Lesson Report:
**Title: Institutional Bias, the “Blob,� and Launching Individual Conflict Case Studies**
In this session, students moved from thinking about individual bias in media consumption to institutional bias in U.S. foreign policy discourse. Using Gaza as a running case, the class mapped “taboo� vs. “acceptable� opinions in a hypothetical U.S. government job interview, then connected this to Stephen Walt’s concept of the foreign‑policy “blob� and the revolving door between government, media, academia, and think tanks. The second half of class pivoted to long‑term semester projects: each student selected an international issue to “own� and began systematically mapping key actors, stakes, and desired endgames.
—
## Attendance
– **Number of students explicitly mentioned absent:** 8
– **Names mentioned as absent at roll call:**
– Albina
– Mehrona
– Harmin
– Aydina
– Mukadas
– Zamira
– Beknazar
– Aynazik
*Note: Albina participates later in discussion, so she appears to have arrived after roll call.*
—
## Topics Covered (Chronological, with Detailed Progression)
### 1. Opening and Framing the Week
– **Administrative start**
– Attendance taken by name; noise from “beautiful singingâ€� in the background.
– Note that some students are expected to straggle in after an event/party.
– **Framing the week’s objective**
– Last week: focus was on **individual bias** in digesting media (news, social media, etc.).
– **This week’s shift:** from individuals to **institutions**—how and why specific institutions (especially in the U.S.) exhibit particular, recurring biases.
– The instructor announces a return to the **Gaza maps** made previously (three‑column chart exercise from Thursday) as an anchor case.
—
### 2. Gaza Interview Thought Experiment: Mapping “Taboos� vs. Accepted Wisdom
**Activity setup**
– Students are asked to **imagine applying for a U.S. federal government job** (broadly defined: senator, congressional analyst, Foreign Service, etc.).
– In the job interview, the interviewer asks:
– “What’s going on in Gaza?â€� / “What should the U.S. be doing?â€� / “What is your opinion of the war in Gaza?â€�
– Task 1:
– In their notebooks, students should **write three things they could say** that would **immediately disqualify them** from getting the job.
– These are answers that, if heard by the interviewer, would make them think, “You’re not getting the job.â€�
– Task 2:
– Then, write **three things that would likely be viewed positively** by the interviewer:
– Not guaranteed to secure the job, but **“thumbs upâ€� answers** that would be approved of within that interview context.
**Class discussion and board work**
– Instructor draws a **chart on the board** with two categories:
– **“Taboosâ€�** – things you should *not* say if you want the job.
– **“Accepted wisdomâ€�** – things you *should* say, or that are safe to say.
– Emphasis:
– This is **not** about what is objectively right or wrong.
– It is about what we intuitively understand as **context‑appropriate vs. inappropriate** in a Washington, D.C.–type professional environment.
**Examples / themes (reconstructed from partial transcript)**
– **Taboos (disqualifying answers):**
– Strongly blaming the U.S. for the conflict in a way that challenges core legitimacy of its policy (e.g., statements along the lines of “The U.S. created Israelâ€� or aggressive critiques of U.S. arms sales to Israel).
– Phrasing that would be interpreted as deeply hostile to U.S. alliances or to Israel’s legitimacy.
– Any sentiment that strongly departs from what is perceived as bipartisan or mainstream in Washington.
– **Accepted wisdom (green‑light answers):**
– Emphasizing **objectivity** and balance: “We should be objective,â€� “We should look at both sides.â€�
– Presenting the U.S. as a **mediator of peace** in Gaza.
– Supporting continued or increased U.S. **military and financial support** to Israel/IDF, framing Israel as:
– A **democratic ally** in a region with relatively few democracies.
– A **strategic partner** for U.S. interests in the Middle East.
– Generally aligning with existing U.S. policy narratives (security, stability, alliance solidarity).
**Conceptual takeaway**
– The instructor explains that **this exercise charts the boundaries of “acceptable thoughtâ€�** within Washington on Gaza.
– The set of acceptable answers = **inside a window** (implicitly similar to the Overton window).
– The taboo answers = **outside that window**.
– The point is to **make visible** that:
– There is a **structure** to what counts as reasonable or hire‑able opinion in U.S. officialdom.
– Students already **intuit** these boundaries without needing them spelled out; they know what is safe or unsafe to say if they want a government career.
—
### 3. Introducing Walt’s “Blob� and the Intellectual Line
– The instructor previews **Stephen Walt**, whose work will be assigned for Thursday.
– They refer to Walt’s concept of **“the blobâ€�**:
– A term Walt uses for the **U.S. foreign policy establishment**—a networked set of officials, experts, and institutions that share similar assumptions and boundaries of acceptable thinking.
– Key idea:
– In the U.S. (and not only the U.S., but that’s the case study for this week), there is a **“wallâ€� of acceptable thought** about foreign policy.
– The **lines of this wall** are drawn not only within government but also across **aligned sectors**:
– Government
– Media
– Academia
– Think tanks / policy institutes
– People **move in and out of these sectors**, which creates **incentives** to:
– Maintain a certain **“intellectual lineâ€�**.
– Avoid views that would jeopardize future positions in other elite institutions.
– This sets up the **central theme for the week**:
– How **institutional incentives and career paths** shape what is said, who is quoted, and which facts or frames are repeated in public discourse.
—
### 4. Revisiting the Gaza Maps: Coding Sources by Institutional Role
**Task reminder**
– Students previously constructed **Gaza situation “mapsâ€�** using various news sources.
– Each group had compiled information on:
– What different actors want.
– Proposed solutions.
– U.S. policy proposals (e.g., “building a Riviera in Gazaâ€� anecdote).
**New analytic task**
– Without regrouping (class size too small), students are asked individually to:
– **Look back at their Gaza sources** (from last week).
– Focus on the **U.S. side** of the coverage.
– For each **quoted or paraphrased person** in those articles, identify:
– **What job did that person hold?**
– Government official / spokesperson
– Professor / academic
– Think tank analyst / expert
– Media personality / broadcaster
– NGO representative
– Non‑U.S. government official
– Other (writer, technocrat, etc.)
– The instructor introduces / clarifies the concept of a **“think tankâ€�:**
– In the U.S. context:
– Typically a **business** or **non‑profit organization** that hires analysts to write policy reports, white papers, and commentary on political and international issues.
– Often **ideologically or policy‑oriented**, leaning toward certain positions.
– Clients include **businesses** and **politicians**, who:
– Outsource analytic work.
– Use reports to justify or shape policy positions and even draft legislation.
– Described as a kind of **“brain for hireâ€�**.
– Examples mentioned:
– **Brookings Institution**
– **RAND Corporation**
– A student notes that in Russia, “think tankâ€� can colloquially mean someone who doesn’t know what’s going on—highlighting cross‑cultural differences in terminology.
**Class tally of roles**
– Instructor collects **counts from students’ sources** and writes them on the board, broken down by category.
– **U.S. government officials**:
– Multiple groups report **two** officials quoted each.
– Jared Kushner is mentioned; instructor codes him as a **U.S. government official** (rather than a generic “spokesmanâ€�) because he was directly acting in an official capacity.
– **Professors / academics**:
– Some groups report **two**, some report **none**, indicating academics are less frequently quoted than officials.
– **Think tank / NGO roles**:
– Director of the **Palestinian NGOs Network** (coded as think tank/NGO).
– Other NGO or policy‑oriented analysts (misc. counts).
– **Media personalities**:
– At least one **broadcaster** is cited; instructor adds a separate “media personalityâ€� category.
– **Non‑U.S. government officials**:
– Multiple examples:
– Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers from other states (including a former British PM).
– Officials from Israel (e.g., names that sound like Israeli ministers, some ambiguity in transcription).
– Donald Trump is also noted (as U.S. but in the context of a particular timeline—still coded under government).
– Palestinian officials, presidents of NGOs, and technocrats “backed by Washington.â€�
– **Writers / others**:
– Palestinian American writers, e.g., Susan Abu Awa (likely Susan Abulhawa) and others.
– Business/commerce leaders (e.g., Director General of the Gaza Chamber of Commerce).
**Pedagogical point**
– The instructor notes:
– It is **not surprising** that students’ searches turned up many **government officials**—journalism tends to privilege official statements.
– The **important question** is:
– What **effect** does this distribution of sources have on the information and narratives that appear in the news?
– This sets up the next conceptual layer: **Walt’s “revolving door.â€�**
—
### 5. Walt’s “Revolving Door� Between Government, Think Tanks, Media, and Academia
**Concept introduction**
– The instructor introduces Walt’s idea of a **“revolving doorâ€�**:
– Metaphor: the literal revolving doors at malls (e.g., Asia Mall), constantly spinning as people move in and out.
– Applied to **careers in foreign policy**:
– Example career path:
1. Start in **government** (e.g., staffer for a senator, job in a federal agency).
2. Move to a **think tank** (policy analyst).
3. Become a **media analyst / CNN contributor / journalist**.
4. Return to **government** or shift into **academia**, or any combination thereof.
– Once inside this “ecosystem,â€� one tends to **stay within its spheres**.
**Why this matters for bias**
– Because of this revolving door:
– Individuals have a **self‑preservation incentive**:
– They must not **burn bridges** with potential future employers.
– They tend to adhere to the **same set of baseline assumptions** about U.S. foreign policy to remain employable.
– This tends to:
– **Narrow the range of perspectives** that appear in mainstream discourse.
– Lead to **repetition of the same facts and frames** across:
– Government statements
– News coverage
– Think tank reports
– Academic commentary
– The shrinking variety of quoted voices that students just saw in their Gaza sources is an **empirical reflection** of this structure.
– The instructor emphasizes:
– This does **not necessarily require a grand conspiracy** dictating what can be said.
– It can emerge simply from **institutional incentives and career logics**.
—
### 6. Situation Report Assignment Recap and Transition to Individual Semester Topics
**Recap of existing assignment**
– The instructor reminds students about the previously assigned **Gaza situation report**:
– They had started **outlines** at the end of last Thursday’s class.
– There was **no time to share** those outlines then; sharing is postponed.
– Quick review of **expected structure**:
– Although details are not fully repeated, the implication is that:
– Students should have a **structured summary** of the conflict,
– capturing key facts, actors, and developments.
**Long‑term course goal**
– Instructor outlines a **major goal for the course**:
– Within **two weeks**, each student will be assigned or will choose a **specific international issue**.
– They will **work on that same issue for the rest of the semester**, progressively deepening expertise.
– By the **end of the semester**, each student will:
– Make a **substantive prediction** about the likely outcome of their issue over the next **2–5 years**.
– This prediction will be grounded in accumulated analysis and course concepts.
—
### 7. Selecting Individual International Issues (“Owning� a Topic)
**Prompt**
– Students are asked to reflect:
1. **Which international issue happening today are you most interested in?**
– Reasons can vary:
– Perceived global importance.
– Personal relevance or impact.
– Intellectual curiosity.
2. For the chosen issue, write **3–5+ bullet points** on:
– What they know so far:
– When it began (approximate timeline).
– What’s currently happening.
– Major developments in the past few months.
**Clarifying constraints**
– The issue must be **international** in nature:
– Between at least **two states**, or
– Between **factions within a state** with strong international dimensions.
– It does **not have to be a major war**; it simply needs to:
– Cross borders or involve foreign actors.
– Be frameable as a **recurring issue or conflict**, not just an abstract cooperation project.
**Example student queries / clarifications**
– A student proposes **C5+1** (Central Asian states plus the U.S.) and work of the **Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA)**.
– Instructor response:
– This is potentially acceptable **if framed around a specific issue**, e.g.:
– Negotiations over a U.S. base.
– A specific regional security or economic initiative.
– It must be narrowed to a **concrete problem/issue** rather than the MFA’s work in general.
– Instructor again emphasizes:
– The topic must be **international** and **issue‑focused** (e.g., a conflict, a long‑running dispute, a contested development project, etc.).
**Topics mentioned in class**
Students volunteer the following topics (some with brief rationales):
– **Conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo**
– Student notes that **“nobody speaks about these conflictsâ€�**, emphasizing the importance of highlighting understudied wars.
– **U.S. desire to acquire or influence Greenland**
– U.S.–Greenland–Denmark relations, with interest dating back to the 19th century (1856/1867, corrected to 1867).
– Tied to strategic value of Greenland and U.S.–Denmark–Greenland triad.
– **Protests in Iran**
– Mentioned by more than one student.
– Instructor notes it will be interesting to see whether these remain protests or evolve into something more (e.g., broader movement, regime challenge).
– **Russia–Ukraine war**
– Chosen by multiple students.
– **Palestine / Israel**
– Explicitly acknowledged as international because:
– It is impossible to talk about Palestine without also talking about Israel and broader regional actors.
– **China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)**
– Student expresses interest in BRI as a major global connectivity and influence project.
The instructor expresses particular enthusiasm that:
– The class includes **less‑covered conflicts** (e.g., Congo).
– There is diversity in regional coverage (e.g., BRI, Middle East, Eastern Europe, Africa).
—
### 8. Actor–Stakes–Endgame Mapping Exercise for Chosen Topics
**New analytical task**
– For each student’s chosen topic, they are instructed to:
1. Identify **2–3 major actors** in the issue.
– Could be states, non‑state actors, coalitions, or key organizations.
2. For each actor, briefly answer:
– **Stakes**:
– What do they have to **gain** if things go their way?
– What do they have to **lose** if they fail?
– **Desired endgame**:
– If the conflict or issue ends **the way they want**, what does that future look like?
– What would their **ideal outcome** be (territory, regime type, economic arrangement, security guarantees, etc.)?
– This parallels the **Gaza mapping** work but is now applied to each student’s new **semester‑long topic**.
**Purpose**
– To build a **factual and analytical foundation**:
– Understand **who** the main players are.
– Clarify **motives and goals**, not only current facts.
– This exercise is explicitly described as laying the **groundwork for the second half of the semester**, when the course will:
– Focus more heavily on **“whyâ€� questions** and causal explanations.
– Use each student’s case as a platform for **comparative discussion**.
– Time check:
– Instructor notes that there is about **one minute left**.
– There will not be time to share these actor–stakes–endgame charts today.
– Sharing and refinement will continue **Thursday**.
—
### 9. Closing, Upcoming Case Study, and Homework
**Preview of Thursday’s main case**
– Next class will introduce the **Red Sea Crisis**:
– Focus particularly on the **Houthis** as the main case study.
– This will be used to:
– Practice **identifying blind spots** in available information.
– Detect **underrepresented or discounted perspectives** in coverage.
– Students will then apply those same skills to **their own chosen topics**.
**Reading assignment**
– **Stephen Walt excerpt**:
– Instructor will **post the Walt reading on e‑course tonight**.
– They plan to **shorten the excerpt** substantially:
– Target length: **5–10 pages**.
– Apologizes for delay: they still need to “cut out the excerptâ€� and adjust length.
**Research task for individual topics**
– For each student’s chosen international issue:
– **Read several articles** that are **no more than 1–2 months old**.
– Goal:
– Get **up‑to‑date** on recent developments in that issue.
– Build on today’s initial bullet points with more **current, concrete facts**.
**Situation report/brief (“bluff�) timeline**
– A “bluffâ€� is mentioned (likely transcription of **“briefâ€�** or short situation report):
– Student asks if it is due Thursday.
– Instructor clarifies:
– The **brief/situation report assignment** will be **assigned Thursday**.
– It will be **due next week**, not this week.
**Miscellaneous**
– Quick check on **e‑course access**:
– Adam previously had issues but now confirms he can access the platform.
– A student asks whether the “five to ten pagesâ€� mentioned refers to:
– The **reading** or an **assignment length**.
– Instructor clarifies:
– **Only the Walt reading** is 5–10 pages.
– There is **no 5–10 page writing assignment** due soon.
– Informal end of class:
– Instructor wishes students an enjoyable **game day**.
– A brief side conversation about whether the instructor knows a certain American political scientist (Brad Å afarik/Safarik) with connections to colleagues in the department; instructor does not.
—
## Actionable Items for the Instructor
### High Priority – Before Next Class
– **Post and finalize Walt reading**
– Upload the **5–10 page excerpt** of Stephen Walt to e‑course.
– Ensure the reading specifically covers:
– The **“blobâ€�** concept.
– The **revolving door** between government, media, academia, and think tanks.
– **Clarify Thursday’s plan in your notes**
– Structure Thursday around:
– **Red Sea Crisis / Houthis** case study (for bias and blind‑spot analysis).
– **Sharing and refining**:
– Gaza situation report outlines (if still relevant).
– Students’ **actor–stakes–endgame** charts for their chosen issues.
– **Prepare or polish the situation report/brief assignment**
– Finalize the **prompt, structure, and rubric** for the short situation report/brief that will be assigned Thursday (likely modeled on the Gaza report).
– Decide:
– Whether students’ next brief will be on:
– Gaza,
– Red Sea/Houthis, or
– Their individual topic,
and communicate that clearly in the assignment handout.
### Medium Priority – Next 1–2 Weeks
– **Track and confirm each student’s chosen topic**
– Compile a **list of who chose what** (Congo, Greenland, Iran protests, Russia‑Ukraine, Palestine/Israel, BRI, etc.).
– Encourage **diversity of topics** and avoid excessive clustering if possible.
– **Plan integration of individual topics into later sessions**
– Design points in the syllabus where students:
– Present **updates** on their issue.
– Apply course concepts (bias, institutions, interests, power, prediction) to their own case.
### Ongoing / For Later
– **Revisit source‑role distributions**
– Re‑use the board tallies of **who is quoted** (officials, academics, think‑tankers, etc.) to:
– Compare across issues (e.g., does Congo coverage rely on different voices than Gaza coverage?).
– Develop a class discussion or small assignment on **how voice distribution shapes narratives**.
– **Continue clarifying jargon for international students**
– Keep defining terms like “think tank,â€� “blob,â€� “revolving door,â€� and “situation report/briefâ€� whenever they appear.
– **Attendance note**
– Be aware that **Albina** was marked absent at the start but later participated.
– If you keep formal attendance records, consider marking her as **late/present** rather than absent.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Reading – Stephen Walt on “The Blob� and the Revolving Door
You will read a short excerpt from Stephen Walt to deepen your understanding of how institutions (government, media, academia, think tanks) create and enforce a narrow range of “acceptable� ideas, building directly on our Gaza interview exercise and the source-tally activity from class.
Instructions:
1. Locate the assigned reading.
1. Find the excerpt from Stephen Walt that has been posted for this week (it should be about 5–10 pages, as mentioned in class).
2. Make sure you know it is the correct text: Walt discusses concepts like “the blob,� institutional consensus, and the “revolving door� between government, media, and academia.
2. Refresh the context from this week’s lessons before you start reading.
1. Look over your notes from:
– The Gaza job-interview exercise (taboos vs. “thumbs upâ€� opinions).
– The board chart we made of “taboosâ€� and “accepted wisdomâ€� in Washington regarding Gaza.
– The tally you helped compile of who gets quoted in your Gaza sources (government officials, professors, think tank analysts, media personalities, etc.).
– The explanation of think tanks and Walt’s idea of the “revolving doorâ€� (movement between government → think tanks → media → back to government).
2. Keep these in mind as “examples� while you read Walt, so you can see how his abstract ideas map onto a concrete case you already know.
3. Read the Walt excerpt actively, not passively.
1. As you read, highlight or underline places where Walt:
– Defines or describes “the blob.â€�
– Explains the “revolving doorâ€� between government, think tanks, media, and academia.
– Talks about how these networks shape what counts as “reasonableâ€� or “acceptableâ€� foreign policy views.
2. In the margins (or in a separate document), briefly note:
– Any definitions of key concepts (e.g., blob, revolving door, establishment consensus).
– Any specific mechanisms he describes for how career incentives shape what people say or write.
– Any examples that remind you of our Gaza exercise or of the sources you used for your Gaza maps.
4. Take organized notes that connect Walt to our class work.
1. Create a short set of notes with at least the following:
– 2–3 bullet points: What is “the blob,â€� in your own words?
– 2–3 bullet points: What does Walt mean by the “revolving door,â€� and why does it matter for foreign policy debates?
– 2–3 bullet points: How does this help explain
– why government officials dominated your Gaza sources, and
– why some opinions seemed “unsayableâ€� in a Washington job interview while others felt “safeâ€�?
2. Note at least one question or confusion you have about Walt’s argument, if any, to bring up in discussion.
5. Prepare to use this reading in Thursday’s class.
1. Be ready to:
– Summarize Walt’s main argument in 2–3 sentences.
– Explain how “the blobâ€� and the “revolving doorâ€� might create blind spots or systematic biases in media coverage.
– Connect Walt’s ideas both to the Gaza case and to your own chosen international issue.
2. Bring your notes (paper or digital) so you can refer to them when we connect Walt to the upcoming Red Sea/Houthi case study and to your semester-long topic.
ASSIGNMENT #2: Background Research on Your Chosen International Issue
You will update and deepen your factual foundation on the international issue you chose in class, by reading several recent articles. This will help you “own� your topic for the rest of the semester and prepare for your situation report and later analytical work.
Instructions:
1. Confirm and clearly define your chosen issue.
1. Write down the issue you selected today (e.g., war in Congo, U.S. interest in Greenland, protests in Iran, Russia–Ukraine war, Palestine/Israel, Belt and Road Initiative, etc.).
2. Make sure it fits the two criteria we discussed:
– It is international in some way (involves at least two states, or factions with significant international dimensions).
– It can be framed as an ongoing “issueâ€� or “problemâ€� (not just a vague topic, but something that is happening and contested).
3. If your topic is broad (e.g., “C5+1�), briefly narrow it by specifying the particular problem or question you are interested in (e.g., “U.S.–Central Asia cooperation on X,� “military basing issues,� “energy transit,� etc.).
2. Find several recent articles about your issue.
1. Use reputable sources such as major international news outlets, regional outlets, or credible policy/academic sources (e.g., think tanks, NGOs, specialized media).
2. Your goal is to find *several* (aim for about 3–5) substantive articles that focus directly on your issue.
3. Pay close attention to the date:
– Choose articles published within the last 1–2 months.
– Avoid older background pieces unless they are necessary to understand the context; your main focus should be on recent developments.
3. For each article, read with both content and perspective in mind.
1. Before reading in detail, note:
– The title.
– The author and their affiliation (journalist, think tank analyst, government official, etc.).
– The outlet (newspaper, think tank, academic journal, etc.) and the country it’s based in.
2. Then read carefully for substance:
– What new events, decisions, or developments are being reported?
– Which actors (states, organizations, leaders, movements) are most central in the story?
3. Also read with our bias discussion in mind:
– Whose voices are quoted? Government officials? Activists? Locals? Think tank experts?
– Are there any actors you would expect to see, but who are missing?
– Does the article feel like it stays within a certain “acceptableâ€� range of views, similar to the Washington “windowâ€� we drew for Gaza?
4. Take structured notes that build on your in-class work.
1. For each article, write a few brief notes including:
– Date and source (e.g., “14 Jan 2026, BBCâ€�; “2 Dec 2025, Brookings reportâ€�).
– 3–5 bullet points summarizing the key developments or arguments in that piece.
– A quick identification of the main actor(s) it highlights (government, opposition, external powers, etc.).
2. Then, across all the articles together, create a consolidated overview:
– 5–10 bullet points: “Most important recent developmentsâ€� in your issue over the last 1–2 months.
– A short list of the main actors involved (2–4 key actors), and next to each:
– What they have to gain or lose (“stakesâ€�), based on what you’ve read.
– What their apparent endgame is (if they “win,â€� what do they want the situation to look like?).
3. Keep these notes together with the earlier in-class bullet points you wrote on when it began, what’s been happening, and major milestones.
5. Connect your research to our course themes.
1. As you look back over your notes, jot down:
– Which types of sources and voices are dominating your coverage (government, think tanks, activists, etc.).
– Any obvious blind spots or perspectives that seem missing or underrepresented.
2. Think about how Walt’s ideas (“blob,� “revolving door,� acceptable vs. taboo opinions) might apply to your issue and the sources you just read.
6. Bring your findings to Thursday’s class.
1. Have your notes (digital or on paper) with you.
2. Be prepared to:
– Briefly explain your issue and its most recent developments.
– Identify the main actors and their stakes/endgames.
– Comment on where you suspect bias or blind spots in the coverage, in light of Walt’s argument and our class discussion on institutional bias.
3. You will be using this material as the factual base for your situation report and for future analytical assignments later in the semester.