Dan Wang ’15 is, by any measure, having a moment. His book,ÌęÌę(W.W. Norton, 2025), about China’s dizzying ascent on the international stage and what the United States can learn from it, has become a must-read among world leaders and policymakers since its publication last year.

It was spotted on the desk of Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson. Aides to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and British Prime Minister Keir StarmerÌęreportedly readÌęit on their recent trips to China. It madeÌęThe New York TimesÌębestseller list, was named one ofÌęThe New Yorker’s Best Books of theÌęYear, andÌęwas shortlisted for theÌęFinancial TimesÌęBusiness Book of the Year.Ìę. And it landed Wang on some of the most influentialÌęÌęČčČÔ»ćÌęÌęin America.

Yet when Wang (pronounced “Wong”) joins a video call withÌęRochester ReviewÌęfrom outside the Hoover Institution—a public policy think tank at Stanford, where he is a research fellow in its History Lab—he seems amused by the notion that his work has had an impact.

“You never really know what happens when you write a book,” Wang says. “One always hopes that people will pick it up and read it.ÌęI’mÌęglad some people have.”

Wang attributes some of the book’s success to timing. It came out in a year of headlines about China, from the trade war toÌęDeepSeek. It was also published a few months afterÌęAbundance, another bestseller by journalists Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson. That book has been called a guide for reforming government and overcoming socioeconomic problems in America—if progressives can stop blocking big dreams andÌęgood ideasÌęwith what the authors call “an endless catalog of rules and restraints.”

Both primed readers for the idea that Americans are right to be frustrated by the state of their state. “The stars aligned,” Wang says.

BreakneckÌęexamines why the United States struggles to build housing, high-speed rail, and energy infrastructure at speed and scale while ChinaÌęappears to erectÌętowering bridges, superhighways and gleaming railways, and sprawling factories overnight. °ÂČčČÔȔ’s conclusion: The American elite is “made up of mostly lawyers, excelling at obstruction,”ÌęwhereasÌęChina is run by a “technocratic class, made up mostly of engineers, that excels at construction.”

China, Wang writes, “is an engineering state building at breakneck speed, in contrast to the United States’ lawyerly society, blocking everything it can, good and bad.”

Learning from the masters

It may be tempting to view Wang as an overnight success. ”țłÜłÙÌęBreakneckÌęwas seven years in the making, and °ÂČčČÔȔ’s ascent to his rarefied perch in the global conversation about power, technology, and economic development was anything but linear.

The foundation for his book is a series of annual letters he wrote to family, friends, and followers that chronicled his observations during the seven years he spent in China after graduating from the University of Rochester, a graduation that almostÌędidn’tÌęhappen.

He recalls his years at °”ÍűłÔčÏ with gratitude. He enrolled in large part, he says, because the University made going to college possible for him. Born in southwest China, Wang immigrated with his family at age seven to Canada, where he was raised mostly in Ottawa before his parents relocated to the Philadelphia suburbs when he was a teenager. As a Canadian citizen from a family he describes as being “not well off,” Wang required “substantial financial aid” to attend college. °”ÍűłÔčÏ’s generosity was the deciding factor.

“I was able to graduate from college debt-free,” he says. “It has been a nice thing.”

But he was, by his own admission, an unremarkable student, despite earning accolades. In 2013, he was recognized as theÌę“Student Employee of the Year”Ìęfor his work as a news assistant in the Office of Communications.

In nominating him, then–Associate Vice President of Communications LarryÌęArbeiterÌęwrote that Wang had an uncanny knack for framing stories about the University that drew national media attention. “That kind of success is highly sought by experienced professionals,”ÌęArbeiterÌęwrote, “and is basically unheard of by a student.”

When heÌęwasn’tÌęworking in the office, Wang roamed the stacks in RushÌęRheesÌęor hunkered down in his “default study space” in the library’s music section. “It was a tremendously pleasing experience to walk through so many books and be able to pull out books as oneÌęwishes,” he says.

He devoured the works of Edith Wharton and HonorĂ© de Balzac. In the music section, he browsed scores and once copied a Gustav Mahler symphony by hand,ÌęmeasureÌęby measure. Wang did the same with prose, retyping articles inÌęThe New YorkerÌęas something of a self-directed monastic apprenticeship aimed at absorbing the language, cadence, and rhythm of masters of their craft.

“I think I did that three or four times, just rewrote the entire article by retyping it to see the choices a writer makes,” Wang says. “And I did the same thing as a music student because I thought seeing the choices a composer makes was important.”

Wang majored in philosophy, wrestling with logic and classical texts that helped him hone arguments. But it was an economics professor, Michael Rizzo, who had the biggest impact on him as a student.

Rizzo, he says, organized reading circles of the works of Austrian economist and philosopher Friedrich Hayek that left an impression on Wang and exposed him to great thinkers of the economics blogosphere like Tyler Cowen, who later became an intellectual influence. (Cowen’s praise for BreakneckÌęas “arguably the best book of the year flat out” is displayed prominently on itsÌęcover.)

“Dan was the kind of student who inspired me to want to learnÌęmoreÌęmyself, and he had an extreme restlessness about him that resonated then and still does today,” Rizzo says.

That restlessness became moreÌęapparentÌęthan ever when, after his junior year, Wang dropped out.

A detour, then a diploma

Wang had landed a job in marketing and communications in Toronto at the cloud-based e-commerce platform Shopify when the company was in its infancy. He was making good money and enjoyed the work. “There was a point in my life when I thought I was going to be quite happy to be a dropout,” he says.

”țłÜłÙÌę°”ÍűłÔčÏÌęofficials persisted in trying to persuade him to‹return and finish his degree. HeÌęsays he told themÌęhe preferred to stay at Shopify. “Then they asked, ‘Is there anything you would like to do?’” Wang recalls. “I’mÌębeing a bit cheeky here, but I said, ‘You know, I would like to spend my last semester drinking beer in Germany.’

“And, again, I’m being stylized and cheeky, but they said, ‘We have a program for that!’” Wang finished his degree in Freiburg im Breisgau through the Institute for the International Education of Students, better known as IES Abroad.

He skipped commencement to take a content marketing job in Silicon Valley at the supply chain logistics company Flexport. There he stood at the corner of global trade and technology—an intersection that would become the backbone of Breakneck.

“Rochester mailed me my diploma,” Wang says. “But I’m glad I had the patience to finish my degree.”

In 2017, Wang moved to China. He joined an economic research firm as a technology analyst, writing about semiconductors and clean-tech manufacturing primarily for an audience of hedge fund clients around the world.

“I felt like I moved to China on the cusp of a technological flowering. I knew people were underestimating China, but living there was kind of like being on a very different branch of the technological tree that Silicon Valley wasn’t going down.”

The country was, in many ways, familiar terrain. He had visited relatives there growing up and spoke fluent Mandarin thanks to his mother, a former television news anchor, who saw to that.

But living there as an adult, WangÌęobservedÌędistinct differences between the China he knew as a child and his homes in Canada and the United States. While Silicon Valley cast itself as the unquestioned center of technological innovation, he saw in China a country that was positioning itself to compete, often ferociously. There was a sense of optimism.

The country was churning out new cars, including varieties of electric vehicles, in a fraction of the time that American companies did. It leapfrogged from credit cards to mobile payments. Tech giants like Alibaba and ByteDance were going toe-to-toe with their peers in the West.

“I felt like I moved to China on the cusp of a technological flowering,” Wang says. “The magnitude was not quite what I expected. I knew people were underestimating China, but living there was kind of like being on a very different branch of the technological tree that Silicon Valley wasn’t going down.”

He chronicled his observations and thoughts in his letters and eventually compiled them into a narrative in Breakneck, where he framed the differences between his native and adopted countries as the result of an “engineering mindset” in China that valued ideating, building, and scaling, and a “lawyerly” one in the United States that regulated, litigated, and protected.

To drive home his point, he details how in 2008 both countries began construction ofÌęroughly 800Ìęmiles of high-speed rail—in ChinaÌę‹between Beijing and Shanghai, and in the United States between San Francisco and Los Angeles. China opened its line three years later at a cost ofÌę$36 billion. California is still struggling to complete the first phase of its line, and authorities estimate itÌęwon’tÌębe operational until 2032 at a price tag of up toÌę$128 billion.

Wang is not romantic about China. He fiercely criticizes its authoritarian reach in areas like its one-child policy, “zero Covid” lockdowns, censorship, and individual rights. He says he wishes the country were “50 percent more lawyerly.” On the other hand, he wishes the United States were “20 percent more engineering.”

“Building homes should not be that difficult,” Wang says of America’s housing shortage. “We know how to build homes.”

Wang left China in 2023 to return to the United States. “I choose the West,” he says. “That’sÌęunambiguous. I want the United States, with its values, to succeed.”

Today, he splits his time between Ann Arbor, Michigan, where his wife is a professor at the University of Michigan, and Northern California, where he works at the Hoover Institution under anotherÌę°”ÍűłÔčÏÌęalumnus, Stephen Kotkin ’81.

”țłÜłÙÌęBreakneckÌęhas Wang hopscotching the globe for speaking engagements. He is, it seems, moving at breakneck speed and, like he did at the University of Rochester, engineering his own future.

This story appears in the spring 2026 issue of Rochester Review, the magazine of the °”ÍűłÔčÏ.

When the international art extravaganza opens on May 9, visitors to the pavilion sponsored by the Vatican will find a fusion of past and present in the music of the 12th-century German Saint Hildegard of Bingen being interpreted by some of today’s most innovative artists.

Helping bring the exhibit to life is , a professor of musicology at the °”ÍűłÔčÏ, whose extensive research into Hildegard has shaped how the world understands and performs her music.

Meconi was among the consultants to the creative team behind the Holy See’s pavilion, titled which as one of “eight pavilions that have the Venice Biennale buzzing.” The life and work of Hildegard inspired the exhibition and, according to the Holy See, centers on themes of “slowing down, listening, contemplating, and caring” and features performances by 24 artists, including stars like FKA Twigs, Brian Eno, Dev Hynes, and Patti Smith.

“One of the things I’ve always loved about Hildegard is how inspiring her music is to artists of all kinds,” says Meconi, whose book (University of Illinois Press, 2018) remains the first and only English-language text devoted to Hildegard’s work as a composer.

“Her music consists of a single melodic line that modern musicians use as a tabula rasa, bringing their own ideas and interpretations to it while still engaging with something authentically medieval,” Meconi says.

The Venice Biennale was founded in 1895 and is held every two years. Often described as the “Olympics of the art world” for its pavilions hosted by countries, the festival brings together artists, architects, and musicians and is a major stage for new ideas and cultural exchanges.

Part of the Vatican’s pavilion is located in The Mystical Garden in Venice, where visitors can listen to commissioned re-compositions of Hildegard’s music through headphones as they wander the secluded garden’s plots of vegetables and flowers.

The pieces were curated by Hans Ulrich Obrist and Ben Vickers in collaboration with Soundwalk Collective, an experimental sound art organization based in Berlin and New York City.

°”ÍűłÔčÏ scholarship shapes a global stage

Meconi’s involvement began last fall when Soundwalk Collective contacted her seeking guidance on Hildegard’s music.

“They knew they wanted modern performers to interpret her work, so I provided editions and translations and answered questions about pronunciation, tuning, and so on,” Meconi says. “I was also able to suggest pieces that might be appropriate for specific artists.”

As part of her role, she was recorded singing Hildegard’s music at Electric Lady Studios, the legendary space founded by Jimi Hendrix in New York City.

“That was surreal,” Meconi says. “But it is also surreal for someone who specializes in music before 1600 to see Brian Eno’s name in an email subject heading and to do a translation specifically for him.”

Another highlight for Meconi, as she tells it, was learning that Pope Leo XIV had translated one of Hildegard’s song texts into Portuguese for the famous fado singer Carminho. The song was one for which Meconi had provided the edition.

“Technically speaking,” she says, “the pope and I are now collaborators.”

Who is Hildegard, and why is her work so hot right now?

“She was the Boss Lady of the 12th century.”

Hildegard of Bingen was a German Benedictine nun and polymath of epic proportions. In addition to founding a convent, writing theological treatises on her heavenly visions, inventing a new language and alphabet, corresponding with everyone who was anyone in the 12th century, and authoring books on the natural world and healing, she was a prolific musician. She penned 77 songs and a musical drama before her death at 81 in 1179.

“She was the Boss Lady of the 12th century,” Meconi says.

The Holy See says its pavilion responds to the broad theme of the Biennale, titled “In Minor Keys.” The festival’s curator, Koyo Kough, died last year, but wrote of the exhibition in her original curatorial statement: “In refusing the spectacle of horror, the time has come to listen to the minor keys, to tune in sotto voce to the whispers, to the lower frequencies; to find the oases, the islands, where the dignity of all living beings is safeguarded.”

The Biennale runs from May 9 to November 22.

The °”ÍűłÔčÏ’s has forged partnerships with six colleges and universities enabling students at those institutions to earn a master’s degree in business in just one year after completing their undergraduate studies through Simon’s accelerated 4+1 Business Master’s Pathway program.

The partner institutions are the State University of New York at Geneseo, Ursinus College, Union College, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, the College of Wooster, and Allegheny College.

Students enrolled at those institutions—as well as high school students applying to them—can now gain early conditional admission to Simon and a guaranteed tuition scholarship for a streamlined path to a graduate business degree in areas such as accounting, artificial intelligence in business, business analytics, finance, and marketing analytics.

“These partnerships reflect our shared commitment to expanding access to high-quality graduate education,” says °”ÍűłÔčÏ Provost Nicole Sampson. “By working with these outstanding partner institutions, we are enabling talented students to transition more easily from undergraduate to graduate study and prepare for successful careers with a Simon degree. Together, we are building a powerful bridge that expands opportunity and delivers lasting value for students and their families.”

Simon Business School is consistently ranked among the top business schools in the United States and has been recognized for delivering a strong return on investment for its graduates.

The offers a range of benefits designed to accelerate and simplify the graduate admissions process, including:

• A guaranteed scholarship covering at least 30 percent of tuition
• Waived application fee
• No GRE or GMAT requirement
• Early access to Simon’s career workshops and one-on-one coaching sessions

The pathways also give students a head start on career development, connecting them with Simon’s career management resources a year before they arrive on campus.

“These partnerships are about removing barriers and creating opportunities,” says Mitchell Lovett, interim dean of the Simon Business School. “We’re giving talented students a clear, affordable, and efficient pathway to a top-ranked business education.”

These partnerships are also expected to strengthen the regional economy by connecting highly skilled graduates to local employers. With clear pathways from undergraduate study to advanced business training, the agreements support workforce development efforts across the region and will reinforce Rochester’s ability to attract and keep top talent.

Leaders at partner institutions say the collaboration enhances the value of their undergraduate programs by offering students a direct route to advanced credentials.

Union President Elizabeth Kiss says of the partnership: “At Union, we are constantly seeking ways to enhance our value proposition to students by enhancing the appeal of our academic portfolio. This partnership will give our students the opportunity to build on the strength of their Union degree with an outstanding business education experience, making them even more career-ready upon graduation.”

Geneseo Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Mary C. Toale says of the partnership: “Our partnership with the Simon Business School expands meaningful pathways for Geneseo students and strengthens our commitment to their academic and professional success. This accelerated option opens new doors for students to advance in fields shaping the future, supported by two outstanding institutions.”

Jennifer VanGilder, a professor of business and economics at Ursinus College, says of the partnership: “The 4+1 partnership between the University of Rochester and Ursinus College redefines what is possible for Ursinus graduates by transforming ambition into acceleration. The bridge between undergraduate foundations and graduate-level expertise will equip students to rise faster, think bigger, and lead with confidence as they begin their professional careers.”

The °”ÍűłÔčÏ plans to continue expanding the program through additional partnerships in the future. The streamlined master’s pathway is also available to °”ÍűłÔčÏ undergraduates in a wide range of fields.

Americans are sharply divided over immigration policy, particularly enforcement measures, but share common ground on some fundamental issues, including broad support for birthright citizenship.

Those are the takeaways from a new nationwide survey of more than 30,000 adults across all 50 states conducted by the , a nonprofit joint initiative of the °”ÍűłÔčÏ, Harvard University, Northeastern University, and Rutgers University.

While the findings highlight deep partisan divisions, they suggest Americans also leave room for nuance when policy matters become personal.

“Immigration is one of the most polarizing issues in American politics,” says °”ÍűłÔčÏ political scientist James Druckman, a coauthor of the study and a nationally recognized expert on political polarization. “But when you look closely at the data, you see that Americans will distinguish between different policies and principles.”

Deep partisan divides

The survey found that roughly two-thirds of Americans say immigration is important to them personally, but revealed stark differences along party lines in how they view policy and enforcement.

For instance, 37 percent of respondents approve of President Donald Trump’s handling of immigration, while 49 percent disapprove. Among Republicans, however, approval reaches 78 percent, compared with just 11 percent for Democrats.

Similar divisions appear in attitudes toward federal immigration enforcement efforts. Nationwide, a third of respondents approve of the tactics used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, while nearly half of them disapprove. Yet Republicans are far more supportive of them than Democrats, with the gap reaching almost 60 points.

“These differences are among the largest partisan divides we see on any policy issue,” Druckman says.

Broad support for birthright citizenship

Even as Americans disagree sharply about enforcement, the survey finds majority support for maintaining birthright citizenship, the constitutional principle of the Fourteenth Amendment that grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

Nearly 59 percent of Americans support birthright citizenship, whereas 24 percent oppose it. Support crosses party lines, although at different levels. The survey found 79 percent of Democrats, 59 percent of independents, and 39 percent of Republicans favor the policy.

Support also extends across the country geographically. Support for birthright citizenship fell below 50 percent in just three states—Montana (46 percent), Wyoming (47 percent), and South Dakota (48 percent).

“The relative consistency of support—at least compared to enforcement attitudes—suggests that Americans distinguish between debates over immigration enforcement and long-standing constitutional norms,” Druckman says.

A shift when policy gets personal

Although Americans often express strong views about immigration broadly, the survey shows that opinions shift when policy gets personal.

About one in four respondents say they worry that a family member or close friend could be deported, while about one in five say they personally know someone who is undocumented. Those concerns nearly double among Hispanic Americans.

The nuance plays out when Americans are asked their thoughts on deporting undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States for more than 10 years.

“Americans may support enforcement in principle but become more hesitant when policies affect people who have built lives in the United States.”

Just 31 percent favor the idea of deporting longtime undocumented residents, including only half of Republicans, who widely favor stricter enforcement.

“That suggests Americans may support enforcement in principle but become more hesitant when policies affect people who have built lives in the United States,” Druckman says.

More aggressive enforcement proposals also face limited national support. Only about a third of Americans support using the military to assist with mass deportations.

Taken together, the findings suggest immigration remains a complex issue for American voters—one marked by sharp partisan divides but also pockets of potential agreement.

“People may have very different ideas about how immigration should be handled,” Druckman says. “But the data show that their views are often more nuanced than the political conversation might suggest.”

For the media

James Druckman
Martin Brewer Anderson Professor of Political Science

An expert in political behavior and a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Druckman studies public opinion formation, political polarization, political and scientific communication, political psychology, and experimental and survey methods. He has published approximately 200 articles and book chapters. His latest coauthored book, (University of Chicago), was published in 2024.

• Learn more about Druckman.

The US seizure of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro stunned people around the world—including political scientists who study regime change.

“I was surprised,” says , professor of and director of the at the °”ÍűłÔčÏ. “Going in the middle of the night, taking the leader of the country and his wife out of the palace, and saying, ‘That’s it, we’re running the country now.’ That’s extraordinary.”

For many Venezuelans, particularly those who fled repression and economic collapse, the news sparked celebration and hope. But Goemans urges caution, arguing that removing a dictator rarely dismantles the power structures that kept him in place.

The Venezuelan military still holds power

“The military propped up Maduro,” Goemans says. “The whole system of bribery and corruption revolves around the support of the armed forces. There’s no reason to believe that they’re now suddenly going to give up power.”

He compares the situation to previous US-led interventions.

“We’ve seen this in Iraq, we’ve seen it in Afghanistan,” Goemans says. “Decapitation—taking out one leader—doesn’t change the apparatus of the state. Post–regime change almost never works the way people hope.”

Goemans points to research by political scientist showing that foreign-imposed regime change frequently leads to instability or renewed conflict, not democracy. “The new regime you install has its own interests,” Goemans says.

“They don’t necessarily align with the interests of the United States, or with democratic reform.”

Why motivation matters—and how neighboring Guyana is in play

There are somewhat conflicting statements coming out of Washington as to the motivation for the American intervention.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has as one that aimed “to bring justice to a criminal” in Maduro, who was “duly indicted under American law.” Energy Secretary Chris Wright has said the United States intends to control the flow of Venezuelan oil into the marketplace.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has laid out a three-step plan that includes the United States stabilizing the country by seizing and selling up to 50 million barrels of oil and ensuring “American, Western, and other companies have access to the Venezuelan market in a way that’s fair.” He has called the third step “one of transition,” including the integration of opposition political parties.”

Goemans says motivations matter enormously.

It is possible, he says, that different actors inside the US administration are pursuing different goals—from energy interests, to immigration enforcement, to regional dominance—without a coherent long-term plan for Venezuela itself.

“That’s problematic,” he says, “because it means there’s no clear, overarching goal. If you don’t know what comes next, you’re almost guaranteeing trouble.”

There is one other possible motivation that Goemans sees for the US intervention that he says he has been surprised no one in the Trump administration has invoked: freeing the oil-rich Essequibo region of neighboring Guyana from Venezuelan rule.

“That’s a motivation, which, in my opinion, could have kind of legitimized overthrowing Maduro,” Goemans says.

In 2023, Venezuela to Essequibo, which is nearly the size of Florida and makes up half of Guyana’s territory. Maduro unveiled new maps displaying it as part of Venezuela, named a military general as its governor, and issued Venezuelan identity cards to people living there.

“Guyana has serious worries about Venezuela,” Goemans says. “It’s a real threat to the sovereignty of Guyana and it’s surprising that nobody in the Trump administration has invoked that.”

“There was no claim that this was about restoring democracy,” he continues. “That was never raised as one of the motivations. That should concern people.”

A dangerous precedent for world order

Beyond Venezuela, Goemans warns that forcibly removing heads of state undermines long-standing international norms.

He explains this using a classic political science concept: cooperation only holds if countries believe rules will be enforced over time.

“If you treat this as a one-shot game that says, ‘We can do this once and nothing follows,’ that’s very dangerous,” he says. “Other countries will respond eventually. Maybe not immediately, but the system will unravel.”

He argued that even US allies may feel compelled to push back if territorial integrity and sovereignty no longer carry weight.

“If the United States defects from the rules, others will have incentives to defect too,” he says. “In the long run, that’s not in America’s interest.”

Can the US try Maduro?

Another uncertainty is whether US courts can legally prosecute Maduro if he is considered Venezuela’s legitimate president, which Maduro insists he is despite doubts by many world leaders.

“This is going to be fought out in court,” Goemans says. “Judges will have to decide whether he is head of state, and that’s not a simple legal question.”

Unlike Panama’s Manuel Noriega, who was never an elected president but was that country’s de facto ruler before the United States seized him with an invasion in 1989, Maduro originally came to power through constitutional succession before consolidating his authority through a series of widely condemned elections in 2018 and in 2024.

What are the alternatives?

If US military intervention is unlikely to produce a stable democracy in Venezuela, what could?

Goemans points to historical examples in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, where authoritarian regimes collapsed after mass domestic mobilization, sometimes with outside support and an independent media.

“The only way the masses can overcome a repressive elite is if they successfully organize,” he says. “That means supporting opposition groups, election monitoring, information access. Not sending troops through jungles to Caracas.”

But he acknowledges how grim that sounds to Venezuelan people suffering now, whether in the country or living abroad.

“I understand the desperation,” he says. “People have had their lives stolen from them. Of course they want immediate change.”

Still, he warns that celebrating too early could result in disappointment.

“People were very happy when Saddam’s statues came down,” he says, speaking of the former president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. “Then came the question: What comes next?”

Meet your expert

Hein Goemans

, a political science professor and the director of the University of Rochester’s , is an expert on international conflict—how wars begin and how they end. HeÌęis the author of (Princeton University Press, 2000) and coauthor of Ìę(Cambridge University Press, 2011).

Diversifying the ranks of scientists in the United States is crucial to engendering more trust in the scientific community among more Americans.

That’s the takeaway from published in Nature Human Behaviour.

“When it comes to trusting scientists, who is practicing science matters almost as much to Americans as what their science reveals,” says , the Martin Brewer Anderson Professor of Political Science at the °”ÍűłÔčÏ and lead author of the study.

The study was conducted in collaboration with researchers from nine universities and research institutions.

Minding the trust gaps

Americans, on the whole, have long held scientists in high esteem. There are long-standing trust gaps, however, specifically among certain demographic groups.

Women and people who are Black, live in rural areas, identify as religious, have low levels of education or are working-class, for instance, exhibit less confidence in the scientific community. That has been the case for decades and has been well documented.

What has not been well documented are why and the implications of trust gaps, Druckman says.

“Our work shows that people generally exhibit more trust in scientists who share their characteristics,” he explains. “Not surprisingly, groups with low trust in scientists are notably underrepresented in the field of science.”

White men make up about two-thirds of the scientific workforce in the United States, and nearly all scientists—92 percent—are from non-rural areas, according to the study.

That the scientific community looks a lot less like the country it serves is more than symbolic, the authors argue. Indeed, it influences how different groups of people trust scientists and scientific institutions, and how likely recommendations of scientists are to become public policy.

“Scientists provide important information to the public,” Druckman says. “Whether that information influences decision-making depends on trust.”

The study found that women and people of color, in particular, relied heavily on demographic-based judgments when deciding whether to place confidence in scientific claims. By contrast, men and white Americans showed more variability in what drives their trust, suggesting their faith in science is less based on people who “look like me.”

The role of representation

The authors also tracked how these demographic perceptions relate to broader feelings about scientific objectivity and the usefulness of science in society.

When people viewed scientists as demographically distant from themselves, they were more likely to question whether scientists remain unbiased and whether scientific knowledge benefits people like them. These beliefs, in turn, strongly shaped whether participants said they trusted scientists.

Despite these patterns, some groups—such as Asian Americans—reported high trust in scientists regardless of representation. This suggests that representation alone cannot fully explain public attitudes.

Still, the researchers conclude that demographic inclusiveness plays a central role in shoring up public trust across major social groups.

Improving representation, they write, may help bridge the growing gap between public expectations and scientific institutions at a time when misinformation, political polarization, and vaccine skepticism have put scientific credibility under strain.

“When people can see themselves in science,” Druckman says, “they’re more likely to believe in it.”

As families around the world prepare to celebrate Hanukkah, °”ÍűłÔčÏ associate professor can expound on the deeper stories behind the holiday’s foods, rituals, and evolving traditions.

Rubel, a scholar of Jewish studies and chair of the , specializes in how Jewish identity is expressed through everyday practices and food. For instance, her work explores how dishes like latkes and sufganiyot (fried jelly donuts) carry meanings beyond the kitchen.

“Food is one of the most powerful ways communities tell their stories,” Rubel says. “During Hanukkah, the foods we make and share help us remember the past, celebrate resilience, and connect with one another.”

Rubel was among the featured experts in a new PBS documentary, , a historical, genealogical, and culinary journey through the Jewish diaspora in homes across America. “Jewish cuisine is influenced by the economics, agriculture and culinary traditions of the many countries where Jewish communities have settled and varies widely throughout the whole world,” says Rubel.

Oil at the heart of Hanukkah: Why fried foods matter

Many people recognize the holiday through its signature fried foods. But Rubel notes that these traditions developed over centuries and vary widely across cultures.

• Ashkenazi Jews typically serve potato latkes.
• Sephardic and Mizrahi communities prepare sufganiyot, bimuelos, zalabiya, and other fried sweets.
• Some families incorporate dairy dishes, drawing on medieval interpretations of the Hanukkah story.

What unites these foods, Rubel explains, is the symbolism of oil, which commemorates the miracle at the heart of the Hanukkah story.

As Rubel explains, “Jewish food, as we think about it now, is a culture of foods connected with holidays and rituals. In the United States, these foods are an amalgamation of recipes carried here by Jewish immigrants from their countries of origin. Cookbooks and family recipes are vital historical documents that preserve culture and history by recording culinary traditions, revealing social life, and demonstrating how communities adapt over time.”

Many ways to celebrate

Rubel emphasizes that Hanukkah is not a monolithic holiday. Its rituals, from lighting the menorah to singing blessings and exchanging gifts, vary across communities and generations.

Some families add new traditions such as:

• Hosting “latke tasting” gatherings
• Experimenting with global Jewish recipes
• Incorporating social justice themes into nightly candle-lighting
• Sharing stories of family immigration and heritage

“Hanukkah is a living tradition,” she says. “It continues to evolve, and food is one of the ways people reinterpret what the holiday means for them today.”

°”ÍűłÔčÏ students, faculty, and staff no longer need to leave campus to satisfy their Wegmans craving. Under a new partnership, are now stocking many of the beloved grocery chain’s most popular prepared foods—from Ultimate Chocolate Chip Cookies and Ultimate Chocolate Cake, to protein bowls, pasta, Asian meals, and vegetarian options.

The collaboration makes it easier than ever for the University of Rochester community to grab a Wegmans favorite between classes or after work. Delivered to campus throughout the week, the prepared meals and snacks are available for purchase at select dining locations with student meal plans, Rocky Bucks, and credit cards.

Delivering prepared meals to a university campus is a new venture for Wegmans—not just in its hometown of Rochester, but anywhere in the country. The grocery store chain has more than 100 locations across nine states and Washington, DC.

“Partnering with the University of Rochester to launch our new ‘Meals Market’ concept is an exciting milestone for us,” says Frank Guidice, Wegmans digital restaurant director. “When the University of Rochester team brought the idea forward, we saw a unique opportunity to bring the quality, convenience, and variety Wegmans is known for directly to students and staff.”

The partnership began as a pilot program in 2024 and was such a hit that the University and Wegmans kept it going. For the University community, the micro-Wegmans displays marry the experience of shopping at Rochester’s favorite supermarket with on-campus convenience.

“This is more than just convenient access to food we all feel good about,” says University Vice President for Student Life John Blackshear. “It’s a celebration of two iconic Rochester institutions working together to enrich campus life. When I arrived at the University, I saw bringing Wegmans to campus as a key first step in the strategy to bring the City of Rochester into °”ÍűłÔčÏ dining offerings.”

Katherine Guallpa ’27, a third-year student, says visiting the Wegmans display in Hillside Market in Susan B. Anthony Halls between classes has become part of her routine.

“I love Wegmans,” says Guallpa, who picked up a bowl of Wegmans pasta Alfredo with broccoli and chicken to go. “I don’t know what I’d do without it.”

The arrangement builds on decades of shared history between the University and Wegmans, two of Rochester’s most recognizable names.

The Wegman family has been a longtime and generous supporter of the University, helping to establish Wegmans Hall—home to the Goergen Institute for Data Science and Artificial Intelligence—and funding major advancements in children’s health. Wegmans chairman Danny Wegman served as the University’s Board of Trustees chairman from 2016 to 2018, and Wegmans CEO Colleen Wegman earned her MBA at the in 2000. Recently, Mary Ellen Burris, the longtime head of consumer affairs at Wegmans and an alumna of the , was the subject of a °”ÍűłÔčÏ profile.

Higher education in the United States enjoys broad public support, but Americans are concerned about its costs and some aspects of campus culture, according to a sweeping new national survey led in part by , a political scientist at the .

The study—“Higher Education Public Opinion Analysis: Strong Support Amid Specific Vulnerabilities”—is the first report from the (AHEB), a collaboration among researchers at the University of Rochester, Northeastern University, Rutgers University, Harvard University, and others. It draws on more than 31,000 survey responses from all 50 states, making it one of the most comprehensive snapshots of public opinion on US colleges and universities in recent years.

Druckman, the Martin Brewer Anderson Professor of Political Science, says the findings paint a nuanced picture of an institution that Americans trust and view as a crucial incubator for technology and scientific innovation—despite facing challenges in the way of public perception.

“Universities remain among the most trusted institutions in American life,” Druckman says. “But there’s clear evidence that the public wants higher education to take its challenges seriously, from affordability to free speech. The good news is that broad support provides a foundation for doing just that.”

Broad support, deep concerns

According to the report, 59 percent of Americans approve of the role US universities play in society, and 75 percent say they trust them at least somewhat. This places higher education fourth among major institutions evaluated in terms of “institutional trust,” behind only hospitals and doctors, the military, and scientists and researchers.

Nine in 10 Americans recognize universities as vital for science and technology, while 83 percent credit them with advancing healthcare and economic growth. Nearly three-quarters also view them as crucial for democracy.

At the same time, the survey found widespread anxiety about campus life and rising costs:

• 87 percent of respondents say they are concerned about tuition and student debt.
• 84 percent worry about free speech on campus, and 77 percent about what they perceive as universities and colleges having a “liberal bias.”
• More than eight in 10 express concerns about discrimination on campus, including racism, antisemitism, and Islamophobia.
• Three-quarters have concerns about transgender athletes.

“These aren’t fringe issues,” Druckman says. “They’re shared concerns across the political spectrum, even if people disagree on solutions. The data suggest the public isn’t anti-university. People just want to see institutions engage constructively with difficult topics.”

Majorities oppose federal and state funding cuts

Another key takeaway is that the public strongly rejects government efforts to reduce university research support.

Majorities opposed cutting federal or state funding for science, health, or education by margins of roughly four or five to one. Nearly half of Americans say they favor more investment in scientific research, and 57 percent want more medical research funding.

The survey found that many respondents would act to protect research funding:

• 57 percent say they would contact a member of Congress to oppose cuts to science funding if asked by a university to which they have ties.
• 62 percent would do the same to defend health research.

Those findings, Druckman notes, show universities have an underused reservoir of public goodwill.

“There’s enormous potential for mobilization,” he says. “People want to stand up for the research and innovation that make universities essential to national progress.”

A complex but promising picture

The report, authored by Druckman along with David Lazer and Mauricio Santillana (Northeastern), Katherine Ognyanova (Rutgers), and Matthew Baum (Harvard), argues that higher education operates from a “position of relative strength,” but faces “genuine vulnerabilities” that could erode that strength if left unaddressed.

The researchers recommend that universities emphasize shared values—such as scientific discovery, technological innovation, and community benefit—while proactively acknowledging public concerns about affordability, discrimination, and free expression, and avoiding dismissing them as partisan attacks.

AHEB plans to release additional reports tracking changes in attitudes over time and exploring how public views of universities intersect with politics, media coverage, and policy debates.

For Druckman, who is widely considered an authority on political polarization and trust in institutions, the findings offer a measure of optimism.

“We live in an era in which many institutions have lost credibility,” he says. “Universities haven’t. They still enjoy the confidence of most Americans—Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike.

“That’s an extraordinary asset,” he adds, “but one that must be nurtured.”

Criticism that opinion journalism blurs the lines of just-the-facts reporting and has no place among media outlets that stake their reputation on balanced coverage has intensified in recent years.

But as media fragmentation and public mistrust in journalism deepens, , an associate professor in the at the , offers a fresh lens through which to understand opinion journalism.

Her suggests that commentary, while often dismissed as biased and at odds with fact-based journalism, plays a vital role in a healthy democracy by “facilitating appropriate uncertainty” on unsettled questions of public import.

Navigating unanswered questions

There is no shortage of questions with unsettled answers. What principles should guide the allocation of public resources? What drives inflation, and what policies most effectively reduce it? What is the best way to end a war? These questions can be debated.

Opinion writers, Soysal argues, are in a strong position to help news consumers make sense of questions like these because they have the agency to convey the breadth and depth of potential answers and report on the total distribution of evidence.

Soysal’s research paid special attention to commentary in mainstream American newspapers, but she says her arguments can be applied to opinion journalism more broadly.

The origins of modern opinion journalismÌę

The model of the modern newspaper opinion section was born on September 21, 1970, in The New York Times. That day, readers looking for the obituaries in their usual place opposite the editorial page found something new: essays by a political scientist, a Chinese novelist, and a journalist from Baltimore.

The section was a new form of journalism The Times called “the Op-Ed,” so named because it appeared opposite the editorial page and not, as many people supposed then and for decades afterward, because it offered “opinion editorials” or views contrary to, or “opposite of,” The Times’s editorials.

The idea was to, as The Times put it, “provide a forum for wide-ranging political, social, personal and whimsical expression and commentary on the issues of the day” and “stimulat[e] new thought and provok[e] new discussion on public problems.”

While the “Op-Ed” section became a must-read and spawned a new standard for the newspaper industry, it has been perennially dogged by confusion about its name and role in the ensuing decades. The Times renamed the section “Guest Essays” in 2021.

“A half century ago, Times editors made a bet that readers would appreciate a wider range of opinion,” The Times’s Opinion Editor Kathleen Kingsbury . “We are making much the same bet, but at a time when the scales of opinion journalism can seem increasingly tilted against the free and the fair, the sober and honest. We work every day to correct that imbalance.”

More transparency can build more trust

To preserve and enhance the good served by opinion journalism, Soysal makes a case for greater transparency on the part of authors and the news outlets as to the “epistemic status of claims,” or strength of evidence, in commentary.

“For instance, opinion journalists could explicitly mention the uncertainty of the issues discussed, using expressions of uncertainty and hedges (‘this is an unsettled question, and future evidence could shift our understanding’, ‘one reasonable interpretation is that’, etc.),” Soysal writes. “This type of flagging could be done at the level of individual opinion pieces, or at a more general level, for instance, in the general description of the opinion section.”

Soysal notes that opinion journalism is a growing part of the news media landscape, and she makes the case that, when properly framed, it is not only compatible with the mission of journalism but also integral to it.

“As I see it,” Soysal writes, “if newspapers were more explicit about this function—rather than relying on the brief, unclear, and sometimes even contradictory explanations they currently provide—it might help foster greater trust in opinion journalism and offer a stronger justification for its role in public discourse.”