SHU Takes a Multidisciplinary Look at the Capitol Insurrection

Panel discussions view the event through the eyes of politics, history, media and religion

Sacred Heart University recently concluded its virtual panel discussion series, “American Democracy Under Siege,” which examined the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol through the lenses of politics, history, law and order, media and religion.

The media and the Capitol insurrection

A panel discussion on Feb. 16 looked at the media’s vulnerability, impact and failures during Donald Trump’s presidency, especially during his final days in office. The segment—moderated by Mark Congdon Jr., assistant professor of communication studies—noted the professional media’s weighty responsibility, especially since many people take what they hear or read in the news at face value, without fact-checking. “People trust media professionals to give them the correct information,” said Jill Collen Jefferson, civil and human rights attorney. “They base their opinions of the insurrectionists on what they heard in the news,” she added.

According to Eric Deggans, NPR’s television critic, many right-wing news outlets, such as Fox News, are political operations disguised as news channels and platforms. Deggans said their mission is to advance the conservative agenda in America. “Our biggest challenge is going to be breaking into these silos of information that propagandized people have created that is constantly reinforcing and regurgitating these right-wing-oriented media messages,” which he said are often steeped in erroneous stereotypes.

Photojournalist Shuran Huang said that, to provide fair, diverse and equal opportunities and perspectives, a newsroom needs a diverse staff. “I would say, when you talk about ‘What does it mean to be a practicing media professional or journalist in today’s political media and cultural environment?’ I think increasing diversity in any kind of newsroom is very important,” she stated.

The full discussion can be found on YouTube..

Party polarization and political extremism

Gary Rose, professor and chair of SHU’s department of government, moderated Feb. 23’s discussion. Rose asked the panelists about extremism and polarization in relation to the United States’ two-party system. Connecticut State Sen. Marilyn Moore (D-22) responded that people who stormed the Capitol building were fighting a system that was trying to be inclusive at a time when they did not want to be. “That extremism is really not necessarily about party, but that extremism comes from hate and racism.”

State Sen. Tony Hwang (R-28) had a different viewpoint. “The majority of the people who have registered to vote registered as unaffiliated,” said Hwang. “So, our dual-party system has created such identity, such divisiveness, that it is a point for re-evaluation in some cases.” 

Panelist Kathleen O’Gara, adjunct professor of government, observed that 25% of the insurrectionists who have been arrested belong to extremist groups. The other 75% do not belong to any political organizations but were radicalized and felt empowered to mobilize at the Capitol building that day. “I know you asked before about whether or not radicalism is embedded within the Republican Party, and I would say it’s not; we shouldn’t paint the whole Republican Party with that brush at all,” said O’Gara. “But those who contribute to advancing that false narrative of the election, that’s what radicalized that other 75% and made them feel that it was really important for them to be there.”

The full discussion can be found on YouTube..

Psychosocial context and the Capitol insurrection

Amanda Moras, associate professor of sociology and associate dean for student success for SHU’s College of Arts & Sciences, moderated the March 2 discussion about the psychosocial causes, impacts and consequences of the insurrection. Adrienne Crowell, assistant professor of psychology at SHU, said mob mentality may have influenced people to participate in the insurrection who normally may not have. “I think it’s important for us to understand that being in groups actually increases our arousal. And we know that when we’re feeling bodily arousal, we often will become more aggressive,” said Crowell. She also discussed right-wing authoritarianism, a personality trait that draws people to leaders and causes them to accept what public figures say at face value because they trust them. She said research has found Trump’s supporters are more likely to carry this trait.

The Department of Defense reports that fewer than 7% of Black Lives Matter protests have involved violence. However, “Pew Research Center found that despite the fact that the Black Lives Matter movement is overwhelmingly peaceful, 42% of Americans think that it is a violent movement,” said Colleen Butler-Sweet, associate professor of sociology. Meanwhile, people view white supremacist groups as relatively harmless. She said this stems from negative stereotypes of Black people and positive associations regarding white people.

Bryan Hall, clinical assistant professor of social work said, the country should find a way to move forward. “I feel very strongly that it starts with the simple acknowledgement that discrimination and racism exist and have been pillars of the American culture,” said Hall.

The full discussion can be found on YouTube..

The role of religion in the Capitol insurrection

Michelle Loris, chair of Catholic studies and associate dean at the College of Arts & Sciences, hosted the March 9 discussion about religion’s role in the insurrection. Chelsea King, Catholic studies lecturer, said certain evangelical Christians believe they are persecuted, but God is on their side, which can translate to a victim mentality. She said she struggles with the way the insurrectionists perceive themselves as representing the true American citizen. “It’s not the nation that they think that they’re attacking. To them, this is evil that they are attacking, and they represent what it means to truly be American,” said King.

Panelists said conspiracy theories played a large role in the insurrection. Some insurrectionists believed they were attacking people in false positions; therefore, they did not believe they were attacking a true government. Brian Stiltner, professor in the department of philosophy, theology and religious studies and co-director of the Hersher Institute for Applied Ethics, said, “People can tell a story, a myth, to themselves that really can justify all kinds of actions.”

Daniel Rober, associate lecturer of Catholic studies and assistant director of the Thomas More Honors Program, added that many people were willing to vote for Trump to protect their religious beliefs. “I think that sense of cultural grievance leads to a lot of either support or lack of opposition,” he said. Rober also drew parallels between the use of religion to justify the insurrection and to defend slavery during the Civil War. “One of the things that happened in the debates leading up to the war was the deployment of religious language, certainly by the abolitionists opposing slavery, but also, at the same time, by those defending slavery who became very wrapped up in a certain interpretation of biblical narratives,” he said.

The full discussion can be found on YouTube..