The Center of Slavic and East European Studies and the Polish Studies Initiative, in collaboration with the Wexner Center and co-sponsored by the Melton Center for Jewish Studies, had a film screening of Eric Bednarski’s documentary Warsaw: A City Divided on October 18. Ghetto survivors, architects, urban historians, and the Chief Rabbi of Poland weigh in on Hitler’s dismantling of Warsaw, his nightmarish vision for Poland, and the horrors of Ghetto life.  

      Warsaw, once a thriving metropolis and home to the world’s second-largest Jewish community, was reduced to a non-functioning, provincial city by Germany. At its center was the lone “Jewish Housing District,” where massive walls and constant Nazi surveillance literally imprisoned its inhabitants. The Jews, degraded by armbands and offensive posters, had to smuggle to survive. 80% of the ghetto’s food came from criminal means, and those without connections to outsiders were goners. The mass graves littering the surrounding forests are haunting reminders of the 90% of Jews killed in the occupation.  

     Interwoven throughout the film is never-before-seen footage of Warsaw in 1941 by an amateur Polish filmmaker. The beatings, poverty, and terror were painful to watch and hit extremely close to home. My maternal grandmother was evicted from her home in Romania to the ghettos on the Russian border. Like the Poles, they lost their valuables, the money ran out, and starvation was extreme. When a jealous neighbor reported them to the Nazis, my great-uncle made custom suits to appease the soldiers. Miraculously, they were spared. The Polish Jews would not be so lucky. After the failed uprisings of 1944, survivors were transported to concentration camps. No such resistance existed in my maternal grandfather’s Hungarian village, but that didn’t stop Germany from sending his family and countless others to Auschwitz.  

      One architect mentioned how remnants of the old city no longer exist in today’s current one. As with other marginalized groups and ethnicities, the death of Holocaust survivors makes it easy to denounce the atrocities’ existence. It’s imperative that society, especially people with the power to control IA, never forget inhumane crimes against oppressed groups. Otherwise, we disrespect the innocent lives lost.  

On October 2, the Center for Historical Research in the Department of History and the Institute for Democratic Engagement and Accountability had another seminar in their “Democracy in a Time of Change and Challenges” series for the United Kingdom. Its host was Miles Taylor, an acclaimed historical author, and professor of modern history at the University of York.

As an International Relations and Diplomacy major, I felt it was imperative to have a strong understanding of the historical and diplomatic ties connecting the U.S. and the U.K. Though our Founding Fathers included features of the British government when drafting the Constitution, our systems are strikingly different. Mr. Taylor interwove descriptions of Britain’s parliamentary democracy in his analyses of Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Brexit, and the coronavirus.

In 2016, the U.K. was in a political crisis over Brexit. Membership in the E.U. relinquished power to one shared legal sovereignty, and the devolution of legislative and financial powers from London to other assemblies in the U.K. created instability. Parliament’s failure to leave, followed by the global pandemic, made people question the credibility of their parliamentary democracy and its famously lacking written constitution.

Heated debates arise in America over the extent of the President’s executive power. Some think he’s “faithfully executing” the law while others believe he’s undermining the constitution and the legislature. Johnson faced similar backlash in the pandemic. The U.K. had various stages of lockdown since March. Currently, elections are postponed until next May and all forms of physical protesting are banned. Mr. Taylor equated Johnson’s range and use of emergency powers to Churchill’s behavior in WWII, which I found interesting and astute.

Mr. Taylor’s opinion on Britain’s response to foreign interference further demonstrated our cultural differences. To better police electoral fraud and government corruption, Johnson made voter ID mandatory and abolished the Fixed-term Parliaments Act (which prevented the Prime Minister from dissolving Parliament at any time). While Americans might find these actions oppressive or intrusive, Mr. Taylor thinks it’s protecting democracy by preventing vote harvesting and protecting individual political data. I love being exposed to these contrasting viewpoints because education is the best way to understand others and make proper decisions in IA.

     The Center for Historical Research in the Department of History has a series of seminars called “Democracy in a Time of Change and Challenges.” They believe democracy is globally “under stress,” so they’re examining how it evolves and how different regions interpret and implement it. September 18 covered democracy in Russia. Its host was Gerald Easter, a professor of comparative politics at Boston College and the chair of political science at Harvard’s Davis Center.  

     I chose this webinar because I’m fascinated by Russian history and Russia’s relationship with the U.S. government. I had a strong understanding of Imperial and Soviet Russia, but not the interim period between the Soviet Union’s collapse and Putin’s presidency. I also didn’t know about Russia’s governing system beyond Putin. Mr. Easter’s presentation answered these questions. 

     Russia was an “unconsolidated democracy” post-communism. Its decentralized state now allowed power and resources to be dispersed between regional politicians, territories, businesses, and the military. The fall of the Soviet Union and the financial crisis of 1998 convinced Putin that the 90s was a decade of weakness. He wanted to strengthen Russia by reconsolidating state power. The exact moment Russia deviated from a liberal democracy to authoritarianism is debatable, but it’s evident that the people are heavily dependent on the state for authority and rich economic resources via “concessions capitalism.” 

     I especially enjoyed Mr. Easter’s comparisons of America’s democratic republic and Russia’s “electoral authoritarianism.” Russia legitimates democracy through regular elections, but it lacks the U.S.’ competitive atmosphere and fairness because it’s had a hegemonic party system since 2004. Russia’s poorly negotiated Constitution in the 90s further concentrated power in the executive branch. Checks and balances like the U.S. Constitution are non-existent, as the president’s extensive emergency and declaration powers completely undermine the legislature. I’d love to go to law school and work for the government, so I think it’s super important to understand the distinct, structural characteristics of different governments to properly understand nations and create intelligent policies. 

     On September 16, the School of Communications hosted a webinar discussing the importance of independent news. It was directed by social and behavioral sciences professor Mike Slater and proctored by Associate Professor Nicole Kraft. The featured panelists were Spencer Hunt, Jack Long, and Jack Ridgely Smith, who are heavily involved in journalism and Ohio State’s student-run newspaper, The Lantern. Three themes I noticed in the webinar was the significance of independent news, maintaining a faithful audience, and learning to distinguish fact from fiction.

     Mr. Smith defined independent news organizations as those that can “hold a mirror up to its community without fearing its backlash.” They lack the glamour of media powerhouses, but their courage to unashamedly voice all sides is invaluable in our era of misinformation and partisanship.

     I, along with many Americans, view today’s major news channels as nothing more than glorified social media gossip. Independent groups like The Lantern understand that people yearn for information they can trust, so they depend on numbers and reports, not clickbait, to build their audience. The Lantern doesn’t pander to specific demographics/ideologies either; Mr. Hunt said “they’d rather upset [audiences] than deceive them.”

     Majoring in International Relations challenges me to consider the media in other nations. America has its faults, but I wonder how much worse things would be if I lived under a government that purposely censored and manipulated the press to strengthen their power. The U.S. Constitution forces our government to respect free speech and free press. Citizens of oppressive regimes lack that right.

     Finally, the panelists highlighted the concept of “media literacy.” I had never heard of it, but it’s extremely important to know. To filter the Internet’s limitless information, people must explore and balance sources, check their personal biases, and question if they’re being pressured to agree with something or just consider it. Mr. Slater also emphasized the chilling cycle of social media, source material, and groupthink. People know to be cautious online, but they’re more inclined to believe and spread things if it comes from a trusted friend or family member. I think it’s imperative for people to grasp this relationship, as it might explain why surprising opinions come out of the woodwork.