Catawba County Board of Elections appoints Amanda Duncan as new Director of Elections to succeed retiring Larry Brewer.

; Credit: /Ryan Raphael for NPR

To say Leah Juelke is an award-winning teacher is a bit of an understatement. She was a top 10 finalist for the Global Teacher Prize in 2020; she was North Dakota's Teacher of the Year in 2018; and she was awarded an NEA Foundation award for teaching excellence in 2019.

But Juelke, who teaches high school English learners in Fargo, N.D., says nothing prepared her for teaching during the pandemic.

"The level of stress is exponentially higher. It's like nothing I've experienced before."

It's a sentiment NPR heard from teachers across the country. After a year of uncertainty, long hours and juggling personal and work responsibilities, many told NPR they had reached a breaking point.

Heidi Crumrine, a high school English teacher in Concord, N.H., says this has been the most challenging year she's ever encountered in her two decades of teaching.

"And I say [that] as someone who started her first day of teaching on 9/11 in the Bronx in New York City."

Teaching is one of the most stressful occupations in the U.S., tied only with nurses, a 2013 Gallup poll found. Jennifer Greif Green, an education professor at Boston University, says the additional stress teachers are reporting during the pandemic is worrying because it doesn't only affect educators — it also affects students.

"The mental health and well-being of teachers can have a really important impact on the mental health and well-being of the children who they're spending most of their days with," Green explains. "Having teachers feel safe and supported in their school environments is essential to students learning and being successful."

Lisa Sanetti, a professor of educational psychology at the University of Connecticut, says, "Chronically stressed teachers are just less effective in the classroom."

All that stress can also lead to burnout, which leads to teachers leaving the profession, Sanetti says. "And we have a huge teacher turnover problem in our country."

Districts are trying to help — with yoga classes, counseling sessions and webinars on mental health. Some teachers have organized trivia nights or online happy hours where colleagues can just vent. Teachers told NPR they force themselves to take breaks and go for a bike ride or call a friend. Some have started therapy.

But most of the educators NPR spoke with say they're so exhausted, that even self-care feels like one additional thing to do.

"The reality is, when you're living it, you're just trying to get to the end of the day successfully and try again tomorrow," Crumrine says.

"It feels like we're building the plane while we're flying it"

In March 2020, when schools moved online, teachers across the U.S. had to completely reimagine their approach to education, often with no training or time to prepare. For many, it was a rough transition.

Teachers told NPR they've spent the past year experimenting with different methods of online and hybrid teaching, while also providing tech support for their students and families. Many say they routinely work 12-hour days and on weekends, yet struggle to form relationships with children virtually. Answering emails can take two hours a day.

Rashon Briggs, who teaches high school special education in Los Angeles, spent a lot of time worrying about his students during remote learning (his district only recently started offering in-person options). "One of the biggest challenges is knowing that the kids were not getting the same level of service that they were getting in person," he says.

Teachers in districts that opened earlier for in-person learning say they have additional responsibilities now, such as sanitizing desks between classes, making sure children follow school safety protocols and keeping track of students who have had to quarantine.

"I have a calendar and it says who's quarantined, who is cleared to return on what day, who was absent," explains Rosamund Looney, who teaches first grade in Jefferson Parish, La. "Then I follow up with those families to see: 'Are you OK?' So there's just so much space taken up by that monitoring."

Looney also worries about her students' learning. Everyone in her district has to wear masks in class, which she says she completely agrees with. But those masks mean she can't see her first graders' mouths as they learn phonics.

"You are watching your teacher sound out words and then figuring out how to do that. And it's really hard for me to gauge what they are and aren't able to say." She says she's especially concerned about students who are more at risk of falling behind academically, like English learners.

In New Hampshire, Crumrine says quarantines and positive cases among school staff have led to a constant shifting between fully online and hybrid classes. The fluctuations have been exhausting for her. "We started the year remote. Then we went back to school in October, then we were remote again in November, December. We went back to hybrid [in early February]," she says. New Hampshire's governor has now ordered all schools reopen for full-time, in-person classes by this week.

"It feels like we're building the plane while we're flying it and the destination keeps changing on us," Crumrine says.

Balancing work and home life

In addition to worrying about their students, many teachers are also concerned about their own children. Crumrine, whose husband is also a teacher, has three children and says she feels pulled by competing demands.

"I feel this sense of guilt that I'm not a good enough teacher for my students and I'm not a good mother for my own kids. It just feels like a constant wave of never feeling like I can do what I know I'm good at."

Juelke, in North Dakota, is a single mom with a 9- and 3-year-old. "I'm juggling the children and making sure my daughter is in her class and my 3-year-old is entertained. And that is definitely taking a toll."

Many teachers say they are eating and drinking more, and exercising and sleeping less.

Briggs, in L.A., says his sleeping patterns are completely off. "Being awake all hours of the night, going to bed at 2, 3 a.m., drinking coffee late at night and try to finish work so I can be more prepared the next day."

He's stressed, in part, because there are no clear work-life boundaries anymore. "When you're waking up in the same space that you're on Zoom, that you're grading papers, that you're watching Netflix, those lines are blurred very easily."

Others say they're not as active at home, and they're eating more junk food and putting on weight. The tight schedules means they don't always move between classes, or even remember to drink water.

"There are a lot of dehydrated teachers out there," says Looney.

Many, like Juelke, say they miss having personal time. "That time where I could sit in the car and drive to work and just kind of relax a little, or my prep time at school alone. That's gone now. And so I feel like my mental health has struggled in that way."

She says even though it breaks her heart, she's started looking for another profession.

Leonda Archer, a middle school math teacher in Arlington, Va., says she's usually a very upbeat person, but the pandemic — coupled with the racial turmoil in the country — has taken a toll. She's African American, and says reports of Black men and women being killed by police makes her fear for her husband's safety.

"There were some points of lowness that I hadn't experienced before. There are some days where I feel like it's hard to keep going."

Archer says she has had difficulty sleeping, and doesn't have an appetite. "And right when I get into a groove, another traumatic experience happens."

Briggs says it was hard not being able to process events like George Floyd's death and the Black Lives Matter protests with his colleagues. In the past, those conversations informed what he would say in the classroom to help his own students make sense of the news.

"The teachers were not able to talk to each other about 'How do you talk about this? How do you present that?' " he says. "There was a lack of ability for us to communicate a message about social justice and rights and the wrongs."

Crumrine says she misses the social aspect of being with her students, and other teachers. "We're not eating lunch together. We're not popping into each other's classrooms. We're all in our little silos."

The school reopening divide

Teachers told NPR they feel a growing chasm in their communities: Parents want schools to open, but teachers first want to make sure it's safe. Many feel they are not being included in these conversations, and their concerns aren't being taken seriously.

Crumrine says it's been devastating hearing elected officials and parents criticize teachers, insisting that schools need to open, even though teachers are concerned about their own health. She says some community members acted like online classes meant teachers weren't working at all. In fact, she says, they were working harder than ever. "It just makes it feel so much worse when you read these horrible things that people say about us or these assumptions that they make about what we are or are not doing."

She says many states, including her own, didn't prioritize vaccines for teachers, which to her revealed just "how deep that lack of value of educators is."

Sarahi Monterrey, who teaches English learners in Waukesha, Wisc., says she's felt a "huge divide" in the community. "It almost seems like us against them." She was in a Zoom school board meeting where parents and students were present, and a teacher testified that her husband had COVID-19. "And a parent in the room said, 'Who cares?' And I was blown away. Just blown away."

In Virginia, Archer says, at the beginning of the pandemic, "We were seen as angels. Like, 'Oh my God, I've been home with my child for two months, how do teachers do it?' And now the narrative has totally flip-flopped."

She says she also misses "the vibe of school, the energy, all of that. But I don't want people to be sick."

Archer works 12-hour days, and says people need to remember that teachers are people too. "Our profession is a nurturing one, but we also are humans that need to be poured into. We need to be nurtured, too."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Lisa Przekop, director of admissions at University of California, Santa Barbara, says that many high schoolers this year wrote their application essays about depression and anxiety during the pandemic.; Credit: Patricia Marroquin/Moment Editorial/Getty Images

College-bound high schoolers are making their final deliberations ahead of May 1, the national deadline to pick a school. That day will mark the end of a hectic admissions season drastically shaped by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Many colleges dropped standardized testing requirements, and because some high schools gave pass/fail grades and canceled extracurriculars and sports, admissions counselors had to change how they read and evaluate applications.

"[It was] definitely the craziest of all my 36 years, without a doubt," says Lisa Przekop, director of admissions at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

The UC school system received the most applications in the United States.

Like many others, Przekop says all of her staff has been working remotely throughout the pandemic. But if pivoting to working from home wasn't a challenge enough, Przekop says the school saw an increase in applications of 16%.

"On top of all that, we had to devise a way of doing our admissions selection process without the use of SAT or ACT scores," she says. "So any one of those things would have been a major change, but to have all of them at the same time was beyond anything really that I could've imagined."

Przekop spoke with All Things Considered about how what counselors looked for in applications this year changed, what topics they saw in admissions essays and how the process might have actually improved in spite of the pandemic.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Interview Highlights

Has it all added up to more time spent on every individual application?

Quick answer, yes. Things are much more nuanced now. And although a student may have, for instance, planned to do certain activities, well many of those activities were canceled. The other big difference was students were a lot more depressed this year, obviously. Everybody's more anxious, including students. They're applying for college which is stressful in and of itself. And so what we found is a lot of students used their essays to talk about depression, anxiety, things like this. To read essay after essay after essay about depression, anxiety, stress — is taxing. And so we really had to encourage staff to take more breaks as they were reviewing. So it definitely slowed the whole process down at a time when we had more applications to review.

Can you give any insight into what you are basing your decisions on this year?

Absolutely. Maybe in the past I would've focused on that GPA right away. Now when I'm looking at that academic picture, I have to look at the fact that did the student challenge themselves as much as they could have? Were the courses even available? Do I see any trends in their academic performance? If their spring term of last year, their junior year, was all pass/no pass, can I safely assume that they did well in those courses? And that's where you really had to rely on what the students shared in their essays to try to piece that together.

Are you noticing greater diversity in the students applying to UC?

In terms of ethnic diversity, yes, we are seeing that. In terms of diversity of experience — for instance, first generation students and students with lots of different socioeconomic backgrounds — we're definitely seeing that. I'm seeing students who are very committed to the environment more so than i've seen before. I'm seeing students who are more politically aware and active than I've seen before. So I'm definitely seeing a pattern of behaviors that look a little bit different than students in the past.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Students carry sack lunches at Elk Ridge Elementary School in Buckley, Wash. On Monday, USDA unveiled a new program that would feed millions of children over the summer, when many schools are closed.; Credit: Ted S. Warren/AP

The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a new effort Monday to feed millions of children this summer, when free school meals traditionally reach just a small minority of the kids who rely on them the rest of the year. The move expands what's known as the Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer, or P-EBT, program into the summer months, and USDA estimates it will reach more than 30 million children.

"If children and children's learning and children's health is a priority for us in this country, then we need to fund our priorities," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a Monday interview with NPR's All Things Considered. "I think it's an important day."

P-EBT takes the value of the meals kids aren't getting at school, about $6.82 per child per weekday, according to USDA, and puts it onto a debit card that families can use at the grocery store. Households already enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (once known as food stamps) can have the value placed directly onto their SNAP debit card.

Children are eligible for the new P-EBT summer expansion if they are eligible to receive free or low-cost meals during the school year. Children younger than 6 can also qualify if they live in a household that currently receives SNAP benefits. According to USDA, eligible families can expect to receive roughly $375 per child to help them through this summer.

"Families are still in crisis as a result of the pandemic and providing Pandemic EBT benefits this summer will help reduce childhood hunger and support good nutrition," said Crystal FitzSimons at the Food Research & Action Center, or FRAC.

P-EBT began in March 2020 as an emergency move to reach children whose schools had closed in response to the pandemic; it was extended as part of the American Rescue Plan, the massive COVID-19 relief package that President Biden signed this past March.

The summer months have traditionally been hard on children who depend on free or low-cost school meals. According to FRAC, in July 2019, just 1 in 7 children who ate at little or no cost during the school year was getting a subsidized school lunch at the height of summer.

Currently, at least 37 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have been approved by USDA to provide P-EBT since the program's inception. On Monday, Secretary Tom Vilsack told All Things Considered host Mary Louise Kelly that he's been on the phone with governors working to expand adoption.

"When I took this job, I think only 12 states were currently enrolled ... and we're continuing to get states in every day," Vilsack said. As for why some states hadn't yet signed on, he said, "I think the guidance that we were providing to states was a little bit murky ... There's no confusion about the simple plan here for the summer. Mom and Dad get a card. They are able to go to the grocery store. They now have more resources to be able to feed their family."

Monday's announcement is just the latest move by USDA to fight child hunger. The agency recently issued waivers that will allow school districts to offer free school meals to all children in the 2021-2022 school year. Schools will also be allowed to pack meals in bulk and deliver them to students still learning at home. The Biden administration also recently pushed a $1.1 billion monthly increase in SNAP benefits through September 2021.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau's Household Pulse Survey, which has offered regular snapshots of families' wellbeing during the pandemic, food insecurity in the U.S. has been declining in recent months. As of the period from March 17-29, nearly 23% of households with children reported experiencing some food insecurity, down from a pandemic high of 31.4% in December 2020.

"Food insecurity rates are finally starting to come down," said Lauren Bauer, a fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. A host of federal programs to fight hunger and put money in the pockets of low-income Americans are "putting substantial downward pressure on food insecurity rates. It's a whole new world," Bauer said.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

; Credit: /Michelle Kondrich for NPR

In Jasmine Williams' family, graduating from the University of Michigan is a rite of passage. Her parents met on the campus, and her older sister graduated from the school a few years ago. She remembers sitting bundled up in the family section for that graduation. "It was overwhelming to feel so many people that proud," she says, "I remember sitting there watching her, and that was probably the first time I was like, 'OK, yeah, I like this. I can't wait to do this.'

This year, Williams' own graduation will look a bit different. The main undergraduate ceremony will be all virtual, though the university has invited students to watch that ceremony from the football stadium on campus known as the Big House. There will be no family members in attendance, and students will be required to have a negative COVID-19 test result to enter.

"I think it's hard not to downplay it when it's reduced to a Zoom," says Williams. But come Saturday, she's planning on donning her cap and gown and heading to the stadium with friends. "Knowing that we are going to the Big House to watch together as a class makes everything way more enjoyable for the weekend; to be able to at least get some remnants of what I witnessed years ago with my sister." Her family plans to host a streaming party from their home in Detroit.

As an academic year like no other comes to an end, colleges and universities are celebrating their graduates in a variety of ways. Some schools, like the University of Idaho and Virginia Tech are hosting multiple smaller, in-person ceremonies to comply with social distancing mandates. Others, like Iowa State, are hosting large ceremonies in football stadiums and outdoor arenas. There's also a handful that are doing virtual-only again, like the University of Washington and Portland State University. At some schools, including the University of Michigan and Emmanuel College in Boston, in-person events are restricted to just graduates; family and friends have to watch from a livestream.

For lots of students, the effort to be in-person is greatly appreciated. "You work hard those four years, you dream of that day, getting to graduate in-person and walk across the stage," says Jamontrae Christmon, a graduating senior at Tennessee State University in Nashville. For most of the year he assumed graduation would be virtual. He even sent out his graduation announcements to friends and family — and left the date off. Weeks later, he learned TSU would actually hold a May 1st in-person ceremony in the football stadium.

"I haven't been sleeping much this week at all. I'm just happy. Excited," says Christmon.

But planning for an event in an ongoing public health emergency has proven to be stressful. Steve Bennett, the chief of staff for academic affairs at Syracuse University, has worked to create commencement ceremonies that are as close to a normal year as possible.

"This may be the single most challenging special event that our team has put together, maybe ever," explains Bennett. "And it's because we keep having to plan towards a moving target."

Syracuse's plan for graduation is to have multiple smaller commencement ceremonies in their stadium; everyone in attendance has to be fully vaccinated or show proof of a recent negative COVID-19 test. According to state guidance, the stadium can only reach 10 % capacity, so graduates are limited to two guests per person. Despite the restrictions, the team that planned the ceremonies is determined to make it one that the class of 2021 deserves.

"The students have been through a lot this year. Graduating seniors lost a number of student experiences due to pandemic conditions that are important to them," says Bennett. That's why having the in-person component was essential. "It was really important to the university, given [the seniors'] commitment to us, that we have a commitment to them."

At California Lutheran University, in Thousand Oaks, Calif., graduation will be celebrated as a drive-in style event at the Ventura County Fairgrounds. Each graduate can bring one carful of people to the fairgrounds parking lot, which can accommodate up to 700 vehicles. Inspired by the city's drive-in concert events, there'll be a stage with speakers and a jumbo screen.

"That's ultimately what led us to our decision to have it at the fairgrounds. Since it's a drive-in and they're staying in their cars, they were allowed to bring family... that was just really important to us," says Karissa Oien, who works in academic affairs at California Lutheran University and is the lead organizer for the drive-in commencement. She's been planning the university's ceremonies for 13 years, and knows how important graduation can be — not just for students, but for those who helped them along the way as well.

"We wanted to have that moment again. Where the families can see their students cross the stage and be there with them."

Jamontrae Christmon, the graduating senior from Tennessee State University, will have his parents, an uncle and one of his sisters there with him at Hale Stadium. "It's just something about your parents being there," says Christmon, "you want to look into the audience and maybe see your parents and you hear them scream your name when they call your name to walk across the stage."

As the day gets closer, Christmon says he's been thinking about the moments of self-doubt he had along the way. "I could have easily said 'I'm not cut out for college' and just gave up, but I didn't." He says his family was a big part of that motivation.

"Not many in my family even attended college, let alone graduated. So this is a big deal," says Christmon. "To me it means I broke the cycle. And that's what they always wanted."

He expects his mother will cry, and likely, he will too.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A hazing-related student death at Bowling Green State University has renewed conversations about hazing on college campuses.; Credit: Adam Lacy/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images

There were zero reported deaths from college hazing incidents in 2020, but as campuses reopen to students, there have already been two hazing-related deaths this year. Eight men face a range of charges, including involuntary manslaughter, reckless homicide, evidence tampering and failure to comply with underage alcohol laws, after Stone Foltz, a sophomore at Bowling Green State University, died on March 7 of alcohol poisoning.

At a news conference on April 29, Wood County Prosecutor Paul Dobson described the fraternity event in which initiates were told to drink 750 milliliters of hard alcohol — or about 40 shots, according to Hank Nuwer, author of Hazing: Destroying Young Lives. Dobson said Foltz's death was "the result of a fatal level of alcohol intoxication during a hazing incident."

Experts like Nuwer are concerned that as students return to in-person learning and are eager to take part in "the college experience," more hazing-related deaths may be on the way.

"There seems to be a disconnect — not seeing that alcohol-related hazing can kill," he says.

Nuwer is a professor emeritus of journalism at Franklin College and the author of five books on hazing. He spoke with NPR's All Things Considered about how the Stone Foltz case could reshape hazing prosecution, how college campuses create a "perfect storm" for hazing and how to put an end to the practice, once and for all.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Interview Highlights

On the legal history of prosecuting hazing

There've been charges all along, but often they get dropped or they're unsuccessful. I would consider this to be a landmark case because of the possibility of at least five years of imprisonment, if the prosecutor is successful.

We have 44 state laws out there on hazing, but some are very, very weak. And Ohio's is weak now, but they're trying to strengthen it after a death at Ohio University [in 2018] and now Bowling Green.

On what the return to college campuses means for hazing

What I'm seeing is, in effect, we have two freshmen classes in that the sophomores have been taking online classes. Now they're going to be out there, and they haven't had any hazing or alcohol education programs. They're coming out there with a gusto because now they're the people of status, who have power over these pledges. And then the regular freshman class is coming in, all excited as usual, and we've seen so many times where a death occurs within the first couple of days of the students on campus, sometimes before they've taken a single class.

On the challenges to end fraternity hazing

In my opinion, campuses are the perfect storm for something like this because we're all about status and power. All of these obstacles have led to today, when alcohol has been added to the mix. There wasn't a single alcohol death before 1940. Now, it's one of the most major [causes of hazing-related deaths]. There were 62 deaths from 2009 to 2021; 39 were alcohol related.

On whether this is a chance for colleges to reset this part of campus culture

I want a hard approach. You have to go after the alumni who are encouraging this. You have to punish all of the hazing — not temporarily. This tradition has to stop, and it can't be looked at as tradition. As Mr. [Paul] Dobson, the prosecutor, is doing in the Stone Foltz case: You have to prosecute to the fullest extent [of the law].

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren holds a news conference in March. She and Sen. Bernie Sanders are leading the push to introduce a bill Tuesday that would make pandemic-related food benefits for college students permanent, and create grants for colleges to address hunger.; Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Democrats in the House and Senate are introducing legislation Tuesday that would make pandemic-related food benefits for college students permanent. The push is being led by Senators Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders, a Vermont Independent,

In the December relief package, Congress increased the number of low-income college students eligible for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (or SNAP) benefits for the duration of the pandemic. That included students who are eligible for work study, have an Expected Family Contribution of zero dollars, or qualify for a maximum Pell Grant on their federal financial aid form. According to The Century Foundation, this expansion affects about 3 million college students.

The legislation proposed Tuesday would make these changes permanent, including requiring the U.S. Education Department to notify students they may be eligible for SNAP when they fill out their student aid applications. The bill would also require the Department to collect data on hunger and food insecurity, and would create a $1 billion-a-year grant program for institutions to address hunger on campus.

"Far too many college students struggle to meet their basic needs while they get their education and the pandemic has made this problem even worse," Warren said in a statement to NPR. "As students take on a mountain of student loan debt, they shouldn't have to choose between paying tuition and eating."

The push comes amid new research that shows 39% of two-year college students are facing food insecurity; for students at 4-year schools the number affected is 29%, according to Temple University's Hope Center for College, Community and Justice.

Before the pandemic, in 2019, the U.S. Government Accountability Office issued a report on humger among college students, concluding that over a third of students don't always have enough to eat, and that federal systems already in place, including SNAP, could do a better job of helping them.

Many colleges have increased food benefits for their students, creating or expanding emergency grants, food pantries and other forms of assistance. State legislatures in several places including Virginia and Massachusetts have also moved to address issues of hunger on campus.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

; Credit: /The Washington Post via Getty Images

Editor's note: This is an excerpt of Planet Money's newsletter. You can sign up here.

According to the National Institute For Early Childhood Research, nearly half of all three-year-olds and a third of all four-year-olds in the United States were not enrolled in preschool in 2019. That's in large part because many parents can't afford it. Imagine a future where we changed that. A future where every American child had access to two years of preschool during a critical period of their mental development. How would their lives change? How would society change? If President Biden gets his way, and Congress agrees to spend $200 billion on his proposal for universal preschool, then we may begin to find out.

But it turns out, we kind of already know. In fact, a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research gives us a glimpse of what that world could look like. It adds to a burgeoning amount of high-quality research that shows just how valuable preschool is — and maybe not for the reasons you might think.

An Accidental Experiment

The story begins back in the mid-to-late 1990s. The Mayor of Boston, Thomas Menino, wanted to improve the city's schools. One of his big goals was to provide universal, full-day kindergarten for Boston's kids. But the budget was tight, and following a task force's recommendations, he and local lawmakers decided to move resources from preschool (for four-year-olds) to kindergarten (for five-year-olds) in order to achieve it.

The result was an even more limited number of slots for city-funded preschool, and the city officials had to figure out how to fairly divvy up those slots. They resorted to a lottery system, randomly selecting kids who would get in.

Fast forward two decades later, and the economists Christopher R. Walters, Guthrie Gray-Lobe, and Parag A. Pathak saw this as a golden opportunity to see how preschool can affect people's lives. The fact that Boston's school administrators randomized who got admitted meant there were two virtually identical groups of kids with only one difference: one group got an extra year of education by going to preschool. That gave the researchers the opportunity to compare and contrast the two groups of kids and credibly see how kids' lives changed as a result of getting into preschool.

Four thousand four-year-olds took part in Boston's preschool lottery between 1997 and 2003. Walters, Gray-Lobe, and Pathak acquired data on them from the Boston school system. And then they were able to get additional data from other sources that gave them insight into ways that the childrens' lives might have benefited from an additional year of preschool education. These kids are now all twentysomethings — a fact that should make you feel old.

Consistent with other studies that find preschool has a huge effect on kids, Walters, Gray-Lobe, and Pathak find that the kids lucky enough to get accepted into preschools in Boston saw meaningful changes to their lives. These kids were less likely to get suspended from school, less likely to skip class, and less likely to get in trouble and be placed in a juvenile detention facility. They were more likely to take the SATs and prepare for college.

The most eye-popping effects the researchers find are on high school graduation and college enrollment rates. The kids who got accepted into preschool ended up having a high-school graduation rate of 70% — six percentage points higher than the kids who were denied preschool, who saw a graduation rate of only 64%. And 54% of the preschoolers ended up going to college after they graduated — eight percentage points higher than their counterparts who didn't go to preschool. These effects were bigger for boys than for girls. And they're all the more remarkable because the researchers only looked at the effects of a single year of preschool, as opposed to two years of preschool (as President Biden is now proposing for the nation's youth). Moreover, in many cases, the classes were only half-day.

Intriguingly, while attending preschool at age four had clear effects on these kids' entire lives, it did not improve their performance on standardized tests. These findings fit into a large body of research that suggests the true value of preschool is helping little ones to develop "non-cognitive skills," like emotional and social intelligence, grit, and respect for the rules.

"The combination of findings — that we don't see an impact on test scores, but we do see an impact on these behavioral outcomes and the likelihood of attending college — is consistent with this idea that there's some kind of behavioral or socio-emotional, non-cognitive impact from preschool," says Christopher Walters, an economist at UC Berkeley who co-authored the study.

In other words, there's growing evidence that preschool can permanently improve kids lives — but it's not necessarily because it makes them smarter. It seems more related to making them more disciplined and motivated, which is just as important (or perhaps even more important) for their future livelihoods as how well they perform on reading or math tests.

The Bigger Picture

This latest study isn't the first to show the outsized effects of providing a preschool education. The Nobel Prize-winning economist James Heckman has spent many years studying the results of small, randomized experiments with preschool in the 1960s and 1970s. The most famous such experiment was The Perry Preschool Project, which was conducted in Ypsilanti, Michigan. The program provided two years of high-quality preschool for disadvantaged three- and four-year-olds.

Heckman and his colleagues found that the Perry Preschool had seismic effects on the kids who participated. They were much less likely to get arrested, go on welfare, or be unemployed as adults. They earned significantly more. In a recent study, Heckman and his team found that even the kids of the kids who went to the Perry preschool had significantly better outcomes in life.

All in all, Heckman and his team estimate that every dollar the Perry Preschool project invested in kids had a return on investment of 7-10 percent per year, through increased economic gains for the kids and decreased public spending on them through other social programs when they got older. That's a substantial return, equal to or greater than the average annual return from the stock market, and much greater than most other things our government spends money on.

Other preschool programs studied by Heckman and his colleagues have had even greater benefits. In the 1970s, a couple of programs in North Carolina experimented with high-quality childcare centers for kids. The centers offered kids aged zero to five education, medical checkups, and nutritious food. Heckman and his team found these centers delivered a 13 percent annual return on investment to the public for every dollar they invested. The program helped Heckman develop what's known as "the Heckman Curve," which asserts that the government gets more bang for the buck the earlier it provides resources to educate people. Educating toddlers, Heckman says, is much more powerful than educating high-schoolers, college students, or adults in, for example, job-training programs.

As astounding as Heckman's findings about preschool have been, naysayers have long questioned whether such effects could be replicated with larger scale programs, like the one President Biden is now proposing. This new study out of Boston, which looks at a large-scale program conducted across the entire city, is another brick in the growing edifice of evidence that shows preschool is a worthy investment, not just for kids, but for society overall.

Did you enjoy this newsletter segment? Well, it looks even better in your inbox! You can sign up here.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Robin Heilweil, 6, wears a mask while swinging around with her kindergarten class this month at Kenter Canyon School in Los Angeles.; Credit: Sarah Reingewirtz/Los Angeles Daily News/Southern California News Group via Getty Images

New research released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reinforces an old message: COVID-19 spreads less in schools where teachers and staff wear masks. Yet the study arrives as states and school districts across the country have begun scaling back or simply dropping their masking requirements for staff and students alike.

With the majority of school-age children still too young to qualify for vaccination, Friday's research is the latest salvo in a simmering fight between public health officials and politicians — with parents lining up on both sides.

The new study comes from Georgia and compares COVID-19 infection rates across 169 K-5 schools. Some schools required teachers, staff and sometimes students to wear masks; some did not.

Between Nov. 16 and Dec. 11, researchers found that infection rates were 37% lower in schools where teachers and staff members were required to wear masks. The difference between schools that did and did not require students to wear masks was not statistically significant.

This is one more study showing that masking, among other mitigation efforts, "can reduce infections and ultimately save lives," said Dr. Sean O'Leary, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado and vice chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of Pediatrics.

O'Leary points to a previous CDC study, of schools in Florida, that also found "a strong association with student mask requirements and lower rates of infections in students."

Like any study, Friday's release comes with caveats. Only 12% of schools invited to share their data did so. And it's always worth remembering: Correlation is not causation. Still, the results offer an important warning to states and school districts that are now lifting their school-based mask requirements, especially for adults: It's safer if you don't.

The latest, and perhaps broadest effort to change schools' masking policies comes from Texas, where Republican Gov. Greg Abbott issued an executive order Tuesday banning all mask mandates in the state's public schools. After June 4, the order says, "no student, teacher, parent or other staff member or visitor may be required to wear a face covering."

For Abbott, and many opponents of mask mandates, the move is about restoring a balance between safety and freedom. "We can continue to mitigate COVID-19 while defending Texans' liberty to choose whether or not they mask up," he said in announcing the order.

Zeph Capo, president of the Texas American Federation of Teachers, called the move "unconscionable" in a statement. "The governor's new verdict takes a blanket approach to addressing what is still extremely dangerous for some Texans — a return to school unmasked."

And Texas isn't alone. On Thursday, Iowa's Republican governor, Kim Reynolds, also signed a law banning schools from requiring masks. The justification is similar: "I am proud to be a governor of a state that values personal responsibility and individual liberties," Reynolds said in a statement.

"Whether a child wears a mask in school is a decision that should be left only to a student's parents," South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster said last week as he issued an executive order allowing parents to opt their children out of school-based mask requirements.

Public health experts have been quick to sound the alarm.

"All along in this pandemic, we have seen the tragic consequences when politics start to play a role in public health decisions. And to me, this kind of maneuver smells like politics — to ban the requirements that are ultimately there to save lives," O'Leary said. "The body of evidence shows us that masks work."

And Dr. Aaron Milstone, a professor of pediatric infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins, likens the banning of mask mandates to having a variable speed limit.

"Unfortunately, with contagious diseases the decisions I make impact someone else," Milstone said. "It would be like saying: You can drive 55 mph if you think that's safe for you, but if someone else thinks they can safely drive 90 mph, their choice may wind up risking your life."

While the CDC recently scaled back its masking guidance for people who are fully vaccinated, the agency also reiterated that schools should continue to require universal masking, at least through the end of the current school year. Though one vaccine has been approved for use for 12- to 15-year-olds, those kids won't be considered fully vaccinated for another month.

Milstone said it's simply too early to talk about schools without masking. "Until vaccines are eligible for all children, it's hard to abandon the practices that we know work the best to prevent the spread of COVID."

Dr. Anthony Fauci, chief medical adviser to the White House, told CNBC this week that it is conceivable the CDC could recommend that middle and high schools be mask-free in the fall — if, that is, enough students 12 years of age and older get vaccinated.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

New York City public schools will stop offering remote learning options in the coming school year, Mayor Bill de Blasio said on Monday.; Credit: Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is promising a full reopening of the nation's largest public school system in September. That means in person, five days a week, with no remote option for students to attend school exclusively online. He made the announcement on MSNBC's Morning Joe on Monday.

"You can't have a full recovery without full strength schools," de Blasio said in the segment.

Almost 70% of the nation's students attend schools that are currently offering full-time in-person learning, according to the organization Burbio. De Blasio's announcement comes a week after New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy announced that there would be no remote option for that state's public school students come September.

But questions remain about how New York City will be able to accommodate 100% of its public school students in person. Some administrators worry there won't be enough space to fit all students in classrooms under current social distancing requirements. At a city council hearing last week, officials testified that all but 10% of the city's public schools could fit their students into classrooms 3 or more feet apart.

At a press conference Monday, the mayor said that he believes schools could make 3-feet social distancing work, but that he expects the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will relax the requirements more by August.

Meanwhile, many New York City parents have expressed reluctance around in-person schooling. Data from the U.S. Education Department shows students of color are less likely than white students to be learning in person, as of March. Communities of color in the U.S. have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. In New York, Asian and Black families in particular have been more likely to keep their children home, according to demographic data released by the city. Parents there have cited virus safety concerns, a lack of trust in the school system and fear of discrimination in or on the way to school as reasons for keeping their children home.

Some parents have said they won't feel comfortable until their children are vaccinated, while others have said they prefer remote learning, because it works better for their children academically or socially.

Michael Mulgrew, president of the United Federation of Teachers, the city's largest teachers union, wrote in the New York Daily News last week that the city must maintain a remote learning option for a limited number of families next school year. On Monday, Mulgrew said, "We still have concerns about the safety of a small number of students with extreme medical challenges. For that small group of students, a remote option may still be necessary."

But some education leaders have argued that offering a remote option would keep more students out of classrooms.

De Blasio said parents will be welcomed back to schools starting in June to ask questions and get answers from educators, as well as to see how schools are keeping students and staff safe.

And remote learning isn't completely going away in New York City. Earlier this month, officials said public school students will learn remotely on Election Day, instead of having the usual day off from school, and class will no longer be suspended on "snow days."

The first day of school in New York City is Sept. 13.

Nicole Cohen contributed to this report.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Students wave goodbye during dismissal at Yung Wing School P.S. 124 on March 25, 2021 in New York City.; Credit: Michael Loccisano/Getty Images

New York City schools will reopen in full this fall with no options for virtual learning.

Mayor Bill de Blasio made the announcement during an appearance Monday on MSNBC, saying, "You can't have a full recovery without full-strength schools, everyone back sitting in those classrooms."

De Blasio said the nation's largest school district will meet in person five days a week, with no remote option available. New Jersey has similar plans, and other states want to limit remote lessons as well.

While the decision in New York is being celebrated as an important milestone on the path to returning to some level of normalcy from the pandemic, some parents remain fearful about sending their children back to in-person learning.

Meisha Porter, chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, has heard those concerns firsthand, but says "our schools have been the safest place in the city."

In an interview with NPR's Morning Edition, Porter said that with New York City in the process of a full reopening, "it's important that our schools be fully open, too."

Porter said the city would not make the vaccine a requirement for staff and teachers, but said more than 70,000 employees have already received at least one dose. The city will continue to monitor the health and safety of children, teachers and staff, she said, "but we know our schools have been safe and we need our children back."

Interview Highlights

What do you say to parents who are still really worried about the virus and may not want their kids to return, especially elementary aged kids who don't have access to a vaccine?

I say what we've said over and over again. You know, this past week, we've been at 0.3% — our seven-day positivity rate. Our schools are the safest place. And I've always said nothing, absolutely nothing, replaces the interaction and the learning that happens between a student and teacher in our classrooms. And so what I say to parents, as a parent, is we're going to continue to be in conversations. We're going to continue to make decisions around health and safety. We're going to continue to do those things that parents need us to do, that I need to ensure that we do, to make sure our buildings remain safe and we can get our babies back.

Is part of that effort a consideration about making the vaccine a requirement for staff and teachers?

At this moment, we're not making it a requirement, but we are encouraging [staff and teachers to get vaccinated], and we're going to really work with the city to provide access for students and families and teachers, as we've done over the last couple of months. And so right now, we're pushing and encouraging our staff to get vaccinated. ...

But I mean, wouldn't that help if you had 100%? I mean, children are required to show proof of of immunizations of vaccines to go to school. Why not maintain the same line for teachers and staff?

... I would say this, that we are not in a place where we want to, at this moment, mandate the vaccine. We want to continue to encourage. We all know that folks have had concerns about vaccines, and we want to continue to encourage that vaccines are safe and they are effective. I've been vaccinated along with the 70,000 DOE employees that have been vaccinated. And so we're not, at the moment where we are going to require it.

Have you heard from families who've come to rely on being able to have their kids, their teenagers, working while in school? There's evidence that those with that kind of economic need are those who want to continue with remote learning or some kind of hybrid.

I can tell you that I haven't heard that from families, that they want to they want remote learning so that their teenagers can continue to work. But I know, that that may be a reality for some families. And one of the things that we're doing this summer is increasing access to summer youth employment, increasing access to our learning-to-work programs for our young people, because we know how important it is for some young people to work. But it is equally, if not more important, that they maintain learning and have a connection to a strong and sound education, and we'll continue to do that through learning to work throughout the school year.

What about those students who have found that remote learning just works better for them? I mean, whether they are kids who have struggled socially in school environments, who have been bullied or kids with learning challenges who appreciate just being able to focus away from other students in the classroom. Are there any plans to come up with ways to better address their needs in the future?

So what we're looking forward to is leveraging what we've learned from remote learning as an innovation in our system as we move forward in return. And I think that's what's going to be important for us.

Do you know what that innovation is going to look like?

It's going to look like access to courses across schools and districts, breaking down district lines and walls, high-level courses, enrichment opportunities. You know, remote learning has expanded the universe of what schools should look like.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

; Credit: LA Johnson/NPR

Writing a graduation speech is a tricky task. Should you be funny, or sincere? Tell a story — or offer advice? For Yusef Pierce, a graduating senior in California, the job of putting together his public address was a bit more challenging.

"Being inside, I can't really refer to other graduation speeches," Pierce says. He's speaking by phone from inside the California Rehabilitation Center, a medium-security prison in Norco. "I was just trying to come up with what sounded like a graduation speech."

He is the first person to graduate with a bachelor's degree from the Inside-Out program at Pitzer College, a liberal arts school outside Los Angeles. In a normal year, the school would bring traditional students by bus to the prison to take classes alongside the students who are in prison.

Because of the coronavirus pandemic, those classes are happening online. Pierce shared his Zoom square with 10 other guys, all wearing the CRC's blue uniforms and seated at those classic classroom desks, where the chair and the table are attached. This spring, his classes included topics like feminism for men, microeconomics and mass incarceration.

In one of those classes on a recent evening this spring, professor Nigel Boyle goes around asking each student what they're looking forward to doing that week. Pierce replies: "I'm looking forward to doing a lot of homework!"

"Every professor wants a Yusef in your class," says Boyle, who leads the Inside-Out program and teaches Pierce's Wednesday night class about mass incarceration. "You want that student who's bright, does the work, but is also helping to bring along the others."

It was only natural then that Pierce would be one of the college's graduation speakers.

"We don't label the student speaker as a valedictorian," explains Boyle. "But it happens that Yusef has a 4.0, and he's got a really interesting story to tell."

Pierce is in his early 30s and is a bit of a nerd and a class leader. He also writes poetry and paints. "It is true that oppression often requires that individuals make themselves extraordinary in order to simply survive," reads his artist's statement in an online exhibit of his work. "My paintings are entire conversations on canvas."

Eventually, he says, he wants to be a college professor, working with formerly incarcerated students.

"So he wants my job," says Boyle, laughing, "and he'd be much better at it than I am."

Boyle serves as the academic adviser to all of the incarcerated students, and he has become a mentor to Pierce, navigating him through the graduation process. In one of the last classes of the semester, Boyle hosts an impromptu fashion show, wearing his own blue cap and gown, backing away from the camera to give the onlooking students a full view of his outfit.

The guys inside cheer and whistle. "Do a spin," one guy shouts. "Beautiful! Beautiful!" another yells.

As the cheering dies down, Boyle looks for Pierce on the screen. "He doesn't know this, so it may be a slight surprise," he tells the class, "but, Yusef, you will also be receiving these cords." He drapes dark orange cords around his shoulders. "These cords are for students who graduate with honors in their degrees. Congratulations, Yusef, you are going to graduate with honors."

***

The story of how Yusef Pierce wound up in these college classes, wound up inside prison at all, starts with trauma. When he was a teen, his older brother was shot and killed. "He was murdered in the front yard of our home, right in front of my face," he explains, "and so I had to call my mom and let her know what had happened." All these years later, it's still something he doesn't like to talk about. He considered putting it in his graduation speech, but took it out, worried it might be too much for his mom to hear.

"It had a traumatic effect on all of us," Drochelle Pierce tells me over the phone, from her house in Victorville, Calif. She remembers a change in Yusef around that time.

"It was just kind of one thing after another. He got into a little bit of trouble. He allowed people that he associated with to kind of influence him in a direction that really wasn't him." Yusef finished high school, but in his early 20s he was arrested and convicted of armed robbery. Drochelle Pierce says she was beside herself when she learned his sentence would be nearly 20 years. "I tell you, honestly, I never envisioned that Yusef would ever go to prison. Never, never. Never."

A few months into Yusef's prison sentence, she wrote him a letter. "What's done is done," she wrote. "You, now more than ever, must diligently seek and obtain higher education."

It wasn't a new message. Education had always been at the center of her relationship with Yusef. When he was young, he remembers riding in the car with his mom, a sociology textbook open on his lap. "She wouldn't let me turn on the radio," he says. "She would make me read to her."

"Oh, I made [my kids] read everything," Drochelle Pierce says. "If they read it out loud, I knew they were reading it. That's the only way I would know that they were actually reading anything."

Today, the two talk on the phone nearly every day. "He was always a deep thinker," says Pierce. She knows she sounds like a typical proud mother, but she can't help it: "Yusef is very smart."

In California, college classes can shorten a prison sentence. So when the opportunity first arose for Yusef Pierce to take courses in prison, it felt like simply a means to an end. "I just want to get home sooner," he remembers joking with a friend at the time. "If they gave us time off for going to college, I would walk out of here with a Ph.D.!"

But by the time Pitzer College started offering classes for a bachelor's degree, Pierce found to his surprise that he really liked college.

"I loved it because it gave me validation," he says. "To know that somebody was reading my stuff and that somebody felt like the things that I was thinking about and writing were worth something. I got really addicted to that validation, and it just really turned me into an overachiever. And I just took class after class after class."

That drive paid off.

After writing and rewriting a number of drafts, on May 15 Pierce delivered his final graduation speech to hundreds of Pitzer graduates and their family members and friends. The content he landed on? That letter his mom sent him all those years ago.

"I realize now that I've saved this letter because it was meant for me way back then to share it with you all today," he says, dressed in his white cap and gown, draped in a kente stole, with the prison classroom where he has spent so much time in the background. "It reads, 'Dear son, I was so glad to see you Monday ...' "

As he reads the letter aloud, he gets to the part where his mother, a big poetry fan, included the lines from Invictus, a poem by William Ernest Henley. Pierce looks directly into the camera as he reads; he knows this part by heart.

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

Drochelle Pierce watched the speech on her laptop at home, with family gathered around. "We were all crying. We were just boohooing. It was just so sweet," she says.

The final line of the poem:

It matters not how strait the gate, / How charged with punishments the scroll, / I am the master of my fate: / I am the captain of my soul.

"I love that so much," she says. "I sent that to my son because I wanted him to think in terms of 'OK, here you are now. What happens to you from this point going forward, it really depends on you.' "

She is proud of her son and inspired by him too. "Look what he did. He turned a bad situation into something very, very positive. Here he is, graduating with his degree."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

; Credit: /Rob Dobi for NPR

When someone applies to college, there's often a box or a section on the application that asks if they have any relatives who attended the university —perhaps a parent or a cousin. This is called "legacy," and for decades it's given U.S. college applicants a leg up in admissions. But no longer in Colorado's public colleges.

On Tuesday, Colorado became the first state to do away with that admissions boost, when Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a ban on the practice into law. The governor also signed a bill that removes a requirement that public colleges consider SAT or ACT scores for freshmen, though the new law still allows students to submit test scores if they wish.

Both moves are aimed at making higher education access more equitable. According to the legislation, 67% of middle- to high-income students in Colorado enroll in bachelor's degree programs straight from high school, while only 47% of low-incomes students do. There are also major differences when it comes to race, with white students far more likely to enroll in college.

Legacy admissions have long been a target for reform. In a 2018 survey of admissions directors by Inside Higher Ed, 42% of private institutions and 6% of public institutions said they consider legacy status as a factor in admissions. Some of the nation's largest public universities do not consider legacy, including both the University of California and the California State University systems. However, private colleges in California have reported using legacy as a way to encourage philanthropic giving and donations.

During the pandemic, many colleges backed off on using SAT and ACT scores in admissions. Research has shown — and lawsuits have argued -- that the tests, long used to measure aptitude for college, are far more connected to family income and don't provide meaningful information about a student's ability to succeed in college. Wealthier families are also more likely to pay for test prep courses, or attend schools with curriculums that focus on the exams.

As pandemic restrictions loosen up, and in-person testing resumes, some universities have begun to re-incorporate the SAT and ACT into their admissions. But others have made the temporary changes permanent. This spring, the University of California system agreed to continue a test-free admissions policy through 2025. California sends the largest number of high school students to U.S. colleges, and if the UC system no longer uses the tests, its unclear whether those students will be interested in applying to other schools that do require them.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

; Credit: LA Johnson/NPR

Undergraduate college enrollment fell again this spring, down nearly 5% from a year ago. That means 727,000 fewer students, according to new data from the National Student Clearinghouse.

"That's really dramatic," says Doug Shapiro, who leads the clearinghouse's research center. Fall enrollment numbers had indicated things were bad, with a 3.6% undergraduate decline compared with a year earlier, but experts were waiting to see if those students who held off in the fall would enroll in the spring. That didn't appear to happen.

"Despite all kinds of hopes and expectations that things would get better, they've only gotten worse in the spring," Shapiro says. "It's really the end of a truly frightening year for higher education. There will be no easy fixes or quick bounce backs."

Overall enrollment in undergraduate and graduate programs has been trending downward since around 2012, and that was true again this spring, which saw a 3.5% decline — seven times worse than the drop from spring 2019 to spring 2020.

The National Student Clearinghouse attributed that decline entirely to undergraduates across all sectors, including for-profit colleges. Community colleges, which often enroll more low-income students and students of color, remained hardest hit by far, making up more than 65% of the total undergraduate enrollment losses this spring. On average, U.S. community colleges saw an enrollment drop of 9.5%, which translates to 476,000 fewer students.

"The enrollment landscape has completely shifted and changed, as though an earthquake has hit the ground," says Heidi Aldes, dean of enrollment management at Minneapolis Community and Technical College, a community college in Minnesota. She says her college's fall 2020 enrollment was down about 8% from the previous year, and spring 2021 enrollment was down about 11%.

"Less students are getting an education"

Based on her conversations with students, Aldes attributes the enrollment decline to a number of factors, including being online, the "pandemic paralysis" community members felt when COVID-19 first hit, and the financial situations families found themselves in.

"Many folks felt like they couldn't afford to not work and so couldn't afford to go to school and lose that full-time income," Aldes says. "There was so much uncertainty and unpredictability."

A disproportionately high number of students of color withdrew or decided to delay their educational goals, she says, adding to equity gaps that already exist in the Minneapolis area.

"Sure, there is a fiscal impact to the college, but that isn't where my brain goes," Aldes says. "There's a decline, which means there are less students getting an education. That is the tragedy, that less students are getting an education, because we know how important education is to a successful future."

To help increase enrollment, her team is reaching out to the high school classes of 2020 and 2021, and they're contacting students who previously applied or previously enrolled and stopped attending. She says she's hopeful the college's in-person offerings — which now make up nearly 45% of its classes — will entice students to come back, and appeal to those who aren't interested in online courses. So far, enrollment numbers for fall 2021 are up by 1%. "We are climbing back," she says.

A widening divide

Despite overall enrollment declines nationally, graduate program enrollments were up by more than 120,000 students this spring. That means there are more students who already have college degrees earning more credentials, while, at the other end of the spectrum, students at the beginning of their higher ed careers are opting out — a grim picture of a widening gap in America.

"It's kind of the educational equivalent of the rich getting richer," Shapiro says. "Those gaps in education and skills will be baked into our economy, and those families' lives, for years to come."

The value of a college degree — and its impact on earning power and recession resilience — has only been reinforced by the pandemic. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Americans with a college degree were more likely to stay employed during the pandemic, and if they did lose a job, they were more likely to get hired again. Unemployment rates were higher for those without a degree or credential beyond high school.

"Almost all of the income gains and the employment gains for the last decade have gone to people with higher education degrees and credentials," Shapiro says. "Those who are getting squeezed out of college today, especially at community colleges, are just getting further and further away from being able to enjoy some of those benefits."

In the National Student Clearinghouse data, traditional college-aged students, those 18 to 24, were the largest age group missing from undergraduate programs. That includes many students from the high school class of 2020, who graduated at the beginning of the pandemic. Additional research from the Clearinghouse shows a 6.8% decline in college-going rates among the class of 2020 compared to the class of 2019 — that's more than four times the decline between the classes of 2018 and 2019. College-going rates were worse for students at high-poverty high schools, which saw declines of more than 11%.

For the communities and organizations tasked with helping high school graduates transition and succeed in college, the job this year is exponentially harder. Students have always struggled to attend college: "It's not new to us," says Nazy Zargarpour, who leads the Pomona Regional Learning Collaborative, which helps Southern California high school students enroll and graduate from college. "But this year, it's on steroids because of COVID."

Her organization is offering one-on-one outreach to students to help them enroll or re-enroll in college. As part of that effort, Zargarpour and her colleagues conducted research to help them understand why students didn't go on to college during the pandemic.

"Students told us that it's a variety of things, including a lot of just life challenges," she says. "Families being disrupted because of lack of work; families being disrupted because of the challenges of the illness itself; students having to take care of their young siblings; challenges with technology."

The biggest question now: Will those students return to college? Experts say the farther a student gets from their high school graduation, the less likely they are to enroll, because life gets in the way. But Zargarpour is hopeful.

"It will take a little bit of time for us to catch up to normal and better, but my heart can't bear to say all hope is lost for any student ever."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Some institutions have scrapped Columbus Day or switched to celebrating Indigenous Peoples' Day. One New Jersey school district came up with a new solution: eliminate all holiday names.; Credit: Olesya Semenov/EyeEm via Getty Images

Memorial Day. Thanksgiving. Labor Day.

You may be used to seeing your calendar punctuated by the various holidays that occur throughout the year.

But on one New Jersey school district's calendar, each one of these days will be listed, simply, as "day off."

It all started when the school board in Randolph Township voted to change Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples' Day. Some residents were outraged, so the board said that instead it would wipe holiday names from the school calendar altogether while still observing the days off.

"The overwhelming majority of the township population feels that they've [Randolph Township school board members] grossly overstepped their bounds, that they're completely pushing their own personal, political ideologies," Randolph resident Tom Tatem told Fox News. He started a petition calling on school officials to resign.

Institutions across the country are wrestling with the question of what to do with Columbus Day.

Critics have derided the idea of celebrating the Italian explorer, who perpetrated violence on Native Americans when he arrived in the United States. Boosters say it is critical to recognize the contributions of Christopher Columbus, and that Italian-Americans have historically faced discrimination.

Some places have switched to marking Indigenous Peoples' Day in recognition of the Native Americans who occupied the United States long before European explorers like Columbus arrived.

Randolph Township arrived at a novel solution to this problem: eliminate every holiday name to avoid taking a side.

The goal appears to have been to sidestep the debate over Columbus Day, but the Randolph Township school system instead found itself squarely in it, and opponents of the move have called on school officials to resign.

The Randolph Board of Education is now scheduled to convene Monday for a special meeting to reconsider its plan to remove holiday names from the school calendar.

What's happening in New Jersey

In May, the Randolph school board voted unanimously to replace Christopher Columbus Day with Indigenous Peoples' Day.

Some parents grew angry with the decision, but instead of reverting back to the old calendar, the board moved in early June to scrap all holiday names from the school calendar, not giving preference to either one of the October celebrations.

"If we don't have anything on this calendar, then we don't have to have anyone [with] hurt feelings," Randolph school board member Dorene Roche said during a June 10 public meeting, according to NJ.com.

The backlash has only grown.

A petition calling on Randolph Township Schools superintendent Jennifer Fano and members of the board of education to resign has topped 4,000 signatures. "They represent everything that is wrong in education today and are completely incompetent in every aspect of their role," the petition says.

For its part, the school board acknowledged the public outcry but said its decision was misconstrued by some people.

A press release issued by the Randolph board of education on Sunday clarified that the holidays will still be observed as days off and that their decision was not meant to dishonor "the great veterans and the heroes" after which several of those holidays are named.

"These State, Federal and other holidays have not been cancelled or taken away by this Board of Education as some are falsely claiming," the board said. "Everyone is still encouraged to celebrate them in whatever way they deem appropriate."

Matthew Pfouts, director of communications and digital media for the Randolph Township Schools, told NPR the board has no further comment.

Changing views on holidays

On the national level, Columbus Day remains a federal holiday.

But a number of states, including Alaska and Virginia, as well as some cities either observe Indigenous Peoples' Day as a holiday or celebrate it in some way.

The movement away from Columbus Day has not come without controversy.

The New York City Department of Education tried to rename Columbus Day over objections and eventually settled on marking a holiday called "Italian Heritage Day/Indigenous People's Day," which drew its own set of critiques. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said it was wrong to make the two groups share one holiday.

There are also other efforts to recognize the role people of color played in American history.

This week, the Senate unanimously passed a bill to make Juneteenth — the day marking the end of slavery in the U.S. — a public holiday.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Students work on a classroom exercise at a school in Kibera, a poor neighborhood in Nairobi, Kenya.; Credit: Tony Karumba/AFP via Getty Images

You'd think the best way to get girls to succeed in school would to be design programs specifically for them — offer them mental health support or free menstrual pads.

But a new study, published in May in the journal World Bank Economic Review, begs to differ. Researchers David Evans and Fei Yuan reviewed 267 studies of education programs from 54 low- and middle-income countries to find the most effective ways to get more girls in school and improve their learning. Globally, more than 130 million girls remain out of school, according to the World Bank, due to poverty, child marriage and violence.

Instead of only examining girls' education programs, they looked at all kinds of programs. To measure access, they analyzed enrollment rates, attendance, drop-out, graduation and completion rates, and to measure performance, they looked at test scores.

Their biggest finding is that gender-neutral programs — such as handing out cash aid to families of school-aged children — can be just as effective at improving girls' education as programs designed just for girls.

The study is among the first to look both at ways to boost girls' access to school as well as their classroom performance, says Markus Goldstein, lead economist at the World Bank's Africa Gender Innovation Lab, who did not work on the report.

We spoke with Evans, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, and Yuan, a doctoral candidate in education policy and program evaluation at Harvard University, to discuss the best ways to boost education for girls in low- and middle-income countries. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What inspired you to conduct this study?

Evans: A lot of the previous work that examined this issue have focused on programs targeted to needs that are unique to girls, such as menstrual health. Those are worthy interventions, but if we only focus on programs that target girls, we might miss programs that benefit girls a lot but happen to help boys as well.

That's why we decided to look at all of the interventions we know of to identify the ones that are most effective at improving outcomes for girls, regardless of whether they're specifically for girls or not.

You found that the most effective programs for getting more girls into school cut the cost of education for students, regardless of gender, and their families. What are some examples of programs that worked well?

Evans: A lot of the most effective programs are ones that either eliminate school fees, provide scholarships or provide families a cash transfer to cover the other costs of having their daughter in school.

For example, in Ghana, lots of girls and boys pass their secondary school entrance exam, but they don't have the money to pay school fees. So, a program there provided scholarships to students who had already passed the entrance exam. It dramatically increased the high-school graduation rate of girls by 66%.

But the most effective interventions are those that address costs related to specific obstacles that girls face in a particular setting. In Afghanistan, for example, a [non-gendered] program built schools in rural communities. It decreased [the cost of] travel to school for both girls and boys and led to a more than 50% increase in girls' participation in primary school. That's dramatic.

Which programs were the most helpful for improving a girl's school performance, as opposed to just getting them into the classroom?

Evans: The most effective interventions to increase learning were programs that improved the quality of teaching. But it's not just throwing teachers into a conference room and giving them some lecture. It's also not about throwing fancy technology, like laptops or tablets, at classrooms. Hardware doesn't work. It's distracting for teachers and students.

Instead, a literacy program – which included coaching teachers, providing them with detailed teachers' guides and providing students with books – had a big impact on girls' education [in terms of test scores] in Kenya. So did another program in Kenya that helped teachers to teach children in a language they spoke at home (rather than English).

Were there any other types of programs that helped girls learn better in the classroom?

Yuan: Another intervention worth mentioning is called Teaching at the Right Level, based in India. The idea is that students in the same classroom may have many different reading levels. But because of constraints like large class sizes, teachers may not be able to tailor their teaching to the right level for every student. This leaves some students behind.

Teaching at the Right Level facilitated summer camps in which children were grouped by reading level, instead of age or grade. This allowed teachers to target their teaching to the specific levels of these students. In one region, after 50 days of focused teaching in these camps, children at the lowest achievement levels in India were able to catch up to the learning level of the third-highest achieving state in the country.

Many of the high-impact interventions you're referencing don't target girls specifically. Are you saying that girls' programs aren't necessary?

Evans: Not at all! We particularly focused on how to increase access to education and improve quality of learning. Some [girl-focused] programs have other goals – such as reducing violence against girls, improving girls' psychological and emotional wellbeing, reducing adolescent pregnancy or helping girls to transition from school to the workforce.

But when teaching is of bad quality, we just need to help schools improve the teaching. That's not necessarily a gender-specific problem.

Wouldn't it be more cost-effective to just offer scholarships or cash transfers to girls only instead of both genders, especially if far fewer girls are attending school than boys?

Evans: Sure, if you don't have the budget to waive school fees for everyone, eliminating school fees for girls is an effective way to do a girl-targeted program. That's what The Gambia did. But sometimes general, non-targeted interventions are more politically palatable for governments, since constituents have both daughters and sons.

Were you concerned that some of the gender-neutral programs might benefit boys more than girls?

Evans: That was something we were worried about – increasing inequality. But we found that overall, the impact of gender-neutral programs tends to be slightly larger on girls than boys both in terms of access and learning. These differences, for the most part, were not statistically significant. They were small. But it does mean that these general, non-targeted interventions are not increasing inequality between boys and girls. If anything, they're likely to decrease it.

What changes do you hope to see in how we work on girls' education around the world?

Evans: We want to make sure that people who care about girls' education draw on the full toolbox of programs that can improve girls' education. That includes girl-targeted programs. It also includes general programs.

We don't anyone to walk away from this and say, 'Oh, we don't need to worry about girls.' Instead, it means that if we are worried about girls, we have a broader array of tools to help them.

Joanne Lu is a freelance journalist who covers global poverty and inequity. Her work has appeared in Humanosphere, The Guardian, Global Washington and War is Boring. Follow her on Twitter: @joannelu

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

; Credit: shuoshu/Getty Images

New rules kick in today that will help aspiring teachers pay for college and complete a years-long overhaul of the federal TEACH Grant program — from a bureaucratic bear trap that hobbled thousands of teachers with unfair student loan debts to a program that may actually make good on its foundational promise: to help K-12 educators pay for their own education in exchange for teaching a high-need subject, like math, for four years in a low-income community.

"The changes announced today deliver much-needed improvements to the TEACH Grant," said U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona. "Respecting and honoring teachers who serve students with the greatest needs also requires that we ensure these educators receive the support to which they are entitled from this important federal program without having to jump through unnecessary hoops."

In Dec. 2018, the Department of Education under Secretary Betsy DeVos committed to overhauling the program and, last summer, posted its more flexible revisions. Among those changes that go into effect today, teachers will no longer have their grants automatically converted to loans if they fail to submit annual certification paperwork. Instead, with eight years to make good on a four-year teaching requirement, teachers won't have their grants converted to loans until completion of the required service is no longer feasible.

The rule changes to the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant Program were outlined by the U.S. Department of Education nearly a year ago but only go into effect today. And they are the culmination of a story that began several years ago, when the Government Accountability Office, followed by an NPR investigation, revealed that the program's strict paperwork requirements — what Cardona calls "unnecessary hoops" — were tripping up teachers who were keeping their end of the deal.

In accordance with the program's old rules, if a teacher did not submit annual paperwork on time documenting their teaching service in a qualified school, their TEACH Grants were automatically converted into loans that must be paid back with interest. Teachers who tried to appeal this conversion were given little recourse and told the process was not reversible.

Kaitlyn McCollum was teaching high school in Tennessee when her federal TEACH Grants were turned into more than $20,000 in loans simply because she had narrowly missed a paperwork deadline. In the spring of 2019, her debts were erased as part of the department's overhaul.

"We won," she told NPR. "We raised our voices and they finally heard us. Disbelief followed by a relief like I have not felt before."

While the program's flaws date back to its beginning, in 2008, it was the Trump administration that agreed to a remedy and apologized to teachers.

"We've put teachers who didn't deserve this stress, this pressure, this financial burden in a position that is frightening and confusing," the Education Department's then-acting undersecretary and acting assistant secretary, Diane Auer Jones, told NPR in 2019. "It seems like a small thing to do to say, 'I'm sorry,' but I'm very sorry. And we want to work to fix it and correct it."

In Aug. 2020, NPR reported that, since the program's overhaul began, more than 6,500 educators had successfully petitioned to have nearly $44 million in loans turned back into TEACH Grants. For teachers who could prove they had already completed their required service, their debts were simply discharged. For teachers still serving, the conversion meant they could resume the deal they made with the department and work to keep their grant money.

The new regulations also give teachers more options for pausing their service obligation, create a formal reconsideration process for any teacher who believes they've had their grants converted unfairly, and expand the scope of the program to include not only low-income communities but also high-need, rural areas where recruiting and retaining teachers can be difficult.

The Biden Administration says it wants to expand the TEACH Grant, making it more generous. If passed by Congress, the American Families Plan would increase the grant for college juniors, seniors and graduate students from $4,000 a year to $8,000 and would also make it available to many early childhood educators. In a release, the Education Department said it expects these changes would increase the number of TEACH recipients by more than 50 percent, to nearly 40,000 in 2022 — welcome news to school leaders in remote and high-need communities that sometimes struggle to entice new talent to the classroom.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that low-level crack cocaine offenders cannot benefit from a 2018 federal law.; Credit: J. Scott Applewhite/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that some crack cocaine offenders sentenced to harsh prison terms more than a decade ago cannot get their sentences reduced under a federal law adopted with the purpose of doing just that.

At issue in the case was the long and now notorious history of sentencing under the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which established harsh mandatory prison sentences based on the amount of drugs that the defendant possessed or sold. The triggering amount, however, was different for crack cocaine used most often by Black people, and powder cocaine, used most often by whites.

Indeed, the ratio was 100-to-1, so that a five-year mandatory minimum penalty, for instance, was triggered by possession of 5 grams of crack, whereas the same penalty was triggered by 500 grams of powder cocaine.

Nine years after enactment of these mandatory penalties, the U.S. Sentencing Commission found these disparities unjustified, and by 2010 Congress passed new legislation to reduce the disparity to from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1. But that left everyone previously sentenced under the old regime stuck with the harsher penalties. And in 2018, Congress passed and then-President Donald Trump signed into law a bipartisan bill to make the new ratios retroactive.

That allowed thousands of crack offenders who were serving prison sentences to be resentenced under the new law and new sentencing guidelines, with an average reduction of six years in their sentences. But while the new law allowed even drug kingpins to be resentenced, some prisoners were left out — a number now in the low hundreds, according to the Biden administration.

One of those was the prisoner at the center of Monday's case, Tarahrick Terry, sentenced to nearly 16 years in prison for possession with intent to distribute 3.9 grams of crack cocaine, less than the weight of four paper clips.

He claimed that his sentence, like others, should be revised in light of the 2018 law, but the Supreme Court rejected that argument. Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas noted that Terry had been sentenced under a section of the law that applied to "career criminals," those who had two previous drug or violent convictions. Terry did, in fact, have two previous drug convictions as a teenager — for which he spent 120 days in jail.

So, as Thomas observed, Terry was sentenced under the provision of the law that was not included in the 2018 revision.

Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin and Cory Booker and Republican Sens. Charles Grassley and Mike Lee — the sponsors and drafters of the act — warned in a friend of the court brief filed in the case that excluding low-level offenders from the act's reforms would mean ignoring its purpose. "Had Congress intended to exclude individuals with low-level crack offenses from relief," they wrote, "Congress of course could have done so."

Thomas and the rest of the court rejected that argument. "We will not convert nouns to adjectives and vice versa," wrote Thomas, which is what he said Congress was asking the court to do. The 2018 law, he said, did not change the section of the law under which Terry was sentenced, so the argument that the revision modified the whole law just wouldn't wash.

Although the decision was unanimous, it included an interesting back-and-forth about race between Thomas, the only African American on the court and arguably its most conservative member, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, its only Hispanic and arguably most liberal member. Specifically, their disagreement was about the role race played in the adoption of mandatory minimum sentences that were wildly more harsh for possession or sale of crack cocaine than for powder cocaine.

As Thomas saw it, the 100-to-1 ratio for crack cocaine was enacted "with near unanimity" by Congress, because of two concerns expressed by Black leaders at the time: First, that crack "was fueling crime against residents in the inner cities who were predominantly black," and second that "prosecutors were not taking these kinds of crimes seriously enough because the victims were disproportionately black." Moreover, he quoted a 1995 U.S. Sentencing Commission report that concluded the 100-to-1 ratio created "a perception of unfairness," even though there was no reason to believe that "racial bias or animus undergirded the initiation of the federal sentencing law."

In a concurring opinion, Sotomayor declined to join that part of Thomas' opinion, because "it includes an unnecessary, incomplete, and sanitized history of the 100-to-1 ratio," including "race-based myths" about crack cocaine.

"The full history is far less benign," she said. It ignores the fact that Black leaders were promised federal investment in longer term solutions — including in job training and education programs — but that help never arrived. Nor, she noted, did the majority opinion mention that the bill containing the 100-to-1 ratio was "rush[ed] through to pass dramatic drug legislation before the midterm elections," and that the legislative history of the bill offered no justification for the 100-to-1 ratio, "save that it was the highest ratio proposed."

"Most egregiously, the Court barely references the ratio's real-world impact" — one so profound and unjustified, as demonstrated by subsequent research — "that the [Congressional Black Caucus] came together in unanimous and increasingly vocal opposition to the law."

In the end, however, Sotomayor agreed that "unfortunately," the reading of the law urged by the primary sponsors of the 2018 revision is not born out by the text. "Fortunately," she added, "Congress has numerous tools to right this injustice."

As for prisoner Terry, who brought Monday's case, he is now in the final months of his prison term, and according to the Biden administration is serving his remaining time in home confinement.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A demonstrator holds a sign in support of the Affordable Care Act in front of the U.S. Supreme Court last November. On Thursday, the justices did just that.; Credit: Alex Brandon/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act for the third time on Thursday, leaving in place the broad provisions of the law enacted by Congress in 201o. The vote was 7 to 2.

The opinion was authored by Justice Stephen Breyer who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The decision threw out the challenge to the law on the grounds that Texas and other objecting GOP-dominated states were not required to pay anything under the mandate provision and thus had no standing to bring the challenge to court.

"To have standing, a plaintiff must 'allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief,' " the majority wrote. "No plaintiff has shown such an injury 'fairly traceable' to the 'allegedly unlawful conduct' challenged here."

The mandate, the most controversial provision of the law, required that people either buy health insurance or pay a penalty. In 2012, it was upheld by a 5-4 vote, with Chief Justice John Roberts casting the decisive fifth vote, on the grounds that the penalty fell within the taxing power of Congress.

In 2017, Congress got rid of the penalty after the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the law would continue to function effectively without it. That prompted the challengers to go back to court, contending that because the penalty had been zeroed out, it was no longer a tax or a mandate. What's more, they contended, because the mandate was so interwoven with the rest of the ACA, the whole law must be struck down.

Over 31 million Americans have access health insurance through the ACA — a record high since the law's inception, the White House said last week. In addition, the Urban Institute reported in May that ACA premiums have gone down each of the last three years.

Many of the provisions of the ACA are now taken for granted. Up to 135 million people are covered by the ban on discrimination against those with preexisting conditions.

Young adults are now permitted to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26; copays are not permitted for preventive care; and insurance companies can no longer put lifetime caps on benefits, are required to spend 80% of premiums on medical coverage and are barred from discrimination based on factors like gender.

In addition, Medicaid coverage was greatly expanded after all but a dozen states took advantage of the ACA to expand federally subsidized coverage under the program. Among those who have benefited are many who lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs in the COVID-19 pandemic.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Police tape blocks access from a street leading to the building complex where the Capital Gazette is located on June 29, 2018, in Annapolis, Md. The suspect barricaded a back door in an effort to "kill as many people as he could kill," police said.; Credit: Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

Jury selection in the trial of the gunman who fatally shot five employees at the Capital Gazette newspaper in Annapolis, Md., on June 28, 2018 gets underway on Wednesday.

Jarrod Ramos, 41, has pleaded guilty — but not criminally responsible for reason of insanity — in the killings of John McNamara, Rob Hiaasen, Gerald Fischman, Wendi Winters and Rebecca Smith. The mass shooting was one of the deadliest attacks on journalists in modern U.S. history.

"There is a sense that you don't want this to be the thing that makes your life change," Phil Davis, the paper's former criminal justice reporter who now works at the Baltimore Sun, told NPR.

Davis was hiding under his desk while live tweeting the shooting that day. Later, he was part of the Pulitzer Prize-winning team that put out a paper the very next day.

"That's kind of what drove me to continue as a criminal justice reporter. Once I got the feeling of like, 'no we're going to get back to exactly what we do. We're going to tackle this how we would even if it wasn't us and try to go at it from the perspective of a local community newspaper,'" Davis said.

Bruce Shapiro, the executive director of the Columbia University's Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma, said what made this shooting reverberate in newsrooms across the U.S. was "the idea of a newsroom full of colleagues being murdered just because they are journalists. It's an identity based attack."

Attacks on journalists in the U.S. haven't stopped there. During his time in office, President Donald Trump tweeted that the news media is the enemy of the people. Associated Press journalists were threatened and had their equipment damaged by supporters of Trump during the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6. And last year, during the protests in Minneapolis over the murder of George Floyd by police, the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker reported at least 160 threats to journalists across the country in one week--mostly by police.

Shapiro says the trial is a reminder to the public of the risks and costs local reporters take daily.

"The reality is that local newsrooms all over the country cover extraordinarily difficult events affecting their own families, neighbors, kids, schools whether that is wildfires, whether that is mass shooting, whether that is COVID-19," Shapiro said.

The Capital Gazette trial has been delayed several times due to COVID-19, turnover in the public defender and state's attorney's offices, and rounds of court hearings. Davis says he hopes the long-awaited trial brings some closure.

"Certainly for the families of the victims themselves, I look forward to being on the other end of this trial," he said. "And whatever the outcome is, being able to embrace them and support them just to bring them some sort of closure."

Today, less than a week before the third anniversary of the shooting, the judge has called a pool of 300 people to determine the 12 that will sit as jurors. They will then determine Ramos's mental sanity during the attack.

Steve Mercer, a former Maryland public defender, said the defense has the burden to prove Ramos's sanity. He said that in cases like these, the defense will look at motive and intent. One possible motive, Mercer says, is Ramos' "long-simmering feud with the paper."

Ramos sued the paper for defamation in 2012 after reporters wrote about his guilty plea on charges of criminal harassment and 90-day suspended jail sentence. But that motive might not hold up.

"I think there's a big gap between sort of being upset about a story that's published ... and then going in and committing a mass shooting," Mercer said.

Mercer adds what presents a challenge to both the defense and prosecution is Ramos's conduct after the shooting. He was found by police under a desk at the scene of the shooting with a pump-action shotgun which was purchased legally a few years before.

"The defense may point to it and say that it shows just a disconnect from reality and a lack of awareness of what was going on," Mercer said.

Circuit Court Judge Judge Michael Wachs will ultimately decide if he ends up in prison or a state psychiatric hospital.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with students on Wednesday, ruling that a former cheerleader's online F-bombs about her school is protected speech under the First Amendment.

By an 8-1 vote, the court declared that school administrators do have the power to punish student speech that occurs online or off campus if it genuinely disrupts classroom study. But the justices concluded that a few swear words posted online from off campus, as in this case, did not rise to the definition of disruptive.

"While public schools may have a special interest in regulating some off-campus student speech, the special interests offered by the school are not sufficient to overcome B. L.'s interest in free expression in this case," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court's majority.

At issue in the case was a series of F-bombs issued in 2017 on Snapchat by Brandi Levy, then a 14-year-old high school cheerleader who failed to win a promotion from the junior varsity to the varsity cheerleading term at her Pennsylvania school.

"I was really upset and frustrated at everything," she said in an interview with NPR in April. So she posted a photo of herself and a friend flipping the bird to the camera, along with a message that said, "F*** the school ... F*** cheer, F*** everything."

Suspended from the team for what was considered disruptive behavior, Brandi and her parents went to court. They argued that the school had no right to punish her for off-campus speech, whether it was posted online while away from school, as in this case, or spoken out loud at a Starbucks across the street from school.

A federal appeals court agreed with her, declaring that school officials have no authority to punish students for speech that occurs in places unconnected to the campus.

The decision marked the first time that an appeals court issued such a broad interpretation of the Supreme Court's landmark student speech decision more then a half century ago. Back then, in a case involving students suspended for wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War, the court ruled that students do have free speech rights under the Constitution, as long as the speech is not disruptive to the school.

Although Brandi Levy is now in college, the school board in Mahanoy, Pa., appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that disruption can come from outside the campus but still have serious effects on campus. It pointed to laws in 47 states that require schools to enforce anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies.

The high court, however, focused on the facts in Levy's case, concluding that while her posts were less than admirable, they did not meet the test of being disruptive.

"We do not believe the special characteristics that give schools additional license to regulate student speech always disappear when a school regulates speech that takes place off campus," Breyer wrote. "The school's regulatory interests remain significant in some off-campus circumstances."

In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote: "If today's decision teaches any lesson, it must be that the regulation of many types of off-premises student speech raises serious First Amendment concerns, and school officials should proceed cautiously before venturing into this territory."

In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the school was right to suspend Levy because students like her "who are active in extracurricular programs have a greater potential, by virtue of their participation, to harm those programs."

"For example, a profanity-laced screed delivered on social media or at the mall has a much different effect on a football program when done by a regular student than when done by the captain of the football team," Thomas wrote. "So, too, here."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

In a case originating with a California Highway Patrol officer's pursuit of a vehicle and ultimately entering the driver's home, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police may not enter homes without a warrant for minor crimes.; Credit: Chris Carlson/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police cannot enter a home without a warrant when pursuing someone for a minor crime.

By a unanimous vote, the court declared that police violated the rights of a California man by pursuing him into his garage for allegedly playing loud music while driving down a deserted two-lane highway late at night.

Writing for the court majority, Justice Elena Kagan said police had no right to enter the man's home without a warrant for such a trivial offense.

"On many occasions, the officer will have good reason to enter – to prevent imminent harms of violence, destruction of evidence, or escape from the home," she wrote. "But when the officer has time to get a warrant, he must do so – even though the misdemeanant fled."

The court's ruling came in the case of Arthur Lange, who was playing loud music in his car late one night, at one point honking his horn several times. A California highway patrol officer, believing Lange was violating a noise ordinance, followed him, and when the motorist slowed to enter his driveway, the officer put on his flashing lights.

Lange, who later said he didn't notice the police car, drove into his garage. The officer, in "hot pursuit," got out of his car and put his foot under the closing garage door sensor to force the door open again. He had no warrant to enter the home, but once inside, he said, he smelled liquor on Lange's breath and arrested him, not only for the noise violation, but also for driving under the influence.

Lange appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, contending that the officer had no right to enter his home without a warrant and that the DUI evidence had been illegally obtained.

The Supreme Court has long held that police may conduct a warrantless search when pursuing a fleeing felon. The question in Lange's case was whether police are free to do the same thing when pursuing someone suspected of a minor offense like playing loud music.

"[P]ursuit of a misdemeanant does not trigger a categorical rule allowing a warrantless home entry," she wrote.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The Supreme Court found that a law that allowed farmworkers union organizers onto farm property during nonworking hours unconstitutionally appropriates private land.; Credit: Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Wednesday tightened the leash on union representatives and their ability to organize farmworkers in California and elsewhere. At issue in the case was a California law that allows union organizers to enter farms to speak to workers during nonworking hours — before and after work, as well as during lunch — for a set a number of days each year.

By a 6-3 vote along ideological lines, the court ruled that the law — enacted nearly 50 years ago after a campaign by famed organizer Cesar Chavez — unconstitutionally appropriates private land by allowing organizers to go on farm property to drum up union support.

"The regulation appropriates a right to physically invade the growers' property," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's conservative majority. "The access regulation amounts to simple appropriation of private property."

The decision is a potentially mortal blow that threatens the very existence of the farmworkers union. However, the ruling stopped short of upending other laws that allow government officials to enter private property to inspect and enforce health and safety rules that cover everything restaurants to toxic chemical sites.

Indeed, as Roberts wrote: "Under this framework, government health and safety inspection regimes will generally not constitute takings."

The court's decision on Wednesday was only the latest in a series of decisions that have aimed directly at the heart of organized labor in the United States. In 2018, the court hamstrung public-sector unions' efforts to raise money for collective bargaining. In that decision, the court by a 5-4 vote overturned a 40-year precedent that had allowed unions to collect limited "fair share" fees from workers not in the union but who benefited from the terms of the contract that the union negotiated.

The case decided by the court on Wednesday began in 2015 at Cedar Point Nursery, near the Oregon border. The nursery's owner, Mike Fahner, said union organizers entered the farm at 5 a.m. one morning, without the required notice, and began harassing his workers with bullhorns. The general counsel for the United Farm Workers, Mario Martinez, countered that the people with bullhorns were striking workers, not union organizers.

When Cedar Point filed a complaint with the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, the board found no illegal behavior and dismissed the complaint. Cedar Point, joined by another California grower, appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing they should be able to exclude organizers from their farms.

Writing for the court's three liberals, Justice Stephen Breyer said the access in the case was "temporary" and so did not constitute a "taking" under the law.

The rule, he wrote , is "not functionally equivalent to the classic taking in which government directly appropriates private property or ousts the owner from his domain."

"In my view, the majority's conclusion threatens to make many ordinary forms of regulation unusually complex or impractical," he wrote.

The court's decision could be disastrous for unions in general, but especially those that represent low-income workers. The growers asserted that unions should have no problem organizing workers in the era of the internet. But many of the workers at Cedar Point don't own smartphones and don't have internet access. What's more, many speak Spanish or indigenous languages and live scattered throughout the area, in motels, in labor camps or with friends and family, often moving after just a few weeks when the seasonal harvest is over.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Britney Spears performing onstage in Las Vegas in 2016.; Credit: Christopher Polk/Getty Images

Addressing a Los Angeles Superior Court judge today via a remote connection, Britney Spears on Wednesday afternoon made her most public statement to date about her long-running conservatorship. For over a decade, the pop star's life has been ruled by an atypical court-dictated legal arrangement that removes practically all autonomy from her life. Until now, the pop star has remained mostly quiet on the subject.

Today, in a passionate statement, she plead for the conservatorship to end. According to tweets sent by observers on the scene, Spears was open and outspoken about her situation. She said her life was being exploited, and she can't sleep, is depressed and cries every day. She stated that she wants another baby, but is forced by the agreement to keep an IUD in place.

Before today, after a recent New York Times and FX documentary, Framing Britney Spears, reignited interest in her story and the wider #FreeBritney movement, she has shied away from public comment, but did share some thoughts on social media.

"I didn't watch the documentary but from what I did see of it I was embarrassed by the light they put me in," she wrote in an Instagram caption in March. "I cried for two weeks and well .... I still cry sometimes !!!!"

But on Tuesday, The New York Times, citing recently obtained confidential court records, reported that Spears has been trying to fight her conservatorship for years.

"She articulated she feels the conservatorship has become an oppressive and controlling tool against her," a court investigator wrote in a 2016 report. The system had "too much control," Ms. Spears said, according to the investigator's account of the conversation. "Too, too much!"

Ms. Spears informed the investigator that she wanted the conservatorship terminated as soon as possible. "She is 'sick of being taken advantage of' and she said she is the one working and earning her money but everyone around her is on her payroll," the investigator wrote.

In 2019, Ms. Spears told the court that she had felt forced by the conservatorship into a stay at a mental health facility and to perform against her will.

You can find more details about the history of her conservatorship here, but these are the broad strokes:

In 2008, Britney Spears' father, Jamie Spears, gained control of all aspects of his daughter's life after the singer publicly struggled with her mental health. (As the Framing Britney Spears documentary brought new attention to her case, it also started some soul-searching among media types who farmed her mental health issues for tabloid headlines.) Everything from her performances to her finances to her relationships with her two now-teenage sons was under her father's control.

The pop star's fans began to question the ethics and legality of the arrangement, and under the banner #FreeBritney they have sustained a lengthy campaign to see it end.

During this time, Britney Spears continued working — putting out platinum-selling albums, doing TV gigs and mounting a hugely successful four-year residency in Las Vegas. She had no control over the financial arrangements of any of these projects.

In a 2020 court filing, Spears asked the court to suspend her father from his role as conservator and refused to perform if he remained in charge of her career. As a result, a wealth-management company became a co-conservator for her finances, but her father presently remains the main conservator for all other aspects of Spears' life.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Federal prosecutors secured their first guilty plea Wednesday in the Justice Department's sprawling conspiracy case involving the Oath Keepers extremist group in connection with the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

At a hearing in federal court in Washington, D.C., Graydon Young pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy and one count of obstruction of an official proceeding. The 55-year-old Florida resident agreed to cooperate with investigators, which could prove critical as the government pursues the remaining defendants in the high-profile case.

Young is one of 16 people associated with the Oath Keepers to be charged with conspiracy, obstruction and other offenses over the Capitol riot. Prosecutors say the defendants coordinated their efforts and actions to try to disrupt Congress' certification of the Electoral College count on Jan. 6.

More than 500 people have been charged so far in connection with the Capitol breach, but the Oath Keepers conspiracy case is one of the most closely watched because of the allegations and the link to an extremist organization.

Young is the second defendant linked to the Oath Keepers to plead guilty. Jon Schaffer pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding and entering restricted grounds with a dangerous weapon in April.

According to Young's statement of offense, he coordinated with his co-conspirators ahead of Jan. 6 and used encrypted messaging apps to maintain "operational security."

On the day itself, the document says, Young and some of his co-conspirators pushed through U.S. Capitol Police lines guarding the Capitol and into the building.

"Mr. Young believed that he and the co-conspirators were trying to obstruct, influence, and impede an official proceeding, that is, a proceeding before Congress, specifically, Congress's certification of the Electoral College vote," the document says.

At Wednesday's hearing, Judge Amit Mehta read that passage to Young to ensure that it was accurate.

"Yes, sir," Young replied, "that is correct."

According to the plea deal, Young has agreed to cooperate fully with prosecutors, including sitting for interviews with investigators and testifying before the grand jury and at trial.

The government, meanwhile, has agreed to dismiss the remaining charges against him. Even so, Mehta said Young is facing a possible prison sentence of 5 to 6 1/2 years under the sentencing guidelines.

Wednesday brought another significant development in the Capitol investigation.

Anna Morgan-Lloyd, a 49-year-old from Indiana who described Jan. 6 as the "best day ever," became the first Capitol riot defendant to be sentenced.

Morgan-Lloyd was not accused of taking part in any of the violence at the Capitol. She pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor count of "parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building."

Judge Royce Lamberth sentenced her to three years of probation and no jail time.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Britney Spears arrives for a movie premier in Hollywood, Calif., on July 22, 2019. On Wednesday, the singer asked a judge to end her conservatorship.; Credit: Valerie Macon/AFP via Getty Images

Britney Spears is asking a Los Angeles Superior Court judge to end her 13-year conservatorship, saying she is being exploited, bullied and feeling "left out and alone."

Below is a transcript from a leaked audio recording of part of Spears' court statement Wednesday posted on YouTube and verified by NPR.

Britney Spears: I will be honest with you, I haven't been back to court in a long time because I don't think I was heard on any level when I came to court the last time. I brought four sheets of paper in my hands and wrote in length what I had been through the last four months before I came there. The people who did that to me should not be able to walk away so easily. I'll recap: I was on tour in 2018; I was forced to do. My management said if I don't do this tour I will have to find an attorney.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Brenda Penny: Ms. Spears, Ms. Spears. I hate to interrupt you, but my court reporter is taking down what you're saying.

Spears: OK.

Penny: And so you have to speak a little more slowly.

Spears: Oh, of course. Yes. OK. I apologize. Great.

Penny: So we hear and make a record of everything you're saying.

Spears: The people who did this to me should not get away and be able to walk away so easily. Recap: I was on tour in 2018. I was forced to do. My management said if I don't do this tour, I will have to find an attorney and by contract my own management could sue me if I didn't follow through with the tour. He handed me a sheet of paper as I got off the stage in Vegas and said I had to sign it. It was very threatening and scary and with the conservatorship, I couldn't even get my own attorney. So out of fear, I went ahead and I did the tour. When I came off that tour, a new show in Las Vegas was supposed to take place. I started rehearsing early, but it was hard cause I'd been doing Vegas for four years and I needed a break in between.

But no, I was told this is the timeline and this is how it's gonna go. I rehearsed four to four days a week, half of the time in the studio and a half of the other time in a Westlake studio. I was basically directing most of the show with my whereabouts, where I preferred to rehearse and actually did most of the choreography, meaning I taught my dancers my new choreography myself. I take everything I do very seriously. There's tons of video with me at rehearsals. I wasn't good. I was great. I led a room of 16 new dancers in rehearsals. It's funny to hear my manager's side of the story. They all said I wasn't participating in rehearsals and I never agreed to take my medication, which my medication is only taken in the mornings, never at rehearsal. They don't even see me. So why are they even claiming that?

When I said no to one dance move into rehearsals, it was as if I planted a huge bomb somewhere and I said, no, I don't want to do it this way. After that, my management, my dancers and my assistant of the new people that were supposed to do the new show all went into a room, shut the door and didn't come out for at least 45 minutes. Ma'am, I'm not here to be anyone's slave. I can say no to a dance move. I was told by my — at the time — therapist, Dr. Benson, who died, that my manager called him and then that moment and told him I wasn't cooperating or following the guidelines in rehearsals. And he also said I wasn't taking my medication, which is so dumb because I've had the same lady every morning for the past eight years give me my same medication and I'm nowhere near these stupid people. It made no sense at all.

There was a week period where they — they were nice to me and they said, "I don't want to do —" And I told them, "I don't want to do the —" They, wait, no — they were nice to me. They said, if I don't want to do the new Vegas show, I don't have to cause I was getting really nervous. I said, "I can wait." It was like, they told me I could wait. It was like lifting literally 200 pounds off of me when they said I don't have to do the show anymore cause it was — I was really, really hard on myself and it was too much.

I couldn't take it anymore. So I remember telling my assistant, "But you know what, I feel weird if I say no. I feel like they're going to come back and be mean to me or punish me or something." Three days later, after I said no to Vegas, my therapist sat me down in a room and said he had a million phone calls about how I was not cooperating in rehearsals and I haven't been taking my medication. All of this was a false. He — he immediately the next day put me on lithium out of nowhere. He took me off my normal meds I'd been on for five years. And lithium is a very, very strong and completely different medication compared to what I was used to. You can go mentally impaired if you take too much, if you stay on it longer than five months. But he put me on that and I felt drunk. I really couldn't even take up for myself. I couldn't even have a conversation with my mom or dad really about anything. I told them I was scared and my doctor had me on — six different nurses with this new medication come to my home, stay with me to monitor me on this new medication, which I never wanted to be on to begin with.

There were six different nurse — nurses in my homes and they wouldn't let me get in my car to go anywhere for — for a month. Not only did my family not do a goddamn thing, my dad was all for it. Anything that happened to me had to be approved by my dad. And my dad only — he acted like he didn't know that I was told I had to be tested over the Christmas holidays before they sent me away when my kids went home to Louisiana. He was the one who approved all of it. My whole family did nothing. Over the two-week holiday, a lady came into my home for four hours a day, sat me down and did a psych test on me. It took forever, but I was — I was told I had to then — after that I got off — Wait.

I was told — I had to then after I got a phone call from my dad saying after I did the psych test with this lady, basically saying I had failed the test or whatever — whatever. "I'm sorry, Britney, you have to listen to your doctors. They are planning to send you to a small home in Beverly Hills to do a small rehab program that we're going to make up for you. You're gonna pay $60,000 a month for this."

I cried on the phone for an hour and he loved every minute of it. The control he had over someone as powerful as me as he loved the control to hurt his own daughter, 100,000%. He loved it.

I packed my bags and went to that place. I worked seven days a week, no days off — which in California, the only similar thing to this is called sex trafficking, making anyone work — work against their will. Taking all their possessions away — credit card, cash, phone, passport card — and placing them in a home where they — they work with the people who live with them. They offer — they all lived in the house with me, the nurses, the 24/7 security. There — there was one chef that came there and cooked for me daily during the weekdays. They watched me change every day, naked. Morning, noon and night. My body — I had no privacy door for my — for my room. I gave eight gallons of blood a week. If I didn't do any of my meetings and work from 8 to 6 at night — which is 10 hours a day, seven days a week, no days off — I wouldn't be able to see my kids or my boyfriend. I never had a say in my schedule. They always told me I had to do this. And ma'am, I will tell you, sitting in a chair 10 hours a day, seven days a week, it ain't fun. And especially when you can't walk out the front door.

And that's why I'm telling you this again two years later, after I've lied and told the whole world I'm OK and I'm happy. It's a lie. I thought I just — maybe I said that enough, maybe I might become happy because I've been in denial. I've been in shock. I am traumatized, you know, fake it till you make it. But now I'm telling you the truth, OK? I'm not happy. I can't sleep. I'm so angry. It's insane and I'm depressed. I cry every day. And the reason I'm telling you this is because I don't think how the state of California can have all this written in the court documents from the time I showed up and do absolutely nothing. Just hire — with my money — another person to keep — and keep my dad on board. Ma'am, my dad and anyone involved in this conservatorship and my management who played a huge role in punishing me when I said, "No, ma'am, they should be in jail." Their cruel tactics working for Miley Cyrus. If she smokes on joints and stage at the VMAs, nothing is ever done to this generation for doing wrong things. But my precious body, whose work for my dad for the past f***ing 13 years, trying to be so good and pretty. So perfect when he works me so hard, when I do everything I'm told, and the state of California allowed my ignorant father to take his own daughter, who only has a role with me if I work with him. They set back the whole course and allowed him to do that to me? That's given these people I've worked for way too much control.

They also threatened me and said if I don't go, then I have to go to court and it will be more embarrassing me if the judge publicly makes you go, "The evidence we have, you have to go." I was advised for my image. I need to go ahead and just go and get it over with. They said that to me. I don't — I don't even drink alcohol. I — I should drink alcohol, considering what they put my heart through.

Also, the Bridges Facility they sent me to none of the kids — I was doing this program for four months. So the last two months I went to a Bridges Facility. None of the kids there did the — did the program. They never showed up for any of them. You didn't have to do anything if you didn't want to. How come they always made me go? How come I was always threatened by my dad and anybody that persisted in this conservatorship? If I don't do this, what they tell me — enslave me to do, they're going to punish me. The last time I spoke to you about just keeping the conservatorship going and also keeping my dad in the loop made me feel like I was dead. Like I didn't matter. Like nothing had been done to to me. Like you thought I was lying or something. I'm telling you again, because I'm not lying. I want to feel heard and I'm telling you this again so maybe you can understand the depth and the degree and the damage that they did to me back then.

I want changes and I want changes going forward. I deserve changes. I was told I have to sit down and be evaluated — again — if I want to end the conservatorship. Ma'am, I didn't know I could petition the conservatorship to end it. I'm sorry for my ignorance, but I honestly didn't know that. But honestly, which I don't think I owe anyone to be evaluated. I've done more than enough. I don't feel like I should even be in a room with anyone to offend me by trying to question my capacity of intelligence, whether I need to be in this stupid conservatorship or not. I've done more than enough. I don't owe these people anything. Especially me, the one that is roofed and fed tons of people on tour on the road. It's embarrassing and demoralizing what I've been through. And that's the main reason I've never said it openly. And mainly I didn't want to say it openly because I honestly don't think anyone would believe me. To be honest with you, the Paris Hilton story on what they did to her, at that school, I didn't believe any of it. I'm sorry, I'm an outsider. And I'll just be honest, I didn't believe it. And maybe I'm wrong. And that's why I didn't want to say any of this to anybody, to the public, because people would make fun of me or laugh at me and say, "She's lying. She's got everything. She's Britney Spears." I'm not lying. I just want my life back. And it's been 13 years and it's enough.

It's been a long time since I've owned my money and it's my wish and my dream for all of this to end without being tested. Again, it makes no sense whatsoever for the state of California to sit back and literally watch me with their own two eyes, make a living for so many people and pay so many people — trucks and buses on tour on the road with me — and be told I'm not good enough. But I'm great at what I do. And I allow these people to control what I do, ma'am, and it's enough, it makes no sense at all. Now, going forward, I'm not willing to meet or see anyone. I've met with enough people against my will. I'm done. All I want is to own my money, for this to end, and my boyfriend to drive me in his f***ing car. And I would honestly like to sue my family, to be totally honest with you.

I also would like to be able to share my story with the world and what they did to me instead of it being a hush hush secret to benefit all of them. I want to be able to be heard on what they did to me by making me keep this in for so long is not good for my heart. I've been so angry and I cry every day. It concerns me I'm told I'm not allowed to expose the people who did this to me. For my sanity, I need you to the judge to approve me to do an interview where I can be heard and what they did to me. And actually, I have the right to use my voice and take up for myself. My attorney says I can't. It's not good. I can't let the public know anything they did to me. And by not saying anything is saying it's OK. I don't know what I said here. It's not OK. I would actually — I don't want to interview. I'd much rather just have an open call to you for the press to hear, which I didn't know today we're doing, so thank you.

Instead of having an interview, honestly, I need that to get it off my heart. The anger and all of it. That — that — that's — that's been happening. It's not fair they're telling me lies about me openly. Even my family. They do interviews to anyone they want on news stations, my own family doing interviews and talking about the situation and making me feel so stupid. And I can't say one thing. And my own people say I can't say anything. It's been two years. I want a recorded call to you — actually, we're doing this now, which I didn't know that we were doing this — until the public knows what they did me. I told my — I know my lawyer Sam has been very scared for me to go forward because he's saying if I speak up, I'm being overworked in that facility, that rehab place that the rehab place will see me. He told me I should keep it to myself. I would personally like to — actually, I know I've had grown with a personal relationship with Sam, my lawyer. I've been talking to him like three times a week now. We've kind of built a relationship, but I haven't really had the opportunity by my own self to actually handpick my own lawyer by myself. And I would like to be able to do that.

I would like to also — the main reason why I'm here is because I want to end the conservatorship without having to be evaluated. I've done a lot of research, ma'am, and there is a lot of judges who do end conservatorships for people without them having to be evaluated all the time. The only times they don't is if a concerned family member says something's wrong with this person and consider an other — otherwise. And considering my family has lived off of my conservatorship for 13 years, I won't be surprised if one of them has has something to say. Go forward and say, "We don't think this should end. We have to help her." Especially if I get my fair serve and turn in exposing what they did to me. Also I want to speak to you about at the moment my obligations, which I personally don't think at the very moment, I owe anybody anything.

I have three meetings a week I have to attend no matter what. I just don't like feeling like I work for the people whom I pay. I don't like being told I have to, no matter what, even if I'm sick, Jodi, the conservator says I have to see my Coach Ken even when I'm sick. I would like to do one meeting a week with a therapist. I've never in — before — even before they sent me to that place, had two therapy sessions. A therapy, one, a therapy session and one therapy session with my — I have a doctor and then a therapy person. What I've been forced to do illegal in my life, I shouldn't be told I have to be available three times a week to these people I don't know.

I'm talking to you today because I feel again, yes, even Jodi is starting to kind of take it too far with me. They have me going to therapy twice a week and a psychiatrist. I've never in the past had — they had me going yeah, twice a week and my doctor goal. So that's three times a week. I've never in the past went to see a therapist more than once a week. It takes too much out of me going to this man I don't know. Number one, I'm scared of people. I don't trust people with what I've been through. And the clever set up of being in what's like, one of the most exposed places in Westlake, which today — yesterday paparazzi showed me coming out of the place, literally crying in there. It's embarrassing and it's demoralizing. I deserve privacy when I go. I deserve privacy when I go and have therapy either at my home, like I've done for eight years — they've always come to my home — or when the Dr. Benson, the guy — the man that died — I went to a place similar to what I went to in Westlake, which was very exposed and really bad. OK, so wait, where was I? It was like, it was identical to Dr. Benson who died. The one who illegally — yes, 100% — abused me by the treatment he gave me to. And to be totally honest with you, I was so —

Penny: Ms. Spears, excuse me for interrupting you. But my reporter says if you could just slow down a little bit because she's trying to make sure she gets everything that you're saying.

Spears: OK, cool.

Penny: And so if you just —.

Spears: OK.

Penny: So that would be great.

Spears: I have been through — and the clever set up in Westlake is identical to Dr. Benson who died, the one who illegally — yes, 100% — abused me by the treatment he gave me. And to be totally honest with you, when he passed away, I got on my knees and thanked God. In other words, my team is pushing — pushing it with me again. I have trapped phobias being in small rooms because the trauma locked me up for four months in that place is not OK for them to send me — sorry, I'm going fast — to that small room like that twice a week with another new therapist I pay that I never even approved. I don't like it. I don't want to do that. And I haven't done anything wrong to deserve this treatment. It's not OK to force me to do anything I don't want to do. By law — by law, Jodi and this so-called team should honestly — I should be able to sue them for threatening me and saying if I don't go and do these meetings twice a week, we — we can't let you have your money and go to Maui on your vacations. You have to do what you're told for this program and then you will be able to go.

But it was very clever. They picked one of the most exposed places in Westlake knowing I have the hot topic of the conservatorship, that over five paparazzi are going to show up and get me crying coming out of that place. I begged them to make sure that they did this at my home so I would have privacy. I deserve privacy. The whole conservatorship from the beginning — once — the conservatorship — the conservatorship from the beginning, once you see someone, whoever it is in the conservatorship, making money, making them money and myself money and working, that whole, that whole statement right there, the conservatorship should end. There should be no — I shouldn't be in a conservatorship if I can work and provide money and work for myself and pay other people. It makes no sense. The laws need to change. What state allows people to own another person's money and account and threaten them and saying, "You can't spend your money unless you do what we want you to do." And I'm paying them.

Ma'am, I've worked since I was 17 years old. You have to understand how thin that is for me. Every morning I get up to know, I can't go on somewhere unless I meet people I don't know every week in an office identical to the one where the therapist was very abusive to me. I truly believe this conservatorship is abusive. And now we can sit here all day and say, "Oh, conservatorships are here to help people." But ma'am, there's a thousand conservatorships that are abusive as well. I don't feel like I can live a full life. I don't — I don't owe them to go see a man I don't know and share him my problems. I don't even believe in therapy. I always think you take it to God.

I want to end the conservatorship without being evaluated. In the meantime, I want this therapist once a week. He can either come to my home — no, I just want him to come to my home. I'm not willing to go to Westlake and be embarrassed by all these paparazzi, these scummy paparazzi laughing at my faces while I'm crying, coming out and taking my pictures as all these white, nice dinners where people drinking wine at restaurants, watching me from these places.

They set me up by sending me to the most exposed places, places. And I told them I didn't want to go there because I knew paparazzi would show up there. They only gave me two options for therapist, and I'm not sure how you make your decisions, ma'am, but this is the only chance for me to talk to you for a while. I need your your help. So if you can just kind of let me know where your head is, I don't really honestly know what to say, but my requests just are to end the conservatorship without being evaluated. I want to petition, basically, to end the conservatorship, but I want to — I want it to be petitioned. And if I don't want to be evaluated, to be sat in a room with people for hours a day like they did me before, and they made it even worse for me after that happened.

So I just — I'm honestly new at this and I'm doing research on all these things. I do know common sense and the method that things can end, it — for people, it has ended without them being evaluated. So I just want you to take that into consider — consideration. I've also done research and wait — also took a year during COVID to get me any self-care methods during COVID. She said there were no services available. She's lying, ma'am. My mom went to the spa twice in Louisiana during COVID. For a year, I didn't have my nails done. No hair styling and no massages, no acupuncture, nothing. For a year. I saw the maids in my home each week with their nails done different each time. She made me feel like my dad does — very similar, her behavior. And my dad, but just a different dynamic. Team wants me to work and stay home instead of having longer vacations. They — they are used to me sort of doing a weekly routine for them and I'm over it. I don't feel like I owe them anything at this point. They need to be reminded they actually work for me. They trick me by sending me to the — OK, I repeated myself there. OK.

Also, I was supposed to be able to have a friend that I used to do AA meetings with. I did AA for two years, I have like, you know — I did three meetings a week and met a bunch of women there. And I'm not able to see my friends that live eight minutes away from me, which I find extremely strange. I feel like they're making me feel like I live in a rehab program. This is my home. I'd like for my boyfriend to be able to drive me in his car. And I want to meet with the therapist once a week, not twice a week. And I want him to come to my home because I actually know I do need a little therapy.

I was told, hold on — I think that's — oh, and I would like to progressively move forward and I want to have the real deal. I want to be able to get married and have a baby. I was told right now in the conservatorship, I'm not able to get married or have a baby. I have an IUD inside of myself right now, so I don't get pregnant. I wanted to take the IUD out so I could start trying to have another baby. But this so-called team won't let me go to the doctor to take it out because they they don't want me to have children — any more children.

So basically this conservatorship is doing me way more harm than good. I — I deserve to have a life. I've worked my whole life. I deserve to have a two- to three-year break and just, you know, do what I want to do. But I do feel like there is a crutch here and I feel like I feel open and I'm OK to talk to you today about it. But I — I wish I could stay with you on the phone forever, because when I get off the phone with you, all of a sudden all I hear — I hear all these no's. No, no, no. And then all of a sudden I get — I feel ganged up on and I feel bullied and I feel left out and alone. And I'm tired of feeling alone. I deserve to have the same rights as anybody does by having a child, a family, any of those things. And more so. And that's all I wanted to say to you. And thank you so much for letting me speak to you today.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill sentenced former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin to 22 1/2 years in prison for the murder of George Floyd.; Credit: /Court TV via AP

A Minnesota judge sentenced former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin to 22 1/2 years in prison Friday for the murder of George Floyd.

Judge Peter Cahill wrote that part of the mission of the Minneapolis Police Department is to give citizens "voice and respect."

"Mr. Chauvin, rather than pursuing the MPD mission, treated Mr. Floyd without respect and denied him the dignity owed to all human beings and which he certainly would have extended to a friend or neighbor. In the Court's view, 270 months, which amounts to an additional ten years over the presumptive 150-month sentence, is the appropriate sentence."

Read Cahill's entire sentencing order and memoradum for Chauvin below.

Chauvin, 45, was convicted in April of all three charges he faced — second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.

He was sentenced only on the first of the charges, the most serious, as is typical in Minnesota.

Cahill said Chauvin's crime included four aggravating factors: that Derek Chauvin abused a position of trust and authority as a police officer, that he treated Floyd with "particular cruelty," that he committed the crime as part of a group with at least three other people, and that children were present during the commission of the offense.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Sonia Doe, pictured here, reached a settlement with the New Jersey Department of Corrections that will make it standard for the state to assign jail stays to a person based on their gender identity, not the sex assigned at birth.; Credit: /The ACLU New Jersey

For 18 months, Sonia Doe faced humiliating strip searches in front of male guards. Male prisoners exposed themselves to her. She faced sexual harassment, discrimination and physical threats from corrections officers and inmates alike.

Doe, who is transgender, has lived her life publicly as a woman since 2003. Yet, Doe — a pseudonym used for her lawsuit — was transported to four different men's prisons across New Jersey from March 2018 to August 2019.

It took a lawsuit filed that August for Doe to finally be transported to a woman's prison weeks later.

As part of the settlement for that lawsuit Tuesday, the New Jersey Department of Corrections will now make it customary for prisoners who identify as transgender, intersex or nonbinary to be assigned a jail stay in line with their gender identity — not with the sex they were assigned at birth.

Tuesday's news marks a major policy shift for the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

Research has shown that transgender inmates face particular danger while in prison, but few states offer them protections like these. Connecticut and California passed laws in 2018 and 2020, respectively, that require transgender inmates to be assigned prisons based on their gender identity. Rhode Island, New York City and Massachusetts also have housed inmates based on their gender identity.

"When I was forced to live in men's prisons, I was terrified I wouldn't make it out alive. Those memories still haunt me," Doe said in a statement announcing the settlement. "Though I still have nightmares about that time, it's a relief to know that as a result of my experience the NJDOC has adopted substantial policy changes so no person should be subjected to the horrors I survived."

Doe faced harassment, discrimination and abuse

According to court documents reviewed by NPR, Doe was placed in men's prisons in spite of the state's Department of Corrections knowing she was a transgender woman.

Clear documentation, including her driver's license, showed her gender identity, but Doe was still forced to remain in men's prisons. In addition to facing physical assaults and verbal and sexual harassment in prison, she was also forced to remain in solitary confinement for long stretches.

Corrections staff would refer to her as a man and address her using male pronouns, according to her complaint. She also was denied gender-appropriate clothing items and had difficulty receiving her hormone therapy regularly and on time.

The settlement forces agency-wide changes

The new policy will require staff to use appropriate pronouns, and prohibits harassment and discrimination based on gender identity.

As part of the settlement in the Doe case, all New Jersey state corrections officers, regardless of rank or facility, will have to sign an acknowledgement that they have read the policy. The agency also will provide targeted training on the changes.

The Department of Corrections also said it would guarantee gender-affirming undergarments, clothing, and other property for the inmates. Medical and mental health treatment, including gender-affirming care, also will be provided "as medically appropriate."

Inmates who are transgender also will be given the opportunity to shower separately and won't have to go through a strip searches or pat downs by an officer of the opposite sex.

"The settlement of this lawsuit puts in place systemic, far-reaching policy changes to recognize and respect the gender identity of people in prison," said Tess Borden, ACLU-NJ Staff Attorney. ACLU New Jersey represented Doe along with Robyn Gigl of Gluck Walrath LLP.

As part of the settlement, the New Jersey Department of Corrections have agreed to pay Doe $125,000 in damages and $45,000 in separate attorney's fees.

Longstanding issues at New Jersey prisons

Doe was not the only transgender inmate who has faced frightening treatment in New Jersey prisons.

Rae Rollins, a transgender woman, filed a lawsuit in March saying she was one of several inmates attacked by corrections officers earlier this year at the scandal-plagued Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women. In January, several women were severely beaten by corrections officers at that facility. Ten correctional police officers have been charged in connection to the alleged beatings of prisoners.

Rollins sought a transfer to a different women's prison after the incident, but was moved to a men's prison instead. Rollins has since been moved to an out-of-state prison, according to the state's records.

Earlier this month, New Jersey's embattled corrections commissioner announced his resignation from his post — a day after Gov. Phil Murphy said the state would close the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The U.S. Supreme Court; Credit: Jose Luis Magana/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to lift a ban on evictions for tenants who have failed to pay all or some rent during the coronavirus pandemic.

By a 5-to-4 vote, the court left in place the nationwide moratorium on evictions put in place by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and which was challenged by the Alabama Association of Realtors.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who cast the fifth and deciding vote, wrote in a concurring opinion that he voted not to end the eviction program only because it is set to expire on July 31, "and because those few weeks will allow for additional and more orderly distribution" of the funds that Congress appropriated to provide rental assistance to those in need because of the pandemic. He added, however, that in his view Congress would have to pass new and clearer legislation to extend the moratorium past July 31.

The Biden administration has said it does not plan to extend the moratorium any further.

Also voting to leave the program intact until July 31 were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Dissenting were Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. They would have blocked the moratorium from continuing for another month.

The decision comes at a time when roughly 7 million American households say they are still behind on their rent. Many suffered job loss during the pandemic. And delays have stopped more than $46 billion in congressionally approved rental assistance from reaching many people facing eviction who need it.

Housing groups have been warning that pulling the CDC eviction protections away from people before that congressional aid can reach them would spark a wave of evictions that could otherwise be avoided.

Evictions often send families into a downward financial spiral. It can be very hard to find another place to live with an eviction on your record. People can end up living in their cars, motels when they can afford it or in homeless shelters. Research has found there's also a disparate impact on people of color.

During the pandemic, public health experts have warned — and research showed — that evictions result in more coronavirus cases because people end up living in more crowded situations, where they are more likely to catch or spread the disease.

At the outset of the pandemic, Congress adopted a limited, temporary moratorium on evictions. After Congress' moratorium lapsed last July, however, then-President Donald Trump asked the CDC to step in and issue a new eviction ban, which it did in September. In March, President Biden extended that ban, which was to expire at the end of June. Then on June 24, the Biden administration notified the Supreme Court that it had extended the moratorium until July 31. It also said that barring a rise in coronavirus cases, the "CDC does not plan to extend the Order further."

Landlords have long argued that the CDC order was an overreach and that the agency doesn't have the power to, in effect, take control over their own properties away from them.

A group of the nation's landlords challenged the eviction ban and on May 5, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled that the CDC has exceeded its authority. The judge, however, blocked her own decision from going into effect to give the government time to appeal. On June 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the stay, prompting the landlords to go to the Supreme Court.

Keeping the status quo in place "will prolong the severe financial burdens borne by landlords under the moratorium for the past nine months," the property owners said.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine, pictured in 2019, is hoping to change how the justice system handles cases involving 16- and 17-year-olds who are charged as adults.; Credit: Claire Harbage/NPR

A new proposal from D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine could overhaul the way juveniles are charged as adults and offer greater opportunities for rehabilitation than a federal prison.

If passed, the proposal would impact people like Charlie Curtis, who was charged with armed robbery and sent to adult court at the age of 16 — a decision that he said left him confused and adrift.

Curtis said he had problems reading and writing back then, let alone asking the court to appoint him a lawyer. After his conviction, he spent years in a federal prison in New Jersey.

"It's a little bit of everything," Curtis said. "A little scary, a little nervous, you got to grow up real fast. You're not in the high school gym no more."

Curtis returned home when he was 22. It would be a while before he stabilized, got a good job driving a truck and started a family that grew to include three children. He now volunteers to help other young people leaving jail and prison — trying to offer the support he got too late.

What the legislation would change

NPR has learned Racine will introduce legislation in the D.C. Council Wednesday to ensure that 16- and 17-year-olds accused of certain crimes start in the family court system.

"Children should be treated like children, including 16- and 17-year-olds, notwithstanding the seriousness of their alleged offense," Racine said.

The proposed legislation would apply to teens charged with murder, first-degree sexual abuse, and armed robbery, among other crimes. Currently, the lead federal prosecutor in D.C. can file those kinds of cases directly in adult court — without any say from a judge — even if those defendants ultimately plead guilty to lesser charges.

D.C. has no federal prisons of its own, so young people convicted as adults can spend years in other states, at great distances from their families. The D.C. attorney general said the majority of underaged defendants charged as adults return home to the District before they are 21, but without the benefit of access to educational programs, vocational training and mentoring they could have received if their cases had been handled in the family courts.

"The adult system doesn't work that way," Racine said. "Federal Bureau of Prisons people will tell you the adult system is not made for kids."

Eduardo Ferrer, the policy director at the Georgetown Juvenile Justice Initiative, said research demonstrates charging young people in the adult system decreases public safety by making it more likely they'll break the law in the future. Most charging decisions in these cases in D.C. are made within a half a day, without the benefit of a longer review of the facts of the case and the background of the teenager, he said.

"The process in D.C. right now, because the U.S. Attorney's Office does not exercise discretion often in terms of keeping kids down in juvenile court, is more of a sledgehammer," Ferrer said. "What we really need is a scalpel."

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington and the Metropolitan Police Department did not return calls for comment about the proposal. But its supporters expect some resistance when it's ultimately considered by the City Council.

Ferrer pointed out that the legislation still leaves room for a judge to transfer a young person in D.C. into adult court if the judge has concerns about the ability for rehabilitation and worries about public safety. "The reality is that a young person still can be transferred to adult court," he said. "The difference is we're taking the time to get it right."

The potential impact

The vast majority — 93% — of the 16- and 17-year-olds who are charged as adults in D.C. are Black. One of them is the son of Keela Hailes. In 2008, he was charged with armed robbery. Hailes said she wasn't consulted about decisions about what was best for her son.

"It's like my son went from a 16-year-old to a 30-year-old overnight," Hailes said.

Her son was convicted and sent to federal prison in North Dakota, too far for her to visit regularly as she had done in the D.C. area. Her son, now 30 years old, is incarcerated again. Hailes said she wishes he would have had more options years ago — a chance for an education, and time spent in a juvenile facility instead of around adults in prison.

She said science suggests young people have less judgment and maturity because their brains are still developing. She thinks the new proposal will make a "huge difference" for juveniles in the legal system in the District.

The proposal is the latest in a series of steps Racine has taken to overhaul juvenile justice in D.C. He pushed the courts to stop shackling young defendants; started a restorative justice program for juveniles to meet with and make amends to victims; and worked to limit the ability of police to put handcuffs on most people under age 12.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Pro-Trump supporters storm the U.S. Capitol following a rally with then-President Donald Trump on Jan. 6.; Credit: Samuel Corum/Getty Images

An alleged member of the Oath Keepers has pleaded guilty to charges connected to the Jan. 6 breach of the U.S. Capitol and agreed to cooperate with the government in its conspiracy case against the extremist group.

Mark Grods entered a plea of guilty to one count of conspiracy and one count of obstruction of an official proceeding. According to the statement of offense, the conspiracy's aim was to stop Congress' certification of the Electoral College count.

The plea marks another step forward for prosecutors pursuing a broader conspiracy case against 16 alleged members or associates of the Oath Keepers, a far-right, anti-government group. Last week, one of the defendants in that case pleaded guilty to conspiracy and obstruction, and agreed to cooperate with investigators.

Grods, who was charged separately but admitted to having coordinated with members of the Oath Keepers, has also agreed to cooperate with the government, including testifying before a grand jury or at trial.

In a court filing, prosecutors said Grods' case "is part of an ongoing grand jury investigation and plea negotiation related to United States v. Thomas Caldwell, et al.," which is the government's Oath Keepers conspiracy case.

At a court hearing Wednesday in Washington, D.C., just blocks from the Capitol, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta went over the charges and the terms of Grods' plea deal, and told him his estimated sentencing guidelines range was 51 to 63 months.

"How do you plead on count one, the charge of conspiracy, sir?" Mehta asked.

"Guilty," Grods said.

"Count two, obstruction of an official proceeding, how do you plead, sir?" Mehta asked.

"Guilty," Grods replied again.

In his statement of offense, Grods admits to bringing firearms to Washington, D.C., and then stashing them across the Potomac River at a Virginia hotel — a detail the government says buttresses its argument that the Oath Keepers prepared for violence on Jan. 6.

The government alleges the group planned to store weapons in Virginia and ferry them into Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6 if the situation in the city got messy.

Grods' statement of offense says on Jan. 6, he rode in a golf cart with others through the city before parking a few blocks away from the Capitol and walking the rest of the way. He then linked up with other alleged Oath Keepers, who forged their way through the crowd, up the steps of the Capitol in a military-style "stack" formation and into the building itself.

Other members of the "stack" have been charged in the Oath Keepers conspiracy case.

Four minutes after entering the Capitol, the statement of offense says, Grods left the building as police shot pepper balls at a wall near him.

Two days after the assault on the Capitol, an unnamed individual told Grods to "make sure that all signal comms about the op has been deleted and burned," according to the statement of offense, which Grods confirmed he had done.

It is unclear how much additional information Grods will be able to provide investigators, but his plea agreement — the second in the span of a week — may prompt other defendants in the case to cut deals with prosecutors as well.

Overall, charges have now been brought against more than 500 individuals related to the riot at the Capitol.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

After issuing its final decisions of the term Thursday, the Supreme Court on Friday granted a religious liberty case for next term and turned away challenges to longstanding decisions on qualified immunity and defamation, prompting dissents from the court's conservatives.

Court agrees to hear one religious liberty case, but rejects another

The justices agreed to consider a constitutional challenge to a school funding program in Maine that excludes private schools that teach religion.

Only half the school districts in Maine run their own high schools. The rest pay for students to attend public schools in other districts or to attend private schools. The state, however, will not fund students who attend any school that offers religious teaching.

Parents who wanted to send their children to a private Christian school challenged the law, alleging it violated their right to exercise their religion freely. The First Circuit disagreed, but now the high court will hear their case.

The justices, however, declined to hear another case about religious liberty – this one brought by a Washington state florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. She alleged that the state's antidiscrimination law violated her First Amendment rights, and in 2017, Washington's supreme court ruled against her.

Though the justices on Friday declined to hear her appeal, three of the court's conservatives—Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch—would have taken it for next term.

Thomas calls to do away with qualified immunity

Also on Friday, Justice Thomas once again called for the court to do away with qualified immunity, the legal shield for police officers that has come under intense scrutiny in the last year of racial justice protests.

Thomas was dissenting from the court's refusal to hear the case of a college student promoting Turning Point USA, a right-wing organization known for publishing lists of university professors it deems hostile to conservatives. The student alleged campus police at Arkansas State University violated her First Amendment rights when they stopped her from advertising the organization near the student union. But the campus officers escaped liability in the lower court because of qualified immunity, a doctrine created by the Supreme Court in 1967 that has evolved into a near-impenetrable bulwark for the police.

"Why should university officers," wrote Thomas, "receive the same protection as a police officer who makes a split-second decision to use force in a dangerous setting?" Going further, Thomas questioned whether the judicially-created doctrine should exist at all, an opinion that has garnered more and more bipartisan consensus in the wake of George Floyd's murder.

Thomas and Gorsuch call to overturn landmark Free Speech precedent

The court declined to hear a defamation case brought by a Miami-born international arms dealer—portrayed in the 2016 movie War Dogs—against the author of a book about his life.

The lower court dismissed the suit. It pointed to a landmark 1964 First Amendment decision, in which the high court said that publishers are immune from libel suits brought by public figures, so long as the publishers either didn't know, or had no reason to know, that the information they published was false.

Both Thomas and Gorsuch dissented, arguing the court should overturn the nearly 50-year-old precedent. In the era of disinformation, "lies impose real harm," wrote Thomas. "Instead of continuing to insulate those who perpetrate lies," said Thomas, the court should narrow First Amendment protections.

In a separate dissent, Gorsuch agreed. In 1964, publishers needed protection against libel for unpopular opinions to survive. Indeed, the court's 1964 decision was first used to protect civil rights leaders who had published a New York Times ad criticizing the Montgomery, Alabama police for repeatedly arresting Martin Luther King Jr.

But, said Gorsuch, in 2021, "it's less obvious what force [libel protections have] in a world in which everyone carries a soapbox in their hands," referring to smartphones. Now, Gorsuch wrote, "the deck seems stacked against those with traditional (and expensive) journalistic standards—and in favor of those who can disseminate the most sensational information as efficiently as possible without any particular concern for truth."

Another execution

On top of its decisions about cases next term, the justices gave Alabama the green light to execute Matthew Reeves, whose death sentence was recently overturned by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

This is the second time the justices have ruled against Reeves, who in 1998 was convicted for murder in Alabama. In 2002, Reeves first challenged his sentence in state court. He argued that because of his low IQ, his lawyer should have hired an expert to evaluate him for an intellectual disability. After 15 years of appeals, the Supreme Court denied his claim in 2017. So Reeves appealed his claim through the federal system.

But on Friday, the high court again rejected his challenge, thus allowing Alabama to move forward with his execution. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan, dissented, criticizing the state court for its brusque dismissal of Reeves's claim.

Sotomayor drew attention to "a troubling trend in which this court strains to reverse summarily any grants of relief to those facing execution." The court, wrote Sotomayor, "turns deference" to state courts "into a rule that...relief is never available to those facing execution."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Evidence exists linking three cancers and two other health problems with chemicals used in herbicides in the Vietnam War, a committee of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) has concluded.

A scientifically accurate and valid epidemiologic study of reproductive problems among the families of veterans exposed to radiation from atomic bombings and nuclear weapons tests is not feasible, concluded an Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee in a new report.

Cancer-causing chemicals that occur naturally in foods are far more numerous in the human diet than synthetic carcinogens, yet both types are consumed at levels so low that they currently appear to pose little threat to human health, a committee of the National Research Council said in a report released today.

While confirming that the science behind DNA forensics is valid, a new report from a committee of the National Research Council recommends new ways of interpreting DNA evidence to help answer a key question for jurors -- how likely it is that two matching samples came from different people.

A bold national initiative is needed to reduce the enormous health burden of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) in the United States, according to a new report from a committee of the Institute of Medicine.

More targeted aircraft testing and simulation should be conducted to uncover design characteristics in new flight control systems that -- in rare circumstances -- may mislead pilots and result in unstable or dangerous flight conditions, says a new report by a National Research Council committee.

A series of secret tests conducted by the U.S. Army in the 1950s and 1960s did not expose residents of the United States and Canada to chemical levels considered harmful, according to a new report from a committee of the National Research Council.

Immigration benefits the U.S. economy overall and has little negative effect on the income and job opportunities of most native-born Americans, says a new report by a panel of the National Research Council.

Smokers who are exposed to radon appear to be at even greater risk for lung cancer, because the effects of smoking and radon are more powerful when the two factors are combined, says a new report by a committee of the National Research Council.

Widespread reforms are needed to ensure that all children are equipped with the skills and instruction they need to learn to read, according to a new report from a committee of the National Research Council.

Women who might become pregnant need 400 micrograms of folic acid per day to reduce their risk of having a child with neural tube defects, according to the latest report on Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) from the Institute of Medicine.

Many public school students receive little or no exposure to the theory of evolution, the most important concept in understanding biology, says a new guidebook from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of this Academy.

Bacteria that resist antibiotics can be passed from food animals to humans, but not enough is known to determine the public health risks posed by such transmission, says a new report by a committee of the National Research Council.

Outdated food safety laws and a fragmented federal structure serve as barriers to improving protection of the nations food supply from contamination or other hazards, according to Ensuring Safe Food From Production to Consumption.

Radon in household water supplies increases peoples overall exposure to the gas, but waterborne radon poses few risks to human health, says a new report by a committee of the National Research Council.

Increased research is the key to developing more widely applicable detection systems to find pipe bombs before they explode and to help catch the perpetrators when a bomb has gone off, says a new report from a committee of the National Research Council.

Marijuanas active components are potentially effective in treating pain, nausea, the anorexia of AIDS wasting, and other symptoms, and should be tested rigorously in clinical trials.