“Professor Jeannine Hill Fletcher taught me that there are so many more dimensions to religion and theology than I originally thought, and that there is space for women in theology—an important message as a woman in theology myself,” she said.

She’s taken that lesson to heart: Ruiz, currently a student at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), hopes to one day work at a nongovernmental organization, or in government, focusing specifically on creating policies that improve the lives of women.

What do you think you got at Fordham that you couldn’t have gotten elsewhere?
Here’s a story that I like to tell: I arrived at Fordham a characteristically nervous freshman, daunted by a new city and the prospect of making social connections. On my way to audition for a club, I realized that I had no idea how to print the script I needed for my audition. Frantically, I approached an upperclassman to ask for help. Not only did he sit with me to figure out how to set up my printing account, he used his own credit to help me print my script. This unprecedented gesture exemplified the kindness and care that defines the Fordham community.

Academically, Fordham teaches its students to be deeply informed and concerned about injustices in the world, but also deeply moved to do something about them. Across disciplines, Fordham professors teach students not only about important issues in our communities but inspire their students to make a difference.

What Fordham course has had the greatest influence on you and your career path so far? How and why was it so influential?
Major Developments in American Culture, taught by Professor Diane Detournay. From academic discourse to everyday news, we often throw around terms like “systemic inequality,” “injustice,” and “oppression,” but we don’t spend enough time unpacking why these things happen or how they came to be in the first place.

Professor Detournay’s class allowed us to home in on the history of our country’s unfair systems and the ways in which they are perpetuated or upheld. Some topics we focused on were immigration, the prison-industrial complex, and the colonial history of Hawaii. I came away from her class with the confidence to articulate the history and mechanism of unjust systems, which was fundamental to my decision to study social policy for my master’s degree. I figured that the best way to combat systemic injustice is to change the systems that cause them in the first place.

Who is the Fordham professor or person you admire the most, and why?
This is a tough question because there are so many professors and people at Fordham I admire. If I had to choose, I admire Professor Jeannine Hill Fletcher. Among my non-religious peers, I’ve noticed that there is a general perception that religious people lack an awareness of societal discrimination. While it’s not her stated mission, I think Professor Hill Fletcher—who is Catholic—turns all of those stereotypes on their head. Not only is she a feminist theologian by training: she is very involved with advocacy work, as she is an prominent voice for faculty rights, and she is a dedicated ally to students of color and LGBTQ students. As someone who came to Fordham grappling with religion and trying to understand it better, it was really influential to meet Professor Hill Fletcher and see the kind of work she does.

Did you have any internships or any other experiences, such as clubs, that helped put you on your current path? What were they, and how did they prepare you for what you’re doing now?
I served on United Student Government (USG) for three years, culminating with a successful campaign for president. While USG is not an exact simulation of how state governments work, I felt that through my role, I was able to understand what it means to be a leader and how to deal with difficult issues because I entered my term right as COVID-19 hit and in the wake of the George Floyd protests. With the challenge of a pandemic and amid conversations about racial justice and everyday life, I found myself in a multitude of conversations about how to give students the best, safest, and most just experience possible. 

During these conversations, I learned to play to the strengths of different personalities and work styles as I led the Senate and executive board, and I learned how to negotiate with high-level University administrators. I feel that the communication and leadership skills I gained through my role as president will be crucial to my future career in policy work, either as a government policy adviser or at an NGO.

Finally, as president, I accomplished several landmark projects that were the first of their kind at Fordham. They included Fordham’s first anti-discrimination policy for student organizations, Fordham’s first ceremony of recognition for first-generation students, and statements of support for Black, Burmese, and Asian American communities. While they were not policies in a public or social policy sense, these long-term projects trained me to see large plans come to fruition and to uplift a diversity of voices in respectful ways.

What are you doing now? Can you paint us a picture of your current responsibilities? What do you hope to accomplish, personally or professionally?
I am currently at the London School of Economics, pursuing my MSc in international social and public policy. I am continuing my passion for leadership by serving as a Student Academic Representative for my programme at LSE. After graduation, I plan to either pursue a Ph.D. or begin my career in public policy.

What are you optimistic about?
While I miss Fordham dearly, knowing that it is inspiring generation after generation of changemakers makes me optimistic.

Interview conducted, edited, and condensed by Sierra McCleary-Harris.

This fall, she began a master’s degree program in higher education and student affairs at the New York University’s Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development. Along with her coursework, she was matched with a graduate assistantship at Columbia University’s Office of Student Life. “Everybody in the Office for Student Involvement [at Fordham]helped me cultivate my own understanding of what student affairs means and find my passion,” Peay says.

What are some of the reasons why you decided to attend Fordham?
One of the things that really resonated with me were the Jesuit tenets of education and what it meant to be part of a Jesuit community. I had the opportunity to come with both of my parents. My mom and I are sitting next to each other listening to [former Fordham College at Lincoln Center dean]Father Grimes speak about what it meant to have a Jesuit education and what it meant to be involved at Fordham and what it meant to just generally be a student of New York City. He is a wonderful speaker and just really blew us both away. So it was kind of a combination, I guess, of Jesuit education, being in the city, knowing that [Fordham offers] a lot of different majors, knowing that I could be part of a small community, and really just some of the things that Father Grimes said about the power of the Fordham community at Lincoln Center, specifically.

What do you think you got at Fordham that you maybe would not have gotten elsewhere?
I think the biggest thing that I got out of Fordham that I couldn’t have gotten anywhere else was just the breadth of mentorship network. I got the best of both worlds knowing and participating in academics and student involvement at both Lincoln Center and Rose Hill, and a lot of people were really invested in me as a student and invested in my academic career. I am still in touch with a lot of the administrators I worked with in the Office for Student Involvement. We chat about grad school and classes and all of these things. That’s one of the things that I think I cherish the most out of my Fordham experience: the number of people I met who genuinely care about students.

Who is the Fordham professor or person you admire the most, and why?
I would probably say Zein Murib in political science. I had four classes with them [Murib]—American Social Movements, Interest Group Politics, Judicial Politics, and Politics of Sex and Sexuality in the United States—and they were all very, very interesting classes. I think I learned the most in those classes because of the ways the topics were so far-reaching and applicable to so many different things. They really gave me a deeper appreciation of living in New York.

Was there one particular moment when you realized you had a certain talent for student affairs work, and how did that feel?
It took me sitting back and thinking about the things that really did bring me joy and what I was really interested in and excited about at Fordham. Under the guidance of some of the people from the Office for Student Involvement, I started exploring the idea of getting a master’s in student affairs in higher education, because I realized that the things that I was most passionate about were giving back to the community and helping students find their place at Fordham and build their own community. It was something that I had struggled with freshman year, so I wanted to be a vehicle and vessel of knowledge for them at Fordham rather than just kind of move on.

What are you optimistic about?
I would say the thing that I’m most optimistic about is kind of personal; it’s more the possibilities of community building in the time of COVID, because we’re in a time where so many people are remote and so many people are digital, and not everybody is in the place that they feel most comfortable or the place that they call home. I’ve really found that, especially with my friends who are still juniors or seniors at Fordham or who have just graduated, we all are really looking for community and time to spend with each other. I think coming out of this time, we will all be a lot closer.

I would say I’m also optimistic about the state of New York City as a whole. I love being able to go outside and see people dressed up in their COVID getups, and they’re really taking it seriously, just remembering that we are part of a community as a city that is handling this all together and working together to make it better. I feel so much better and happier about being in New York than I did when I was in California, because you can feel that energy and feel the community support that is here.

Q. What inspired your interest in the public expression of emotion?

 I got interested in public emotions through those informal shrines on the streets of my city neighborhoods that began in the late 20th century. All over the city but across the country too, people would leave candles and flowers for someone who had died and I said to myself, “This is something different, something important.” The first time historically that the country did this for a public person was after JFK’s assassination, a highly mediatized event where Dealey Plaza became a place where people wanted to go to remember and to mourn. Many years later, was the death of Princess Diana. Kensington Palace was covered with flowers and people came from all over the world. And again, in the days after 9/11, the posting of photos of the “missing” all over Grand Central and Penn Station. That this grew and expanded as a cultural practice, both locally and on the media, interested me a great deal.

Q. Your book ties emotional change to contemporary performance theory. How so?

Today, many of us dramatize our connection to a death or a tragedy. There’s something different about how we express our emotions—we do this in a public way, take and post photos or videos. It’s new. I grew up in the fifties and there was a formality and restraint to things you did if someone died, right? Even if it was a tragic death.

In short, I think that contemporary life is making actors of all of us. But not in a false, phony sense; rather, in the sense that we want to act things out that we know with conviction and that we feel strongly. This doesn’t mean that we’re overly scripted in what we do. It means that we want to dramatize things and express what we feel with other people in public places in much the same way that actors do; it’s an argument I make in this book.

Q. Don’t some theorists question whether that is real emotion?

I don’t go there in this book, but I do engage my students in those kind of questions. Whether these are real emotions or not, I see an awful lot of people talking today about being “authentic” and pursuing authentic lives and I think this indicates something important about culture and emotion today. For example, I see an authenticity in my students when they talk about the primacy of emotions in their lives. And that impresses me. As a sociologist, I have to listen to them, to pay attention to what they and other people tell me about the meaning of emotions today.

 Q. What is the main argument of your book?

Well, my argument is about the identity of the modern self in history and how many things about being a person have changed today. Whether we think about the person in the 16th century, or the 18th, or the 21st, we meet different kinds of persons with different kinds of experiences and ideas about what a person is, what feelings mean, and so forth.

To sum up: we are cultural and collective beings whose emotions are shaped by the lives we live with others. So my book’s about the changing emotional cultures of the modern and postmodern age. Some of these changes have deep roots in our past, like individualism and Romanticism. Other changes have to do with the economies and digital technologies of today and how these, too, are changing us.

Are There Too Many Judges on the Supreme Court?

Posted by Robert J. Hume
I want to thank Professor Hendler for his warm welcome and the invitation to post on this blog. It really is an exciting time to be studying the Supreme Court.

I want to elaborate on a few points from my San Francisco Chronicle article, which Professor Hendler posted below. As a political scientist, my primary interest is not so much in who President Obama should be appointing to the Supreme Court, but in what influence different types of nominees are likely to have on the Court.

For example, right now we have an unusual circumstance in which all nine Supreme Court justices (including Justice Stevens) was a sitting federal judge at the time of appointment. As a political scientist, I want to know what happens (if anything) when there is so little diversity in the professional qualifications of the justices. Would it matter if President Obama appointed another sitting federal judge, instead of someone from the political branches of government? In previous decades, presidents used to seriously consider governors, senators, and even former presidents for the Court. Now it has become much less common.

For the rest of the entry, see: “Are There Too Many Judges on the Supreme Court?“