Policy Over Pancakes

 

I sat down with Dr. Stephanie Holmsten to discuss her career path, interests in public policy, and how she approaches policy issues.

Dr. Holmsten is a Lecturer of International Relations and Global Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. Her research focuses on the election of ethnic minorities and women to national legislatures around the world, with attention to the role of electoral institutions. She received her MA in International Relations from American University and PhD in Government from the University of Texas at Austin.

---

Dr. Holmsten attended Wheaton College with a degree in political science. Her past experiences helped inspire her interest and pursuit in studying political science, specifically looking at institutions and political structures. While she grew up in Houston, she spent much of her time travelling to Mexico. Travelling to other countries, such as Europe and Israel, also helped open her eyes to how life for individuals is in different conditions.

These situations opened her see how certain political institutions can systematically marginalize certain individuals. Considering the perspectives of others, she realized that individuals have a different set of opportunities than other individuals that live in more inclusive and stable democratic systems.

Upon graduating Wheaton College, Holmsten decided to work as a National Campus Advocacy Organizer for Bread for the World, an advocacy group in Washington, DC. At Bread for the World, she educated advocacy leaders about US public policy related to poverty, domestic welfare programs, and low-income populations. Looking at how to mobilize money and the structure of foreign aid helped her understand policy.

When Holmsten worked at Bread for the World, her primary duties included mobilizing people. She had to represent Bread for the World’s message to people of different backgrounds and locations. To successfully do this, Holmsten had to understand her audience well. Understanding different perspectives, she believes, is important for policy research and outreach. She says, “(As an advocate) we always demanded bipartisan support. We had to think creatively about how our audience would receive the information, we had to consider political realities, what members would be willing to do…we had to think about what other people’s interests were.”

After working for Bread for the World for nearly seven years, Holmsten decided to further her studies in American University in International Relations, and later pursued a PhD in Government at UT-Austin. Holmsten’s shift towards academia was influenced by her motivation to become involved in long-term considerations in policy work. While she does admit that academic work might seem less realistic and more idealistic, she wanted to dive deep into questions of effectiveness, data, and long-term evidence. She wanted more creativity and freedom to pursue topics that weren’t necessarily constrained with a specific message.

However, Holmsten expressed deep appreciation for her experience as a mobilizer for an advocacy group. She believes that her previous work as a mobilizer has contributed greatly towards her work as an academic. She says, “I think having been an advocate and having to work across party lines, and as well as across the country, I think that the idea of honestly understanding the preferences, opinions, motivations of other people makes my research a little bit better…I’m less willing to set aside argument that I don’t understand.”

As a professor, Holmsten also finds that understanding different perspectives is an important lesson for her students to learn. She says, “I do find myself both in the classroom and in writing more attentive to the variety of opinions. And so, for example, in the classroom I urge students to take a real honest read of the scholarship that they disagree with.”

---

After speaking with Dr. Holmsten, I realized that policy can be addressed in many forms, whether that be in the non-profit sector or in academia. Our conversation also showed me the importance of understanding audiences and perspectives when writing or persuading others of your message. This is essential when crafting policy with others.

Relating back to my time with the Brumley Scholars, I have experienced firsthand how relevant Dr. Holmsten’s advice is. Much of what I have learned in the classroom has been inspired by my classmates, my ability to voice my opinions appropriately, and mutual respect and attention for each other’s voice. For example, when we wrote policy proposals in class, the feedback I received made my work more substantial. Through our discussions on policy, I now understand that collaboration and and having an open mind is necessary for good quality work.

Embracing perspectives can be difficult, but it is a tool that is essential for policy influencers to adopt.

For the amount of stress the United States  puts on China as a power, very little effort is made by the public to understand Chinese politics and how the nation functions within international systems. I am also aware of my severe lack of knowledge on Chinese government and the role they play within international bodies. For this reason I chose to attend Yun Sun’s lecture on the deterioration of the China-North Korea Alliance. Yun Sun is a senior associate with the East Asia Program at the Stimson Center. Her background includes being a visitor fellow for the Brookings Institute and was also the China Expert for the International Crisis Organization based in Beijing China. She has spent years studying Chinese government and security, and I looked forward to her thoughts on such a hot topic.

North Korea gained a lot of attention recently for their missile tests as well as nuclear tests. The country conducted a total of six nuclear tests and, a week before the lecture, just conducted another missile test. This led to a lot of fear from the international community and China’s relationship with North Korea could help bring a solution to this prominent issue. To understand this alliance between the countries, one must go back to the past to understand how the countries came to this agreement. During the Korean War, China, at first, took a neutral stance on the war. When the United States invaded the Korean Peninsula, China made the decision to also get involved in this war. It was here in this war that the states began their alliance, but nothing was consolidated for another eight years until a treaty was signed in 1961. The details of this treaty state that China is legally obligated to assist North Korea if they are ever attacked by another country.

Recently, North Korea made news for running nuclear tests and possibly provoking other countries, like the United States. The looming threat of war caused China to reassess this treaty they automatically renew every twenty years. The treaty will be up for renewal again in 2021. The nation is worried that they may be forced into a war they don’t wish to be involved in. For this reason, policy makers are attempting to figure out ways to legally breach this treaty. One possibility they suggested is that China is not forced into conflict if it’s provoked by North Korea. Provoking is defined as North Korea using force against another nation and them being attacked as retaliation. According to the Yun Sun, China also feels that they were manipulated by North Korea. The state of North Korea started the Korean war without consent of China or the USSR. Also they believe that the war permanently prevented the unification of China and Taiwan, because China was forced to shift their focus to North Korea. Today, Chinese government views North Korea as more of a burden than anything else.

Yun Sun then posed the question, if North Korea is such a burden, then why keep the country as an ally. Her analysis is that China’s main goal is a unification of Korea, but it is possible that this could occur in ways that would be a loss to China. If the South Korean government was to become the governing force of a united Korea, there would be greater East Asian military alliances with the United States. China needs military alliances with their neighbors and North Korea provides the a bargaining tool for gaining more. There is also the issue of China’s arsenal location.Chinese weapons arsenals are located near North Korea, and an attack on North Korea would leave the arsenals vulnerable. The destruction of Chinese arsenals would leave China defenseless in a war with any nation.

The final part of Ms. Sun’s presentation provided an analysis on what future steps China should take in their alliance with North Korea. The ultimate goal is the reunification of Korea, but China has two conditions that must be met. The first condition is that the reunification must be independent of any third party interveners, like the United States. This must be a process exclusive to North and South Korean governments. The second condition is that it must be a peaceful reunification. No military intervention is allowed in bringing these nations back together.

Yun Sun’s lecture was extremely informative on such an extremely complex topic. He analysis of the situation between North Korea and China offered a new perspective on military alliances, economics, and East Asian diplomacy. The alliance between North Korea and China has evolved to become much more complicated and with fears over war between the United States and North Korea it is important to understand possible roles of other powerful countries.

On November 15th, UT-Austin’s University Democrats  hosted former Texas Senator Wendy Davis. She joined a panel to lead a discussion on sexual assault on college campuses. With her, female student leaders from Voices Against Violence and Not On My Campus were on the panel. Topics ranged from how students should their voice to encourage stronger state legislation, how to utilize on-campus resources, and Davis’ non-profit, Deeds Not Words. Afterwards, the panel had a Q&A section with the audience.

The talk focused on the impact of state level legislation on sexual assault reporting and prevention on campus. I do think that there is not enough student engagement when it comes to local legislation. Davis emphasized that students ought to collectively voice their opinions and educate themselves on bills that are being debated. She helpfully offered some tips, such as testifying or directly calling representatives, to become more engaged.

I feel that the panel did a great job at addressing the topics that were brought forth. Even more encouraging was to see female student leaders be represented on a panel alongside Davis. The panel discussed the impact of becoming involved in state politics. For instance, all of the panelists worked on passing House Bill 281, which established a statewide tracking system for survivors to track their DNA samples in rape kits. Davis also spoke on behalf of her organization, Deeds Not Words, which seemed relevant for the panel discussion. Deeds Not Words focuses on women equality by providing resources to become more involved on a legislative level (such as sample letters to state representatives) and on a community level.

However, I do wish that there was more discussion on how college culture can promote sexual assault on campus. While this was briefly addressed, the discussion leaned towards state legislative responses. While the panel did mention helpful resources on campus, such as Title IX, UT Counseling and Mental Health Center, and University Health Services, broader discussions on how UT-Austin can respond to 15 percent of undergraduate women raped failed to be addressed at the panel. While engaging in local politics is essential, understanding how we can also address this issue on university level is just as essential. During the Q&A session, several audience members expressed their frustration with resources offered on campus due to failure to convict or suspend those accused of assaulting. Conversations about how the university deals with sexual assault cases especially comes to light in the recent case of John Doe v. Gregory Fenves, wherein a student sued UT President Gregory Fenves for suspending him over a sexual misconduct violation. After the hearing, the student is now unsuspended and will be back on campus.

While I agree that students need to continue voicing their needs, the burden shouldn’t have to fall on survivors of sexual assault or solely on advocates for the cause. These conversations need to be sponsored and encouraged by the university, and further addressed by making proactive changes on campus. After the Cultivating Learning and Safe Environments survey was released last Spring semester, very little has been addressed about how the UT will respond to alarming number of sexual assault and rape occurrences on campus. While Fenves sent out a supportive letter, his words of comfort need to be transformed into action. As of now, it is unclear how the university plans to move forward in light of the survey and what areas the administration will address in order to ensure a safe environment for its students and faculty.

Attending this panel made me appreciate how hard students, particularly inspiring women on campus, work on creating a environment for UT students and faculty. These leaders on campus work tirelessly to foster safe environments for their fellow peers, whether that means having the courage to testify before the Texas Legislature or leading a student wide movement. Even more encouraging was to see that the work of advocates, such as Davis with Deeds Not Words, tries to connect students with resources to address difficult problems.

Important lessons I gathered from the talk was that I need to stay updated with my state legislature and to try to lend my voice towards the causes that I care about. Also, I need to educate myself more on the available resources on campus, such as Title IX. And last, we as students should hold ourselves and others accountable for sexual assault on campus- whether that means educating ourselves and others, or demanding that our university addresses this issue to foster a safe environment for all.