“It would behoove the administration and the Democratic Party to utilize the VP during these next few months of the campaign,” Christina Greer, an associate professor of political science at Fordham University, said. 

“She is able to articulate the administration’s policies on everything from reproductive rights to loan forgiveness to the existential threat the GOP policies pose on the future of the nation…. She has shown that she connects with a diverse group of voters across varying demographics and in cities in swing states.”

A Fulbright scholar works to strengthen democracy

For as long as she can remember, Madalyn Stewart has loved France. From the romance of Paris to the taste of crepes and the melody of the language, the country has lived in her dreams. This year, though, it got real.

The Seattle native recently earned both a Fulbright scholarship and a Phi Kappa Phi fellowship. Now she’s pursuing a master’s degree at Sciences Po in Paris, where she’s studying the Vote Blanc movement, a form of civic participation in which citizens cast a blank vote during elections. What interests her, she says, is the effort it takes to cast a blank ballot. 

“You have to actually bring your own little blank note card, and there can’t be writing on it; otherwise, it won’t be counted,” she says, adding that about 2 million people cast blank votes in the last presidential election.

Office of Prestigious Fellowships Helps Fund a Dream

Stewart, who earned a bachelor’s degree in political science and French and francophone studies at Fordham College at Lincoln Center in 2022, was admitted to Sciences Po last year, but she had to defer her admission because she didn’t receive enough scholarship support.

She worked with Fordham’s Office of Prestigious Fellowships to apply for the Fulbright and the Phi Kappa Phi awards. “That all just came to fruition this year—it all really fell into place,” she says.

Why France? When her mother was in her 20s, she took a trip there, and Stewart grew up poring over the negatives and photos. Her father ran a creperie for a few years, and little things like that, she says, kept France in the back of her mind. 

When it was time to pick a language in high school, the choice was clear. “And I mean, once I started, I didn’t want to stop,” she says.

At Fordham, she took “classes that weren’t just about French people in France,” but ones that gave her a sense of the politics and their research implications. 

“France is one of the countries that doesn’t keep track of race and ethnicity anymore,” she notes, prompting her to wonder “what that means for racial discrimination in the country, and what that means even for myself for research—when you can’t ask people about their race and ethnicity on a survey.” 

Every Vote Counts—Here and Abroad

At Fordham, Stewart took a course with Professor Christina Greer, Ph.D., called Racial and Ethnic Politics, and it piqued her interest in voting equity and accessibility. For the final project, students were assigned to explore potential avenues for increasing voter accessibility in Georgia.

“My group looked at free public transportation on Election Day, and because Dr. Greer has all kinds of connections, she got a voice memo from Stacey Abrams thanking us for what we did,” Stewart says. “That was one of the first classes I took that talked about voting accessibility [and it] got me excited.”

The summer after her junior year, Stewart interned with Citizens Union, a nonpartisan organization committed to reforming New York’s city and state governments. As a member (and later president) of the University’s Every Vote Counts club, Stewart helped teach civics to high schoolers and did voter registration and mobilization. She also became involved with Let NY Vote, a statewide nonpartisan coalition working to make registering and voting accessible and equitable for every eligible New Yorker.

Those experiences, plus a senior-year internship with the Brennan Center for Justice, prepared her well for the work she’s doing now. And she’s grateful to Fordham for helping to get her to France to pursue on-the-ground, public impact research.

“If I had to summarize where Fordham goes above and beyond, it’s really connecting me to resources and experiences that, going into school, I didn’t really know existed—or at least never imagined that they would be within my reach,” Stewart says.

Read more “20 in Their 20s” profiles.

“Fordham made me enjoy and pursue continuing education,” he said. “That’s probably why I have done so many different things, and I have changed every five years—not because I didn’t enjoy what I was doing [but because I wondered,]  ‘Now, what else can we learn? What new thing can we do?’ The lasting experience is that passion for learning—to continue learning.”

Drawing Some Inspiration from ‘Ol’ Blue Eyes’

Born in the Bronx not far from Fordham, Lamoso moved with his family to their native Puerto Rico when he was a toddler. Though the 1986 Fordham College at Rose Hill graduate doesn’t “remember anything about New York as a kid,” the city lured him back for college.

“It was clear to me and my parents that Frank Sinatra was right: If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere,” he said, referencing the singer’s 1979 hit about New York City, “Theme from New York, New York.”

Continuing the Catholic education he received in Puerto Rico, Lamoso enrolled at Fordham to study political science and economics. He had a grand plan to take what’s now known as a gap year, trekking through Spain with his friends, before ultimately returning to New York to attend law school.

That didn’t quite work out, and he went “from having it all figured out” to facing a year “with nowhere to go, no school applied to or anything.” As he’s done many times since, Lamoso made a new plan: He landed an internship at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, a white-shoe law firm based in the city, thanks to his educational background, Spanish proficiency, and Fordham connections—the hiring partner was a fellow Fordham graduate.

Creating Opportunity, New Business Ventures on the Island

After the internship, Lamoso returned to Puerto Rico to study law at the University of Puerto Rico, earning a J.D. in 1990. He’s displayed an entrepreneurial spirit throughout his career since: he’s practiced law, managed a venture capital fund, and launched various communications ventures.

In 2017, as he was contemplating his next career step, his mother was diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer. It got him thinking not just about his own health and path but also about the health prospects of Puerto Rico as a whole.

“My friend at Virginia Garcia Memorial Health Center was head of the colorectal division, and he asked me to send him pictures of my mother’s fridge and her food cabinet,” Lamoso said. “He sent it back to me with circles and said, ‘This is the reason. This is why.’”

His friend had circled all of the packaged, processed, microwaveable food his mother had been eating, having ceased cooking fresh, homemade meals after Lamoso’s father died 15 years earlier.

Lamoso became a pescatarian and started to examine the island’s food landscape: More than 80% of Puerto Rico’s food is imported, he said, including more than 95% of its greens. Thinking of his grandfather and great-grandfather, who were coffee farmers, he decided to return to his family’s roots. He launched Explora Greens, a 60,000-square-foot hydroponic farming operation in Isabela, about two hours away from San Juan.

Just as it was getting off the ground and Lamoso was preparing to open a new greenhouse, Hurricane Maria hit, delaying his expansion plans for a few months but underscoring the need for greater self-sufficiency and a stronger local food system on the island.

Improving Fresh Food Access

Fast forward five years, and Lamoso’s farm is up and running. Explore Greens produces a leafy, Dutch lettuce in the butterhead lettuce family, and romaine, which they distribute to more than 80 supermarkets on the island.

“I saw that we have a food safety issue, and it became amazingly obvious after Hurricane Maria,” he said. “When it comes to greens, we import over 1,200 containers—just in one food stuff, one of the line items in the supermarket.” He shared his hope that his company can help bring down that number. “If I can import-substitute at least 20 containers a year, I’ll be happy.”

Today, Lamoso has his hands in every facet of farm operation. Unlike the romantic notion his lawyer friends and many others have of running a farm, Lamoso said he does everything—from accounting and marketing to waking up at 4 a.m. to help harvest and package the greens—because “the farm doesn’t take care of itself.”

Fostering Fordham Ties

Amid all his entrepreneurial ventures, one thing has stayed constant: Lamoso is deeply tied to Fordham and committed to helping more students from Puerto Rico find a home at the Jesuit University of New York.

As a longtime member of the Alumni Chapter of Puerto Rico, Lamoso said he’s worked closely with Joseph M. McShane, S.J., Fordham’s outgoing president, to expose students on the island to the University.

Lamoso has done his part, too. He “started making calls” to prospective students and even met with them and encouraged them to apply to Fordham. As word spread that his was “the Fordham family,” he said he took it upon himself to interview and recommend even more students, with some help from his own children, who would spread the word among their friends, their friends’ siblings and relatives, classmates, and others.

As Fordham welcomes its new president, Tania Tetlow, J.D., next month, Lamoso said he’s hopeful the University can keep the momentum going in Puerto Rico.

“I actually feel very optimistic: I think that our new president can do it, can transmit that” excitement, he said.

Fordham Five (Plus One)

What are you most passionate about?
Learning experiences. I despise stagnation.

What’s the best piece of advice you’ve ever received?
At Fordham, I learned that the best advice actually comes from the dead—I mean books. Seneca, a Roman Stoic philosopher, keeps “instructing me” not to suffer in my imagination. Over the years, I have become better at this, but I still have work to do.

What’s your favorite place in New York City? In the world?
McSorley’s in the East Village. There is something about a beer house that has survived so much, especially the fads and taste of young generations in these fast-fashion times.

In the world, I have to say Laos because of the innocence kept by its people despite what the rest of the world has made them endure.

Name a book that has had a lasting influence on you.
Well, I am an avid reader, so you are going to have to allow me to mention more than one book.

The Art of Loving by Erich Fromm: A copy of it was given to me during Senior Week at Fordham by a retired Jesuit that had taught in Colegio San Ignacio in San Juan and was fond of Puerto Rico.

Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. My three colleagues in the [internship at the law firm] were so smart they made my head hurt. They got me into Dostoyevsky. I must be one of the few persons that misses having to ride the subway for an hour in the morning so I could read Russian literature.

Man’s Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl has … actually helped me take business risk and have the courage to embrace the changes that have allowed me to learn and grow.

Who is the Fordham grad or professor you admire most?
Father McShane, who I met after his first year as president. Both of my children are big fans of him, too, since they have known him since they were in kindergarten. Father McShane navigated Fordham through such difficult times and through so many challenges in the first part of the 21st century, such as lower government funding and aid, higher operating costs, increased competition for students, recruiting and retaining professors, a transformation to digital learning, and of course a pandemic. And he did it with an ace fighter pilot finesse that made it look so easy.

What are you optimistic about?
Now, I believe my children will live their mature lives in a democracy. I was afraid of the contrary until not long ago. I am also optimistic about Fordham, and in the long run I am even optimistic about climate change.

A Slovenian native remembered for his cosmopolitan ways and collegiality, Remec taught courses in international politics with a specialty in international law and international organization. He started at Fordham in 1954 and continued teaching until his retirement in 2004.

Political science Professor John Entelis, Ph.D., who was hired by Remec in 1970, recalled him as “a popular teacher” whose effectiveness stemmed not only from his deep qualifications in his field but also his personality.

“The old standard statement about a scholar and a gentleman, that was Peter,” said Entelis. “He was chair for at least six years, and he did an excellent job of being able to not just manage the faculty but get close to them. He would invite us to his home for occasions where he would have dinners and [there would be]an opportunity to get to know everyone on a personal basis.”

Entelis said that his daughter took Remec’s class years later and it “really encouraged her to continue on [to Fordham Law].”

Remec supported many Fordham students on their professional paths over the years, but his own journey had not been an easy one. He was born on June 28, 1925, in Ljubljana, Slovenia, to Vladimir and Helena (Pollak) Remec. In 1945, at the end of World War II, he and his family fled from the newly communist Slovenia to Graz, Austria, with what they could carry. While there, he earned a Dr. Iuris (Doctor of Laws) and Dr. Rerum Politicarum from the University of Graz before immigrating to the United States on the U.S. Army Transporter General C.C. Ballou in 1949. He was forever grateful to President Harry Truman for authorizing the use of empty returning troopships to carry immigrants, said his son, Marko Remec, and in gratitude remained a faithful Democrat for the rest of his life.

Remec and his family settled in Chicago. While there, he paid a courtesy visit to professor Hans Morgenthau at the University of Chicago, whose work he had cited extensively in his doctoral essays. After learning that Remec was working as a cake icer at Marshall Fields, Morganthau offered him the chance to study for a doctorate. When Remec told him he had no money, Morgenthau managed to secure him a scholarship on the spot, and Remec earned his Ph.D. in international relations.

In 1953 he married Majda Vračko, whom he had first met in high school in Ljubljana and then again when they found themselves in the same refugee camp in Graz. The couple settled in New York in 1954 and raised four children in Scarsdale—Peter, Alenka, Marko, and Tomaz.

Annette M. McDermott, S.S.J., FCRH ’80, recalled being advised by Remec as a young political science major in the mid-1970s. She’d come to Fordham from Massachusetts with dreams of interning at the United Nations, but internships weren’t common at the time. Remec told her if she could get someone at the U.N. to go for it, he’d allow for 8 credits of independent study.

“I remember he used to wear this tweed cap,” said Sister McDermott, now dean of religion and spiritual life at Mount Holyoke College. “He grabbed the cap, and in his robust accent he said, ‘If you get this, I will eat my hat.'”

Not only did she appreciate his sense of humor, she said, but also the fact that he took her seriously. Fordham had only been coed for a couple of years, and there were hardly any women in her political science classes. When she was offered a technical adviser position with a U.N. organization, she went back to tell Remec.

“He looked at me with a twinkle in his eyes, and he grabbed the cap and started shoving it his mouth,” she said, laughing at the memory. “He said, ‘You have your 8 credits.’” Sister McDermott went on to serve on UNICEF’s volunteer board, earn a master’s in public policy, and do doctoral work in political science.

“He just opened me up to the understanding of what an effective international organization was and what it was not,” she said.

Remec earned several international academic honors. In 1961, he received the Diplome of the Academy of International Law at the Hague, graduating cum laude. In 1967 he was a Fulbright grantee as guest professor to the University of Rajasthani in Jaipur, India. In 1976, he was a Fulbright grantee to Pakistan. Both trips focused on his passion for the law of the seas, specifically the Indus River water treaties.

A devout Catholic, Remec was appointed as an observer to the U.N. Mission of the Holy See in 1974. For his service, on May 27, 1983, Pope John Paul II named him Knight Commander of the Order of St. Gregory the Great. His son, Marko Remec, said that he liked to point out that one of the privileges of this knighthood was that he was permitted to ride a horse into the Vatican.

A skilled woodworker, Remec made most of the furniture in his New York home. He learned the craft in his father’s furniture factory in Slovenia. He was also gifted in languages; in addition to Slovenian, he was fluent in Serbo-Croatian, German, English, and Latin, his son said, and was “passable” in Italian and French.

Remec was preceded in death by his parents, a sister, two brothers, and his wife. He is survived by his four children, two brothers Andrej and Matija, and seven grandchildren. A burial service was held at the Gate of Heaven Cemetery in Hawthorne, New York, on Nov. 10. The family asks that donations be sent in his name to St. Cyril’s Church at 62 St. Marks Place, New York, NY 10003.

This obituary was written in part by Peter Remec’s family.
Photo courtesy of the family.

“This was the book that made me excited to study political science,” said Dayal, Ph.D., an assistant professor of political science who began teaching at Fordham in 2015. “It examines one of multiple ways to think about power, which is really what animates the study of political science.”

Dayal hopes her own research, which focuses on international organizations, peace processes, and peacekeeping, will also contribute to new ways of thinking about power.

“We live in a world that has been shaped by big international institutions like the United Nations, European Union, and NATO, which emerged out of the end of World War II,” said Dayal. “These are institutions that were designed to help countries cooperate and work together to secure mutual benefits.”

As the United States’ role in global affairs begins to change—for example, with the country’s recent withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement—political scientists are weighing the short- and long-term effects of the country’s political moves, she said.

“When the United States backs away from international organizations and agreements, we worry it could delegitimize a lot of these institutions,” said Dayal. “If the U.S. says, for example, that it doesn’t need to be a part of an institution like the United Nations, other countries may say, ‘Well, the United States doesn’t think it’s important so why is it important for us?’”

The bargaining models of war

This summer, Dayal is set to complete a manuscript examining the U. N.’s peacekeeping operations. She hopes her analysis of how U.N. peace operations play a role in peace processes might help scholars and policymakers as they reconsider how the United Nations contributes to the way wars around the world end.

“There’s a popular perception that all peace operations don’t work very well, and that’s an understandable reaction because of the way that news is reported,” said Dayal.

Failing U.N. peacekeeping missions in countries and regions such as Rwanda and the Balkans, she said, are more “vivid” in the public eye than more successful peacekeeping missions like those in El Salvador, Guatemala, Sierra Leone, and Liberia—which were not quick fixes.

“What we know from existing academic research is that if combatants have decided to stop fighting, negotiate an agreement, and lay down their arms, then peacekeepers are good at keeping them from picking up their arms again,” said Dayal. “But when we send peacekeepers into active war situations, research tells us statistically it can be the same as not sending them at all.”

Globally, the United Nations is the largest deployer of troops in high conflict regions. Because of this, Dayal said it is important to consider how combatants, who are involved in ongoing peace processes, view the United Nations.

“The United Nations thinks of itself as bringing peace, but the combatants’ view of the United Nations can be very different,” said Dayal. “Combatants think of U.N. involvement as bringing a range of things. It’s possible that it will help bring peace, but even if it doesn’t bring peace, it can bring material and financial benefits, or help create the conditions for humanitarian actors to work on things like refugee resettlement, as well. It can also bring tactical and symbolic benefits, like helping rebels forces recraft themselves as political parties.”

Investigating force in peacekeeping

Dayal said U.N. peacekeeping operations have undergone several changes after some prominent peacekeeping failures in the 1990s. Most recently, she and her co-author Lise Morjé Howard have been researching the U.N. Security Council’s decision to give U.N. peacekeepers authorization to use force in defense of civilians.

In their article, “The Use of Force in U.N. Peacekeeping,” to be published in International Organization journal this fall, they note that the authorization of force doesn’t always fit the peacekeeping mission. She cites the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti as an example.

“The problem in that case is that Haiti is not at war,” she said. “Who are we protecting civilians from? What’s the peacekeeper’s job there? It’s not clear because the language is identical to the language of giving peacekeepers the authorization to protect civilians in war-stricken places like Darfur or in South Sudan. We think the answer to why the mission mandates all look so similar lies in Security Council politics, not in the conditions on the ground.”

Dayal said her goal in investigating international organizations is to spark conversations among scholars, policymakers and citizens of the world about effective governance and conflict management, so that they can work together to build a better world.

The risks of inaction

One thing that Dayal emphasizes to her students and other young people is that there are risks to inaction on both a national and global level.

Earlier this summer, she was asked to deliver a speech to young women graduating from her old high school in Troy, New York. She encouraged the graduates to be active participants in politics even in moments of despair.  An adaptation of that speech was published on Ms. Magazine’s blog.

“It’s important for people to understand that democracy isn’t the kind of thing that you set up once, and it just runs on its own,” she said. “It requires investments from citizens to make sure that their values are expressed in their systems of government.”

Raymond Kuo, PhD, an assistant professor of political science who joined Fordham in September, focuses his scholarship on international relations, with a focus on security and grand strategy. Before working in academia, Kuo worked for the National Democratic Institute as a program officer overseeing political party development projects in the Middle East, South and Southeast Asia, and Africa. He also worked for the United Nations and the Democratic Progressive Party of Taiwan as a foreign policy analyst and organizational strategist.

We asked Kuo to share his thoughts on what The Intercept‘s findings mean for the U.S. drone program.

Fordham News: The first drone was used by the U.S. military in 2000. Why hasn’t the targeting technology improved much?

Kuo: The technology has definitely improved since 2000. In addition to arming the MQ-1 Predator (the drone we commonly associate with these strikes) with Hellfire missiles, the U.S. has upgraded its sensor and targeting platforms. But the U.S. military has stopped acquiring Predators and is focusing more on the MQ-9 Reaper, its bigger, badder cousin. It is significantly faster and larger, able to carry a larger payload, and has a substantially longer operational range and loiter time (i.e. the time it can monitor an area before it has to refuel).

However, we could think that unintended civilian deaths or “collateral damage” are a sign that the program needs improvement. But the issue is not technology, but targeting: Are we hitting the right people and avoiding killing innocent bystanders? And that requires good intelligence. The MQ-9 and other strike vehicles have impressive signals intelligence collection capabilities. However, human intelligence is just as, if not more, important in effective targeting.

But developing human intelligence is not easy nor cheap. The U.S. would either need boots on the ground or rely upon local governments and informants to provide us the targeting information, which they may not have or may not be equipped to acquire.

You should always evaluate policy in comparison to other alternatives, never in isolation. Are we as Americans willing to pay the cost of a more accurate, but costly and assertive strategy? If not, are we willing to walk away and let terrorist networks potentially grow in power and membership? If we decide that the drone program is the best way to balance these costs and benefits, then we need a clear understanding of its actual effects, as I’ll address in the next question.

FN: Aside from more accurate intelligence, and stealth technology, despite the Intercept’s report, and the ongoing protests against the usage of drones, will the U.S. stop using them?

Kuo: The short answer is no. The U.S. will continue to use drones in battlefields or countries where it has already established air superiority (either militarily or through agreement with a host government) and does NOT want to commit troops in a direct combat role.

But the deeper answer is no, the U.S. will continue the program because it seems to work. Both the Pakistani Defense Ministry and the U.S. Army War College claim that a relatively small number of civilians have been killed by the strikes. Somewhere around 3-4 percent of those killed are civilians. Now, the Intercept is correct that America’s targeting rules are far too loose. The “signature strike” policy – where we target people simply because they are male and seem to be of a certain age group – is counterproductive and ultimately harmful to our interests.

Moreover, overall the program seems fairly successful, at least in Pakistan. C. Christine Fair of Georgetown University has described how locals in that country’s tribal areas come outside when they hear drones overhead. They consider the drones to be accurate and generally targeting foreign fighters, allowing them to reassert control over their villages and get on with their lives.

So the policy is widely popular in the Pakistani districts in which it operates. Christopher Swift makes a similar finding in Yemen, and I would hope that other operations in the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula are also successful. However, the program has created enormous public backlash within the wider Pakistani public. This is a significant strategic headache for the U.S., but one which I think can be partially addressed, as I’ll discuss later.

FN: If we schedule a drone strike and it doesn’t achieve its goal, and/or kills innocent civilians, it’s not surprising if it inspires new recruits for ISIS and the like. Why doesn’t that change our tactic? Are ‘boots on the ground’ just that much less well received by the American public? [Ed. It was announced on Oct. 30 that the U.S. will be sending special ops troops to Syria.]

Kuo: Any civilian deaths in war are tragic, particularly among the wounded and children. But it’s also important to note that civilian casualties are completely allowed under the laws of war. They cannot be intentional or directly targeted, however. So if the deaths are truly accidental, the result of bad intelligence, poor targeting, or some other factor, it’s a horrible situation but they are still legally and even morally allowed. Military necessity – the desire to bring a conflict to a close sooner and potentially save even more lives – unfortunately means that civilians can be caught in the crossfire. Effective militaries want to minimize that as much as possible, but recognize that innocent deaths may occur in the course of their duties.

But you ask a deeper question about the strategic effects of strikes. Do they cause more harm than good? Preliminary results from my research suggest that strikes actually stabilize the areas in which they fall, so long as we kill the right people. The opponents of the program are correct if we only concern ourselves with “regular” militants. For each one the U.S. has killed in Pakistan, 47 civilians leave their districts, suggesting that they are moving for safer or better prospects elsewhere. However, killing a militant leader acts as an enormous brake on this outward migration. Over 1,100 people stay in their districts for each leader killed. And finally, killing a civilian means that 98 people want to stay. That is, the public seems willing to absorb a certain degree of innocent deaths so that the program can achieve its objectives.

Again, these are preliminary results, and I’m still subjecting the data to more tests. But I should note that the region of Pakistan where the numbers are drawn from is an active conflict area. The U.S. doesn’t have a military presence there, and it’s difficult for journalists to make their reports. So the numbers that organizations like the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (one of the sources the Intercept report relied upon) receives come from the people on the ground. In other words, the militants themselves. So even using their numbers, we’re still seeing evidence suggesting the drone program is having a positive effect overall.

FN: Is it possible that our drone strategy would change if a Republican president were to take office in 2016?

Kuo: Drones have been used under both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations. I actually don’t think the party in office matters too much to the drone program per se. The operations are in place because they are a relatively cheap option which seem to achieve some of their goals while preventing American casualties. If a more aggressive or militaristic president or Congress emerges, I suspect they’ll commit actual troops to these battlefields, rather than rely upon drones as the primary intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and strike vehicles.

But as I mentioned earlier, the program does have a substantial political drawback: It engenders extreme dislike in the wider public. But we should keep in mind that drones – for all the terror and awe they may induce – are actually pretty weak combat platforms. The Predator was originally designed as a surveillance and reconnaissance platform. Drones in general are relatively slow and unmaneuverable, which you want since they will be loitering over an area. But even a minimally competent air force or air defense network could swat them out of the sky. Drones can only operate where the U.S. has air superiority, typically by reaching an agreement with the host government.

And it is those individuals who need to take more responsibility for the program. In Pakistan and Yemen at least, the U.S. operates with the consent and even active (though hidden) support of the government. As an illustration, consider that in 2008, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani reportedly stated “I don’t care if they (the Americans) do it (the drone program) as long as they get the right people. We’ll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it.” There are even suggestions that the program has been manipulated by these groups to selectively strike at political enemies, rather than target all insurgents.

So host governments have been playing both sides: protesting against the strikes, even urging their people to do so, while secretly pushing for more drone operations. That is pure political cowardice, but it also makes political sense given the incentives these politicians face. So if (and that’s a big if) this is an important enough issue, the U.S. needs to push these individuals to be open about their decisions to deal with the general public backlash against strikes.

Learn more about, and contact, Kuo on his website.

Christina Greer, assistant professor of political science, will be a busy bee providing analysis during the New York City elections on Nov. 5.

Greer will appear on CNBC’s “Worldwide Exchange” at 5:20 a.m., and later that evening, she’ll join a panel to provide live analysis on NY1 when the polls are open. She’ll likely be on to provide more analysis once a winner is declared.

Greer was quoted by the Associated Press in a story that appeared nationally over the weekend about the race to succeed three-term Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

“It seems like the city wants a Democrat right now,” said Christina Greer, political science professor at Fordham University. “Five terms of heavy-handed government has tired people out. People are ready for something different.”

This caps a busy year for Greer, whose newest book, “ Black Ethnics:  Race, Immigration, and the Pursuit of the American Dream (Oxford University Press, 2013), was published earlier this fall. Watch a video interview with Greer about the book via NY1 on Fordham’s YouTube channel, where you can find several video clips of our faculty in the media.

-Gina Vergel

“Resurrecting the GOP: Bringing Back the Party of Lincoln in the Era of Obama”

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 | 6 p.m.
McNally Amphitheatre, Lincoln Center campus,

With Richard A. Galen, columnist and Republican strategist and former press-secretary to Vice President Dan Quayle and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Galen has frequently appeared as a guest on MSNBC as well as NBC, ABC, FOX, and CNN, including CNN’s Larry King Live.

The events is free and open to the public. RSVP to:
Deborah Moore