This research investigates the limitations of established approaches to literary translation when used to translate oral testimonies and explores the ways established approaches can be supplemented or replaced. The translation of creative works from one language to another has long prompted contentious debate over the characteristics of an ideal approach to translating. Navigating between what are considered the two extremes of the spectrum of approaches, translation that is literal and translation that focuses on audience understanding, scholars call for consistency of approach throughout a translated work above all else. While imperative for the translation of literary works, this insistence on consistency ultimately hinders the translation of oral testimonies, a form of source material whose layers of communicated meaning exceed that of written word. Throughout the past year, I transcribed and translated from Spanish to English 14 recorded interviews with first- and second-generation Holocaust survivors living in Montevideo, Uruguay. While creating a public archive of these oral testimonies with translated English subtitles from the raw footage available, I decided not only how best to translate the spoken content of the interviews, but also how to most effectively interpret sounds, gestures, and inflection. Through this process of constant discernment with regard to the balancing of audience understanding, speaker intent, and preservation of source content, I argue that the translation of oral testimonies, especially those impacted by complicating factors like the use of a non-native language or a discussion of severe trauma, necessitates an approach that responds individually and contextually to each moment of the testimonial. In light of the increased computerization of translation that relies heavily on translating content literally, thus potentially forfeiting meaning and accuracy, my research emphasizes the necessity for human judgment and involvement in the act and art of translation.

The paper investigates the viability of increased intergenerational solidarity welfare policy as a potential solution for the prevalent issue of loneliness experienced by older immigrant adults. Many older adults in individualist societies experience painful loneliness due to social isolation, which is exacerbated by patterns of adult children immigrating away from their parents for work opportunities.. Isolation often increases the prevalence of depression, vulnerability to scamming, and individualistic ideals that cause shame. Previous research of intergenerational solidarity (IS) reveals that multigenerational homes positively impact the well being of older adults living with their family members. IS research identifies factors such as economic, emotional, and functional interactions among family members and analyzes their role in societal institutions and mental wellness. This paper examines survey research studies that investigate matters of multigenerational interactions and physical access to community in the older adult demographic. Literature reviews of case studies are vital to implementing effective welfare in this context because it allows future programs to identify under served groups within the greater population. The literature review highlights the often overlooked emotional and financial cost that middle generation mothers pay to preserve IS interactions between their parents and children. Additionally, the comparative literature review found that older immigrant adults face more severe geographical and social barriers to IS interactions. Government welfare policy has the potential to alleviate these challenges, which disproportionately burden middle generation mothers and older adult immigrants. By providing publicly funded opportunities for IS interactions outside of the home, middle generation mothers and older adult immigrants can experience the benefits of community without economic and emotional hurdles. Building a foundation of intergenerational solidarity challenges the cycle of loneliness by equipping each generation with tools to seek out togetherness in the face of modern political and social challenges.

In the midst of World War I and the Mexican Revolution, a document known as the Plan de San Diego emerged in South Texas. Discovered by local police in January of 1915 in McAllen, Texas when they arrested a Mexican national, the Plan called for a total racial revolution against Anglo-Texan power. A few months later, raids in support of the Plan broke out. Historians have primarily disputed over whether the Plan was an authentic product of local Tejano radicalism, or part of a wartime master plan by German and Mexican conspirators. The mystery surrounding its authorship and the raids has contributed significantly to this lack of consensus. My research traces the roots of the Plan’s rhetoric and the movement around it through the history of Mexicanos in Texas. I argue that the racial logic of the Plan demonstrates a real grounding in local history, regardless of its authorship. Rather than focusing on the moment in itself, I follow the lineage of the “Mexican race” which it attempted to mobilize. To do so, I closely read the wording and differences across time and space in legal policy, court cases, proclamations, newspapers, and folk music. In particular, I read the operation and formation of social-political categories between the lines of these texts. This approach draws significantly on racial formation theory, which offers a means to understand how such a movement could come about. By incorporating this critical approach, I hope to make a step forward in critically analyzing history as an element in racial history and the development of the identity "la raza," which the Chicanx movement mobilized later in the 20th century.

The Supreme Court is often viewed with awe and the justices treated with reverence. It is the highest court in the United States, tasked with interpreting the law. But is the Supreme Court the neutral arbiter of justice it purports to be? Most recently, the 2022 ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned the fifty-year precedent of Roe v. Wade, causing the Court to face increasing scrutiny and questions of its legitimacy. I conduct a philosophical analysis of the arguments made by the justices in the opinions on Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to understand the way abortion jurisprudence is argued. In the Court’s opinion on Casey, the plurality constructs an argument for the legitimacy of the Court. I take this argument and assess its logical validity, and then with the framework the argument presents, I examine if the Court is able to maintain its neutrality in the context of philosophical arguments. Then, using case law analysis from Melissa Murray about the impact of abortion and precedent, as well as Ronald Dworkin’s constitutional evaluation from Freedom’s Law, I discuss the role that legal principles play in abortion jurisprudence and apply political behavior research into motivated reasoning to better understand the Court’s political motivations. I find, on their own criteria, that the Court fails to maintain the neutrality they claim to have, meaning they are a political body. I also find the Court’s political nature impacts its ability to decide on controversial topics, and provide suggestions for what this means for the Court’s role in American government as we face increasing polarization.

 This research seeks to analyze and understand the approach and treatment of victims of sexual assaults stories and accounts in the broader historical narrative, using case studies of the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. My research explores the question of what effects the response to the role of sexual assault in genocide by historians and academics and what implications that has for the historiography of genocide. I conducted this research by collecting and reading first-hand accounts of survivors and their experiences of sexual assault to construct a narrative and clear understanding of the role rape played in each genocide, and then analyzed the historical response and research of these narratives following the events. The two case studies are synthesized and compared in this project to understand which attributes of political and social policy effected the reception of stories of victims and witnesses of rape and assault. My research is still underway, but thus far is revealing the slow response from scholars regarding rape following the Holocaust and how that may have influenced a difference in the response and scholarship following the Rwandan genocide. Both genocides are affected by unique struggles in collecting witness accounts, as well as stigma around traumatic data of this nature. This research is important in the social studies field as it commentates on the consistent lack of attention given to victims of sexual violence in the past and present, and advocates for increased education and awareness on the overlooked stories of these individuals, whether or not they lived to tell them themselves.

Much theoretical interest has developed around immigration amnesty: A process by which undocumented immigrants can obtain legal status in their host society. Supporters have argued that immigrants should be given the right to stay in virtue of the roots they have put down over time, the contributions they have made to their host society, and the prevention of discrimination, while arguments against amnesty have portrayed it as coming in conflict with the rule of law. My paper aims to challenge the view of Michael Blake, who has argued that, regardless of country of origin or socioeconomic situation, “the undocumented immigrant has no right in justice to remain in his society of residence." Instead, Blake claims that amnesty should be supported as a matter of mercy. In my paper, I critique his luck-based framing and argue that he neglects to consider historical context in cases of unauthorized immigration. I use my critique of Blake to motivate a justice-based view of immigration amnesty that treats historical context as morally relevant. Drawing on the work of Linda Bosniak to formulate a vindicatory amnesty model, I conclude that mercy is not always the answer—justice still matters in cases where historical and policy-related context place on the state differing responsibilities toward different groups of immigrants.