Home – The Conversation |
- Supreme Court strikes down California's nonprofit donor disclosure requirements: 4 questions answered
- Supreme Court blunts voting rights in Arizona – and potentially nationwide – in controversial ruling
- 'Megadrought' along border strains US-Mexico water relations
- Trump Organization indictment hints at downsides of having no independent oversight – unlike companies traded on Wall Street
- Benjamin Franklin's fight against a deadly virus: Colonial America was divided over smallpox inoculation, but he championed science to skeptics
- A medical moonshot would help fix inequality in American health care
- Infighting in the Southern Baptist Convention shouldn't be a surprise – the denomination has been defined by such squabbles for 400 years
- Racism lurks behind decisions to deny Black high school students from being recognized as the top in their class
- What's a ghost kitchen? A food industry expert explains
- Trustees' handling of Nikole Hannah-Jones' tenure application shows how university boards often fail the accountability test
- 5 children's books that teach valuable engineering lessons
| Posted: 01 Jul 2021 03:39 PM PDT  The Supreme Court tossed out a California law requiring nonprofits to report their major donors to state officials. In a 6-3 ruling, the court said the law, intended to fight fraud, subjected donors to potential harassment and violated their First Amendment rights. Dana Brakman Reiser, a legal scholar on nonprofits, explains the case, known as Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta, and the significance of the court's decision. 1. What was the case about?Two conservative nonprofit groups, Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the Thomas More Law Center, sued California's government over its requirement that the identity of a charity's biggest donors be shared with the state's attorney general. Though the disclosure is made to the state, not the public, both groups claimed that California failed to sufficiently safeguard the names of donors, resulting in numerous data leaks. The litigants argued that given the potential of disclosure by California's authorities, donors who support controversial charities could reasonably fear harassment if the public learned their identities. On those grounds, Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the Thomas More Law Center accused the state of hindering their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of association. A diverse array of nonprofits, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, agreed and urged the court to block California's disclosure rule. California countered by arguing that donor information is necessary to combat charity fraud and that, especially after adjustments made during the litigation, donor names submitted to the state are now secure. The United States and a group of prominent nonprofit law scholars filed briefs in support of California's position. 2. What does the ruling mean?California will no longer be able to mandate that charities disclose their donors to the state as a matter of course. The majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts recognized the state's important interest in rooting out charity fraud but held that a donor disclosure system can be maintained only if it is narrowly tailored to meet the government's needs. The court found California's law, on the other hand, to be overly broad. To reach that conclusion, the majority relied heavily on evidence filed in the case that California did not actually use the donor information it demanded to initiate anti-fraud actions. The three dissenting justices strongly disagreed with both the majority's approach to the law and its reading of the facts. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the plaintiffs failed to show that California's law had actually burdened their right to association, as they argued prior Supreme Court First Amendment cases require. Absent such a showing, these justices said, they would have sustained the law, especially since it did not require public disclosure and most donors were probably "agnostic" about the requirement.  3. Does this change how states oversee nonprofits?Yes, but not all states will be affected in the same way. New York, Hawaii and New Jersey have similar donor disclosure laws, which this case will also undo. And the court didn't give California or these other states an easy way to "cure" such laws so they would pass constitutional muster, whether by improving the security of the data or exempting controversial charities from disclosure. States that tackle charity fraud through other means, such as attorney general investigations, are mostly unaffected by the ruling. Even those states that forgo donor disclosure impose many other reporting requirements on the charities they monitor, including demands that charities identify their directors and officers to regulators. The majority opinion's broad language about the need to justify disclosure requirements could prompt future challenges to these more widespread charity reporting requirements. 4. Does this mean the IRS can't collect this information either?The federal government mandates that nonprofit charities disclose the same information about major donors to the Internal Revenue Service. But today's Supreme Court case addresses only the constitutionality of a state law requirement. Neither Americans for Prosperity Foundation nor the Thomas More Law Center tried to connect their objections over California's law to the IRS' disclosure mandate. Of course, their decisions not to do so in this case do not prevent future litigation challenging the federal donor disclosure system. The outcome of such a case is uncertain. A court could still uphold the federal requirement if it found the IRS' disclosure rule was tightly connected to its important role as a tax regulator. After all, the IRS does not only monitor charities for fraud and abuse as state attorneys general do. It also oversees a system that provides substantial tax benefits to exempt organizations and their donors, a point the U.S. solicitor general emphasized to the court. The federal government's defense against an attack on its disclosure requirement could also point to its already strong protections for donor data. While certainly not immune to leaks or hacking, the IRS maintains a highly secure database of confidential tax information. Moreover, attempts to breach it trigger civil and criminal penalties. If the courts were eventually to strike down the IRS' donor disclosure requirements, though, it would significantly upend federal regulation of tax-exempt charities. This case could also portend a future challenge over federal campaign finance law. Right now, the Federal Election Commission collects information on political donors and candidates for the public record. Some worry the California decision imperils this disclosure system as well. [Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend. Sign up for our weekly newsletter.]  Dana Brakman Reiser does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.  |
| Supreme Court blunts voting rights in Arizona – and potentially nationwide – in controversial ruling Posted: 01 Jul 2021 11:53 AM PDT  Arizona may keep two voting laws that Republicans say protect election integrity and Democrats believe will make it harder for some residents to cast ballots. That's the United States Supreme Court's decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, one of the decade's most important voting rights cases. One Arizona law challenged in the case, H.B. 2023, makes it a felony for anyone other than a family member, caregiver or postal worker to collect and deliver ballots. The other requires ballots to be cast in the assigned precinct where a voter lives. If a person votes at the wrong polling place, Arizona election officials will reject their ballot. The Democratic National Committee argued at the Supreme Court that both Arizona rules disproportionately hurt minority voters. The majority of justices, split 6-to-3 along ideological lines, disagreed. "Voting necessarily requires some effort and compliance with some rules," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court's majority on July 1, 2021. Merely making it more "inconvenient" for certain groups to vote does not violate federal law, according to the court. The ruling will have national consequences. Arizona is one of 14 states restricting third-party ballot collection. It is one of 26 that require in-precinct voting. The Supreme Court's decision makes it more difficult to legally challenge such laws, which, according to our research on elections, significantly affect voting, particularly among racial minorities and the poor.  From Arizona to the Supreme CourtIn Arizona, nearly 80% of voters in 2018 cast their ballots by mail. But mail service is not always available in rural areas of the state where many Hispanic and Native Americans live. Only 18% of Native Americans in the state, for example, have access to home mail delivery. The Tohono O'odham reservation, which covers an area larger than Rhode Island and Delaware, has no home delivery and only one post office. These rural voters often rely on friends or get-out-the-vote workers to deliver their ballots to polling stations. The burdens on rural and tribal voters were cited in a 2016 lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee to block the Arizona ballot collection ban and out-of-precinct vote restriction. The Democratic National Committee claimed both policies violated Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, which prohibits practices that "result in a denial or abridgment of the right (to vote) on account of race or color." The lawsuit, which was supported by Arizona's Democratic secretary of state, also argued that the ballot collection ban purposely targeted minority voters. That would violate the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits states from intentionally denying the right to vote on account of race. Arizona's Republican attorney general and the state's Republican Party argued the laws were race-neutral restrictions that do not impede Arizonans' equal opportunity to vote and were enacted to safeguard election integrity. The case reached the Supreme Court after an appeal process in which the full Arizona Ninth Circuit Court ultimately determined that the state's ballot collection ban violated both Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 15th Amendment because minority voters were more likely than nonminorities to rely on others to return their ballots. And the law could not be credibly defended as an election integrity measure because judges saw no evidence that third-party ballot collection led to vote fraud in the past. The appeals court also found that the out-of-precinct policy violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Arizona officials frequently changed polling places in urban counties, so voters there easily made mistakes. In 2016, 3,709 out-of-precinct Arizona ballots were rejected, and minority voters were twice as likely as whites to have their ballots discarded in that process.  The justices' reasoningIn deciding against Arizona in 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court relied on a "results test." This means that a law does not require proof of an intent to discriminate to be struck down. Judges ask only whether the law disproportionately affects historically disadvantaged groups. In overturning the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court concluded the Arizona laws did not intentionally discriminate and rejected the logic of the "results test." Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act still prevents states from enacting voting rules that purposely discriminate. But proving intentional discrimination is much more difficult than showing a law disproportionately impacts minority voting. The three liberal justices on the court, led by Justice Elena Kagan, dissented. The "Court has (yet again) rewritten — in order to weaken — a statute that stands as a monument to America's greatness, and protects against its basest impulses," Kagan wrote. Electoral consequencesThe Brnovich ruling means Arizona's voting restrictions stand. It also gives other states greater latitude when adopting similar rules and limits the federal government's ability to police restrictive voting practices. Since the 2020 presidential election, legislators in at least 48 states have introduced 389 so-called "election integrity" bills placing new restrictions on voting. Of these, 22 have been enacted. For example, Georgia's March 2021 election law imposes new limits on the use of absentee ballots, makes it a crime for outside groups to provide food and water to voters waiting at polling stations and hands greater control over election administration to the Republican-led state legislature. On June 25 the U.S. Department of Justice sued Georgia, arguing these rules violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and that Georgia's law is intended to discriminate. Before 2013, states with a history of racial discrimination needed federal approval before enacting new voting laws, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. But in 2013, the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder – an Alabama voting rights case – dismantled these procedures. As a "preclearance" state, Arizona was previously blocked by the federal government from enacting voter restrictions like H.B. 2023. Other former preclearance states that have passed restrictive laws since 2013 include Georgia, Texas and Florida. Since Shelby County v. Holder, voting rights advocates have had to rely on a different part of the Voting Rights Act – Section 2 – to block these restrictive voting laws. Brnovich v. DNC was the first Supreme Court test of this strategy. The court's decision severely cripples it, further eroding the Voting Rights Act. Attention now shifts to Congress to see whether it will respond. This is an updated version of an article originally published June 8, 2021.  The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.  |
| 'Megadrought' along border strains US-Mexico water relations Posted: 01 Jul 2021 05:16 AM PDT  The United States and Mexico are tussling over their dwindling shared water supplies after years of unprecedented heat and insufficient rainfall.  Sustained drought on the middle-lower Rio Grande since the mid-1990s means less Mexican water flows to the U.S. The Colorado River Basin, which supplies seven U.S. states and two Mexican states, is also at record low levels. A 1944 treaty between the U.S. and Mexico governs water relations between the two neighbors. The International Boundary and Water Commission it established to manage the 450,000-square-mile Colorado and Rio Grande basins has done so adroitly, according to our research. That able management kept U.S.-Mexico water relations mostly conflict-free. But it masked some well-known underlying stresses: a population boom on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border, climate change and aging waterworks. 1944 to 2021The mostly semiarid U.S.-Mexico border region receives less than 18 inches of annual rainfall, with large areas getting under 12 inches. That's less than half the average annual rainfall in the U.S., which is mainly temperate. The 1940s, however, were a time of unusual water abundance on the treaty rivers. When American and Mexican engineers drafted the 1944 water treaty, they did not foresee today's prolonged megadrought. Nor did they anticipate the region's rapid growth. Since 1940 the population of the 10 largest pairs of cities that straddle the U.S.-Mexico border has mushroomed nearly twentyfold, from 560,000 people to some 10 million today. This growth is powered by a booming, water-dependent manufacturing industry in Mexico that exports products to U.S. markets. Irrigated agriculture, ranching and mining compete with growing cities and expanding industry for scarce water.  Today, there's simply not enough of it to meet demand in the border areas governed by the 1944 treaty. Three times since 1992 Mexico has fallen short of its five-year commitment to send 1.75 million acre-feet of water across the border to the U.S. Each acre-foot can supply a U.S. family of four for one year. Water conflictsIn the fall of 2020, crisis erupted in the Rio Grande Valley after years of rising tensions and sustained drought that endanger crops and livestock in both the U.S. and Mexico. In September 2020, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott declared that "Mexico owes Texas a year's worth of Rio Grande water." The next month, workers in Mexico released water from a dammed portion of Mexico's Río Conchos destined to flow across the border to partially repay Mexico's 345,600-acre-foot water debt to the U.S. Frustrated farmers and protesters in the Mexican state of Chihuahua clashed with Mexican soldiers sent to protect the workers. A 35-year-old farmer's wife and mother of three was killed. Mexico also agreed to transfer its stored water at Amistad Dam to the U.S., fulfilling its obligation just three days before its Oct. 25, 2020, deadline. That decision satisfied its water debt to the U.S. under the 1944 treaty but jeopardized the supply of more than a million Mexicans living downstream of Amistad Dam in the Mexican states of Coahuila and Tamaulipas.  The U.S. and Mexico pledged to revisit the treaty's Rio Grande water rules in 2023. The drought dilemma on the Colorado River is similarly dire. The water level at Lake Mead, a major reservoir for communities in the lower Colorado River Basin, has dropped nearly 70% over 20 years, threatening the water supply of Arizona, California and Nevada. In 2017, the U.S. and Mexico signed a temporary "shortage-sharing solution." That agreement, forged under the authority of the 1944 treaty, allowed Mexico to store part of its treaty water in U.S. reservoirs upstream. Saving a strained treatyWater shortages along the U.S.-Mexico border also threaten the natural environment. As water is channeled to farms and cities, rivers are deprived of the flow necessary to support habitats, fish populations and overall river health. The 1944 water treaty was silent on conservation. For all its strengths, it simply allocates the water of the Rio Grande and Colorado rivers. It does not contemplate the environmental side of water use. But the treaty is reasonably elastic, so its members can update it as conditions change. In recent years, conservation organizations and scientists have promoted the environmental and human benefits of restoration. New Colorado River agreements now recognize ecological restoration as part of treaty-based water management. Environmental projects are underway in the lower Colorado River to help restore the river's delta, emphasizing native vegetation like willows and cottonwoods. These trees provide habitat for such at-risk birds as the yellow-billed cuckoo and the Yuma clapper rail, and for numerous species that migrate along this desolate stretch of the Pacific Flyway.  Currently, no such environmental improvements are planned for the Rio Grande. But other lessons learned on the Colorado are now being applied to the Rio Grande. Recently, Mexico and the U.S. created a permanent binational advisory body for the Rio Grande similar to the one established in 2010 to oversee the health and ecology of the Colorado. Another recent agreement permits each country to monitor the other's use of Rio Grande water using common diagnostics like Riverware, a dynamic modeling tool for monitoring water storage and flows. Mexico also has agreed to try to use water more efficiently, allowing more of it to flow to the U.S. Newly created joint teams of experts will study treaty compliance and recommend further changes needed to manage climate-threatened waters along the U.S.-Mexico border sustainably and cooperatively. Incremental treaty modifications like these could palpably reduce the past year's tensions and revitalize a landmark U.S.-Mexico treaty that's buckling under the enormous strain of climate change. [This week in religion, a global roundup each Thursday. Sign up.]  Robert Gabriel Varady has received funding from NOAA, the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, Lloyd's Register Foundation, and Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation.. Andrea K Gerlak has received funding from NOAA, the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, Lloyd's Register Foundation, and Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation.. Stephen Paul Mumme does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.  |
| Posted: 01 Jul 2021 05:16 AM PDT  A Manhattan grand jury on July 1, 2021, indicted the Trump Organization and one of its top executives, Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg, over his failure to pay taxes over 15 years. I'm a scholar in corporate leadership and governance. While I can't comment on the specifics of the case, I do know that private companies like the Trump Organization lack the safeguards of public corporations – like outside ownership and independent oversight. Moreover, impulsive decision-making by an individual or small, isolated group of followers, without those safeguards, can and often will lead to disastrous results. That appears to be what the ongoing criminal investigations into the Trump Organization show. Public ownershipSeveral years ago, I explored the distinction between public and private companies in detail when the American Bar Association invited me to write about what young corporate lawyers needed to understand about how business works. Based on that research, I want to point to an important set of distinctions between public and private corporations, and what it all means for the Trump Organization. Public corporations are those businesses that trade their stock on a public market, such as the New York Stock Exchange. They are regulated by the Security and Exchange Commission and affected by a number of important federal laws, most notably the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act, popularly known as Sarbanes-Oxley. Private companies like the Trump Organization do not trade their stock publicly. Ownership is tightly held by a limited number of chosen investors. As such, they escape the scrutiny of these public overseers. Outside oversightThe CEO of a public company is subject to an array of constraints and a varying but always substantial degree of oversight. There are boards of directors, of course, that review all major strategic decisions. And there are separate committees that assess CEO performance and determine compensation, composed entirely of independent directors who don't have any ongoing involvement in running the business. In addition, public shareholders are entitled to vote directly on the compensation awarded to top executives. Whole categories of CEO decisions, including mergers and acquisitions, international expansions and changes in the corporation's charter are subject to the opinion of shareholders and directors. The composition of the board of directors is also regulated by law. Half of the directors must be independent of the company. And the board committees charged with conducting audits, hiring and firing the CEO and determining executive pay must be 100% independent. Company insiders and close family members may sit on public boards but are not counted as independent. Full disclosureThe SEC requires the CEOs of public corporations to make full and public disclosures of their financial performance. Regular reports require disclosure of operating expenses, significant partnerships, liabilities, strategies, risks and plans. Additionally, public companies must hire an independent auditing firm approved by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board to conduct and verify the thoroughness and accuracy of those financial statements. Any fraudulent reporting can result in criminal charges against the CEO and chief financial officer. These rules are all intended to safeguard the integrity of corporations, to help make them transparent to public investors and to guard against corruption. They are far from perfect, but they are helpful. And private corporations are not required to comply with any of them.  How 'Trump Inc.' operatedWell-governed companies, such as Microsoft and PepsiCo, tend to outperform poorly governed ones, often dramatically. That's largely due to all the factors noted above, including accountability. Management at the Trump Organization, on the other hand, was accountable to no one, other than Trump himself. The executive team of the Trump Organization – a limited liability company that has owned and run hundreds of businesses involving real estate, hotels, golf courses and much else – is made up entirely of his children and people who are loyal to him. And his decision-making authority was unconstrained by any external oversight or internal constraints. Decisions concerning what businesses to start or exit, how much money to borrow and at what interest rates, how to market products and services, and how to pay suppliers or treat customers were made centrally and not subject to review. Trump, it should be noted, made one stab at a public company in the mid-1990s: Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts. That was an unmitigated disaster, leading to five separate declarations of bankruptcy starting in 2004, all during a period when other casino companies thrived. As a private company, the Trump Organization was under no obligation to follow the guidelines of good governance. Because, in my view, it voluntarily decided to ignore such guidelines, the indictment may be only the first of many. Article updated with details of the indictment. This story is an updated version of an article published on Feb. 16, 2017.  Bert Spector does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.  |
| Posted: 01 Jul 2021 05:15 AM PDT  Exactly 300 years ago, in 1721, Benjamin Franklin and his fellow American colonists faced a deadly smallpox outbreak. Their varying responses constitute an eerily prescient object lesson for today's world, similarly devastated by a virus and divided over vaccination three centuries later. As a microbiologist and a Franklin scholar, we see some parallels between then and now that could help governments, journalists and the rest of us cope with the coronavirus pandemic and future threats. Smallpox strikes BostonSmallpox was nothing new in 1721. Known to have affected people for at least 3,000 years, it ran rampant in Boston, eventually striking more than half the city's population. The virus killed about 1 in 13 residents – but the death toll was probably more, since the lack of sophisticated epidemiology made it impossible to identify the cause of all deaths. What was new, at least to Boston, was a simple procedure that could protect people from the disease. It was known as "variolation" or "inoculation," and involved deliberately exposing someone to the smallpox "matter" from a victim's scabs or pus, injecting the material into the skin using a needle. This approach typically caused a mild disease and induced a state of "immunity" against smallpox. Even today, the exact mechanism is poorly understood and not much research on variolation has been done. Inoculation through the skin seems to activate an immune response that leads to milder symptoms and less transmission, possibly because of the route of infection and the lower dose. Since it relies on activating the immune response with live smallpox variola virus, inoculation is different from the modern vaccination that eradicated smallpox using the much less harmful but related vaccinia virus. The inoculation treatment, which originated in Asia and Africa, came to be known in Boston thanks to a man named Onesimus. By 1721, Onesimus was enslaved, owned by the most influential man in all of Boston, the Rev. Cotton Mather.  Known primarily as a Congregational minister, Mather was also a scientist with a special interest in biology. He paid attention when Onesimus told him "he had undergone an operation, which had given him something of the smallpox and would forever preserve him from it; adding that it was often used" in West Africa, where he was from. Inspired by this information from Onesimus, Mather teamed up with a Boston physician, Zabdiel Boylston, to conduct a scientific study of inoculation's effectiveness worthy of 21st-century praise. They found that of the approximately 300 people Boylston had inoculated, 2% had died, compared with almost 15% of those who contracted smallpox from nature. The findings seemed clear: Inoculation could help in the fight against smallpox. Science won out in this clergyman's mind. But others were not convinced. Stirring up controversyA local newspaper editor named James Franklin had his own affliction – namely an insatiable hunger for controversy. Franklin, who was no fan of Mather, set about attacking inoculation in his newspaper, The New-England Courant.  One article from August 1721 tried to guilt readers into resisting inoculation. If someone gets inoculated and then spreads the disease to someone else, who in turn dies of it, the article asked, "at whose hands shall their Blood be required?" The same article went on to say that "Epidemeal Distempers" such as smallpox come "as Judgments from an angry and displeased God." In contrast to Mather and Boylston's research, the Courant's articles were designed not to discover, but to sow doubt and distrust. The argument that inoculation might help to spread the disease posits something that was theoretically possible – at least if simple precautions were not taken – but it seems beside the point. If inoculation worked, wouldn't it be worth this small risk, especially since widespread inoculations would dramatically decrease the likelihood that one person would infect another? Franklin, the Courant's editor, had a kid brother apprenticed to him at the time – a teenager by the name of Benjamin. Historians don't know which side the younger Franklin took in 1721 – or whether he took a side at all – but his subsequent approach to inoculation years later has lessons for the world's current encounter with a deadly virus and a divided response to a vaccine. Independent thoughtYou might expect that James' little brother would have been inclined to oppose inoculation as well. After all, thinking like family members and others you identify with is a common human tendency. That he was capable of overcoming this inclination shows Benjamin Franklin's capacity for independent thought, an asset that would serve him well throughout his life as a writer, scientist and statesman. While sticking with social expectations confers certain advantages in certain settings, being able to shake off these norms when they are dangerous is also valuable. We believe the most successful people are the ones who, like Franklin, have the intellectual flexibility to choose between adherence and independence. Truth, not victory What happened next shows that Franklin, unlike his brother – and plenty of pundits and politicians in the 21st century – was more interested in discovering the truth than in proving he was right. Perhaps the inoculation controversy of 1721 had helped him to understand an unfortunate phenomenon that continues to plague the U.S. in 2021: When people take sides, progress suffers. Tribes, whether long-standing or newly formed around an issue, can devote their energies to demonizing the other side and rallying their own. Instead of attacking the problem, they attack each other. Franklin, in fact, became convinced that inoculation was a sound approach to preventing smallpox. Years later he intended to have his son Francis inoculated after recovering from a case of diarrhea. But before inoculation took place, the 4-year-old boy contracted smallpox and died in 1736. Citing a rumor that Francis had died because of inoculation and noting that such a rumor might deter parents from exposing their children to this procedure, Franklin made a point of setting the record straight, explaining that the child had "receiv'd the Distemper in the common Way of Infection." Writing his autobiography in 1771, Franklin reflected on the tragedy and used it to advocate for inoculation. He explained that he "regretted bitterly and still regret" not inoculating the boy, adding, "This I mention for the sake of parents who omit that operation, on the supposition that they should never forgive themselves if a child died under it; my example showing that the regret may be the same either way, and that, therefore, the safer should be chosen." A scientific perspectiveA final lesson from 1721 has to do with the importance of a truly scientific perspective, one that embraces science, facts and objectivity.  Inoculation was a relatively new procedure for Bostonians in 1721, and this lifesaving method was not without deadly risks. To address this paradox, several physicians meticulously collected data and compared the number of those who died because of natural smallpox with deaths after smallpox inoculation. Boylston essentially carried out what today's researchers would call a clinical study on the efficacy of inoculation. Knowing he needed to demonstrate the usefulness of inoculation in a diverse population, he reported in a short book how he inoculated nearly 300 individuals and carefully noted their symptoms and conditions over days and weeks. The recent emergency-use authorization of mRNA-based and viral-vector vaccines for COVID-19 has produced a vast array of hoaxes, false claims and conspiracy theories, especially in various social media. Like 18th-century inoculations, these vaccines represent new scientific approaches to vaccination, but ones that are based on decades of scientific research and clinical studies. We suspect that if he were alive today, Benjamin Franklin would want his example to guide modern scientists, politicians, journalists and everyone else making personal health decisions. Like Mather and Boylston, Franklin was a scientist with a respect for evidence and ultimately for truth. When it comes to a deadly virus and a divided response to a preventive treatment, Franklin was clear what he would do. It doesn't take a visionary like Franklin to accept the evidence of medical science today. [Insight, in your inbox each day. You can get it with The Conversation's email newsletter.]  I have written and recorded an Audible Original about Benjamin Franklin (due to be released on July 20, 2021). Christian Chauret ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.  |
| A medical moonshot would help fix inequality in American health care Posted: 01 Jul 2021 05:15 AM PDT  COVID-19 has put the American health care system's deeply entrenched inequities into high relief. The social, economic and political structures that predated the pandemic's public health crisis and resulting recession have meant that Black and Latino people are more likely than white people to be exposed to, hospitalized for and die from COVID-19. But Black and Latino people also died at higher rates than whites from non-COVID-19 causes in 2020, underscoring the harm of delays in medical care generally. Simply put, inequity kills. As a health economist, an expert in social determinants of health and a professor of health policy, we have seen the evidence that new medical interventions can serve as a great leveler and help change the trajectory of health disparities in the United States. A concerted national effort to develop cures or enhanced treatments for conditions that disproportionately affect communities of color – such as high blood pressure, diabetes and obesity – would benefit all patients, while narrowing racial and ethnic disparities. How innovation can transform health outcomesMedical breakthroughs, as well as new ways of delivering existing treatments, can help advance health equity. How? Improved testing, diagnosis and treatment can help identify those who need care and can get them better care. But innovations don't do that on their own. Hypertension provides a good example. Breakthroughs in treatment over the past few decades – including antihypertensive medications, cholesterol-lowering drugs and heart surgery – helped decrease overall deaths in the U.S. from heart disease by 47% over two decades. But mortality among Black Americans is improving at a slower rate than for their white counterparts, even though Black Americans are more likely to develop serious hypertension and have worse health outcomes – in part because they are less likely to receive key diagnostic tests and treatments. The story has been somewhat different with HIV. Since the first wave of complex drug treatments in the 1990s, significant innovations – from combination treatments to single-tablet regimens to pre-exposure preventive treatment – life expectancy has increased and infection rates are down. People on single-tablet regimens, for instance, have been better able to maintain treatment regimens, leading to improved viral suppression and fewer hospitalizations. These simplified regimens help close disparities in HIV infection and treatment among people of color, who due to historic inequities found it more difficult to adhere to the earlier, more complex HIV treatment regimens. Improving outcomes for this population was a key component of the national strategy to end the HIV epidemic. Linking innovation to equityNew COVID-19 vaccines promise similar benefits. Single-dose administration, for example, eliminates the scheduling, transportation and child care needed for a second dose, making it ideal for hard-to-reach populations. Community leaders in Washington, D.C., for example, used single-dose jabs at a mobile vaccination clinics stationed in African American churches. Similar innovations could help improve management of asthma or diabetes, which both afflict nonwhite people at higher rates than white Americans. Or make screenings for cancer and other chronic conditions more accessible, promoting earlier detection in another arena where significant health disparities exist. Innovation is also key to addressing the health care needs of older adults, including older adults of color. The pandemic's disproportionate impact on those living and working in long-term care facilities has exposed the need to assist all health care workers, not just doctors and nurses. Beyond these measures, technological advances – from telemedicine to remote monitoring to therapeutic robots – have the potential to promote healthy, successful aging and improve disparities. Innovation is just part of the solutionThe White House and the National Institutes of Health have proposed a new public-private initiative to improve health. It would be modeled on the successful DARPA effort by the Department of Defense, which led to such technologies as the internet and GPS. To achieve equal access to health care, this initiative needs to work on not just developing new technologies, but also ensuring equal access. It may not seem like much to simplify the steps in a treatment regimen or reduce the necessary number of visits to a doctor – but these can make a difference in people's lives. We also need more inclusive research designs. Including patients of color in clinical trials to test new drugs is vital to learn how well new interventions work across the entire population. Communication strategies tailored to and respectful of marginalized communities would reach them with messages that resonate with their concerns. [You're smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation's authors and editors. You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter.] Medical advances are often costly as well. The promise of innovation can be realized only if new technologies are appropriately reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid – the U.S.'s key public payers. So any health moonshot must also eliminate financial and other barriers to accessing new innovations. Many factors contribute to health disparities. A systemic, multifaceted and trustworthy approach to closing them should not overlook the potential of new medical innovations in the fight to end health disparities for patients of color. Lives and livelihoods depend on it.  Dr. Goldman is a member of a National Academy of Medicine panel on Improving the Representation of Women and Underrepresented Minorities in Clinical Trials and Research. He has received research support, speaker fees, travel assistance, or consulting income from the following sources: ACADIA Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, The Aspen Institute, Biogen, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cedars-Sinai Health System, Celgene, Edwards Lifesciences, Gates Ventures, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GRAIL, Johnson & Johnson, Kaiser Family Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Pfizer, Precision Health Economics, Roche, and Walgreens Boots Alliance. Reginald Tucker-Seeley is a member of the Roundtable on the Promotion of Health Equity at the National Academies, a member of the board of trustees of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation, and a member of the board of directors of the National Patient Advocate Foundation. He has received funding from the National Cancer Institute, the California Health Care Foundation, AcademyHealth, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, . John Rowe does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.  |
| Posted: 01 Jul 2021 05:15 AM PDT  Concerned over the direction that some leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention have recently taken, a number of pastors in the denomination have formed the "Conservative Baptist Network." This comes after some of the denomination's most high-profile figures, including Bible study leader Beth Moore and former president of the denomination's moral and public policy agency Russell Moore (not related), have left the denomination, citing its leadership's support of Donald Trump and its mishandling of clergy sex abuse and racism. These are far from the only departures the Southern Baptist Convention has suffered as membership has declined over the past 14 years. The disgruntled pastors cite a number of grievances, from the SBC's desire to address the denomination's racist past to some leaders' willingness to engage secular theories of social justice to understand contemporary social problems. As a former Southern Baptist and now a scholar working in religious and gender studies, I've watched these recent controversies with interest. Such disagreements have defined Baptists since the 17th century. Baptist battlesIn 1972, historian Walter B. Shurden wrote how disagreements across the centuries had shaped the history of Baptists. "Baptist Battles" – a term coined by sociologist Nancy Ammerman in 1990 – are rooted in Baptist theology. Baptists believe that God speaks directly to individuals and that each person can read the Bible and interpret it themselves. Because of these beliefs, Baptists reject hierarchy in religious governance. The Southern Baptist Convention does not tell individuals what to believe or churches what to do. Each local congregation is autonomous and self-governing. They have generally agreed upon shared beliefs, but no Baptist or Baptist body can tell anyone else what they must believe. With each Baptist having the authority of the individual conscience before God, disagreements are an inevitable and frequent occurrence. Although such agreements can be healthy and push issues forward, more often they can also lead to skirmishes, battles and divisions. Here are just a few of the Baptist battles that have taken place over the past four centuries. The battle over salvation Two distinct strands of Baptists emerged in England in the 17th century. The first were General Baptists, who believed in a "general" salvation, meaning that anyone could be saved. Salvation is believed to be a right relationship with God that leads to eternal life. General salvation is open to all, and each individual has free will to choose or reject salvation. John Smyth, who founded the first Baptist church in Amsterdam around 1609 after fleeing religious persecution in England, believed that God allowed humans to make their own choices. People can choose to sin, and people can choose to repent, he said. The second strand of English Baptists were known as Particular Baptists. They believed in a "particular" salvation, reserved for only those who have been chosen by God to be saved from eternal damnation. People have no choice in the matter of their salvation or damnation. In 1644, Particular Baptists issued a confession of faith repudiating the "heresies" of General Baptists, especially the idea of free will. The battle over hymn singingEarly Baptists, who had separated from the Church of England, were highly suspicious of the practices of Anglican worship, including of "set" – written and recited – prayers. They believed practices of worship should include only those directly authorized by Scripture. General Baptists rejected congregational singing as a "fixed" form of worship. They feared fixed prayers and fixed singing could lead newly separated churches back into the errors of the Church of England. Many Particular Baptists accepted the singing of Psalms, since these words were a part of the biblical text, although each Particular Baptist congregation made its own decisions about singing them or not. By the 1650s, a number of Particular Baptists were using congregational singing, and in the 1670s singing hymns that were not the Psalms began to be practiced. In 1690 a bitter public debate erupted in printed tracts as Baptists attacked and defended the practice of singing hymns in worship. The controversy became so acrimonious that the 1692 Assembly of Particular Baptists took it up and asked its participants not to write publicly about it anymore. The battle over enslavementIn the U.S., Baptists formed a national organization, the Triennial Convention, in 1814. Around the same time, attitudes of Baptists in the South toward the enslavement of Africans began to harden as the 1792 invention of the cotton gin, a machine that made it easier to separate the cotton fibers from their seeds, made enslavement more profitable. By the 1830s, abolitionism took firm hold among Northern Baptists, and both they and Baptists in the South argued they were upholding Scripture through their views on slavery. Soon a debate erupted in the Triennial Convention over whether or not people who held enslaved Africans could be appointed as missionaries. Finally, the board of the convention announced it would not appoint such a person. Baptists in the South decided to withdraw from the Triennial Convention and formed the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845. Rather than issuing a statement in support of slavery, however, the new SBC declared civil issues, such as slavery, outside the purview of religious issues with which the denomination concerned itself. The battle over Baptist historyIn the 19th century, most Baptists staked their claim as the one true New Testament church on their belief that the denomination started with John the Baptist and continued in an unbroken line ever since. In 1893, Southern Baptist seminary president W. H. Whitsitt published an article arguing that Baptists began around 1640 when some of those who broke from the Church of England rejected infant baptism and began to practice adult believers' baptism by immersion. The backlash to Whitsitt's essay was swift and furious from prominent Baptists, local pastors and denominational newspaper editors who insisted Baptists could trace their origins to A.D. 30. Whitsitt resigned from the seminary, but eventually, Baptist historians vindicated him, and his version of 17th-century Baptist origins prevailed. The battle over the BibleIn 1961, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary professor Ralph H. Elliott wrote "The Message of Genesis," a scholarly book that suggested that the stories of the first 11 chapters of the biblical book of Genesis were theological rather than historical. Many Southern Baptists considered these stories literal and believed Elliott had challenged the trustworthiness of the Bible by questioning the historical accuracy of Genesis. After the 1962 meeting of the SBC affirmed the Bible's historical accuracy and infallibility, the seminary demanded that Elliott agree not to republish the book. He refused, and the seminary fired him. But the battle continued. When the denomination's publishing house issued a commentary on Genesis in 1969 that challenged literal interpretations, the opposition was so great that the SBC demanded the publishing house withdraw the volume and issue a new edition with a different writer. The battle for the denomination These battles have continued into the present day. From 1979 to 1993, Southern Baptist fundamentalists and moderates fought for control of the denomination, with fundamentalists wresting away power and moderates leaving to form splinter organizations. While fundamentalists framed the controversy as one over biblical fidelity and authority, the role of women was central. The SBC passed a 1984 resolution excluding women from ordination and becoming pastors and changed the denomination's confessional statement to call for women's submission to men. Baptists have also fought over missions, other denominations, education, evolution, segregation, abortion, sexuality and social work. Now, Southern Baptists are fighting, again over salvation, race and gender.  Susan M. Shaw does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.  |
| Posted: 01 Jul 2021 05:14 AM PDT  Two Black students – Ikeria Washington and Layla Temple – were named valedictorian and salutatorian at West Point High School in Mississippi in 2021. Shortly afterward, two white parents questioned whether school officials had correctly calculated the top academic honors. Ultimately, the school superintendent named two white students as "co-valedictorian" and "co-salutatorian" on the day of graduation. High school seniors with the highest GPA in their graduating class are chosen to be valedictorians and are often responsible for delivering the graduating speech. Salutatorians, who are high school seniors with the second-highest GPA in their graduating class, often give the opening remarks. The superintendent attributed the mix-up to a new school counselor who was given incorrect information on how to calculate class rankings. As an educational researcher who focuses on race and inequality, I am aware that the controversy at West Point High School is by no means isolated. A history of overlooking Black valedictoriansBack in 1991 a federal judge in Covington, Georgia, resolved a dispute a Black high school senior had with a white student over who gets to be valedictorian by making them share the honor. Then in 2012 in Gainesville, Georgia, another Black valedictorian was also forced to share the honor with a white student. Later, the white student's family asked the school to drop his candidacy from the academic honor. In 2011, Kymberly Wimberly, a Black student in Little Rock, Arkansas, had her valedictorian honor stripped away by her principal to be given to a white student with a lower GPA. Wimberly's lowest grade during all four years of high school was a B. In the rest of Wimberly's courses, honors and Advanced Placement courses, she received A's. In her lawsuit, Wimberly claimed that a day after being informed that she was the valedictorian for McGehee High School, the principal told her mother, Molly Bratton, that he "decided to name a white student as co-valedictorian." I became familiar with these kinds of valedictorian disputes when I examined the 2017 lawsuit of Jasmine Shepard. A student at Cleveland High School in Mississippi, Shepard had the highest grade-point average in her class. However, the day before graduation, she was forced to be co-valedictorian with Heather Bouse, a white student with a lower GPA. How 'white fragility' plays outIn my peer-reviewed article analyzing Shepard's case, I examined it from the standpoint of critical race theory. Critical race theory is a theoretical framework that examines racism as a social construct ingrained in the American legal and political system. In my analysis, I conclude that the decisions to force Black students to share top honors with white students result from a psychological discomfort known as "white fragility." This is a state of stress experienced by some white people when they are presented with information about people of color that challenges their sense of entitlement. I maintain that when students of color are named top students in their graduating class, as Shepard was in 2016, white society may begin to fear that students of color are encroaching upon their social turf, so to speak. A legal perspectiveI believe the disputes that arise when Black students are named valedictorian should be viewed in the context of white fragility. For example, consider what happened when a federal judge ordered the Cleveland, Mississippi, school district to desegregate in 2017 after having failed to do so in 1969 after the Brown v. Board of Education case. After the 2017 order, The New York Times reported that many whites in Cleveland "feared" that "dismantling the system would prompt whites to do what they have done in so many other Delta cities: decamp en masse for private schools, or move away." This is known as "white flight." In the instance of Jasmine Shepard, too, I contend that white fragility and the fear of white flight were at play. A key factor contributing to Heather Bouse's being named co-valedictorian with Shepard was that Bouse had received credit for an unapproved Advanced Placement course in online physics, according to court transcripts that I examined. The school policy requires that it publicize all of the courses available to students in the district. Unfortunately, the school administrators failed to inform students, parents and school counselors that the online physics course was available. According to Judge Debra M. Brown, the superintendent and the district's assistant superintendent for curriculum assessment and instruction "incorrectly believed" that the school district was authorized to offer online courses for credit that would count toward students' graduation requirements. Bouse's online physics course was "designated as advanced, which resulted in six rank points." Based on the credit awarded for this unapproved online physics course, Bouse's overall GPA was inflated, while Shepard's GPA was wrongly calculated. This was because her guidance counselor had re-enrolled her in a desktop publishing course in which she had already received an A. As a matter of policy it was "contrary to the School District's practices for student to receive credit for a course she had already completed and earned an 'A,'" according to the complaint. This re-enrolling led to Shepard's overall GPA being lowered, which is discussed in her complaint. A different student filed a very similar lawsuit to Shepard's in 2018. In that lawsuit, Olecia James argued that Cleveland School District officials were "reducing the quality points she earned from courses she had taken." Quality points are another metric of a student's grades. Ultimately this prevented her from becoming Cleveland High School's first Black salutatorian. The stakes associated with being valedictorian and salutatorian are already high. Competition for college admission increases every year. Unfortunately, as in the incident involving Ikeria Washington and Layla Temple at West Point High School reveals, when the honorees are African American, there have been instances in which people have questioned the validity of the outcome. My research suggests that whenever a Black student's status as valedictorian or salutatorian is questioned, it pays to ask questions. Is it being questioned for a legitimate reason? Or might racism or white fragility be at play? [Over 106,000 readers rely on The Conversation's newsletter to understand the world. Sign up today.] This article has been updated to correct the location of the 2012 legal case from Gainesville, Florida to Gainesville, Georgia.  Jamel K. Donnor is affiliated with the James City-Williamsburg NAACP.  |
| What's a ghost kitchen? A food industry expert explains Posted: 01 Jul 2021 05:14 AM PDT  While the phrase "ghost kitchen" may conjure up images of haunted houses, the reality is a bit more mundane. Ghost kitchens are food prep operations with no waiters, no dining room and no parking lot – really, no public presence whatsoever. But on food delivery apps, they're alive and well. In short, ghost kitchens are physical spaces for operators to create food for off-premises consumption. And on apps like Grubhub and DoorDash, listings for restaurants operating out of ghost kitchens usually don't look any different than those for brick-and-mortar operations. For example, where I live in northern Colorado, there's a restaurant called Rocco's Ravioli that appears on the apps. But Rocco's doesn't have a storefront. It's a food delivery service that makes food in a ghost kitchen. One trend I'm seeing is the formation of central, commissary-style ghost kitchens with multiple restaurants or brands working out of the same physical space. These are often located in industrial parks on the outskirts of cities, since there's no need to pay downtown rents when there's no front-of-house operation. Why ghost kitchens matterWhile it's hard to pinpoint exactly when the first ghost kitchen opened, it was the COVID-19 pandemic that accelerated their growth. By March 2020, most U.S. jurisdictions had forced restaurants to close their dining rooms to limit the spread of the coronavirus. While some restaurants closed never to reopen, others pivoted to a delivery or carry-out model with varying levels of success. [Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend. Sign up for our weekly newsletter.] Some small food operators used ghost kitchens to get a foothold in the market during a time when opening a standard restaurant with a dining room would have been unthinkable. As long as the high fees charged by the major delivery services could be mitigated or built into the price, food delivery outfits working out ghost kitchens could find a way to make a living. Even national chains like Chili's and Applebee's used ghost kitchens to keep cash flowing and test new menu items using different brand names in case the ideas flopped. With customers adapting to the trend quickly and easily, it's likely that ghost kitchens are here to stay. The Conversation U.S. publishes short, accessible explanations of newsworthy subjects by academics in their areas of expertise.  Jeffrey Miller ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.  |
| Posted: 30 Jun 2021 03:57 PM PDT  University boards of trustees hold considerable power over the institutions they govern, but get attention only when they're hiring a new president or if there is a crisis. Yet, increasingly boards aren't navigating or mediating crises – they are creating them. On June 30, after deliberating in a closed session, the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees voted 9-4 to grant journalist, MacArthur Fellowship recipient and Pulitzer Prize winner Nikole Hannah-Jones tenure. But that decision came only after a firestorm of public criticism after Hannah-Jones was initially not granted tenure during earlier deliberations by the board. Hannah-Jones' case had been supported at every level of the tenure process at UNC-Chapel Hill – including the provost, who serves as the chief academic officer, and the president – except for the Board of Trustees. That was an oddity. While the system's statutes delegate personnel decisions about faculty to the board, it is common for the board to support faculty and administration's tenure recommendations at the institution level. In this case, the board initially avoided a final vote on Hannah-Jones' case and questioned the validity of her work and ability. Similar concerns were not brought up in previous evaluations of candidates for the same position. Initial concerns of the board echoed talking points spread via conservative broadcast media. In emails obtained by North Carolina journalism outlet, The Assembly, it also appears board members were in communication with a major donor who disagreed with Hannah-Jones' approach to journalism. If true, that would undermine principles of academic freedom and shared governance among faculty, administration and the board – central aspects of tenure evaluation. If donors can influence personnel decisions, this undermining is exacerbated. We are higher education governance scholars who investigate issues of board composition, organizational culture and decision-making. The Hannah-Jones case and other, similar episodes demonstrate how board composition and board culture can affect how boards make decisions, inserting seemingly political interests and personal values into an arena that is supposed to be free of them. This ideal of objective, or at the very least democratically representative, decision-making is important to ensuring that the best interests of the institution remain the primary motivation for decisions made.  Boards and equityGoverning boards hold a fiduciary duty to the institution or system they serve. Their role is to support and protect the institutional mission, make sure the institution is effectively executing the mission and ensure the institution can continue to execute its mission. Boards often focus on fundraising, external relations, accountability and oversight. When functioning well, boards make decisions driven by the institution's best interests – not their own or those of their friends, allies or associates. Although that is the expectation, it is not always the practice in decisions ranging from budget allocation to policy setting and presidential hires. The controversial and highly politicized hiring of Lt. Gen. Robert Caslen as University of South Carolina president in 2019 highlighted these concerns and how political connections and motivations can cause board practices to go off course. Caslen has since resigned, after admitting to plagiarism. There's not much diversity on public universities' boards. Currently, according to an industry survey, most of their members are older white men from the business sector. Yet, as higher education becomes increasingly concerned with diversity, we have observed that the issue of board diversity seems to be left off the table. This lack of diversity matters, because even when aiming for objectivity, research has suggested that board members often find their personal or political values more than intertwined with the decision-making process. Their values are figuratively making the decisions. State politics' influencePublic institution boards are mostly appointed by a governor or state legislators. This can mean that sometimes it is not simply personal or individual political values driving the decisions about everything from academic program approval to presidential hires. Researchers have found that state political climates and ideologies can influence what decisions are made by boards. One example of this problem is when a board selects a president with strong political alliances but with little or no higher education experience. These decisions can be more troubling if they are made without input from faculty and other institutional stakeholders, who customarily weigh in on these important choices. One study noted that trustees sometimes go beyond their formal roles, getting involved in university operations through donations and support to specific areas. They build or broker connections, creating external partnerships that may or may not benefit the institution. Governing boards led by partisan appointees can make higher education institutions arenas for political contests, such as the closing of research and academic centers that produce research or hold missions in opposition to a board's dominant political ideology. These contests in turn take the boards' focus away from serving students and other members of the university community. Is there accountability?It is sometimes suggested by higher education experts and commonly understood by the university community that boards should be independent and autonomous entities, unconcerned with the day-to-day and operational issues of diversity and equity. That allows them to provide institutional accountability and oversight. As scholars who study higher education boards, we believe that politicized board composition can reinforce the vestiges of patriarchy and white supremacy, among other forms of hegemony, within today's institutions. Some scholars have also expressed alarm at the increasingly political nature of board decision-making, in the form of denials of tenure or presidential turnover.  The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill situation, as noted by The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a non-partisan group that defends free speech on campuses, removed the veil of autonomy and independence under which boards have traditionally operated. It has raised concern that governing boards could be motivated by loyalty to political parties and ideologies. Up until now, boards have mostly been invisible players in higher education's conversation about diversity, equity and inclusion. But boards' invisibility is eroding. That exposure raises two issues: If board members are accountable to the political figures who appoint them, can they still be representative of the institution they govern? Can they contribute to the growing drive for greater diversity, equity and inclusion on campuses? Navigating the challengesWe believe boards can become more accountable and equity-focused by developing and implementing practices that allow them to navigate ever-changing social and political landscapes. We recently developed a framework to guide boards in carrying out their duties called "Culturally Sustaining Governance." We show how board decision-making can intentionally prioritize equity, as state political realities and cultural wars continue to exert pressure. Frameworks like ours aid boards in being more accountable, while at the same time ensuring the protection of an institution's viability and reputation. Our framework urges boards to consider the questions of equity as foundational to deliberation and decision-making as opposed to being an afterthought. Board members operate at the highest levels of university administration. They can make decisions that truly center diversity and equity, while carrying out their responsibilities with excellence and diligence. That, in the end, leads to stronger, more equitable institutions that benefit everyone into the future. [The Conversation's Politics + Society editors pick need-to-know stories. Sign up for Politics Weekly.]  The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.  |
| 5 children's books that teach valuable engineering lessons Posted: 30 Jun 2021 12:40 PM PDT  Most people think of the children's classic "Charlotte's Web" as a story of devoted friendship between a spider and a pig. But it can also be read as a story of a budding engineer – Charlotte – who prototypes, builds, tests and revises her web to solve a problem. As teacher educators, we use children's books to make lessons about science and engineering accessible to children of all ages. Through books, children can experience how engineers use design-based thinking, which focuses on creative and innovative solutions, to solve problems. They can also explore the history of things that they use every day, such as crayons, bridges and cars. And they can expand their image of who can be an engineer or inventor. Our work suggests that picture books and biographies for young adult readers can be particularly effective for introducing children to the engineering design process. These are the actions – ask, imagine, plan, create, test and improve – that engineers take to design a solution to a problem. They also help children understand engineering habits of mind. These are the traits, such as creativity and persistence, that help engineers successfully solve problems. Here are five of our favorite science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) books for children, and some of the engineering lessons that they teach.  1. 'Whoosh! Lonnie Johnson's Super-Soaking Stream of Inventions'Lonnie Johnson was always curious about how things worked. One day, while trying to figure out a way to replace the harmful chemicals found in refrigerators and air conditioners, he connected a pump with a nozzle to his bathroom faucet. When he turned the faucet on, water blasted across the room. Johnson had invented a water gun! Johnson tested and redesigned his new invention until it became the perfect summer toy – the Super Soaker. This picture-book biography introduces young readers to the prototype-test-redesign process that is central to engineering.  2. 'Balloons Over Broadway: The True Story of the Puppeteer of Macy's Parade'Grab a front-row seat to the story of how Tony Sarg, an immigrant from Western Europe, created one of America's most iconic holiday traditions – the giant balloons of Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. This picture-book biography highlights how engineers draw on imagination and inspiration to improve their designs. After reading, children can use these same traits to create their own Indonesian rod puppets. These puppets inspired Sarg to flip his marionette strings upside-down so that his famous balloons could soar.  3. 'Wood, Wire, Wings: Emma Lilian Todd Invents an Airplane'Lilian Todd – a self-taught inventor, engineer and contemporary of the Wright brothers – worked to improve airplane designs in the early 1900s. This picture-book biography of her life illustrates how an engineer's designs frequently fail. And it uses quotes from Todd's perspective – "There is no work so discouraging, so exasperating, so delightful … so exhilarating as building aeroplanes" – to capture her resilience in overcoming these challenges. As children often face similar obstacles in their own STEM journeys, Todd's story provides a model for how children can prepare for, reflect on and move forward from moments of failure.  4. 'Milton Hershey: Young Chocolatier'We've all eaten Hershey's chocolate bars and Hershey's Kisses. However, the road to commercial success for Milton Hershey was circuitous, and he failed many times before he succeeded. This biography, written for ages 8-12, highlights the power of persistence and the design axiom: "Fail often so you can succeed sooner."  5. 'The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind'This biography, written for ages 10-13, tells how teenaged William Kamkwamba built a wind turbine to produce electricity for his family in Malawi. The story shows how anyone, of any age, anywhere in the world can be an engineer. This book is a great selection for a family or multi-age book club as it is also available as a picture book, a biography for adults and even a movie. Everyone can pick the version that is best for them and gather in person or via video chat to talk about lessons learned from Kamkwamba's dream, determination and design. Other booksMany books that are already in homes, schools and local libraries can also be used to introduce the engineering design process and habits of mind. We recommend looking for the following story features when choosing a book to explore design-based thinking with children. First, the story presents a problem in a real-life context. Second, the story describes a design plan or way to solve the problem. Third, a character creates, tests and evaluates a prototype of this design. And finally, a character improves the design and applies the revised solution. Parents and teachers can find more high-quality STEM books on the National Science Teaching Association's Best STEM Books K-12 or our own expanded list of favorites. [Get our best science, health and technology stories. Sign up for The Conversation's science newsletter.]  The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Home – The Conversation. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment