Podcast appearances and mentions of maya sen

With a Republican Congress apparently unwilling to check Trump's power, many Americans fear a looming constitutional crisis and are looking to the federal courts to ride to the rescue. But political scientist and Harvard Kennedy School Professor Maya Sen, who studies the federal judiciary, says the cavalry probably isn't coming. The Trump administration has seemingly defied judicial orders on deportations, withholding congressionally appropriated funds for federal programs, eliminating birthright citizenship, and other issues. Meanwhile, surrogates like Vice President J.D. Vance and billionaire Elon Musk have stated in social media posts that Trump is simply not bound by judicial decisions and can do pretty much whatever he pleases. Trump has even joined with some of his political supporters calling for impeachment of judges who rule against him, prompting Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to respond and call Trump's statement “inappropriate.” With the legislative branch of government sitting on the sidelines and without a credible threat of impeachment, Sen says the judiciary is no match for an authoritarian executive in terms of speed of action and political muscle—and was never intended to be. And even if it had been, structural issues with the way decisions are made and how judges are chosen give conservatives an advantage, and have resulted in a Supreme Court that is largely out of step with public opinion. Sen talks with PolicyCast host Ralph Ranalli about what can be done to restore both the separation of powers and the balance of power in the U.S. government during this unprecedented pivotal moment in American history.Maya Sen's Policy Recommendations:Pass a constitutional amendment to end lifetime appointments and limit terms for federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, to 18 years to help depoliticize the process of judicial selection.Exert public and electoral pressure on Congress and political leaders to defend the legislative branch's constitutional prerogatives and to stop ceding power to the executive branch.Episode Notes:Maya Sen is a political scientist whose interests include law, political economy, race and ethnic politics, and statistical methods. She has testified before Congress and presidential commissions on issues pertaining to the federal courts, and her research has been published in numerous academic journals including the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Political Science Review, the American Journal of Political Science, and The Journal of Politics. . Her writings also include the books “The Judicial Tug of War: How Lawyers, Politicians, and Ideological Incentives Shape the American Judiciary,” and “Deep Roots: How Slavery Still Shapes Southern Politics,” which won the 2019 William H. Riker Book Award for best book published in political economy. She is currently working on a book on the relationship between the Supreme Court and public opinion. Professor Sen earned a PhD from the Department of Government at Harvard University in 2012 and holds an AM in Statistics and an AB in Economics, both from Harvard University, as well as a JD from Stanford Law School.Ralph Ranalli of the HKS Office of Communications and Public Affairs is the host, producer, and editor of HKS PolicyCast. A former journalist, public television producer, and entrepreneur, he holds an BA in political science from UCLA and a master's in journalism from Columbia University.Scheduling and logistical support for PolicyCast is provided by Lilian Wainaina. Design and graphics support is provided by Laura King and the OCPA Design Team. Web design and social media promotion support is provided by Catherine Santrock and Natalie Montaner of the OCPA Digital Team. Editorial support is provided by Nora Delaney and Robert O'Neill of the OCPA Editorial Team. 

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.politix.fmThis week, Matt and Brian explore the revelation that Justice Samuel Alito flew a Stop the Steal flag over his house in the days after January 6 as a window into broader differences between the right and left. For instance:* Why are Republican-appointed judges so often former Republican operatives, while Democratic-appointed judges hail from Big Law or academia or various prosecutors offices;* Is Alito remorseless because he's a good Federalist Society soldier, or because he knows Democrats in Congress won't even try to hold him accountable?* Are Democrats really so habituated to GOP dominance of the Supreme Court, and to the Court being a more galvanizing issue for Republicans, that they've forgotten liberal anger over the Garland seat, and the Ruth Bader-Ginsburg seat, and the decision in Dobbs? Then, behind the paywall, Brian and Matt rant about the failure of both Democratic leaders in Congress, liberal justices, and progressive issue activists to take the fate of the court seriously. Why doesn't Sonia Sotomayor think retiring now is the obvious thing to do? Why to so many Democrats in Congress seemingly want her to place her seat at risk? Why don't progressive activists work toward constructive goals like strategic retirements and whipping up outrage over Alito? Also, what does any of this have to do with Donald Trump's new aspiration to create what his campaign calls a “Unified Reich”? Answers to all those questions, plus the full Politix archive are available to paid subscribers—just upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed. Further reading:* Brian reminds Senate Democrats (cough, Dick Durbin, cough) that they can squeeze Samuel Alito, including by exposing his secret role helping Donald Trump sweep the insurrection under the rug. * Maya Sen on diversity in the judiciary.* on why Sotomayor should retire.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.politix.fmThis week, Matt and Brian explore the revelation that Justice Samuel Alito flew a Stop the Steal flag over his house in the days after January 6 as a window into broader differences between the right and left. For instance:* Why are Republican-appointed judges so often former Republican operatives, while Democratic-appointed judges hail from Big Law or academia or various prosecutors offices;* Is Alito remorseless because he's a good Federalist Society soldier, or because he knows Democrats in Congress won't even try to hold him accountable?* Are Democrats really so habituated to GOP dominance of the Supreme Court, and to the Court being a more galvanizing issue for Republicans, that they've forgotten liberal anger over the Garland seat, and the Ruth Bader-Ginsburg seat, and the decision in Dobbs? Then, behind the paywall, Brian and Matt rant about the failure of both Democratic leaders in Congress, liberal justices, and progressive issue activists to take the fate of the court seriously. Why doesn't Sonia Sotomayor think retiring now is the obvious thing to do? Why to so many Democrats in Congress seemingly want her to place her seat at risk? Why don't progressive activists work toward constructive goals like strategic retirements and whipping up outrage over Alito? Also, what does any of this have to do with Donald Trump's new aspiration to create what his campaign calls a “Unified Reich”? Answers to all those questions, plus the full Politix archive are available to paid subscribers—just upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed. Further reading:* Brian reminds Senate Democrats (cough, Dick Durbin, cough) that they can squeeze Samuel Alito, including by exposing his secret role helping Donald Trump sweep the insurrection under the rug. * Maya Sen on diversity in the judiciary.* on why Sotomayor should retire.

Why have conservatives decried 'activist judges'? And why have liberals - and America's powerful legal establishment - emphasized qualifications and experience over ideology? The Judicial Tug of War: How Lawyers, Politicians, and Ideological Incentives Shape the American Judiciary (Cambridge UP, 2020) tackles these questions with a new framework for thinking about the nation's courts, 'the judicial tug of war', which not only explains current political clashes over America's courts, but also powerfully predicts the composition of courts moving forward. As the text demonstrates through novel quantitative analyses, a greater ideological rift between politicians and legal elites leads politicians to adopt measures that put ideology and politics front and center - for example, judicial elections. On the other hand, ideological closeness between politicians and the legal establishment leads legal elites to have significant influence on the selection of judges. Ultimately, the judicial tug of war makes one point clear: for good or bad, politics are critical to how judges are selected and whose interests they ultimately represent. Adam Bonica is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Stanford University. His research has been published in journals such as the American Journal of Political Science, Political Analysis, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, and JAMA Internal Medicine. Maya Sen is Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. Her research has been published in journals such as the American Political Science Review, the American Journal of Political Science, and the Journal of Politics, and has been covered by the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Economist, National Public Radio, and other outlets. Ursula Hackett is Senior Lecturer in Politics at Royal Holloway, University of London. Her Cambridge University Press book America's Voucher Politics: How Elites Learned to Hide the State won the 2021 Education Politics and Policy Best Book Award from the American Political Science Association. Her writing guide Brilliant Essays is published by Macmillan Study Skills. She tweets @UrsulaBHackett.

Why have conservatives decried 'activist judges'? And why have liberals - and America's powerful legal establishment - emphasized qualifications and experience over ideology? The Judicial Tug of War: How Lawyers, Politicians, and Ideological Incentives Shape the American Judiciary (Cambridge UP, 2020) tackles these questions with a new framework for thinking about the nation's courts, 'the judicial tug of war', which not only explains current political clashes over America's courts, but also powerfully predicts the composition of courts moving forward. As the text demonstrates through novel quantitative analyses, a greater ideological rift between politicians and legal elites leads politicians to adopt measures that put ideology and politics front and center - for example, judicial elections. On the other hand, ideological closeness between politicians and the legal establishment leads legal elites to have significant influence on the selection of judges. Ultimately, the judicial tug of war makes one point clear: for good or bad, politics are critical to how judges are selected and whose interests they ultimately represent. Adam Bonica is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Stanford University. His research has been published in journals such as the American Journal of Political Science, Political Analysis, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, and JAMA Internal Medicine. Maya Sen is Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. Her research has been published in journals such as the American Political Science Review, the American Journal of Political Science, and the Journal of Politics, and has been covered by the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Economist, National Public Radio, and other outlets. Ursula Hackett is Senior Lecturer in Politics at Royal Holloway, University of London. Her Cambridge University Press book America's Voucher Politics: How Elites Learned to Hide the State won the 2021 Education Politics and Policy Best Book Award from the American Political Science Association. Her writing guide Brilliant Essays is published by Macmillan Study Skills. She tweets @UrsulaBHackett. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Why have conservatives decried 'activist judges'? And why have liberals - and America's powerful legal establishment - emphasized qualifications and experience over ideology? The Judicial Tug of War: How Lawyers, Politicians, and Ideological Incentives Shape the American Judiciary (Cambridge UP, 2020) tackles these questions with a new framework for thinking about the nation's courts, 'the judicial tug of war', which not only explains current political clashes over America's courts, but also powerfully predicts the composition of courts moving forward. As the text demonstrates through novel quantitative analyses, a greater ideological rift between politicians and legal elites leads politicians to adopt measures that put ideology and politics front and center - for example, judicial elections. On the other hand, ideological closeness between politicians and the legal establishment leads legal elites to have significant influence on the selection of judges. Ultimately, the judicial tug of war makes one point clear: for good or bad, politics are critical to how judges are selected and whose interests they ultimately represent. Adam Bonica is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Stanford University. His research has been published in journals such as the American Journal of Political Science, Political Analysis, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, and JAMA Internal Medicine. Maya Sen is Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. Her research has been published in journals such as the American Political Science Review, the American Journal of Political Science, and the Journal of Politics, and has been covered by the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Economist, National Public Radio, and other outlets. Ursula Hackett is Senior Lecturer in Politics at Royal Holloway, University of London. Her Cambridge University Press book America's Voucher Politics: How Elites Learned to Hide the State won the 2021 Education Politics and Policy Best Book Award from the American Political Science Association. Her writing guide Brilliant Essays is published by Macmillan Study Skills. She tweets @UrsulaBHackett. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

Why have conservatives decried 'activist judges'? And why have liberals - and America's powerful legal establishment - emphasized qualifications and experience over ideology? The Judicial Tug of War: How Lawyers, Politicians, and Ideological Incentives Shape the American Judiciary (Cambridge UP, 2020) tackles these questions with a new framework for thinking about the nation's courts, 'the judicial tug of war', which not only explains current political clashes over America's courts, but also powerfully predicts the composition of courts moving forward. As the text demonstrates through novel quantitative analyses, a greater ideological rift between politicians and legal elites leads politicians to adopt measures that put ideology and politics front and center - for example, judicial elections. On the other hand, ideological closeness between politicians and the legal establishment leads legal elites to have significant influence on the selection of judges. Ultimately, the judicial tug of war makes one point clear: for good or bad, politics are critical to how judges are selected and whose interests they ultimately represent. Adam Bonica is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Stanford University. His research has been published in journals such as the American Journal of Political Science, Political Analysis, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, and JAMA Internal Medicine. Maya Sen is Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. Her research has been published in journals such as the American Political Science Review, the American Journal of Political Science, and the Journal of Politics, and has been covered by the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Economist, National Public Radio, and other outlets. Ursula Hackett is Senior Lecturer in Politics at Royal Holloway, University of London. Her Cambridge University Press book America's Voucher Politics: How Elites Learned to Hide the State won the 2021 Education Politics and Policy Best Book Award from the American Political Science Association. Her writing guide Brilliant Essays is published by Macmillan Study Skills. She tweets @UrsulaBHackett. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Why have conservatives decried 'activist judges'? And why have liberals - and America's powerful legal establishment - emphasized qualifications and experience over ideology? The Judicial Tug of War: How Lawyers, Politicians, and Ideological Incentives Shape the American Judiciary (Cambridge UP, 2020) tackles these questions with a new framework for thinking about the nation's courts, 'the judicial tug of war', which not only explains current political clashes over America's courts, but also powerfully predicts the composition of courts moving forward. As the text demonstrates through novel quantitative analyses, a greater ideological rift between politicians and legal elites leads politicians to adopt measures that put ideology and politics front and center - for example, judicial elections. On the other hand, ideological closeness between politicians and the legal establishment leads legal elites to have significant influence on the selection of judges. Ultimately, the judicial tug of war makes one point clear: for good or bad, politics are critical to how judges are selected and whose interests they ultimately represent. Adam Bonica is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Stanford University. His research has been published in journals such as the American Journal of Political Science, Political Analysis, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, and JAMA Internal Medicine. Maya Sen is Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. Her research has been published in journals such as the American Political Science Review, the American Journal of Political Science, and the Journal of Politics, and has been covered by the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Economist, National Public Radio, and other outlets. Ursula Hackett is Senior Lecturer in Politics at Royal Holloway, University of London. Her Cambridge University Press book America's Voucher Politics: How Elites Learned to Hide the State won the 2021 Education Politics and Policy Best Book Award from the American Political Science Association. Her writing guide Brilliant Essays is published by Macmillan Study Skills. She tweets @UrsulaBHackett. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Why have conservatives decried 'activist judges'? And why have liberals - and America's powerful legal establishment - emphasized qualifications and experience over ideology? The Judicial Tug of War: How Lawyers, Politicians, and Ideological Incentives Shape the American Judiciary (Cambridge UP, 2020) tackles these questions with a new framework for thinking about the nation's courts, 'the judicial tug of war', which not only explains current political clashes over America's courts, but also powerfully predicts the composition of courts moving forward. As the text demonstrates through novel quantitative analyses, a greater ideological rift between politicians and legal elites leads politicians to adopt measures that put ideology and politics front and center - for example, judicial elections. On the other hand, ideological closeness between politicians and the legal establishment leads legal elites to have significant influence on the selection of judges. Ultimately, the judicial tug of war makes one point clear: for good or bad, politics are critical to how judges are selected and whose interests they ultimately represent. Adam Bonica is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Stanford University. His research has been published in journals such as the American Journal of Political Science, Political Analysis, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, and JAMA Internal Medicine. Maya Sen is Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. Her research has been published in journals such as the American Political Science Review, the American Journal of Political Science, and the Journal of Politics, and has been covered by the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Economist, National Public Radio, and other outlets. Ursula Hackett is Senior Lecturer in Politics at Royal Holloway, University of London. Her Cambridge University Press book America's Voucher Politics: How Elites Learned to Hide the State won the 2021 Education Politics and Policy Best Book Award from the American Political Science Association. Her writing guide Brilliant Essays is published by Macmillan Study Skills. She tweets @UrsulaBHackett. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Lawyers control the American court system, stock the administration, and even dominate our legislatures. They designed the institutions to ensure they'd continue to run the show. But today they face a political challenge because lawyers are far more liberal than elected officials or citizens. Conservative politicians are fighting back and making gains. Adam Bonica and Maya Sen find increasing polarization in the federal courts and strategic conflict between lawyers and conservative politicians in the states. But lawyers still pass legislation to benefit themselves and organize the judiciary to bar other entrants. It's no accident the U.S. stands out as a highly litigious society and legalistic state.

Matt is joined by author and Harvard Kennedy School professor Maya Sen to talk about the state of the American judiciary. They discuss Breyer's unwillingness to retire, the pervasive influence of prestige on the "legal elite," the cult of RBG, the influence and role of The Federalist Society, and the inherent biases in the elite legal system that have led to an "affirmative action"-like feeder program for conservative judges. Resources: The Judicial Tug of War: How Lawyers, Politicians, and Ideological Incentives Shape the American Judiciary by Adam Bonica and Maya Sen (Cambridge University Press, 2020) "The Endgame of Court-Packing" by Adam Chilton, Daniel Epps, Kyle Rozema, and Maya Sen (May 17) Ideas with Consequences: The Federalist Society and the Conservative Counterrevolution by Amanda Hollis-Brusky (Oxford University Press, 2015) The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law by Steven M. Teles (Princeton, 2008) "Legal Scholar's Anti-Sotomayor Letter Leaks, Causing Awkward Fallout" by Heather Horn (The Atlantic, Nov. 5, 2010) "The Case Against Sotomayor" by Jeffrey Rosen (The New Republic, May 4, 2009) Guest: Maya Sen (@maya_sen), professor, Harvard Kennedy School Host: Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias), Slowboring.com Credits: Erikk Geannikis, Editor and Producer As the Biden administration gears up, we'll help you understand this unprecedented burst of policymaking. Sign up for The Weeds newsletter each Friday: vox.com/weeds-newsletter. The Weeds is a Vox Media Podcast Network production. Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a contribution to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts About Vox Vox is a news network that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines. Follow Us: Vox.com Facebook group: The Weeds Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Amanda and Jason discuss housing inequality in America. Jason shares how the soil in the ground where we live is a better determinant of white attitudes toward race than any other measurable factor. Is it possible that a glacier moving millions of years ago still influences voter turn-out in 2020? Demographics along the "black belt" of the south say yes. Amanda discusses the socio-economic ramifications of gentrification of the Gullah people on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina. How could it be that people drive up to 4 hours to get to work in a place they can't afford to live, but was once their home? Jason contends that the federal government has a constitutional obligation to remedy housing segregation in America, as a vestige of slavery. As it turns out it's only been 60 years since the supreme court even acknowledged segregation in housing was a vestige of slavery. We have a long way to go to get things fixed. Books referenced in this episode:"Deep Roots: How Slavery Still Shapes Southern Politics" by Avidit Achara, Matthew Blackwell, Maya Sen."The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America" by Richard Rothstein 

For more information about Harvard Magazine and this podcast, visit www.harvardmagazine.com/podcast and follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.For a transcript of this episode, go to https://harvardmagazine.com/podcast/2020/maya-senAsk a Harvard Professor is hosted by Jonathan Shaw and Marina Bolotnikova, and produced by Jacob Sweet. Our theme music was composed by Louis Weeks.

What can soil tell us about election results? After every election, analysts pore over piles of data in order to better understand political trends. But what if a better place to search for answers is the ground beneath our feet? More specifically, whether that soil was conducive to crops worked by slaves over 200 years ago?Listen to Maya Sen and Matthew Blackwell trace southern racial conservatism all the way back to glacial deposits. Their new book, "Deep Roots", studies the swath of America where slave-based economies thrived as a result of nutrient-rich soil ideal for growing cotton. Hear them uncover the tangible legacy of slavery that continues to shape today's political life.Email us at WITHpod@gmail.comTweet using #WITHpodRead more at nbcnews.com/whyisthishappening

Several weeks ago, we had Professor Lilliana Mason on the podcast talking about her book about the process of social sorting that has deepened divides between citizens by aligning race, religion, and region. Mason argues that social sorting acts on a psychological-level, shaping how not just how people view policy but also political opponents. This week on the podcast, Matt Blackwell and Maya Sen extend this conversation back into history. In Deep Roots: How Slavery Still Shapes Southern Politics (Princeton University Press, 2018), the authors (with Avidit Acharya) argue that views on race have deeply historical roots, passed on across generations through cultural practices and other institutional mechanisms. They call this behavioral path dependence. Using sophisticated statistical analysis, they find that the long, disturbing legacy of slavery can be observed in the variation of attitudes of those living in different southern communities. In counties where slavery thrived in the 1860s (compared to similar counties in the south where slavery was less prevalent), white citizens hold significantly more hostile views of African Americans and express less support for race-related public policies. Interestingly, when they compare residents in those same two types of southern counties, their non-race views on other conservative issues, such as abortion, are essentially the same. Thus, the legacy of slavery is not in general conservative beliefs, but in specific and negative views on race. Avidit Acharya is assistant professor of political science at Stanford University. Matthew Blackwell is assistant professor of government at Harvard University. Maya Sen is associate professor of public policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Several weeks ago, we had Professor Lilliana Mason on the podcast talking about her book about the process of social sorting that has deepened divides between citizens by aligning race, religion, and region. Mason argues that social sorting acts on a psychological-level, shaping how not just how people view policy but also political opponents. This week on the podcast, Matt Blackwell and Maya Sen extend this conversation back into history. In Deep Roots: How Slavery Still Shapes Southern Politics (Princeton University Press, 2018), the authors (with Avidit Acharya) argue that views on race have deeply historical roots, passed on across generations through cultural practices and other institutional mechanisms. They call this behavioral path dependence. Using sophisticated statistical analysis, they find that the long, disturbing legacy of slavery can be observed in the variation of attitudes of those living in different southern communities. In counties where slavery thrived in the 1860s (compared to similar counties in the south where slavery was less prevalent), white citizens hold significantly more hostile views of African Americans and express less support for race-related public policies. Interestingly, when they compare residents in those same two types of southern counties, their non-race views on other conservative issues, such as abortion, are essentially the same. Thus, the legacy of slavery is not in general conservative beliefs, but in specific and negative views on race. Avidit Acharya is assistant professor of political science at Stanford University. Matthew Blackwell is assistant professor of government at Harvard University. Maya Sen is associate professor of public policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies

Several weeks ago, we had Professor Lilliana Mason on the podcast talking about her book about the process of social sorting that has deepened divides between citizens by aligning race, religion, and region. Mason argues that social sorting acts on a psychological-level, shaping how not just how people view policy but also political opponents. This week on the podcast, Matt Blackwell and Maya Sen extend this conversation back into history. In Deep Roots: How Slavery Still Shapes Southern Politics (Princeton University Press, 2018), the authors (with Avidit Acharya) argue that views on race have deeply historical roots, passed on across generations through cultural practices and other institutional mechanisms. They call this behavioral path dependence. Using sophisticated statistical analysis, they find that the long, disturbing legacy of slavery can be observed in the variation of attitudes of those living in different southern communities. In counties where slavery thrived in the 1860s (compared to similar counties in the south where slavery was less prevalent), white citizens hold significantly more hostile views of African Americans and express less support for race-related public policies. Interestingly, when they compare residents in those same two types of southern counties, their non-race views on other conservative issues, such as abortion, are essentially the same. Thus, the legacy of slavery is not in general conservative beliefs, but in specific and negative views on race. Avidit Acharya is assistant professor of political science at Stanford University. Matthew Blackwell is assistant professor of government at Harvard University. Maya Sen is associate professor of public policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Several weeks ago, we had Professor Lilliana Mason on the podcast talking about her book about the process of social sorting that has deepened divides between citizens by aligning race, religion, and region. Mason argues that social sorting acts on a psychological-level, shaping how not just how people view policy but also political opponents. This week on the podcast, Matt Blackwell and Maya Sen extend this conversation back into history. In Deep Roots: How Slavery Still Shapes Southern Politics (Princeton University Press, 2018), the authors (with Avidit Acharya) argue that views on race have deeply historical roots, passed on across generations through cultural practices and other institutional mechanisms. They call this behavioral path dependence. Using sophisticated statistical analysis, they find that the long, disturbing legacy of slavery can be observed in the variation of attitudes of those living in different southern communities. In counties where slavery thrived in the 1860s (compared to similar counties in the south where slavery was less prevalent), white citizens hold significantly more hostile views of African Americans and express less support for race-related public policies. Interestingly, when they compare residents in those same two types of southern counties, their non-race views on other conservative issues, such as abortion, are essentially the same. Thus, the legacy of slavery is not in general conservative beliefs, but in specific and negative views on race. Avidit Acharya is assistant professor of political science at Stanford University. Matthew Blackwell is assistant professor of government at Harvard University. Maya Sen is associate professor of public policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Several weeks ago, we had Professor Lilliana Mason on the podcast talking about her book about the process of social sorting that has deepened divides between citizens by aligning race, religion, and region. Mason argues that social sorting acts on a psychological-level, shaping how not just how people view policy but also political opponents. This week on the podcast, Matt Blackwell and Maya Sen extend this conversation back into history. In Deep Roots: How Slavery Still Shapes Southern Politics (Princeton University Press, 2018), the authors (with Avidit Acharya) argue that views on race have deeply historical roots, passed on across generations through cultural practices and other institutional mechanisms. They call this behavioral path dependence. Using sophisticated statistical analysis, they find that the long, disturbing legacy of slavery can be observed in the variation of attitudes of those living in different southern communities. In counties where slavery thrived in the 1860s (compared to similar counties in the south where slavery was less prevalent), white citizens hold significantly more hostile views of African Americans and express less support for race-related public policies. Interestingly, when they compare residents in those same two types of southern counties, their non-race views on other conservative issues, such as abortion, are essentially the same. Thus, the legacy of slavery is not in general conservative beliefs, but in specific and negative views on race. Avidit Acharya is assistant professor of political science at Stanford University. Matthew Blackwell is assistant professor of government at Harvard University. Maya Sen is associate professor of public policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this piece, Alex Sarabia (MPP '17) and University of Chicago Political Science and Harris Public Policy Professor William Howell conversed with Professor Sen about her new research and book, which covers a new analysis of data on voting and race in America.We want to thank the Becker Friedman Institute, Minorities in Public Policy Studies, and Professors Howell and Sen. Also, special thanks to Michael Harvey (MPP '17) who produced the interview and Alex Sarabia for moderating. David Raban engineered and edited.