Please contact me (carnzen@noctrl.edu) if you are interested or have any questions!

Arnzen’s recent research shows that how educational gains in recent decades help explain how they have out-voted men in every presidential election since 1980s—a consequential gap for modern elections.

This article tackles some of the questions I get asked every single time someone hears that I study the politics of education:

What is going on with the U.S. Department of Education? Is it really going to be dismantled? Can they actually do that?

In short responses, they are taking a hammer to it. It is starting to seem like it. And in principle, no they cannot.

While most of the discussion about eliminating the Department of Education has been quite emotionally and politically charged (and rightfully so—it has anchored education policy for just over 40 years), there has also been a more policy-centric debate focused on whether a “return to local control” is going to benefit students and education.

It is true that the federal government’s involvement in education has grown considerably since the 1960s, and in episodic, disjointed ways. And it is also true that some of this growth has happened at the expense of states’ and school districts’ autonomy. However, it is also the case that federal involvement has produced a number of inarguably positive outcomes: additional funding for high-poverty schools, national datasets, and civil rights enforcement mechanisms to name a few. Before NCLB in 2001, we didn’t even have good data to systematically compare how students of color were doing in a district relative to white students.

My article covers the growth of the federal role in education as well as the ongoing efforts to shrink it. In 2025, the Department of Education laid off over half of their nearly 4,000 employees. The Department also spent less than any any of the past five years, as illustrated below. But what is unique about this “dismantling” is that it is being pursued entirely through executive action rather than through actually changing the laws that shape the Department of Education, which would require Congressional action.

Congress has signaled consistently that they are not very interested in eliminating the Department, and public opinion shows that the Department of Education is still rather popular. In late 2025, the Trump administration decided to go it alone when the Department of Education announced a plethora of interagency agreements, shifting the responsibility for certain programs to other agencies, including the Department of Health & Human Services, the Department of Justice, and even the Department of the Interior. Just this week, the Department of Education announced two more agreements shifting Special Education to HHS and the Office of Civil Rights to the Department of Justice.

Given this, one of the central arguments I make is that what is currently happening is less about devolution (giving authority to the states or localities) as the Trump administration suggests. Instead, the Administration’s actions amount to fragmenting federal capacity (splitting apart services to other federal agencies). The problem is that the federal government’s legal obligations haven’t disappeared. Federal student aid still has to be administered. Civil rights complaints still have to be investigated. States still depend on federal guidance, funding, and data systems. Fragmentation just harms the federal government’s ability to fulfill its obligations effectively and introduces complexity for districts and states that now have to navigate the same expectations but with new systems and agencies, and less expertise.

Federalism is often described as figuring out who should do what. This moment may end up teaching us what happens when nobody is entirely sure who is supposed to do it anymore.

You can access the full article here. I’d love to hear your thoughts!

Like many people, I expected the most striking aspect of the visit to be the sharp ideological and policy differences between these presidents. And those differences were certainly there. But what stayed with me most was something else: the similarities—or more specifically, the shared political framework that seemed to extend across all three presidencies.

The experience left me thinking about how difficult it can be to fully recognize political change while living through it. Democratic norms rarely disappear all at once. They erode gradually, as practices that once would have been shocking become familiar and normalized over time. Walking through those libraries felt like stepping into a different political world—one close enough to recognize, yet distant enough to reveal how much our expectations of political leadership have shifted.

In the essay, I explore how these presidential libraries offered a kind of compressed historical contrast, making visible changes in our political culture that can often be difficult to fully see from within.

The full Tribune essay can be read here through this gift link:

As always, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

I hope this message finds you well. I am reaching out to inform you of an excellent opportunity for individuals seeking to gain hands-on experience in public service through an internship with the Office of Senator Tammy Duckworth.

Internship Brochure

13.7MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The Office of Senator Tammy Duckworth offers internships to individuals who are 18 years and older across all six of its offices, which are located in Chicago, Springfield, Rock Island, Belleville, Carbondale, and Washington, D.C. A limited number of scholarships are available to applicants who are unable to work without compensation or who face challenges affording the living expenses associated with the internship location. For more details regarding our Internship and Scholarship Programs, please visit our website at: https://www.duckworth.senate.gov/help/internships.

The deadline to apply for the Fall 2026 session is June 26, 2026. We encourage all eligible individuals to submit their applications before this date.

Best,

Ana Almanza she/her

Casework Assistant & Intern Coordinator | U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth

Main Office: (312) 886-3506 | Direct: (312) 886-2511

In this segment, Muck reflects on Tucker Carlson’s recent apology.

This clip features Muck’s interview with NBC News legal analyst Barbara McQuade, discussing recent developments at the Supreme Court.

Guest Interviews:

– Tom Ginsburg, professor of International Law at the University of Chicago, and co-author of the book “How to Save a Constitutional Democracy“

– Abdullah Al-Bahrani, Associate Professor of Accounting and Economics at Northern Kentucky University and co-creator of the Substack page DECODE ECON

– Barbara McQuade, legal analyst, law professor, co-host of the “#Sisters in Law” podcast, and author of the forthcoming book, “The Fix: Saving America from the Corruption of a Mob-Style Government”

– Phil Barker, professor of political science and director of the honors program at Keene State College, and co-host of The Politics Lab podcast

Muck’s Opening Monologue

Here’s the audio of William Muck’s opening monologue, where he offers his thoughts on the state of the war in Iran, Viktor Orbán’s landslide defeat in the Hungarian elections, and President Trump’s ongoing feud with Pope Leo.

Interview with Suzanne Chod

William Muck chatter with Suzanne Chod about the concept of gendered nationalism and how it helps understand the shifting political landscape in the United States.

Interview with Gloria J. Browne-Marshall

In this conversation, William Muck speaks with Gloria J. Browne-Marshall about her book A Protest History of the United States, as well as the broader state of protest movements in the U.S. today.

Interview with The Atlantic’s Ale Breland

William Muck speaks with Ali Breland, staff writer at The Atlantic, about two of his recent articles. In “Iran Out-Trolled the Troller in Chief,” Breland examines Iran’s use of AI-generated, LEGO-style videos in an effort to gain the upper hand in the online propaganda war with the United States. In the second half of the interview, they discuss his piece “We Need to Do McCarthyism to the Tenth Power” which explores a growing push in some right-wing political circles to revive the tactics of McCarthyism.

These conversations echo in my work with the Realizing Rights Lab at Brown University, where we study how individuals’ rights—including individuals with disabilities—are realized and become realities. The flip side of this work is also focusing on processes and barriers that prevent rights from being exercised such as overly bureaucratic processes and missing information. I, of course, am particularly interested in the right to vote and engage in political processes more broadly.

What has struck me, increasingly, is how often individuals with disabilities are left out of our research and our theories of political behavior. According to the American Community Survey as of 2023, 44.7 million Americans are living with a disability—that’s 13.7% of the population. And yet, few of our canonical models of participation or public policy meaningfully incorporate their realities and experiences. You’d be hard pressed to find any measures of disability in many of our models of political behavior (mine included). And you’d only find a handful of presentations, if any, focused on disability in politics at our annual conferences. As Ann Heffernan makes clear in her recent article in the Annual Review of Political Science, disability remains a “neglected area of study within mainstream political science,” despite its central relevance to questions of access, equality, and participation.

This omission matters both descriptively and theoretically.

Rethinking Participation Through Disability

Most of our dominant frameworks for understanding political participation emphasize resources, psychological engagement, and recruitment (e.g., Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995). These models have been enormously productive—and heavily cited. But they often assume a baseline level of access to information, to institutions, to socialization. This access, however, may not hold for many individuals with disabilities.

Individuals with a disability may need additional supports in accessing certain services and in exercising certain rights. Or, our policies could be better designed to enhance access universally and promote administrative ease more broadly, as we argue in our lab’s recent working paper, “The Politics of Administrative Ease.”

This is not simply a matter of “adding” disability into existing models of political behavior. It is a matter of recognizing how our democratic institutions themselves structure participation differently across populations. For example, are polling places easily accessible? Research conducted by Lisa Schur, Mason Ameri, and Meera Adya shows that nearly one-third of voters with disabilities report difficulties voting, compared to just 8% of voters without disabilities.

Or consider political socialization. In the case of individuals who grow up Deaf, why should we assume that their exposure to politics mirrors that of hearing individuals? Inversely, a recent study in Great Britain found that Deaf youth were more politically engaged than their hearing peers, arguing that “embracing Deaf identity and having Deaf friends can boost certain forms of engagement.” These differences are rarely incorporated into our theories, yet they fundamentally shape how individuals come to understand and engage with politics.

However, a growing body of research suggests a more complex picture than barriers and disengagement. People with disabilities often express levels of political interest comparable to—or even higher than—those without disabilities, even as they participate at lower rates. Similarly, the Great Britain study mentioned above suggests the importance of studying disability as a mobilizing and catalyzing identity, especially in non-electoral forms of participation.

Higher interest and lower participation, however, suggests that the gap is not motivational. It is structural.

Who We Leave Out: Disability, Data, and Democratic Participation

A decent amount of my research focuses on voting and other forms of political participation. Who votes? Why does education shape participation? What factors prevent individuals from showing up? Given that my partner is an American Sign Language interpreter and access coordinator, we spend a lot of time speculating about access and barriers for individuals who are d/Deaf, for example.

I inevitably find myself thinking about administrative burden in many of our conversations. Often, d/Deaf individuals have to take extra steps to request interpreting services and/or live captioning services just to attend an event. Too often, I see my partner coordinating services when a d/Deaf friend of his that has been told by a company that they “cannot afford an interpreter” or they simply “do not provide that service.” Of course, this is illegal. But hearing about these experiences reminds me of the extra burdens that individuals with disabilities have when navigating many everyday situations. And lately, I’ve been thinking about the administrative burdens that individuals with disabilities face in navigating the political processes that I study—the political processes that are essential to accessing their rights.

My conversations with my partner always make me think about how political scientists think about Deafness. What I have come to realizing in the last few years is that, many individuals in the field of political science, broadly speaking, don’t really think about the experience of the Deaf community as much as we should. In the last ten years of the American Political Science Association’s annual conference, fewer than five papers (out of literally tens of thousands), even mentioned the term “deaf” and several of those were using the term not even in reference to the medical disability or the community (i.e., “…falls on deaf ears.”)

Of course, it is not just the Deaf community. Part of the challenge is that much of the data that we use to study political participation fails to account for disabled individuals. Very few surveys of American politics ask about disability status, forcing researchers to rely on employment questions as a proxy. Surveys that do ask rarely dive deeper into the specific disability an individual has. This is a challenge—as it shapes what we know and think about as a discipline.

Even when data exist, measurement is a challenge. In the case of the Deaf community, for example, there is an added challenge of disaggregating between individuals who are deaf (a medical condition) and those who identify as Deaf (a cultural-linguistic community). These distinctions matter for understanding political behavior, identity, and engagement.

To move beyond these limitations, I turn to one of the few datasets that allows us to examine disability and political behavior in tandem. Most large-N surveys in political science either exclude disability measures or treat disability as a single, undifferentiated category. The Cooperative Election Study’s 2020 and 2022 team modules offer a rare exception, pairing detailed disability indicators with validated measures of registration, turnout, and political engagement. Leveraging these recent election cycles, I am able to provide a more granular and contemporary account of how disability—particularly d/Deafness—shapes political participation.

Exploring the Motivation-Participation Gap

The results are striking—but also more nuanced than a simple participation deficit.

In regression models of political attitudes that account for age, gender, income, race, education, employment, and other demographic factors, individuals who are d/Deaf are about 15 percentage points more likely to report being interested in politics (p < 0.01).

Beyond political interest, the patterns across attitudes are more mixed. Individuals with cognitive disabilities are about 12.5 percentage points less likely to identify as Republican (relative to Independents). At the same time, individuals with mobility limitations, and individuals with any disability in general, appear to express lower levels of trust in government, though these relationships are often only marginally significant. These findings suggest that disability shapes relationships between individuals and political institutions themselves.

The story becomes even clearer when we turn from attitudes to political behaviors, illustrated by the various outcomes in the figure below.

Despite expressing higher political interest, d/Deaf individuals, for example, are approximately 12 percentage points less likely to be registered to vote and about 13 percentage points less likely to vote. This pattern—higher interest paired with lower participation—holds even as I expand the analysis to include a broader range of political behaviors.

Across activities such as attending meetings, working on campaigns, contacting officials, or donating to campaigns, individuals who are d/Deaf do not consistently participate at higher rates, and in some cases participate at lower rates (attending a protest), despite expressing greater political interest. The gap is especially pronounced for formal, institutional forms of participation like registration and voting, where administrative hurdles are most salient.

At the same time, the expanded models reveal important variation across disability types.

For individuals with cognitive disabilities, the patterns look quite different. While these individuals don’t typically express higher political interest, there are meaningful differences in participation across several domains. In particular, individuals with cognitive disabilities are significantly less likely to vote, but in some cases more likely to post about politics and contact an elected official. Though marginally significant, individuals with cognitive disabilities also appear more likely to participate in other less formal ways as well. This suggests a more nuanced relationship between access, engagement, and participation that is not well captured by traditional models.

The analysis of political attitudes adds another layer to this story. While d/Deaf individuals report higher political interest, they do not exhibit systematically higher trust in government. In fact, across several disability categories, there is evidence of lower trust, suggesting that barriers to participation may also shape how individuals evaluate political institutions.

These patterns are consistent with what we would expect in a voting system shaped by administrative burden: individuals are interested but face higher costs when trying to participate.

These findings underscore that the gap between interest and participation is not driven by disengagement or apathy. If anything, many individuals with disabilities are highly engaged—attentive to politics, interested in public affairs, and, in some cases, active in non-electoral participation.

Instead, the gap reflects the ways that our institutions—via administrative processes, informational barriers, and uneven access—make participation more costly for some groups than others. And those costs are most visible in the very forms of participation that are most central to democratic inclusion: registering to vote, casting a ballot, and engaging with formal political institutions.

A Call to the Discipline

Political science has made enormous strides in incorporating race, gender, and class into its core theories. Perhaps it is time that disability should be part of that same conversation.

To do this, however, we need better data that captures the diverse experiences of disabled individuals. We need surveys that move beyond binary indicators to consider type, severity, and identity. Of course, understanding disability and political participation requires not just better data, but better relationships—research conducted with, not just about, individuals with disabilities. We need more work that captures lived experiences and interactions with (or avoidance of) democratic processes. And we need frameworks that treat disability not as an afterthought, but as central to understanding participation, representation, and democratic equality.

Just as importantly, this work should be done in collaboration with the communities it seeks to understand. At the Realizing Rights Lab, we strive to think about research as a partnership by working with individuals with disabilities, advocates, and practitioners to identify barriers, interpret findings, and think through how policies might better support access. Doing so not only improves the quality of the research, but also ensures that it remains grounded in the realities of navigating rights in reality.

A recent study of the 2020 election found that if people with disabilities voted at the same rate as those without disabilities, millions more votes would be cast in American elections. This matters not just for representation, but for policy outcomes and the openness of our democratic institutions.

Taking disability seriously as a discipline leads us to a deeper question: What does it mean to design a democracy that is truly accessible? Answering this question requires more than just better ramps and clearer ballots. It also requires rethinking how we study politics itself.

Share

Appendix Tables

Hello Students,

Are you considering law school or curious about what a legal career really looks like? Join us for an upcoming event, “So You Want to Be a Lawyer?” April 17th at 4pm in Goldsphon 17.

The Philosophy Department will be hosting a casual and informative Q&A session with two of our alums, one a practicing attorney and the other a current law student in the Chicago area. They’ll share their experiences and answer your questions about applying to law school, preparing for the LSAT, and navigating the legal profession.

This is a great opportunity to get honest insights and practical advice, whether you’re just starting to explore the idea or already planning your next steps.

What to expect:

• Open Q&A with our guest speakers

• Advice on everything from law school applications to the LSAT

• Discussion of different legal career paths

• Free pizza and cookies!

Bring your questions and your appetite. We hope to see you there!

Best,

Prof. Moosa

Shaheen Moosa, Ph.D.

Assistant Dean of Interdisciplinary Initiatives, College of Arts and Sciences

Associate Professor of Philosophy

Fox 32 Chicago (6/19)

William Muck joined Fox 32 Chicago to discuss renewed challenges facing the U.S.–Iran peace process following new violence in Lebanon. Muck argued that both sides still have strong incentives to move forward, particularly because disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz pose significant risks to the global economy. He also suggested that the growing divergence between U.S. and Israeli objectives could complicate negotiations and warned that constant public claims of victory by political leaders may make it harder for diplomats to reach a lasting agreement behind the scenes.

Morning Wave in Busan—South Korea (6/18)

William Muck joined Morning Wave in Busan in South Korea, to analyze the new U.S.–Iran peace agreement. Muck argued that the deal's initial phase appears to favor Iran, allowing Tehran to secure economic and diplomatic gains while deferring the most contentious nuclear questions to future negotiations. While the agreement has reduced immediate regional tensions and reopened the Strait of Hormuz, Muck cautioned that its long-term success will depend on whether both sides can reach agreement on inspections, uranium enrichment, and other unresolved nuclear issues during the next sixty days of talks.

WGN Evening News (6/15)

William Muck also joined WGN Evening News to analyze the U.S.–Iran memorandum of understanding, arguing that the agreement reflects a deliberate effort to separate economic stabilization from the more contentious nuclear dispute. By reopening the Strait of Hormuz and reducing pressure on global energy markets, both sides were able to secure an immediate win while setting aside the most politically difficult questions for future negotiations. Muck suggested that this sequencing may improve the chances of sustaining diplomacy in the short term, but cautioned that the unresolved nuclear issues remain the true test of whether the agreement can produce lasting stability.

Fox 32 Chicago (6/15)

William Muck joined Fox 32 Chicago to analyze the new U.S.–Iran memorandum of understanding, describing it as an important but fragile step toward de-escalation. Muck noted that reopening the Strait of Hormuz and ending immediate hostilities are significant achievements, but argued that the hardest negotiations—over Iran’s nuclear program, inspections, and regional security—still lie ahead. He also discussed the agreement’s global economic significance and its broader implications for U.S. relations with allies, competitors, and the wider international system.

Fox 32 Chicago (6/8)

William Muck joined Fox 32 Chicago to discuss the ongoing conflict between the United States and Iran, arguing that the crisis is more likely to produce a prolonged diplomatic standoff than a quick resolution. He noted that while President Trump is pushing for a ceasefire, the major actors involved have competing strategic interests and domestic political constraints. Muck also emphasized that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has elevated the conflict from a regional security challenge to a global economic concern, increasing pressure for negotiations while complicating efforts to reach a settlement.

Morning Wave—Busan, South Korea (5/20)

William Muck joined Morning Wave in Busan, South Korea this week to discuss the evolving crisis between the United States and Iran, including nuclear negotiations, tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, and the growing coordination between China and Russia in the Middle East. During the interview, Muck argued that the current moment is most likely to evolve into a prolonged geopolitical standoff rather than either a diplomatic breakthrough or immediate full-scale war. He also suggested that one of the long-term consequences of the crisis may be the continued erosion of global confidence in American leadership, potentially creating new strategic opportunities for China as states search for greater stability and predictability in the international system.

Fox 32 Chicago (5/1)

In an interview on Fox 32 Chicago, William Muck pushed back on the Trump administration’s claim that a ceasefire resets the 60-day clock under the War Powers Act, arguing that the law offers little room for such interpretation and has historically been more political than enforceable. He emphasized that while Congress technically holds power through funding, political pressures—especially concerns about appearing weak on national security—make a cutoff unlikely. Muck also highlighted the growing unpopularity of the Iran war and suggested it could become a defining issue in upcoming elections.

Fox 32 Chicago (4/22)

In an interview with Fox 32 Chicago, Professor William Muck discussed the extension of the U.S.-Iran ceasefire, noting that while continued talks are a positive sign, ongoing low-level clashes suggest the agreement remains fragile. He argued the conflict is shifting from direct military confrontation toward economic warfare, with both sides engaged in a high-stakes “waiting game” to see who can sustain pressure longer. Muck also emphasized that meaningful progress will likely require U.S. concessions, as Iran signals it will not accept a one-sided deal despite ongoing diplomatic outreach.

Fox 32 Chicago (4/20)

William Muck joined Fox 32 Chicago to discuss escalating tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, arguing that recent confrontations signal a fragile ceasefire beginning to unravel as both the U.S. and Iran lean toward escalation. He noted that while both sides have incentives to negotiate, the unusually public and combative nature of current diplomacy makes a lasting agreement far from certain. Muck also highlighted Iran’s growing success in the “information war,” pointing to viral AI-generated propaganda (Lego videos) as a sign that Tehran is gaining ground in shaping global perceptions.

Fox 32 Chicago (4/16)

In an interview on Fox 32 Chicago, William Muck analyzed the fragile ceasefire in the U.S.–Iran conflict, arguing that a major diplomatic breakthrough is unlikely in the near term and that an extension of the ceasefire is the most plausible outcome. He emphasized that meaningful agreements take time—pointing to the years-long negotiation of the 2015 nuclear deal—and described the current pause as a strategic “waiting game,” with both sides regrouping while facing mounting economic and political pressures. Muck also highlighted the increasingly political tone of Defense Department messaging and suggested the U.S. has limited remaining military options, leaving economic pressure and diplomacy as the primary paths forward.

Fox 32 Chicago (4/13)

Professor William Muck joined Fox 32 Chicago this morning to discuss the escalating U.S. blockade of Iran and its broader implications for the conflict. He noted that Iran is likely to respond by targeting regional allies and raising the economic and political costs for the United States. Muck also highlighted growing global anxiety, especially across Asia, where disruptions to oil supply are already being felt, warning that a prolonged conflict could trigger a severe, potentially “COVID-like” shock to the global economy. He also commented on President Trump’s recent criticisms of Pope Leo, noting that the tactic risks fracturing support on the political right at a critical moment in the conflict, with midterm elections approaching.

Fox 32 Chicago (4/7)

In an interview on Fox 32 Chicago, William Muck described the U.S.-Iran standoff as volatile and unlikely to yield a quick resolution, arguing that high-drama, ultimatum-driven diplomacy may hinder progress. While noting clear U.S. military dominance, he emphasized the deeper strategic challenge: Iran may be gaining leverage by prolonging the conflict, particularly through its position in the Strait of Hormuz. Muck also pointed to the legal risks of targeting civilian infrastructure and the growing economic pressures that could shape both public opinion and policy decisions.

Fox 9 Minneapolis (4/7)

In an interview on Fox 9 Minneapolis, William Muck reacted sharply to President Trump’s warning that an “entire civilization” could die, describing the language as deeply troubling and raising serious concerns about violations of international law, particularly the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure. He emphasized the volatility of the moment, warning that escalation could push the conflict into a more dangerous phase. While noting clear U.S. military dominance, Muck argued that Iran may hold the strategic advantage through its control of the Strait of Hormuz, where military options are limited and diplomacy will ultimately be necessary.

WGN Political Roundup (4/3)

On WGN’s Weekly Political Roundup, Muck addressed the Iran conflict alongside a range of domestic and international political developments. On Iran, he emphasized the likelihood of a prolonged engagement despite claims the conflict may be nearing completion. He also underscored the strategic importance of NATO amid presidential rhetoric that could weaken the alliance, warning such moves risk isolating the United States at a moment of heightened instability. Turning to domestic institutions, Muck raised concerns about the politicization of the Department of Justice following the firing of Attorney General Pam Bondi and discussed the broader constitutional stakes surrounding the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship case, including the long-term implications of a potential vacancy on the Court.

Morning Wave—Busan, South Korea (4/5)

In an international interview on Morning Wave in Busan, Muck narrowed the focus to the trajectory of the Iran conflict itself, describing it as entering a decisive “hinge moment” where events could tip toward escalation or de-escalation depending on events over the next week. While noting clear U.S. military dominance, he argued that the more important question is strategic. Muck cautioned that battlefield success may obscure a more complicated reality in which Iran benefits strategically from prolonging the conflict.

Graduation Year: 1966
Major/Minor: Political Science
Current Role: Retired FBI Special Agent
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma

We are excited to highlight Peter Rickel (Class of 1966), who studied Political Science at North Central College and went on to a 30-year career as an FBI Special Agent. His work in foreign counterintelligence during the Cold War took him across the United States and around the world, applying the global perspective he first developed at North Central.

What are you doing now, and how did you get there?

Currently, I am quite comfortable living a life of retirement in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

After graduating from NC, I attended the University of Oklahoma College of Law and received a JD degree. Since I was faced with the prospect of not getting closer to guerrillas than the local zoo—thanks to draft deferments—I decided, with the assistance of a family friend, to join the FBI, where I spent the next thirty years. I suppose, absent the draft board, the prospect of researching wills and estates in some musty law library was not very appealing.

My subsequent service as an FBI Special Agent brought me to assignments all over the USA and the world. My area of specialty was foreign counterintelligence, as this was the day of the Soviet Union and the Cold War was quite real. The job was to find and prosecute spies and their American assets. We didn’t win them all, but most of them.

After retirement, I decided I had enough structure and wanted to try life on my own. I dabbled in law practice, but after all those years I just wasn’t up to date on the various aspects of a lucrative practice. So, I started my own private investigative agency. As mentioned, I am now fully retired—living with memories.

How did your time studying Political Science at North Central shape your path?

Given the political upheavals at the time—assassinations, the civil rights movement, and Vietnam—I remember it as a time of conflict, protests, and upheaval. All of which led me to political science.

My political science major deepened my understanding of foreign nations, their governments, and their people. It also led to a lifelong reading and educational interest in political interactions and their practical aspects.

Was there a course, professor, or experience that stands out?

I was quite fortunate in having Dr. Geire as my mentor and professor. I recall his references to Nazi Germany (he got out) as a reason to always look toward the rule of law and the nobility of public service.

I also ran for and won student body president my senior year. No great achievements that I can remember, but it was great fun and a tremendous learning experience in compromise.

One of my other formative experiences occurred shortly after graduation, during a summer abroad led by then-college chaplain George St. Angelo. We toured major European cities, met with government officials, and stayed with local families.

A required railroad trip took us through East Germany into Berlin and then East Berlin—quite an eye-opening experience. I’ll never forget crossing into East Germany with armed guards at the entrances and exits of the railroad car. The contrast between vibrant West Berlin and the drab East, still showing the scars of World War II, was striking.

We also toured Dachau, which made us reflect on how one of the most civilized nations in Europe could descend into the depravity of the Holocaust. That experience stayed with me.

What skills from the Political Science program have been most useful in your career?

My political science background gave me a deeper understanding of foreign governments, systems, and people—something that was essential in my work in foreign counterintelligence.

It also fostered a lifelong habit of reading and learning about political interactions and their real-world implications.

What advice would you give current Political Science students?

Always look toward the rule of law and the importance of public service.

And remember that understanding political systems and people—how they think and act—is not just academic. It has very real, practical applications.

What’s next for you?

At this point, I am enjoying retirement. After a long and structured career, I’m content living life on my own terms—and reflecting on the experiences along the way.

We love hearing from our alumni. If you would like to share an update or reflection for a future NCC Political Science Alumni Spotlight, please contact Dr. Muck at wjmuck@noctrl.edu.

Here 👇 is the specific data on party identification that Chod and Muck discuss.

In the article Schaffner notes,

In 2007 and 2008, Americans were about 10 to 12 percentage points more likely to identify with or lean towards the Democratic Party as they were to identify with or lean towards the Republican Party. But by November 2025, that gap was just 2 to 3 percentage points.

Chod and Muck’s discussion explores the broader political implications of the trend—particularly what it may signal for the upcoming midterm elections.

They also discuss the concept of asymmetrical polarization and how it continues to shape the contemporary political landscape. A substantial body of research—most notably by political scientists Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, as well as Matthew Grossmann and David Hopkins—finds that in recent decades, Republican elites have tended to shift further to the ideological right than Democrats have to the left, with important consequences for governance, electoral strategy, and democratic norms.

Graduation Year: 2011
Major: Political Science
Current Role: Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Counsel (State Counsel)
Organization: State Farm

We are excited to highlight Margaret Nunne (Class of 2011), who studied Political Science at North Central College and now works in legislative and regulatory affairs at State Farm. Since graduating, she has built a career at the intersection of law and public policy, drawing on the analytical and communication skills she developed at North Central.

What are you doing now, and how did you get there?

Starting out working for the Illinois Legislative Staff Internship Program through UIS, I spent three years on the Illinois Senate Republican staff until 2014, when I left to attend law school.

I attended Northern Illinois University College of Law and graduated in 2018, taking an in-house position in the State Farm Law Department in Bloomington following a summer internship.

I have been with State Farm since August 2018, working in the Public Policy Resource Group (PPRG) as well as legislative and regulatory affairs counsel (known as State Counsel). I was also offered the opportunity to take on a Leadership Development assignment leading the PPRG team, which focuses on identifying solutions in the public policy arena.

How did your time studying Political Science at North Central shape your path?

Studying Political Science at North Central pushed me to start asking questions, begin considering multiple perspectives, and gain the understanding that political science is happening everywhere, every day.

I knew I wanted to continue being a part of that conversation, and my time at North Central led me to my work in Illinois state government, with that path continuing from there.

Was there a course, professor, or experience that stands out?

Model United Nations in New York City is a favorite memory of mine, and so was my capstone with Professor Muck on war. Both challenged my way of thinking and seeing the world and left me wondering what else I did not know yet.

What skills from the Political Science program have been most useful in your career?

Actively listening, learning from viewpoints different than my own, and being able to write are all skills that were not only useful but indispensable in my career.

What advice would you give current Political Science students?

Take advantage of every opportunity you have to practice your skills and to meet new people. If you want to change the world, you will need to know what the world has done so far, and you will need friends and allies who can help build the change you want to see.

We love hearing from our alumni. If you would like to share an update or reflection for a future NCC Political Science Alumni Spotlight, please contact Dr. Muck at wjmuck@noctrl.edu.

Graduation Year: 1977
Major/Minor: Political Science and English
Current Role: Commercial Real Estate Attorney
Organization: Barack Ferrazzano

“It’s really important to learn how to think and to analyze, no matter what your intended career path.”

We are excited to highlight Suzanne Bessette-Smith (Class of 1977), who studied Political Science and English at North Central College and has built a long and rewarding career in law. Since graduating, she has spent more than four decades working as a commercial real estate attorney in Chicago.

What are you doing now, and how did you get there?

I graduated in 1977 and headed to the University of Illinois for law school. I thought I was going to be an international lawyer and practice at The Hague. While in law school, I was on the Moot Court team, and my team made it to Nationals. I loved the idea of doing appellate work—probably not much more realistic than practicing at The Hague 😊.

I graduated in 1980, 23 (almost 24) and ready to take on the legal world. Reality set in, however. I got a job with a law firm in Chicago thinking I was going to be a litigator. It was 1980, and going to court was a pretty frustrating experience—I was called “honey,” “baby,” and “sweetie” by judges, opposing counsel, and court clerks.

I soon discovered litigation was not for me. Luckily, I was in a small firm with a very successful partner with a commercial real estate practice. I began working with him, found I enjoyed both him and the work, and that became my career.

In 2026, I am about to celebrate the 46th anniversary of my graduation from law school, and I’ve spent almost the entirety of my (very happy) career as a commercial real estate lawyer.

How did your time studying Political Science at North Central shape your path?

I knew when I arrived at NCC that I planned to go to law school and major in Political Science and English. My classes—especially in Political Science—taught me how to think and analyze, which was great preparation for law school.

Was there a course, professor, or experience that stands out?

I spent a LOT of time in Old Main (on the 4th floor, walking all the way) with David Frolick and Fred Lawson, who were essentially “the” Political Science department then.

I so respected both men and thought the world of them. I have fabulous memories of my classes with David and Fred. They were tough, but fair and reasonable, and they taught me to think and analyze.

In fact, I am still friends with, and in contact with, David Frolick today. Fred, unfortunately, died a number of years ago.

What skills from the Political Science program have been most useful in your career?

Learning how to think and analyze has been the most important skill in my career. Those skills apply no matter what your intended career path is.

What advice would you give current Political Science students?

My advice to students today is that there is still very much a reason and a purpose for a liberal arts education. They should try to make themselves as well-rounded as possible, in terms of courses and experiences.

Don’t shy away from classes that you think are too challenging or not necessarily a topic in which you are interested. You can always learn, and you might be surprised to find that you are interested in a subject once you take the class.

It’s really important to learn how to think and to analyze, no matter what your intended career path.

I also think law school is tough and being a lawyer is tougher. I don’t think people should go to law school because they don’t know what else to do. I would only recommend it to those who are convinced that is what they want for a career.

What’s next for you?

I am now trying to decide about retirement plans. I still love what I do, and my firm has no mandatory retirement age. So I’m clearly working through 2026 and taking it a year at a time.

We love hearing from our alumni. If you would like to share an update or reflection for a future NCC Political Science Alumni Spotlight, please contact Dr. Muck at wjmuck@noctrl.edu.

People often think of voting as the most foundational act of democracy. Political scientists are no exception—we probably study the act of voting more than any other political behavior (likely because it’s one of the easiest acts of participation to measure). My article that came out last Friday in Policy Studies Journal on the administrative burdens of voting is no exception. However, despite how much attention we have given to voting over the years, we still have a lot of questions about why people vote and why some people don’t vote. Even in the highest-turnout election in recent US history, only 66% of voters cast a ballot.

There are countless theories in of voting behavior that attempt to explain who shows up to cast a ballot on election day (or earlier now)—each pointing at a different factor that compels people to do their civic duty. Some (canonically) focus on cost-benefit analyses; some point to the accumulation importance of civic resources (time, money, skills); others elevate the importance of social and emotional skills. One of the factors that has always interested me is educational attainment: Individuals with higher levels of education are consistently more likely to vote. The figure below illustrates illustrates this trend, showing the gaps in voting rates by eduction level for the last 7 presidential elections.

We have known that education matters for political participation for over a hundred years. Writing about some of the earliest work of modern political science, Rachel Sondheimer and Don Green note, “From the early work of Merriam and Gosnell (1924) to today, literally thousands of cross-sectional surveys have indicated that turnout rates climb with years of formal schooling.” And education matters for so many things even beyond just voting. As Phill Converse and Angus Campbell, two of the authors of The American Voter, noted in a later article, “Education is the universal solvent, and the relationship is always in the same direction. The higher the education, the greater the ‘good’ values of the variable.” But too often, political scientists fall short of meaningfully interrogating “education” beyond “it’s a good thing.”

So we know schooling matters, but not necessarily why or how. Coming from a family of educators, I know that a lot happens in K12 education. Having spent a lot of time on college campus, I know that a lot of transformational changes happen there. What would it mean to incorporate more meaningful understandings of these experiences into our broader understandings of political science?

Much of my work in political behavior brings these puzzles together. Can understanding something about how education shapes political participation help us understand who does and does

not vote? Inversely, can thinking about who does and does not vote illuminate aspects of our educational system that are failing to adequately prepare citizens for our democracy?

Recent Policy Studies Journal Article

My new article in Policy Studies Journal, “Education and the Unequal Costs of Voting: Administrative Burdens and Democratic Participation” explores a simple question: who is best equipped to navigate the bureaucratic hurdles of voting?

This work operates from two assumptions: 1) education equips individuals with skills to navigate complexity, and 2) America’s decentralized, fragmented voting system poses a degree of complexity for voters. Elections are a policy domain largely governed at the state level (time, place, and manner) but administered at the local level, meaning that states pass laws and local election officials implement them, often with a wide degree of discretion. (The federal government really only sets offices and terms for federal elections as well as who can vote in them—lots of caveats here.)

Since Shelby County v. Holder decision in 2013, states and localities have increasingly changed their election laws and practices, meaning that the laws and policies that shape what citizens must do to vote (i.e., present an ID, register 5/10/20 days before an election, and/or receive a bottle of water while waiting in line). The figure below illustrates how much harder (easier) it has gotten to vote in in each of the 50 states since 2012 using the Cost of Voting Index, a single measure of the combined laws that each state has that govern voting in a given election approximating the net “costs” associated with casting a ballot.

Now, some states offer online voter registration, weeks of early voting, and widespread mail ballots. Others require voters to register weeks in advance, present specific identification, or navigate more complicated rules about absentee ballots. Importantly, these election laws all overlap and interact in different ways in each state, each locality, each election, resulting in totally different contexts for voting for each person. The result is a journey that each citizen must navigate largely on their own. (My friend a county over didn’t have to do this! This is the first time I have ever had to present an ID!)

All of these rules create what policy scholars call administrative burdens—the paperwork, deadlines, and procedural steps citizens must complete to interact with government. Voting is often framed as a civic right, but it is also an bureaucratic process. Registering to vote, figuring out where to vote, and understanding deadlines all require time, information, and planning on the part of the citizen.

Motivated by the puzzles I discussed above, I examine how these burdens affect voters differently depending on their educational attainment. Perhaps individuals with higher levels of education are better able to navigate bureaucratic tasks and administrative complexity in the case of voting. Using data from the Cooperative Election Study between 2008 and 2024, combined with the Cost of Voting Index, I analyze how changes in state election laws shape participation for voters of different education levels.

Notably, the overall cost of voting doesn’t appear to dramatically appear to reduce turnout on average. At first glance, this might suggest that election laws don’t matter very much. But looking more closely, a different pattern emerges.

The effects of voting rules appear not to be evenly distributed across the electorate. As voting procedures become more complex, people with less formal education become less likely to participate. Meanwhile, voters with higher levels of education appear largely unaffected by these changes. The figure below illustrates these divergent relationships. The top, solid line shows the changes in probability of voting for individuals with the higher level of education (1 standard deviation above average), while the bottom, dashed line shows the probability of voting based on individuals with the lower levels of education (1 standard deviation below average). While the top line shows a slight increase in predicted likelihood of casting a ballot as the costs of voting increases, the bottom line shows the opposite: a penalty for increasing complexity.

Why might that be? Education provides skills that make it easier to navigate bureaucratic systems (e.g., administrative capital, social and emotional skills, self-efficacy). More educated individuals may find it easier to interpret rules, keep track of deadlines, or complete the steps required to register and vote—not so unlike navigating college and taking exams. Education may also just help individuals care about these things. In other words, education can act as a kind of buffer against administrative complexity.

This has an important implication for how we think about election laws. When policymakers change voting procedures—whether by tightening rules or expanding access—they may not dramatically change overall turnout numbers. But those changes can shift who participates. This is especially important to consider as we know that access to education has not been equal throughout much of American history.

The broader takeaway is that voting isn’t just a matter of motivation or civic duty. It is also shaped by the design of the systems that citizens must navigate. As debates about election laws continue across the country, understanding how these administrative details affect different voters is essential for ensuring that democratic participation remains accessible to everyone.

Graduation Year: 2019
Major: Political Science
Current Role: Management Analyst
Organization: City of Des Plaines, Illinois

“The study of political science truly begins in many ways after graduation.”

We are excited to highlight one of our Political Science alumni from the Class of 2019. After graduating from North Central College, Thomas “Tommy” Semanic continued his studies in public administration and has built a career working in government at both the state and local levels.

What are you doing now, and how did you get there?

After graduating from North Central College in 2019, I went on to earn a Master’s Degree in Public Administration with a focus in Local Government Management from Northern Illinois University in 2023. In March 2025, I made the decision to leave the Illinois Student Assistance Commission and begin a new role as a Management Analyst for the City of Des Plaines.

How did studying political science at North Central shape your path?

I completely agree that the study of political science truly begins in many ways after graduation. Working in government—first at the state level and now at the local level—has me constantly thinking about our institutions. I often find myself reflecting on how current events shape our democratic systems and how we can use data and history to better understand the challenges we face.

What advice would you give current students?

My advice to current students is to keep your options open. Use the political science major to develop strong, adaptable skills—skills often labeled as “soft,” though they are anything but. These abilities will help you market yourself for a wide range of career paths, and you never know where an unexpected opportunity might lead you.

We love hearing from our alumni. If you would like to share an update or reflection for a future NCC Political Science Alumni Spotlight, please contact Dr. Muck at wjmuck@noctrl.edu.