By: Margot Anthony, WGEC Student Staff Member and Social Work Student

Main theme: Letting yourself be vulnerable again in a relationship after gender-based harm. 

Trauma from gender-based harm and healing from that trauma is a topic that is discussed a lot at the Women’s, Gender, and Equity Center (WGEC); we even have a weekly discussion group about it called “We Believe You.” It is through this group that I have been thinking about the healing process, and how in all of the books that I have read about healing from gender-based harm it is never discussed how to navigate beginning a new relationship and letting yourself be vulnerable again. 

Since I had experienced my trauma, when I was 17 and 19, I had never been in a relationship after that. I am 23 years old now. The thought of letting myself become that vulnerable again was terrifying, and right now it still is. I had a decision to make, I could live in a world of fear and what if’s or I could take small steps into letting myself fully live my life again, on my own terms. 

That’s what I decided to do. I began slowly. I was hanging out with some of my friends and we had the great idea to make an account for me on a dating app. Let’s just say there were some highs and many lows. It took me almost three years to even be comfortable with the idea of seeing if I wanted to go out on dates with people. It took me almost four years to actually go on a date with someone. It took 13 first dates going wrong in some way to find someone that seemed like they understood and respected boundaries. 

After some self-care and some journaling I decided that it was time to try again, and that I would give this person a chance; and so far I am really glad that I did. The fear is still there, and will continue to be there for a long time, but he seems to understand that. He encourages me to assert my own boundaries and does not take silence as a yes. Will this last forever? I don’t know and right now that is okay for me. Through this I am learning that there are people who do understand that setting boundaries isn’t presenting a challenge or saying ask me again. There are people that will understand some of your boundaries and limits without you having to say anything and without you having to explain anything to them. 

This was a difficult step for me to take because I was putting myself into a situation where I did not know what the outcome would be. I still don’t know what the outcome will be, and I’m beginning to realize that that is okay. 

Healing and starting to trust people and be vulnerable again is not a linear process, there are ups and downs. I wish that I could say that there were concrete steps that I took to get to this point.  I wish I could say that I’m not scared anymore, but that would be a complete lie. I’m still scared. That is something I don’t think will change. What I am learning is that fear does not have to control everything. 

Making sure fear does not control your life and keep you from experiencing new things is easier said than done. Some steps that I take include: 

1. Sharing my location when I go on dates. 
2. Giving trusted people the name of the person that I am going on a date with and a picture. 
3. Meeting someone at a location for a date and not being picked up by them. 
4. Telling people what the plan for the date is, and informing them if anything changes.
   1. What time and where we are meeting. 
   2. What time the date is likely to end. 
   3. Places we may be going other than the place that we meet. 
5. Being clear about boundaries when needed.
   1. This is one of the hardest things to do. It’s scary. But it’s important. If you get invited to do something you don’t want to do or don’t feel comfortable doing, SAY NO. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO EXPLAIN YOURSELF! NO IS A COMPLETE SENTENCE! 
6. Trust your gut! – If you feel uncomfortable, leave. Even if it is something small. 

Your journey is yours and yours alone. There is no specific timeline. Dating is hard and scary. One thing that I have learned is that while first dates are scary, the dates after can be even more nerve wracking. The important thing to remember is to make decisions that are good for you, and be willing to communicate your needs with people. The biggest thing that I have learned and that I will leave you all with is the fact that you do not have to be perfect to be in a relationship you just have to be trying. 

Dear UMBC Community,

I am delighted to announce the appointment of D. Paul Monteiro, Jr., as our new vice president for government relations and community affairs. Paul is an experienced administrator and lifelong public servant who has held leadership roles in local, state, and federal government and in higher education. He served most recently as the inaugural secretary of the Maryland Department of Service and Civic Innovation.

Prior to his appointment to Governor Wes Moore's cabinet in 2023, Paul was nominated by U.S. President Joe Biden and confirmed by the Senate in 2022 as director of the U.S. Department of Justice Community Relations Service (CRS). Created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, CRS works to mitigate community tensions based on race, color, national origin, sexual orientation, religion, or disability. Paul had served as acting director of CRS from 2015 to 2017, before taking on a role as chief of staff to the president and assistant vice president of external affairs at Howard University.

Paul's public service goes back many years. He served from 2009 to 2013 in the Obama administration as an associate director in the Office of Public Engagement, and he was appointed by President Barack Obama as national director of AmeriCorps Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA). During his time on the White House staff, Paul coordinated the My Brother's Keeper mentorship program for young men and served as a liaison to numerous religious, secular, and ethnic communities, including Arab American and Afghan American groups.

A former ex-officio member of the National Counterterrorism Center's Heritage Council, Paul was awarded a citation from the National Security Council in 2013 for his work on international priorities, including the Global Entrepreneurship Summit, refugee resettlement, and other humanitarian efforts.

Locally, he has served as a member of the Prince George's County Public Schools Board of Education, the Emerging Leaders Impact Fund in Prince George's County, the Board of Governors of Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C., and the Board of Advisors of the Madison House Autism Foundation, based in Rockville.

Raised in Hyattsville, Maryland, Paul is the proud son of immigrants and was the first in his family to attend college. He earned a bachelor's degree in history from the University of Maryland and a law degree from the Howard University School of Law. In law school, he served as a fellow in the Marshall-Brennan Constitutional Literacy Project, where he spent a year teaching middle and high school students about the U.S. Constitution.

The depth and breadth of Paul's service to communities locally and globally speak volumes about his commitment to making a meaningful difference. We are fortunate to have in Paul not only someone whose knowledge and expertise in policy, governance, and advocacy will serve us well, but also someone whose personal values align so beautifully with UMBC's.

He has expressed to me his admiration for UMBC and its public mission, and I know he looks forward to continuing to strengthen our engagement with government officials and our collaboration with UMBC's neighbors.

Paul will hit the ground running; I am grateful that he is able to begin in the role next week, in preparation for the start of the Maryland General Assembly's regular session in January, and at a time when our advocacy with local, state, and federal government is more demanding and more consequential than ever.

Please join me in welcoming Paul to UMBC!

Sincerely,

President Valerie Sheares Ashby

By: Ashwathi Menon, Bioinformatics & Public Health Major

When I first entered the world of neuroscience lab work, science seemed to be all about being objective: clean lines, sharp corners, and no emotion involved whatsoever. It all seemed to point to the notion that too much emotion clouds one’s vision; you didn’t want emotion near your microscope. But as I stood at my lab bench operating my RT-PCRs on rat hypothalamus samples, it hit me just how much emotion was already infused into everything we did. It takes patience to accurately pipette one perfect microliter of liquid. It takes collaboration to run repeated tests. It takes the knowledge and obligation to know your own scientific pursuits may one day impact an individual’s life; the entire point being care is not the opposite of science but its pulse instead.

This is not something one can read in books or lectures. It is something my grandmother taught me: my Achamma. She suffered from a stroke just over a year ago, and since then, I have been assisting my family with her care. Watching her relearn to move her arm or to pronounce a few words sparked my own interest in the same paths inside her mind because these paths looked just like what we discussed and viewed in class, but instead of graphs or PowerPoint presentations, they were hers.

In science, we’re expected to measure everything: voltage, pH levels, and reaction time. But there is no measuring the act of holding someone’s hand while they forget your name, or the strength required to continue to come back to them anyway. This is the kind of labor women have always done. Unacknowledged labor, uncounted labor, but vital labor nonetheless. It is this kind of labor, the kind of labor devalued by society as care, that fuels scientific progress itself. This is one thing feminism helped me recognize.

As someone who works in scientific research, I have been struck by how often science attempts to polarize emotion and intellect. You’re legitimate if you’re logical, but weak if you’re empathetic. But beyond just hurting women in science, this kind of false dichotomy also hurts science itself. The questions we ask in scientific research come from who we are. When more women, and especially women of color, enter science, we bring questions that have never before been asked.

One thing feminist theory often addresses is “ethics of care,” because care is not something to be scorned but rather something to do with moral and intellectual power. This is what I think of every time I go to lab work. This is what I do every time I label a vial of cells or give a presentation or stand up to talk about my findings: practice care for my field and help to transform it from something that once made me feel small to something that contains care.

When I first embarked on my research internship at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, I noticed that I was among the youngest individuals in the lab setting. And yes, I recall wondering whether my voice would really carry any weight or whether anyone would take me seriously at all. But every time I decided to speak out or share my thoughts on whether to use this or that approach, I realized that confidence didn’t lie in being loud but in being anchored to my values instead. And this is something feminism showed me before science did.

It is to walk a high wire between precision and patience, between brains and intuition, and between being strong and being soft. But it seems to me now that these things are no longer on one side or the other of any kind of divide. The most excellent scientific minds happen to approach things whole-brained or whole-hearted, asking “who” questions. Who is helped? Who is hurt? Who is not being allowed to participate in this conversation?

At times, I wonder what my Achamma would have thought if she were to witness me now in my lab setting, my gloved hands steady and strong around my work involving data and fluorescence. But she would smile and remark matter-of-factly, “You’re still taking care of people.” And she would be right because science is nothing but another expression of “caring for others” or our “world” around us.

Perhaps care itself is not what serves as a distraction from science but is rather what makes science human. Perhaps future generations of women pursuing science can forget having to choose between being kind and being smart because we have always been both.

By Claudia Gerry, Social Work Major, Critical Sexuality Studies Minor

It was sixth grade, I was in health class, we were in the family life unit. All my classmates could not stop laughing. My teacher had enough of the shenanigans, she made us all stand up and scream, “PENIS” then, “VAGINA” then, “BOOBIES”. I did not understand why it was so funny. Growing up, my mom, a family practice doctor, would read me her medical textbooks to sleep. I was learning biological male anatomy to sleep. I learned how babies were made when I was 5, I simply asked my mom, and she told me, without innuendos, without slang terms, but with her medical textbook. I was always taught medically accurate sex education at home. This luxury is not given to everyone. In my middle school, there was no LGBTQIA+ representation built into our curriculum. Once again, I learned about it at home. I was raised to believe that sex is just a natural part of life, but I must also know how to have safe sex. Not everyone’s parents are as open as mine were, sex education is needed for the safety of everyone. 

The Netherlands and America differ greatly in how they address teenage sexuality, which is very obvious when looking at statistics. American teens, in the industrialized world, have some of the highest rates of STDs. American teen girls are twice more likely to carry a pregnancy to term than they are to receive an abortion. This is most likely due to the stigma surrounding abortion in the US and the lack of factual education about it. Compared to American girls, Dutch girls are less likely to get pregnant and also more likely to have an abortion if pregnant. American teen girls are 4 times as likely to get pregnant, and twice as likely to have an abortion compared to their Dutch counterparts, even though their age of sexual initiation is similar. This is likely due to a lack of education on contraception methods in American schools and homes. Americans heavily stigmatize sexuality, especially for adolescents; they are less likely to educate their children about safe sex practices in the home. This is why sex education in schools is so important.  Dutch youth birth rates are 8 times lower than American youth. Dutch abortion rates are two times lower than the American abortion rates. While the age of sexual initiation for Dutch teens got younger, their birth rate also steeply dropped between the 1970s-1996, it is one of the lowest in the world. Dutch Teens have much lower rates of pregnancy, birth, abortion, and HIV among youth than American teens. 

The book “Not Under My Roof: Parents, Teens, and the Culture of Sex” by Amy T. Schalet is about the comparison of attitudes of adolescent sexuality in the United States and the Netherlands. I read this book for my CSST 332 Sex and Society class. Schalet is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Schalet’s findings are based on interviews and knowledge about each country’s government and laws. She interviews 130 Dutch and American parents and adolescents (mostly 10th graders) between early 1990 and 2000 who are all similar in education level, religion, class and race, and asks them a series of questions. The main question asked is, as a parent, “would you allow your adolescent child to have a sleepover with the opposite [gender**]?”, or as an adolescent, “would your parent allow you to have a sleepover with the opposite [gender**].?” We find that the answers vary depending on the country, but why? The book explores and explains teenage sexuality in the United States and the Netherlands, mostly in relation to family.  

In the Netherlands, teenage sexuality is seen as normal. Dutch culture normalizes sexuality through three cultural frames: normal sexuality, relationship based sexuality, and self regulated sexuality. Normal sexuality refers to the fact that sexuality can be talked about in an open, unproblematic, and matter of fact manner. Relationship based sexuality refers to the idea that sexual desire and sexual acts grow out of a teen’s feelings for and relationship with another person. Finally, Self-regulated sexuality refers to the belief that readiness for sex is a moment when emotional and physical desires are united, and sensible preventative measures are taken. Sex is talked about in the home like any other topic. There is also an emphasis on safe sex coming from social institutions as well, so Dutch teens are getting the same message from multiple sources. Independent individualism is the dominant cultural norm in the Netherlands. Schalet uses the examples of alcohol, adulthood, and authority when explaining types of individualism. In the Netherlands, alcohol is socially embedded, which leads to teens developing internal control. To be an adult, they need to be able to financially and emotionally self regulate, and authority means to reach mutual agreements. Dutch parents use a form of control over their children called control through connection. Dutch parents tend to use mutual agreements instead of American overt displays of power, making many Dutch adolescents agree to the restrictions placed on them. But, sometimes Dutch teens still feel like their parents are being too restrictive, so they will do things in stiekem (secret). The Dutch societal system has much more room for error compared to America, they have second chances to finish high school, easy access to abortion and emergency contraception, less risk of drunk driving due to the fact that they bike everywhere, and there are fewer legal sanctions surrounding alcohol and drugs. This extra room for error allows Dutch parents to not have to worry as much as their American peers if their children veer off the normalized course of life.

In the United States, teenage sexuality is dramatized. There are 3 frames that support the dramatization of teenage sexuality in the United States, Hormone-based sexuality, the battle between the sexes, and parent-regulated adolescent sexuality. Hormone-based sexuality, also referred to as raging hormones, refers to the idea that hormones are an overpowering force that teens cannot control, leaving parents to think there is a disjunction between the onset of hormones and the cognitive/emotional development needed to control them. The battle between the sexes refers to the fact that sex at adolescence is conceptualized as a battle with winners and losers, and costs and benefits. Lastly, parent-regulated adolescent sexuality refers to the fact that parents think it is their job to monitor and control their teen’s raging hormones because they cannot control themselves, they regulate whatever is in their control, for example, the not under my roof sentiment. American parents avoid the topic of sexuality in the home, leaving it to the school to teach, but the sex education legislation fails its students. Every state has different standards for sex education, some states do not even require the information being taught to be medically accurate. Some parents want to avoid the topic of sexuality in their children’s lives so much that they opt out of the school sex education provided. Adversarial individualism is the dominant cultural norm in the United States. In this form of individualism, teens need external control in relation to alcohol, to be an adult they need to be financially and emotionally self-sufficient, and authority means to win the important battles and let go of the small things. American parents use a form of control over their children called connection through control. American adolescents try to maintain a good kid image for their parents, yet they break the stricter rules to create separation between themselves and their families.

Overall, through reading this book, I learned that the American view of teenage sexuality is not the norm for the rest of the world, specifically the Netherlands.  I think the main ideas of the book are things all parents should know. We see that Dutch unintended pregnancy and STI rates are lower than their US counterparts, and that the Dutch tend to get married and stay married instead of getting multiple divorces like many Americans. I believe that parents should try their best to use the parenting style the Dutch use. Not only for a closer family dynamic, but for the safety and success of their children. 

I always knew that I was raised differently than my peers, but just because I was educated in this way doesn’t mean that the culture I live in had no effect on me. I was raised to ask questions and be open about sexuality, but around the age of 12, I began to keep things secret from my family and close myself off. Even though I was raised similarly to Dutch youth, I still act similarly to my American peers. This shows how important culture is. My parents raised me to be open, but I closed myself off because that was what everyone else my age was doing and was what I would see on TV. I experienced sexual trauma when I was a tween and went through it alone because that’s what my culture made me think was normal. My sex education in school did not emphasize enthusiastic consent and did not give us resources for help. Sex education is now one of my passions. I think every person should know their bodies and understand consent completely. I believe that if we as a society can open up about the human experience of sexuality, people would feel safer talking about their stories, have better sexual experiences, and overall be happier.

**This book was really eye-opening, but my main critique is the use of gendered language and the disregard of nonbinary/gender-nonconforming individuals. I tried my best to use the most inclusive language possible, but that cannot make up for the lack of data given, most likely due to this work being published in 2011 and there not being much research done on that community.

Citation

Schalet, A. T. (2011). Not under my roof : parents, teens, and the culture of sex. University Of Chicago Press.

GEARS had their 3MT information session on Nov. 03 where Scott Morgan shared details regarding the 3MT competition to be held in Spring 2026 on April 07th. 

Registration to participate in the 3MT competition will begin soon! Look out for a post from us in January 2026!

Thank you so much for attending the Asian American Children's Literature Exhibition organized by Dr. Sharon Tran! We had a beautiful evening engaging with work created by Dr. Tran's English 360 students and sharing in story time with Dr. Tamara Bhalla, Dr. Fan Yang, and their daughters. 

Plans are in the work to host the children's books that students selected in an accessible location for people to visit. For now, please reach out to Dr. Fan Yang (Director, Asian Studies) at fanyang@umbc.edu if you would like to check them out!

The UMBC Cyber Defense Lab presents

Analysis of the Security Design, Engineering, and Implementation of the SecureDNA System

Alan T. Sherman, Enis Golszewski, and Jeremy J. Romanik Romano
UMBC CSEE Department

Joint work with Edward Zieglar, Jonathan D. Fuchs, and William E. Byrd

12:00 noon–1pm Friday, December 12, 2025 via WebEx

We analyze security aspects of the SecureDNA system regarding its system design, engineering, and implementation. This system enables DNA synthesizers to screen order requests against a database of hazards.  By applying novel cryptography involving distributed oblivious pseudorandom functions, the system aims to keep order requests and the database of hazards secret. Discerning the detailed operation of the system in part from source code (Version 1.0.8), our analysis examines key management, certificate infrastructure, authentication, and rate-limiting mechanisms. We also perform the first formal-methods analysis of the mutual authentication, basic request, and exemption-handling protocols.

Without breaking the cryptography, our main finding is that SecureDNA's custom mutual authentication protocol SCEP achieves only one-way authentication: the hazards database and keyservers never learn with whom they communicate. This structural weakness violates the principle of defense in depth and enables an adversary to circumvent rate limits that protect the secrecy of the hazards database, if the synthesizer connects with a malicious or corrupted keyserver or hashed database. We point out an additional structural weakness that also violates the principle of defense in depth: inadequate cryptographic bindings prevent the system from detecting if responses, within a TLS channel, from the hazards database were modified. Consequently, if a synthesizer were to reconnect with the database over the same TLS session, an adversary could replay and swap responses from the database without breaking TLS. Although the SecureDNA implementation does not allow such reconnections, it would be stronger security engineering to avoid the underlying structural weakness. We identify these vulnerabilities and suggest and verify mitigations, including adding strong bindings. Software Version 1.1.0 fixes SCEP with our proposed SCEP+ protocol.

Our work illustrates that a secure system needs more than sound mathematical cryptography; it also requires formal specifications, sound key management, proper binding of protocol message components, and careful attention to engineering and implementation details.

Dr. Alan T. Sherman is a professor of computer science at UMBC in the CSEE Department, associate director of UMBC's Cybersecurity Institute, and director of the Cyber Defense Lab.  His main research interest is high-integrity voting systems. He has carried out research in election systems, protocol analysis, algorithm design, cryptanalysis, theoretical foundations for cryptography, applications of cryptography, cloud forensics, and cybersecurity education. Dr. Sherman is also a private consultant performing security analyses and serving as an expert witness.  Sherman earned the PhD degree in computer science at MIT in 1987, studying under Ronald L. Rivest.  His research accomplishments include contributions to the Scantegrity and VoteXX election systems and development and validation of the Cybersecurity Concept Inventory (CCI) and Cybersecurity Curriculum Assessment (CCA). This work has been presented at USENIX Security 2010 and E-VOTE-ID 2025, and won best research paper at SIGSCE 2023. Sherman received approximately $15 million in funding from NSF, NSA, and IBM. 

Dr. Enis Golaszewski is a teaching assistant professor of computer science at UMBC in the CSEE Department.  He holds weekly workshops in formal-methods analyses of cryptographic protocols using the Cryptographic Protocol Shapes Analyzer (CPSA). His current research projects include analysis of the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) protocol. Golaszewski earned the PhD under Sherman. His dissertation includes the design and development of a tool---ProtoBindGuard---that automatically binds protocol messages to context to prevent protocol-interaction attacks.  Golaszewski is a former SFS scholar at UMBC. https://www.csee.umbc.edu/enis-golaszewski/

Jeremy J. Romanik Romano is an MS student in computer science at UMBC.  His research interests include cybersecurity, software security, and protocol analysis.  His involvement in this project began through being a student in Sherman's INSuRE and cryptology research courses.  Romano is a member of the UMBC Protocol Analysis Lab and system administration and cybersecurity clubs on campus.