical thinking, reduce susceptibility to biased messaging, and promote informed democratic participation.

In press briefings about airstrikes, why do politicians sometimes provide information about the number of strikes and at other times speak in non-numerical terms? I illustrate this puzzle and provide emerging arguments in the context of Operation Inherent Resolve from 2014 to 2016. Using automated scraping, I collect 144 statements and employ a coding scheme to capture strike counts mentioned. To test the relationship between airstrike frequency and the communication of airstrike numbers, I compare statements mentioning the number of strikes with U.S. Central Command airstrike reports, which indicates no immediate relationship. Instead, I find that administration officials were more likely to provide concrete numerical information about airstrikes when battlefield conditions were deteriorating and when questioned about conflicting war views within the administration. Compared to other signals of military progress, airstrike numbers are harder to measure independently, accumulate as a conflict progresses, and are less likely to be accompanied by adverse information. Therefore, when negative conflict information threatens a leader's war position, they can leverage the number of airstrikes as a more favorable metric and reframe the criteria for successful military action. I plan to incorporate 17 cases of U.S. military interventions from the Military Intervention Project, combining intra-month conflict conditions and political disputes to predict when airstrike numbers are communicated. And to isolate the causal effect of airstrike numbers on public support for the use of force, I design a panel survey experiment that presents a hypothetical military intervention and varies whether a statement reports an airstrike count.

When a household faces a sudden financial emergency, where do they turn for help? While some families rely on mainstream banks and credit unions, many others navigate these crises through payday lenders, pawnshops, and check-cashing outlets. These choices are often framed as the result of financial vulnerability or limited financial literacy. This study challenges that narrative by asking whether trust itself functions as a form of economic infrastructure. I argue that financial participation is not only about income, access to a bank branch, or knowledge of financial products. It also depends on whether individuals believe institutions are working for them rather than against them. When that trust is weakened, families may not simply fail to use mainstream banks; they may adapt by turning to alternative financial pathways. Using data from the 2020 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey, I employ binary logistic regression to estimate the likelihood of AFS use as a function of trust in the federal government, while accounting for key socioeconomic and demographic factors, including income, financial hardship, employment status, banking status, age, gender, and education. I expect lower trust in formal banking institutions to be associated with a higher likelihood of AFS use, though this relationship may vary across racial and ethnic groups given unequal experiences with the state, mainstream banking, and formal financial institutions. By linking financial behavior to institutional trust and racial inequality, this project contributes to broader conversations about economic vulnerability, financial exclusion, and the role of public institutions in shaping everyday financial decision-making.