Colgate University professors from a range of social science fields gathered to discuss their approaches to teaching immigration on Thursday, Oct. 30. The event was part of the Division of Social Sciences Fall 2025 Luncheon Seminar Series, “Undocumented Migration Into a Hostile America.”
The panel, consisting of Associate Professor of Educational Studies Sally Bonet, Associate Professor of Political Science Navine Murshid, Associate Professor of Sociology Chandra Russo and Professor of Economics Chad Sparber, discussed their approaches to researching immigration and their thoughts on classroom advocacy to a room full of students and faculty.
Led by Associate Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies and Geography Teo Ballvé, the panel aimed to explore how various subjects approach the study of migration rather than the politics of migration. Each professor grappled with the way they approach neutrality in their work. While the panel was advertised as a discussion of immigration, the conversation drifted towards the role of activism in the classroom.
Ballvé began the panel by asking the speakers to discuss how their research looks at immigration. With this question, respondents focused on the specificities of their department at Colgate.
“I came into academia because of my own involvement in immigrant justice organizing, but I am really a scholar of social movements,” Russo said. “That said, I would say the politics of immigration are really central to what I think about and what I research.”
Murshid then reflected on how she has questioned her role as an advocate to her students, prompting Ballvé to transition the discussion toward how personal politics and increasing political polarization shape the way professors approach presenting their research.
“I don’t hold it as an ideal for myself – of being a neutral scholar. I would say that I attempt to be a rigorous, empirically-driven and careful scholar, but I don’t think that I’ve ever tried to be neutral or ever understood myself as being able to operate without politics and particularly the politics of immigration,” Russo said. “It feels completely perilous to try to be neutral or to try to self-censor.”
Sparber offered a different perspective on neutrality from the more empirically-driven economics department.
“One thing that I love about economics … I think that we are so obsessed with understanding costs and benefits that it has a moderating force to it – that it forces us to see nuance and the validity of arguments from both sides,” Sparber said. “I take it as a point of pride that [my research] has had influence on both sides of the aisle.”
Bonet connected the question of neutrality back to the theme of immigration.
“I don’t ever aspire to be neutral. I think it’s really important for people to understand ways in which this particular group of people has been shaped by our national politics as well as our international politics,” Bonet said. “People feel that neutrality should be at the forefront … that’s not my goal here. I see advocacy through my teaching as a way to raise awareness.”
Russo continued the conversation of advocacy in the classroom on a broader scale than just immigration issues.
“I don’t think of my teaching itself as a space of advocacy,” Russo said. “I don’t see it as my job to socialize my students into a particular stance. I see it as my job to give them the best and, frankly, most interesting sociological research, and I like to invite us to discuss the merits and potential pitfalls of any argument.”
As a self-proclaimed conservative, Sparber received the next set of questions about neutrality in classroom discussions. Sparber used the opportunity to discuss how he presents his research to people with differing stances from his own.
“Neutrality is more or less my goal, and presenting both sides of an argument is really important to me,” Sparber said. “I spend time talking about where differences of opinion arise and why they arise. … If I want people to take my empirical research seriously, I want them to see it as fundamentally objective that I’ve looked at the data and I’ve looked at the facts.”
Bonet wrapped up the conversation on advocacy in the classroom by discussing her experience teaching a Sophomore Residential Seminar (SRS) that visited Sudanese refugee communities in Egypt the previous winter. Bonet felt that having these experiences, regardless of one’s political opinions, made the students more informed about the issues at hand when they entered their careers.
“Seeing that, living it, is very different than learning about it theoretically,” Bonet said. “What you do with what you know … how [students] take this is up to them, but you won’t leave this class without knowing.”
The panel closed with 10 minutes of Q&A where students and faculty engaged panelists on the discussion topics. While beginning as a session on approaches to studying immigration, the panel evolved into a conversation about the challenges facing professors in higher education today.
