Multiracial populations increased faster than any single race in the most recent U.S. census. However, we know little about how this shift might impact the political attitudes of monoracial Americans. Drawing on literatures in racial politics and social psychology, this article addresses this question by examining how learning about African Americans with Irish ancestry impacts Irish Americans' racial attitudes. Findings from a survey of Irish Americans show that identifying as Irish American predicts implicit and explicit prejudice toward Black Americans. However, a survey experiment reveals that correcting Irish Americans’ underestimations of the proportion of African Americans with Irish ancestry decreases racial prejudice among Irish Americans who identify as Irish American. In other words, learning about a shared ancestry with African Americans reduces racial prejudice among those Irish Americans most predisposed to prejudice. Open-ended survey responses offer two possible explanations: the potential for multiracialism to reduce racial essentialism and increase perceptions of closeness across race.

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Jasmine English is a Postdoctoral Fellow at Stanford’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law and will be an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Reed College (2025-).

Jasmine’s research focuses on political behavior, interracial solidarity, and the carceral state in American politics. Ongoing projects on interracial solidarity examine how learning about African Americans with Irish ancestry impacts Irish Americans’ racial attitudes. Her work on the carceral state includes projects on “carceral political discussion” and the impact of militarized policing on perceptions of the Black Lives Matter movement. Jasmine’s research has been published in the American Political Science Review, Politics, Groups, and Identities, and is forthcoming at Perspectives on Politics. She has received several awards for her research, including best paper awards from the American Political Science Association (APSA) sections on Interpretive Methods and Qualitative and Multi-Method Research. 

Jasmine received her PhD in Political Science from MIT in 2024. She received her BA from UCLA, where she graduated with degrees in Political Science and Economics. Jasmine is originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland.

Virtual to Public. Only those with an active Stanford ID with access to Room E008 in Encina Hall may attend in person.

To suppress dissent, autocrats often criminalize opposition organizations both domestically and in exile. While such measures may weaken support for these organizations domestically, they can gain increased backing from migrant communities. This study explores whether autocrats achieve their intended outcomes by legally repressing exile organizations through criminalization. Using a conjoint experiment, we examine how attributes like criminalization, anonymous donations, mission, and accountability affect donation decisions among 5,996 Russian exiles who fled after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. This analysis is enriched with open-ended responses from participants.Our findings reveal some unintended consequences for the autocrat: Russian exiles are ready to support organizations branded as criminal by Russian authorities, because criminalization indicates organizations' political authenticity and effectiveness. However, exile organizations still must work to attract supporters who face high perceived risks, particularly migrants in countries tied to Russia. Technological advancements, such as anonymous donations, significantly enhance support, especially for organizations directly involved in homeland politics. Transparency is also key, especially if exile organizations want to attract the most politically engaged migrants. This study provides insights into how exile organizations can build resilient diaspora that relies on internal donors, even under growing pressure from autocratic homelands.

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Ivetta Sergeeva is a Postdoctoral Fellow at CDDRL, Stanford University. She earned a PhD in Social and Political Sciences from the European University Institute. Her research focuses on authoritarianism, civil society, and emigration, employing a mixed-methods approach that includes surveys, experiments, and interviews. In addition to her academic expertise, she has eight years of experience coordinating civil society and human rights projects in the challenging context of contemporary Russia. In collaboration with Emil Kamalov, she co-founded and co-leads OutRush, a panel survey of Russian political migrants launched in response to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. She is also a co-principal investigator for the DemEx project, funded by NSF. Her work has been featured in major outlets, including Bloomberg, Financial Times, Al Jazeera, Deutsche Welle, BBC, CNBC, and Fortune.

In collaboration with Emil Kamalov, she co-founded and co-leads two research projects:

1. OutRush: A panel survey of Russian emigrants, initiated as both a personal and professional response to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Since March 2022, more than 10,000 Russian emigrants, now located in more than a hundred countries, have participated in the survey. The project has garnered substantial international media coverage and has drawn the attention of policymakers and experts.
2. Violence Monitor: A national survey on intimate partner violence in Russia that integrates UN methodology with experimental techniques.
    

Virtual to Public. Only those with an active Stanford ID with access to Room E008 in Encina Hall may attend in person.

This talk will examine how technology can amplify deliberative democracy to foster a more informed and engaged society. Drawing on findings from two nationally representative online Deliberative Polls called America in One Room, the talk will demonstrate how online deliberation is alleviating polarization and producing lasting effects with hopes for a more deliberative society. The talk will also explore how the AI-assisted Stanford Online Deliberation Platform, which has logged over 100,000 deliberation hours in over 35 countries and 25 languages, has been used to facilitate high-quality, structured discussions on complex issues, including democratic reform and the implications of generative AI and metaverse governance. By integrating insights from research and practice, the session will demonstrate how deliberation can empower voters, improve decision-making, and counteract the polarization threatening democracy.

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Alice Siu received her Ph.D. from the Department of Communication at Stanford University, with a focus in political communication, deliberative democracy, and public opinion, and her B.A. degrees in Economics and Public Policy and M.A. degree in Political Science, also from Stanford.

Siu has advised policymakers and political leaders around the world at various levels of government, including leaders in China, Brazil, and Argentina. Her research interests in deliberative democracy include what happens inside deliberation, such as examining the effects of socio-economic class in deliberation, the quality of deliberation, and the quality of arguments in deliberation.

Virtual to Public. Only those with an active Stanford ID with access to Room E008 in Encina Hall may attend in person.

This study examines the evolution of Turkey's electoral dynamics from 1990 to 2023, focusing on social cleavages and democratic backsliding's impact on party competition and voter behavior. Using data from the World Values Survey and Turkish Elections Studies, the analysis tracks changes that enabled the conservative pro-Islamist Justice and Development Party's (AKP) rise within Turkey's sociopolitical context. It explores the "alla Turca kulturkampf" or center-periphery cleavage's role in shaping the electoral landscape, especially during the AKP's post-2002 rule. Findings indicate that electoral choices now reflect attitudinal differences over group identities, with the AKP's dominance linked to the cultural cleavage's persistence around the center-periphery divide, the decline of the Kemalist modernization program, and the periphery's capture of the center. The study also addresses challenges from gender inequality, income disparity, and new urbanites' impact on modernization, providing insights into the interplay between social change, democratic backsliding, and electoral dynamics in unconsolidated democracies.

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Ali Çarkoğlu is a political scientist specializing in elections, voting behavior, public opinion, and Turkish politics. He has led and participated in major cross-national and national projects such as the Turkish Election Study (TES), Turkish Giving Behaviour Study, International Social Survey Program (ISSP), and Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES). I took part in the planning committees for Modules 5 and 6 in CSES and ISSP modules on family and changing gender roles (2012, 2022), religion (2018), and social networks (2017). He is the founding PI in TES and developed the campaign media content data program, which documents daily campaign content for over ten national newspapers since 2002.

Ali's current research is an exploration of the secularization process in Turkey, a topic where the evidence has so far been mixed. Some scholars find the Turkish experience to possess reflections of secularization, as expected following classical modernization theory, while others present evidence that contradicts these expectations. The most recent contributions to this literature now focus on outliers where resistance to secularization exists, and one even finds a resurgence of religiosity in various dimensions of social life. He focuses on Turkey, which can be considered an outlier. In the past, he has contributed to this literature through several projects and articles and touched upon the enduring influence of religion in political life.

His main argument in this project is that Turkish society's dual character, where a potentially secularizing group faces an increasingly resacralizing group, is responsible for the contrasting findings about secularization and creating the Turkish outlier. He follows historical and quantitative research, bringing together comprehensive data that focus on the country's critical areas of social development. Ali argues that underlying Turkish ideological and affective polarization is the dual character of Turkish society with opposing secularization trends.

Virtual to Public. Only those with an active Stanford ID with access to Room E008 in Encina Hall may attend in person.

I argue that central banks attempt to build public trust in money and monetary governance through the strategic use of what I call a stability narrative, asserting that they can maintain the value of money, can maintain the security of money, represent the nation, and have grown increasingly professional and sophisticated over time. The talk explores the stability narrative by studying its expression in central bank museums. Museums tell stories; they distill, teach, and privilege the beliefs of their creators. As such, museums represent an excellent vehicle for understanding the ways in which central banks describe and promote their ability to govern money. The research is based on interviews and site visits at over 35 central bank museums and an original database that gathers and systematizes publicly available information on central bank museums worldwide.

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Juliet Johnson‘s research focuses on the politics of money and identity. She is Professor of Political Science at McGill University, an Elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, and former President of the Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. She is the author of the award-winning Priests of Prosperity: How Central Bankers Transformed the Postcommunist World (Cornell 2016) and A Fistful of Rubles: The Rise and Fall of the Russian Banking System (Cornell 2000), co-editor of Developments in Russian Politics 10 (Bloomsbury 2024) and Religion and Identity in Modern Russia: The Revival of Orthodoxy and Islam (Routledge 2005), and author of numerous scholarly and policy-oriented articles. She has been Lead Editor of Review of International Political Economy, Network Director of the Jean Monnet network Between the EU and Russia (BEAR), Advisory Council member at the Kennan Institute, Research Fellow at the Brookings Institution, and National Fellow at the Hoover Institution. She received McGill University’s President’s Prize for Excellence in Teaching, the David Thomson Award for Graduate Supervision and Teaching, the Fieldhouse Award for Distinguished Teaching, and the Faculty of Arts Award for Distinction in Research. She earned her PhD in Politics from Princeton University and her AB in International Relations from Stanford University.

Virtual to Public. Only those with an active Stanford ID with access to Willliam J. Perry Conference Room in Encina Hall may attend in person.

War is often a driver of macro-institutional change (Tilly 1975), and it has been suggested that the peculiar, partial, and incremental development of the institutions of the European Union have been due to the absence of major inter-state war in Europe post-1945 (Kelemen and McNamara 2022). The return of inter-state warfare to Europe allows us to examine the effect that heightened military threat and territorial revisionism has European political development. Contrary to some expectations that Europe might achieve greater unity and integration in response to a revived Russian external threat, I find that the ongoing war is driving institutional retrenchment of Europe along national lines for three reasons. First, the war has privileged newer, post-enlargement member states, whose governments and polities do not share the elite anti-nationalist principles that have underpinned the European project since the end of WWII. Second, the emerging re-armament of European states has privileged national actors and national systems of military procurement, with incentives counter to deeper European integration of armed forces and military procurement. Military assistance for Ukraine has primarily been provided through US-coordinated bilateralism rather than European multilateralism or supranationalism. Finally, the war itself has increased the salience of national identity and the normative appeal of nationalism in ways that work against European institutions and will likely put limits on deeper European integration even in an environment of greater military threat. These preliminary findings suggest that, as with other macro-institutional processes (e.g. state-building), existential threat interacts with identity variables to produce institutional outcomes.

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Keith Darden (Stanford class of ’92) is Associate Professor in the Department of Politics, Governance and Economics at the School of International Service at American University. His research focuses on nationalism, state-building, and the politics of Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia. His book manuscript, Resisting Occupation in Eurasia (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming), explores the development of durable national loyalties through education and details how they explain over a century of regional patterns in voting, secession, and armed resistance in Ukraine, Europe, and Eurasia. His award-winning first book, Economic Liberalism and Its Rivals (Cambridge University Press, 2009) explored the formation of international economic institutions among the post-Soviet states, and explained why countries chose to join the Eurasian Customs Union, the WTO, or to eschew participation in any trade institutions. Prof. Darden is co-editor of the Cambridge University Press Book Series Problems of International Politics.

Virtual to Public. Only those with an active Stanford ID with access to William J. Perry Conference Room in Encina Hall may attend in person.

Andrew Johnson. Richard Nixon. Donald Trump. These three presidents were often compared on the basis of their character and confrontations with the Constitutional limitations of the presidency. Yet they also shared a different, less frequently explored, feature: they each followed racially transformative presidencies. Abraham Lincoln’s presidency guided the nation through the Civil War and ended decades of political stalemate over the slavery issue. Lyndon Johnson signed civil rights legislation that, similarly, marked the end of decades of impasse and reinvigorated the promise of multi-racial democracy in the United States. Barack Obama, as the nation’s first African American president, changed the symbolism associated with the presidency and challenged the implied whiteness of the office. This talk, based on a forthcoming book with Princeton, will examine how the dynamics of each of these presidencies unsettled political norms and long-term compromises, creating political opportunities for populist successors. Each of the impeachment crises — the Tenure of Office Act, Watergate, and both Trump impeachments — can be traced to the racial politics ignited by their predecessors.

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Julia Azari is Professor of Political Science at Marquette University. An active public-facing scholar, she has published commentary on presidential and party politics in FiveThirtyEight, Politico, Vox, The New York Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC, and The Guardian. Her scholarly work has appeared in journals such as The Forum, Perspectives on Politics, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Foreign Affairs, and Social Science History. She has contributed invited chapters to books published by the University Press of Kansas, University of Pennsylvania Press, Cambridge University Press, and University of Edinburgh Press. Azari is the author of Delivering the People’s Message: The Changing Politics of the Presidential Mandate (Cornell, 2014), coeditor of The Presidential Leadership Dilemma (SUNY, 2013), and co-editor of The Trump Legacy (under contract, University Press of Kansas).

Virtual to Public. Only those with an active Stanford ID with access to William J. Perry Conference Room in Encina Hall may attend in person.

The Troubling State of India’s Democracy brings together leading scholars from around the world to assess the conditions of India’s democracy across three important dimensions: politics, specifically the state of political parties and the party system; the state, including the condition of federalism and the health of various institutions; and society, including NGOs, ethnic and religious tensions, and control of the media. Even though elements of India’s democracy seem to function—like its commitment to elections—the contributors document a disturbing trajectory, one that not only threatens to undermine India’s own stability, but could also affect the global order.

ABOUT THE SPEAKERS

Larry Diamond is William L. Clayton Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), and a Bass University Fellow in Undergraduate Education at Stanford University. His research focuses on global trends affecting freedom and democracy, and U.S. and international policies to advance democracy and counter authoritarian influence. He was the founding coeditor of the Journal of Democracy and he remains a consultant to the National Endowment for Democracy. Among his books is Ill Winds: Saving Democracy from Russian Rage, Chinese Ambition, and American Complacency.

Dinsha Mistree is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, where he manages the Program on Strengthening US-Indian Relations. He is also a research fellow in the Rule of Law Program at Stanford Law School and an affiliated scholar at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law. Dr. Mistree studies the relationship between governance and economic growth in developing countries. His scholarship concentrates on the political economy of legal systems, public administration, and education policy, with a regional focus on India. He holds a Ph.D. and an M.A. in Politics from Princeton University, with an S.M. and an S.B. from MIT. He previously held a postdoctoral fellowship at CDDRL and was a visiting scholar at IIM-Ahmedabad.

Šumit Ganguly is a Senior Fellow and directs the Huntington Program on Strengthening US-India Relations at the Hoover Institution. He is also a Distinguished Professor and Tagore Chair Emeritus at Indiana University, Bloomington. His most recent publications are the Oxford Handbook of Indian Politics (co-edited with Eswaran Sridharan) and States and Their Nationals Abroad: Support, Co-Opt and Repress (co-edited with Klaus Brummer).

Virtual to Public. Only those with an active Stanford ID with access to Willliam J. Perry Conference Room in Encina Hall may attend in person.