DukeUniversity

Duke University junior Sherman Criner talks about The Lemur, a student-run magazine he and a fellow student started. Read Duke University's civil discourse series: https://today.duke.edu/2024/10/dialogue-across-difference

Duke University junior Zachary Partnoy talks about The Lemur, a student-run magazine he and a fellow student started. Read Duke University's civil discourse series: https://today.duke.edu/2024/10/dialogue-across-difference

Duke's Nasser Hussain explains how he creates an inviting, welcoming classroom environment so students can discuss controversial issues openly.

Information: https://sanford.duke.edu/blog-post/civil-discourse-project-moving-polis/

Increased drilling for oil is meant to stimulate the economy. But what effect will greater use of oil and gas have on public health? David Boyd challenges our new president to consider this and other unintended consequences of public policy decisions in this episode of "Glad You Asked." Boyd is an associate professor of the practice at the Duke Global Health Institute and is an expert in global health and cross-cultural medicine. From Duke University, this is “Glad You Asked.” A new administration in the White House means new issues on the table, so we wondered, if you could ask our new President one question, what would it be? Transcript: “I’m David Boyd, and I’m a professor at the Duke Global Health Institute. My question would be about policy. Mr. Trump, are you willing to think through the unintended consequences of your policies? For example, fossil fuels. Now we’re talking about producing more and using fossil fuels more. Yes, perhaps that would have a short-term economic boost to certain sectors of the economy. But compare that to the health implications and the long-term costs. We know now that the particulate matter in fossil fuels actually pass through the lungs into the circulatory system and are implicated in heart disease and even dementia. There’s a difference in life expectancy of five years in northern and southern China, and it’s directly related to air pollution. What will this cost us in terms of health care, long-term, in this country? Is it really worth it? Another example, the global gag rule, which has been reinstituted and which prohibits funding to NGOs that discuss, refer, or perform pregnancy terminations or abortions. Well, those organizations, for the most part, also provide a lot of primary healthcare to many people in under-resourced settings. And the sicker those populations are, the less their economy develops, which is going to have a direct impact on trade with the U.S. So you can’t really just think about America as being separate from the rest of the world. We live in an interdependent world, and what happens in the rest of that world has an impact on the United States.” This is Glad You Asked. To subscribe, visit bitly.com/gladyouaskeditunes. That’s bitly.com/gladyouaskeditunes.

About 63 percent of Americans are working or looking for work, but what about the rest? And what measures might help boost job prospects for out-of-work Americans?Jared Bernstein and Michael Strain discuss the nation's labor participation rate and what it tells us about the health of the U.S. economy, with moderator Aaron Chatterji. Bernstein is a senior member of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and a former member of the Obama administration. Strain is the director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. Chatterji is an associate professor at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business and Sanford School of Public Policy.

Our society gives the mentally ill short shrift, so much so that "we'll look back on it in 100 years' time as absolutely appalling," says Jane Costello. Severe mental illness burdens families, taxes the criminal justice and shortens lives. And we'll continue to pay those heavy prices until we take the issue seriously, Costello says. Costello is a professor in the psychiatry department at the Duke University School of Medicine and the Duke department of psychology and neuroscience an associate director of the Duke Center for Child and Family Policy.

Health insurance premiums for individuals dropped by 10 percent during the first year of Obamacare. What does that number tell us about whether or not the Affordable Care Act is working? Don Taylor and Michael Cannon debate that question on this episode of Zeroing In, with host Aaron Chatterji. Taylor is a professor at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy. Cannon is the director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. Aaron Chatterji is an associate professor at Duke's Fuqua School of Business and Sanford School of Public Policy.

The U.S. defense budget for 2015 was $597 billion, more than the next 14 nations combined. Is our country spending too much on defense or not? And are our dollars going to the right priorities? Peter Feaver and Lawrence Korb discuss those questions on this episode of Zeroing In, hosted by Aaron Chatterji. Feaver is a professor of political science and public policy at Duke University who served on the National Security Council Staff under presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Korb is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who served as assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan. Chatterji is an associate professor at Duke's Fuqua School of Business and Sanford School of Public Policy. Zeroing In receives engineering assistance from Johnny Vince Evans. Music: "Tra-la-la" by Podington Bear, www.soundofpicture.com.

Women earn 17 percent less per week than men, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Liz Ananat and Karin Agness debate the pay gap between men and women -- what it means, where it's worst, and what's driving it -- on this episode of Zeroing In: The Numbers Behind the 2016 Election, moderated by Aaron Chatterji. Zeroing In takes a look at key issues on the election agenda, one number at a time. Numbers matter, but in politics, they can be used to muddy the waters rather than enlighten. Each episode of Zeroing In starts with one key statistic tied to a critical issue in the 2016 election. Experts from different points on the political spectrum debate what that number means -- and what it doesn't mean -- with help from moderator Aaron Chatterji, an associate professor at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business and Sanford School of Public Policy. Ananat is an economist, an associate professor in Duke's Sanford School of Public Policy and a faculty fellow of Duke's Center for Child and Family Policy. Agness is founder and president of the Network of Enlightened Women, an organization for conservative university women, and a contributor to Forbes. Music: "Tra-la-la" by Podington Bear (http://soundofpicture.com)

Education is more than job training, says Priscilla Wald. It's essential to forming citizens of a democracy. And the humanities are a critical part of that training. Wald is a professor of English at Duke University, where she directs the Program in Gender, Sexuality and Feminist Studies.

As a nation, we spend millions on healthcare, especially at the end of life. What are we giving up in return? Dan Ariely, professor of psychology and behavioral economics at Duke University, says it's time to face up to those choices. Ariely is also featured on this month's episode of "Ways & Means," describing how human behavior gets in the way of government innovation. Listen at: http://www.waysandmeansshow.org/. Transcript: From Duke University, this is “Glad You Asked,” where we consider the question, “What should we be talking about this election season?” "My name is Dan Ariely, I’m the James B. Duke Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Economics at Duke University. So this election season, we’re talking about lots of things. One of the things we’re not talking about is rationing healthcare. So a long time ago, when all we need to pay in healthcare was a doctor walking around with her bag, we could basically afford lots of healthcare. But as technology is moving into healthcare, things become expensive. When I was a kid, there was a six-million-dollar man, Steve Austin. I think, now, six million is cheap, right? We can spend much more on people just in the last year of life. We’re spending about 19 percent of GDP on health, and a lot of it is at the end of life. And what we’re not talking about is, if we prolong the lives of some people, where’s the money coming from, and what are we not able to do in society? If we invest in the last two years of life, we’re not investing a lot in the early years of life. If we’re investing a lot in health, we’re not investing in infrastructure. So if we could fund education, and we could fund health, and we could fund defense, no problem. It’s very clear that we can’t fund all of those things. What medicine is doing is making clear what very difficult tradeoffs we have. What are we going to invest in as a society and what are we not? What are we willing to give up? Everybody is saying what they want more of, we’re not talking about what we’re going to give up, and medicine is one of the areas that I think are the most ripe for this moral discussion." You can hear more from Dan Ariely in the new episode of the podcast, Ways and Means. Find it at waysandmeansshow.org. That’s waysandmeansshow.org.

Our next president must make sure corporations play by the rules, without stifling innovation, says Aaron Chatterji. How will a new president walk that important tightrope, protecting the public from events such as the recent Volkswagen scandal, while encouraging business innovation and investment? That's a key question to pose to candidates, Chatterji says. Chatterji is an associate professor at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business. Transcript: From Duke University, this is “Glad You Asked,” where we consider the question, “What should we be talking about this election season?” “My name is Aaron Chatterji. I’ve been at Duke since 2006 at the Fuqua School of Business. One of the things they should start talking about, I think, in the presidential campaign is the proper role of business in society and corporate responsibility. The next president is going to have make a lot of decisions on government regulations on business. Three recent examples are helping me think about this. One is Volkswagen and the emissions scandal. Here you seem to have a very clear case of a company that was a market leader cheating by adding software to reduce the amount of emissions during a test and not the actual emissions when the car was on the road. A lot of consumers have been hurt. Volkswagen and the entire automobile industry have been harmed. How do you prevent scandals like that? What would the next president do to make sure that corporations played by the rules? That’s a question I’d be asking, but there are other more nuanced issues about the role of business and government. Take the example of drug prices. Drug prices are rising fast this year. In some cases, new entrants are entering the market, buying up a drug that has been in a market that’s not very competitive and raising the prices dramatically. What’s fair in terms of drug prices? Is it as much as we can get, or is there some norm or value judgment associated with the right price for a prescription drug? These companies spend a lot of money developing drugs and often take years to get the return on investment they made on the original drug. And so the companies saying, ‘If we want to fund future innovation, if we want the life-saving medicines that we rely on, we’re going to need to be able to charge sufficient prices to recoup our investments.’ How will the next president deal with this issue, the balance between innovation and entrepreneurship on the one hand and patient safety and access to drugs on the other? There’s also going to be challenges coming from new areas. In so many areas in the economy, we’re seeing new business models. Take the online lending market. You have the opportunity to open up credit markets to people who never had that access before. And if you can give people credit, they can start a business or increase their savings. The issue though, is, how do we balance the need for entrepreneurship and innovation in these new areas with the possibility that some people might get the short end of the stick. The next president has to think about that when it comes to new models of innovation and entrepreneurship as well.” You’ve been listening to “Glad You Asked.” To subscribe, visit bitly.com/gladyouaskeditunes. Again, that’s bitly.com/gladyouaskeditunes.

As the National Park Service prepares to turn 100 in August, our national parks represent a terrifically valuable asset in need of attention, says Stuart Pimm. Pimm is a professor of conservation ecology at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment. He helped establish the new Park Institute of America, an independent nonprofit located at Duke that is dedicated to protecting America's national parks. The new institute is a collaboration between Duke University and the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, a nonprofit comprised of former National Park Service employees. Transcript: From Duke University, this is “Glad You Asked,” where we consider the question, “What should we be talking about this election season?” Stuart Pimm is professor of conservation ecology at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment. “I think what our politicians should be talking about is science and technology and the environment. National parks are a very, very good example of how people don’t always grasp just how much the environment is worth to us. Many years ago, there was a government shutdown. And when that happened, the national parks were shut down, and people across our nation howled in pain. It wasn’t just the people who wanted to visit the parks. It was the fact that the national parks bring in an amazing amount of money into local economies. Approximately one American visits a national park a day, a year. But for every visit that somebody who is getting there, going there, eating near there, staying near there. So even if you just thought of national parks in purely economic terms, you would conclude that they are a very, very good idea indeed. And of course, they are places that inspire us, places where we get refreshed by being in nature. Many parks need more resources. The infrastructure is getting to be old. People need better facilities. We don’t have as many national parks in the East as I think we should. The Southeast in the United States has a lot of important biodiversity. It has very few areas that are protected as national parks. I think we need to make a better case that our parks need more resources, more love, more attention. We need more of them. And I think this centenary year is a way of celebrating all the things national parks do for us.” You’ve been listening to “Glad You Asked.” To subscribe, visit bitly.com/gladyouaskeditunes. Again, that’s bitly.com/gladyouaskeditunes.

We could do a lot to improve public health and reduce runaway medical expenses if we focussed more on preventing disease and less on medical fixes, says Gary Bennett. Bennett is a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University. Transcript: From Duke University, this is “Glad You Asked,” where we consider the question, “What should we be talking about this election season?” "I’m Gary Bennett. I’m a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke. I think we should be talking about the idea that good policy is better than medicine. The problem that we have in the U.S. right now is that we have healthcare costs that are just spiraling completely out of control. And this is really unsustainable. And if you look at what we’re dying of, there are things like cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes. These are all mostly preventable conditions. And then the burden of those conditions falls disproportionately on the poor. And if you can’t get behind the moral imperative to fix that problem, then I think you have to get behind the economic one, which is, we just can’t afford it. The good news here is that if you look at these leading killers, you can seriously mitigate your risk by doing some extremely common sense, very simple things. Things like never smoking, losing weight, eating a healthy diet and being physically active. For those four conditions, we have good treatments. But they all require high levels of motivation. And we know that a lot of the American population just is not motivated to improve their obesity and their diet and their physical activity and their smoking rates. And that’s where good policy comes in. Because good policy can help to structure environments in a way that the default choice is always a healthy choice. So we really need to be thinking about the kinds of policies that can make our world a place where it’s easier to be healthier. In the area of physical activity, what would really help is for us to create neighborhoods that had greater street connectivity, to increase the number of sidewalks, to increase our bike lanes, to really make our physical environments conducive to physical activity. And that requires good public policy. It requires investments in our physical infrastructure. In the area of obesity, we have good examples here in North Carolina of policies that are designed to make it easier for corner store operators to offer healthy fruits and vegetables. These are really important policies that can add meaningfully to the health of Americans." You’ve been listening to “Glad You Asked.” To subscribe, visit bitly.com/gladyouaskeditunes. Again, that’s bitly.com/gladyouaskeditunes.

Supporters of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders share a key trait in common, says Charles Dunlap: they feel excluded from the political process. Such large numbers of disaffected voters are a bad sign not just for the major parties, but for the state of our democracy, Dunlap says. Dunlap is a retired U.S. Air Force Major General and a professor of the practice at Duke Law School. Transcript: “I’m Charlie Dunlap. I’m a retired Air Force major general. I’m a professor of the practice of law at the law school, and I run the center for law, ethics, and national security. I think what’s interesting is the phenomena of the Bernie Sanders and the Donald Trumps. They seem to be tapping into a group of people who feels excluded from the political process in one way or another. And it’s easy to be dismissive of them because they’re at opposite ends of the spectrum. But in a lot of ways, they have some commonalities, and we need to understand that, and I think be concerned that we have millions of people who feel excluded from the political process. Military members are much more like the general public than some people like to think. And so I think that there very much is the same sort of concern about the political process in the ranks, just like there is in the general public. I think the message to the party leadership is they better start listening to these disaffected voters in both parties and what it is that they want to see in candidates. And I think that what they want to see is authenticity. Even when it’s telling them something they don’t want to hear or even find offensive, they still value that authenticity over whatever the message is. They don’t want people just repeating talking points or just looking at the polls and trying to shape their message accordingly. It says to me that a lot of people are disaffected from the political process. And we need to be concerned about that because a democracy’s vibrancy and effectiveness depends upon everyone feeling like they have a part in it and a stake in it.“ You’ve been listening to “Glad You Asked.” To subscribe, visit bitly.com/gladyouaskeditunes. Again, that’s bitly.com/gladyouaskeditunes.

Police shootings around the country have helped put local politics in the spotlight, says Duke University's Mark Anthony Neal. Neal points to local prosecutors' critical role in deciding whether or not to pursue charges. Neal is a professor of English and African and African American Studies at Duke University. Transcript: From Duke University, this is "Glad You Asked," where we consider the question "What should we be talking about this election season?" “I am Mark Anthony Neal, professor of African and African American Studies and professor of English at Duke University. You know for me the thing that we could be talking about more is this issue about the responsibilities of prosecutors in police shootings. Body cameras are attempting to change how we think about these interactions particularly for law enforcement and for urban and black communities. But for me, the body cameras only do part of the story. You know we actually will see what happens in the context of what gets captured with body cameras. Then it goes to a district attorney and we don’t see indictments. So I think those are cases where we should see special prosecutors appointed. It is a conflict of interest if you’re expecting a district attorney to hold law enforcement accountable and that same district attorney needs law enforcement to do their job effectively. You know politics is always local. And I think we have now suddenly seen a kind of shift – we spent a lot of time particularly since 2008 focusing on national politics and that’s important. But very often I think we’ve paid so much attention on the national issues that we haven’t paid attention at what happens on a local level. What we’ve seen with these DA cases in Cleveland and Chicago is that folks are recognizing that some of the real power occurs on the local level. We’ve seen the way that the legislature here in North Carolina was split for the first time in a century. What’s gone down in terms of voting rights in this state, the debates that we are having now about bathrooms. That’s all stuff that’s connected to local politics and I think because of these police shootings and the very national focus that we’ve seen on them around the role and power of district attorneys, suddenly that has allowed folks to think more sophisticatedly about politics on the local level.” You've been listening to "Glad You Asked." For more commentary on the 2016 elections, visit DukeCampaignStop2016.org.

National service programs such as the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps offer big rewards at a bargain price, says Eric Mlyn. Mlyn is assistant vice provost for civic engagement at Duke University and director of the DukeEngage program. Subscribe to the Glad You Asked podcast at: itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/glad…1049406866?mt=10. Transcript: From Duke University, this is “Glad You Asked,” where we consider the question “What should we be talking about this election season?” “I’m Eric Mlyn and I’m the assistant vice provost for civic engagement at Duke and also the director of the DukeEngage program and teach in the Sanford School of Public Policy. “So I think one of the issues that has gotten very little attention is the issue of national service. “In general the U.S. government has been at the forefront of creating service programs. The one most people know about is the Peace Corps, which has funded over 200,000 Americans to serve abroad in civic capacities. “These are relatively small programs if you look at the scheme of the federal budget, but they are deeply impactful both for the people who participate in them and for the communities that are served. “Estimates show that for every dollar the United States spends on national service, three dollars accrues to the economy. And the other thing is that we know from data that people who participate in national service are likely to feel more a part of their democracy, they’re more likely to have a conception of themselves as citizens. “It has traditionally been -- though not always -- an issue that has gathered bipartisan support. And given that we have so few issues today in this polarized political environment that garner bipartisan support, I think that national service not only can be valuable in and of itself but as a forum for Democrats and Republicans, independents to get together and talk about things that they generally agree upon. “National service is both something that is a bargain for the United States and something that has in the past and could in the future get a lot of bipartisan support and for that reason I would urge the candidates to talk about this more.” You’ve been listening to “Glad You Asked.” For more commentary on the 2016 elections visit DukeCampaignStop2016.org.

Climate change, failing infrastructure and growing inequality add up to a perfect storm that is poised to hit the nation's poor, says Megan Mullin. Our weak infrastructure is ill-equipped for extreme weather events, which grow more likely with climate change. Meanwhile, storms and floods will hit poor communities especially hard, since those communities have even less to spend on repairing aging water pipes, roads and bridges. Mullin is an associate professor of environmental politics at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment. Transcript: From Duke University, this is “Glad You Asked,” where we consider the question “What should we be talking about this election season?” “I’m Megan Mullin, associate professor of environmental politics at the Nicholas School. “It’s surprisingly missing, but so far we really seem to be missing conversation about climate change and the impacts it is having right now in American communities. We’ve had decades of inadequate investment in infrastructure. We have drinking water pipes that are deteriorating, bridges and roads and transit systems that are in disrepair, flood control infrastructure that is failing. And all of these systems are very much at risk. They would be at risk without climate change, but they are even more at risk given the growing likelihood of extreme natural events. “And we have sorted ourselves into communities mostly by income. And that means that American communities have very different capacities to protect themselves. “Across the board, we haven’t prepared ourselves adequately. But importantly, the inequality that we’ve seen growing over the last several decades not only is affecting people’s everyday lives, but is increasingly putting people at very different levels of risk from events that are unfolding and will continue to unfold because of climate change.” You’ve been listening to “Glad You Asked.” For more commentary on the 2016 elections visit DukeCampaignStop2016.org.

Donald Trump is "saying things in public that often people say in private spaces," says Joseph Winters. Rather than writing him off, we'd be wise to pay attention to what Trump's candidacy says about America's unresolved conflicts. Winters is an assistant professor of religion and African and African American studies at Duke. Transcript: From Duke University, this is Glad You Asked, where we consider the question “What should we be talking about this election season?” “My name is Joseph Winters. I am a professor of religious studies. Also I have a secondary position in African and African American Studies. My sense is that we should be talking about Donald Trump. You’re probably going to say, ‘Well, wait a minute, everybody’s talking about him.’ What I mean is that to some extent, Donald Trump’s rhetoric speaks to and points to underlying racial tensions that haven’t been resolved. For some people, Donald Trump is a kind of a surprise -- his campaign, the fact that he’s actually a viable candidate. I want to actually suggest he’s articulating and making public certain kinds of sentiments around race, gender, nation, citizenship, certain fears and anxieties that I think are actually more common than sometimes we suggest. When Donald Trump says, for instance, that ‘Mexico’s sending over their worst citizens,’ for some people who might have political commitments that are different than that, they might say 'This is a ridiculous statement; how can you say this?‘ If you look at, let’s say, certain blogs or certain websites and you look at the comments underneath, that kind of rhetoric is actually very common. There’s a way in which Donald Trump is kind of resisting what you might call a kind of political correctness in our culture. What he’s actually articulating is what I want to call, this is a term that Frederic Jameson kind of coined, a kind of political unconscious. Within our politically correct society, there are certain things people won’t say even if it’s on their mind. He’s saying things in public that many people say -- often men say, right? -- in private spaces. So I guess for me as somebody who was very dismissive at one point and has very different political commitments than he does, his rhetoric is resonating with a lot of people and I want to think about why that might be. One danger of not talking about that is that we see someone like Donald Trump as just an outlier. If we see him as an outlier then many people would assume ‘Yeah, we’re on this path of progress when it comes to equality, when it comes to understanding.' We should be talking about how his rhetoric and his speech acts are indicative of more fundamental problems. We need to have more of those kinds of discussions it seems to me." You’ve been listening to “Glad You Asked.” For more commentary on the 2016 elections, visit dukecampaignstop2016.org.

Biological agents can make "fairly cheap weapons for those who want to do us harm," says Dr. Christopher Woods of the Duke Global Health Institute. But protecting ourselves against both manmade and natural biological threats will take more investment, Woods says. Transcript: From Duke University, this is "Glad You Asked," where we consider the question "What should we be talking about this election season?" "My name is Christopher Woods. I'm an infectious disease clinician and a member of the Duke Global Health Institute. "One topic that has been absent has been the idea of global biosecurity, both the potential for deliberate release of biothreat agents as well as their natural occurrence." "We know that we have many enemies around the world. Bioterrorism has been a fairly cheap weapon for those who wish to do us harm. The pathogens that we're talking about are things like anthrax or plague. Each of those has been weaponized by either governmental or nongovernmental entities over the years. "In the wake of the 2001 bombings and subsequent anthrax cases there was a lot of investment into preparedness. That investment has waned. "The preparedness internationally is even more difficult. We've learned that nature has a way of filling the vacuum -- that is, there are always new pathogens that we will be threatened by. We need to be investing significantly in where those threats are occurring naturally. "We can't focus entirely on our domestic situation, our domestic preparedness. The United States has a responsibility that is not just altruistic but is self-serving to invest in global health and shoring up healthcare systems in those parts of the world where the likelihood of outbreaks is greater." You've been listening to "Glad You Asked." For more commentary on the 2016 elections, visit DukeCampaignStop2016.org.

New voter identification laws could sharply curb voter participation in N.C. and other states, says Gunther Peck. "These laws -- think of them as rotting the foundation of our democracy," Peck says. Peck is an associate professor of history and public policy at Duke University. Transcript: From Duke University, this is "Glad You Asked," where we consider the question "What should we be talking about this election season?" "My name is Gunther Peck, I'm an associate professor of history in the Sanford School as well as in the department of history here at Duke University. I think the most important issue for me are voting rights. Twenty states have passed laws that have tightened restrictions. North Carolina's is the most far-reaching and the most restrictive voting identification law in the country. "So the North Carolina law requires voters to have photo identification. It has eliminated same-day registration. It also has shortened early voting. "One of the least talked about but most consequential provisions of this law is that if you vote outside of your precinct -- let's say you've moved and you vote in your new precinct -- in the old law, you would cast a provisional ballot. As long as you were registered correctly, it would count. "In the current law, if you vote out of your precinct, they'll give you a ballot, and you could even vote. But it would be disqualified as an 'out of precinct' provisional ballot. Those are now technically illegal. "This is the first presidential election in which the real teeth of this law will be manifest, and so we don't yet know fully how many people will be discouraged from voting or outright disfranchised. But up until this election cycle North Carolina has been the closest state in the union, two election cycles in a row. "The estimates by our own board of elections is that nearly 500,000 North Carolina voters would not be able to meet the photo identification requirements of the new law. So half a million people potentially disfranchised. "So, these laws -- think of them as rotting the foundation of our democracy. We can debate all day long issues in civil or less than civil terms. But if people are compromised in their ability to vote, it skews the entire election. "So it's not about winning. It's about what these laws have done to the very essence of our democracy -- to what makes votes representative." You've been listening to "Glad You Asked." For more commentary on the 2016 elections, visit DukeCampaignStop2016.org.

Our piecemeal coastal policies are failing us, says Martin Smith. We're failing to consider a future of rising sea levels. Meanwhile, one beach town can make decisions that ripple down the coastline, affecting the shape of beaches miles away. "We're haphazardly geo-engineering a whole coast," Smith says. Smith is an economist at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment. Transcript: From Duke University, this is "Glad You Asked," where we consider the question, “What should we be talking about this election season?” "I'm Martin Smith, I'm an economist in the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University and I study the oceans. Setting aside the debates about how much climate change is attributable to human activities, we know that the climate is changing. We know that we have to deal with it. The places in this country that we are really needing to focus a lot of attention on right now are coastal communities. We have this growing population density in the coastal zone but we also have predictions from science that we're going to experience more major storm events, that we will have sea level rise or more sea level rise, more erosion of beaches. There are places in the coastal environment now that are likely going to be underwater in 100 or 200 years. And so all of these things are sort of coming to a head. What do we do about all that? But in the near term, we're behaving in a way that's myopic. The way we manage the coastal zone in the short run is sort of an 'every community for themselves' approach. When one community makes a decision about building a seawall or about nourishing its beach, they're not just affecting themselves. They're affecting towns that are 50 kilometers away. It may not be immediately apparent, but over time what we're actually doing is, we're haphazardly geoengineering a whole coast. We tend to be focussing on how do we put band-aids on problems. So we have a major event and then it's all about disaster relief. What we're not really thinking about is, if in the distant future some of these places aren't going to work, how do we get from this short run to that distant future without something really catastrophic happening in between? And the science is telling us that climate change will cause more major storm events. It's a reminder that we need to be thinking about this." You’ve been listening to "Glad You Asked." For more commentary on the 2016 elections, visit DukeCampaignStop2016.org.

The war on drugs is a collossal failure, wreaking havoc on Latin America and fueling a stream of illegal immigrants into this country, says Robin Kirk. Kirk is co-director of the Duke Human Rights Center at Duke University's Franklin Humanities Institute and a lecturer in anthropology at Duke University. From Duke University, this is "Glad You Asked," where we consider the question, “What should we be talking about this election season?” "My name is Robin Kirk. I’m the co-director of the Duke Human Rights Center at the Franklin Humanities Institute at Duke University. One thing I haven’t heard either the Democrats or the Republicans talk about seriously is our failed war on drugs. "The reason it’s important is because the drug trade is a dramatically destabilizing force in Latin America. It’s behind the migration of so many Central American children to the United States because they’re fleeing the drug gangs that have taken control of many Central American cities. "They’ve turned cities like Tegucigalpa in Honduras into war zones for young people, so young people either have to join the gangs or die, and that’s why so many of them are flooding into the United States as refugees. They’re fleeing a drug war in their own homes, in their own cities. And they see the United States as a refuge. "It’s been tremendously damaging in Latin America and tremendously damaging here in the way we have lost so many generations of people to minor drug offenses and to addiction. "We have as much or more cocaine coming into the United States as ever. It’s purer than ever. We really need to take a good hard look at the drug war and figure out a better way to manage drug consumptions, to help people who need help, to legalize it where we can, to be able to take the crime out of it. "The trade in illegal drugs has been with us for decades. We are never going to completely stop it. We had better figure out a better way to manage it." You’ve been listening to "Glad You Asked." For more commentary on the 2016 elections, visit DukeCampaignStop2016.org.

The word that best describes America's infrastructure is "crumbling," says Henry Petroski. Petroski is Aleksandar S. Vesic Professor of Civil Engineering at Duke University. His new book is "The Road Taken: The History and Future of America's Infrastructure." Transcript: From Duke University, this is "Glad You Asked," where we consider the question, “What should we be talking about this election season?” "I’m Henry Petroski, professor of civil engineering and professor of history at Duke University. I think one of the issues missing is infrastructure. The word is not missing. Politicians say it all the time, and infrastructure is a word that’s shorthand for a problem that’s usually qualified with adjectives like ‘crumbling’. But the money does not seem to be forthcoming from the government. The American Society of Civil Engineers puts out a report card every four years in which they grade the infrastructure in different categories: roads, bridges, sewer systems, airports, and so forth. The last one, which was 2013, was something like a D. Now, that’s not too hot. It’s not something we want to be proud of. But they also estimate what it would take to fix up the infrastructure and bring it up to, let’s just say, at least B grade, and that’s in the trillions of dollars. So we’re talking about real money. If we don’t invest in infrastructure – let’s say we don’t do anything at all – obviously, the roads are going to deteriorate. We’ve seen a lot of sinkholes developed for example. We’ve seen roads getting washed out. Our airports have been described as third world, some of them. The biggest thing as far as the nation is concerned is probably the importance of the infrastructure for the economy. We hear a lot of talk among the politicians about economic growth and whether it’s up or down, and so much of what that number is expected to be depends on the quality of our infrastructure. It’s a very important topic, but it’s not a glamorous topic. It’s an investment in the country, really." You’ve been listening to "Glad You Asked." For more commentary on the 2016 elections, visit DukeCampaignStop2016.org.

"If American families with children were a country, that country would have higher levels of net worth inequality than any other country on earth," says Christina Gibson-Davis. Gibson-Davis is an associate professor at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy and a faculty fellow at the Duke Center for Child and Family Policy. Transcript: From Duke University, this is "Glad You Asked," where we consider the question, “What should we be talking about this election season?” "My name is Christina Gibson-Davis. I’m an associate professor at the Sanford School of Public Policy. So there has been a lot of talk about inequality, people are very concerned that we’re in this new Gilded Age. What I would like to bring to people’s attention, though, are levels of inequality among families with children and how resources among families are really actually more unequally distributed than in the general population. The top 10 percent of families have access to 80 percent of all the net worth that is out there among families with children. The bottom half of families with children have negative net worth. So there is a huge disparity in how families with children experience income and wealth. Now, why should we care about this? Why does it matter? Well, it matters a lot. People know that college costs are going up. People know that it’s expensive to get things for their children. If families at the bottom don’t have any resources to direct towards getting an education for their kids or getting healthcare for their kids, then it becomes not only their problem but society’s problem, because these kids have very compromised life outcomes when they grow up. If American families with children were a country, we would have higher levels of net worth inequality than any other country on earth. So what I would like to see politicians pay attention to, even though it’s sort of in some ways less sexy than the billionaire Silicon Valley guy, is what’s happening to families with kids. How comfortable are we living in a society where the bottom 50 percent basically have no net worth?" You’ve been listening to "Glad You Asked." For more commentary on the 2016 elections, visit DukeCampaignStop2016.org.

The 24-hour economy is wreaking havoc on workers' lives and families, says Anna Gassman-Pines. Gassman-Pines is an assistant professor of public policy, psychology and neuroscience at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy and a faculty fellow with the Duke Center for Child and Family Policy. Transcript: From Duke University, this is "Glad You Asked," where we consider the question, “What should we be talking about this election season?” "My name is Anna Gassman-Pines. I’m assistant professor of public policy and psychology and neuroscience, and a faculty affiliate of the Duke Center for Child and Family Policy. "I think we should be talking about low-wage workers in the United States. In particular, low-wage workers' scheduling – what’s reasonable to expect and what we can do to help low-wage workers have more predictable schedules, schedules that are more reasonable for their lives that are going to help them advance in the workplace and also be able to take care of their kids. "Employers are increasingly able to use sophisticated software to place workers in schedules at all different times of day. So we know with the 24/7 economy, and people wanting to be able to go get a cup of coffee at any time of the day, that companies are filling in their schedules in ways that are not predictable for the workers themselves. "They often don’t have a lot of advanced notice. They often are highly variable from week to week, and they can include things like closing out a restaurant or coffee shop at the end of the day and having to be in the very next morning to open very early, and these are just not reasonable demands to be making of these workers, many of whom have children. "And there’s a lot of uncertainty for these workers about what they’re actually going to earn in any given week. If they are expecting to work a six-hour shift, and they get sent home three hours into that shift, that’s three hours less pay than they were expecting to make that week. And I think that we can have policy solutions that prevent that from happening." You’ve been listening to "Glad You Asked." For more commentary on the 2016 elections, visit DukeCampaignStop2016.org.

Presidential hopefuls have said little about global health, but preparing for pandemics should be high on the public agenda, says Gavin Yamey. Yamey is a professor of the practice of global health at the Duke Global Health Institute and at Duke's Sanford School of Public Policy. Transcript: From Duke University, this is Glad You Asked, where we consider the question, “What should we be talking about this election season?” “My name is Gavin Yamey. I’m a new professor in the practice of Global Health in the Duke Global Health Institute. Global health is getting practically zero attention right now in the U.S. presidential debate. But what Ebola exposed is that there aren’t really, in global health, any shortcuts. "When Ebola happened, there wasn’t a great public health system in place. We had no medicine, no vaccine, and no rapid diagnostic test for this disease. I think that for the global health community, this was something that exposed really major weaknesses in the international health response. "There are going to be outbreaks in the future. The question is, do we have a system in place that can respond in a timely, effective way? “So for example, if there is a serious flu pandemic, we want to have the technological capabilities to be able to produce the medicine and to vaccinate large numbers of people very quickly. "Ebola showed us that we do not have that system in place. And we are not investing in the kind of pandemic preparedness system that we should be. "We stand at a very remarkable time right now for global health, an unprecedented time. If we, as an international community, take the right steps in the next few years, we could see levels of infectious, maternal, and child deaths all around the world fall to universally low levels. "Today, we have the financial and the ever-improving scientific capabilities to make that happen -- if the international community comes together to seize those opportunities.” You’ve been listening to Glad You Asked. For more commentary on the 2016 elections, visit DukeCampaignStop2016.org.

Norman Wirzba sees a moral vacuum at the heart of the presidential campaign: He says candidates are ignoring society's most vulnerable citizens. Wirzba is a professor of theology, ecology and agrarian studies at Duke Divinity School who also teaches environmental ethics at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment. His books include "The Paradise of God: Renewing Religion in an Ecological Age." Transcript: Intro: From Duke University, this is "Glad You Asked," where we consider the question "What should we be talking about this election season?" "My name is Norman Wirzba, I'm a professor of theology and ecology here at the divinity school. One thing I'm very concerned about is that we're not talking very much about vulnerable populations in our society. We're not talking about the people who don't have power, who do not have a voice. First, I would put on that list, are children. I have a daughter who has just started teaching in the public schools. I'm absolutely horrified to see how they are being underfunded, under-appreciated. If you were to go and simply listen to the teachers and say "what are you seeing about our society?," they will tell you lots of stories about children who don't have enough to eat at home. These kids are being shaped with an imagination that teaches them that they really don't matter, that people don't really care for them. We also need to think about people who are suffering from mental health issues, about the mass levels of physical illness that people have. I think one thing that would be fabulous is if people who are running for office were required to spend time in public schools, in the prison system, in the Wal-Marts of our society, where you see people who are barely walking -- I mean they're walking around with oxygen tanks! They're being told in unmistaken terms that they're basically throwaway people. They just don't count in our society and their vote does not matter. We talk about America being this shining light, a moral example to the world. And I think our record with how we are treating our vulnerable populations suggests that we have basically abandoned them. When you look at the way many of our front-running politicians are talking, those people don't even show up on their radar screen. I think what we've got now is a conversation about economics without a conversation about the morality of our economy."

Presidential candidates should address police brutality and the need to reform policing practices in the U.S., says Jasmine Cobb. Cobb is an assistant professor of African and African American Studies and Art, Art History & Visual Studies at Duke University. Transcript: From Duke University, this is "Glad You Asked," where we consider the question "What should we be talking about this election season?" I'm Jasmine Nichole Cobb. I'm an assistant professor in the Department of African and African American Studies in joint appointment with the Department of Art, Art History & Visual Studies at Duke University. I think all presidential candidates need to speak to the issue of police brutality. There are too many instances of homicide where citizens die at the hands of police or in shadowy circumstances while in police custody. Some of the most notable cases we've seen in the past few years -- Sandra Bland, Walter Scott, Rekiya Boyd, Charisse Frances, Aiyana Stanley-Jones, Kindra Chapman, Kimberlee Randle -- These folks had encounters with police that went horribly bad. And so the sense that one can deal with police and suffer bodily harm is a real issue. The sense that one can deal with police and wind up in jail seemingly out of nowhere, even for failing to signal when pulling over -- this is an issue. And as it happens state by state, day by day on a reccuring basis a serious presidential candidate has to deal seriously with this issue. You've been listening to "Glad You Asked." For more commentary on the 2016 elections, visit dukecampaignstop2016.org

The lack of a coherent long-term care policy for seniors is one of our country's most pressing healthcare issues, says Don Taylor. Taylor is a professor of public policy at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy. Transcript: From Duke University, this is Glad You Asked, where we consider the question, “What should we be talking about this election season?” “I’m Don Taylor, professor of public policy here in the Sanford School of Public Policy. "I think the biggest, certainly the biggest health policy-related issue, and in my mind, the biggest public policy-related issue that no one talks about is the lack of a coherent long-term care financing approach in this country. "We have the Medicaid program, which people say, 'Well, that’s health insurance for poor people' but the Medicaid program is paying about 50% of all the nursing home bills in this country, and that’s because people become impoverished paying for long-term care. "Once people run out of their savings, very few people have private long-term care insurance. If they’re in a nursing home, once all their money is gone, then Medicaid will pay for them to live there until they die. "There are many problems with that approach. What we need is a more flexible long-term care financing approach that pushes resources to patients and families and lets them decide how to employ them. "The ideal would be to try to come up with a way to allow patients and families to work out a set-up for people to remain in their homes for as long as they possibly could. "The Medicare program doesn’t, as a matter of course, cover most long-term care. Having a health insurance program for elderly people that doesn’t directly address long-term care and how to provide high-touch, low-tech services that deal with disability make no sense in policy terms.” You’ve been listening to Glad You Asked. For more commentary on the 2016 elections, visit DukeCampaignStop2016.org.

Rising sea levels are just one way climate change is reshaping the world's oceans, says Susan Lozier. Lozier, an oceanographer, teaches at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment. She leads an international panel that is studying the effects of climate change in the North Atlantic. Transcript: From Duke University, this is Glad You Asked, where we consider the question, “What should we be talking about this election season?” “I’m Susan Lozier. I’m a professor in the Nicholas School here at Duke. In particular, I study the ocean’s role in climate change. “What I think we should be talking more about is climate change. Climate change has a big impact on the ocean. The one people might most be aware of is sea level rise, but the ocean also plays a really large role in the fact that is a reservoir for carbon dioxide. “Today, the ocean has absorbed 40% of the carbon dioxide that has been released since the Industrial Revolution. The mechanism is that in very high latitudes in north latitudes and southern latitudes near the poles, this is where the ocean can become very cold in the winter time, and it can take the properties that it has absorbed on the surface, like carbon dioxide, and because the water becomes so dense, it sinks to the bottom. “As the planet warms, the concern is that those surface waters won’t get cold enough to actually sink. “The ocean plays a very critical role in capturing and storing carbon dioxide. Global warming has the potential to fundamentally change the ocean’s ability to capture and store that Co2, and that has strong implications then for atmospheric temperatures and the continued warming of our planet.” You’ve been listening to Glad You Asked. For more commentary on the 2016 elections, visit DukeCampaignStop2016.org.