Dr. Terry Kading, Dr. Micheal Mehta
I find myself thinking differently about the idea of “risk”, not as a neutral or evenly distributed part of life, but as something shaped by power, place, and social structures. Risk is often thought of in terms of disasters or crises, but by the end of the course I understood that risk is also about who is seen, who is protected, who is ignored, and who is expected to absorb harm as part of everyday life.
A significant part of what made this course so impactful was the way each professor brought their own disciplinary grounding into the room. Dr. Kading’s deep knowledge of political structures, governance, and the historical roots of inequality helped me see how risk is produced through decisions made at institutional and state levels and how power operates through policy, planning, and the uneven distribution of resources. In contrast, Dr. Mehta’s expertise in environmental systems, climate vulnerability, and ecological interdependence illuminated how risk is also embedded in landscapes and infrastructures. The interplay between their perspectives made the course feel dynamic and multidimensional; it showed me that understanding risk requires moving fluidly between political analysis and environmental insight. Their combined approaches didn’t just add layers, but created a fuller, more honest picture of how vulnerability is shaped, lived, and contested.
Working through the case‑study approach was one of the most eye‑opening parts of the course. Moving between sociology, history, politics, and environmental studies helped me see how deeply interconnected these issues are. Each discipline added a different lens, and together they made it impossible to pretend that risks “just happen.” Instead, we traced how policies, planning decisions, economic systems, and cultural narratives shape who becomes vulnerable and who is shielded.
The conversations we had about place – how our class, gender, race, occupation, age, and geography influence our exposure to risk – were some of the most challenging and meaningful moments. It wasn’t always comfortable to confront the unevenness of safety and security, but it felt necessary. Those discussions pushed me to think more critically about my own position in the world and the assumptions I carry.
Another major takeaway for me was learning to identify the gaps: the missing data, the flawed policies, the planning oversights, the implementation failures. Once you start noticing these gaps, it becomes hard to unsee them. The course helped me understand that these absences aren’t accidental and they often reflect deeper social priorities and exclusions.
Our work on media coverage also changed the way I read the news. I’m more aware now of how certain risks are sensationalized while others are barely mentioned, and how that imbalance shapes public perception and political will. It made me more cautious, more analytical, and more attuned to whose stories are being told and whose are being left out.
Looking back, what stays with me most is the sense that studying risk is really studying justice. It’s about asking who gets to feel safe, who is expected to endure danger, and what kinds of futures we are willing to build. This course didn’t offer easy answers, but it gave me the tools to ask better questions and to think more carefully about the world we’re navigating.
globalindigenousvoice.org 