Two 2025 Pulitzer winners trace roots to Fayetteville
Why it matters: Ziva Branstetter and Kathleen DuVal 's works highlight significant cultural and political issues in the U.S., bringing attention to people and events that might otherwise be lost to time.
What they're saying:"Few, if any, school districts in the middle of America can lay claim to having two current Pulitzer Prize winners among their alumni," Fayetteville School District Superintendent John Mulford said in an email.
"We are very proud of Dr. Duval and Ms. Branstetter, and we congratulate them on these prestigious honors."
State of play: Though neither woman attended the University of Arkansas, it serves as a common denominator; both their fathers taught there and settled in Fayetteville.
Branstetter, a senior investigative editor for ProPublica, worked with a team on " Life of the Mother," a series about how abortion bans have led to preventable deaths of women in Georgia and Texas. The series won for public service reporting.
She graduated from Fayetteville High School (FHS) in 1982, then went to Oklahoma State University.
Much of her career as an investigative reporter and editor was spent in Tulsa, Oklahoma, but she also did stints at Reveal and the Washington Post.
"The reason we're doing this work is to point out to policy makers — and really the people who vote for them, the people who can apply pressure — that there are opportunities to save lives," she told Axios.
Case in point:"Ziva had the vision that we should gather death records ourselves, reach out to families and ask experts to help us understand if and how abortion laws were impacting health care. ... Her passion, encouragement and support made it possible," ProPublica reporter Kavitha Surana told Axios.
DuVal, a professor of history with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, won the prize in history for her book " Native Nations: A Millennium in North America." It chronicles U.S. history through the lens of Indigenous nations.
She graduated from FHS in 1988, then earned her bachelor's degree in history at Stanford and her Ph.D. at the University of California, Davis.
Her research focuses on the influence of different cultures on early America.
"I think for a long time it was important to most Americans to kind of believe that the United States had a right to the whole continent and that maybe Native Americans hadn't," she said. But in recent years, DuVal said, the public has become more interested in Native American history and that the communities "have always been here and are still really an important part of the United States."
Case in point: DuVal was editor of the FHS literary magazine, named "Best High School Literary Magazine" in 1988 by the Columbia University School of Journalism, her father, John DuVal, told Axios.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
9 hours ago
- Axios
Senate Dems preserve shutdown leverage over Trump, GOP
Top Democrats supported the first appropriations bill of the summer Tuesday night, but they aren't taking a government shutdown off the table in October. Why it matters: The procedural vote on the MilCon-VA bill was 90-8. But those numbers are slightly deceiving. They don't capture the Democrats' frustration over rescissions — and fear and misgivings about the appropriations process to come. What they're saying: "There's the CR issues, and then there's today's issues," Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) told Axios. "I would just separate those for now."' "It's just a motion to proceed, and we look forward to the amendment process," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said. "We're making these decisions vote by vote as is our responsibility to do," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told Axios. Driving the news: In the end, only seven Democrats voted against moving forward with the funding bill. That gave leaders the space to make the distinction between supporting normal appropriations bills and a continuing resolution they will almost certainly confront in September. "It was done in a bipartisan process, no doubt about it," Schumer said. "It undoes many of the awful DOGE cuts to veterans." And the vote on Tuesday only opened debate on the bill, which Democrats haven't committed to supporting in the end. What to watch: Schumer was expected to huddle Tuesday night with top Senate and House Democrats, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), to discuss government funding. Zoom out: Democrats are divided on how much to help Republicans fund the government — and when and where to fight them on the principles that animate their party. Some progressive senators are vowing to withhold their votes on spending bills unless they receive ironclad assurances that Republicans won't pursue any more rescissions packages. "Why would anyone trust the Republicans at this point?" Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told Axios. Zoom in: Some GOP appropriators seem sympathetic to the Democratic complaints about the role rescissions can play in the appropriations process. Democrats have a "valid concern" about making spending deals just to be undone through rescissions, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said last week. The bottom line: Senate Democrats don't have to decide in July whether they want to risk shutting down the government in October.
Axios
10 hours ago
- Axios
U.S. Olympic committee bans trans women from competing in women's sports
The U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee has updated its policies to ban transgender women from competing in women's sports, in line with President Trump's executive order. The big picture: Trump's push to end protections for transgender people, including thebanning of trans athletes from women's sports, has left transgender and nonbinary people across the U.S. navigating an upended sports landscape. Zoom in: The committee's rule change is evident in a 27-page "Athlete Safety Policy" posted on its website Monday, which refers to Trump's executive order while omitting the use of the word "transgender." "The USOPC is committed to protecting opportunities for athletes participating in sport," the document reads. The committee will continue to collaborate with various stakeholders "to ensure that women have a fair and safe competition environment consistent with Executive Order 14201," it says. The committee did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment. Between the lines: The new policy indicates that the national governing bodies of sports federations in the U.S. must now follow the committee's lead, the New York Times reports.
CNN
10 hours ago
- CNN
Analysis: It wasn't a ‘woke' decision to change the Washington football team's name. It was a business call
When President Donald Trump reopened a long-closed conversation about the name of the Washington NFL team, he and others implied that liberal thinking forced the venerable franchise to change its name from Redskins to Commanders in 2022. It wasn't 'wokeness' that led to that moment. It was capitalism. Corporate sponsors made the decision, not politicians or fans. On July 2, 2020, after the murder of George Floyd in late May and the resulting national conversation on race and racism, FedEx – the title sponsor of the team's stadium at the time – called on the franchise to change its name. Nike removed Redskins apparel from its website on the same day. The next day, the league and the organization announced that they were reviewing the team's name. Soon, Amazon, Target and Walmart also removed Redskins merchandise from their stores and websites. At a time of heightened corporate sensitivity to racism, the franchise suddenly saw the possibility of millions of dollars in revenue being lost due to the Redskins name. After years of controversy, the organization's then-leadership finally saw the financial writing on the wall and gave up a fight they had promised to wage forever. On July 13, the team announced it was retiring its name and logo and would go by the name Washington Football Team for the time being. Less than two years later, after a contest to rename the team, it became the Commanders. None of this came about quickly, or without a fight. This was a conversation, and a decision, years in the making. Protests occasionally popped up around Washington Redskins games in the 1990s and early part of the 21st century, but there was no evidence of a groundswell to change the name. In 2013, the National Congress of American Indians, representing 1.2 million people in its member tribes, announced that it opposed the moniker. The team consistently replied by saying it was honoring the achievements of Native Americans by keeping the name. As evidence, then-team president Bruce Allen said that three high schools with a majority Native American student body used the name. The team and its supporters mentioned a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center that found that a majority of Native Americans were not offended by the name. Then again, the use of public polling methods to measure a small, diverse population also came into question and was criticized by experts. More than a decade ago, Sports Illustrated's Peter King led the way, as did a few other sports journalists, including myself, publicly stating that we would no longer use the name – a name that each of us had said thousands of times in our careers covering the NFL. 'Try explaining and defending the nickname to a child,' I wrote in 2013. 'It's impossible.' Back then, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell was still defending the team's name, but he said in radio interviews that he wanted to 'listen' on the issue. 'We'll always listen, and we'll always be open,' he said on ESPN Radio August 1, 2013, when asked to compare his defense of the Washington team name with his comments on Philadelphia Eagle Riley Cooper's racist slur at the time, which were anything but a defense: 'Obviously wrong … insensitive and unacceptable,' Goodell said of Cooper's language. Goodell went farther a month later while speaking to a Washington radio station: 'Ultimately it is Dan (Snyder's) decision, but it is something I want all of us to go out and make sure we are listening to our fans, listening to people that have a different view, and making sure we continue to do what is right. We want to make sure the team represents the strong tradition and history that it has for so many years. … If we are offending one person we need to be listening and making sure we are doing the right things to address that.' As the battle reached a crescendo, a federal judge in Northern Virginia ordered the cancellation of the team's federal trademark registrations in 2015 because the team's name was viewed as 'disparaging' to Native Americans. It was the team's biggest legal and public relations loss to that point. That decision came two years after then-owner Dan Snyder told USA Today sports reporter Erik Brady that he would 'NEVER' change the Redskins' name. 'We'll never change the name. It's that simple. NEVER — you can use caps.' Seven years later, the name was gone.
