Tag: Rusk

The State of Teaching at Bushnell University

In the Fall 2021 term, a call went out for nominations of Bushnell students in the daytime TUG program who had demonstrated by their observable behaviors that they were committed to approaching their classes as opportunities to learn, not simply to manipulate the class environment for high grades or other indirect rewards. Those nominees were named the inaugural class of Bergquist Laureates. The award is named for Dr. Tim Bergquist, the founder of ACE Day, who loved to encourage students to be scholars. At noon, the Bergquist Laureates will participate in a panel whose topic is the elements of Bushnell classes that help them learn, things that do not help them learn, and things they wish they would see that would help them learn. Bushnell faculty are invited to attend to listen.

The panelists:

  • Jared Dodson
  • Daniel Gerlach
  • Jacob Lilley
  • Kalani Miller
  • Samantha Mueller
  • Taylor Quirk
  • Jordyn Ramos
  • Alessia Righi
  • Emmalee Rusk
  • Luke Smith

L203

Click here to view the live stream

Noon – 1 PM

Return to schedule

Emmalee Rusk

A History of John Hinckley v. United States and Incarceration of the Mentally Ill

John W. Hinckley Jr. attempted to kill President Ronald Reagan, killing White House Press Secretary James Bradley in the process. The jury of the trial of John W. Hinckley Jr. v. United States found him Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity. This sent the people of the United States into an uproar as they desired justice.

The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 was then put in place to restrict the use of the Insanity Plea. 

However, the Act is now under scrutiny for an unfounded relation between it and the mass incarceration of the mentally ill in U.S. jails and prisons today. This presentation comes to the defense of the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 from these allegations through the history of John Hinckley and his attempted murder of President Reagan, the trial, and the affect of the Act.

HIST 499, Senior Capstone

Melisa Ortiz Berry

Bushnell History Symposium, P103

Join by Zoom

9:30 AM – Noon

Return to schedule

Emmalee Rusk

“Danton”

History of Western Civilization II outlines a large and complex portion of history. In the conclusion of this class, a Reacting To The Past (RTTP) role-playing game was integrated into this course. In this specific Reacting To The Past game, “Rousseau, Burke and Revolution in France, 1791” the character elected to me by my professor was Georges-Jacques Danton. The use of this RTTP game in History of Western Civilization II allowed me to connect and understand Danton and his place in history better. Reacting To The Past provides a deeper dive into the understanding of history and to the understanding of crucial members of history.

HIST 152, History of Western Civilization II

Melisa Ortiz Berry

Bushnell History Symposium, P103

10 AM – 1 PM

Return to schedule

Emmalee Rusk

World Wars handled with Realism Vs. Liberalism

“How many World War I or World War II documentaries did I have to watch in high school?” If you went to a high school anything like mine those documentaries were drawn from the shelf at least twice a year. In those documentaries, there was endless mention of the Fourteen Points and the dropping of the Atomic Bomb. The United States’ involvement in both World Wars was influential. However, did one U.S. President handle the conflict better than the other? Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman handled international conflict with liberalism, realism, or both. In the United States involvement in the World Wars, the use of realist thinking of former Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman in World War II was more efficient than former President Woodrow Wilson’s liberal thinking used in World War I, which is shown in the actions’ correlation to civilian casualties, sensitivity, and understanding of the severity of the conflict and involvement in ending the wars successfully.

HIST 430, History of American International Relations

Melisa Ortiz Berry

Bushnell History Symposium, P103

10 AM – 1 PM

Return to schedule

Emmalee Rusk

Racial Representation in Children’s Books – A Case Study

Diverse racial representation in illustrated children’s books falls devastatingly short of what it should be. In this Case Study, a comparison of several books will be analyzed to show this fact with the backing of other studies and polls taken about diversity in illustrated children’s books. The lack of diverse character illustrations in children’s books is detrimental to a multicultural societal perspective, not only for the children but for those introducing and reading these books to the younger and more susceptible audiences.

SOC 410, Global Issues: Race in America

Melisa Ortiz Berry

Bushnell History Symposium, P103

10 AM – 1 PM

Return to schedule

Emmalee Rusk

Charlotte Ray and the History of Females in the Courtroom

The sexism and racism women faced for generations in a court of law is heartbreaking and sickening. If it was not for brave women who stood up for their rights, women would have never been given true agency in the courtroom. An agency that did not rely only on a man’s perception of the law. Nor would women have an opportunity to make a difference in legal matters today. The first female African American lawyer in the United States, Charlotte Ray, adds to the narrative of how women gained their agency in the courtroom and rights in the United States of America. Charlotte Ray shows the fight for agency in the courtroom by fighting the social sexist and racist expectations of her time. Her actions and legacy would trigger the uproar of the feminist movements and the first successes of women in the courtroom which rippled through American history into the continually influential legislation passed by women for the people. The progressions and backslides of the allowance of women in the courtroom is important to our appreciation of women in the courtroom today.

HIST 317, Women in US History

Melisa Ortiz Berry

Bushnell History Symposium, P114

10 – 11:30 AM

Join the Zoom meeting here

Return to schedule

Emmalee Rusk

Historiography of Manifest Destiny on the Oregon Trail

The historiography of the Oregon Trail has been inaccurate as it has been speckled with the doctrine of Manifest destiny. The Oregon trail needs to be understood in its entirety, recognizing some cause for the Manifest Destiny application, but also keeping historians accountable, as Edward Dickenson Baker did even in his time, for providing the more abundant collective of pioneers who went for other reasons. To understand the Oregon Trail in full it is unacceptable to use the Manifest Destiny narrative so un-proportionately to the truth. This ignores the vast majority of pioneers who had little to no interest in what would become the Manifest Destiny doctrine. The Oregon Trail has been over-romanticized with the doctrine of Manifest Destiny past its historical accuracy which is shown by the writings of the Oregon Trail pioneers themselves, the contradictions of Edward Dickenson Baker, and the political and moral context of the Oregon Trail time period.

HIST 490, Historical Methods and Research

Melisa Ortiz Berry

Bushnell History Symposium, P114

10 – 11:30 AM

Join the Zoom meeting here

Return to schedule

Emmalee Rusk

One-State-New-Government Solution for the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

A one-state-new-government solution will be revealed through the careful consideration of both the Islamic and Judaist religions and desires, the history and political standing of both Palestinians and Israelis, as well as world politics, the pros, and cons to the popular two-state solution, and the benefits of a one-state-new-government solution, as the best solution.

There are two primarily popular solutions to the Palestine-Israeli conflict: the one state and the two-state solution. The one-state solution is the state of Israel as one collective state that involves both the Jews and Arabs in Palestine. One-Stae would involve Arabs being given the opportunity to be seen as equal and have the same rights, including voting, as the Israelites/Jews.  The two-state solution is the idea that Palestine would be divided into a Palestinian state and an Israeli state. This solution would offer benefits for the Jews and the Palestinians in both having set borders so the conflict over who’s land is who’s can end. Both of these solutions seem simple at first glance. However, there are complications. Either group getting a whole and pure “state” of their own would require a middle eastern version of the trail of tears or a literal mass genocide for one side or the other – so a two-state is ruled out as a viable option.

A one-state solution is the only solution.

The Legatum Institute did a survey that ranks the most prosperous countries in the world.  All of these countries have either a constitutional monarchy, representative democracy or parliamentary system. I suggest that in a one-state solution, the Israeli-Palestinian people adopt one of these systems of Government. If a Parliamentary system was adopted, chosen representatives would present the desires of the people, both Israeli and Palestinian, to a greater elected group of individuals to negotiate terms of legislation and seek compromise. This way, both have equal representation and have the ability to vote in a land that is just as their own as the others who inhabit it, without the fear of being outnumbered.

Through the course of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the two nations have been mushed into one land through the years of war, politics and local issues despite desperate efforts to give the two peoples their own state. The one-state-new-government solution does not dissipate the wounds of the past or solve all of the issues the Palestinians and the Israelis face. Instead, it creates a structure that after the wounds of the past heal, the country can thrive as others do with their own pasts of war and hurt in a unified desire for peace, equality, and the possession of land through the legal process instead of biased on a historical claim. This One-State-New Government solution provides the opportunity of a new beginning; something neither country has had the opportunity to receive since WWII.

HIST 410, History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Melisa Ortiz Berry

Bushnell History Symposium II: 2:25 – 2:45 PM

Join our Zoom meeting here. The presenter and faculty advisor both have the password.

Return to timetable

Emmalee Rusk

The Trial of Arius

There is argument on the validity of the trial of Arius’ outcome. From the history of Arius’ process of creating his dual-converging theology, to the flawed heretical arguments that lead to the trial forcing investigation of the Arian church communities, and the actions and arguments after Arius was indeed convicted as a Heretic, these cemented the correct verdict of guilty – resulting in separation of Arianism from Orthodoxy.

The birth of Arius’ understanding of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit comes from dyohypostatic theology and miahypostatic theology. Both theories do not stand alone, and cannot stand alone, but together they made the heretical threshold for Arius to thoughtfully build upon. Arianism is the belief that there is a Father and a Son; the Son, like any child/parent relationship, is subordinate to his father. This is known as the Subordinationism Theory.

The debates involving Arius were extensive, they even spread faster than Arius could travel. Arius’ theology caused so much discourse in the church, and therefore in the empire, that Constantine, the emperor, felt the need to involve himself.  Constantine called a great council, the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Constantine wished to have a unified Christianity in his empire. His concern was not so much for theological debates; it was on the unity of the church to result in unity for his empire concerning all religions. After the conclusion that Arianism was heresy, Constantine took sides with the council and determined Arianism a denial of faith to the empire, with

The most compelling argument for an unjust verdict at Nicaea is the recognition of the recalls, however, the same issues found at Nicaea still stand. Through the many arguments, old and new, Arius and his followers are continually found to be heretics.

In Conclusion, Arius’ developed a dual-converging heretical theology from dyohypostatic theology and miahypostatic theology, both heretical thoughts; this new theology lead to serious question of Arian and Orthodox church communities. Arius was justifiably left out of the determined Creed of Nicaea at the Council of Nicaea on the grounds of misplacement of Jesus Christ in the divine hierarchy in both chronological and power placement. What Christ accomplished for all does not commute with the theology Arius held. Therefore, the Church is better off without the confusing heresy Arius taught and the trial that determined him unorthodox was correct then, as it is correct now.

HIST 331, History of Christianity I

Melisa Ortiz Berry

Bushnell History Symposium: 11:20 – 11:40 AM

Join our Zoom meeting here. The presenter and faculty advisor both have the password.

Return to timetable

Emmalee Rusk

Unitarian Universalism VS Coexistence

Unitarian Universalism is related to the term “coexist”, but it is not the same as Unitarian Universalism. It is important to understand the difference between these two to not muddle the intent and authenticity of both. Unitarian Universalism is a religion while the term “coexistence” is a social cry out for religious and social tolerance. From when Unitarian Universalism and the “coexist” symbols were originated, one far in the past and the other extremely recent, to the furthered development of theological history Unitarian Universalism possesses in its own origination and the arguments of social peace in comparison to religious security and peace surrounding each side: Unitarian Universalism and coexistence are not the same belief.

Unitarian “1. one who believes that the deity exists only in one person and 2. a member of a denomination that stresses individual freedom of belief, the free use of reason in religion, a united world community, and liberal social action.”  Universalism is thought to be traced back to Origen, the well-known theologian, around A.D. 140-150. Unitarian Universalism was forged from Unitarianism and Universalism in the mid-20th century, specifically in 1961, seeing that their religions, since they were similar enough, would be stronger in their efforts together.

The “COEXIST” sticker began at a competition in Jerusalem, created by Piotr Mlodozeniec.  The design was originally with just the David Star, the crescent moon “c” and the cross. The David Star is a symbol for Judaism, the Crescent moon is for Islam and the Cross is for Christianity.

Unitarian Universalists seem to collectively agree that coexistence ideology is part of UU principles but is not an adequate description of their beliefs. There is no denying that these two are similar, but they are clearly not the same. Distinguishing the two comes down to an argument of Religion versus Social argumentation.

Unitarian Universalism is a religion while the term “coexistence” is a social cry out for religious and social tolerance. From when Unitarian Universalism and “coexist” were originated, to the furthered theology UU possesses than coexistence, and the arguments surrounding each side: UU and coexistence are not the same belief. The two beliefs are both commendable in their own way and have similarities in their desires, but due to their differences in root desires, historical upbringings, and modern applications of social or religious arguments they are related by a desire for unity, but by nothing more significant.

HIST 332, History of Christianity II

Melisa Ortiz Berry

Bushnell History Symposium: 10:30 – 11:00 AM

Join our Zoom meeting here. The presenter and faculty advisor both have the password.

Return to timetable