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

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

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

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

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

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

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Interview Highlights

On the legal history of prosecuting hazing

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

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

On what the return to college campuses means for hazing

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

On the challenges to end fraternity hazing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

; Credit: /The Washington Post via Getty Images

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

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

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

An Accidental Experiment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bigger Picture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nicole Cohen contributed to this report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interview Highlights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

; Credit: LA Johnson/NPR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That drive paid off.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The final line of the poem:

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

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

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

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

; Credit: /Rob Dobi for NPR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Memorial Day. Thanksgiving. Labor Day.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's happening in New Jersey

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

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

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

The backlash has only grown.

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

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

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

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

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

Changing views on holidays

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

; Credit: shuoshu/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A customer walks behind a sign at a Nordstrom in Coral Gables, Fla., store seeking employees in May.; Credit: Marta Lavandier/AP

Two organizations filed a lawsuit against Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb in an attempt to block the state's push to end pandemic unemployment benefits on June 19.

Indiana Legal Services, an organization providing free legal assistance, and the Concerned Clergy of Indianapolis filed the lawsuit on behalf of five unnamed plaintiffs who are set to lose their jobless benefits. The complaint was filed Monday in Marion County Superior Court.

This lawsuit may be the first of its kind that aims to stop states from ending these benefits earlier than Congress mandated.

The unemployment insurance program "has served as a vital lifeline for thousands of Hoosiers," the complaint, reviewed by NPR, says. "By prematurely deciding t0 stop administering these federal benefits, Indiana has violated the clear mandates 0f Indiana's unemployment statute—to secure all rights and benefits available for unemployed individuals."

Indiana is one of 25 Republican-led states that decided to end jobless aid in an effort to get people to return to work. Indiana and seven other states are set to end expanded unemployment benefits as soon as this weekend. This is despite Congress's authorization for extra payments until early September.

Those benefits include the extra $300 a week in federal aid and the special pandemic program for gig workers that allows them to receive jobless benefits. Ordinarily, independent contractors wouldn't be eligible.

Plaintiffs, as well as many other Indiana residents, rely entirely on the unemployment benefits to pay for food and rent and to care for their families, the complaint alleges.

Attorneys in this case are requesting the judge approve a preliminary injunction that would allow people to receive their benefits while the case continues.

Holcomb says it's time to get back to work

Holcomb told The Indianapolis Star that people no longer need unemployment benefits as the state has a plethora of jobs open.

"Eliminating these pandemic programs will not be a silver bullet for employers to find employees, but we currently have about 116,000 available jobs in the state that need filled now," he said.

According to the governor's office, Indiana's unemployment rate has recovered to 3.9% after climbing to 17% at the height of the pandemic.

The lawsuit challenges Holcomb's assertion.

Each of the five plaintiffs say they are unable to return to work due to lingering injuries or disability, health conditions that put them at risk for COVID-19 exposure, dependent children at home and no childcare available, or no positions that are available in their career field.

Workers of color feel the loss of unemployment the most

The National Employment Law Project says ending these jobless benefits early threatens the livelihoods of workers of color the most.

Millions of Americans still heavily rely on jobless aid as the country slowly reopens from pandemic-induced lockdowns, according to the organization.

As of May 22, more than 15.3 million people still needed some form of unemployment benefit—nearly twice the number who received payments when the aid programs began in late March 2020, NELP said.

According to its analysis, over 46% of unemployment insurance recipients in the states ending the programs early are people of color.

"The brunt of the impact will be felt by Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and other people of color," NELP says.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas calls to do away with qualified immunity

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

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

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

Thomas and Gorsuch call to overturn landmark Free Speech precedent

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

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

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

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

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

Another execution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The explosive growth of information technology is having a profound impact on our lives.

Although there is evidence of harmful health and ecological effects associated with exposure to high doses of chemicals known as hormonally active agents – or endocrine disrupters – little is understood about the harm posed by exposure to the substances at low concentrations, such as those that typically exist in the environment, says a new report from a National Research Council committee.

Incineration is widely used in the United States to reduce the volume of waste. Hundreds of incinerators -- including industrial kilns, boilers, and furnaces -- combust municipal and hazardous waste, while many more are used to burn medical waste.

Reducing one of the nations leading causes of death and injury – medical errors – will require rigorous changes throughout the health care system, including mandatory reporting requirements.

The federal government should not increase the maximum level of copper allowed in drinking water, because higher levels could lead to liver poisoning in infants and children with certain genetic disorders.

While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys guideline for protecting the public from a toxic form of mercury is justifiable based on the latest scientific evidence, some children of women who consume large amounts of fish and seafood during pregnancy may be at special risk of neurological problems.

No justification currently exists for completely abandoning chemical pesticides, says a new report from the National Academies National Research Council.

Darkly colored, carotene-rich fruits and vegetables -- such as carrots, sweet potatoes, and broccoli -- provide the body with half as much vitamin A as previously thought.

The nations health care industry has foundered in its ability to provide safe, high-quality care consistently to all Americans, says a new report from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Reorganization and reform are urgently needed to fix what is now a disjointed and inefficient system.

Focused attention by world leaders is needed to address the substantial challenges posed by disposal of spent nuclear fuel from reactors and high-level radioactive waste from processing such fuel for military or energy purposes.

Recent strides in biotechnology offer the promise of new and innovative applications -- from edible vaccines to protein-based electronics components.

Although the federal program that sets fuel economy standards for cars and light-duty trucks has helped reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil and lower emissions of greenhouse gases, changes to the program could further cut the nations petroleum dependence and provide more flexibility to carmakers.

Representatives from academies and research organizations around the world sent messages of condolence and support to members, officials and staff of the U.S. National Academies in the wake of terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The following are excerpts from some of these messages.

Racial and ethnic minorities tend to receive lower-quality health care than whites do, even when insurance status, income, age, and severity of conditions are comparable.

No single approach -- technical, legal, economic, or educational -- will be sufficient to protect children from online pornography.

Nearly 85 percent of the 29 million gallons of petroleum that enter North American ocean waters each year as a result of human activities comes from land-based runoff, polluted rivers, airplanes, and small boats and jet skis, while less than 8 percent comes from tanker or pipeline spills.

To meet the bodys daily energy and nutritional needs while minimizing risk for chronic disease, adults should get 45 percent to 65 percent of their calories from carbohydrates, 20 percent to 35 percent from fat, and 10 percent to 35 percent from protein.

The federal government should not rely on polygraph examinations for screening prospective or current employees to identify spies or other national-security risks because the test results are too inaccurate when used this way.

Scientific evidence is insufficient to prove or disprove the theory that exposure to polio vaccine contaminated with a monkey virus between 1955 and 1963 has triggered cancer in humans, says a new report from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.