EXEMPLARY UNDERGRADUATE WRITING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM
VOLUME 33 | 2024 – 2025
EXEMPLARY UNDERGRADUATE WRITING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM
VOLUME 33 | 2024 – 2025
MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of The George Mason Review is to capture Mason’s spirit, where “innovation is tradition,” through the publication of diverse works from across the curriculum. The George Mason Review, a publication for undergraduates by undergraduates, seeks scholarship that demonstrates creativity and critical thought. In its print and virtual form, this cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary journal features exemplary academic work and welcomes submissions that challenge the boundaries of how scholarship has traditionally been defined.
HOW TO SUBMIT YOUR WORK
The George Mason Review accepts submissions year round. We accept research writing, literary critiques or analyses, creative nonfiction, and all other forms of scholarship. Find submission guidelines online at gmreview.gmu.edu. Submit your work via georgemasonreview.submittable.com/submit
PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Submissions underwent a two-tiered peer review process. Peer reviewers evaluated papers on the categories of “Quality of Writing,” “Clarity of Writing,” “Knowledge/ Depth of Field,” and “Interest/Applicability of Topic.” These peer reviewers, all from different majors, were looking for papers that were both the best in their fields and understandable to people from other fields. The Assistant Editor and Editor-in-Chief reviewed all papers that made it to the second round in order to select the papers that you see published here.
This volume would not have been possible without the extraordinary efforts of the following people:
EXECUTIVE BOARD
Amber Del Rocco
Katelyn McKee
Gabriela Rosa
Editor-In-Chief
Associate Editor
Design & Media Editor
PEER REVIEWERS
Lizzie Flores
Sam Subedi
Smrithi Balakumar
FACULTY ADVISOR
Jason Hartsel
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks to Kathryn Mangus, David Carroll, Leah Lewis, and the Office of Student Media.
NOTE FROM THE EDITOR
Dear Patriots,
It is my absolute honor and privilege to present you with the 33rd edition of The George Mason Review. This has been such a crazy, fun, and stressful ride, but I wouldn’t change it for the world. I am incredibly grateful to our Director of Student Media, Kathryn Mangus, and our Faculty Advisor, Jason Hartsel. Both of you believed in me and took a chance on me, which is not something that I take lightly. I still remember the day that I walked in on a random, rainy Thursday afternoon and asked if there were any job openings, internships, or volunteer positions. I didn’t expect much to come of it, but I figured the worst that they could tell me was no. To my surprise, I landed an on-the-spot interview with Jason and the rest was history. Within a week, I took the job, rolled up my sleeves, and got to work. This experience has taught me that the best person to invest in is yourself and that you don’t know what you’re capable of until you try. Even if you don’t think you’re qualified for something, apply for it anyway. Jason, I could not have done this without you. You are such an easygoing, intelligent, and resourceful leader. I can’t sing your praises enough! To my team, who I definitely could not have done this project without and think the absolute world of – thank you from the bottom of my heart. Your ambition, brilliance, and creativity were incredible to witness. From the moment we met, I knew it was a special group because our chemistry was so effortless, organic, and genuine. To our fantastic peer reviewers, Lizzie Flores, Sam Subedi, and Smrithi Balakumar, I am truly thankful for your teamwork, time, and talent. You never ceased to amaze me! To our outstanding Assistant Editor, Katelyn McKee, thank you for your patience, trust, and expertise. You were such a joy to work with, and I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t going to miss our partnership. To our brilliant Design & Media Editor, Gabriela Rosa, your attention to detail, creative direction, and work ethic are simply unmatched! A special thank you goes to Dean Burr for writing this year’s guest essay and her wonderful assistant, Marilyn Clark, who helped put us in touch. And finally, thank you to all of the amazing students who submitted their work in hopes of it being published. There were a lot of brilliant submissions to choose from, and we are so lucky that you trusted us to tell your story.
Warm regards,
Amber Del Rocco Editor-in-Chief
GUEST ESSAY
THE TRANSFORMATIONAL POWER OF RESEARCH
ZOFIA BURR, Ph.D.
Dean, Honors College
The brilliant discoveries, insights, and scholarship published in The George Mason Review are a testament to the exceptional vibrancy and productivity of undergraduate researchers at our university. Furthermore, it highlights the unwavering commitment of GMR ’s editors to publishing scholarship that challenges the boundaries of discipline, ingenuity, and tradition. Having devoted my career at George Mason University to fostering an environment where students have the support and freedom to discover, develop, and pursue their questions wherever they may lead, I am proud and grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to this year’s edition of The George Mason Review.
When people ask meaningful questions and pursue them with dedication, integrity, and rigor, their findings have the potential to change lives. Depending on the scope and the focus of the question, the answer may provide a solution that literally saves lives—such as when a complex question about how to eradicate a lifethreatening disease is answered by the creation of a vaccine. What’s equally important are the questions that open our understanding of one another and ultimately unite us—such as when the results of thorough and genuine inquiry illuminate the lives of people whose experiences and perspectives had been previously unknown to the researcher’s audience. New understanding of another community might provide the foundation for cross-community relationships and policies grounded in collaboration, empathy, and respect.
The student scholars who publish their research in The George Mason Review are already changing their readers’ understanding of issues, topics, and questions of every kind. Those who continue to do research have the potential to make contributions of broad, visible, and increasing significance. The transformational opportunities of research are available to scholars long before they make prize-winning or lifesaving discoveries, however. Those opportunities first emerge from the researcher’s openness to seeking the evidence and following wherever it may lead them.
The transformational value of openness is amplified in a research community with others who can point out sources, ideas, perspectives, and data that we may not have thought to ever consider, and who will both challenge us to look beyond our assumptions and support us in the work of staying open. At George Mason University, students and scholars representing many backgrounds, circumstances, disciplines, civic, and professional interests have the opportunity to work together to address important questions. We also have the opportunity to have our own lives transformed every day as we listen to and learn from those who may see the world drastically different than we do.
Neither the work of research or of learning from those who challenge us to see the world differently is easy. There are always pressures both within and beyond ourselves that vigorously work against openness. But especially in times when the freedom to ask some questions is challenged, we need to lean in on the work
of openness. This is not easy work for any of us, but, if practiced with patience, resilience, and compassion, openness results in our most creative ideas and solutions.
Our university has adopted a bold and ambitious research agenda, The Grand Challenge , which names the human needs and aspirations of the twenty-first century. These initiatives include:
• Advancing 21 st Century Education for All
• Building a Climate Resilient Society
• Driving Responsible Digital Innovation and Sustainable Cyberinfrastructure
• Improving Human Health, Well-Being, and Preparedness
• Pioneering Space Exploration, Research, and Collaboration for Humanity
• Strengthening Peace, Trust, and Engagement in Democracy
Together, we can address these challenges in research by practicing empathy, imagination, and integrity.
STUDENT WORKS
FIRST PLACE
DOMINANT NARRATIVE AND THE LARAMIE PROJECT
DREW KOLBER
Major: Conflict Analysis and Resolution Class of 2026
INTRODUCTION
In 1998, the murder of Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming became a watershed moment for gay rights in America. The brutal killing of this young, gay man sparked broad outrage, inspired hate crime legislation, and gave rise to influential artistic works like The Laramie Project, a play that would shape the collective imagination and understanding of the event for decades to come. But what really happened that night? Beneath this dominant narrative lies an intricate web of competing stories. These conflicting accounts—from the play’s portrayal of Matthew as a martyr to local perspectives insinuating the murder was drug-related—reveal how different communities construct narratives that align with their worldviews and experiences. Warring truths are fodder for interpersonal conflict, and these competing narratives became intimately woven into my life. My participation in a production of The Laramie Project led to a challenging conversation with a dear friend, who possessed deep ties to the region. Following a conflict vignette describing this dispute, I offer an analysis of the conflicting narratives about the Shepard case, using Root Narrative Theory to parse the political grammar of excerpts from both The Laramie Project and Stephen Jimenez’s contradictory account in The Book of Matt. Finally, I propose specific conflict resolution strategies—including narrative mediation techniques and collaborative avoidance—as paths toward reconciling these divergent perspectives while honoring the complex truth of what happened in Laramie.
CONFLICT VIGNETTE: A PERSONAL ENCOUNTER WITH COMPETING NARRATIVES
In my junior year of high school, I had the opportunity to participate in a production of The Laramie Project. The piece is a seminal work of documentary theatre memorializing the death of Matthew Shepard, whose murder and the ensuing legal battle is known as one of the most infamous anti-gay hate crimes in American history. Putting on the play was immensely meaningful because although I hadn’t yet recognized it in myself, I, too, was a young, gay person and saw myself in the characters. Our careful study of this play, which immortalizes the case that led to a renaissance in support of the gay community, was invigorating.
Yet, while preparing for the show, my dream-like perception of art as a tool for social change was somewhat shattered when Nikki, my childhood babysitter, came to visit. Nikki grew up LDS on a family-owned cattle ranch in Fort Bridger, Wyoming. She sees the world with immense clarity and careful contemplation, which I deeply respect her for. Fort Bridger is just a few hours from Laramie, and when I told her that my school was putting on a production of the play, she seemed to stifle a grimace. She was careful to ask me what my experience had been and to inquire into how the school was handling the subject matter. I offered my experience with the story, illustrating how I found it both devastating and galvanizing. She listened with care and then offered the possibility of a different perspective. She knew members of the Laramie community, she said, and—mostly behind closed doors—they offered a narrative that was deeply incongruent with the story presented in the play and parroted in mainstream gayrights activist circles. These locals, she offered, claimed Matthew didn’t die of a horrific hate crime and wasn’t a martyr for a greater cause, as he’s often portrayed. Rather, he was a victim of a different pervasive tragedy: a drug-related revenge killing. Nikki in no way tried to say this made his death just, but she was interested in widening my perspective with her knowledge.
Immediately, I was resistant to the idea. I was inherently moved by the members of the community who worked around the clock to save Matthew’s life. And for those who, in the wake of his death, worked to make Laramie a more inclusive place. As such, I pushed back against my beloved family friend. Still in the closet, I couldn’t yet articulate why this was such a sore subject. But I knew I valued this cause, which made it much more difficult to hear an alternative perspective. Nikki’s core request was for me to do some reading into the perspectives of the Laramie community members that she knew. She wanted me to explore other literature on the subject because she was concerned I was only being exposed to one point of view. It was evident to her that The Laramie Project was a work of art, but she wanted me to consider that it might also be
a work of fiction. It was important to her that I saw the people of rural Wyoming with truth and clarity, not exclusively through the lenses of the Tectonic Theatre Project, an independent theater company that cultivated a particular narrative about how the case occurred. I, on the other hand, wanted to revitalize a deeper connection with this woman who had helped raise me but had since moved far away. Behind closed doors, I desperately craved for her to be proud of me for being a part of the play and telling this story. I wanted to cement a more mature relationship based on a mutual appreciation for the history and culture of a place not far from her hometown. We left the end of our exchange in a place of tension because Nikki didn’t feel heard, and I was genuinely hurt.
ROOT NARRATIVE THEORY AS AN APPROPRIATE ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
With this scenario in mind, a natural path forward is to analyze the dynamics of this conflict. In their book, Interpersonal Conflict, authors Hocker and Wilmont offer the “general systems theory” (Hocker and Wilmont 232) to do just that. They advocate for first breaking conflicts into descriptive language, in which one “assesses the system from a ‘no blame’ perspective” (Hocker and Wilmont 232). The scholars suggest that analysts should then center on circular causality, in which focus is placed on “the sequence of patterns in the conflict process” (Hocker and Wilmont 232). Conflicts can also be considered as “chain reactions” (Hocker and Wilmont 232) or “predictable patterns of what people will do” (Hocker and Wilmont 232) with particular regard to escalatory moments and behaviors, as each plays a part in the “run-away spiral” (Hocker and Wilmont 232). While this is an effective method of analysis, I’m more interested in exploring my moment of tension with Nikki as a microcosm of a larger narrative clash. General Systems Theory is ill-equipped for such a mission, but Root Narrative Theory (RNT), meanwhile, is far better suited for such a pursuit. In his book, Enumerating the Theory’s Premise, author Solon Simmons explains that RNT is a “solution to an enduring problem in social science, one in which we aim to measure ideology, beliefs, ultimate values, worldviews, and the subjective dimension in politics” (Simmons 215). The technique provides a material way to point out political arguments emerging from different conceptions of the abuse of power, especially as it pertains to the military, politics, economics, and status. Four corresponding narratives surface from these conceptions of culpability: the security narrative (in which the focus is on protecting the people), the liberty narrative (in which the focus is on protecting individuals from the government), the equality narrative (in which the focus is on protecting the people from the abuse of the elite), and the dignity narrative (in which the focus
is on protecting marginalized demographics from discrimination and oppression). It is a strong model that demonstrates a nuanced vision of moral politics. Furthermore, it is perfect for illustrating the inner workings of texts like The Laramie Project and The Book of Matt, which reflect deep ideological divisions about power, justice, and truth in American society.
DIGNITARIAN NARRATIVES IN THE LARAMIE PROJECT
Several potential narrative threads could be analyzed within The Laramie Project. In lengthy monologues and snippets of dialogue, the characters in the play harken to securitarian narratives about community safety and stability, as well as egalitarian narratives regarding accountability and justice; and even competing libertarian narratives about individual rights and freedoms. Throughout the work, the sub-narrative that I found to be most prominent was dignitarian narratives around LGBT+ recognition and inclusion. The following monologue delivered by the character Zubaida Ula, a Muslim university student living in Laramie, encompasses this:
“We went to the candle vigil. And it was so good to be with people who felt like shit. I kept feeling like I don’t deserve to feel this bad, you know? And someone got up there and said, “C’mon, guys, let’s show the world that Laramie is not this kind of a town.” But it IS that kind of a town. If it wasn’t this kind of a town, why did this happen here? I mean, you know what I mean, like—that’s a lie. Because it happened here. So, how could it not be a town where this kind of thing happens? Like, that’s just totally—like, looking at an Escher painting and getting all confused, like, it’s just totally like circular logic, like how can you even say that? And we have to mourn this and we have to be sad that we live in a town, a state, a country where shit like this happens. And I’m not going to step away from that and say, “We need to show the world this didn’t happen.” I mean, these are people trying to distance themselves from this crime. But we need to own this crime. I feel. Everyone needs to own it. We are like this. We ARE like this. WE are LIKE this.” (Kaufman 512-513)
Breaking down the key narrative elements of this passage, it becomes clear that the perceived “victims” are both Matthew Shepard directly and the broader gay community. The villains, meanwhile, are not just the direct perpetrators, but the entire community that aims to distance themselves from the crime. The core abuse of power lies in the collective denial of responsibility and the reality of discrimination. Prominent is Ula’s direct address of the dignitarian concern about recognition of responsibility. The
repeated refrain, “We ARE like this”, is particularly significant because it refuses to allow the dominant group to avoid recognition of their role, demands acknowledgment of systemic discrimination, and challenges the power dynamic of who gets to define the community’s identity. Ula’s perspective is particularly interesting because she is a Hijabi. As an observant Muslim in the rural Rocky Mountain West, she speaks from the position of someone who likely experiences being in an out-group herself; yet she includes herself in the collective “we” that must take responsibility.
EGALITARIAN NARRATIVES IN THE BOOK OF MATT
Stephen Jimenez’s The Book of Matt: The Real Story of the Murder of Matthew Shepard is equally diverse in its narrative profile. Under scrupulous interviewing by Jimenez, a myriad of public officials and local community members offer testimony and new insights on the proceedings of the case and its resulting outcomes. One such official was “Mac” McBurney, the warden at the prison where Russell Henderson, one of the perpetrators, is held. After watching a tape of Jimenez’s interview with Henderson, the guard offered some stark commentary:
“What the hell kind of lawyer did that kid have?” he asked sourly.
“A court-appointed one,” I replied.
I explained that since Russell and his grandmother had no financial resources, he’d been represented by the county public defender—a lawyer whose alleged nickname among some of his Wyoming defense colleagues was “the Angel of Death.”
Hard-bitten by decades of prison duty, with “few illusions about convicts or the justice system,” Mac shook his head in disbelief that Russell, then twenty-six, was set to spend the rest of his life incarcerated.
This passage primarily reflects an egalitarian worldview, particularly the accountability sub-narrative. Through McBurney’s eyes, the victim is Henderson, who was ultimately deprived of just legal representation. The villain, meanwhile, is ‘the system,’ which in this case would be the inexorable public defender. The implied miscarriage of justice is centered on the lack of resources, which resulted in systemic unfairness in legal representation, explicitly connecting the quality of justice to economic means. The “Angel of Death” moniker also underscores a pattern of poor outcomes for defendants who are represented by this public defender in court. The warden’s assertion that Henderson “doesn’t belong here” (Jimenez 721) works to support the suggestion that the system failed to deliver proper justice. This passage uses the egalitarian ‘cheated
by crooked elites’ framework but instead applies it to someone who was convicted of a violent crime. The prison warden, positioned as an experienced insider of the system, lends credibility to this perspective.
This represents a significant contrast to the dignitarian narratives seen in The Laramie Project excerpt. While the passage from The Laramie Project is focused on community responsibility for anti-LGBT+ violence, this passage from The Book of Matt reframes the narrative to focus on economic inequalities in the justice system. In utilizing Root Narrative Theory to analyze the two narrative excerpts, complexity is added to the picture of a ‘true victim’ or ‘true villain.’ Matthew Shepard was undoubtedly the injured party, but culpability for the outcomes that emerged after his death is far more dispersed amongst the citizens of Laramie than the dominant cultural narrative might realize. This kind of analysis brings such realities to the forefront.
PATHS FORWARD: APPROACHES TO NARRATIVE RECONCILIATION
Understanding these narratives as products of different moral frameworks, rather than simply competing versions of truth, opens up possibilities for resolution. When viewed through this lens, the goal shifts from determining which story is “correct,” to understanding how different communities make meaning from tragic events. In considering a path forward and the appropriate conflict strategies for resolving the long-standing dispute, I must consider my options: conflicts can be dealt with through means of avoidance, accommodation, compromise, competing, or (most commonly), collaboration. As a general rule, collaboration in its various forms seems to be the most congruent path forward, or at least the one where engaging in “dangerous love” (Ford 62)—or operating from a position of cautious openness—is worth it.
As such, in working to shift my dynamic with Nikki, I’m interested in utilizing the “narrative mediation” method presented in the book When Stories Crash. If we returned to the table to discuss this challenging subject, it’d be necessary to come together (likely by way of a third party) to ‘externalize’ our issues and agree that “the person is not the problem, the problem is the problem” (Monk and Winslade 64). Acknowledging this as truth would allow Nikki and I to reframe the issue as one separate from our moral standing. Calling into question that core component of identity is highly counterproductive to healthy dialogue. And so, it must be addressed head on. Also necessary to the narrative mediation process is to ‘map the effects’ of the problem by inquiring into its past, present, and even imagined future implications (Monk and Winslade 66). This includes drawing attention to the impact our shared discordance has had on our relationship up until now. As a result of being interconnected in a relationship for so long,
both Nikki and I were guilty to a degree of the “static mindset” in our consideration of each other. She, having known me since I was an infant, was wary of my ability to decipher fanfare from fact. Meanwhile, I assumed the deepest way I could connect with her was by discussion of her place of origin, when in truth she has had a whole life outside of Wyoming since I first met her. ‘Mapping the effects’ of the problem also includes imagining how failing to resolve the conflict would continue to hinder our relationship. The authors contend that participants “often shudder at the thought that things could get worse and are often even more inclined to move towards a change” (Monk and Winslade 68). This rings true for Nikki and me because our relationship is too precious to me to let it remain in jeopardy.
It’s important to note that mediation is inherently quite formal and highly organized. ‘Emergence,’ an amorphous ideal conflict resolution state in which the participants move fluidly towards some kind of resolution, is much less easy to access in such an environment. Additionally, if we are unable to shift our perspective to see the ‘problem as the problem,’ instead of as an issue within each other, Nikki and I might find ourselves cornered in the most in-agentic place we could be in the conflict. If the problem lies fully within our opponent, the only way forward is for them to change, and we as individual entities have little to no real power over them. In this way, narrative mediation could be highly successful as a method for resolving the complex interpersonal repercussions a conflict like the Matthew Shepard case can cause, but the process must be handled steadily and with immense care.
Yet, more broadly, collaboration is not always achievable. In an ideal world, I might propose a form of conflict transformation in which community members are encouraged to “see the humanity of another person so clearly that his or her needs and desires matter as much to me as my own” (Ford 62), even when the other party fails to reciprocate this same generosity. It would be optimal for there to be complete collaboration in which communities can thoroughly reconcile opposing narratives and each party is given the opportunity to expand their worldview to encompass the other’s perspective. However, this idealistic approach can sometimes do more harm than good, particularly in communities like Laramie where the wounds run deep. In this setting, multiple valid narratives compete while coexisting. The reality is that sometimes the most constructive path forward isn’t through endless dialogue and attempted reconciliation. Instead, what Oakley T. Hill terms “collaborative avoidance”- a mindful agreement between parties to respectfully acknowledge their differences while choosing not to repeatedly engage with them—could be highly effective here. This strategy is best for communities where social cohesion is a higher priority than achieving narrative consensus. In places like Laramie, where people must continue living and working together regardless of their perspectives on controversial events, collaborative avoidance
provides a framework for maintaining functional relationships without demanding that anyone abandon their deeply held beliefs. It’s particularly valuable for community members who have grown weary of having the same unresolvable debates repeatedly reopen old wounds.
Collaborative avoidance, a conflict resolution strategy that describes the lived reality of many people in divided communities, might take shape in an agreement to circumvent certain issues in the relationship. Consequently, this is the right form of conflict resolution for this scenario because it’s the one already in use. Even though it’s less than ideal, avoiding certain subjects can let them lose emotional charge while time heals the wounds left by the conflict. This method acknowledges the reality that some narrative differences may be irreconcilable without invalidating either perspective. This is particularly crucial in situations like the Matthew Shepard case, where different interpretations of events are deeply intertwined with personal identities and community values. For Nikki, this approach honors her connection to rural Wyoming culture and her explicit desire to protect the reputation of the people and the place from oversimplification. Simultaneously, it allows me to preserve the meaningful impact that the mainstream narrative of Matthew’s death had on my journey of self-discovery.
CONCLUSION: LIVING WITH PARALLEL TRUTHS
Ultimately, the Matthew Shepard case remains a complex patchwork of competing narratives. My conflict with Nikki over these narratives mirrors broader tensions that persist in communities like Laramie, where diverging perspectives continue to coexist and occasionally collide. Root Narrative Theory helps illuminate how these competing stories emerge from different moral frameworks and conceptions of power, while concurrently revealing the challenge of reconciling fundamentally different ways of making meaning from tragic events. In proposing collaborative avoidance as a conflict resolution strategy, an important truth is acknowledged: sometimes, the best path forward isn’t through complete narrative reconciliation, but through mindful agreements about how to live with our differences. Just as Nikki and I must find ways to maintain our relationship while holding different perspectives on Matthew’s story, communities must sometimes prioritize functional coexistence over achieving perfect consensus. This will likely leave those seeking an absolute truth or complete reconciliation unsatisfied. However, it offers a practical path forward for communities grappling with complex histories and competing narratives. Perhaps it’s possible to acknowledge two stories about a conflict in parallel and honor the truth and importance of both narratives. There’s no doubt that it’s an endeavor worth pursuing, even if one group remains resolute in their stance.
SECOND PLACE
HISTORY
HAS ITS EYES ON HIM, NOT ME: GEORGE MASON AND GEORGE WASHINGTON IN MEMORY
NICKIE JOHNSON
Major: History
Class of 2022
INTRODUCTION
Each founding father is remembered for his unique accomplishments during the days of the breakaway from England and the formation of the Early Republic, thus making each statesman memorable in American society today. Certain founders, like George Washington, are remembered for their lengthy list of achievements. Washington is known for being the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army and the first president of The United States under the Constitution, for chopping down a cherry tree, and for never telling a lie. Other founders, such as George Mason, are remembered for far fewer things. Mason is known for writing the Virginia Declaration of Rights, having a university in Northern Virginia named after him, which is home to an awardwinning basketball team that went to the NCAA Final Four in 2006. This discrepancy in how American society remembers the founding generation raises the question of why Americans put certain founding fathers on pedestals while brushing others to the side, especially when they have more similarities than differences in their respective lives and contributions.
Both Mason and Washington were rich, white, landowning men, who resided only miles away from each other in the northern region of Virginia.1 They came from families with close ties to the area and married women who came from wealth, thus placing
1. Peter Henriques, “An Uneven Friendship: The Relationship Between George Washington and George Mason,” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 97, no. 2 (April 1989): 185. https://www.jstor. org/stable/4249070
themselves on a higher rung of society.2 Because of their elite status in Early American society, they exerted significant power that influenced how the nation developed. They were members of the same organizations, such as the Ohio Company and “vestrymen for Truro Parish.”3 A Mason biographer argued that “Mason’s colleagues recognized him as an indispensable ally, and during Mason’s lifetime, only Washington ranked higher in public esteem.”4 To this day, Washington receives credit for being one of the most important founding fathers while a majority of the nation does not even acknowledge Mason.
Why is it that Mason and Washington, who were friends, colleagues, and neighbors, have received such different treatment in people’s memory? Knowing the answer to this question is vital to understanding how Americans choose which values are emphasized; particularly when it comes to which historical figures receive the glory of being carved into Mount Rushmore and which ones are glossed over in history textbooks. While several factors influence how people remember these two founding fathers, three of the most important factors are their political views and accomplishments, their distinct military roles during the American Revolution, and the vastly different ways in which they maintained their written records.
Scholars have investigated certain aspects of these questions. Many of them agree that the American narrative typically leaves George Mason out of it, as demonstrated by the title of Jeff Broadwater’s book George Mason, Forgotten Founder . Even before the reader engages with the text, the title informs them that Mason is widely disregarded in the country’s memory. Author William G. Hyland referred to Mason as being a member of “the second tier of Founders.” 5 Others acknowledge that Mason’s treatment by scholars is complicated, and he is often misremembered because of that. Mason did not leave behind the largest legacy compared to the other founding fathers, so it is easy for people to mold his story into a multitude of narratives that best fit their argument. Building off this idea, Peter Wallenstein wrote an article about the ways in which Mason is often misremembered, which may offer insight into why some, like Broadwater, believe Mason is forgotten. 6
On the other hand, scholars such as R.B. Bernstein, argue that there is a certain group of founders that receives special treatment as they have been made out to
2. Jeff Broadwater, George Mason, Forgotten Founder (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2006), 1.
3. Henriques, 186.
4. Broadwater, 55.
5. William G. Hyland, George Mason: The Founding Father Who Gave Us the Bill of Rights, (Washington, DC: Regnery History, 2019), xiii.
6. Peter Wallenstein, “Flawed Keepers of the Flame: The Interpreters of George Mason,” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 102, no. 2 (April 1994): 229-260. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4249431
be untouchable powerhouses in American history.7 Bernstein specifically mentioned George Washington when conveying his initial point.8 Scholars Gerald W. Gawalt and Peter Henriques closely examined the relationship between Mason and Washington, ultimately concluding that these men led intertwined lives and shared a connection that would eventually break down following a difference in opinion, helping to showcase that these men did, in fact, relate closely to one another.9
Even though scholars have conducted extensive research on both figures, they treat their legacies as separate entities. There does not seem to be a source that examines this exact question of why Washington has gotten the preferential treatment over someone like Mason, despite both contributing substantially to the early stages of the United States. Scholars have failed to acknowledge that Washington’s legacy has overshadowed Mason’s accomplishments to the point of obscurity. By specifically comparing Mason to Washington in memory, this paper offers something new to the conversation surrounding the founding fathers and the indelible mark they’ve left on American history. Furthermore, I examine how their roles in the military and politics and personal record-keeping have ultimately shaped the ways in which they are either revered or forgotten by the average, modern American.
POLITICAL VIEWS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
During the formation of the American Republic, both George Mason and George Washington held vital roles in public office. At the start of his career, Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Eventually, he became the first President of the United States under the Constitution, while Mason worked as a public servant in the background and helped set the foundation for the new country. This has allowed for nearly all of the credit to circumvent Mason, thus, causing Americans to overlook his existence entirely.
The main reason that Mason’s political contributions are seldom acknowledged is because of how often he attempted to turn down political positions or failed to fulfill his pre-existing civic duties. For example, Mason was appointed as a judge of the Fairfax Court in 1747 and served until 1752.10 While holding this position, he did not dedicate
7. Richard B. Bernstein, The Founding Fathers: A Very Short Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 84.
8. Ibid.
9. Gerard W. Gawalt, George Mason and George Washington: The Power of Principle (North Charleston: CreateSpace, 2012), 1-198.; Henriques, “An Uneven Friendship: The Relationship between George Washington and George Mason,” 185-204.
10. Joseph Horrell, “George Mason and the Fairfax Court,” in The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 91, no. 4 (October 1983): 421-422. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4248666
himself to the job. During a three-year stretch, Mason attended three-and-a-half days out of all fifty-seven days the court was in session.11 “No other justice surpassed his record of nonattendance,” highlighting his failure to perform professionally. Mason is known for having “persistently declined public positions in the federal councils, where his conspicuous talents would easily have kept him in the front of public knowledge and esteem.”12 Mason had the qualifications to be an influential political leader—and a good one at that—yet he was hesitant to take the reins.
Despite his protests, officials continued to appoint Mason to different delegations. When Washington was needed to lead the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, Mason was asked to take his place as a delegate to the Second Continental Congress in 1775.13 He then attempted to escape this responsibility but failed miserably in his efforts.14 This situation is fascinating because Washington left behind a void in his wake, meaning Virginians could have called upon anyone to fill his place. Yet, they chose Mason, which suggests both men were held in high regard in the political sphere.
Although Mason often tried to turn down political positions, his wishes were not always granted. He attempted to decline several public office opportunities during the Revolutionary War. There was one instance where he refused to be a delegate to Congress, and he was still “named…to the Virginia Committee of Safety [in 1775], which was the de facto executive of the state.”15 Rather than punishing his refusal with a fine or criminal charge, Mason was forced to take part in Virginia’s politics. If they were willing to continuously push Mason into important political roles, while ignoring his complaints, his peers must have had an immense amount of respect for his knowledge and ideas. It’s clear that Mason’s contemporaries saw promise and potential in him, regardless of his unwavering reluctance. Because of Mason’s elite status in society, active participation in politics may have been expected of him.
Mason’s unwillingness to accept political leadership frustrated his contemporaries, including Washington. Washington wrote a letter to Mason in 1779 as the Revolutionary War waged on, asking “Where are our Men of abilities? Why do they not come forth to save their Country?”16 The “men of abilities” he was referring to included George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, and others of their status and intelligence.17 Washington
11. Ibid, 422.
12 Kate Mason Rowland, The Life of George Mason, 1725-1792 (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1892), viii.
13. Broadwater, 69.
14. Ibid.
15. Gawalt, 46.
16. George Washington to George Mason, March 27, 1779, in The Papers of George Washington: Revolutionary Series vol. 19 15 January-7 April 1779, eds. Philander D. Chase and William M. Ferraro, 628.
17. George Washington to George Mason, March 27, 1779, in The Papers of George Washington: Revolutionary Series vol. 19 15 January-7 April 1779, eds. Philander D. Chase and William M. Ferraro, 628.
begged Mason to offer his services to the country directly. His request for support demonstrates that Mason’s peers genuinely needed his brilliant mind in a time of crisis. There was a reason why Washington reached out to Mason for help, and it was not because Washington needed just anybody’s help or that Mason happened to be readily available. It was because Washington “undoubtedly relied on Mason for political advice and instruction.”18 Even Washington, who was well-respected for his political capabilities, needed George Mason’s assistance.
Mason did not decline political roles because he was lazy or disinterested. His concerns simply lay elsewhere. For most of his life, he battled numerous health issues, including gout and smallpox, that “left Mason threatening to ‘quit all public business.’”19 It would have been difficult for him to constantly travel and perform his political duties while suffering from chronic pain. This held him back from taking on a more overtly influential role in the American government. In a 1778 letter to Mr. Brent, Mason wrote, “I…devoted most of my time to public business to no small neglect and injury of my private fortune.”20 Mason was first and foremost “a private family man, with sprawling business interests along both sides of the vast and unforgiving Potomac.”21 He cared a great deal about his own wealth and life and wanted to ensure everything was in order prior to fixing the nation’s problems. This self-interested desire is common among modern-day Americans, but, nonetheless, it offers another explanation as to how Mason’s political shortcomings affect the way people recall his legacy. Mason also had family responsibilities, which he needed to take care of before fully dedicating himself to positions in public office. In 1773, Mason’s wife, Ann, died after becoming ill during pregnancy.22 In the 1778 letter to Mr. Brent, Mason wrote that he was “determined to spend the Remainder of [my] Days in privacy & Retirement with my children.”23 Nine out of Mason’s ten children survived to adulthood, meaning his hands were very busy.”24 In his attempt to avoid serving in the 1775 Second Continental Congress, Mason used this rationale as an excuse, reminding William Ramsay in a letter of “the duty I owe to a poor little helpless family of orphans to whom I now must act the part of father and mother both, and how incompatible such an office would be
18. Broadwater, 58.
19. Broadwater, 108.
20. George Mason to [Mr.—Brent?], October 2, 1778, in The Papers of George Mason vol. 1, ed. Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1970), 434.
21. Mike Lee, Written Out of History: The Forgotten Founders Who Fought Big Government, (New York: Sentinel, 2017), 171.
22. Broadwater, 58.
23. George Mason to [Mr.—Brent?], October 2, 1778, in The Papers of George Mason vol. 1, ed. Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1970), 433.
24. Broadwater, 58.
with the daily attention they require.25 A reason he avoided taking on more political roles was because he wanted to be a good father, and that is not something for which he can be faulted today.
Mason’s unhappiness with having to accept responsibilities he hoped to avoid is apparent in his surviving correspondence. In the same letter to Mr. Brent, Mason expressed discontent when reflecting on his time in public office in 1775. Mason wrote, “I was, much against my inclination, dragged out of my retirement by the people of my country, and sent a delegate to the General Convention in Richmond.”26 The founding father then continued listing other roles, including being a part of the Privy Council as well as the American Congress, he took after “constantly [declining] acting in any other public character than that of an independent representative of the people in the House of Delegates, where I still [remained] from a consciousness of being able to do my country more service there than in any other department.”27 It is not that Mason wanted to decline all political roles he was offered; rather, his sights were solely set on serving as a member of the House of Delegates in Virginia.
Mason’s achievements and contributions to the country tend to be overlooked or briefly mentioned in history classes. Nevertheless, he still assisted in establishing the foundational documents off which the United States was built. Mason’s most important contribution was penning the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was adopted by the Virginia Convention in 1776. It served as part of Virginia’s constitution. In the 1778 letter to Mr. Brent, Mason included a copy of the first draft of it to prove “that I have not been an idle Spectator of this great Contest.”28 Even during his lifetime, Mason had to fight to prove he was actively participating in matters. The Virginia Declaration of Rights’ brilliance and uniqueness rendered it popular among politicians as they drafted documents that would become historically influential, including other states’ declarations of rights, the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789.29 Even Thomas Jefferson acknowledged this fact decades later.30 Yet, many Americans do not give Mason the credit he deserves for influencing such important documents, keeping Mason from
25. George Mason to William Ramsay, July 11, 1775, in The Life of George Mason, 1725-1792 vol. 1, Kate Mason Rowland (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1892), 198.
26. George Mason to [Mr.—Brent?], October 2, 1778, in The Papers of George Mason vol. 1, ed. Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1970), 434.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
29. Gawalt, 48; “Virginia Declaration of Rights” in Primary Documents in American History, The Library of Congress, accessed November 7, 2022, https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/mason.html
30. “From Thomas Jefferson to Augustus Elias Brevoort Woodward, 3 April 1825,” in Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-5105
earning “a special place in America’s pantheon of statesmen.”31
After the Revolutionary War ended, the founding generation took up different duties as the country formed a new republic. The possibility of acting as an “elder statesman appealed to [Mason]” as he could have offered his wisdom without having to perform an overly active role in guiding the nation into its new government.”32 However, his “personal aloofness robbed his advice of authority.”33 This aloofness left him “unacquainted with most of the members of the federal Constitutional Convention.”34 One of his biggest downfalls was his lack of social skills, which might inform why his role in politics is not widely acknowledged today.
Mason, by today’s standards, would likely be classified as an introvert who struggled to make personal connections with a large number of people. For example, Mason may have misinterpreted the friendship that he shared with Washington as something closer than it was. The “warmth and unfeigned admiration” Mason showed Washington “was never fully reciprocated.”35 Their friendship probably “rested more on propinquity and respect than on feelings of affection or congeniality.”36 Washington only visited Gunston Hall three known times in twenty years. Unlike Washington, Mason traveled to Mount Vernon numerous times.37 This shows that people may not have wanted to go out of their way to spend time with him, but rather only do so when absolutely necessary. While it was good that Mason earned the respect of his contemporaries, especially one as distinguished as Washington, he was still an outcast in their mutual social circles. If he could have built stronger personal connections with the other members of the founding generation, then maybe he would have had an easier time getting his way when it came to politics. It also could have helped to earn him more respect in American society today.
Historical records suggest that Mason may have had a hard time doing what others wanted and masking his true discontent. When in Philadelphia for the Convention, he wrote a letter to his son, George, that he was growing “heartily tired of the etiquette and nonsense so fashionable in this city…[and] to learn what is not worth remembering.”38 He seemed to look down on the ways of life in another city, making him appear arrogant. If other people, besides his eldest son, knew about his feelings toward
31. Henriques, 185.
32. Robert Allen Rutland, George Mason: Reluctant Statesman, (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1961), 75.
33. Ibid.
34. Gawalt, 63.
35. Henriques, 185.
36. Ibid.
37. Henriques, 188.
38. George Mason to George Mason, Junior, May 27, 1787, in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792 vol. 3, ed. Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1970), 884.
Philadelphia’s customs, then that may have angered those from the city when they heard how a prominent statesmen thought their ways of life were essentially worthless. Also, following the Constitutional Convention, James Madison wrote to Jefferson, noticing that Mason “left [Philadelphia] in an exceeding ill humour indeed.”39 Things did not necessarily go Mason’s way at the Convention, and he did not do a great job at hiding how upset he was. This may have rubbed people the wrong way if he came across as whiny and ill-tempered when he did not get his way. His distaste for other cities’ customs and his inability to conceal his emotions may have stilted his capability to fully connect with his contemporaries.
Washington, on the other hand, had no trouble creating bonds. He easily formed connections with people and maintained them by exchanging letters, sharing meals, or allowing them to stay at his home.40 This allowed him to become well acquainted with the men who attended the Constitutional Convention in 1787, earning him the respect of his political comrades, including William Pierce.41 Pierce was a delegate to the Convention from Georgia. In his writings on the Convention, Pierce compared Washington to Gustavas Vasa, Peter the Great, and Cincinnatus, and gave a brief explanation as to how Washington exemplified those men, even going as far as to call Washington “the deliverer of his Country.”42 Pierce’s admiration for Washington was evident in the way he eloquently wrote about him. Also, Pierce made it clear that Washington’s presiding over the Constitutional Convention and assisting in the creation of a new founding document was “to make the People happy.”43 Pierce’s writings implied that Washington was not a self-interested person and was always looking out for the best of the people. Not only did he fulfill his governmental obligations, but he agreed to serve as the Commander in Chief of the Revolutionary Army. This contradicts the impression people had of Mason, who was infamous for putting his personal affairs above his political duties.
The Constitutional Convention’s admiration of Washington does not automatically indicate they felt any indifference toward Mason. Pierce still had respect for Mason, calling him “undoubtedly one of the best politicians in America.”44 This could be
39. James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, October 24, 1787, in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792 vol. 3, ed. Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1970), 1007.
40. As an example, George Washington, “[Diary entry: 18 October 1787],” in The Diaries of George Washington, vol. 5, July 1786 -December 1789, eds. Donald Jackson and Dorothy Twohig, (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1979) 204.
41. Gawalt, 63.
42. William Pierce, “William Pierce on the Federal Convention of 1787,” The American Historical Review, no. 3 (October 1897-July 1898), 331. https://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/images/5/53/ NotesOfMajorWilliamPierceAmericanHistoricalReviewJanuary1898.pdf
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid.
because Pierce saw how actively Mason participated in the Constitutional Convention; as well as how influential the Virginia Declaration of Rights was to the young nation. Pierce was not the only person to think highly of Mason. When Richard Henry Lee learned that Mason would attend the Constitutional Convention, “it [had] given [him] much pleasure.”45 Lee must have understood how valuable Mason’s expertise would have been. Thomas Jefferson included in a letter in 1825 that he believed Mason was “one of our really great men and of the first order of greatness.”46 Pierce’s assessment of Mason combined with Washington’s pleas for him to join the government during the American Revolutionary Era speaks volumes on how his contemporaries viewed him, which is vastly different from how people in the twenty-first century do.
Regardless of what people thought of Mason at the Constitutional Convention, he still would never outrank Washington in importance. Those at the Convention viewed “Washington [as] the only true national leader in the United States, [so] his presence at the convention, his leadership, and his approval of the final document were indispensable.”47 This, coupled with the fact that he was elected as the first president under the newly ratified Constitution, meant that Washington played one of the biggest parts in the government during this period. Washington’s prominent role in politics prompts modern-day Americans to see him first, and in turn, they do not look past him to see upon whose shoulders he stood.
Historians suspect that Mason’s lack of support for The Constitution is a large reason why he’s overlooked by the American people. At the Constitutional Convention, “Mason would rise more than a hundred times to voice his opinion and offer cogent advice.”48 Yet he still refused to sign it. He saw too many problems with the document. Mason formulated his sixteen objections to the new Constitution, opposing the powers it would grant to the federal government. Specifically, he did not appreciate how “[t]he Senate have the Power of altering all Money-Bills,” the fact that he believed, “[i]n the House of Representatives there is not the Substance, but the Shadow only of Representation,” and the way that “[t]he President of the United States has the unrestrained Power of granting Pardons for Treason.”49 These three examples of his objections help to illustrate why Mason feared that the newly formed government would
45. Richard Henry Lee to George Mason, May 15, 1787, in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792 vol. 3, ed. Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1970), 876.
46. Thomas Jefferson to Augustus Elias Brevoort Woodward, April 3, 1825, in Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-5105
47. Gawalt, 63.
48. Gawalt, 66.
49. George Mason, “George Mason’s Objections to the Constitution of Government formed by the Convention,” in The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution Digital Edition, eds. John P. Kaminski, Gaspare J. Saladino, Richard Leffler, Charles H. Schoenleber and Margaret A. Hogan, (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009).
“commence in a moderate Aristocracy” that could eventually become “a Monarchy, or a corrupt oppressive Aristocracy.”50 Mason’s primary concern was the preservation of the rights of the states and the individual. The thought of the presidency potentially turning into a monarchy would have alarmed many people at this time, as that was precisely why the American Revolution happened, and it would not protect the rights which Mason cared so strongly about. The colonists did not like the boundless power the king exerted, and Mason feared a similar situation would happen under the Constitution, given how much power the central government would wield.
Mason became an outspoken anti-Federalist as he “turned bitterly against the proposed Constitution” with ratification on the horizon, and he genuinely perceived his objections to be rational, fair, and crucial.51 He was self-assured about his expertise on this discussion and his vision of threats that abounded from the proposed government. This was because Mason came from a legal background and witnessed a central government with too much power firsthand. He sent his objections to Washington and Jefferson in 1787 and 1788, respectively. By sending his objections to two of Virginia’s most prominent statesmen, Mason must have believed his ideas were necessary for consideration during the ratification debates. The sending of these letters also underscores the kinds of connections Mason formed with the members of Virginia’s elite. In these letters, he expressed some of his rationale, specifically when he told Jefferson that allowing Congress to accept “any Emolument, Place, or Pension from a foreign Prince, or Potentate…is setting themselves up to the highest Bidder.”52 He told Washington that his “Objections are not numerous…tho’ in [his] Mind, some of them are capital ones,” showing how he believed his objections to be tantamount to the survival of the new nation.53
Mason also voiced his concerns for the possibility of amendments. He explained to Jefferson how members of the Virginia Convention for Ratification supported the plan of “ratifying first, and amending afterwards,” an idea Mason found “utterly absurd.”54 This language highlighted Mason’s assertiveness and arrogance when it came to ratification. It is important to note that Mason did not necessarily object to the Constitution in its entirety; he simply took issue with specific parts he believed should
50. Ibid.
51. Lee, 175.
52. George Mason to Thomas Jefferson, May 26, 1788, in The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 13, March–7 October 1788, ed. Julian P. Boyd (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1956). https://founders.archives. gov/documents/Jefferson/01-13-02-0117
53. George Mason to George Washington, October 7, 1787, in The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution Digital Edition, ed. John P. Kaminski, Gaspare J. Saladino, Richard Leffler, Charles H. Schoenleber and Margaret A. Hogan, (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009).
54. George Mason to Thomas Jefferson, May 26, 1788, in The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 13, March–7 October 1788, ed. Julian P. Boyd (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1956).
be amended prior to ratification. Hence why Mason refused to sign the Constitution. Nonetheless, his inability to support the document cost him the chance at being remembered today “as one of the more creative and constructive members of the Convention rather than an obstructionist.”55 Mason wound up on the losing side of the ratification debates while Washington ended up on the winning side. History only honors the winners, so those like Mason who found themselves outvoted, have been left to the margins of textbooks and the nation’s fleeting memory.
His opposition to the Constitution also cost him his friendship with Washington, with “[t]he results of the constitutional convention permanently [altering] their relationship.”56 This was due to their opposing stances on ratification. Mason perceived political freedom as having more value than political unity, which was the opposite of Washington’s thinking.57 Washington vehemently believed “that the real choice was to accept the Constitution as drawn up in Philadelphia or see the dissolution of the Union.”58 Washington’s strong backing of the Constitution did not come from a purely selfless place, though. He worried that if it did not pass, then his “heroic efforts would be for naught, and his final reputation would suffer.”59 Of course, Washington wanted the Constitution to be ratified because it was best for the nation. However, he was also concerned about the nation’s perception of him, and his reputation hinged on its passing. This put him at odds with Mason. The tension this caused shifted their once close relationship to the point where “Washington referred to him as his ‘quandam friend.’”60 Even Mason realized the catalyst for their crumbling relationship when he wrote to his son John, saying, “It is possible my opposition to the new government, both as a member of the national and of the Virginia Convention, may have altered the case.”61 Mason found himself on the wrong side of the debate over ratification, so he has been permanently pushed to the side of American history, while Washington, who was a major proponent of the Constitution, continues to be celebrated. Since Mason was so against signing the Constitution, people assume he did not care about the country very much. There is a misconception that Mason cared solely about his home state’s interest above all else. One of his objections to the Constitution was that the five southern states, which included Virginia, could be adversely affected by commercial and navigation laws when only a majority would be necessary to pass
55. Gawalt, 66.
56. Henriques, 196.
57. Hyland, 62.
58. Henriques, 196.
59. Ibid, 197.
60. Charles Stetson, Washington and His Neighbors, (Richmond, Garrett & Massie, Incorporated, 1956), 210.
61. George Mason to John Mason, March 13, 1789, in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792 vol. 3, ed. Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1970), 1142.
them. Mason feared that the other eight states would band together to form a majority that would isolate the southern states.62 It could be implied that this concern arose from his desire to protect Virginia and its wealth at all costs as “he was inclined to see each measure and every policy from a point of view purely Virginian.”63 This could affect the way he is remembered, since it appears as though he did more for the benefit of his state than his country. However, this assumption is not necessarily a fair one. He cared deeply about the country. That is why he fought so fiercely for the Constitution to be amended prior to ratification. He wanted it to be in its best form to protect the people. Mason may have consistently declined to hold public office, but that does not mean that he did not want to serve the people or believe in the cause of the Revolutionary War. He wrote to Mr. Brent in 1778 that “if I can only live to see the American Union firmly fixed and freed government well established in our western world and can leave to my children but a crust of bread and liberty, I shall die satisfied.”64 All he wanted was for his country to be free and for the people to be happy, but the average American does not know this part of Mason’s narrative.
ROLES IN THE MILITARY
One does not need to know much about American history to know that George Mason and George Washington played very different parts in the Revolutionary War. One was on the battlefields, leading the Continental Army to victory, while the other acted behind the scenes, performing more clerical duties back in Virginia. The diverging paths they took during the American Revolution may help explain why Mason’s importance has been tremendously downplayed over the last few centuries. Washington was appointed as the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army. This meant he was on the frontlines and had to do extensive planning that no one else on his side of the war had the pressure of executing. By serving his country in this way, Washington felt the war in a different way than someone like Mason. He witnessed the tragedy and triumphs of war firsthand in ways that Mason, who was in a much safer position, never could. In his diary entries, Washington explained the tasks he had and the things he saw during the war. Because he called the shots, he truly felt “The fire of the enemy.”65 In the final days of the Battle of Yorktown, he wrote about his
62. Mason, “George Mason’s Objections to the Constitution of Government formed by the Convention.”
63. Rutland, 75.
64. George Mason to [Mr.—Brent?], October 2, 1778, in The Papers of George Mason vol. 1, ed. Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1970, 434.
65. George Washington, [Diary entry: 13 October 1781]” in The Diaries of George Washington, vol. 3, 1 January 1771-5 November 1781, ed. Donald Jackson, (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1978), 426.
offensive troops and how there had been “few cases…[that] exhibited stronger proofs of intrepidity, coolness, and firmness than were shown upon this occasion.”66 Also in this diary entry, he detailed the losses the Americans had faced since the beginning of the Battle of Yorktown, which totaled 186 deaths.67 Here, Washington shows his understanding of the severity of casualties the war caused by including the specific number. His active role gave him a more empathetic view on the situation, and it could also give people today more of an admiration for figures like him than figures like Mason, who may be viewed as more passive.
As the head of the military, Washington also filled a crucial role during Lord Cornwallis’ surrender. In a diary entry discussing the end of the Battle of Yorktown that caused Cornwallis to admit defeat, Washington wrote that “I proposed my own terms to which if he agreed Commissioners were to meet to digest them into form.”68 He specifically explained, in his own words, how exactly he fit into the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, thus taking ownership over certain aspects of it. Additionally, Washington showed humility when writing to Congress to let them know about Cornwallis’ official surrender.69 He did not go out of his way to shame Cornwallis for giving up or anything of the sort. Nor did Washington go around taking the credit for himself and acting as though he was the sole reason the country achieved victory during the war. This is something modern-day Americans—and Americans of that era—find attractive in someone they want to celebrate as a key figure in U.S. history.
As with his support of the Constitution, Washington’s desire to lead the Continental Army did not necessarily come from a place of selflessness. He was “eager for recognition” when he took on the role.70 While Washington wanted to help his people, he still cared a great deal about the way they perceived him, and this concern drove many of his actions. The Revolutionary War was no different. The assumption that George Mason was more passive during the Revolutionary War is categorically false. Yes, Mason did not lead the military and may not have been out on the battlefields like Washington, but this does not mean that he did not play an active part in helping the nation come out triumphant over Great Britain. Following Washington’s appointment as Commander in Chief, Mason filled the void he left behind by taking over his
66. George Washington, “[Diary entry: 14 October 1781]” in The Diaries of George Washington, vol. 3, 1 January 1771–5 November 1781, ed. Donald Jackson, (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1978), 426.
67. Ibid, 428.
68. George Washington, “[Diary entry: 17 October 1781]” in The Diaries of George Washington, vol. 3, 1 January 1771-5 November 1781, ed. Donald Jackson, (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1978), 430.
69. Gawalt, 54.
70. Lorri Glover, Founders as Fathers: The Private Lives and Politics of the American Revolutionaries, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014), 221.
political role.71 During the times of war, those in political positions shared a unique perspective on fighting. They are on the outside looking in, giving them a certain level of clarity that someone in the trenches may not have. Additionally, their governmental background allows them to bring different skills to the table that someone from a military background, like Washington, may not possess.
Mason had health reasons for not taking up arms. He was older than many of the other founding fathers, so they were more physically fit to fight than him. Mason’s ongoing medical issues, such as the gout, may have kept him from being able to join the military. Today, a person with gout may be disqualified from serving in the armed forces.72 Therefore, Mason would not have been very useful on the battlefield, so he decided to place himself in a position in which he could provide valuable services to the nation. With all the illnesses Mason experienced throughout his life, he often stayed home to study political theory and other intellectual topics, which made the visionary far better suited for aiding the war from afar than being on the frontlines.73
Even though he had his reservations about taking public office, Mason threw himself completely into his role during the Revolutionary War by working to raise troops in Virginia and securing fortifications and supplies, such as tents, uniforms, and weaponry, to fuel the military.74 Mason cared greatly about the war effort and wanted to help in any way he could, which included taking up tasks such as the selling of “the state corn, bacon, hay and cattle to support the military.”75 He even became “the chief architect of the new military establishment of August 1775.”76 This shows how he still was an active participant in the military, even without setting a single foot on the battlefield. Despite Mason’s best efforts to contribute to the war, Washington received far more recognition for the United States’ win over England; thus, prompting the gap between him and Mason in America’s memory to grow even wider than they could ever imagine.
RECORD KEEPING AND THEIR REPUTATIONS
It was common knowledge that Washington was especially good at preserving his personal records, including letters, diaries, and any written works he may have completed
71. Gawalt, 46.
72. “Medical Conditions That Can Keep You from Joining the Military,” Military.com, accessed November 8, 2022, https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/disqualifiers-medical-conditions.html
73. Hyland, 60.
74. Gawalt, 46.
75. Ibid, 47.
76. Michael A. McDonnell, The Politics of War: Race, Class, and Conflict in Revolutionary Virginia, (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2007), 203.
throughout his lifetime. In the collection known as The Papers of George Washington from the University Press of Virginia, there are sixty-nine volumes of Washington’s works.77 This does not even include his diaries, which make up six volumes of their own.78 Washington’s papers have been collected and published for centuries, so it has reached a wide audience over many lifetimes. In a time where written communication was all this generation had; Washington did an incredible job at holding onto his work so it could be published for future generations.
On the other hand, the same thing cannot be said about George Mason. Unlike his colleague, Mason was not as meticulous about forming a fruitful collection of his written works. When the University of North Carolina Press under Robert A. Rutland compiled Mason’s collection into a series known as The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, they were only able to fill up three volumes.79 While this still might be considered a large quantity by today’s standards, that does not even compare to the collections of written records left behind by Mason’s contemporaries. Notably, this series was published in 1970, which was two centuries after Mason’s death. Rutland explained at the beginning of the collection that the reason he and other scholars worked on publishing it was because “Mason needed to be reintroduced to American history.”80 When comparing these two collections, Americans felt an urgent need to read Washington’s own words soon after his death whereas they remained uninterested in learning about Mason’s lived experiences. Mason simply did not put in the same effort as Washington to preserve his writings. This has come to Mason’s detriment as Americans now do not have access to Mason in the same way they do Washington. If a person wants to know with whom Washington ate dinner on a particular day, he or she can simply turn to his collection of diary entries and gather that information.81 The same cannot be said about Mason. Perhaps if he had done a better job of ensuring his papers were in order and could be published for others to read, then he would take up a far bigger space in American history than the minute one he has been assigned. The main reason Washington was conscientious about maintaining his records was because he deeply cared about his posthumous reputation. It is known that
77. “The Papers of George Washington,” in Founders Online-Printed Volumes, accessed November 8, 2022, https://founders.archives.gov/content/volumes.
78. “The Diaries of George Washington,” in Founders Online-Printed Volumes, accessed November 8, 2022, https://founders.archives.gov/content/volumes.
79. Glover, 237.
80. Robert A. Rutland, “An Explanation of The Editorial Guidelines” in in The Papers of George Mason vol. 1, ed. Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1970), xxi.
81. As an example, George Washington, “[Diary entry: 11 February 1790],” in The Diaries of George Washington, vol. 6, 1 January 1790 – 13 December 1799, eds. Donald Jackson and Dorothy Twohig, (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1979), 30–31.
Washington “valued his reputation above all worldly goods.”82 Some people from his and Mason’s time planned for how future generations would remember them, and “counted on select kin and allies to help them appear to be both dutiful fathers and virtuous founders.”83 This could also manipulate their lasting image into whatever they wanted it to embody. It would appear as though Washington was one of those who did exactly that. It can be argued that Mason did not care about his national reputation as much. Mason put value on being a private family man, and that is where his focus laid following the end of his political career.84 His biggest worry was to guarantee “that his children [knew] that his conscience was clear regarding his Anti-federalist advocacy.”85 Additionally, once his political career came to its completion, Mason “amassed far fewer papers” than Washington, who went on to have a longer, bigger career.86 Mason’s way for showing that he cared how future Americans viewed him was by “[devoting] his last years to building an estate large enough to secure his own children’s futures.”87 His lack of written records may not have necessarily been an intentional choice, but it does not seem to be uncharacteristic of Mason either.
This is in sharp contrast with Washington, who “assumed greater responsibilities in the federal government and focused more on a national legacy.”88 Washington himself worked to curate how the rest of the country would remember him, which has had a large influence on his standing in the United States’ national narrative. He had an idea that “subsequent generations of Americans would want to know about his life from his own pen, and by gathering together his writings he began to shape a narrative for them.”89 He even went as far as to ship multiple wagons worth of papers to Mount Vernon following the conclusion of the American Revolution.90 He “hoped that the carefully tended images [he] left behind would inspire subsequent generations of Americans to study and venerate the Revolution.”91 Washington developed a sort of ego that allowed him to perceive himself as an important figure in American history before the Republic’s history even really began. Washington’s belief that he was a key figure in America’s story said a great deal about his character, regardless of whether it was rooted in ego or not. There is a chance that Mason did not possess the same level of hubris Washington did, thus affecting the way he cultivated his personal archives.
Clearly, George Mason and George Washington are remembered very differently by the average American, especially one who does not hail from Virginia. This is due to their political actions, their roles in the Revolutionary War, and the way they controlled their written records to preserve their reputations. Where Mason fell short in these areas, Washington soared with flying colors. When Mason ended up on the wrong side of history for his beliefs on the Constitution, Washington made sure to steer clear of heading down a similar path. When Mason stayed behind to help the Revolution from home, Washington worked his way to the highest position in the American military. When Mason did not put in any effort to collect his papers to be shared with the public once he died, Washington had his collection bound and ready for release.
Regardless, this does not negate everything Mason did for the good of the country, such as developing the Virginia Declaration of Rights, aiding the military through Virginia’s abundant resources, and being concerned enough to preserve some of his papers for the people about whom he cared most. Still, Mason contributed enormously to shaping the United States into what is it today. For example, without Mason’s authoring of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, many founding American documents would look very different than they do now, including the Bill of Rights, which protects Americans’ most basic freedoms. If Mason never fought so hard to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, would all the precious rights Americans enjoy still exist today?
Putting Washington on such a high pedestal reveals what Americans truly value. In this case, they prefer entities who engage in national politics, serve on the front lines, and leave behind a legacy that is within their grasp. Americans like to honor those who were overly ambitious and possessed a “can-do” attitude over skeptics who pointed out unnecessary flaws. George Mason was an intellectual, and while intelligence was—and still is—important, society cared (and still cares) more about putting that knowledge into obvious action rather than making power moves from behind the scenes. Even though Mason never served as president, commanded the United States military, or kept copious amounts of his correspondence, he still deserves to be recognized and revered by the nation. Virginia cared about him enough to name one of its higher education institutions after him. So, why can’t the rest of the nation get on board and cement his legacy in stone too?
George Mason is nationally recognized for its work in cybersecurity and is a leader in Virginia in quantum science education and research, robotics, autonomous systems, and AI education and research.
THIRD PLACE
LEGAL FRAMEWORKS UNDER PRESSURE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF COLOMBIAN AND U.S. IMMIGRATION LAW AND POLICY IN CONTEXT TO THE INTERNATIONAL VENEZUELAN DIASPORA
GABRIELA C. MOLINA OTAIZA
Major: Government and International Politics Class of 2027
ABSTRACT
This paper serves to analyze the current legal frameworks shaping immigration law and policy in both the United States and Colombia, focusing on the Venezuelan diaspora over the last decade.
In Colombia, the legal responses to widespread Venezuelan immigration have been characterized as a progressive approach. Despite lacking a formalized legal immigration framework, Colombia’s policies, such as Estatuto Temporal de Protección (ETPS) and Permiso de Protección Temporal (PPT), reflect their open-door policy aimed at being a more accessible mode of integrating Venezuelans into Colombian society. However, due to regulatory inconsistencies, faults in the system, such as paperwork gaps, can prevent Venezuelan migrants from obtaining temporary residence in neighboring countries. In contrast, the United States has adopted a more restrictive approach to Venezuelan immigration. While it designated a Venezuelan-specific Temporary Protection Status (TPS) in 2023, there are external barriers, such as adequate documentation, designation date policies, and language barriers, that severely limit the ability for TPS to be granted for Venezuelan migrants. Additionally, the Trump Administration has moved to revoke the 2023 extension of TPS’ and will not extend it past April 2025.
By cross-examining the legal practices of both countries, this study identifies the intersection between immigration law, human rights, and diplomacy. In addition, it
analyzes the pressure put on established legal systems and identifies their effectiveness and adaptability in processing the large-scale migration of Venezuelans. The paper concludes with proposed solutions and an addendum, offering recommendations to create a unified, cooperative immigration framework necessary to address the ongoing political, economic, and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela.
Keywords—Cross-Examination, Temporary Protection Status, Humanitarian Crisis, Immigration Law and Policy.
I. INTRODUCTION
ACCORDING to the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (UNHCR, 2018), over 5.9 million Venezuelan migrants have been displaced or are fleeing at an alarming rate due to “widespread human rights violations, crime, and crises” and are considered the “second largest displaced population globally” (Del Real 1).
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro (2013-present) and his administration have enacted mass human rights violations and “excessive force against political opponents” (Del Real 1). In addition to this egregious misconduct, their public healthcare system has collapsed and failed to provide medical staff with the necessary supplies to treat patients. Moreover, the current economic and sociopolitical impacts have resulted in an economic recession consisting of hyperinflation, rising food costs, unlivable wages, electrical shortages, and limited job opportunities. As a result, millions of migrants have fled the country in search of better living conditions and hopes for economic and political stability (Council on Foreign Relations 1).
On July 28, 2024, presidential elections were held in Venezuela. The entire country was hopeful that a long-awaited change in political leadership would transpire. However, after official results indicated that Nicolás Maduro won by a close margin of votes, the people of Venezuela started all sorts of protests, most notably banging pots and pans, urging for justice to be brought (Council on Foreign Relations 1).
“As of 2021, Colombia has 1.7 million Venezuelan migrants and refugees” and “600,000 Venezuelan migrants” in the United States. The implications of this mass wave of immigration are widely reflected in the different interpretations of immigration law, legislation, procedures, and policies within the United States and Colombia. The extent to which the current regulations in place are equipped to handle this influx directly affects the ability for Venezuelan immigrants to seek Temporary Protection Status (TPS) and other temporary and permanent legal protections, as well as the flaws and barriers that exist within each agency.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
A. TPS IN THE U.S. AND COLOMBIA
As defined by Donald Kerwin, Temporary Protection Status (TPS), is a temporary immigration program that “applies to noncitizens from states experiencing armed conflict or the aftermath of a natural disaster” (Kerwin 2). The TPS statute allows for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to designate states and regions that qualify for TPS within the United States. TPS does not cover migrants who arrive past the designation date for their regions, even if they fled for dangerous reasons. The designation date is used as an organizational tactic that allows the United States government to establish a cutoff date for eligibility to process claims efficiently.
Similarly to refugees or asylum seekers, TPS recipients can receive select benefits such as work authorizations. Unlike refugees or asylees, they are not qualified for many “federal public benefit programs” (Kerwin 2). Even though they can apply for immigration benefits and political asylum, TPS does not guarantee or lead to “permanent status or other durable solutions” (Kerwin 2).
The TPS determination process in the United States is characterized by highly specific margins including undergoing “extraordinary and temporary conditions” that prevent nationals from returning in safety, unless contrary to the United States’ national interests (Kerwin 13). As previously stated, designation dates are used as a metric to determine the eligibility of migrants seeking TPS in the United States. According to the law, DHS secretaries are required to provide notice to the Federal Register of Designations “the relevant time periods, the number of noncitizens likely to be affected, their immigration status(es), and the basis for designations” (Kerwin 130). Due to the unpredictable, complex nature of immigration, many foreign states have argued for the re-designation and intention of TPS statuses. Nongovernmental Organizations, also known as NGOs, often fight for similar adjustments through regular meetings with the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS).
However, the system’s lack of transparency has triggered many external nations to mistrust and question why certain regions easily obtain TPS designations, while others are forced to jump through hoops. National disasters have led to expedited TPS designations for Nicaragua, Haiti, and Honduras, whereas other nations remain in peril. Additionally, TPS “limits participation to members of designated groups” (Kerwin 14). This means that Temporary Protection Statuses cannot be granted to those in locations that are not designated as such, despite facing extreme dangers or insecurities. Even if a migrant were to receive TPS, they cannot petition for family members to join them, especially if there are inconsistencies in their statuses.
Beyond TPS, Donal Kerwin’s study explains how “U.S. temporary protection programs rest primarily on executive discretion yet has not been revisited for 25 years” (Kerwin 2). Kerwin also tackles the nuanced perspective of language in politics, and how dialectic impacts shift legal processes and presumptions. This helps provide a model in which we can shift our use of language in politics, specifically with the correct use of phrasing with immigration, an already highly fluctuating, delicate, ever-evolving field. Take the concept of parole for example. “Parole” describes the large admitting of refugees on account of humanitarian and emergency distress into the United States prior to the 1980’s. While on parole, immigrants were oftentimes extended Legal Protection Status (LPS). However, after the 1980 Refugee Act, the number of admitted immigrants decreased, due to limits for the use of parole on individuals and the stigmatization of parole access for refugees. This act is still in place today and is frequently used in the United States Refugee Admissions Process.
This has led to the need for further clarification of the term “refugee.” A refugee describes a subset of a greater population, consisting of forcibly displaced individuals from their country of origin. Those who do not identify as refugees may be forced to leave their country on account of different sets of push factors aside from fear of persecution. As of 2021, there has been a recorded count of 4.4 million worldwide displaced Venezuelans who are not defined as refugees or asylum seekers because they fled Venezuela on account of socio-economic conditions like poverty and crime, as opposed to persecution. Even though they do not fit the standard definition of a refugee, they are colloquially defined to be refugees on account of having to flee their country. The formal and informal definitions of refugee have created confusion within the United States’ legal immigration system.
Because of Colombia’s cultural similarities, geographic proximity, and historic migratory flows, “29% of migrants have chosen to relocate there” (R4V 2021). This shift mirrors that of previous migratory flows in Venezuela and Colombia’s longstanding immigration history. Prior to 2010, many Colombians migrated to Venezuela in search of job opportunities during the booming oil business. In the recent decade, the reversal of these migration patterns has caused an unprecedented internal migration shock within Colombia.
The Colombian government primarily uses its legal immigration system, as opposed to asylum, to legalize Venezuelan migrants. However, the Colombian government was not prepared to process the vast influx of Venezuelan migrants on account of the country not having proper immigration legislation put in place. Instead, they have resorted to executive discretion practices to manage this influx. Previous immigration laws such as “N° 48 of 1920” are not only obsolete but were overturned in 2016 under the premise of being deemed unconstitutional, due to eugenics-based requirements. As a result of
external limits on funding and external will, concerted efforts to pass immigration laws have been unsuccessful (Castro and Milkes 2018; Aliaga and Flórez de Andrade 2020).
One of the executive discretionary tactics used to manage immigration was the 2011 “Law N° 1465,” that created the “Special Administrative Unit for Migration in Colombia” (Del Real 6). This act ensured that the authorities of migration have the authority to manage migration through “administrative resolutions and directives” enforced through sanctions (Castro and Milkes 2018; Castro 2020).
Additionally, between July 2017 and February 2021, Colombian officials have used their executive discretion to make eight programs to help legalize Venezuelan immigrants. Seven out of eight of these programs are Special Permits of Permanence— Permisos Especial de Permanencia (PEPs) — which provides “two years of temporary legal residency, work authorization, and the right to healthcare and education” (Del Real 7). To qualify for 5 PEPs, Venezuelan immigrants must have a passport stamp that validates their legal entry and two other PEPs that include accommodations for undocumented individuals.
Moreover, on January 28, 2020, the Ministry of Labor passed a “Decree N° 117”, giving undocumented Venezuelan migrants access to PEPs. This decree was issued under the premise of migrants who aim to obtain Promotion of Formalization (PEPFF). This requires documentation such as having a formal work contract, a Venezuelan ID, and a clear criminal record (Del Real 7). However, many migrants cannot access this benefit due to limited access to formal labor markets. To remedy this issue, the Colombian president, Iván Duque, created the Estatuto Temporal de Protección (ETPS) in 2021 for Venezuelan migrants. This program allows PEP holders to obtain Lawful Permanent Residence (LPR) in 10 years via the R-Visa application process. Some benefits of PEP and ETPS applications include easy accessibility and no fee requirements. Those applying for PEPs online “automatically receive a printable liminal residency card” (Del Real 8).
However, Colombia’s accessible application process and political disclosure overshadows the “tenuousness and illegality production of the liminal legality programs,” a term used to describe the instability of immigration protection programs (Del Real 8). In addition to fee-waived applications of PEP, Colombia’s border surveillance, detentions, and deportation services “have less capacity” and are less strict than those of the United States (Global Detention Project 2020; Castro 2020). Many Colombian authority figures falsely claim that they are “committed to protecting Venezuelans’ legalization” (Presidencia 2018; Restrepo et al., 2018; Palma-Gutiérrez 2021). Colombian President Duque has claimed to work tirelessly to ensure Venezuelan legalization and integration on account of the two countries being “united by fraternity” (Restrepo et al., 2018; European Parliament 2018; Selee et al. 2019; Palma-Gutiérrez
2021). As a result, many PEP and ETPS services are framed as resembling modes of legal durability for Venezuelans.
Because of the many executive discretion policies and lack of permanent immigration law, Venezuelan immigrants in Colombia seeking protections are misguided on their application processes. ETPS’ contain many exclusionary features that place limits on arrival times in Colombia. For example, recipients of ETPS must obtain PEP status and legally enter Colombia between “May 29, 2021, and May 28, 2023, with passports via official border checkpoints” (Del Real 8). Undocumented migrants also must prove that they arrived “in Colombia before January 31, 2021” (Del Real 8). Thus, current and future Venezuelan migrants who do not meet these highly specific requirements may be rejected from receiving an ETPS. Or in worse cases, legally labeled as undocumented, further increasing their chances of deportation.
Today, Colombia’s immigration authorities use “Decree N° 1067 (2015) and the Resolution N° 6045 (2017)” to regulate deportations, applications, and expulsions” (Circulo 2015; Castro and Milkes 2018). However, these administrative actions require visa acquisitions that contain strict requirements, which in turn lengthens the response time due to Colombia’s legal ambiguity process. This also has limited similarities in articulation with other national immigration laws, making it difficult for migrants to receive nationality elsewhere.
According to fifty structured interviews of Venezuelan immigrants living in Bogotá, Colombia, the accessible application process, low deportation rates, and proimmigration political disclosure mislead the “fragility of the liminal legality among recipients”. These were results gathered from 2018-2020 via a variety of Venezuelan migrants: “Sixteen of the thirty interviewees were undocumented, twelve had a PEP, and two were on the path to citizenship” (Del Real 9). One participant, Rocio Vargas, a degree-bearing, small business owner who fled Venezuela on account of food disparities, specifically did not feel any impending fear of deportation because she felt that the Colombian government was protecting her and paving the way for her to gain citizenship. Her PEP application process, although “straightforward,” lacked the knowledge and understanding of a Migrant Visa option – which is typically more secure than PEP programs (Del Real 9).
B. CITIZENSHIP AND NATURALIZATION
Since 2015, about “1.7 million Venezuelan citizens have settled in Colombia” (Besserer Rayas 1). Due to this unprecedented surge in Venezuelan immigration paired with Colombia’s lack of immigration law enforcement, there have been many barriers for Venezuelan citizens to obtain citizenship. Many of these barriers include paperwork
gaps within required documentation needed to prove legal legitimacy.
Immigration regimes are institutionalized systems comprised of “formal and informal norms that define the policies, procedures, and eligibility of legal statuses and rights for foreigners” (Besserer Rayas 4). This is an important aspect of Latin American migration policy because it defines the access to temporary and permanent residence, as well as nationality. Because nationality is a determining factor of naturalization “(e.g., at birth versus naturalization, which is adopting the nationality),” citizenship and immigration regimes overlap (Besserer Rayas 4).
In comparison, citizenship and migratory statuses are hierarchical since each category contains different degrees of rights. Complete execution requires “no authorization for residence and no membership to a state”, and complete inclusion, defined as “nationality by birth, being born into full rights”, represent two categories at opposite ends of the spectrum. This shows that even within the concept of citizenship, “hierarchies persist, with native-born nationals enjoying more rights than naturalized persons” (Pedroza & Palop-García, 2017).
Those with liminal legality status, as researched by Del Real, are living under the “violence of uncertainty” which is a “systematic personal, social, and institutional instability that exacerbates inequality” (Grace et al., 2018: 904).
As more states create regulations on who can apply for citizenship (nationality), more paperwork gaps emerge from this process. The required paperwork for international migrants to gain and maintain legal status is known as “pre- and post-migration bureaucracy” (Finn, 2019). Some of the documentation required to initiate the citizenship process includes birth certificates, clear criminal records, health history forms, identification cards, and passports. Those who are unable to present the correct documentation are stuck in a “paperwork gap” and run the risk of being considered undocumented and stateless, which is one of the most vulnerable positions for anyone to be in.
Besserer Rayas identified how the nature of immigration and the immediate need to migrate affects the willingness of a migrant’s country of origin to provide sufficient documentation to the migrant. The effects of living undocumented are highly impactful with limits on work availability, enrollment in school and higher education, marriage, and access to high-quality healthcare.
This is important within the context of international displacement and the origin country’s willingness to notarize or issue legal documents like birth certificates, criminal records, or passports. This forces many immigrants to flee their country without adequate supporting documents, and no way of justifying their nationality. The difference between immigration and asylum law & policy is their structure. Immigration law & policy manages the entry, stay, visa, regularization, and naturalization processes. By sharp contrast, asylum law & policy focuses on ensuring legal protection from
persecution and pardon lacking documentation.
In essence, these are two drastically different forms of approaching Venezuelan immigration and require a distinct set of applications. The main drawback of Colombia’s approach to immigration, has been the lack and ineffective use of immigration law, which has led to the concept of “paperwork gaps” (Besserer Rayas 2). The main purpose behind the cross-examination of current Colombian immigration laws is to find missing information and to triangulate (cross-verify) existing data. Unintentionally, Besserer Rayas was able to accurately capture specific administrative shifts towards Venezuelan immigrants. To identify the flaws within the legal documentation and regulation, the author performed documentary and legal analyses on Colombian laws, resolutions, bylaws, and judicial sentences in triangulating interviews with pro-bono immigration lawyers and former government officials. Besserer Rayas also collected press releases from Colombia’s state agency court system, legal argumentation supporting policies, and statistical analyses of government/non-government sources. After sorting through his data, the scholar created a detailed budget to assign them. The findings demonstrated that, “In 2019, about seventy-four percent, or 23.1 million of the 31.2 million immigrants (that were eligible for naturalization) had naturalized” (Kerwin 1). Alternatively, those applying for naturalization in the United States are required to show proof of “an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage”; as well as possess “knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history, and of the principles and form of government, of the United States” (Kerwin et.al 2021). There are exemptions put in place for both requirements, specifically those with “physical or developmental disabilities or mental impairments” (Kerwin et.al 2021).
Finally, those who are 65 or older and have been permanent residents for at least 20 years receive “special consideration” when meeting the history and civics requirement. Although strict in nature, these “exceptions” severely diminish the number of years many immigrants have lived, worked, and contributed towards the American government. The Biden-Harris Administration voided the Trump-era required citizenship civic test. This was just another barrier many immigrants with limited English language abilities faced.
C. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS
The United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) has sought to uncover how it can create initiatives that “can reduce administrative and other barriers and burdens within its regulations and policies.” This includes many policies that prevent the availability of foreign citizens to obtain access more readily to immigration services
and benefits (Kerwin et.al 2021).
One way in which they plan to do so is through the Adjustment of Status and TPS. As previously stated, there are many paperwork gaps and bridges that lie within the Colombian immigration legal framework. Similar parallels are seen when reviewing the Immigration and Nationality Act in the United States. By stating that those who apply for adjustment of status must be “inspected and admitted or paroled,” it allows for many TPS beneficiaries who have been living in the United States for extended periods to become eligible for immigration visas or adjustments of status and framed as “immediate relatives” of US citizens (Warren and Kerwin 2017).
The language used in the legal status interpretation suggests that a grant of TPS justified a “lawful admission” and eligibility for adjustments. Typically, those who enter the United States without inspection can apply and be granted Temporary Protected Status. This individual becomes a beneficiary of an approved I-130 petition (as an immediate relative) filed by a United States citizen or children over 21 years of age.
In addition, the INA § 244(f)(4) specifies that those who hold Temporary Protected Statuses are “for purposes of adjustment of status under section 1255 … shall be considered as being in and maintaining lawful status as a nonimmigrant.” This is essential in protecting them from being considered as an “unlawful presence”, which could make it more difficult for them to change their immigration status later in life. However, on June 7, 2021, the United States Supreme Court denied this interpretation of TPS, stating that the distinction between nonimmigrant status and admission into the United States “does not admit” the beneficiaries. Now, those seeking TPS must go through the consular process abroad, rather than within the United States.
D. POLICY AND PROCEDURAL REFORM
One legislative solution within the scope of TPS and adjustment of status is for the Department of Homeland Security or USCIS to overturn the Administration Appeals Office (AAO) decision that states that TPS recipients can leave and return with the “same immigration status.” This is an innovative approach because it means that immigrants will no longer be “admitted”, “inspected”, or “paroled” in the United States. If they were considered as such, this would cause them to experience way more obstacles obtaining Lawful Permanent Residence (LPR) - a critical step in obtaining citizenship in the future.
Another legislative change is the adjustment of the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of a TPS recipient’s removal order. As part of active parole, a recipient is permitted to temporarily leave and reenter the United States. If a TPS recipient leaves and returns while under this protection, they are not considered to have “executed” the
removal order. This means their case would remain under the authority of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). This is a gamechanger because the recipient does not have to request an immigration judge to reopen their case, which is a highly time-consuming and an often-unsuccessful process. By changing this interpretation, it allows for relatives of TPS recipients who are immediate family members of US citizens to file for adjustment of status (green card) through USCIS and the I-212 waiver form that removes grounds for inadmissibility, a term used to describe the legal actions preventing someone from entering and staying in the United States.
The Colombian adjustments to citizenship and immigration regimes are made to specifically target Venezuelan migrants, a country that hosts one of the fastest growing internationally displaced groups. Colombia justified this selectivity due to the forced nature of Venezuelan displacement and deprived immigrants of the ability to provide required supporting documents. However, by selectively choosing Venezuelan immigrants as the primary target for the change in policy, the Colombian government is discriminating against other nationalities in need of asylum. This uneven coverage in policy implementation was taken into consideration when constructing the four “paper bridges” for combatting “paperwork gaps” for Venezuelan immigrants:
1) In the context of a greater state of emergency announcement by Venezuela on forced expulsions, the introduction of family reunification permits in 2015 were implemented in Colombia. Juan Manuel Santos was the thenpresident of the border management office who supported this policy change, claiming it to be an efficient solution to an immediate problem. These permits require less paperwork than others (Besserer Rayas 9).
2) Secondly, Colombia is one of the only countries in the Americas without the unconditional “right of soil” birthright citizenship. Instead, those eligible for nationality must have at least one Colombian parent with legal residence within the country “at the moment of birth” (Nationality Law – Law 43 of 1993). This policy serves as an opportunity for Venezuelan children born in Colombia to receive automatic citizenship, retrospectively modifying the status of children born in Colombia, and prospectively opening doors for future children (Besserer Rayas 9).
3) Moreover, loosening required documentation for naturalization is a legislative change that can be enacted. This impacts the descendants of at least one Colombian parent who were seeking nationality in Colombia after immigrating. However, the acquisition and presenting of birth certificates was deemed an impossible task to fulfill due to external challenges in their country of origin. In response, the Colombian government adopted
a procedure that allowed for the replacement of the certification for two witnesses. Prior to this change, Colombian law required you to have an apostille (authentication/certification) of your birth certificate for nationality. However, “Since 2015, obtaining apostilles for birth certificates in Venezuela has become extremely cumbersome and expensive.” This problem was resolved by the implementation of Circular 121, which “reduced the discretion of bureaucracy by automatically exempting children of Colombians born in Venezuela from having to obtain the apostille “(Besserer Rayas 11).
4) Lastly, prior to easing the regularization process in 2017, there were limited options for those who could demonstrate they had crossed an official border with a valid stamped passport. Over time, this developed into a bureaucratic limitation. In response, the Colombian Government issued Venezuelans Temporary Protection Status without the use of a passport. The Colombian state began offering migratory status and work permits via a two-year residence called the Special Permanence Permit (PEP) (Besserer Rayas 13).
III. CONCLUSION
This review has provided a comprehensive understanding on the flaws, nuances, approaches, and benefits of temporary and permanent immigration protection services, particularly with TPS regulations within the United States and ETPS in Colombia. The working research question behind this topic is: “To what extent are the current legal frameworks in the United States and Colombia equipped to process the influx of Venezuelan migration?”. This question addresses many underlying implications of immigration, and the necessary adjustments needed within immigration law. This includes, but is not limited to, Temporary Protection Status (TPS), Estatuto Temporal de Protección (ETPS), Special Permanence Permit (PEP), Lawful Permanent Residence (LPR), Parole in Place (PIP), liminal legality, designation dates, executive discretion, and naturalization.
Both studies by Kerwin and Del Real presented the basis and framework for the differences between the United States and Colombian TPS services offered, as well as the flaws that lie within each program. It exposed pitfalls such as executive discretion tactics, liminal legality uncertainties, paperwork/documentation discrepancies, and strict procedures immigrants must comply with. The implications of these flaws are seen very clearly through the risk of being labeled as undocumented and stateless. Moreover, this research question aims to challenge the pre-established legislation within immigration law and propose changes to allow host countries to adapt alongside
immigration changes globally.
As the United States enters a new period of administration change, immigration laws and policies will continue to steadily fluctuate. For example, on November 7, 2024, a federal judge in Texas struck down the Parole in Place (PIP) policy implemented during the Biden-Harris administration. This form of parole pardoned undocumented immigrants and granted them access to stay in the United States for a fixed period, determined on a case-by-case basis to those currently married to U.S. citizens. By establishing a basis of understanding of current procedures in place and advocating for policy reform, nations worldwide will be able to sufficiently adapt to the ever-changing aspects of immigration.
IV. PROPOSED METHODS
My research question considers the opinions of numerous political figure stakeholders, temporary protection programs, and the significant roles government agencies play in immigration reform. While findings are abundant in these three areas, additional research is needed in more nuanced areas to answer my question more thoroughly. Particularly in the sources I have found, it is indicated that liminal legality precedents in Colombian immigration and within the United States’s TPS program have shown the ineffective policies in place that prohibit Venezuelan immigrants from seeking effective legal status. By continuing my research, U.S and Colombian policymakers can form a holistic view of the adjustments needed in legal organizations as well as humanitarian examinations of respective host countries.
To continue this research, I will conduct additional baseline inquiries on current laws in effect that shape immigration policies in the United States and Colombia. By gathering application rates, approval rates, and success rates from the USCIS, Center for Immigration Studies, Department of Homeland Security, and Department of State, I will be able to identify more unique characteristics within TPS applications. Within the area of U.S. Immigration Law, there are several factors and subcategories to take into consideration, with the first one being a fundamental review of legislation. The U.S. Constitution vests all their federal legislative powers in Congress, which then enacts public and private laws. Public laws do not rewrite entire bodies of law, rather they consist of minor adjustments to specific wording within pre-existing sections. These changes will then reflect in larger bodies of public law that is then codified and organized by subject matter in the U.S. code. The Immigration and Nationality Act is one example of how Congress has amended this law to change new immigration patterns. Many other forms of immigration law appear in Title 8 as either an official U.S. code or note to a section, which will be later processed by the Office of the Law
Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives.
In comparison, Colombia often uses the newly established Law 2136 to regulate migration policy. Having been enacted on August 4, 2021, this law is used to collectively unify various pre-existing regulations and establish new modes of processing migration to Colombia. However, many of the provisions listed within this law still require regulation. According to Article 91, many of the prior articles of this law were not immediately repealed or fixed. Therefore, gaps remain within Colombian immigration law that have led to many of the issues surrounding liminal legality seen today.
Moving forward, I will conduct twenty-three qualitative, semi-structured interviews with ten Venezuelan migrants in Colombia, ten Venezuelan migrants in the United States, and three immigration professionals in the United States. In preparation for these interviews, I will provide an English and Spanish informed consent sheet highlighting the research procedures, risks, potential benefits, confidentiality, participation, contact information, and consent. When signed and returned, this form will give me permission to record the meeting for it to be transcribed in the future. During the interviews, the participants will be asked if they prefer to speak in either English or Spanish, both in which I am fluent in. In addition to these steps, I will use the assistance of a translation service to accurately interpret the interviews from Spanish to English.
First, I will contact Venezuelan migrants to confirm that they currently live in either Bogotá/Medellín, Colombia. This is because many Venezuelan migrants choose to relocate to major cities within Colombia to secure better paying jobs and consistent working opportunities. I will be conducting the interviews via Zoom and ensure participants have a mobile device, or access to apps like WhatsApp, which allow international calls to be placed. I will reach out to several immigrant families that either my family currently knows or has known/met in the past that we can get in contact with. Due to information on age limit restrictions on applicants of ETPS, I will purposely seek interviewees that are age eighteen and above or legally considered adults. The interviews will be conducted one-on-one to ensure there are no group-bias influences. They will be asked experiencebased questions addressing issues such as accessing legal documentation, if they have a fear of deportation, or if they have adequate community support. Their answers will be followed by probing questions such as “Can you elaborate more about this?” to ensure I am getting accurate, detailed accounts of their experiences.
Additionally, I will ask them if they are aware of the term “liminal legality” to establish a basis for my open-ended questioning. If they answer no, I will continue to explain what it is, and how it impacts their TPS status. If they say yes, then I will inquire more about how they view the reputability of their legal status and future plans to either move or stay in Colombia. This will later be evaluated to assess the extent of Colombia’s TPS transparency requirement towards their applicants.
Next, I will conduct similar semi-structured interviews with ten Venezuelan migrants currently living in the United States. Specifically, my focus group will be major cities like D.C. as well as South Florida, which holds the greatest percentage of Venezuelan migrants in the United States. I will use one-on-one and experience-based questioning such as: issues faced when applying for TPS, number of approval/denial rates, and why they chose to apply for TPS in the U.S rather than Colombia. They will be asked questions about their experiences applying for TPS in the U.S. as well as accessing legal documentation, if they have a fear of deportation, or if they have adequate community support. I will incorporate probing questions such as why they chose to migrate to the U.S. instead of other regions closer to Venezuela, and if their past careers in finance were factors in deciding to immigrate to the U.S.
Moreover, I will interview several immigration professionals, such as: political analyst Estuardo Rodriguez, immigration attorney Ingrid Cova, contact attorneys at the AYUDA law firm in Fairfax, Virginia, and international journalist Celia Mendoza. Each one of these professionals and organizations have done or continue to work with U.S. immigration as well as international Venezuelan immigrants in respective host countries.
When interviewing Ingrid Cova, I will be using similar tactics, beginning with, “What cases have you seen of Venezuelan immigrants attempting to gain temporary protection in the United States?” and “How could these cases shift the future of immigration?”. These questions will help me better understand her past experiences in this field, as well as how she views them overall. Following this, I will conduct probing questions that build off one another such as “Can you elaborate more on the role of Humanitarian Parole?” and “How is Humanitarian Parole different from TPS?”
These findings will serve as a foundation to help address the vocabulary used in my proposal, as well as how they are used in actual cases today. Her responses will help me gain valuable legal insight on current cases she is working on, as well as how the influx of Venezuelan immigration has impacted her line of work. Similarly, I will use the help and insight by the AYUDA immigration law firm in Fairfax, Virginia, that are currently processing Venezuelan immigration cases dating back to 2015.
Finally, I will compile all my data and enter it into a master spreadsheet. Beginning with cluster analysis, I will be analyzing the characteristics of each TPS applicant and whether there are similarities with the time of their applications, supporting documents, and any motivations to apply for TPS. This study aims to find if there is a distinction between higher/lower income Venezuelan migrants, or those with previously established careers, and whether this impacts which country they choose to apply for TPS in. Moreover, I will incorporate logistical regression when analyzing the denial/acceptance rates of TPS applications and compare these measures between the two countries. This data will also be used to predict application rates in the future and whether each TPS
applicant would choose to re-apply in the same country or choose a different location.
My findings will be used to construct a detailed list of policy recombination such as creating new legal frameworks that allow for Venezuelan immigrants who are fearing deportation and their ability to access temporary protection efficiently. This will take into consideration numeric, interviewed accounts of the current state of Colombia and the U.S. legal immigration frameworks. These metrics will be used as a beacon of advocacy and shine light on the pressing implications of the influx of global Venezuelan immigration.
V. IMPLICATIONS
My findings will be significant in evaluating the current research and established legal immigration frameworks in the U.S and Colombia as well as the laws/policies in place that uphold these regulations. Through these evaluations, my research will present faults within these systems and establish a precedent for needed adjustments in both policy and practice regarding the treatment, and current inhibitory factors, faced by Venezuelan migrants seeking TPS and other forms of legal protection. By disclosing the need for improvements of Colombian liminal legality immigration policy and U.S. excusatory margins for TPS applications, I present ill-equipped gaps that underscore the significance of unprecedented global immigration of Venezuelan migrants – which can be applicable to other nationality groups.
In addition, my use of surveys of legal professionals and interviews of current Venezuelan migrants in the U.S. and Colombia will present a holistic examination of their personal account either filing or applying for TPS. To enhance the numerical examination of my original research, I will cross analyze application rates, approval/ denial rates, as well as use cluster analysis to find patterns in the treatment of Venezuelan migrants within different immigration frameworks. Following this, I will identify external barriers such as financial limitations, language barriers, or community support to create target assistance to support community initiatives for Venezuelan immigrants living in the U.S. and Colombia. This will help lay foundational justification for policy reforms such as improving legal representation, increasing documentation discrepancies, and enhancing outreach opportunities to inform applicants of the steps and requirements to file for TPS. My research contains domestic and international perspectives on the implication of unprecedented surges in immigration, as well as the limited capabilities of stagnant policies in place when faced with dynamic challenges. I intend to present more just, flexible adjustments and use the versatility of my findings to apply to other host countries or nationality groups impacted by similar factors.
VI. ADDENDUM: BUDGET AND AGENDA
TABLE I
$0.00 30 days
$0.00 30 days
Conducting 3 1-hour 10 virtual interviews with Immigration professionals. Each interviewee will need a phone, laptop, or communication device that allows video calls. They will be asked to identify the effectiveness of TPS through their accounts of the challenges they face when filing Venezuelan migrants’ TPS applications.
Conducting 10 1-hour virtual interviews with Venezuelan migrants in the United States. Each interviewee will need to have a phone, laptop, or communication device that allows for international calls to be made. Each interviewee will be asked experience-based questions: accessing legal documents needed for the application, fear of deportation, adequacy for community support.
$0.00 30 days
$1104.00 24 hours
Conducting 10 1-hour virtual interviews with Venezuelan migrants in Colombia. Each interviewee will need to have a phone, laptop, or communication device that allows for international calls to be made. Each interviewee will provide their accessibility for TPS applications, required documentation, and length of application. This will be analyzed for limital legality practices.
Transcription Services. To process and translate interview recordings. They charge $0.80/min, and the results will be tentative depending on the length of the interview. Anticipated turnaround time of 24-48 hours.
$754.20 7 days
Translation Services needed to process the interviews and translate them from Spanish to English. $0.30/ word, costs will be tentative depending on the extent of details the interviewee provides. Based on previously conducted 30-minute interviews, the word count will be approximately 2514 words per interview.
$0.00 14 days
$0.00 30 days
Gather additional information on application trends and shifting policies from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of State of Venezuela, and TPS applications.
Data from each interview will be compiled into a master spreadsheet categorized by approval/ denial rates, approval times. Data will be analyzed by myself to determine the correlation between TPS approval rates and characteristics of Venezuelan migrant interviewees within their respective host country.
Total Estimated Time: 5 months
Total Estimated Cost: $1858.20
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to George Mason University’s Honors College for providing the resources and opportunities necessary for me to pursue research during the fall semester of my first year of college. I am also grateful to my research professor, Dr. Caroline West, for her continued guidance and mentorship throughout this process. Lastly, I would like to thank my family. Despite being separated across oceans, they have always believed in me and provided unwavering support for my studies, dreams, and research.
George Mason is the largest public research university in the Commonwealth of Virginia with over 40,000 students from all 50 states and 130 countries
CHALLENGES AND OBSTACLES OF BICULTURAL LATINO NURSES IN THE UNITED STATES
SHARLA CRUZ LOPEZ
Major: Nursing Class of 2027
ABSTRACT
In the last twenty years, the United States has experienced a rapid growth in its Latino population. Unbeknownst to the general public, they face many health disparities, which stem from inaccessibility to proper healthcare. In the nursing population, Latinos are also underrepresented and consist of only a small fraction of the total nursing population in the United States. Having a nursing population that is reflective of the United States’ melting pot is essential in providing competent care to patients with unique needs and different cultural backgrounds. It is imperative to welcome more bicultural Latinos into the nursing field to alleviate the national nurse shortage and reduce health disparities that Latinos experience within the United States healthcare system. This paper attempts to find the challenges and obstacles that bicultural Latinos experience in becoming a nurse, as well as remaining a nurse while using thematic analysis for data collection.
INTRODUCTION
In the last twenty years, there has been an increase in the Latino and Hispanic populations in the United States of America by twenty-three percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2022). Latino denotes a person originating from a country in Latin America, while Hispanic denotes a person originating from a Spanish-speaking country. Due to many countries in Latin America being Spanish-speaking by nature, these two terms will be used interchangeably within this research. As proven by the 2020 census data, 62.1 million Hispanics live in the United States (U.S.) and represent 18.9 percent of the total U.S. population, making them the nation’s second largest ethnic group
after non-Hispanic whites. While Latino and/or Hispanics are a rapidly growing racial group in the United States, they encounter many challenges when it comes to accessing healthcare. Barriers that make quality healthcare difficult to access are language and culture, “as well as higher levels of poverty, particularly among recent Hispanic immigrants” (Funk & Lopez, 2022).
Not only do Latinos face numerous obstacles when accessing healthcare in the United States, but they are also underrepresented in the nursing field. Out of the three million nurses in the United States, only 5.4 percent are Latino registered nurses (Cheshire et al., 2020). Having a nursing population that is reflective of the diversity in the United States is important when providing culturally competent care and promoting a better understanding of the unique needs of patients from different ethnic backgrounds (Placide et al., 2023). As such, it is necessary to bring more Latinos into nursing so that they can cater to diverse populations, mitigate the national nurse shortage, and reduce the health disparities Latinos experience within the United States healthcare system. There is existing research that exclusively focuses on Latinos seeking higher education or those who are currently working towards their degree and the challenges they’ve experienced along with balancing their studies. In addition, there is scholarship which highlights the racial biases that Latino nurses experience throughout their nursing careers. While biculturalism has been mentioned in these studies, they tend to center on academics, as opposed to how biculturalism impacts the trajectory of a nurse’s career. This results in a gap which fails to focus on the challenges and obstacles that bicultural Latino nurses face. Additional research needs to be conducted with a focus on how biculturalism impacts Latinos in their nursing careers and related coursework. The purpose of this study and research is to examine the challenges and obstacles that bicultural Latinos experience in becoming and being registered nurses in the United States. Biculturalism can be defined as the presence of two different cultures in the same country. Often, this is studied in the children of first-generation immigrants, since they are a blend of both cultures (i.e., the culture from their parent’s country of origin and the United States).
LITERATURE REVIEW
FAMILISM(O)
Familismo, or familism in English, is defined by Ana L. Williams in her research on The Lived Experiences of Latino Males in a Four-Year College as a “fundamental value of Latino culture” and refers to the “loyalty, devotion, and dedication to family”. This definition of familism will be used throughout my research. Some examples of
familism include spending a lot of time with one’s family, asking one’s family’s opinion regarding an important decision, and putting family first (Williams, 2023). Research conducted regarding familism and physiological health within 1,245 participants of Latino, European, and Asian cultural backgrounds found that 173 Latino participants reported the highest levels of familism. Through their findings, researchers discovered that people with high levels of familism valued close and supportive family relationships, felt closeness and support from their relationships, and their physiological health benefited from these processes (Campos et al., 2014). As a result, a positive effect of familism is family being a strong source of support and encouragement throughout the remainder of Latino nurses’ lives. In Williams’ research of Latino males, familism was present in their participants lived experiences by seeking the advice and guidance of their families as they continued to earn a higher education.
Familism was found to be detrimental when families faced low socioeconomic status, which can result in “increased stress and conflict...or impos[ing] caregiving demands so demanding that psychological and physical health suffered”. Difficult scenarios like these can be distressing to someone with high levels of familism, since it surpasses their individual ability to meet expectations for family relationships and obligations (Campos et al., 2014). Esmeralda Clark’s research on nurses, whose second language is English, found that familism has led to challenges in their studies of becoming nurses. Their academic lives cause them to experience lack of support from their families, feel an overwhelming obligation to help, and miss out on important family events (Clark, 2023). This can be detrimental in Latino nurses’ studies due to there being internal conflict between being with their families or their obligation to help and focusing on their higher education. Latino students may feel pressure being away from their families, causing them to think that they need to stay with their families instead of getting an education (Williams, 2023). An internal conflict between familism and obtaining higher education can pose a challenge to becoming a nurse, since it requires a person to ignore an important part of their identity to pursue their career.
LACK OF GUIDANCE
For students to achieve higher education, they need a supportive environment that will help them achieve their academic goals. In secondary schooling, this supportive environment can be curated by guidance counselors and teachers. In John Santos’ survey, one of his participants was encouraged to do a trade program by his counselor after receiving a low score on an aptitude test. After retaking the test, he got a low score again. To redeem himself, the participant called the Licensed Practical Nursing (LPN) school he was applying to, where he was notified, he was not material for the program
because candidates were required to have both “brains and scores”. The participant in Santos’ study was resilient enough to work towards his goal of becoming a nurse, even with discouragement from both his counselor and the LPN institution. Parental engagement is also crucial to education, and while Latino parents are involved, this doesn’t fall underneath what’s considered traditional engagement by teachers. Marrero’s article reiterates the fact that Latino parents invest in their children’s education by “instilling strong cultural values that support education” (Marrero, 2016). This engagement from Latino parents is different than the traditional means of engagement in education, thus, leading teachers to feel as if parents simply don’t care about their children’s education. With English being a second language for bicultural Latinos, it can cause teachers to perceive biculturalism as limiting the access of a student to the same opportunities that native English speakers have (Gándara, 2017). This lack of support for Latino students can be detrimental because it can prevent them from attending higher level courses that can better prepare them for higher education. In Clark’s research, participants noticed that their peers in the nursing program had family already in nursing or in another branch of the healthcare field. Their peers received extensive guidance from their family, while the participants were not afforded the same luxury because they were either the first in their family to seek a higher education or the first to become a nurse.
CULTURE SHOCK
Since nursing is a workforce that has historically underrepresented Latinos, this is also reflected in their nursing programs. Clark’s findings proved that participants also experienced massive culture shock when enrolled in their nursing programs. Some participants described as there being only a few Latino students in their program, which has led them to feeling like they couldn’t relate to their peers or faced a different set of circumstances than them. However, participants that found friends within their programs could connect better with each other and support one another in their respective studies. In Lewallen and Woodley’s integrative review, they found that Latino nursing students also experienced a sense of culture shock with an academic culture of competitiveness that clashed with their cultural values of working together cooperatively. Not only do Latino nursing students often lack peers with similar backgrounds in their program, but they also don’t see nearly enough of their culture reflected in the faculty and staff. This leads to faculty and staff not understanding their scholars’ different points of view. Students can feel as if their “familial responsibilities conflict with their studies, resulting in advisors not understanding their personal situations or the importance of family commitments” (Clark 2023). Advisors fail to
understand Latinos’ value of familism, which results in students receiving less guidance on how to manage their studies and contributes to poor performance in the classroom. Culture shock is also experienced by Latino nurses, whom often hear disparaging comments about their heritage from their peers. In Moceri’s study, 25% of participants stated that they heard negative comments about their race or ethnicity from peers at least three times per week, if not more. Thirty-three percent of participants were refused to be seen by a patient because of their cultural background. This discrimination can be a huge culture shock to Latino nurses, which can drive them to leaving the nursing profession altogether or not stay with their current employer for long.
CULTURAL BROKER
A cultural broker is a person that bridges two cultural backgrounds together. In Giving Voice: Incorporating the Wisdom of Hispanic RNs Into Practice, Peggy Wros identified a common theme in practicing Hispanic registered nurses was their role as cultural brokers between their coworkers and Hispanic patients. While these nurses don’t mind it, they are not compensated for these additional duties and are prevented from fully caring for their own roster of patients. This can be detrimental to a practicing nurse, since their biculturalism hinders their ability to provide appropriate care and triggers stress from the increased responsibilities. In addition, their peers do not assist them with other patients because they mistakenly assume that Latino nurses are competent in engaging with cultures outside of their own. Being a cultural broker permits Latino nurses to “acknowledge their differences from their coethnic patients” and use their shared culture to bridge these differences (Lo & Nguyen, 2018).
METHODS
Before conducting research, it must be approved by The Institutional Review Board (IRB), especially since the study would focus on vulnerable populations (i.e., Latinos, who are widely considered a minority group). To protect participants in the screener survey and throughout their interviews, all data collected from participants would be anonymous and confidential. Once they were approved, screener surveys would be released into Facebook groups. Eligible participants were located via three Facebook Groups—Registered Nurse Jobs, Nurse Life Community, and Nurse Practitioner New Grads and Students. Each group was dedicated to registered nurses with over 4,000 active members. Since a majority of the users are older adults and Facebook groups are virtual communities created based on interest, Facebook was
the social media platform used. Since the research focuses on Latino nurses that are currently practicing ‘nursing school’ graduates, this would imply that they are older adults, making them the primary target audience. To become an eligible participant, the criterion was that the participant was over the age of eighteen, consented to taking the survey and having their data recorded, was a registered nurse in the United States of America, and was both bilingual and bicultural. Before moving onto the next step in the screener survey, the participant was made aware that they could stop taking the survey at any time. There were also a few demographic questions in the screener survey, such as what state in the United States the participant was a nurse in, the highest level of nursing education that they currently have, their workplace setting, and if they felt they were more fluent in one language than another. At the end of this screener survey, the participant was asked to leave their email address if they were interested in participating in a full-length interview, which further ensured that the participant was given autonomy in their decision in participating in the discussion.
Qualitative structured interviews were deemed appropriate for this study due to qualitative research “involv[ing] the use of interpretive, naturalistic methods where the researcher studies people in their natural setting to interpret a phenomenon of interest” (Clark, 2023). Interview questions were free-response questions to compile data that would match the previous research collected and to give the interviewees autonomy on how in-depth they wanted to answer the questions asked of them. There would be four questions in total, with two of them having two sub-questions in case the participant didn’t answer them thoroughly in their initial response. These questions were placed in three categories based on the prior research: ‘nursing school’, ‘work environment’, and ‘nurse performance’. Under the first category ‘nursing school,’ the question being asked was: “What challenges and obstacles did you encounter while attending nursing school?”. Based on existing research by Esmeralda Clark, familism would pose a huge challenge to bicultural Latino nurses because participants experience an internal conflict between their obligation to help/be with their families and prioritizing their higher education (Clark 2023). Sub-questions that followed this initial question (in case the participant did not answer them extensively) were: “Were there other Latino nurses in your nursing program?”, “How did you overcome these challenges?”, and “Did you have a support system?”. Participants in Clark’s study recounted there being few or no Latino nurses, which led them to failing to connect to their peers, while participants that did were able to help others with their education. Seeking advice from family in continuation of higher education was seen in William’s research, showing that familism could be a sense of support for these participants when facing challenges in their higher education. Under the next category, ‘work environment,’ the question being asked was: “How is your current
work environment?”. Based on past research from Moceri and Wros, their findings detected a trend in discrimination toward Latino nurses and extreme fatigue from being relied on as a cultural broker. Moceri’s investigation supported the notion that nurses who experienced higher levels of perceived bias, such as negative workplace experiences and hearing negative comments based on their race, planned to stay for a shorter period where they were employed. Wros’ data affirmed that Hispanic nurses were being used as cultural brokers in their workplace by translating for patients or explaining their culture to another staff member without being properly compensated or recognized. There’s no doubt that this burden is far too heavy for Hispanic nurses to carry alone. The sub-questions that followed this question were: “Do you have a support system to help you during professional hardships?” and “Can you describe your nurse-patient interactions and relationships?”. A study conducted on familism in families of different cultural backgrounds found that a positive effect of familism was family being a strong support and encouragement throughout life. Clark’s research found that Latino patients were relieved at being treated by a Latino nurse because they shared a similar cultural background. Under the final category, ‘nurse performance,’ the question being asked was: “How do you feel about the quality of your nursing performance?”. Positive nurse-patient interactions were found in Clark’s research as Latino nursing students reported feeling that they could provide adequate care for their patients due to them being multicultural. The final question asked in the interview was “Is there anything else you would like to add regarding the topic of bicultural Latino nurses in the United States?”. This would allow participants to add any additional feedback regarding being bicultural Latino nurses in the U.S. that wasn’t asked during the interview. Thematic analysis will be used on the data collected from interviews to search for themes that would showcase the challenges and obstacles that bicultural Latino nurses experience in becoming and being nurses in the U.S. This will allow the data to be “organized systematically” (Dawadi, 2020).
Interviews were conducted through Zoom and were transcribed using its transcription feature. Once the participants were deemed eligible, they were sent an email with a consent form and available times that they could be interviewed. Consent forms included information such as the research being collected, how the research would be conducted, their rights as a participant, and who they could contact in case they had any other questions. Participant anonymity and confidentiality were ensured by keeping data collected in records encrypted via password. Screener surveys were released into the three chosen Facebook groups, resulting in six responses. Out of these six responses, there were only five eligible participants. These five eligible participants were contacted with available times that they could be interviewed. Out of the five participants, only one was interviewed.
RESULTS
Only one participant was able to be interviewed, serving as the study sample. This participant was of Puerto Rican descent and located in New York City, New York. While they originally went to college on a pre-med track, they later decided to pivot to a career in nursing. The participant couldn’t switch to nursing after getting into the college where they studied pre-med because the college had limited availability in their nursing program. They became a certified nurse assistant (CNA), which they deemed the fastest way of getting into nursing while allowing them to get exposure to the profession. After becoming a CNA, the participant would “work up the ranks,” by then becoming a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), getting their associate’s degree in nursing (ADN) and bachelor’s of science in nursing (BSN). While the participant was aware that their journey in nursing included a lot of steps and even expressed having moments of preferring that their journey was faster, they considered every step in their nursing career to build off the previous one. Every stepping stone in the participant’s nursing education allowed them to take things at their own pace and to continue working while going to school. The challenges and obstacles that the participant experienced during nursing school were “the different loopholes of getting into nursing school.” Lack of guidance for first-generation and second-generation college students and inaccessibility to both good guidance counselors and scholarships were also responsible for posing difficulties to the participant during their nursing education.
Resilience was seen in the participants’ interview by them sticking to their plan to pursue nursing and not giving up, such as searching on the internet for nursing requisites and resources. When asked about having a support group to help them during their challenges experienced in nursing school, the participant stated that their family, especially their parents, were very supportive of them and even helped cover the cost of tuition during their first four years of schooling with what they could. Familism could be passively seen within the participants’ family being a source of support and of financial assistance. When asked about their work environment, the participant described a racially diverse staff, which could be the result of their hospital being in New York City. The participant considered that a higher population of Latinos in both their nursing program and workplace was due to the area where both their school and hospital were located being racially diverse. While the participant was aware that certain areas in the U.S. have a higher concentration of Latinos, they stated that the nurses in the U.S. don’t represent the growing population of Latinos overall in the country. While the number of Latinos in nursing has been increasing, the participant felt as though these statistics weren’t high enough. Especially if the goal is not to just take care of everyone, but also the Latino population as it pertains to language barriers and
inclusive medical care. When asked about the nature of their nurse-patient interactions, the participant couldn’t give a specific answer due to their interactions depending on the care administered, the work environment, and resources available. On the other hand, when asked about their perception of their nursing performance, the participant responded that while their perception on the quality of their treatment varies, they try to give every day and every patient “100 percent”. They also got into nursing due to wanting to give all their patients, but especially Latino clients, the agency to make their own decisions while simultaneously supporting their newfound autonomy.
Having a screener survey to find eligible participants would be helpful in my research because it would narrow down how many participants I need to conduct my study. In the screener survey, I had questions asking if they considered themselves bicultural and if they were bilingual. This would be important in my research because while data collected could be used to also validate prior research on the challenges Latinos face in becoming and being nurses, the focus of my research could highlight the challenges that they experienced due to biculturalism. By choosing to facilitate structural interviews with the participants in my research, it has led me to collect data that informed me about the participants’ experiences when becoming and being a Latina nurse. Although, strong data wasn’t collected about my participant being a bicultural Latina nurse and how that impacted her education and career, data can be gathered in the future on the challenges and experiences she had as a Latina pursing nursing and practicing nursing to corroborate prior research.
DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS
Themes apparent in the research conducted was resilience and advocacy for both patients and Latino nurses. The participant was resilient when getting their education by sticking to their plans of nursing and using the internet in order to find what they needed since they had to solely depend on themselves. Advocacy for Latino nurses could be seen in the data by the participant talking about the need for Latino nurses, why they’re needed, and how underrepresented they are today in the nursing field. Advocacy for patients could be seen from the participant when wanting to give their patients agency in making their own decisions and supporting their independence. While these themes were prevalent in our exchange, the challenges and obstacles specific to biculturalism or being a bicultural Latino nurse was non-existent in my research. My findings suggest that the challenges and obstacles that bicultural Latino nurses in the United States experience (in becoming and being nurses) are not merely caused by their bicultural backgrounds. While prior research had themes of familism, culture shock, cultural brokerage, and lack of guidance, only two themes were passively seen
in this interview, which were familism and lack of guidance. This participant stated that their family was very supportive of them, especially their parents, when attending nursing school and coming across challenges or obstacles. Lack of guidance could also be seen in not being informed or encouraged to consider nursing as a career by their guidance counselor while still attending high school. However, this can be considered as more of an immigrant experience as the participant predicted it would be.
Considering that the study sample in the research was provided by one participant, the sample size was small, and the data collected does not reflect the entire bicultural Latino nursing population in the U.S., a larger sample size including bicultural male Latino nurses would provide an accurate representation of bicultural Latinos overall. Also, the increase in the data pool could yield more conclusive findings. Furthermore, collecting stories about bicultural Latinos experiences is important for researchers to better understand them so that participants voices are no longer ignored, challenges are overcome, and obstacles begin to fade with time.
HORROR COME TO LIFE: THE JUXTAPOSITION OF BLACK HORROR & BLACKS IN HORROR AND PARALLEL IMPACTS ON THE BLACK SOCIETAL EXPERIENCE
TAJ KOKAYI
Major: Film and Video Studies Class of 2022
INTRODUCTION: WHAT
IS BLACK HORROR?
“Black History is Black Horror”. That’s a quote from award-winning author and Black Horror historian, Tananarive Due. As the subgenre faces a resurgence over the last decade, many viewers look to it with doubt. “Why is every Black movie a horror? Why is there so much of it now? It didn’t used to be like this”. I’ve been asked each of these questions more than I have the universal “Have you tried reaching out to Tyler Perry?” question. But the truth is, Blackness and horror have been intertwined for as long as film has existed. If you look at any decade in the history of film, you will find a connection between horror and Blackness. And, in turn, if you look at any point in the last century of American history, you will find a connection between horror and racial politics. Don’t believe me? What if I told you that one such film was responsible for the Ku Klux Klan? Or that one birthed a universal understanding of covert racism? So, when we talk about Black Horror, the question is not “why is it prevalent?”, but rather “why is it necessary?”.
BLACK HORROR VS. BLACKS IN HORROR
It’s important to note that within the realm of Blackness and horror, there are two subgenres, with a crucial distinction between them. Those subgenres are Black Horror & Blacks In Horror. The two are mirrors of each other: similar, but diametrically opposed. Black Horror is a subgenre of horror films that feature Black actors and are created by Black filmmakers (whether that be directors, producers, or writers), and often conveys the experience of Blackness. Jordan Peele’s work in Get Out and Us are good examples because they’re films made for us, by us. Conversely, Blacks In Horror features Black actors (or in early examples, Black faces), but the story is being told by non-Black filmmakers, and oftentimes Blackness is the horror. An example of a
BIH film would be Bernard Rose’s 1992 film Candyman (although the film received a 2020 reboot directed by Nia DaCosta and produced by Jordan Peele, which would be categorized as a Black Horror). Let’s dissect the differences between the two.
“Blackness in the American imagination was first conceived as a nightmare” (Parham). This sufficiently describes perhaps the quintessential Blacks In Horror film: 1915’s The Birth of a Nation. While not explicitly intended to be seen as a horror film (at least not for white audiences), and despite being a pillar of twentieth century Western cinema that was both critically and commercially successful, it is almost impossible to look at D.W. Griffith’s white savior/Black monstrosity film without seeing its racist implications. Tananarive Due (professor of the UCLA course, The Sunken Place: Racism, Survival, And The Black Horror Aesthetic) describes the film as having “very toxic imagery and some very toxic propaganda, propping up the confederacy, and even worse than that, the Ku Klux Klan”. The film depicts members of the KKK as vigilante heroes saving white society from the dangers of their belligerent, Black inferiors. On the other side of the segregated divide, many of the Black characters in the film are simply white actors wearing Blackface. Given America’s perpetual retroactive reprimanding of its own historical sins, The Birth of a Nation is now regarded as “the most reprehensibly racist film in Hollywood history”, but the ink of precedent it set with its depiction of Blackness was already dry, and would not be removed for decades to come (Rampell). Fast forward seventy years to another film that falls under the Blacks In Horror sub-genre: 1992’s Candyman. Set in Cabrini Green, Illinois, the original Candyman depicts a white woman entering a Black community that is (of course) plagued by crime and danger. While this classic trope of the horror genre is not comparable to The Birth of a Nation (and is even celebrated by some Black audiences), the film still does contain harmful depictions of the Black community. Much like many of its BIH brethren, Candyman shows yet another run-down environment where African Americans are a danger to society. Despite the real Cabrini Green never being rated as the area’s primary center of crime, the film chooses to depict the community as being synonymous with unsafe housing, gang violence, and murder. And the titular villain presents a Black man as the monstrous entity that needs to be defeated. This representation of African Americans as dangerous is a staple of Blacks In Horror, and it stems from a disconnect between non-Black filmmakers and the Black experience. Because any Black filmmaker or viewer would know that the real horror for the Black community is American society.
BLACK HORROR IN MODERN MEDIA & SOCIETY
When I was a student in film school, I was told that horror movies are just the reallife anxieties of Black people. They can be jogging down the street one moment and the next they are being gunned down by white civilians with shotguns. They can be driving home from the grocery store and all of a sudden, they are being choked out and beaten by a police officer. Being Black in America is a horror story of its own. W.E.B.
Du Bois defined this feeling as “double consciousness”; “the twinned state of being for Black people living in a white world and how our social mutability remains tied to our survival” (Parham). Black people not only have to attempt to live in American society, they also have to survive it. There are small nuances that every Black person thinks about each day that makes living in America a waking nightmare. And this nightmare is displayed by the Black Horror subgenre—a subgenre with which auteur Jordan Peele has become synonymous.
When we think of Black Horror in the modern era, we think of a singular narrative: Get Out. The definitive example of the subgenre in the twenty-first century succinctly conveys the difference between Black Horror and Blacks In Horror: who’s telling the story. Jordan Peele’s 2017 Academy Award-winning film sees a Black filmmaker crafting a story of a Black experience, that doesn’t portray Blackness as the horror, but as the survivor of horror. The film’s deconstruction of neoliberalism and the myth of a “post-racial” America immediately creates a universal understanding of covert racism (one which is still evolving). The beauty of Black Horror is that it possesses an instant sense of familiarity for Black audiences. Because the subtext of the narratives are frequently metaphors for sociopolitical anxieties, but told in an exaggerated manner, Black audiences are able to see their experiences depicted in the way it feels to live them: horrific.
Peele’s films Get Out and Us (2019) show some of the struggles of being Black in a society that has no tolerance for Blackness. And they allude to a singular truth that many Black Horrors share: “the radical act of healing-to be whole and free-is, for Black people, near impossible in a land built on the rejection of racial equilibrium” (Parham). Black Horror puts a magnifying glass up to systemic racism and critiques how society negatively impacts and views the Black experience.
Systemic racism has always been intrinsically tied to American culture. To attempt to separate the two would be to attempt to separate a house from its foundation. While it has manifested in many forms, transitioning from slavery, to segregation, to mass incarceration in the prison industrial complex, to police brutality, America has always been grounded in the hindrance of its members of the African diaspora. This is on display in both subgenres of Black Horror and Blacks In Horror, for better and for worse. While Black Horror critiques systemic racism and shows the negative impact it has on the Black community, Blacks In Horror utilizes systemic racism to categorize Blacks as dangerous and inferior. This is most apparent with tropes like the Black character dying first, the “magical negro”, the “sacrificial negro”, the Black monstrosity, and other staples of the horror genre.
This ideology that Black people are inherently dangerous ties back to AfroPessimism. Afro-Pessimism is a school of thought that “positions Black people as internal enemies of civil society”, according to the Afro-Pessimism entry in the 2018 Oxford Bibliography. This philosophy that Black people are a threat to civil society is displayed all throughout the Blacks In Horror subgenre. Going all the way back to The Birth of a Nation, the plot of this film is centered around this mindset–that Black
people are the enemy of civility and a menace that must be stopped. Fast forward to a more modern example of the subgenre with Candyman (1992), and we see that despite being set in a predominantly Black community, the narrative places a white woman as the protagonist who has come to save the neighborhood from the mythical Candyman, who is, inevitably, a Black man. Both of these films rely on a set of tropes that often go hand-in-hand in cinema: the “white savior” and the “Black monstrosity”. The white savior trope depicts a white protagonist inserted into a story in order to save the (typically Black) community from a grave danger (typically themselves). Often times, the white savior is put up against a Black monstrosity, which, as described by Tananarive Due, is the idea that Blacks “are going to rise, they are going to steal your women, they are going to take your jobs”. A simpler definition of Black monstrosity would parallel that of the idea behind Afro Pessimism: Black people are a threat to any white (i.e. “civil”) society.
Life and art are intertwined in an endless loop. Life influences art, and art influences life just as much. There is a direct link between the negative representation of African Americans onscreen and society’s negative treatment of us off-screen. If Black people are consistently depicted negatively onscreen for decades on end, how can we expect them to be treated any differently in the real world? Seeing is believing. It can be argued that the depiction of Black characters in cinema, specifically Blacks In Horror, has played a pivotal role in the progression of our integrated society. The Birth of a Nation most certainly set back civil rights and contributed to the agenda of the Confederacy and the KKK. According to Dick Lehr, author of The Birth of a Nation: How a Legendary Filmmaker and Crusading Editor Reignited America’s Civil War, following the release of the film, “more Klan chapters formed and membership reportedly reached into the millions” (Clark). Fast forward a century later, and we are still facing the ramifications from the expansion of the KKK, as we live in the midst of a resurgence of its siblings: white supremacy, neo-Nazism, and American fascism. All because a movie birthed the “second-wave Klan,” growing its membership to “between 3 and 7 million” members (McAndrew). Still believe that horror has no influence on society?
CONCLUSION: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF BLACK HORROR IN CULTURAL CONTEXT
This is why Black Horror is crucial to our society. Horror has always been a genre of political expression, and oftentimes rebellion. Because of the heightened nature of the genre, horror narratives possess a unique sense of freedom in their ability to convey messages that would be otherwise considered “in your face”. Black Horror is a reflection of Black reality. It depicts cultural anxieties and frustrations that allow Black audiences to feel validated and seen in their real-world experiences, and non-Black audiences to see a visual allegory for what it means to exist while Black. Film is an escapist medium, but it is not always intended to be an escape from reality. In some instances, it provides an opportunity to hold a mirror up to reality and reveal the ugliness we choose not
to look at. The reason Blackness and horror blend so well together is that oftentimes experiencing Blackness is a horror within itself.
Blacks In Horror and Black Horror are on parallel journeys. Both tell the stories of Black history and Black culture, but through different lenses and with different impacts on the real world. Blacks In Horror is filled with stereotypes, covert (or even overt) racism, and characters who are simply instruments for the story and not tangible people. Black Horror scrutinizes those same tropes and the systemic racism that plague its counterpart, tells stories that are genuinely relatable (and often universal) to Black audiences, and gives non-Black audiences a true insight into Black culture and the Black struggle. One subgenre pushes the Black agenda forward, while the other can pull it back. The key is authorship. That is why it is important–critical–that Black filmmakers tell Black narratives and tell Black Horrors. It is a reclamation of our stories, our history, and our depiction. As Ousmane Sembene once said, “If Africans do not tell their own stories, Africa will soon disappear”.
SOURCES
DOMINANT NARRATIVE AND THE LARAMIE PROJECT
BY DREW KOLBER
Brooks, David. How to Know a Person. Random House USA, 2023.
Ford, Chad. “Chapters 4-6.” Dangerous Love: Transforming Fear and Conflict at Home, at Work, and in the World. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2020.
Hill, Oakley T. “From Love in Their Sameness to Love in Their Difference.” Interpersonal Conflict Analysis and Resolution, 13 November 2024, George Mason University. Lecture.
Jimenez, Stephen. The Book of Matt: The Real Story of the Murder of Matthew Shepard. Steerforth Press, 2013.
Kaufman, Moisés, et al. The Laramie Project. Harrington Arts Alliance, 2017, www.harringtonartsalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/The-LaramieProject- Script.pdf.
Monk, Gerald, and John Winslade. When Stories Clash: Addressing Conflict with Narrative Mediation. Taos Institute Publications, 2013.
“RNT Coding Guide.” TNT Lab, Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution, George Mason University, 2024, tntlab.carterschool.gmu.edu/ discover/story-grammar-tools/rnt-coding-guide/2/.
Simmons, Solon. Root Narrative Theory: A Theory of Truth, Justice, and the Human Condition. Cambridge UP, 2020.
Wilmont, William W., and Joyce L. Hocker. Interpersonal Conflict. 10th ed., McGraw-Hill Education, 2018.
HISTORY HAS ITS EYES ON HIM, NOT ME: GEORGE MASON AND GEORGE WASHINGTON IN MEMORY
BY NICKIE JOHNSON
PRIMARY SOURCES
Jefferson, Thomas. “From Thomas Jefferson to Augustus Elias Brevoort Woodward, 3 April 1825.” In Founders Online. National Archives. https:// founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-5105.
Mason, George. The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution Digital Edition, edited by John P. Kaminski, Gaspare J. Saladino, Richard Leffler, Charles H. Schoenleber and Margaret A. Hogan. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009.
Mason, George. George Mason to Thomas Jefferson, May 26, 1788. In The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 13, March–7 October 1788, ed. Julian P. Boyd. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1956. https://founders.archives. gov/documents/Jefferson/01-13-02-0117.
Mason, George. The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, edited by Robert A. Rutland. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1970. Pierce, William. “William Pierce on the Federal Convention of 1787.”
In The American Historical Review, no. 3, October 1897 - July 1898 https:// lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/images/5/53/NotesOfMajorWilliamPierceAm ericanHistoricalReviewJanuary1898.pdf
Washington, George. The Diaries of George Washington, edited by Donald Jackson. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1976-1979. In Founders OnlinePrinted Volumes. https://founders.archives.gov/content/volumes..
Washington, George. George Washington to George Mason, March 27, 1779. In The Papers of George Washington: Revolutionary Series vol. 19 15 January-7 April 1779, edited by Philander D. Chase and William M. Ferraro. Charlottesville: University of Press, 2009.
SECONDARY SOURCES (BOOKS)
Bernstein, Richard B. The Founding Fathers: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Broadwater, Jeff. George Mason, Forgotten Founder. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006.
Gawalt, Gerard W. George Mason and George Washington: The Power of Principle. North Charleston: CreateSpace, 2012.
Glover, Lorri. Founders as Fathers: The Private Lives and Politics of the American Revolutionaries. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014.
Hyland, William G. George Mason: The Founding Father Who Gave Us the Bill of Rights. Washington, DC: Regnery History, 2019.
Lee, Mike. Written Out of History: The Forgotten Founders Who Fought Big Government. New York: Sentinel, 2017.
McDonnell, Michael A. The Politics of War: Race, Class, and Conflict in Revolutionary Virginia. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2007.
Rowland, Kate Mason. The Life of George Mason, 1725-1792. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons: 1892. Rutland, Robert Allen. George Mason: Reluctant Statesman. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1961.
Rutland, Robert Allen. George Mason: Reluctant Statesman. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1961.
Stetson, Charles. Washington and His Neighbors. Richmond, Garrett & Massie, Incorporated, 1956.
SECONDARY SOURCES (ARTICLES)
Henriques, Peter. “An Uneven Friendship: The Relationship Between George Washington and George Mason.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 97, no. 2 (April 1989):185-204. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/4249070
Horrell, Joseph. “George Mason and the Fairfax Court.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 91, no. 4 (October 1983): 418-439. https://www.jstor. org/stable/4248666.
“Medical Conditions That Can Keep You from Joining the Military.” Military.com. https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/disqualifiers-medicalconditions.html.
“Virginia Declaration of Rights.” In Primary Documents in American History. The Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/mason. html.
Wallenstein, Peter. “Flawed Keepers of the Flame: The Interpreters of George Mason.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 102, no. 2 (April 1994): 229-260. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4249431.
LEGAL FRAMEWORKS UNDER PRESSURE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF COLOMBIAN AND U.S. IMMIGRATION LAW AND POLICY IN CONTEXT TO THE INTERNATIONAL VENEZUELAN DIASPORA
BY GABRIELA C. MOLINA OTAIZA
Besserer Rayas, Andrés, Victoria Finn, and Luisa F. Freier. “Building Paper Bridges: Adapting Citizenship and Immigration Regimes to International Displacement.” Comparative Migration Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2024, pp. 47. ProQuest, http://mutex.gmu.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest. com/scholarly-journals/building-paper-bridges -adapting-citizenship/ docview/3116780250/se-2, doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-024-00408-w. Del Real, Deisy. “Seemingly inclusive liminal legality: the fragility and illegality production of Colombia’s legalization programmes for Venezuelan migrants.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies vol. 48,15 (2022): 3580-3601. Doi:10 .1080/1369183x.2022.2029374.
Kerwin, Donald. “Creating a More Responsive and Seamless Refugee Protection System: The Scope, Promise and Limitations of US Temporary Protection Programs.” Journal on Migration and Human Security, vol. 2, no. 1, 2014, pp. 44-72. ProQuest, https://doi.org/10.1177/233150241400200104.
Kerwin, Donald, Robert Warren, and Charles Wheeler. “Making Citizenship an Organizing Principle of the US Immigration System: An Analysis of How and Why to Broaden Access to Permanent Residence and Naturalization for New Americans.” Journal on Migration and Human Security, vol. 9, no. 4, 2021, pp. 224-250. ProQuest, http://mutex.gmu.edu/ login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/making-citizenshiporganizing-principle-us/docview/2605548269/se-2, doi:https://doi. org/10.1177/23315024211035591.
Kerwin, D., & Warren, R. (2019). “Fixing What’s Most Broken in the US Immigration System: A Profile of the Family Members of US Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents Mired in Multiyear Backlogs.” Journal on Migration and Human Security, 7(2), 36-41. ttps://doi. org/10.1177/2331502419852925.
Kerwin Donald, Warren Robert, Nicholson Mike. 2018. “Proposed Public Charge Rule Would Significantly Reduce Legal Admissions and Adjustment to Lawful Permanent Resident Status of Working Class Persons.” CMS Essays. New York, NY: Center for Migration Studies. https://doi.org/10.14240/ cmsrpt1118n2.
Solórzano, L. G. (2022). “We are not the people they think we are”: First-generation undocumented immigrant belonging and legal consciousness in the wake of deferred action for parents of Americans. Ethnicities, 22(1), 24-41. https://doi. org/10.1177/14687968211041805
Venezuela’s Chavez Era.” Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, www.cfr.org/timeline/venezuelas-chavez-era.
CHALLENGES AND OBSTACLES OF BICULTURAL LATINO NURSES IN THE UNITED STATES
BY SHARLA CRUZ LOPEZ
Campos, B., Ullman, J. B., Aguilera, A., & Schetter, C. D. (2014). “Familism and psychological health: The intervening role of closeness and social support.” Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(2), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034094
Cheshire, M. H., Cuellar, N. G., Figueroa-Delgado, J. M., & Rojas, P. (2020). “A nursing workforce initiative: Increasing the Latino/Hispanic BSN workforce.” Hispanic Health Care International, 18(2), 117–120. https://doi. org/10.1177/1540415320904929
Clark, E. (2023). A Double-Edged Sword: Lived experiences of Hispanic/Latino nursing students who speak English as an additional language - ProQuest [Dissertation, University of Northern Colorado]. https://www.proquest.
Dawadi, S. (2020). “Thematic Analysis Approach: A step-by-step guide for ELT research practitioners.” In Journal of NELTA (Vols. 25–25, Issues 1–2, pp. 62–64). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED612353.pdf
Funk, C., & Lopez, M. H. (2022). “Hispanic Americans’ Trust in and Engagement with Science.” In Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center. https://www. pewresearch org/science/2022/06/14/hispanic-americans-trust-in-andengagement-with science/
Gándara, P. (2017). “The potential and promise of Latino students.” The American Educator, 41(1), 4. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1137807.pdf
González, E. R. (2012). “Health disparities in Latino communities.” Californian Journal of Health Promotion, 10(SI-Latino), v–viii. https://doi.org/10.32398/ cjhp.v10isi-latino.1477
Lo, M. M., & Nguyen, E. T. (2018). “Caring and Carrying the Cost: Bicultural Latina Nurses’ Challenges and Strategies for Working with Coethnic Patients.” RSF, 4(1), 149. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2018.4.1.09
Marrero, F. A. (2016). “Barriers to school success for Latino students.” Journal of Education and Learning, 5(2), 180. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v5n2p180
Moceri, J. T. (2012). “Bias in the nursing workplace: implications for Latino(a) nurses.” PubMed, 19(3), 94–101. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/23155895
Placide, V., Brown, R. N. J., Blavos, A., Grover, O., & Chubb, C. S. (2023b). “The importance of diversity in the healthcare workforce.” In Advances in Religious and Cultural Studies (ARCS) book series (pp. 374–396). https://doi. org/10.4018/978-1-6684-8412-8.ch018
Santos, J. (2005). The Experience of Becoming and Being a Male Hispanic Nurse in the United States [Thesis, WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY]. https://rex. libraries.wsu.edu/esploro/outputs/graduate/The-experience-of-becoming-andbeing/99900525390701842/filesAndLinks?index=0
U.S. Census Bureau. (2022, June 10). 2020 census illuminates racial and ethnic composition of the country. Census.gov. https://www.census.gov/library/ stories/2021/08/improved-race-ethnicity-measures-reveal-united-statespopulation-much-more-multiracial.html#:~:text=The%20Hispanic%20 or%20Latino%20population,origin%20grew%204.3%25%20since%20 2010.
Williams, A. L. (2023). The Latino Males’ Lived Experiences in a Four-Year College and Its Effect on Persistence and Retention: A transcendental phenomenological study about the vanishing Latino male in Higher Education - ProQuest [Dissertation or Thesis, Regent University]. https://www.proquest. com docview/2811112764?%20Theses&fromopenview=true&pqorigsite=gscholar&sourcetype=Dissertations%20
Wros, P. (2009). “Giving Voice: Incorporating the Wisdom of Hispanic RNs Into Practice.” PubMed, 16(4), 151–157. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/20069802
HORROR COME TO LIFE: THE JUXTAPOSITION OF BLACK HORROR AND BLACKS IN HORROR AND THEIR PARALLEL IMPACTS ON THE BLACK SOCIETAL EXPERIENCE
BY TAJ KOKAYI
Clark, Alexis. “How ‘The Birth of a Nation’ Revived the Ku Klux Klan.” History, 14 Apr. 2018, www.history.com/articles/kkk-birth-of-a-nation-film
Douglass, Patrice, et al. “Afro-Pessimism.” Oxford Bibliographies, 28 Aug. 2018, www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780190280024/obo9780190280024-0056.xml.
Due, Tananarive. “Film Historian Reviews Black People In Horror Movies.” BuzzFeedVideo, 20 Feb. 2020, www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjrFJaHzIws&t=2s. McAndrew, Tara. “The History of the KKK in American Politics.” JSTOR Daily, 25 Jan. 2017, daily.jstor.org/history-kkk-american-politics/.
Nowell-Smith, Geoffrey. The Oxford History of World Cinema. Oxford University Press, 1997.
Rampell, Ed. “‘The Birth of a Nation’: The Most Racist Movie Ever Made.”The Washington Post, 3 Mar. 2015, www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything wp/2015/03/03/the-birth-of-a-nation/ .
FACULTY GUIDE
GMR IN THE CLASSROOM
The George Mason Review (GMR) provides prime examples of undergraduate scholarship that can be used to teach students about the characteristics of good research writing, inspire them to explore new ideas, and provide a sense of personal confidence that results from publishing their work for a campus-wide audience of peers and professors. Exposing students to the work of their counterparts can act as a mirror, reflecting undiscovered personal potential. Incorporating GMR into your classroom can take many forms: develop a lesson plan around analyzing one of our published works; utilize the concepts and ideas contained in these pages as a brainstorming tool for students unsure of what topic to explore; offer extra credit to students who submit their work for publication; or come up with your own innovative application.
MAKE GMR THE ASSIGNMENT
Some professors have found success in raising student achievement by making submission to GMR a course requirement. Students who write with a wide and diverse potential audience in mind tend to put more thought into their work, leading to improved academic outcomes and higher levels of critical thinking. This is a valuable exercise in producing a paper that is accessible to those from varying backgrounds without comprising academic integrity. Knowledge that your work will be publicly available can be a powerful motivator, and publication in an academic journal is a great addition to any résumé or portfolio.
GETTING STARTED
Mason’s INTO program, the English Department, and UNIV 100 classes have used GMR in a variety of ways. We would be happy to make a brief presentation to your class or meet with you one-on-one to create a tailored approach that complements your curriculum.
GMR is always available online: www.gmreview.gmu.edu To request physical copies, email: gmreview@gmu.edu
NOTE FROM THE ADVISOR
The George Mason Review (GMR) began life as “an annual collection of English 101 and undergraduate writing” in 1992, publishing under the name GMU Freshman Review. That first edition’s introduction reveals the motivations of its creators as they sought to “create a sense of community by publishing work that reflects the cultural and academic quality of GMU’s undergraduate population.” Their clear intent was to present “models of writing” that could serve as a “learning tool that crosses the curriculum” for both faculty and students:
“We want this anthology to help undergraduate writers with what seems to be one of their biggest difficulties — generating ideas and just getting started… When students know their work is being taken seriously beyond the classroom, they may very well aspire to a whole new set of standards and, with purpose and focus, aim at the highest quality possible in their writing… Instructors can find in the collection a sense of what to prepare themselves for and what kind of standards they should set for themselves and their classes… We hope that the essays are useful — whether you are ‘stuck’ [on an assignment] or an instructor looking to show your students how a research paper ‘works.’”
Over 30 years later, our mission remains the same: seek out and publish exemplary undergraduate writing across the curriculum with the conviction that students grow as scholars by publishing their work for a campus-wide audience and faculty members gain a valuable classroom tool that can help improve academic outcomes.
Since those early days as a freshman English anthology, GMR has evolved into a modern, peer-reviewed, undergraduate research journal that accepts scholarly submissions from all years and all majors. By exploring and challenging the boundaries separating disciplines from one another — the humanities from the sciences, the academic from the creative — The George Mason Review exists as a unique platform where scholarship, creativity, and critical thought can co-exist.
Mason has experienced rapid evolution as an institution over the past several decades, but the lodestar that has guided us through each step (or leap) along the way is our shared commitment to academic excellence, meaningful innovation, and cuttingedge research. The George Mason Review embodies each of these noble pursuits while providing all Mason undergrads with opportunities and experiences that pave the way for greatness in the classroom and prepare them for successful careers in the future.
I am extremely proud to serve the Mason community as the faculty advisor for GMR and continue the rich traditions established by that first cohort of educators who recognized the need for this type of forum and made it a reality. Participation is vital to our continued growth as an academic journal, so I strongly encourage all students to submit original work for publication and all faculty members to consider integrating GMR into their curriculum.
Please feel free to reach out directly to me (jhartsel@gmu.edu) with any questions you may have, requests for extra copies of GMR, or to share examples of how you have utilized our publication in your classroom.
Reflecting on the history and evolution of this journal has only strengthened my belief in its value and purpose. I look forward to collaborating with the outstanding students, faculty, and staff of George Mason University to share the amazing things we accomplish together with the world.
