Professor Amanda Sturgill
@drsturg.bsky.social
50K followers 740 following 1.2K posts
Truthmonger. I write books, teach students and make podcasts about you being smarter about misinformation. #WeAreAltGov #DetectingDeception https://bit.ly/UnSpunPod
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Pinned
drsturg.bsky.social
When it comes to the battle against misinformation, no one is coming to save us. It's up to us. Here's why and what you need to do. theunspunpodcast.substack.com/p/moving-for...
Determined woman looking in the mirror pointing at herself.
Reposted by Professor Amanda Sturgill
altheacwilliams.bsky.social
I really, really enjoyed this episode, it put news and imagery into context with great clarity.Thanks also for the tips at the end - I needed to hear those. Cheers ,thanks so much for your work!
Reposted by Professor Amanda Sturgill
drsturg.bsky.social
"Faith gives legitimacy.
Leaders become anointed.
Dissent becomes sin.
Violence becomes acceptable."

Learn about civil religion in this week's UnSpun podcast. Here or wherever you pod. bbit.ly/UnSpunPod
A stadium crowd raises their hands in worship as a rock band performs in front of a backdrop of both an American flag and a cross.
drsturg.bsky.social
(and communications faculty)
joshpasek.com
How should university boards prepare?

- Strategize in advance (could happen here)
- Leverage internal expertise (strategize with political scientists, public policy scholars and law faculty)
- Respond collectively and support one another
-Stay true to the mission

This is the real fiduciary duty!
jackiegardina.bsky.social
@joshpasek.com, @umich.edu, provides boards of trustees a roadmap for responding to external pressue, like the so-called Educational Compact.

@aaup.org @utaustinaaup.bsky.social @aaup-penn.bsky.social

riverside.fm/shared/expor...
drsturg.bsky.social
"Faith gives legitimacy.
Leaders become anointed.
Dissent becomes sin.
Violence becomes acceptable."

Learn about civil religion in this week's UnSpun podcast. Here or wherever you pod. bbit.ly/UnSpunPod
A stadium crowd raises their hands in worship as a rock band performs in front of a backdrop of both an American flag and a cross.
drsturg.bsky.social
Seen this with some college students as well.
djwyszynski.bsky.social
My high schooler says there is a growing contingent of GenZ and GenA where “that’s so AI” is used as a pejorative. Their peer group increasingly look upon it not only as cheating but just stupid and fake.
drsturg.bsky.social
3/ Oh, and if you missed it, you might enjoy this piece from Sunday on people joining the military now. It's well-written and a gift link, so free to read. www.nytimes.com/2025/10/04/u...
Embedded text reads: A New York Times reporter was granted access to the program at Fort Jackson for a week in August. None of the dozens of trainees interviewed cited Mr. Trump's election as a factor in their decision to enlist. Many said they had come to Fort Jackson because they saw no other choice. "I was tired of being homeless," a 22-year-old trainees, who had grown up on a South Dakota Indian reservation, said. A 34-year-old from Ivory Coast graduated from an online college that promised him an I.T. career but instead left him $90,000 in debt. Others had joined to escape home or to make their families proud. Some said their recruiters had told them military service would protect their undocumented parents from deportation.
drsturg.bsky.social
2/ Meanwhile, people down the hill are dying for the glory of the state.

Friendly reminder that L'État, c'est moi is linked with Louis XIV of France. Literally means "I'm the state" and symbolizes absolute power in the crown.

That's what you die for.
drsturg.bsky.social
The portraits of kings in Europe make me laugh. Dressed up with swords and sometimes other pieces of armor, but also expensive clothes and furs.

A few have "battle shots" of the king far away from the battle, but pointing at it as if they had anything to do with the "glorious" goings on.
Reposted by Professor Amanda Sturgill
drsturg.bsky.social
FWIW: Here's the oath of office for Congress in the US (under the Current Practice subheadling):

history.house.gov/Institution/...
Oath of Office | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”— U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 3Oaths of office and allegiance have been features of government for centuries. When the United States were colonies of Great Britain, officials swore allegiance to the king. Colonial and state legislatures also created oaths that required members to swear allegiance to the state and often profess a belief in God as well. Today, Members of the House take an oath to uphold the Constitution in a group swearing-in on the House Floor on the opening day of a new Congress. Often, they pose for ceremonial photos individually with the Speaker following the official swearing-in. Constitutional FramingWhen the subject of an oath arose during the Federal Constitutional Convention, the founders were divided. Should an oath be required in a free country at all? And, should state officials swear allegiance to the federal Constitution or should federal officials swear to uphold state constitutions as well as the U.S. Constitution?Delegate James Wilson of Pennsylvania viewed oaths as “left handed security only” and that “a good government did not need them and a bad one could not or ought not to be supported.” The lexicographer and political writer Noah Webster called oaths “instruments of slavery” and a “badge of folly, borrowed from the dark ages of bigotry.” Both Wilson and Webster argued that people would be naturally inclined to support just governments so oaths were unnecessary. Many others thought such concerns were overwrought. In his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote that requiring oaths for government officials “would seem to be a proposition too clear to render any reasoning necessary in support of it.”Federalism also factored into early debates on the nature of oaths of office. Anti-Federalists were concerned about state officials having to swear to uphold the federal constitution while federal officials were not required to respect state constitutions. In Federalist 44, James Madison of Virginia argued that federal officials lacked the power to uphold state constitutions but that state officials played an important role upholding the U.S. Constitution. In particular, Madison said the administration of elections to federal offices, namely the President and Senate, depended on state legislatures.The Form of the OathThe founders decided to require an oath for federal and state officials—absent a religious test—in the Constitution, but the specifics—such as the wording of the oath—were left to the First Congress (1789–1791). In its first act, Congress specified the wording: “I, A.B. do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.” This oath was used for all federal officials except the President, whose oath was prescribed specifically in the Constitution (Article II, section 1, clause 8). The form of the oath has changed several times since that first act of Congress. During the Civil War, Congress mandated that the oath bar from office anyone who had been disloyal to the Union. Eventually, those elements of the “iron-clad” oath were dropped during revisions in 1868, 1871, and 1884. The oath used today has not changed since 1966 and is prescribed in Title 5, Section 3331 of the United States Code. It reads: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” In contrast to the presidential oath, where it’s used only by tradition, the phrase “so help me God” has been part of the official oath of office for non-presidential offices since 1862.Current PracticeRepresentatives usually take their oath during the first day of a new Congress, when the House organizes itself. After the Speaker is elected, the Member with the longest continuous service (the Dean of the House) administers the oath to the Speaker. This tradition originated in the British House of Commons, and has been the practice in the U.S. House since at least the 1820s (the Oath Act of 1789 did not mandate it). The Speaker, in turn, administers the oath to the rest of the Members en masse. The Speaker or Speaker Pro Tempore must swear in members who miss the mass swearing-in ceremony on the first day afterward; on rare occasions, the House has authorized other Members or local judges to swear-in absent Representatives.The current practice for swearing-in Members is an innovation of Speaker Nicholas Longworth of Ohio, who abandoned the practice of Members taking the oath by state delegations in 1929. Longworth altered the practice because he hoped the mass swearing-in would better “comport with the dignity and solemnity” of the ceremony and, according to some historical accounts, to avoid a potential attempt to challenge the seating of Oscar De Priest of Illinois, the first African American elected to Congress in the 20th century. While subsequent Speakers went back to the original method, in 1937 Speaker William B. Bankhead chose to return to the en masse swearing-in and this has remained the practice. Since the 80th Congress (1947–1949), Members have also been required to sign an oath, which is held by the Clerk of the House.For Further Reading5 U.S.C. §33312 U.S.C. §25“Article 6, Clause 3,” The Founders’ Constitution, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a6_3.html (accessed 13 April 2012).Bickford, Charlene Bangs, Kenneth R. Bowling, Helen E. Veit, eds. Debates in the House of Representatives: First Session April–May 1789. Volume X. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992).Bickford, Charlene Bangs, Helen E. Veit, eds. Legislative Histories. Volume VI. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992). Deschler’s Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States. Chapter 2. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1976–1977). Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States. Chapter V. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1907–1908).Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay. The Federalist Papers. (New York: Penguin Books, 1987).
history.house.gov
Reposted by Professor Amanda Sturgill
drsturg.bsky.social
I don't know what brought this to mind for me, but here's a video of former White House staffer Karl Rove being feted at an event. It brings to mind the aphorism "the more things change, the more they stay the same." youtu.be/Ln5RD9BhcCo?...
Rapping Rove
YouTube video by asapvid
youtu.be
drsturg.bsky.social
2/ Some echoes of the present moment.

The event is by and for the media - The radio and TV correspondents dinner.

The "dies from cringe" appropriation and grandiosity.

Anyway, here's Rove's Wikipedia page if you want to learn more about who's being feted.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove
Karl Rove - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
drsturg.bsky.social
I don't know what brought this to mind for me, but here's a video of former White House staffer Karl Rove being feted at an event. It brings to mind the aphorism "the more things change, the more they stay the same." youtu.be/Ln5RD9BhcCo?...
Rapping Rove
YouTube video by asapvid
youtu.be
Reposted by Professor Amanda Sturgill
drsturg.bsky.social
So...do other countries also govern by meme war?
drsturg.bsky.social
So...do other countries also govern by meme war?
drsturg.bsky.social
2/ I have said about students that they can be ignorant but hardworking or they can be smart and ... less hardworking. I can work with either. But ignorant and unwilling to work, I can't fix.

I'm not wild about euphemisms, though I chose them here. Feel free to substitute "dumb" and "lazy."
drsturg.bsky.social
It is so frustrating to see people in power making decisions that we KNOW are based on no or bad information.

It's especially frustrating when they are educated and I KNOW they know better.

It's downright angering when they expect to be immune from criticism of the quality of those decisions.
drsturg.bsky.social
Just got an email from USAA about special services for federal workers who are furloughed. If that's you and you bank or insure with them, you might want to check it out.

If you know other things available to furloughed feds, feel free to drop them below.
drsturg.bsky.social
FWIW: Here's the oath of office for Congress in the US (under the Current Practice subheadling):

history.house.gov/Institution/...
Oath of Office | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”— U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 3Oaths of office and allegiance have been features of government for centuries. When the United States were colonies of Great Britain, officials swore allegiance to the king. Colonial and state legislatures also created oaths that required members to swear allegiance to the state and often profess a belief in God as well. Today, Members of the House take an oath to uphold the Constitution in a group swearing-in on the House Floor on the opening day of a new Congress. Often, they pose for ceremonial photos individually with the Speaker following the official swearing-in. Constitutional FramingWhen the subject of an oath arose during the Federal Constitutional Convention, the founders were divided. Should an oath be required in a free country at all? And, should state officials swear allegiance to the federal Constitution or should federal officials swear to uphold state constitutions as well as the U.S. Constitution?Delegate James Wilson of Pennsylvania viewed oaths as “left handed security only” and that “a good government did not need them and a bad one could not or ought not to be supported.” The lexicographer and political writer Noah Webster called oaths “instruments of slavery” and a “badge of folly, borrowed from the dark ages of bigotry.” Both Wilson and Webster argued that people would be naturally inclined to support just governments so oaths were unnecessary. Many others thought such concerns were overwrought. In his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote that requiring oaths for government officials “would seem to be a proposition too clear to render any reasoning necessary in support of it.”Federalism also factored into early debates on the nature of oaths of office. Anti-Federalists were concerned about state officials having to swear to uphold the federal constitution while federal officials were not required to respect state constitutions. In Federalist 44, James Madison of Virginia argued that federal officials lacked the power to uphold state constitutions but that state officials played an important role upholding the U.S. Constitution. In particular, Madison said the administration of elections to federal offices, namely the President and Senate, depended on state legislatures.The Form of the OathThe founders decided to require an oath for federal and state officials—absent a religious test—in the Constitution, but the specifics—such as the wording of the oath—were left to the First Congress (1789–1791). In its first act, Congress specified the wording: “I, A.B. do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.” This oath was used for all federal officials except the President, whose oath was prescribed specifically in the Constitution (Article II, section 1, clause 8). The form of the oath has changed several times since that first act of Congress. During the Civil War, Congress mandated that the oath bar from office anyone who had been disloyal to the Union. Eventually, those elements of the “iron-clad” oath were dropped during revisions in 1868, 1871, and 1884. The oath used today has not changed since 1966 and is prescribed in Title 5, Section 3331 of the United States Code. It reads: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” In contrast to the presidential oath, where it’s used only by tradition, the phrase “so help me God” has been part of the official oath of office for non-presidential offices since 1862.Current PracticeRepresentatives usually take their oath during the first day of a new Congress, when the House organizes itself. After the Speaker is elected, the Member with the longest continuous service (the Dean of the House) administers the oath to the Speaker. This tradition originated in the British House of Commons, and has been the practice in the U.S. House since at least the 1820s (the Oath Act of 1789 did not mandate it). The Speaker, in turn, administers the oath to the rest of the Members en masse. The Speaker or Speaker Pro Tempore must swear in members who miss the mass swearing-in ceremony on the first day afterward; on rare occasions, the House has authorized other Members or local judges to swear-in absent Representatives.The current practice for swearing-in Members is an innovation of Speaker Nicholas Longworth of Ohio, who abandoned the practice of Members taking the oath by state delegations in 1929. Longworth altered the practice because he hoped the mass swearing-in would better “comport with the dignity and solemnity” of the ceremony and, according to some historical accounts, to avoid a potential attempt to challenge the seating of Oscar De Priest of Illinois, the first African American elected to Congress in the 20th century. While subsequent Speakers went back to the original method, in 1937 Speaker William B. Bankhead chose to return to the en masse swearing-in and this has remained the practice. Since the 80th Congress (1947–1949), Members have also been required to sign an oath, which is held by the Clerk of the House.For Further Reading5 U.S.C. §33312 U.S.C. §25“Article 6, Clause 3,” The Founders’ Constitution, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a6_3.html (accessed 13 April 2012).Bickford, Charlene Bangs, Kenneth R. Bowling, Helen E. Veit, eds. Debates in the House of Representatives: First Session April–May 1789. Volume X. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992).Bickford, Charlene Bangs, Helen E. Veit, eds. Legislative Histories. Volume VI. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992). Deschler’s Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States. Chapter 2. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1976–1977). Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States. Chapter V. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1907–1908).Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay. The Federalist Papers. (New York: Penguin Books, 1987).
history.house.gov
drsturg.bsky.social
3/ No, I'm not huffily cancelling my subscription.

1. It's a column
2. News orgs screw up some times, like any org does. But economic pressure is a real reason lots of news products have degraded and we need news.
drsturg.bsky.social
2/ I'm keeping my gift link because I think the headline is misleading. The column says Republicans are destroying the Affordable Care Act through limitations that make it unaffordable for a lot of people, instead of a politically damaging repeal. And yes, there are charts.
drsturg.bsky.social
So, um, @nytimes.com, I though the Repubicans controlled the administration and both parts of the legislative branch?
Screenshot of New York Times headline reading "These 6 charts explain why Democrats shut down the Government"