First 100 Days of the Biden Administration: Insights from History

About this Episode

Guests
Maysan Haydar, Treva Lindsey, Peter Mansoor, Joseph Parrott

Faculty experts from the Ohio State University Department of History hold a conversation about the first one hundred days of the Biden administration.

Host:

Margaret Newell, Professor, Department of History

Panelists:

  • Maysan Haydar, Lecturer and Graduate Student, Department of History
  • Treva Lindsey, Associate Professor, Department of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies
  • Peter Mansoor, Professor and General Raymond E. Mason Jr. Chair in Military History, Department of History
  • Joseph Parrott, Assistant Professor, Department of History

Cite this Site

Margaret Newell , "First 100 Days of the Biden Administration: Insights from History" , Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective
May, 2021
https://origins.osu.edu/index.php/historytalk/first-100-days-biden-administration-insights-history?language_content_entity=en.
May, 2021

Transcript

Margaret Newell:

Welcome! Thank you for joining us today for the “First 100 Days of the Biden Administration: Insights from History.” Today’s show is brought to you by the College of Arts and Sciences and the History Department at the Ohio State University and the magazine Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective. My name is Margaret Newell. I’m a Professor of US history specializing [inaudible] in colonial and Revolutionary America and I’ve written about the economic causes of the Revolution and about slavery, and will be your host and moderator today. Since the administration of President Franklin Roosevelt, the first hundred days of a new administration are taken as a moment to reflect on the successes and failures of the President and his agenda. What are the most important achievements of the Biden administration at the 100-day mark? What things still need to be done? What can we learn from history to help us make sense of the Biden administration’s policies and practices?

To help us answer these questions, we are joined today by four historians. Let me introduce them:

Maysan Haydar is a recent PhD from the Department of History at the Ohio State University. She researches westward migration and acculturation patterns in the 20th and 21st centuries. Her work has been published by among others, HarperCollins, Seal Press, Rowman & Littlefield, and St. Martin's Press.

Treva B. Lindsey is an associate professor of Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at OSU. She is a 2020-21 ACLS/Mellon Scholars and Society Fellow. She is the author of Colored No More Reinventing Black Womanhood in Washington, D.C. and the forthcoming America Goddam: Violence, Black Women, and the Struggle for Justice.

Dr. Peter Mansoor is the General Raymond E. Mason Jr. Chair of Military History at Ohio State and a 26-year veteran of the U.S. Army. He served as a brigade commander and as executive officer to General David Petraeus in the Iraq War and is a frequent commentator in the media on national security affairs.

R. Joseph Parrott is assistant professor of history and is interested in the intersection f foreign policy, race, transnational activism, and domestic politics. One side of his family is from the great metropolis of Wilmington, DE and canvassed for Joe Biden in R. Joseph Parrott is assistant professor of history and is interested in the intersection of foreign policy, race, transnational activism, and domestic politics. One side of his family is from the great metropolis of Wilmington, DE and canvassed for Joe Biden in 1972. He has some history.

Here’s the plan for today: In a moment, we will open a discussion among our panelists and ask them to respond to your questions. Many of you submitted questions when you registered—and we’ll answer some of those to begin with. We will also be collecting questions during the event through the Question and Answer feature of Zoom, so please do send them in. We’ve received a lot of questions, so we’ll do our best to answer as many as we can.

First, panelists talk about what they see as the most important accomplishments of Biden’s 100 Days and what are the important things still left to be done. Second, what are the omissions and failures? I want to talk about highlighting poverty and finding concrete solutions. Even in the Roosevelt administration, poverty has focused on the elderly. Now we're shifting to the human capital of our children. We see those in the past recently and in infrastructure proposals. An omission that concerns me is the failure to address issues of election fraud claims and undermining of faith in the American electrical process. I'm concerned that the bit lie has been allowed to sit and voices that aren't friends to American democracy are filling the void. Let's hear from Maysan Haydar.

Maysan Haydar:

Biden proposed living up to being a nation of immigrants, with a 16 point to do list and longer issues of reform that require congressional support. They did more to advance that policy in the first 100 hours than 100 days collectively. Within 100 hours, he signed 17 executive orders, 12 revoking counterproductive immigration policies of the previous administration. There were He prioritized removals for criminals and undocumented immigrants rather than just those lacking papers, revoking immigration orders and also the border wall, taking funding from the military, etc. He took a major step on Monday to correct the refugee admissions to the United States. It won't have an immediate effect as of this date. We're halfway through fiscal year 2021. We've admitted 2,000, which has never happened. It won't be immediately effective but is a demonstration of where we're going. On day 1, Biden halted the border wall and the Muslim ban, also including countries not predominantly Muslim and supporting dreamers. He secured the status of those with temporary practice status, something the previous administration tried to undo. The judicial system prevented that. On day 90, he directed immigrations and customs enforcement to stop using "alien" or "illegal." They're human beings in crisis. They reopened at least one detention center on the border, committing to humanizing the process of arrival and asylum, but that's not been accomplished. Most of the problems Biden faces are linguistic. I have mixed feelings about the problems at the border crisis. Most researchers say the crisis causes the migration. The migration is an effect. The processing at the southern border isn't enough to handle the thousands thinking this is their chance to get in. Biden: Now that they're at the border, it's our responsibility to keep them safe and healthy. About one-third of the country approves of Biden's goals of immigration, lowest on his development. The rest is split between wanting more aggressive immigration reform and more attention paid to it. A small percentage is those who have the wherewithal philosophy. Overall, he's got a B+. We're optimistic.

Margaret Newell:

What are your thoughts, Treva Lindsey?

Treva Lindsey:

Thank you for having me. I want to echo some of what was said. Successes based on intentions or some of what he came into the presidency seeking and looking at the America rescue plan has many aspects, causing a considerable amount of debate and tension. Would this be a moment for bipartisanship or seeing things happen with campaign promises fulfilled and the emphasis on rescue? Who would be rescued by the rescue plan? What we hear is often focused on the middle class becoming this narrative, saving America's middle class, protecting, and uplifting them. They're the backbone of the United States, democracy, and economy. There are a few points addressing issues of poverty that address lower income folks. First being the ACA subsidies as part of the American rescue plan and expanding of food assistance, directly impacting communities, extending the moratorium on evacuations, etc. There was a ruling that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had no right for guidance on evacuations. Also, extending plans for federal student loans. It affects lower- and middle-income people in the United States. That's an important lens to look at this. We often hear about the middle class and don't talk about poverty, the most vulnerable populations, and including children and elders.   and what's proposed in the $400B plan for elder care and folks with disabilities. These are things I'll look to see that Biden work to make a reality and if that garners possible bipartisan support because of the elderly component to addressing issues. My conversation also echos what's been said but was addressed on Monday. I wrote comments before on Monday, specifically about the refugee admission policy and grappling with what's happening at the border, still looking at disturbing images and scenarios with unaccompanied minors with children and people. Having a nicer detention center isn't necessarily the goal of an aggressive immigration policy. There's more time and energy put toward this. Vice president Harris will have an important role in looking at immigration moving forward. There is some yes/no happening. That gives some supporters looking for him to have a more forthright aggressive approach to this some pause with how he's handling the immigration issue in the United States.

Joseph Parrott:

I'm going to switch to talking about foreign policy. Biden is saying American is back after looking at America first for 4 years. It's reclaiming local leadership that the country has held since World War II. The United States is standing against authoritarian regimes, like Russia and China. There's an emphasis on multilateralism and what the secretary of state is calling a rules-based order rather than transactional approach we've seen in the last 4 years. We're expanding relationships with key allies. There have been meetings and proclamations about the United States working through problems, specifically through NATO. Key initiatives have been couched in terms of NATO doing things together. At the same time, there's raising the profile of the quad alliance between the United States, Japan, Australia, and India. They are dealing with regional issues and responding to China. This is the emphasis we've seen, going beyond key alliances for multilateral organizations. He rejoined the World Health Organization. The administration also joined the Paris Climate Pact in mid-February. This goes to dealing with the problems of the 21st century. There's attention to great power of politics between states. The administration is pushing transnational issues for issues across the border, including the pandemic and climate change. The administration is viewing these as global security issues. Regions could destabilize as they fight for food and water. The Earth Day summit is trying to put the United States in a leadership position against China and other great world leaders. This is where the administration is falling down. It's trying to lead on the global pandemic, but there's a close emphasis on vaccines in the United States first. There's been push to get the United States to think more broadly about helping countries in the developing world and even Europe. China and Russia are moving into that vacuum created by the United States. even though we're saying good things about that. Lastly, Biden is moving from the emphasis on international terrorism and focusing on domestic extremism in the United States. This has been a response to the Capitol riot in January. There is larger attention to the threat to the United States that hasn't been talked about since the 1990s. I haven't seen a ton that we'll continue this, but there are positive signs that this will be a priority. I'm keeping an eye on that.

Margaret Newell:

Any failures or omissions?

Joseph Parrott:

The big one is pandemic response. We are slow to take global leadership. There are things we'll have to wait and see how these play out. I'll touch on others in Q&A.

Peter Mansoor:

Biden learned it's better to go big than play small ball. This is the same as FDR did with the Great Depression and New Deal. His first 100 days didn't do that, but it was a time of great action. The advantage FDR had was a House and Senate that was democratic. They could pass legislation easily. They passed 15 major bills in the first 100 or so days. Will Rogers joked that they're passing bills so fast that they just wave as they go by. The Biden administration doesn't have that luxury. Foreign policy isn't something that can be changed in 100 days. All you can do is start the process. Foreign policy takes a long time to develop. I'd say Biden's first 100 days have been the bassist in foreign policy perhaps in the 20th century. That's saying a lot. Joe has covered the big picture. America is back. We'll reknit alliances and stand up to China and Russia. He's done specific things with an experienced team. Look at people he's brought into office, like the secretary of state, secretary of defense, etc. They all have deep experience in government and are very experienced. You contrast that with the out of the box cabinet picks that Trump made. It does sharpen into focus the difference between the 2 administrations. Most famously, Biden has ended America's involvement in the war in Afghanistan by 9/11 . This won't end the war. It will go on and become bloodier. Americans won't be on the ground. It won't end America's involvement. We're still bank rolling the regime and still have a role there to play. As long as money flows, I don't think the regime will fall. It will make things very tenuous. I would not expect a peace treaty to result from America pulling out. The Taliban think they can win and will try to achieve on the battlefield what they can't at the negotiating table. The Biden administration has put human rights at the center of the focus. Last week, the Armenian catastrophe was declared with 1.5 million Armenians killed. He named it a genocide. This is something Armenian expatriates have wanted for a long time. They're a strong force in the United States. Presidents haven't done that for fear of upsetting Turkey, a strategic bridge between the Middle East and Europe. Biden said the chips will fall where they may. If it means a rocky relationship, so be it. A spade is a spade. This is a genocide. He's extended the new stars treaty with the nuclear arms in Russia. He did it without conditions, which some analysts didn't like. He's talking to Putin. On the other side, he's sanctioned Russian leaders for involvement in the election and for the solar winds hack. There's a realist relationship with the United States and Russia. Biden has offered to meet Putin in Russia. It would be an interesting summit meeting, usually part of diplomacy. The two are sitting down and agreeing to disagree, which would be healthy. The most important foreign policy development will be the relationship between the United States and China. You can't just change things in 100 days. Biden hasn't ended the trade war with China and hasn't changed Trump policy at all aside from strengthening the quad. The Philippines is now looking at the United States as a more valuable ally than the president of Turkey was in terms of bending a knee to Beijing. More in the Q&A.

Margaret Newell:

Thank you for giving us things to think about and ask questions about. We have a few questions coming in about foreign policy. We had early questions during registration that focused on how the sausage gets made and domestic policies. Let's start there. People had questions about how the agenda will be executed and how courts will react. Will the Supreme Court declare this unconstitutional as it did with FDR? How will Biden get plans through congress? Many had congressional majority who pushed things through, including 19th century successors. Talk about those strategies. Thinking about politics and different sorts of power that the different branches of government have, any thoughts?  

Peter Mansoor:

FDR did unique legislation that was groundbreaking. The Supreme Court was conservative as it is now and rejected a lot of it. That led FDR to consider packing the court and adding a number of justices for more liberal than conservative justices to get legislation passed. It's a bad idea. Every administration would keep adding justices to the Supreme Court. If you look at the legislation that Biden has proposed, it's not groundbreaking in terms of using powers of the presidency or federal government. It's adding money to programs. It may be a different policy path than the Trump administration, but it's a well-trodden path. There probably won't be a lot of court cases on where we spend money and how the tax policy gets written.

Margaret Newell:

We've already seen some challenges. The attorney general has signaled a challenge to most recent legislation and questioned whether the federal government has the right to keep from passing a tax cut with the recent relief act. I expect court challenges, but courts are unpredictable. We see conservative justices appointed that didn't carry out what the president expected them to for lawsuits about the election. Gorsuch has ruled on cases involving Native American treaties from the 19th century, thinking they should be upheld at their word. That's creating interest in some of these treaties that date back to the mid-19th century and whether the United States will have to meet those terms. Court reactions are unpredictable. I look to see the majorities slow them down. Any opinions on the powers that they do have. What do you see as some of the structural impediments?

Joseph Parrott:

I'll talk about congress. If you're comparing this to founder, FDR, who Biden is trying to replicate the energy and ambition of, congress has much smaller margins. One thing going for Biden is that it's a partisan congress. Most democrats will probably line up behind the administration. With FDR, there was divide within the northern and southern democrats. You were trying to split the difference there. The advantage that FDR had is there were progressive republicans. That's one of the biggest issues. Partisanship has come to the point that Mitt Romney or Susan Collins may be amenable to cooperating, but following the policy prevents any real negotiations. This is a problem in terms of getting initiatives passed and winning over the American people. Biden is trying to be bipartisan. It's hard to sell that to the other side of the aisle while trying to keep ranks up.

Treva Lindsey:

Agreed. In some combination, there may be some challenges that go through the judiciary. I don't think they'll be as successful. We'll see the engagement of that at different points in trying to challenge particular things that come out of the Biden administration. I'm thinking of partisanship as an actual structure that Biden will navigate that republicans and democrats are navigating, thinking about it as a structure. Is that a structure impediment or relief valve? It requires an emphasis on executive actions, etc., or using this platform as the president to push through on certain things. The impediment in our legislative branch is that it's hard to overcome to think about larger infrastructure plans. We saw this even with the $15 minimum wage that was supposed to be part of the American rescue plan but didn't end up as part of the conversation. It was raised for federal contractors in that work. Having that across the board is something that he has been emphasizing will be not just met with resistance from the opposing party but from within the democratic party. There's a split but more democrats that lean in toward the idea of possible bipartisanship or the possibility of working across the aisle and agreeing with plans that Biden and his administration have. That will be important to watch over the course of his presidency.

Margaret Newell:

Agreed. Bipartisanship doesn't just mean working with congress. The administration consciously works with mayors and governors, creating leadership from below. That's helped sell elements of this to a larger audience. The rescue act bill polls 60% or above even among republicans. I thought there would be more in January and February. In December after the last days of the Trump administration, congress pushed through the last COVID-19 relief bill. Republicans were on the bill and excited. You have people toward the end of their second term of the Senate and never involved in legislation. There's a tantalizing thing out there that they might be involved in something. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana is a good example. I can tell you want to turn on your mic. I want to pivot to other questions about domestic policy.

Peter Mansoor:

I think Biden is selling his legislation to the American people. His strategy polls better with other republicans than those in the House and Senate. He'll have a hard time getting legislation passed. You can't keep getting things passed with reconciliation. You'll see that with taxes, legislation, etc. He's taking his it to the American people, hoping they'll pressure for compromise or play for 2022. I think 2022 will be a tough road for the democrats.

Joseph Parrott:

I think your point about the governors is big. That's part of the republican party that's willing to work, like Hogan in Maryland and the Massachusetts governor. You don't see them in the sin-eater Senate because they don't send republican senators in. If Hogan could become a leadership voice, which I don't think will happen by '22, that may be the part of the party worth working across the aisle with.

Margaret Newell:

Interesting. Lincoln's 100 days included arriving in office in March to find Ft. Sumpter was already under file. The 13th amendment was sitting on his desk, but it was not abolishing slavery. It was going to permit slavery to continue in the South. It was sent to the states for ratification. It was a complicated first 100 days for race and equality. What is Biden doing to prevent systematic racism directly and indirectly? Do panelists want to weigh in?

Treva Lindsey:

There's clear advocacy as he uses his platform and appeals to the American people. One of the bigger issues he's talking about is the George Floyd Act and thinking about policing this as a systemic issue. He has a lot of pulls happening. On one hand, you have a ground swell of activism and things that happened in 2020 that have been live in this conversation in such a distinct way. It's even more so than we saw after Ferguson in terms of how we're talking about policing and a national discourse and in a global way, talking about policing in various places. Also, [we're] grappling with the rise in crime in a number of places. On one hand, you're hearing pushes for more police presence and funding. You have more elements of calling for defunding the police, which Biden has not supported. He's been someone looking at reform in a substantive way. Criminal justice is a major way in which he's thinking about this and in the history of the 1994 crime bill and specific legacies in minoritized communities in the United States. Talking about the verdict was an important moment. There are issues he'll have to contend with economic justice, health disparities, housing discrimination, etc. With the United States as not a racist country, what do we do where people of color and indigenous people are disproportionately impacted. Unemployment was high and getting lower but disproportionally impacted already low-income jobs. Who is impacted most by the raise of the minimum wage? These questions speak to economic and racial justice. His approach will largely reside in the space of economic plans and infrastructure that pay attention to racial disparities. I think that will resonate with some of the democratic party. Some will think it's too radical. We're talking about critical race theory being taught in K-12. The climate is extremely polarized around conversations around race. He's leaning into that and trying to find a vocabulary and policies that speak to a broad public and hopefully address disparities in more substantive ways.

Peter Mansoor:

Agreed. The United States doesn't have a national police force like countries in Europe, like Italy. We have local and state police. A lot of the revisions of police conduct will have to come from the local and state level. The president can use his bully pulpit to nudge things along and lures of federal funding. In the end, we have a lot of police forces in the United States. It's up to the local level to reform them.

Maysan Haydar:

By choosing his cabinet, he's shown the alliance and friendship building that's straight from the hip. He doesn't want to mince words or act rationally. He's looking at Lincoln and others to set the platform in the justice or state departments to make the declarations, like labeling the Armenian genocide or issuing a state about the Floyd case. We're seeing it more in term sinful what he's willing to indicate about his cards without showing his whole hand. I don't want to get my hopes up too high. Administrations often surprise us. No one would expect that Lyndon Johnson would be responsible for civil rights, progressive immigration and women's rights. Similarly, Reagan oversaw policies about transferring the illegal status of millions of undocumented immigrants into rightful citizenship. That's not a part of Reagan that people are fond of him point to. Some loved Obama but didn't think he was progressive enough. How Biden will do things is a crap shoot.

Joseph Parrott:

Mayor Garland is looking into the cultural practice in Minneapolis and Louisville. There are already discussions about the federal role in local police forces. There will be back and forth. We might be surprised about how Biden takes on these things. There are limits to how much the federal government can do. Unlike the Johnson court, which was more friendly to Johnson initiatives, the Biden administration may have more say in local place matters.

Margaret Newell:

We had questions about foreign policy. We'll try to save time. We only have 10 minutes left to return to domestic policy questions. We'll bundle a couple questions together. People wrote in about what the panel said about the policy in Asia, especially twain. Others want to press us and Biden on human rights and oppressed minorities. I have questions for the panel. Is Biden continuing the Obama playbook or doing something different diplomatically in Asia? For more than a decade, the United States president looked at the hemisphere. We want more connections on the hemisphere along the lines of the European community and Americas. Is there potential for vaccine diplomacy and new parts of partnerships in the Americas, including South America and the Caribbean? Thoughts?

Joseph Parrott:

I see it as the policy so far in the first 100 days. You can only get a sense of where things might go. It's hard to steer the ship of state in a different direction. It seems to be a mixture of a little bit of Trump's aggressiveness of China and the Obama multilateral playbook. There's an emphasis on the rules-based system, setting up China as the challenger to this system. Doubling down on the system and alliances in this rules-based international order of the United Nations, World Health Organization, and trade agreements is a way to contain China. It's about surrounding China with economic practices and compelling them to participate in the larger system. That's what I see the administration doing. Regarding larger lenders,   this is seen as genocide. We're bringing human rights back in, but what. do you do about it? That's a more ambiguous answer. We need to contain and confront China rhetorically and economically. It's violating the international order created after World War II. We can't cut ties with or go to war with China. It's been a weird mix of aggression, opening the door and reaching out a hand to bring China into this international system. It's interesting to see where this will go.

Peter Mansoor:

The last time we accused someone of genocide was with ISIS. We went to war with them. It can't be done lightly. This administration has done it twice. I want to take on the question of Taiwan. The current policy stems back to 1979, the Taiwan Relations Act. The United States won't commit to defense of Taiwan but commits to peaceful resolution of a diplomatic dispute. Everyone agrees that Taiwan and China are one country. There's just a disagreement over who should govern it and what form of government that should be. That policy has served us well for 40 years. You say it's changed. One option is actually recognizing Taiwan and inking a defense treaty. If we do that, you can count day one of the Cold War in the Pacific. That would put us in a Cold War with China. Others say we should write Taiwan off. It's not worth it. China will probably take it over anyway. Why go to war over Taiwan? If we do that, the United States would be written off as the grantor of the world's democracies, suffering a loss in political and diplomatic prestige. This policy of strategic ambiguity and committing to a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question and doing what it takes to keep peace and security in the Pacific region is perfect. It's strategically ambiguous. If China takes Taiwan by force, the United States would probably go to war over the issue but can't be sure. That's the best path forward, as it has been for the last 4 decades.

Margaret Newell:

Let's discuss questions that our audience has raised about paying for the domestic programs and how to poll the 8M unemployed Americans back into the economy. Some people are framing questions about inflation or immigrants taking American jobs. How would the panelists respond? How would Biden respond to these sorts of goals and also concerns?

Peter Mansoor:

I'd like to cover inflation.

Margaret Newell:

It has to be a short one.

Peter Mansoor:

We got this question overnight. It was a worry that all of this federal spending of 6 trillion dollars in the COVID-19 relief packages would reignite inflation. We're historians. Looking from the 1980s onward, it's been trending down to the point where economists were more worried about deflation than inflation in the last 2010s, which would be catastrophic. Inflation won't be near the oil shock of the 70s and 80s, continued by the Federal Reserve raising interest rates, if necessary. The idea is to go big. It's better to over than under correct in terms of getting people back to work and getting the economy going. Now isn't the time to be an inflation hawk.

Maysan Haydar:

We don't collect nearly as much in taxes as we used to, especially for corporations. If you call the 50s - 70s the gallery days of America, corporations paid about half of their income to the government. If corporate giants did their portion, and contributing as much as they used to, they'd still be wealthy, but that would sure up the reserves about wondering where this money would come former. There are other sources.

Margaret Newell:

Investing in capital goods, infrastructure, human capital of children and working parents to help them care for their parents and children, enabling them to enter the workforce, will pay dividends. It's less money for prisons, more people employed, etc. It pays a huge dividend. That's a way to weigh the cost versus application. A final word?

Peter Mansoor:

Immigration is a net plus to our economy by far. They don't cost a lot of money in terms of services. It's a misnomer that we're giving them freebies. They get jobs and pay taxes.

Margaret Newell:

And often don't get services.

Peter Mansoor:

Google was started by an immigrant. They do great things for the United States. Thinking immigration will lead to economic catastrophe is really the opposite. The birth rate went down. We need more rate, not less.

Treva Lindsey:

Agreed. That conversation is particularly against newly arrived immigrants and African Americans in particular, competing for jobs. There's no evidence. It says this is a plus to our economy in terms of care and what pains. It's important to think about the care and corporate welfare states in terms of what that looks like for different corruptions. We're thinking about taxing the top 1%. The percentage changes that Biden is proposing aren't overly significant and controversial to the tune of in our recent lifetime. Many cuts in terms of rates happened in 2017. We're not talking about going back far but higher tax rates for corporations and high net worth individuals and returning back to the pre-2017 moment in terms of creating some of this and rallying around infrastructure to create jobs. Investing in immigration policy, racial justice, climate change, etc. can be job creating policies by extension, especially thinking long-term and not what immediately happens in the first 100 days. It's hard to do a lot in 100 days for any person but in terms of reshaping, and recalibrating around policies, whether you agree with them or not.

Margaret Newell:

Thank you for a fantastic way to end a stimulating discussion. We could talk about this for another hour. There's a question about whether we should rebuild our infrastructure as is or rethink about things and the impact on the environment in communities of color, deserving of its own webinar. Thank you all very much for joining us today. I am grateful to Drs. Haydar, Lindsey, Mansoor, and Parrott for sharing their expertise and thoughts today. Please join me in giving them a virtual round of applause. And we would also like to thank the College of Arts and Sciences, especially Clara Davison, Madey Khurma, and Jade Lack, and once again, thank you, our audience, for your excellent questions and your ongoing support.

YouTube Video