The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the National Science Foundation announced today the formation of a Societal Experts Action Network (SEAN) to connect social and behavioral science researchers with decision-makers who are leading the response to COVID-19. SEAN will respond to the most pressing social, behavioral, and economic questions that are being asked by federal, state, and local officials by working with appropriate experts to quickly provide actionable answers.

NMI and

US-based payments processor Nets has released

If you try to run a program and receive an error stating that the api-ms-win-crt-runtime-l1-1-0.dll DLL is missing from your computer, you can use this guide to restore the missing DLL so that you program works again. [...]

If you start a program and receive an error that Windows is unable to find the vcruntime140.dll DLL or that it is missing, you can use this tutorial to restore the missing DLL so that your program works again [...]

Peter Epstein of Epstein Research discusses the macro picture for precious metals prices and one junior that he believes will benefit from higher prices.

Visit the aureport.com for more information and for a free newsletter

The Critical Investor discusses recent developments at the company that is exploring the Goliath Gold Project in Ontario.

Visit the aureport.com for more information and for a free newsletter

While the broader markets have seen sharp declines, Frank Holmes, CEO and chief investment officer of U.S. Global Investors, homes in on gold, gold stocks and bitcoin, and gives his prognosis for the...

Visit the aureport.com for more information and for a free newsletter

Sen. Mitt Romney is proposing a temporary pay bonus — up to $12 an hour — for front-line employees during the COVID-19 pandemic. The increase would be paid, in part, by employers and offset via a payroll tax credit.; Credit: Carolyn Kaster/AP

Sen. Mitt Romney is proposing a way for workers in front-line and essential jobs to get a temporary pay bump during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Released on Friday, Patriot Pay is a proposal from the Utah senator and 2012 Republican presidential candidate aimed at providing bonus pay — up to $12 an hour on top of normal wages — for employees in eligible jobs. The increase would extend through May, June and July and would be paid out by employers and the federal government via a payroll tax credit.

Workers in industries designated by Congress and the Department of Labor as essential, including hospitals, grocery stores and health manufacturing, could qualify for the hazard pay, according to a one-page summary of Patriot Pay.

"Health care professionals, grocery store workers, food processors, and many others — the unsung patriots on the frontline of this pandemic — every day risk their safety for the health and well-being of our country, and they deserve our unwavering support," Romney said in press release announcing the plan. "Patriot Pay is a way for us to reward our essential workers as they continue to keep Americans safe, healthy, and fed."

Romney is not the only lawmaker to propose a form of hazard pay for essential employees.

Last month, Senate Democrats revealed their own proposal — a federal fund offering payments of up to $25,ooo, or $13 an hour and retroactive compensation for qualifying workers dating back to late January, when the public health emergency was first declared.

Their plan also proposes a one-time payment of $15,000 to draw new workers into essential fields.

Sen. Bernie Sanders has also called for some form of hazard pay.

Unlike the Democratic proposal however, Romney's plan opts to offer employers a refundable payroll tax credit for paying out the bonuses to eligible employees. The plan states that employers would be refunded for up to three-quarters of hazard pay bonuses to employees making less than $90,000 a year.

"This form of hazard pay would complement, not replace, an employer's responsibility to pay their workers — it is designed to quadruple any bonuses an employer gives to essential workers," Romney's office said.

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

President Trump speaks in the Oval Office Wednesday.; Credit: Evan Vucci/AP

In a whistleblower complaint filed this week, top federal scientist Rick Bright alleges he was removed from his post for failing to go along with the president's push to promote a drug as a cure for COVID-19.

On Wednesday, Trump dismissed the complaint, telling reporters Bright "seems like a disgruntled employee who's trying to help the Democrats win an election."

"I never met him, I know nothing about him," Trump said, adding that he didn't think "disgruntled people" should work for his administration.

Trump also observed that Bright is being represented by a legal team that represented "other people" – seemingly an allusion to lawyer Debra Katz's representation of Christine Blasey Ford, who testified against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation.

Bright's legal team declined to comment.

Bright says he was ousted from his position as director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority because he wanted to spend money on safe and vetted treatments for COVID-19 — not hydroxychloroquine. The president has called that common anti-malaria drug a possible "game-changer," but there is no proof that it works for COVID patients, and it has side effects. The Food and Drug Administration ultimately warned against using the drug to treat COVID-19 without "strict medical supervision."

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

Rick Bright filed a complaint this week with the Office of Special Counsel, a government agency responsible for whistleblower complaints.; Credit: /Public Health Emergency via AP

Attorneys for Rick Bright, the government scientist who said he had been reassigned and subsequently filed a whistleblower complaint, say a government watchdog agrees that he should be reinstated to his post.

Bright was serving as director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, which is working on a vaccine to combat the coronavirus.

He said he was ousted from the position last month because he wanted to spend money on safe and vetted treatments for COVID-19 — not on ones without "scientific merit," such as hydroxychloroquine, the anti-malarial drug that President Trump and others had been touting.

Trump on Wednesday called Bright "a disgruntled employee who's trying to help the Democrats win an election."

Bright's attorneys say that the Office of Special Counsel, which hears whistleblower cases, determined there were "reasonable grounds" to believe that his removal was retaliatory and therefore prohibited.

Bright's attorneys say OSC plans to contact the Department of Health and Human Services to request that it put Bright's removal on hold for 45 days so the office can complete its investigation into the allegations.

The OSC said it "cannot comment on or confirm the status of open investigations."

In a statement to NPR, Caitlin Oakley, a spokesperson for HHS, said: "This is a personnel matter that is currently under review. However, HHS strongly disagrees with the allegations and characterizations in the complaint from Dr. Bright."

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

Money talks ... in verse.

"Money is a kind of poetry," the poet Wallace Stevens once wrote. That might be so, but poems rarely pay the poet's bills. Still, poetry reading in the U.S. has skyrocketed in recent years, according to the National Endowment for the Arts' Survey of Public Participation in the Arts.

The Academy of American Poets announced Thursday that it has received a $4.5 million grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation for the Poets Laureate Fellowship program — believed to be the largest-ever from a philanthropic institution for poetry. That's enough to fund the program for the next three years.

Poetry is like "the little engine that could ... with its outsized power, with its tremendous potency," Elizabeth Alexander, who is the president of the Mellon Foundation, tells NPR. As a poet, she believes the grant will help that engine "move a little faster."

Through fellowships to individual poets laureate, "we're able to create the conditions and open up the creativity of poets, not only to make their own poems, but also to think 'how can communities use poems? How can we let poetry be a way that we can explore what it means to be American in all these different places in real time?,'" Alexander says. (The Mellon Foundation is among NPR's recent financial supporters.)

"It's a game-changer," says poet and former NEA Chair Dana Gioia. He says that while multimillion-dollar grants to performing arts institutions is commonplace, the poetry world has made do on tiny grants from small funders. "Usually it's $25,000 and you're supposed to be grateful."

The Poets Laureate project began last year and provides grants from $50,000 to $100,000 to 13 poets around the country. Molly Fisk, the poet laureate of California's Nevada County, spearheaded workshops that encouraged more than 800 schoolchildren to write poems responding to devastating wildfires in the state. Ed Madden, poet laureate of Columbia, S.C., tells NPR he believes in "poetry as public art," including poetry readings on city buses. For his fellowship, he launched a youth and community workshop and interactive map called "Telling the Stories of the City."

Claudia Castro Luna, Washington state's poet laureate, held workshops at eight stops along the Columbia River — "places where cultural programming of the kind I am providing is rare," she tells NPR. Luna says the yearlong project One River, Many Voices "brought an injection of joy and beauty, an enthusiasm for words."

Academy of American Poets Chairman Michael Jacobs says in a statement that the organization is "thrilled that this extraordinary grant from the Mellon Foundation will help us continue to fulfill our mission and enable us to meaningfully fund poets who are involved in the civic life of their communities."

The $4.5 million grant is not the largest philanthropic gift to poetry. That distinction goes to Ruth Lilly who pledged an unrestricted $200 million to Chicago's Poetry Foundation in 2002. But it is believed to be the largest grant ever made by a philanthropic institution to support poets.

Gioia says having a large foundation like Mellon put real money toward the art form "is both visionary and practical," and a reflection of poetry's growing popularity among all age levels and backgrounds.

"Thirty years ago, I was seen as an eccentric for loving poetry. Now I'm just stating the obvious," he says. As Gioia's own poem Money puts it:

It greases the palm, feathers a nest, holds heads above water, makes both ends meet.

Guidelines for the 2020 round of fellowships are posted on the Academy of American Poets' website. Poets laureate "of a state, city, county, U.S. territory, or Tribal nation after having been formally appointed" are eligible.

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

Marc Maron's new Netflix special is titled "End Times Fun."; Credit: Adam Rose / Netflix

Read the full article at KPCC

Opera singer Plácido Domingo, shown here speaking in Spain last July, said earlier this month that he tested positive for the coronavirus.; Credit: Ricardo Rubio/Europa Press via Getty Images

Plácido Domingo has been hospitalized because of COVID-19-related complications, according to multiple reports.

He is in stable condition in an Acapulco, Mexico, hospital and will receive medical attention for "as long as the doctors find it necessary until a hoped-for full recovery," a spokesperson for Domingo told Opera News over the weekend.

Domingo's reported hospitalization comes just days after he posted a March 22 message on Facebook revealing that he had tested positive for the disease caused by the coronavirus.

"I feel it is my moral duty to announce that I tested positive for COVID19, also known as the Corona Virus. My family and I are and will remain individually isolated for as long as it is medically necessary. Today we all enjoyed good health, but I presented symptoms of coughing and fever, so I decided to take the test and the result was positive," Domingo said.

Domingo has been one of opera's most reliable and bankable stars and is known for his ability to sing tenor and baritone and in multiple languages, including Italian, English, Russian and Spanish.

Recently, the 79-year-old has been embroiled in controversy as several women accused the Spanish-born singer of sexual misconduct.

On March 10, NPR reported that LA Opera, which Domingo helped establish, announced that its investigation substantiated 10 "inappropriate conduct" claims levied against him dating back to as early as 1986. Domingo resigned as the LA Opera's general director in October.

Prior to that, he withdrew from a production of the Metropolitan Opera's performance of "Macbeth" amid allegations of sexual misconduct.

He has denied the allegations.

Domingo is among a growing list of celebrities who have announced they have tested positive for the coronavirus, including actor Tom Hanks and his wife Rita Wilson, actor Idris Elba, NBA star Kevin Durant, talk show host Andy Cohen and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

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

Pinwheel; Credit: /iStock

About The Reflections:

Over the past weeks, most us have had to adapt to a new normal. We reached out to a few TED speakers to ask how their lives have changed and what they're thinking about these days.

Who We Hear From:

Dawn Wacek is the Youth Services Manager of the La Crosse Public Library in Wisconsin. She will appear on an upcoming episode. Her talk is A Librarian's Case Against Overdue Book Fines.

Dixon Chibanda is the director of the African Mental Health Research Initiative. He's based in Zimbabwe, and he has appeared on the episode, Erasing The Stigma.

Susan Pinker is a developmental psychologist and writer, who has most recently researched the importance of social interactions. She is based in Montreal, she will appear on an upcoming episode, and her talk is The Secret To Living Longer May Be Your Social Life.

Leticia Gasca is co-founder of the movement F***up Nights and Executive Director for the Failure Institute, the first think tank devoted to studying business failure and the reasons behind it. She's based in New York and has appeared on the episode, Setbacks.

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

First demonstration of payoff bias learning in a wild animal

NSF-funded Laird Kramer transforms the undergraduate physics experience

His expression said it all.  KPCC Director of On-Air Fundraising Rob Risko walked into my studio about 10:45 a.m. to update me on where we stood with our Fall member drive.  I knew we had a $10,000 challenge that had started first thing in the morning, but didn't have any idea how far behind we had fallen in reaching the required 1,000 member threshold.

 Rob gave it to me straight -- we had to attract well over 500 members during "AirTalk" to meet the challenge.  I knew that was nearly impossible during a full two-hour show, let alone one that would be significantly pre-empted by the President's news conference.  Regardless, I knew we had to do our best and hope our listeners would contribute in a record-setting way.  Boy, did they.

We didn't start our show until 11:25 a.m., following the news conference.  Right off the bat the phones started ringing and the KPCC website starting humming.  The volume of member contributions stayed high with only a few exceptions.  There were times we could barely keep track of how many members were coming in.  It was one of the most exciting and rewarding experiences I've had in all my years hosting "AirTalk."

I've been on a high all afternoon thinking about how commited our listeners are to the mission of KPCC.  You've made me very happy, and very proud of our audience.  Thank you for a wonderful show of support.  I will long remember this day.

By the way, we set a fundraising record for "AirTalk" with today's show.  We're still tallying it all up.  I'll have the totals for you tomorrow morning at 11.

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

So—  We just had our big summer family reunion at a lake in Wisconsin.

You know what they say about family gatherings—  That you should never discuss religion or politics— And we don't plan to—  But because my older daughter Maddy has already started school back in LA and she doesn't want to fall behind in her homework—?  While everyone else is fishing or swimming or prepping the barbeque— Maddy needs to works on her collage. . . for U.S. History.

The theme? What does her generation think is the biggest problem facing the U.S. Right away, we're in crisis mode. We have to find an art store to procure poster paper, a glue stick, highlighters, scissors and three current periodicals.

I remind this L.A. teen that we are deep in the woods of Wisconsin -- Yelp says the nearest "craft supply" store is a "Ben Franklin on Wachookooheesha Lake" an hour away.

So instead we drive 20 minutes to "Trig's" grocery store—  "Oh, and can you pick up tortillas and cilantro?" my partner Charlie calls out.  "Sure!" I say.  "Cilantro!  That's what we came to Wisconsin for!"

Trig's has tortillas, but no cilantro. More importantly, there are no scissors, no highlighters. There are glue sticks, and envelopes we can glue together to make poster paper. There are of course plenty of periodicals. There's Musky Hunter Magazine, Catfish Insider, Log Cabin, Gun Dog Magazine and a glossy publication called Concealed Carry.  Which aside from guns, has a surprising amount of fashion—jeans and cargo shorts with many pockets for—  You know!

For a Blue State metropolitan girl like my 16 year old, this glimpse of the magazine tastes of rural Wisconsin is a fascinating sociological journey.  She reads eagerly from her trove to her boyfriend, safely back in land-locked Northridge—  Until I tell her to get off the phone because my GPS lady is now lost and taking us in circles.  "Harris Creek, Harris Lane, Harris Creek Lane, Harris Bog?" 
"Oh, we'll find it," she says breezily, continuing to chat about Musky Hunters.

 And I'm going, "Hey City Girl, this isn't the Galeria. We are seriously lost. In the back country. And all we've got to defend ourselves is a package of tortillas and Concealed Carry Magazine."  (hum the Deliverance theme)

Next week: Dog Fight.

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

Andrew J. West stars in Anna Mastro's "Walter"; Credit: "Walter"

It's always dicey to characterize a major film festival based on the movies you personally see there, because no matter how diligent you try to be, your impression will always be statistically anecdotal.

I'll see perhaps 10 percent of the films at this year's Palm Springs International Film Festival by the time they roll up the red carpets for the final time, added to the 25 or so I'd watched before I got here, owing to the festival's unique programming policies.

Not bad considering there are 190 movies being screened. So I think I've got the feel of things here. I wouldn't want my doctor to diagnose me based on a test with a 35 to 40 percent chance of accuracy, but I'm not a doctor. Instead of "Do no harm," I quote Spencer Tracy to myself. He said the secret to the creative process is to "just look 'em in the eye and tell 'em the truth."

And the truth is, with the exception of a couple of documentaries and a horror movie, virtually every film I've seen at Palm Springs so far shared some obvious characteristics: the Palm Springs International Film Festival loves it some poignancy and affirmation.

I've already commented on "Match," the Patrick Stewart acting showcase, and "Cowboys," a very funny Croatian comedy with cross-currents of seriousness. I may comment later about "Today," Iran's Oscar submission. (It's terrific by the way, a deeply affecting story about a burnt out cab driver who gets yanked into the world of a battered, unwed mother who steps into his cab.)

(Still from "Today” (Emrooz) by Iranian filmmaker Reza Mirkarimi)

I also saw an Anne Hathaway passion project called "Song One" here. I'm not going to write about it because I'm not in the mood to stomp on somebody else's butterfly. Plus the dramedy "1001 Grams" by the splendiferous-ly named Norwegian Bent Hamer, whose deadpan satire is routinely compared to Jacques Tati.

WATCH the official trailer for "1001 Grams," which includes some foreign languages

At their best, these are all movies that want to move the audience to tears before bouncing a ray of hope off the screen at them. At their worst, these movies are about pain in the same way Novocain is. They acknowledge its reality, in order to neutralize it.

Filmmaker Anna Mastro's debut film "Walter" (one of the Palm Springs premieres) fits what seems to be the festival's programming model, too, and is, I think, a really quite appealing little indie film, with the by now familiar mildly magical realist bent.

It's is a story about grief, though one with a screwball premise so that it doesn't quite present that way at first. Walter (portrayed with charisma and nuance by Andrew J. West) is a 20-something slacker, but a very uptight one, with a soldier's commitment to dress and routine.

He still lives with mom (Virginia Madsen, now shifting toward the character actress portion of her career with ease and grace) and has a job one rung above fast food worker on the ladder of success: He's a ticket taker at the local multiplex.

But what the world surely sees as failure, Walter knows to be his cover for a far more important vocation. Walter's father died when he was just 10 years old; ever since the funeral, Walter has realized something we don't: His real job in life is to decide where people go after they die.

His snap judgments secretly send people to heaven or hell ... until a dead guy from Walter's past shows up and demands that Walter determine his fate, and then all hell breaks loose.

It's an odd premise, bordering on the labored, but Mastro and her extremely appealing cast pull it off, in part by wearing their influences on their sleeves. The fingerprints of Wes Anderson are all over this picture, especially in terms of the way shots are framed and music is used, and I was able to identify the pivotal contribution of "Beasts of the Southern Wild" co-composer Dan Romer by ear, long before I noticed his screen credit.

I suppose that's supposed to be a damning criticism of a first-timer, but I don't see it that way. Tarantino aped Scorsese for years and virtually remade a minor Hong Kong gangster picture when he debuted with "Reservoir Dogs."

Spielberg acknowledges his debt to David Lean. Hitchcock's apprenticeship at Germany's UFA film studio resulted in a lifelong visual and thematic debt to the great Expressionist master Fritz Lang.

The question is, what do you do with your influences, how do you make them your own? And Mastro — who has a real gift for casting, pacing a scene and maneuvering her actors easily between farce and seriousness — has her own talents. She understands how Anderson's visual syntax has become a cinematic shorthand for quirk, and she deploys it to that effect, then tells the story at hand.

There are some issues with that story, though. There's a girl in concessions (Leven Rambin) Walter likes, and there's a bully at work. For all its surface oddity, the mechanical underpinnings of "Walter" frequently feel like they belong in an "American Pie" sequel.

And yet this movie won me over. I liked its faith in the movie palace as a place that still vibrates with the marvelous. I found a dream sequence, where Rambin undresses to camera while sprawled on a rich yellow bed of movie house popcorn hilarious and deeply expressive.

But I think my affection for this picture is mostly centered on Mastro and her cast, which includes a standout performance by Justin Kirk as a very grounded ghost and a broad but successful cameo from William H. Macy as Walter's psychiatrist. They're all groping toward something rather grim and real about loss, while doing their best to serve up some laughs and wonder along the way.

It touched me, because it feels kind of wise.

Off-Ramp contributor R.H. Greene, former editor of Boxoffice Magazine, is in Palm Spring this week to cover the 26th Annual Palm Springs International Film Festival. Look for his missives here, and listen Saturday at noon to Off-Ramp, when he'll interview Chaz Ebert about her late husband Roger Ebert's contributions to the film festival circuit.

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

People sit on a hill overlooking Dodger Stadium on what was supposed to be Major League Baseball's opening day, now postponed due to the coronavirus, on March 26, 2020 in Los Angeles, California. ; Credit: Mario Tama/Getty Images

Had the 2020 MLB season started at the end of March like it was scheduled to, at this point we’d be starting to see divisions shape up, star pitchers and position players separating themselves from the rest of the league and a first look at who this year’s contenders and pretenders really would be. Sadly, the COVID-19 outbreak forced the league to postpone the start of the season, and now the question has become if there will be a season, not when. 

Not to be dragged down by the idea of no baseball, Wall Street Journal sports writer Jared Diamond took a recent proposal the league floated for an abbreviated 2020 campaign and gamed out how that might look in real life. The league’s idea would do away with the National and American Leagues and divide all 30 MLB teams into three divisions of 10 teams separated by region, and those teams would play in empty stadiums and only against other teams in their geographic division in the interests of reducing travel. But how viable is this, really? And what other considerations would the league and players union have to take with regards to testing and protocol for what happens if someone were to contract COVID-19? Is there a world where baseball still happens this year?

Today on AirTalk, Jared Diamond joins the Triple Play of Larry Mantle, Nick Roman and A Martinez to talk about what a shortened 2020 MLB season might look like, which teams stand to win and lose the most from the realignment and what other precautions the league would have to take against the spread of COVID-19.

Guests:

Jared Diamond, national baseball writer for the Wall Street Journal; his new book is "Swing Kings: The Inside Story of Baseball's Home Run Revolution” (William Morrow, March 2020); he tweets @jareddiamond

Nick Roman, host of KPCC’s “All Things Considered”; he tweets @RomanOnTheRadio

A. Martinez, host of KPCC’s “Take Two”; he tweets @amartinezLA

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

Deirdre Bolona displayed a photo of her and her late father Matt Koenig at a state legislative oversight hearing about the Aliso Canyon natural gas disaster. ; Credit: Sharon McNary/KPCC

It’s been nearly four years since the smell and chemicals from a ruptured gas well at an underground storage field forced thousands of Porter Ranch residents to leave their neighborhood for months. The recriminations and protests have not stopped.

State legislators held a hearing in Porter Ranch Tuesday to review how gas field owner Southern California Gas and public officials responded to the blowout. 

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

Levi Draheim, 11, wears a dust mask as he participates in a demonstration in Miami in July 2019. A lawsuit file by him and other young people urging action against climate change was thrown out by a federal appeals court Friday.; Credit: Wilfredo Lee/AP

A federal appeals court has dismissed a lawsuit brought by nearly two dozen young people aimed at forcing the federal government to take bolder action on climate change, saying the courts were not the appropriate place to address the issue.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Friday the young plaintiffs had "made a compelling case that action is needed," but they did not have legal standing to bring the case.

The lawsuit, Juliana v. United States, was filed in 2015 on behalf of a group of children and teenagers who said the U.S. government continued to use and promote the use of fossil fuels, knowing that such consumption would destabilize the climate, putting future generations at risk.

By doing so, the plaintiffs argued, the U.S. government had violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property.

Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz agreed with some of that assertion, writing in a 32-page opinion that "the federal government has long promoted fossil fuel use despite knowing that it can cause catastrophic climate change."

But, he continued, it was unclear if the court could compel the federal government to phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess greenhouse gas emissions as the plaintiffs requested.

"Reluctantly, we conclude that such relief is beyond our constitutional power," Hurwitz wrote, "Rather, the plaintiffs' impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of government."

The decision reversed an earlier ruling by a district court judge that would have allowed the case to move forward.

Philip Gregory, who served as co-counsel for the plaintiffs, strongly disagreed with the 2-1 ruling, saying in an interview with NPR that they would seek an "en banc petition," which would put the issue before the full 9th Circuit for review.

Gregory, who spoke to some of the young plaintiffs following the decisions, says they were hopeful that their pending petition will be considered, "because as we all know, this Congress and this President will do nothing to ameliorate the climate crisis."

Both the Trump and Obama administrations opposed the lawsuit. All three of the judges involved in Friday's ruling were appointed under Obama.

Hurwitz and Judge Mary Murguia made up the majority but the third, Judge Josephine L. Staton, wrote a blistering dissent.

"In these proceedings, the government accepts as fact that the United States has reached a tipping point crying out for a concerted response — yet presses ahead toward calamity," she wrote. "It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses."

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

Traffic on the Hollywood Freeway in Los Angeles in 2018. The Trump administration is weakening auto pollution standards, rolling back a key Obama-era policy that sought to curb climate change.; Credit: Damian Dovarganes/AP

The Trump administration has finalized its rollback of a major Obama-era climate policy, weakening auto emissions standards in a move it says will mean cheaper cars for consumers.

"By making newer, safer, and cleaner vehicles more accessible for American families, more lives will be saved and more jobs will be created," U.S. Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao said in a statement.

But consumer watchdog organizations, environmental groups and even the Environmental Protection Agency's own scientific advisory board have raised concerns about that rationale, saying the weakened standards will lead to dirtier air and cost consumers at the gas pump long-term.

Environmental Protection Agency administrator Andrew Wheeler called the new rule a move to "correct" greenhouse gas emissions standards that were costly for automakers to comply with.

"Our final rule...strikes the right regulatory balance that protects our environment, and sets reasonable targets for the auto industry," Wheeler said in a statement.

The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule will toughen carbon dioxide emissions standards by 1.5% a year through model year 2026, compared to about 5% a year under the Obama policy.

The Trump administration originally proposed freezing the standards altogether without any increase. It modified the rule after push back from not only environmental groups but also some automakers, who worried they will be out of step in a global marketplace increasingly geared toward lower emission cars and trucks.

Still, critics say the new rule will lead to nearly a billion additional metric tons of climate warming CO2 in the atmosphere, and that consumers will end up losing money by buying about 80 billion more gallons of gas.

"This rule will lead to dirtier air at a time when our country is working around the clock to respond to a respiratory pandemic whose effects may be exacerbated by air pollution," said U.S. Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.) in a statement. He's the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

The Trump administration asserts the new rule will save lives because Americans will buy newer, safer vehicles. But Carper points out that its own analysis finds there would be even more premature deaths from increased air pollution.

For that reason and others, the new standards are sure to face legal challenges. In fact, even the Trump administration's own science advisers have said "there are significant weaknesses in the scientific analysis of the proposed rule."

"The rollback of the vehicle emissions standards is based on analysis that is shoddy even by the shockingly unprofessional standards of Trump-era deregulation," said Richard Revesz of the Institute for Policy Integrity and Dean Emeritus at New York University School of Law.

California and other states are also likely to file suit against the rule. They've asserted their long-standing right to set their own, stricter emissions standards, something the Trump administration has also challenged.

A worst case scenario for automakers would be different standards in different states. The new policy may ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, but the uncertainty waiting for that would exact its own toll on an industry that must plan years ahead.

Thomas Pyle, President of the American Energy Alliance, welcomed the new standards. In a statement, he said the Obama-era mandate was "impossible to achieve without dramatically altering the automobile market or making the cost of vehicles out of reach for most American families. This new... rule will make cars more affordable for consumers at a time when they need it most."

The Trump administration has been pushing ahead with a number of environmental rollbacks, aiming to finalize them well ahead of November's election. That would make it harder for a Democratic president, if one were elected, to reverse them again.

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

Several countries around the world are emitting less carbon due to the pandemic slowdown, but the climate will continue to warm.; Credit: Andy Buchanan/AFP via Getty Images

With the dramatic reduction in car traffic and commercial flights, carbon emissions have been falling around the globe. If the slowdown continues, some are estimating the world could see the largest drop in emissions in the last century.

Still, overall greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere are still going up and the decline will likely be smaller than what scientists say is necessary to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

So far, the effects are just starting to appear. In China, the first country to lock down, greenhouse gas emissions dropped an estimated 25% in February as factories and industrial producers slowed output. That decreased coal burning, which has come back slowly since then.

"A month or two of shelter in place will drop carbon dioxide emissions a few percent here or there, but it won't change the year substantially unless we stay like this for some time," says Rob Jackson, environmental scientist at Stanford University.

The declines are still too small to be read by greenhouse gas observatories around the world, like the one on top of the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii, given the natural changes in atmosphere this time of year. Because much of the Earth's land mass is in the northern hemisphere, plants and forests there cause carbon levels to fluctuate as they bloom in the spring, drawing carbon dioxide from the air.

If countries continue shelter-at-home orders, emissions declines could be greater. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates U.S. emissions from gas and energy use could drop more than 7% this year, similar to a 2009 decline during the financial crisis.

Worldwide, early estimates put global emissions dropping around 4%. Still, that's less than the 7.6% the U.N. says is needed to avoid the worst impacts of climate change by limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

To achieve those cuts, scientists say more fundamental changes are needed, like switching to renewable energy.

"This isn't the way we want to reduce our fossil fuel emissions," says Jackson. "We don't want tens of millions of people being out of work as a path to decarbonizing our economy. We need systemic change in our energy infrastructure and new green technologies."

Still, Jackson says the recent changes are providing useful insights.

"It's as if a third of the cars on the road were suddenly electric, running on clean electricity and the air pollution is plummeting," says Jackson. "It's really a remarkable experiment and it shows the benefits of clean energy."

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

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed an executive order banning all elective medical procedures, including abortions, during the coronavirus outbreak. The ban extends to medication abortions.; Credit: Eric Gay/AP

Governors across the country are banning elective surgery as a means of halting the spread of the coronavirus. But in a handful of states that ban is being extended to include a ban on all abortions.

So far the courts have intervened to keep most clinics open. The outlier is Texas, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit this week upheld the governor's abortion ban.

Four years ago, Texas was also the focus of a fierce legal fight that ultimately led to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in which the justices struck down a Texas law purportedly aimed at protecting women's health. The court ruled the law was medically unnecessary and unconstitutional.

Now Texas is once again the epicenter of the legal fight around abortion. In other states--Ohio, Iowa, Alabama, and Oklahoma--the courts so far have sided with abortion providers and their patients.

Not so in Texas where Gov. Greg Abbott signed an executive order barring all "non-essential" medical procedures in the state, including abortion. The executive order was temporarily blocked in the district court, but the Fifth Circuit subsequently upheld the governor's order by a 2-to-1 vote, declaring that "all public constitutional rights may be reasonably restricted to combat a public health emergency."

"No more elective medical procedures can be done in the state because of the potential of needing both people ... beds and supplies, and obviously doctors and nurses," said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in an interview with NPR.

'Exploiting This Crisis'

Nancy Northrup, CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, sees things very differently. "It is very clear that anti-abortion rights politicians are shamelessly exploiting this crisis to achieve what has been their longstanding ideological goal to ban abortion in the U.S.," she said.

Paxton denies that, saying Texas "is not targeting any particular group."
The state's the "only goal is to protect people from dying," he said.

Yet the American Medical Association just last week filed a brief in this case in support of abortion providers, as did 18 states, led by New York, which is the state that has been the hardest hit by the coronavirus.

They maintain that banning abortion is far more dangerous,because it will force women to travel long distances to get one. A study from the Guttmacher Institute found that people seeking abortions during the COVID-19 outbreak would have to travel up to 20 times farther than normal if states successfully ban abortion care during the pandemic. The AMA also notes that pregnant women do not stop needing medical care if they don't get an abortion.

Northrup, of the Center for Reproductive Rights, sees this as more evidence that the ban is a calculated move by the state: what "puts the lie to this is the fact that they're trying to ban medication, abortion as well; that's the use of pills for abortion.

"Those do not need to take place in a clinic and they can be done, taken effectively by tele-medicine. So it shows that the real goal here, tragically, is shutting down one's right to make the decision to end the pregnancy, not a legitimate public health response."

'I Was Desperate'

Affidavits filed in the Texas case tell of harrowing experiences already happening as the result of the Texas ban. One declaration was filed by a 24-year-old college student. The week she lost her part-time job as a waitress, she found out she was pregnant. She and her partner agreed they wanted to terminate the pregnancy, and on March 20 she went to a clinic in Forth Worth alone; because of social distancing rules, her partner was not allowed to go with her.

Since she was 10 weeks pregnant, still in her first trimester, she was eligible for a medication abortion. Under state law, she had to wait 24 hours before getting the pills at the clinic, but the night before her scheduled appointment, the clinic called to cancel because of Abbott's executive order.

He partner was with her and we "cried together," she wrote in her declaration. "I couldn't risk the possibility that I would run out of time to have an abortion while the outbreak continued," and it "seemed to be getting more and more difficult to travel."

She made many calls to clinics in New Mexico and Oklahoma. The quickest option was Denver--a 12-hour drive, 780-mile drive from where she lives. Her partner was still working, so her best friend agreed to go with her. They packed sanitizing supplies and food in the car for the long drive and arrived at the Denver Clinic on March 26, where she noticed other cars with Texas plates in the parking lot, according to the affidavit.

At the clinic, she was examined, given a sonogram again, and because Colorado does not have a 24-hour waiting requirement, she was given her first abortion pill without delay and told she should try to get home within 30 hours to take the second pill.

She and her friend then turned around to go home. They were terrified she would have the abortion in the car, and tried to drive through without taking breaks. But after six hours, when it turned dark they were so exhausted they had to stop at a motel to catch some sleep. The woman finally got home and took the second pill just within the 30-hour window.

She said that despite the ordeal she was grateful she had the money, the car, the friend, and the supportive partner with a job, to make the abortion possible. Others will not be so lucky, she wrote. But "I was desperate and desperate people take desperate steps to protect themselves."

A 'Narrative' Of Choice

Paxton, the Texas attorney general, does not seem moved by the time limitations that pregnancy imposes, or the hardships of traveling out of state to get an abortion. He told NPR "the narrative has always been 'It's a choice' ... that's the whole narrative. I'm a little surprised by the question, given that's always been the thing."

On Thursday abortion providers and their patients returned to the district court in Texas instead of appealing directly to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Fifth Circuit's ruling from earlier this week. The district court judge, who originally blocked the governor's ban, instead narrowed the governor's order so that medical abortions--with pills--would be exempt from the ban, as well as abortions for women who are up against the state-imposed deadline. Abortions in Texas are banned after 22 weeks.

In the end, though, this case may well be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. And because of the addition of two Trump appointees since 2016--the composition of the court is a lot more hostile to abortion rights.

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

; Credit: J. Scott Applewhite/AP

What does the right to a unanimous jury verdict have to do with abortion, or school prayer, or federal environmental regulations? Stay tuned.

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday struck down state laws in Louisiana and Oregon that allowed people accused of serious crimes to be convicted by a non-unanimous jury vote. The 6-to-3 decision overturned a longstanding prior ruling from 1972, which had upheld such non-unanimous verdicts in state courts.

And these days, any decision to overturn a longstanding precedent rings the alarm bells in the Supreme Court.

In the short run, Monday's decision was a victory for Evangelisto Ramos, who in 2016 was convicted of second-degree murder by a jury vote of 10-to-2 in Louisiana.

Only two states--Louisiana and Oregon--had provisions allowing non-unanimous verdicts, and Louisiana just recently changed its law to be like those in 48 other states and the federal government.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, laid out the history behind the laws in both states. Gorsuch noted that the measure was first added to the Louisiana state constitution in 1898, after the Supreme Court ruled that racial minorities could not be barred from juries; that same year, Louisiana added the non-unanimous jury provision to its state constitution as part of a package of amendments that deliberately made it difficult for black citizens to vote or otherwise participate meaningfully in the state's governance. Specifically, Gorsuch said, the non-unanimous jury provision was a way to ensure that even if one or two African Americans made it on to a jury, their participation would be "meaningless."

The adoption of the non-unanimous jury rule in Oregon, Gorsuch wrote, "can similarly be traced to the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and efforts to dilute the influence of racial and ethnic and religious minorities on Oregon juries."

Despite these state provisions, there has never been any dispute that the unanimous jury requirement applies to the federal government. The question in this case was whether that aspect of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial applied to the states as well.

Over the last 75 years or so, the court has applied just about every other provision of the Bill of Rights to the states, but in 1972 it deviated from that practice, declining to apply the unanimous jury requirement in a similar fashion.

On Monday, however, the 1972 decision came tumbling down. The six-justice court majority — composed of conservatives and liberals — said the earlier ruling was a mistake.

The decision, written by the conservative Gorsuch, was joined in whole or in part by liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Clarence Thomas, another conservative, agreed with the result, but on entirely different grounds.

Writing for the dissenters, Justice Samuel Alito — joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and for the most part, Justice Elena Kagan — maintained that the principle of adhering to precedent should be followed in this case because to do otherwise would require "a potentially crushing" number of new trials for people currently imprisoned under the old rule.

"Where is the justice in that?" replied Justice Gorsuch. "Not a single member of this court" is prepared to say that the 1972 decision was correct, he noted. "Every judge must learn to live with the fact that he or she will make mistakes ... But it is something else entirely to perpetuate" a wrong "only because we fear the consequences of being right."

The consequences of Monday's decision will likely be felt more in Louisiana, which allowed non-unanimous verdicts for more serious crimes than Oregon. The court's decision will require retrials for any prisoner who still has appeals pending.

There are about 100 of those cases in Louisiana, says Jamila Johnson, the managing attorney at the Promise of Justice Initiative, which represented Ramos. But there are also at least 1,700 prisoners in the state who might qualify for a new trial if the court eventually holds that Monday's decision is retroactive.

The high court left that question open for another day.

Altogether the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions totaled a whopping 86 pages and reflected an important subtext--divergent views about when the court should follow its usual rule of adhering to precedent and when it should not.

It's important because, the new ultra-conservative court majority has very different views than the courts of the last 75 years on topics as diverse as abortion, voting rights, federal regulation, and the clash between religious views and generally applicable laws.

"The court's views about when it's OK to overrule prior precedent have always been more about the eye of the beholder than they have been about a rule that is easy or straightforward to apply," says Deborah Pearlstein, professor and co-director of the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy at Cardozo School of Law. Ultimately, she said, "all of these major questions that are coming before the court are going to be fought along these lines."

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

Attorney General William Barris pictured at a coronavirus task force meeting at the White House on March 23. The Justice Department is looking to crack down on coronavirus-related fraud.; Credit: Alex Brandon/AP

The coronavirus pandemic has brought out the good side of many Americans, but certainly not all Americans. Officials say that fraud related to COVID-19 — like hoarding equipment, price gouging and hawking fake treatments — are spreading as the country wrestles with the outbreak.

"It's a perfect ecosystem for somebody like a fraudster to operate in," said Craig Carpenito, the U.S. attorney for New Jersey and the head of the Justice Department's COVID-19 price gouging and hoarding task force.

"People want to believe that there's a magic pill that they can take or that if they buy a certain kind of mask or a certain kind of protective gear that it's going to protect them and their families," he said. "That creates opportunities for the types of people that prey upon scared people. They prey upon their fear."

A month ago, Attorney General William Barr instructed federal prosecutors around the country to aggressively investigate and prosecute scams and other crimes related to the COVID-19 pandemic. He also created the price gouging and hoarding task force and put Carpenito in charge of it.

From that perch, Carpenito has one of the best views of virus-related crime nationwide.

"Instead of seeing that tremendous support from all aspects of society, we're still seeing that sliver, that that dark underbelly, that small percentage of folks who instead of putting the interests of the country and support for those medical professionals that are putting themselves at risk in the forefront, they're finding ways to try and take advantage of this situation and illegally profiteer from it," he said. "And it's despicable."

The most prevalent kind of fraud that federal authorities are seeing at this point, he and others say, is tied to personal protective equipment like N95 masks, gloves or face shields.

In one notable case, prosecutors brought charges against a Georgia man, Christopher Parris, for allegedly trying to sell $750 million worth of masks and other protective equipment to the Department of Veterans Affairs but with a sizable advance payment.

The problem, prosecutors say, is the masks and other items didn't exist, at least not in the quantities Parris was offering.

Steven Merrill, the head of the FBI's financial crimes section, says the bureau refers to these sorts of operations as advance-fee schemes.

"We're getting many complaints that different entities are entering into these agreements, paying money upfront, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars, and may or may not get any masks or other PPE ordered at all," Merrill said. "So our guidance to the public is to please be wary of these frauds and solicitations."

Other problems, such as hoarding and price gouging, can arise even when the medical gear does exist.

The FBI is trying to identify individuals who are stockpiling protective equipment and trying to sell it at exorbitant markups, sometimes 40 to 70 times the value, Merrill said.

A few weeks ago, the FBI seized nearly 1 million respirator masks, gloves and other medical gear from a Brooklyn man who was allegedly stockpiling them and selling them to nurses and doctors at what officials say was around a 700% markup.

The man, Baruch Feldheim, has been charged with lying to the FBI about price gouging. He's also been charged with allegedly assaulting a federal officer after he coughed on agents and claimed he had COVID-19.

The confiscated items, meanwhile, have been distributed to medical workers in the New York area.

Carpenito said the Justice Department has more than 100 investigations open into price gouging. It has hundreds more, he said, into other crimes tied to the pandemic, including fake treatments and cures.

In one case out of California, prosecutors charged a man who was allegedly soliciting large investments for what he claimed was a cure for COVID-19.

"He was doing so by broadcasting this scheme via, notably, YouTube, where had thousands of hits and views," Merrill said.

In a separate case out of Florida last week, the Justice Department got a court order to stop a Florida church from selling on its website an industrial bleach that was being marketed as a miracle treatment for the virus.

To be clear, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says there is no cure at this point for the virus.

More than a month into this crisis, there's no sense COVID-related crime is going to slow down.

In fact, Carpenito and Merrill say that with the massive $2 trillion economic relief package beginning to be doled out, they expect to see even more fraud in the weeks and months ahead.

"What we're worried about is that not only do we have these existing conditions, but we are awaiting — like everybody in the country — the arrival of $2 trillion to hit the streets," Merrill said. "And anytime there's that much money out there, you can just multiply the amount of frauds that are going to take place. So we're preparing for many more complaints to come in and new schemes to arrive on a daily basis."

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

The Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments remotely this week, and for the first time the arguments were streamed live to the public.; Credit: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

For the first time in its 231-year history, the Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments remotely by phone and made the audio available live.

The new setup went off largely without difficulties, but produced some memorable moments, including one justice forgetting to unmute and an ill-timed bathroom break.

Here are the top five can't-miss moments from this week's history-making oral arguments.

A second week of arguments begin on Monday at 10 a.m. ET. Here's a rundown of the cases and how to listen.

1. Justice Clarence Thomas speaks ... a lot

Supreme Court oral arguments are verbal jousting matches. The justices pepper the lawyers with questions, interrupting counsel repeatedly and sometimes even interrupting each other.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who has sat on the bench for nearly 30 years, has made his dislike of the chaotic process well known, at one point not asking a question for a full decade.

But with no line of sight, the telephone arguments have to be rigidly organized, and each justice, in order of seniority, has an allotted 2 minutes for questioning.

It turn out that Thomas, second in seniority, may just have been waiting his turn. Rather than passing, as had been expected, he has been Mr. Chatty Cathy, using every one of his turns at bat so far.

Thomas broke a year-long silence on Monday in a trademark case testing whether a company can trademark by adding .com to a generic term. In this case, Booking.com.

"Could Booking acquire an 800 number, for example, that's a vanity number — 1-800-BOOKING, for example?" Thomas asked.

2. The unstoppable RBG

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg participated in Wednesday's argument from the hospital. In pain during Tuesday's arguments, the 87-year-old underwent non-surgical treatment for a gall bladder infection at Johns Hopkins Hospital later that day, according to a Supreme Court press release.

But she was ferocious on Wednesday morning, calling in from her hospital room in a case testing the Trump administration's new rule expanding exemptions from Obamacare's birth control mandate for nonprofits and some for-profit companies that have religious or moral objections to birth control.

"The glaring feature" of the Trump administration's new rules, is that they "toss to the winds entirely Congress' instruction that women need and shall have seamless, no-cost, comprehensive coverage," she said.

3. Who flushed?

During Wednesday's second oral argument, Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, a case in which the justices weighed a First Amendment challenge to a federal rule than bans most robocalls, something very unexpected happened.

Partway through lawyer Roman Martinez's argument time, a toilet flush could be distinctly heard.

Martinez seemed unperturbed and continued speaking in spite of the awkward moment.

The flush quickly picked up steam online, becoming the first truly viral moment from the court's new livestream oral arguments.

4. Hello, where are you?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, considered one of the most tech-savvy of the justices, experienced a couple of technical difficulties with her mute button.

In both Monday and Tuesday arguments, the first time she was at bat, there were prolonged pauses, prompting Chief Justice John Roberts to call, "Justice Sotomayor?" a few times before she hopped on with a brief, "Sorry, Chief," before launching into her questions.

By Wednesday she seemed to have gotten used to the new format, but the trouble then jumped to Thomas, who was entirely missing in action when his turn came. He ultimately went out of order Wednesday morning.

5. Running over time

Oral arguments usually run one hour almost exactly, with lawyers for each side having 30 minutes to make their case. In an attempt to stick as closely as possible to that format, the telephone rules allocate 2 minutes of questioning to each justice for each round of questioning.

Chief Justice John Roberts spent the week jumping into exchanges, cutting off both lawyers and justices in the process, to keep the proceedings on track. Even so the arguments ran longer than usual.

But in Wednesday's birth control case, oral arguments went a whopping 40 minutes longer than expected.

Justice Alito, for his part, hammered the lawyer challenging the Trump administration's new birth control rules for more than seven minutes, without interruption from the chief justice.

Referencing a decision he wrote in 2014, Alito said that "Hobby Lobby held that if a person sincerely believes that it is immoral to perform an act that has the effect of enabling another person to commit an immoral act, the federal court does not have the right to say that this person is wrong on the question of moral complicity. That is precisely the question here."

Christina Peck is NPR's legal affairs intern.

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

The Asian Garden Mall in Westminster, where voters will make a choice about whether to recall city leaders.; Credit: Dorian Merina/KPCC

Voters in Westminster will decide this spring whether to recall its mayor and two city councilmembers. The Orange County Registrar of Voters has signed off on petitions for a recall election.  

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

A moment in Larry Mantle’s recent conversation with Steve Inskeep has stuck with me.

The NPR Morning Edition co-host was in our Pasadena studios to talk about his latest book, Imperfect Union. Asked how he approaches his day job, Inskeep told a story about the time he dispassionately called a heartbreaking loss for his high school football team. That “straight call” earned praise from a veteran broadcaster he admired. It’s a lesson, he said, that stayed with him.

“I may have a personal opinion; it doesn’t matter,” Inskeep told Mantle. “My job as a journalist is to get the facts right, that are in front of me, and you can do that even if you have a personal opinion.”

Mantle, who has hosted KPCC’s AirTalk for decades, responded: 

“You can’t do this work if you’re wired like an activist. I sort of see my wiring as more how a teacher would be, wired where you’re amassing information. You’re leading people through a story, and the joy is in people coming to their own conclusions.”

“If you’re an activist at all, you’re an activist for the truth,” Inskeep replied. 

Activists for truth. Finding joy in people reaching their own conclusions.

What a compelling description of what our newsroom strives to deliver every day to Southern Californians.

These were my thoughts even before my colleague at NPR came under attack for doing her job.

If you haven't been following the story, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo angrily objected to being questioned about Ukraine during an interview with All Things Considered co-host Mary Louise Kelly. Pompeo didn't care for Kelly's questions on air and the conversation grew even more contentious behind closed doors.

The next day he accused Kelly of lying about the topic of the interview and then reporting a conversation he claimed was off the record. [Including his odd demand she locate Ukraine on unmarked world map.]  Kelly has denied both claims and media outlets have reported on emails between her and Pompeo's staff that back up her assertion she told them the interview would go beyond questions about Iran.

Then, this week, the State Department denied credentials to NPR's Michele Kelemen, who'd been scheduled to cover Pompeo's trip to Europe.

NPR President and CEO John Lansing and Nancy Barnes, who heads news, are rightfully demanding answers.

Why does it matter? Because as Lansing notes having access to people in power is fundamental to "the role of journalism in America.

Get KPCC in your inbox

Breaking news alerts sent to your inbox

I want to take a few minutes to tell you more about how our newsroom works and why you’ll be hearing more from us about our mission and ambition.

Listeners may have noticed a new phrase on our air: “Democracy needs to be heard.” It’s a statement you’ll also start seeing on billboards and bus benches around Los Angeles.

It’s part of the first marketing campaign for our station in many years. The goal is to make more people aware of what we do and why we do it. We also want to grow our audience and our supporters, so we can do even more original journalism.

Southern California Public Radio — home to 89.3 KPCC, LAist Studios, and LAist.com — turns 20 this year. SCPR was born out of a belief that the region would embrace and support a news-focused NPR station serving Southern California with original programming and reporting.

In the two decades since, our members stepped up and helped us build what is now one of the biggest newsrooms in the region. We’ve gone from cramped quarters in the library of Pasadena City College, to a new headquarters in 2010, to today, when we have to scramble for desks for our growing operation.

If you’ve ever heard me on-air during a pledge drive, you’ve heard me talk about how remarkable it is that your support has fueled our ambition and growth. We’re the most listened to NPR station in Southern California. The public media model depends on people donating their hard-earned money because they believe in what we are doing. You don’t have to pay a dime to listen to us on your radio, or stream us on your smart speaker or our app. You’ll never hit a paywall when you visit our website.

Our relationship with you isn’t transactional — that’s one of the ways nonprofit member-supported newsrooms are different. Instead, we make a case that what we do matters, that it’s valuable to you — so valuable that you voluntarily support us (even though you can still listen and read if you don’t). 

That’s a powerful relationship.

It’s why we take community engagement so seriously. That means listening closely to your concerns, answering your questions, meeting you in person, thinking about how our coverage can be both for and about Southern Californians.

In September, we were awarded the first-ever Gather Award for engaged journalism from the Online News Association. In December, we won our second-in-a-row Champion of Curiosity Award for our breaking news coverage of the wildfires.

Our approach to engaged journalism has been transformational for coverage, and we’ve emerged as a clear leader in the industry — sharing what we’ve learned with other newsrooms.

***

We talk a lot about our public-service mission in this newsroom. It permeates how we approach stories. It’s why our reporters, producers, hosts and editors choose to work here. 

And we’ve made this promise to you:

“You deserve great local news — and we need your help to find those stories. We listen to what you’re curious about, what keeps you up at night, and who you want held accountable. We’re inviting you to be part of the conversation.”

We do this work because of you. We do it for you and with you. 

We’ve spent quite a bit of time thinking about how we’re finding and telling stories, and how we can do an even better job of delivering reporting that you won’t find anywhere else. We want our reporters to spend their energy on original stories (and not get stuck echoing information that everyone else is reporting). 

To that end, each reporter has their own individual mission statement to reflect their goals in covering communities and crucial issues. 

The free press is a cornerstone of democracy. That’s why in 1786 Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." 

More than 200 years later, Nelson Mandela said: “A critical, independent and investigative press is the lifeblood of any democracy.”

Activists for truth. That means scrutinizing the information we receive from our sources or uncover through our reporting. It means giving you the context you need to consider what is fact and what is spin.

It’s truly an exciting time to work in our newsroom.

We have ambitious plans for coverage of the upcoming California primary and presidential election.

We have so much great work in progress — including three in-depth investigations scheduled to publish in the coming weeks.

Those stories took months to report, involving thousands of public documents, hundreds of miles of travel, and data analysis that no one else has done.

And it was only possible because of your support.  

Thank you.

Megan Garvey, Executive Editor

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

As millions of Americans have lost their jobs, Congress is trying to figure out what to do to help those who have also lost their health insurance.; Credit: South_agency/Getty Images

Mayra Jimenez had just lost the job she loved — and the health insurance that went along with it.

The 35-year-old San Francisco server needed coverage. Jimenez has ulcerative colitis, a chronic condition. Just one of her medications costs $18,000 per year.

"I was just in panic mode, scrambling to get coverage," Jimenez said.

A recent estimate suggests the pandemic has cost more than 9 million Americans both their jobs and their health insurance.

"Those numbers are just going to go up," MIT economist Jon Gruber said. "We've never seen such a dramatic increase in such a short period of time."

House Democrats introduced a bill in mid-April to help the millions of people, like Jimenez, who find themselves unsure of where to turn.

The Worker Health Coverage Protection Act would fully fund the cost of COBRA, a program that allows workers who leave or lose a job to stay on their former employer's insurance plan. COBRA currently requires workers to pay for their entire premium, including their employer's share.

The Worker Health Coverage Protection Act is one bill being considered as Congress tries to figure out what to do about the very real health care gap for those millions who have lost their jobs. Sponsors of the COBRA legislation say they hope their plan gets rolled into the next relief bill. But it's unclear when, how and whether the problem will get addressed in upcoming coronavirus relief measures.

Jimenez learned COBRA would run her $426 a month.

"I was kind of shocked to hear the number," she said. "That's almost half my rent."

The idea of allowing laid-off workers to stick with their coverage at no cost in a pandemic has clear appeal, says Gruber.

But he warns, "COBRA is expensive, and for many employees, it won't be there."

Only workers who get insurance through their employer are eligible for COBRA, leaving out more than half of the 26 million who have lost jobs in the last few weeks. Many of the industries hit hardest by COVID-19, including retail and hospitality, are among those least likely to offer employees insurance.

And even if someone had insurance through work, the person loses COBRA coverage if the former employer goes out of business.

Funding COBRA costs, federal dollars also wouldn't go as far as they could. Unpublished Urban Institute estimates show that an employer plan costs, on average, about 25% more than a Gold plan on the Affordable Care Act exchanges.

"We need to be all hands on deck, spending whatever we can to help people," Gruber said. "But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be thinking about efficient ways to do it."

Congress has tried this move before. In response to the Great Recession, lawmakers tucked a similar COBRA subsidy into the massive stimulus bill a decade ago. That legislation paid for 65% of COBRA premiums, leaving laid-off workers to cover the rest.

A federally commissioned study found that COBRA enrollment increased by just 15%. Mathematica senior researcher and study co-author Jill Berk said workers skipped the subsidy for two main reasons.

First, only about 30% of eligible workers even knew the subsidy existed.

"For those that were aware," Berk said, "their overwhelming response was that COBRA was still too expensive."

At that time, the average premium for a single worker — even with the subsidy — ran about $400 per month for a worker with family coverage.

"When you're actually facing those choices, choosing between rent and food and other bills," Berk said, "that COBRA bill looks quite high."

Berk's team also discovered that people who reported using the subsidy were four times more likely to have a college degree and a higher income than those who passed on it. In other words, Berk found that the COBRA subsidy was least helpful to those with the greatest need.

Several economists, including Gruber, and some Democrats in Washington are kicking around alternatives to COBRA. Among their ideas is a plan to have the federal government pick up more of a person's premium and other expenses on the Affordable Care Act exchanges. Another proposal would extend ACA subsidies to people who earn too much to qualify for any aid and to lower-income people who live in states yet to expand Medicaid.

Compared with funding COBRA, beefing up ACA subsidies could potentially help millions more people, including the pool of laid-off workers who did not get health insurance from their employer.

The ACA ties subsidies to people's income, giving more help to those at the bottom end of the wage scale and spending less on those who are better off. In contrast, the current COBRA plan would cover 100% of COBRA for everyone, regardless of the person's income.

There are some downsides to this approach. Making ACA subsidies more generous could end up costing the federal government more overall, because it gives more help to a lot more people.

Chris Holt from the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank, points out that the ACA already increases federal support when people's earnings fall and questions how much more of the tab Washington should pick up.

"If that subsidy would have been good enough for someone six months ago, why is it not good enough now?" he asked.

Maybe the biggest challenge to building on the ACA: The 10-year-old law remains a political football.

"There's just so much both emotion and, frankly, bitterness tied up in debates," Holt said, adding that this makes it hard to move anything forward.

Holt notes that COBRA is not free of political hang-ups either. He expects a fight over whether subsidy money can be spent on employer plans that cover abortion services, for example.

Holt and Gruber agree that perhaps the easiest idea is to leave the ACA alone with one minor tweak: allow people to take the ACA subsidy they're already eligible for and use it on COBRA if they choose.

As for Jimenez, she did not have time to wait for Congress. She brought in too much from unemployment to qualify for Medicaid. And she couldn't afford COBRA, so she picked out a plan on the ACA exchange, where she's eligible for generous existing subsidies. It will cost her $79.17 per month, and she gets to keep her doctors. Not everyone does.

This is the first time she has ever purchased insurance on her own, rather than gotten it through work — and that has delivered one other unexpected benefit.

"Freedom," Jimenez said. "It feels so freeing to take charge of my health care and to know that no one can take this away from me. I don't have to rely on a job to give me what they want to give me. I can make my own choices."

Policymakers, providers, employers and health-industry executives have been fighting over whether the United States should tie insurance to work since the end of World War II.

Subsidizing COBRA preserves the status quo, while doubling down on the ACA might just start to drive a real wedge between work and health insurance.

As states begin reopening businesses, some laid-off workers will get back their jobs, as well as their insurance. But many will remain unemployed and uninsured. A decade ago, faced with the same challenge, Congress chose to subsidize COBRA. It proved to be a narrow solution with limited impact.

Lawmakers now have the ACA at their disposal, a tool that may be a better fit for this moment. Whether they choose to use it may be a choice grounded more in political realism than policy idealism.

Dan Gorenstein is the creator and co-host of the Tradeoffs podcast, and Leslie Walker is a producer on the show, which ran a version of this story on April 23.

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

Emily Quinn speaks from the TED stage at TEDWomen 2018; Credit: /TED

Part 1 of the TED Radio Hour episode The Biology Of Sex

Artist Emily Quinn is intersex. She's one of over 150 million people in the world who don't fit neatly into the categories of male or female. She explains how biological sex exists on a spectrum.

About Emily Quinn

Emily Quinn is an artist and activist. She worked at Cartoon Network on the Emmy Award winning show, Adventure Time. While there she partnered with interACT and MTV to develop the first intersex main character in television history. She came out publicly as intersex in a PSA alongside the character's debut. She later worked as the Youth Coordinator for interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth.

As an activist, she speaks about intersex issues before audiences and through her YouTube channel: intersexperiences. As an artist, her most recent projects include a genderless puberty guidebook and a portrait series of intersex people that will be exhibited at medical schools across the U.S. in 2020.

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

Eight-year-old Mariana Aceves is doing her math homework — subtraction by counting backwards — while sitting on the bed she shares with her mom, Lorena Aceves.

They're sitting on the bed because they have nowhere else to go: they live in an 8-foot-by-12-foot room called a tiny house. It's part of Seattle's transitional housing where people experiencing homelessness can live until they find a job and a place of their own.

There's room for the bed they share, a TV shelf, "and a little tiny plastic dresser, and then all of our clothing and our food goes underneath our bed," Lorena Aceves says.

Tens of millions of kids are taking classes online at home right now because of the coronavirus pandemic. That's hard enough for most families. But, if you're homeless and have no computer, sketchy wifi, and no quiet place to study, it's even more difficult. That's the case for the one and a half million school kids currently experiencing homelessness across the U.S.

When Seattle's schools closed in March, Aceves had to quit her new job, because she couldn't find childcare. She and her daughter have been holed up in their tiny house ever since.

"It's the boredom," Aceves says, "and me trying to reach out and find resources — work, a car, things like that — while also making sure that she's entertained."

Aceves and her daughter have a tiny amount of private space. Other homeless families have no privacy at all.

Sixteen-year-old Capelle Belij is living with his parents at a shelter, part of a network of family shelters in the Seattle area run by the nonprofit Mary's Place.

The Belijes share a room with two other families, divided only by curtains.

"My friends, like, come up to my bed space and ask if I want to play or something," Belij says. "If we had our own place, I could learn better."

Three-quarters of children and youth considered homeless live doubled-up with another family. That's the situation for the family of 17-year-old Michelle Aguilar. She's part of KUOW's youth reporting program, called RadioActive.

"I can't really find a specific space where it's like quiet and calm and I can actually have wifi," Aguilar says.

Since Aguilar's shared bedroom doesn't have wifi, she ends up in the living room or kitchen with the rest of her family.

"And they just, like, continue their chaotic life of yelling and screaming and, like, playing music and listening to the TV and cooking," she says.

"Whenever I'm, like, in the environment of it being really loud," Aguilar says, "I tend to, like, read over and over and over and over the assignment."

"We're definitely very concerned with there being an achievement gap during this time," says Tisha Tallman, the executive director of the National Center for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth. "The longer this goes, the more likely our children are to fall behind."

And, Tallman adds, schools provide much more than an education: many homeless kids get two meals per day there, and they rely on it as a safe and stable place to be.

Back in her tiny house, Lorena Aceves is trying to keep her daughter's education on track with a strict schedule of math, reading, and typing.

"Even though this is frustrating," Aceves says, "we are having this time together and that's something typically that we don't have."

Aceves says it's good to feel close to her daughter during a time that she has to stay far away from nearly everyone else.

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

; Credit: /Jackie Ferrentino for NPR

A lot is at stake for students taking Advanced Placement exams, even in normal times. If you score high enough, you can earn college credit. It's also a big factor in college applications. But for some students, the idea of studying right now feels impossible.

"I'm constantly thinking about making sure my family doesn't get sick and I don't get sick," says Elise, a high school junior outside Boston. (We're not using her full name because she's worried about hurting her college applications.)

Concerns about the coronavirus have put most standardized tests, such as the SAT and ACT, on hold this spring. But AP exams are going forward with a new online format — and that's raising questions about fairness.

Elise, 17, says she spent months preparing for what is typically a three-hour, multiple-choice and essay-based exam; she was blindsided when she learned it will now be an online, 45-minute, open-response test.

"I have no idea what I'm going to get when I open that test," she says.

Elise was hoping the College Board, which administers AP exams, would cancel this year's exams, as it did the spring SATs. But since the tests are being offered, she says she feels she has to take them. She worries it would look bad on her college applications if she opted out.

For other students, just the idea of taking the exam at home is causing anxiety. Kayleen Guzman, 17, from Boston says it's hard to find peace and quiet in her house right now.

"Currently, it's me, my mom, my dog, my sister and my stepdad," she explains. "Sometimes I feel like it's too much chaos."

But Guzman is glad she still has the opportunity to take the AP exams at all this year. She says she worked hard in her two AP classes and she wants the chance to earn college credit.

However, it's still unclear how much credit colleges will give students for this year's exams.

"None of us would say that we are confident that a 3 or 4 or 5 on the AP exam this year means the exact same thing as a 3, 4 and 5 on the exam last year," says Harvard University's Andrew Ho, who studies the reliability of educational tests.

Ho says that because of the new format, this year's AP exams won't be measuring the same thing as previous years' exams. For one, the new tests will cover less material. And changing where kids take it — from a proctored classroom to their laptops at home — is a big deal. But Ho adds, "Just because it's not completely comparable doesn't mean the College Board and colleges, through their own policies, couldn't adjust."

Some colleges are already adjusting. The University of California system has come out explicitly to say it won't change the way it credits AP scores. Other colleges that didn't want to go on the record say they are planning to change their policies, but the details weren't ready to share just yet.

In a statement, College Board spokesperson Jerome White said the organization decided to move forward with AP testing to give motivated students the opportunity to earn college credit. He added that the organization is making "a significant financial investment" to make the exams available online, from cheating prevention software to helping students who may not have an Internet connection or access to a computer.

Still, some educators worry that those efforts won't be enough.

"This situation has created a lot of distraction," says Savannah Lodge-Scharff, an AP Physics teacher for Boston Public Schools. She argues that without in-person classes, many students won't be able to engage with the material in the same way. On top of that, financial stress means many of her students are juggling additional responsibilities, like taking care of siblings.

"I have some of my students who are working 40, 50, 60 hours a week at the grocery store right now in the fear their parents are going to be laid off," she explains.

And then there's the question of geographic equity. This year's exams will be administered at the same time worldwide, meaning students in Hong Kong will be up at midnight to take it.

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

; Credit: Fanatic Studio/Gary Waters/Science Photo Library/Getty Images

There has been a rise in the number of minors contacting the National Sexual Assault Hotline to report abuse. That's according to RAINN, the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, which runs the hotline.

By the end of March, with much of the country under lockdown, there was a 22% increase in monthly calls from people younger than 18, and half of all incoming contacts were from minors. That's a first in RAINN's history, Camille Cooper, the organization's vice president of public policy, tells NPR.

Of those young people who contacted the hotline in March, 67% identified their perpetrator as a family member and 79% said they were currently living with that perpetrator. In 1 out of 5 cases where the minor was living with their abuser, RAINN assisted the minor in immediately contacting police.

"As a result of looking at the information that we had from those sessions, it was clear that the abuse was escalating in both frequency and severity," Cooper says. "So a lot of the kids that were coming to the hotline were feeling pretty vulnerable and traumatized. And it was a direct result of COVID-19, because they were quarantined with their abuser. The abuser was now abusing them on a daily basis."

Lockdown orders are first and foremost public health and safety measures. But statistically speaking, home is not the safest place for every young person. RAINN reports that about 34% of child sexual abusers are family members. Closing schools and canceling youth activities like sports removes children from the watchful eyes of "mandatory reporters" — those trusted adults, like teachers, nurses and child care providers, who are required by law in most states to report suspicions of child abuse or neglect.

However, Cooper says her organization has confirmed with authorities around the country that the child welfare system is still operating during the pandemic. That is, an official report of current and ongoing abuse will still trigger an investigation, and, if necessary, a child will be removed from the home.

"[Child welfare workers] will be coming to the home in person and proceeding with a formal investigation and a child forensic interview and things like that," she says. If the abuse is farther in the past and the child is not quarantined with the accused, Cooper says, the interview may take place over video chat.

In the meantime, RAINN and other child welfare organizations are lobbying to make it easier for children to report abuse. Cooper says, "One of the solutions we came up with that we are now currently working directly with the leadership in Congress on is to get all of the online learning platforms that children are interacting with to have a reporting function on that platform in plain sight for children."

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

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos says there is 'no reason' to waive main parts of the federal special education law.; Credit: Alex Brandon/AP

U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos will not recommend that Congress waive the main requirements of three federal education laws, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, known as IDEA. The federal law ensures that children with disabilities have a right to a free, appropriate public education whenever and wherever schools are operating.

When Congress passed the coronavirus relief package, known as the CARES act, they included a provision that allowed the Secretary to request waivers to parts of the special education law during the pandemic. The concern was that holding strictly to IDEA and other laws could hinder schools in the urgency to move schooling from the classroom setting to online and home-based approaches.

Th waiver provision, however, made disability advocates nervous. "We're talking about waiving a civil right for our most vulnerable people in our society, children who don't vote, who have no voice, who are relying on their parents to advocate for them," Stephanie Langer, a Florida civil rights attorney who focuses on education and disability, told NPR in March.

But the Education Department came to the conclusions that in general, big changes weren't needed. "While the Department has provided extensive flexibility to help schools transition," Devos said in a statement, "there is no reason for Congress to waive any provision designed to keep students learning."

While the bulk of the IDEA remains unchanged, Devos did issue limited waivers to a few sections of the law, including one that will extend the timeline schools have to offer services. The provision that bans discrimination based on disability status, will go untouched.

"This is truly a celebration," says Kelly Grillo, a special education coordinator in Indiana. "My teams are elated to keep IDEA intact. Waivers would seriously threaten equitable education."

As schools and learning have moved online, one of the biggest challenges has been providing special education. School districts were concerned they might get sued if their digital offerings couldn't meet the needs of their students with disabilities, though the Education Department issued guidance in March telling schools to be flexible, writing in a fact sheet that disability law, "should not prevent any school from offering educational programs through distance instruction."

Educators say that flexibility helped them improve their offerings for students. "This situation made us get creative and actually allowed us to have an all-hands-on-deck approach," says Grillo.

But advocates warn there are still areas to watch, including in New Jersey, where parents have been asked to waive their right to sue before districts are able to provide their children with special education services.

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

; Credit: CSA-Archive/Getty Images

This week, U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos announced that more than $300 million from the first coronavirus rescue package will go to two education grant competitions for K-12 and higher ed.

States will be able to apply for a piece of the $180 million allotted to the "Rethink K-12 Education Models Grant" and $127.5 million allotted to the "Reimagining Workforce Preparation Grant."

The money is 1% of the more than $30 billion set aside for education in the CARES Act. Those billions are intended to help states with the highest coronavirus burden.

States can access the money by creating proposals to fund virtual or work-based learning programs. The grant categories include two of DeVos' pre-existing pet policy ideas: "microgrants" that go directly to home-schooling families, and microcredentials that offer a shorter path to workforce preparation.

On the higher ed side, the secretary has long pushed for workforce-oriented education and shorter paths to a degree. She's been praised for this stance by online and for-profit colleges, while traditional institutions have been less sanguine.

Similarly, the secretary is a longtime advocate of alternatives to public schools, including home schooling. She has praised programs like Florida's Gardiner Scholarship, which provides up to $10,000 to the families of children with special needs to support home schooling. Last fall, DeVos proposed a $5 billion "Education Freedom Scholarship" program, which would have used federal tax credits to support, essentially, a voucher program that families could use both for private schools and home schooling.

While this week's announcement is significant for the policy directions it signals, it's a comparatively small amount of money. Education groups have asked the federal government for $200 billion (with a B) more in funds to maintain basic services.

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

; Credit: /Hanna Barczyk for NPR

What will happen on college campuses in the fall? It's a big question for families, students and the schools themselves.

A lot of what happens depends on factors outside the control of individual schools: Will there be more testing? Contact tracing? Enough physical space for distancing? Will the coronavirus have a second wave? Will any given state allow campuses to reopen?

For all of these questions, it's really too early to know the answers. But one thing is clear: Life, and learning for the nation's 20 million students in higher education, will be different.

"I don't think there's any scenario under which it's business as usual on American college campuses in the fall," says Nicholas Christakis, a sociologist and physician at Yale University.

So why are so many colleges announcing they will be back on campus in the fall?

In many cases, it's because they're still trying to woo students. A survey of college presidents found their most pressing concern right now is summer and fall enrollment. Even elite schools, typically more stable when it comes to enrollment, have reportedly been tapping their waitlists.

In the midst of all this uncertainty, it's worth looking at some of the ideas out there. With the help of Joshua Kim and Edward J. Maloney, professors and authors of the book Learning Innovation and the Future of Higher Education, here are some potential scenarios for reopening colleges and universities:

All virtual

Perhaps the most obvious option for the fall is to continue doing what they've been doing this spring. Colleges have signaled that they're planning for this option — even if it's a last resort. California State University, Fullerton, was one of the first to announce publicly it was planning for a fall semester online.

"Obviously we want to resume in-person teaching as soon as possible, but we also need to make sure that we're safe," says Ellen Treanor, who helps lead strategic communication at the school. Treanor says it made a lot of sense to assume the school would start online. "What would be the easier way to transition? It would be easier to transition beginning virtually and then transitioning in person," she said. "The faculty [needs] to be prepared."

With virtual classes, students can remain at home, although some colleges are exploring bringing them back to campus, where they could use the school's Wi-Fi to take online classes.

Delayed start

A delay in the semester would allow a school to wait it out until it was safer to reopen. One option is to push back a month or two, starting in October or November. Another idea is to push a normal start to January. In that case, the spring semester would become the fall semester, and potentially students could stay on campus through next summer to make up the spring semester. Boston University floated a version of this January start date when it announced a number of plans it was exploring.

One downside to a late start is what students will do in the meantime, especially those who don't have financial stability and rely on campus or the university to be a safe and stable home.

Some online, some face-to-face

This would be a hybrid model, with a combination of virtual and in-person classes. It may be a good choice for campuses that don't have enough classrooms to allow adjusting face-to-face teaching to the requirements of social distancing.

"You might have some of the larger classes being taught online simply because it's harder to imagine a 150- or 350-person classroom," says Maloney, who leads the Center for New Designs in Learning and Scholarship at Georgetown University. "So you might see that class split up into multiple sections." For large, entry-level classes, colleges may have a lecture component online and then meet in smaller groups in person.

"The hybrid model doesn't have to just be about modality," Maloney says. "It can be, but it could also be about fundamentally rethinking what the core structure has been for those large classes."

Of course, shifting larger classes online may not be enough, by itself, to alleviate the health concerns of having students on campus. Early research from Cornell University found that eliminating such classes didn't lessen student interactions with each other.

Shortened blocks

In block scheduling, students take just one course at a time for a shorter duration, typically three or four weeks. Colorado College, a liberal arts school south of Denver, has been using this model for 50 years. The college adopted this style of classes because "it allows [students] to take a deep dive and really focus in unique ways on the single subject," says Alan Townsend, the provost there. In a typical year, the school offers eight blocks.

In addition to its intensity, block scheduling is attractive right now because it allows flexibility. Colleges that use it have the opportunity to change the way classes look every three weeks — since there are multiple start and stop points. (With a semester, you have only a single start and then, often 16 weeks later, an end.)

"It's easier for us to now think creatively for next year," Townsend says. "Different students can make different choices. That's really hard to do with a semester-based system, but the blocks allow us to do that a little bit more flexibly."

The school is also entertaining the idea of sending faculty abroad to teach a block for international students who might not be able to enter the U.S, or adding summer blocks to give students even more opportunities to take classes.

Only some on campus

Some colleges have suggested bringing only freshmen back to campus and having upperclassmen either delay their start, or be online and remote.

The idea centers on research that shows just how important a student's first year of college is as a predictor of graduation. Adapting to campus can be a challenge, so this would allow first-year students to get comfortable and have extra support on campus.

Since upperclassmen are already familiar with how campus and classes work, the theory goes, they can more easily adapt to an online environment. Other versions of this approach would have students who have housing needs come back to campus first, and then, over time, phase in other groups of students.

All these options seek to keep the population density of the campus lower while still maintaining some face-to-face interactions.

On campus, with some changes

Social distancing, improved testing and contact tracing could help colleges reopen their campuses.

"Every school is trying to figure out a way to have students come back and do whatever we can while also protecting public health," says Learning Innovation co-author Joshua Kim, director of online programs and strategy at Dartmouth College.

"At the same time, we know that, however that works, things will be different. It's probably unlikely that we'll be able to cram students together in large, packed lecture halls or put doubles and triples in residence halls or have big events."

To follow social distancing, professors are measuring their classrooms, calculating how many students could fit in the space if they were 6 feet apart. Deans are planning out how students could enter and exit the classrooms safely.

But it's not just the classrooms that pose a challenge. For residential colleges, it's the dorms.

"Whether or not students are actually learning in the classroom, it's incredibly important for them to have an on-campus experience," Maloney says. So schools are thinking about how they can spread their students out, putting them in places where they normally wouldn't go.

Some ideas include housing students in offices that aren't being used, local hotel rooms or off-campus housing. Institutions are also reimagining campus events, like freshman orientation, since it's unlikely hundreds of students will be in a packed auditorium.

"Rethinking how we do everything we do at a university is part of the process," Maloney says.

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

; Credit: smartboy10/Getty Images

A for-profit college received millions of dollars from the federal government to help low-income students whose lives have been upended by the coronavirus outbreak, but that same school, Florida Career College (FCC), is also accused of defrauding students.

A federal class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of students in April calls FCC "a sham" and alleges that, long before the pandemic, the college was targeting economically vulnerable people of color. The plaintiffs say the vocational school enticed them with false promises of career training and job placement — but spent little on instruction while charging exorbitant prices and pushing students into loans they cannot repay.

The lawsuit comes as thousands of colleges across the country are receiving federal emergency relief in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Through the CARES Act, FCC has been allotted $17 million. The law requires that at least half of that money goes directly to students, but makes few stipulations for the rest of it.

Experts say the complaint against FCC raises serious concerns about the college's ability to safeguard taxpayer dollars, as well as its ability to serve its own students.

In a statement to NPR, Florida Career College General Counsel Aaron Mortensen says: "This lawsuit is baseless legally and factually. Though we cannot comment because the matter is in litigation, we will aggressively fight these false allegations."

Equipment was "at best limited, and at worse, nonexistent"

Plaintiff Kareem Britt was working as a cook when he noticed a Facebook ad for FCC.

"Are you tired of working minimum wage jobs? Eating ramen noodles?" the ad asked. "Are you ready to step up to steak? HVAC degrees make $16 to $23/hr."

An FCC representative told Britt that a degree could change his life and that the school would help him land a job. He qualified for a $6,000 federal Pell Grant and an FCC "scholarship loan" for $3,000. Britt decided to enroll in the HVAC training program.

After classes began, though, Britt says equipment necessary to learn the trade was in short supply. "Tools, machinery, and other learning devices were at best limited, and at worse, nonexistent," according to the complaint.

When it came time for the school to help Britt find a job, he says, FCC found him just two, two-week placements, and he failed to find HVAC work on his own. Making matters worse, once he'd finished school, Britt learned that he had also taken on federal loans worth $9,500, which he must now pay back as a hotel cook, the same kind of job he'd held before enrolling.

Reverse redlining

The complaint alleges that Florida Career College, along with its parent company, specifically targets economically vulnerable people of color.

"They are recruiting at majority Black high schools," says Toby Merrill, director of the Project on Predatory Student Lending at the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School, one of the organizations representing the plaintiffs. "They are putting up billboards in towns where the population is mostly Black. And they're doing a lot of advertising on social media where you can choose to target your ad essentially by race."

Stephen Stewart is Jamaican and says he was drawn to an FCC ad on Instagram. He decided to visit campus, and says one word captures his experience: "pressure."

Like Britt, Stewart was considering FCC's HVAC program. After his tour, when a representative told him the program would cost more than $20,000, Stewart balked. He remembers the representative pushed, telling him: "'I know so many students that have went here... I'm talking about people with five, six kids in a worse situation than you're in.'" Stewart was 20 at the time and childless. "'You're telling me that they can go through this, make their payments and pay off their tuition, and you can't?'"

Stewart enrolled in FCC's HVAC program after being promised that, within a year, the school would find him a job in his field.

The complaint takes aim at these recruiting practices. It alleges that FCC is selling the promise of a career and financial success to cash-strapped communities of color where college feels out of reach, "discriminating against students on the basis of race by inducing them to purchase a worthless product by taking on debt they cannot repay."

According to Education Department data, 85% of FCC's students are people of color.

This practice of discriminating by targeting students of color has a name: Reverse redlining — a reference to the historical practice of excluding African-American families from home ownership and denying them access to services. Reverse redlining is illegal, and it's what sets this suit apart from previous legal battles over alleged predatory practices by for-profit colleges.

"In a weekly memo to my board last Friday, I said, 'So the new angle of attack against our sector is that we are predatory to minority communities,'" says Steve Gunderson, head of Career Education Colleges and Universities, an organization that serves as the national voice for career education schools like FCC.

"We have always celebrated the fact that approximately 45 to 50% of the students in our schools are African American and Hispanic," he says. "We're proud of that."

"Classes were a scam"

Long before the federal government granted FCC $17 million in pandemic relief, the school was already largely government-dependent. According to federal data, the lion's share of FCC's revenue — 86% — comes from federal financial aid funds, namely Pell Grants and student loans.

At the same time, federal data also suggest that the college fails to prepare many students for their chosen professions. Under an Obama-era rule known as "gainful employment," schools could lose access to federal aid if graduates don't earn enough income to repay their student debts. According to the complaint, 16 of the 17 FCC programs evaluated under the gainful employment rule failed that metric, meaning graduates weren't able to repay their loans. (The gainful employment rule was repealed in 2019.)

The median annual earnings of FCC graduates who ultimately found employment ranged from $8,983 to $32,871, according to the suit, which helps explain why, according to the most recent federal data, just 23% of FCC students have been able to pay down any of their loans' original balance within three years of leaving.

"Classes were a scam, a waste of time," says Stephen Stewart. The equipment was "limited" and "outdated," he says, and the instructor admitted to the class that he had little experience with HVAC. Stewart's worst day, though, came near the end of his nine-month program when he visited the career services department to ask when they'd help him find a job as they had promised.

Stewart says he was given a list of possible HVAC companies and told, "'You gotta get your job.'" So he did, with no help. But Stewart says it was clear that FCC hadn't given him the skills he needed to keep up in the job, let alone succeed, and he ultimately left. Today, Stewart is $15,000 in debt and says he feels "shattered" by the whole experience.

"The thing that upsets me the most about this is how much it preys upon people's hopes and dreams," says Ben Miller, who studies higher education accountability at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. "You know, you have a lot of folks who want to make a better life for themselves. They have maybe one shot at college, and you rip them off and basically ruin it."

But Gunderson takes a very different view, as head of the national association for postsecondary career colleges.

"[This lawsuit] is so frustrating, because this is nothing more than an organized national effort to destroy the reputation of the [career college] sector," he says.

Gunderson insists that career colleges, including FCC, have been held to unrealistic standards. He points to the gainful employment rule, which he says measured students' incomes relatively soon after graduation. "You've got to go into the five- or 10-year mark before most of these occupations have what you and I would call our respectable salaries."

But federal data also show that, even 10 years after enrolling in FCC, more than half of its students still didn't earn more than the typical high school graduate.

Gunderson says this lawsuit is just the latest salvo in a decade-long fight to discredit for-profit, career colleges — a fight he calls "monotonous and disappointing."

"Even if you're doing a terrible job"

The law requires that at least half of the $17 million FCC is receiving through the CARES Act must go directly to students, but makes few stipulations for the rest of those funds. In a letter, U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said institutions have "significant discretion" on how to award the assistance to students.

"We stand ready to deliver these funds," said Fardad Fateri, the head of FCC and its parent company, International Education Corporation, in a press release. "It is important we get these grants into the hands of our students right away, so they can better deal with this crisis."

FCC's $17 million is a small piece of the more than $14 billion lawmakers set aside in the CARES Act to help colleges and vulnerable students during the coronavirus pandemic. But Ben Miller says, in Congress' haste to help schools that serve low-income students, lawmakers are giving money to many schools with questionable records like FCC's.

"When there's no consideration of quality or outcomes, it's potentially a big award, even if you're doing a terrible job," Miller says.

Meanwhile DeVos has also championed separate policies that have made it easier for schools like FCC to continue to enroll students and receive federal student aid even as their graduates struggle. In 2019, DeVos repealed the Obama-era gainful employment rule that would have denied low-performing schools access to federal student aid.

Under the Trump administration, the Education Department has also changed the College Scorecard, a website meant to help prospective students compare colleges by price and performance. The department has removed easy access to schools' loan repayment rates. In 2018, it also removed another important metric: How the earnings of a school's graduates compared to the earnings of high school grads.

"Rather than highlighting institutions that show the best employment and loan repayment outcomes for students, this administration has made a concerted effort to hide this information from students with no explanation as to why," says Michael Itzkowitz, who was director of the College Scorecard during the Obama administration. "What's become more transparent is their willingness to prioritize certain institutions — namely for-profits — even if those aren't the best options for students choosing to pursue a postsecondary education."

The Education Department did not respond in time to requests for comment.

When students filed suit against the now-defunct for-profit Corinthian Colleges, claiming, like Britt and Stewart, that their schools had made promises about job placement and future earnings that they simply did not keep, DeVos revised another rule, known as "borrower defense," to make it more difficult for defrauded borrowers to get their money back. But the revision was so strict that 10 Senate Republicans joined with Democrats in March to rebuke the education secretary and reverse her decision.

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