When Layna Mosley visited Rollins as a prospective student, the campus was bizarrely empty. The admissions team informed her it was “Fox Day,” and Mosley was charmed. She committed that day and graduated from Rollins College in 1993. 

32 years later, Layna Mosley was back on campus to speak on the future of global finance and the waning power of the U.S. dollar—her Rollins thesis advisor, Tom Lairson, as well as her brother and daughter, were watching from the front row of the Crummer Auditorium. 

Mosley was the first in her family to attend college. Now, she is on a mission to address global inequalities. Mosley hosted the 6th Interdisciplinary Sovereign Debt Research and Management Conference (DebtCon6) at Princeton University in 2023, with the seventh meeting being held in Paris and the eighth coming up in October 2025 in Washington D.C. From 2017 to 2022, Mosley was on the executive board for the Women Also Know Stuff initiative, an organization that helps journalists seek out female experts in political science, as male researchers are disproportionately featured in the media. To get a taste of the Princeton politics courses, you can glimpse the syllabus and readings for her Political Risk Analysis course.  

At Rollins, Mosley majored in International Relations, ran cross country, and had the same roommate from the golf team all four years. She went on to earn a Ph.D. at Duke University and is now at Princeton University as a professor of politics and the International Affairs Associate Chair in the Department of Politics. 

With all the free time she doesn’t have, Mosley plays one-on-one basketball with her 11-year-old, rows on Carnegie Lake in Princeton, and runs ultra marathons. “I did some 100 milers too,” she said.  

 It is objectively a difficult time to be working in higher education—right now, Mosley’s school is being severely threatened—Trump is waging a war on higher education, including Princeton University. 

“There is a lot of concern about the hostility of the current administration towards higher education…this is the slow erosion of the freedom of institutions to do what we want to do,” said Mosley. 

“And the endowment does all kinds of good. But of course, it’s not clear that the Republicans in Congress right now would say ‘oh but you’re doing good with your endowment by using it for admitting people who don’t have opportunities.’” This stems from the fact that Princeton offers free tuition to students who come from families that make under $100,000 a year.  

On April 1, Trump moved to suspend dozens of federal grants to the Ivy League school, not long after stripping away $400 million in grants to Columbia University. The reasoning is inconsistent; some schools have been accused of endemic antisemitism for allowing students to protest despite support from Jewish professors, while U Penn was punished in the form of suspending $175 million for allowing a transgender woman to compete for their women’s swim team in 2022. 

Harvard University has already had $2.3 billion frozen in federal funds; Trump threatened to strip it of $9 billion in subsidies as well as remove its tax-exempt status if the school did not comply with the administration’s “intellectual conditions,” like removing diversity programs, toughening disciplinary action against students, and an “audit” of the student body.  

The president of Princeton University, Christopher L. Eisgruber, was one of the first to take a stand against the administration, decrying Trump’s attack on Columbia University in The Atlantic back in March. Harvard just recently stood up to Trump: “No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,” said the president, Alan M. Garber. 

Mosley said that amidst her circle of political scientists at Princeton, “The nervousness is about the endowment, but it is also really about U.S. democracy and institutional erosion.” 

The global order is shifting, as freedom has been declining for over 16 years, and we seem to be living in an era of expanded authoritarian rule, according to Freedom House. But Mosley says, “what they are doing—mobilizing what is often economic discontent in a way that targets elites, targets the global system, and targets immigrants—is not new. And are far-right parties inspired by the success of far-right parties elsewhere? Absolutely. Many of the things that Trump is doing right now looks like Hungary’s Victor Orban. Orban goes after the universities.”  

Mosley published a paper with the Brookings Institution on “The Financial and Economic Dangers of Democratic Backsliding,” and she shared that when economic concerns and cultural concerns or racist attitudes collide, populists can thrive. 

“There has been this big shift in the U.S. where Republicans used to be the party of free trade. That has completely flipped around, and what is so interesting is that the Republicans were willing to follow Trump on this pivot in 2016.” 

 What many scholars grapple with is explaining why. 

 “There is an argument that economic anxiety and economic downturns can activate some of these anti-foreigner and anti-immigrant sentiments,” said Mosley. “I think he was using NAFTA as short-hand for ‘Mexico and immigrants from Mexico,’ even though NAFTA doesn’t cover immigration at all,” she said of Trump’s disdain for the North American Free Trade Agreement, which created a free-trade zone in North America for Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. in 1992.  

The same goes for our trade policies with China, says Mosley. “The way that tariffs get justified is by saying ‘other countries aren’t playing fairly,’ even though that may not necessarily be true.” 

She adds, “It’s an interesting rhetoric because it allows for this argument that international institutions are bad and somehow biased against the U.S…. and also that other countries are not reliable partners, which is ironic because it’s the U.S. that is not being a reliable partner.”  

“Trump and his allies have been effective at this as a messaging strategy. It’s bad policy, but it’s also eternally consistent.”  

She says this amidst rising gas prices and an inflation rate that has risen since November; basic economics teaches that prices are “sticky” and rise more quickly than they fall, so high prices are here to stay even if tariffs come down. 

In April, U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) stated right before the new tariff plan took effect that Trump is “ruining the economy on purpose… Starting tomorrow, we’ll be paying more for everything—groceries, food, cars, homes, toys, electronics, everything that you buy…Trillions of dollars of wealth are being demolished. These are everyday people panicked about how much more expensive their next trip to Walmart or Costco will be or when they’ll lose their job.” 

Mosley’s research is not focused directly on the United States, despite her encompassing knowledge on the subject. She zeroes in on how developing countries borrow money, how their governments make decisions on where to borrow, and how their political environment affects whether investors see them as risky or not, which in turn affects how expensive it is to borrow money.  

This is where the U.S. comes into play. “The U.S. is so important in global financial markets. If interest rates are low in the U.S., it’s cheaper for every country worldwide to get money. U.S. financial events get transmitted to the rest of the world, so developing countries have less sovereignty when they are hit by these external shocks that are not of their own making,” she said.  

Although she does not work directly in government, Mosley is on a panel of experts to advise the International Monetary Fund how to better help countries deal with debt issues.  

“I’m not making policy, but I feel like I get to have some influence based on my research and my colleagues’ research on how things work in politics,” she said. 

Amidst Trump’s anti-DEI crackdowns on over 50 universities, a  private liberal arts school like Rollins is certainly not safe from the fire. As investigative journalist Russ Baker said, “The current standoff at Harvard Yard harkens back to a long-playing project of more traditional conservative Republican elements: weakening all institutions perceived, rightly or wrongly, as pillars of the Left, the Democratic Party, those who challenge tradition—and the primacy of both the American white male and the One Percent.” He believes the anti-science, anti-independent institutions, anti-rule of law tirade threatens the liberal arts directly because it deplores the teaching of common values and goals, collective action, and virtues of empathy, compassion, and collaboration.   

Rollins sits in uncertainty with these attacks on higher education, as international students fear that their visas will be revoked after Trump’s State Department has changed the status of over 1,500 students already. President Cornwell has been an outspoken advocate for the freedom of higher education, writing op-eds back in 2018 and in 2023 amidst Governor Ron Desantis’ attacks on higher ed. 

In a recent letter to the school, Cornwell shared that he is collaborating with incoming president Brooke Barnett to assess where Rollins stands and is refreshing the work of the school around a theme of “Thriving Together,” where Rollins embraces the free exchange of ideas and diverse perspectives and “where all individuals have the opportunity to achieve, grow, gain knowledge, and flourish.” 

One of the things Mosley loved the most about her Rollins education was how interdisciplinary her major was and how she learned to approach each topic from an economic and a political lens. Such collaborative approaches are necessary in finding a solution to the current democratic backsliding we face as a nation.  

“We have to hope that the courts and judges uphold their oaths to the constitution,” she said. “I think it would be great if business leaders were willing to take a stance. They are not going to do it individually because they worry about being targeted, but one could imagine them doing it collectively. It has to be a coalition of people.” 

The opinions on this page do not necessarily reflect those of The Sandspur or Rollins College. Have any additional tips or opinions? Send us your response. We want to hear your voice.

“Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life.” It’s a quote I’ve heard countless times, but I never really stopped to think about its meaning until recently. Growing up, we’re constantly asked what we want to be when we grow up, as if there’s one perfect job out there waiting for us to discover. For years, my answer was simple: “A scientist!”  

In high school, I was determined to be a chemist. However, as I’ve navigated college, my career path has shifted not once but about 15 times—sometimes in just a matter of weeks. When I first stepped onto my college’s campus, my mind was set on forensics and then on becoming a doctor. Soon enough, I realized that I hated biology, and, just like that, another plan was scrapped. That’s when I started asking myself, “Why did I feel so drawn to science in the first place?” 

Research by Jahn and Myers in “Vocational Anticipatory Socialization of Adolescents: Messages, Sources, and Frameworks That Influence Interest in STEM Careers” suggests an answer. The authors look at Vocational Anticipatory Socialization (VAS), which they define as the kinds of messages that young people receive, the sources of these messages, and the frameworks through which adolescents understand these messages.  

Jahn and Myers argue that “parents, career insiders, and media communicate most VAS messages related to math, science, and STEM-based careers.” Maybe I wasn’t passionate about science; I had just been conditioned to believe it was the right choice. 

Looking back, I realized my struggle wasn’t about choosing between career paths; it was about unpacking the fears and expectations that had shaped my choices in the first place. If I had been conditioned to see science as the right choice, what did that mean for the things I truly loved?  

I had convinced myself that pursuing art would be a mistake. After all, how could I possibly make a living from something I loved? And what would my family think if I didn’t follow a more traditional, secure career? Even though my family has supported my artistic endeavors from the start, I still felt this fear that my passion might never be enough to pay the bills. 

And yet, when I look around at the world, I realize so many people are living proof you don’t have to choose between passion and paycheck. Take Walt Disney for example—he started as an illustrator and storyteller, transforming his love for animation into one of the most influential entertainment empires in the world.  

And I know what you might be thinking: He was just one of the lucky ones. But luck had little to do with it. According to Eudie Pak’s Walt Disney’s Rocky Road to Success, Disney faced countless setbacks before creating “the Happiest Place on Earth,” including “[b]ankers reject[ing] the concept of his famous mouse over 300 times before one said yes.” 

All around us, people are turning hobbies into thriving careers, proving passion and financial success don’t have to be mutually exclusive. Yet, it’s easy to believe following your passion isn’t practical when society, and even our own internal voices, prioritize a steady paycheck. Money may not buy happiness, but it can solve problems, which is why a high-paying job is appealing. Still, what if a career could offer both stability and passion? What if fulfillment didn’t have to come at the cost of financial security? 

Here’s what I’ve come to realize: A career doesn’t have to be a rigid choice between passion and security. It can be a journey—one where we explore, adapt, and redefine success on our own terms. We often think we need everything figured out early on, but that’s the myth. Instead of forcing ourselves into a predetermined path, what if we gave ourselves permission to keep searching? 

I still don’t know exactly where my career will take me. And that’s okay. What matters is that I’m no longer afraid to embrace uncertainty and chase both passion and purpose. 

So, when we hear the phrase, “Choose a job you love, and you’ll never work a day in your life,” let’s remember that it’s not that simple. Passion and paycheck don’t always align perfectly, but they don’t have to be opposites either. We may not have all the answers yet, but we understand that figuring it out is part of the journey. 

And, who knows, maybe one day I’ll make a living with my art. But for now I’ll keep exploring, and that’s perfectly okay. 

The opinions on this page do not necessarily reflect those of The Sandspur or Rollins College. Have any additional tips or opinions? Send us your response. We want to hear your voice.

In the same month Donald Trump moved to block states from enforcing climate change policies—the very crisis threatening eight percent of all living animal species—Colossal Biosciences claims to have brought back the dire wolf, the largest of the Late Pleistocene canids, last seen 10,000 years ago. 

On April 7, 2025, headlines from major media outlets, including ABC News, Time, USA Today, and CNN, broke the same story: the resurrection of the dire wolf. Colossal Biosciences, a bioscience and genetic engineering company, had brought it back. Colossal is self-described as “the advanced genetics and biosciences company that’s developing the science that will save us, our planet, and the species that inhabit it.”  

But don’t get confused—“We’re not a foundation, we’re not a nonprofit, we are not an academic think tank. We are trying to actually develop products and build technologies,” said Ben Lamm, the company’s CEO and co-founder, in an interview with ABC News. 

Meet: The Dire Wolf 

The dire wolf once prowled the vast terrain of North America, ranging from the icy reaches of Alaska to the arid deserts of Mexico. Fossils of the dire wolf have been found on both coasts of the United States, as well as central, southern, and southwestern regions. The range in the dire wolf distribution indicates that it was adapted to a variety of habitats, ranging from tropical wetlands to boreal grasslands. These canids shared the landscape with other Pleistocene megafauna, including woolly mammoths, camels, giant ground sloths, and saber-toothed cats. Welcome to the Pleistocene epoch—a geological era that spanned from about 2.6 million to 11,700 years ago. Marked by repeated glacial and interglacial cycles, the Pleistocene was a time of dramatic climate fluctuations. 

Dire wolves were menacing hunters. The prehistoric dire wolf once co-existed with the gray wolf—the species of wolf we still have today. Weighing anywhere from 125 to 175 pounds, the dire wolf is estimated to have been about 25 percent heavier than the modern gray wolf. The gray wolf shares morphological characteristics with the dire wolf, including head and body shape; this resemblance once suggested the two species shared an evolutionary ancestor. However, more recent genetic data suggest that the dire wolf may be more closely related to the modern-day jackal, placing it in an entirely separate genus. 

Dire wolves were carnivorous, with isotopic analysis suggesting their diet focused heavily on horses; ground sloths, camels, and bison made up less of their intake. Many dire wolf fossils found together at Rancho La Brea indicate that these wolves were also social animals, forming communities to hunt and raise offspring. 

Dire wolves roamed the Americas for at least 250,000 years; however, the fate of this species is still widely speculated. While they became extinct near the end of the last ice age, the reasoning behind their disappearance remains a topic of debate. Some researchers point to rising temperatures and climate change, while others speculate the evolution of humans—or even a giant comet—as contributing factors to their absence from today’s megafauna. 

A Colossal Problem 

“On October 1, 2024, for the first time in human history, Colossal successfully restored a once-eradicated species through the science of de-extinction,” reads Colossal Biosciences’ website. Two dire wolf pups, Romulus and Remus, were born last fall in October, but their two-month-old sister, Khaleesi, wasn’t introduced until this past winter. The pups had been “chasing, nipping, nuzzling, and tussling” over the course of the year—but it wasn’t until April 2025 that their existence was made public. 

Using DNA extracted from a fossilized tooth and skull, scientists sequenced the genome of the dire wolf and compared it to that of the gray wolf. After identifying 20 key genetic differences across 14 genomes, researchers edited gray wolf DNA to express characteristics typical of the prehistoric dire wolf, such as larger body size and more robust teeth. The edited nuclei were then extracted from these modified cells and inserted into gray wolf ova from which the original nuclei had been removed. These ova developed into embryos, which were implanted into the wombs of two domestic hound breeds, and after 65 days, Romulus and Remus were born.  

However, calling this the “de-extinction” of the dire wolf is not entirely accurate. While dire wolves and modern gray wolves look similar, this is the result of convergent evolution, where unrelated species can develop similar traits due to similar environments or adaptive pressures. A DNA study published in 2021 found that dire wolves belonged to a much older evolutionary lineage of dog.  

“Dire wolves, it now appeared, had evolved in the Americas and had no close kinship with the gray wolves from Eurasia; the last time gray wolves and dire wolves shared a common ancestor was about 5.7 million years ago,” said an article published by Scientific American in 2021. 

Dire wolves emerged from a lineage more closely related to African Jackals rather than the Gray Wolf.  

Colossal acknowledges this in their preliminary pre-print paper, published April 11 of this year. “Although Perri et al. confirmed that dire wolves are a distinct evolutionary lineage, a high frequency of phylogenetic incongruence among estimated gene trees led to uncertainties about their early evolutionary history.”  

The biogenetics company proposes the possibility of an early species of canid interbreeding with jackals and wolves.  

Melanie Challenger, the deputy co-chair of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in the United Kingdom, said in an interview with CNN Science, “It’s not de-extinction, it’s genetically engineering a novel organism to fulfill the functions, theoretically, of an extant (living) organism. You’re not bringing anything back from the dead. And all the way through the process, there are different, quite gnarly ethical considerations.” 

The ethics of “de-extinction”  

De-extinction is not a resurrection of species that no longer exist. The dire wolf, like the woolly mammoth, the dodo, and the great auk, is a creature humanity will never fully witness again. 

Beth Shapiro, Colossal’s chief science officer, told CNN: “We aren’t trying to bring something back that’s 100 percent genetically identical to another species. Our goal with de-extinction is to create functional copies of these extinct species. We focus on identifying variants that will produce key traits.” 

But what purpose does it serve to recreate an animal if we no longer have the vast habitats they once roamed, the prey they depended on, or the ecosystems they helped shape? 

De-extinction often overlooks the very reasons species disappeared in the first place: habitat fragmentation, rising global temperatures, invasive species, and the complex relationships that defined their existence. Reducing an animal to a set of physical traits isn’t just ethically questionable, it also ignores the intricate systems those creatures were a part of. 

The only way to “bring back” a species is to ensure they never vanish to begin with. 

The opinions on this page do not necessarily reflect those of The Sandspur or Rollins College. Have any additional tips or opinions? Send us your response. We want to hear your voice.