More universities are disinviting commencement speakers who might challenge students’ ideas, unraveling an apolitical tradition

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science, Amherst College

College commencement ceremonies celebrate students’ achievements, but also have become occasionally fraught with politics. photosbyjim/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Delivering a university commencement address used to simply be a unique kind of honor. Speakers stand before a podium, wearing a traditional graduation cap and robe, and offer graduates life lessons and inspirational words as they enter the next phase of life.

But today, speaking at a university commencement ceremony carries considerable risk, as Morton Schapiro, former president of Northwestern University, recently found out. Schapiro was scheduled to speak at Georgetown University Law Center’s graduation on May 17, 2026, but announced on May 6 that he would no longer appear at the event.

Some Georgetown law students had protested and petitioned to have Schapiro’s invitation rescinded, citing what they said were Schapiro’s “controversial, Zionist, and harmful opinions.” The students pointed to an op-ed that Schapiro wrote expressing support for Israel and Jewish people a few days after the Hamas attacks on Oct. 7, 2023, which killed 1,200 people.

Schapiro is in good company. There’s a reason why the free speech advocacy group FIRE calls the lead-up to college commencements disinvitation season.

Over the past two decades, colleges and universities across the country have withdrawn invitations to various commencement speakers after students protested their scheduled appearance. Or, in some cases, invited speakers have said they will no longer participate after students spoke out against their upcoming speeches.

As a political scientist who has written about the First Amendment and free speech on college campuses, I think Schapiro’s ill-fated Georgetown commencement invitation – and other instances like this one – show that intolerance for dissenting viewpoints lasts until the last diploma is handed out at graduation.

Some students only want people who hold similar views to address them at their graduation. They exercise what free speech law experts call a “heckler’s veto,” meaning when an audience’s reaction, or anticipated response, stops someone from speaking. Free speech then takes a back seat, and a graduation becomes just a performative moment of political correctness.

Two men wear purple robes and smile in a crowd of people.
The comedian Seth Meyers, left, attends the Northwestern University graduation with Morton Schapiro, the school’s then-president, in June 2016 in Evanston, Ill.
Timothy Hiatt/Getty Images

It wasn’t always this way

The first university commencement in the U.S. took place in 1642, when Harvard College held a ceremony to honor its nine graduates. The students were joined by some of the Massachusetts Bay Colony’s most distinguished citizens, including Governor John Winthrop and his deputy, John Endicott, who observed the proceedings.

No one delivered a commencement address.

Instead, each graduate delivered an address and displayed the fruits of their classical education by speaking in Latin and English.

By the middle of the 19th century, university commencements drew well-known outsiders to college campuses to speak.

In 1837, for example, the poet and essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson addressed Harvard’s Phi Beta Kappa graduates and issued a stirring call for American students and scholars to end what he called “our long apprenticeship to the learning of other lands.”

In 1881, James Garfield became the first sitting American president to deliver a commencement address, when he spoke at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.

Twenty-four years later, President Theodore Roosevelt spoke at the first graduation ceremony at Clark University, in Worcester, Massachusetts. He told his audience there, “I have always felt most strongly that it is true of a nation as of the individual that the greatest doer must also be a great dreamer.”

Since then, other presidents have used commencement speeches to announce major policy initiatives and agreements, including on foreign policy.

In 1963, President John F. Kennedy told the graduating seniors at American University that the U.S., the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union would start negotiations to ban the testing of nuclear weapons.

Two years later, President Lyndon Johnson announced at Howard University’s commencement that he would launch a major initiative to address socioeconomic disparities that disadvantaged Black people.

There was no controversy or protest about Kennedy, Johnson or other prominent speakers who delivered commencement addresses before a few decades ago.

A man stands at a podium that says 'president of the United States' in a black-and-white photo.
President John F. Kennedy delivers his commencement speech at American University in June 1963.
Bettmann/Contributor/Getty Images

The commencement speaker as a lightning rod

But that was then. Times have changed.

FIRE estimates that between 2000 and 2024, there were 345 attempts to disinvite commencement speakers. Many of the scheduled speakers who faced pressure to not appear at the ceremonies backed out.

Examples of commencement speaker disinvitations have happened at small, private liberal arts colleges, as well as big public universities. Being uninvited from speaking at a graduation is often precipitated by petitions and protests, from both conservative and progressive activists.

For example, in 2019, former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey, a Democrat, withdrew as the scheduled commencement speaker at Creighton University. This followed the Nebraska Republican Party objecting to Kerry’s pro-abortion rights voting record.

In 2024, Dickinson College rescinded a commencement invitation for Michael Smerconish, an author and television commentator who focuses on politics. This decision came after a student wrote an opinion piece that showed that 20 years earlier, Smerconish said, “in order to keep America safe, the TSA should deliberately target Arabs and Muslims for searches because they look like the perpetrators of past terrorist attacks.”

“Does someone like Mike Smerconish in any way represent the achievements and ambitions of its students? If Dickinson truly loves and values its students, shouldn’t it honor them with someone who reflects that love?” the student asked in the opinion piece.

Protests ensued, and the college president gave in.

In 2025, the noted author Salman Rushdie withdrew as commencement speaker at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California, after members of its Muslim Student Association urged the school to revoke his invitation. They accused Rushdie, a self-described “hardline atheist,” of “disparaging a global religious community” in his writing and public appearances. In a 2015 commencement address at Emory University, he said: “I sometimes think we live in a very credulous age. People seem ready to believe almost anything. God, for example.”

Over the past few years, the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip has led to various commencement controversies and rescinded invitations, based on scheduled speakers’ politics around the conflict.

There have also been various commencement speakers who have delivered controversial addresses that some graduates – and outside observers – found offensive. Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker, for example, spoke at Benedictine College’s commencement in 2024 and encouraged women to become homemakers.

A man stands at a wooden podium on a stage, surrounded by people in graduation attire and a crowd of people wearing black graduation caps.
The author Salman Rushdie delivers a commencement address at Emory University in Atlanta in May 2015.
Marcus Ingram/Getty Images

Commencement and free speech

That brings us back to Schapiro.

“I have presided over 28 commencements as a president and dean,” Schapiro wrote in a note to Georgetown’s law students, “and those ceremonies are about celebrating the graduates and their supporters. I was looking forward to giving a talk about humility and gratitude, but I don’t want my presence to distract from the day’s festivities.”

Humility and gratitude are often missing in disinvitation season.

In 2017, Drew Gilpin Faust, then the president of Harvard University, seemed to understand this absence when she issued a free speech message to graduates in her commencement address. “Silencing ideas or basking in intellectual orthodoxy independent of facts and evidence impedes our access to new and better ideas, and it inhibits a full and considered rejection of bad ones,” Faust warned.

Commencement season puts Faust’s admonitions to the test. “Universities,” she said, “must model a commitment to the notion that truth cannot simply be claimed, but must be established – established through reasoned argument, assessment and even sometimes uncomfortable challenges that provide the foundation for truth.”

The Conversation

Austin Sarat does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. More universities are disinviting commencement speakers who might challenge students’ ideas, unraveling an apolitical tradition – https://theconversation.com/more-universities-are-disinviting-commencement-speakers-who-might-challenge-students-ideas-unraveling-an-apolitical-tradition-283131

When a president settles his own lawsuit to create a fund for allies, fundamental questions about justice arise

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science, Amherst College

A banner featuring President Trump on the outside of the DOJ building in Washington, D.C. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Thomas Hobbes took a very dim view of rebels and insurrectionists. He believed that insurrectionists relinquish their status as citizens the moment they seek to overthrow the government and should never be rewarded for doing so.

Hobbes, one of the finest political theorists of his time, said this in his great political treatise, “Leviathan,” published in 1651 during a civil war in England and Scotland.

Hobbes would likely also take a dim view of a major development announced by the Trump administration on May 20, 2026.

The U.S. Department of Justice has established a US$1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” to be used, the AP reports, to “allow people who believe they were targeted for prosecution for political purposes, including by the Biden administration Justice Department, to apply for payouts.”

The fund, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said, offers “a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.”

Critics immediately charged that it might be used to compensate people involved in – some even convicted for – the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Blanche has not ruled out that possibility.

The establishment of the fund is part of a settlement agreement, in response to which President Donald Trump dropped his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service for damages stemming from the leak of his tax returns. Those leaks, the lawsuit alleged, “caused Plaintiffs reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, unfairly tarnished their business reputations, portrayed them in a false light, and negatively affected President Trump.”

A DOJ press release indicates the fund will provide “formal apologies and monetary relief” to those who file claims and will cease processing claims “no later than” Dec. 1, 2028. It will be run by a five-person board appointed by the attorney general, and the president will also have the power to remove board members.

Whether or not Jan. 6 participants benefit, some believe that this situation creates an unavoidable appearance of self-dealing and favoritism. As a student of American law and political morality, I think there are important moral and constitutional issues implicated by the president’s suit against the IRS and the creation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund.

Some of them are straightforward; others are less so.

A man talking at a table behind a name plate, gesturing with his fingers.
Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche testified about the compensation fund during a Senate Committee on May 19, 2026, in Washington, D.C.
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

A judge in their own cause

An obvious question is: Should taxpayer funds be given to Trump allies, in a settlement reached by the Trump-controlled DOJ as compensation for a Trump family lawsuit?

As far back as ancient Greece, philosophers like Aristotle have worried about what happens when people are called on to make judgments in cases where they are involved. Aristotle thought that the natural instinct for self-preservation meant that they would always favor themselves.

From that concern emerged what was then, and remains, an uncontroversial, bedrock moral principle.

In the Roman world, the Latin phrase “Nemo iudex in causa sua” meant “no one should be a judge in their own cause.” It recognized that anyone having a personal interest should not get to decide matters in which they are involved.

In the Englsh-speaking world, Hobbes himself reiterated that phrase as he explained some of the advantages of living in an organized society, which could supply impartial judges to resolve disputes. And in 1787, James Madison wrote, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”

Commentators reacting to the Justice Department’s decision to establish an Anti-Weaponization Fund to settle the president’s claims against the IRS have drawn on these longstanding principles to criticize it, including how the DOJ, which is part of the executive branch controlled by Trump, negotiated with him to reach this settlement.

The conservative lawyer and activist Ed Whelan said, “There is a glaring conflict of interest with Trump being on both sides of the claim.” Whelan added, “It is outrageous that he and those answering to him would be deciding how the government responds to these extravagant claims.”

In testimony on May 19, 2026, before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Blanche offered a different view. He said the settlement fund was not unprecedented and likened it to a different fund, established by the Obama administration, to settle discrimination claims brought by Native American and Black farmers.

“It’s not limited to Republicans. It’s not limited to Democrats,” Blanche added. “It’s not limited to January 6th defendants. It’s limited only by the term weaponization.” Blanche promised that payments from the fund will be publicly disclosed.

Negotiating with himself

In April, Kathleen Williams, the Florida federal judge who was presiding over Trump’s lawsuit, reframed the moral issue of self-dealing as a legal one. She questioned whether the case could go on, noting “President Trump’s own remarks about this matter acknowledge the unique dynamic of this litigation.”

The remarks she referenced occurred when the president talked about the lawsuit and the prospect of negotiating with himself. “And they do say that, you know, it’s never been a case like this. Donald Trump sues the United States of America. Donald Trump becomes president, and now Donald Trump has to settle the suit.”

Williams, the judge, wrote that “it is unclear to this Court whether the Parties are sufficiently adverse to each other so as to satisfy Article III’s case or controversy requirement.” That requirement means that a court can only rule when there is a real dispute before it.

That rule is designed to prevent so-called collusive lawsuits, in which “the parties are not actually in disagreement but are cooperating” to achieve a result. Judge Williams was scheduled to hear arguments on that question on May 20, 2026. But the settlement announcement was made two days before, and, in light of it, she dismissed the case.

Back to Hobbes

Beyond the case and controversy question, the Justice Department’s actions may implicate constitutional issues.

One is whether, under the constitutional separation of powers, the executive branch has the authority to create a victim compensation fund, or whether that authority rests with Congress.

Another is whether the fund violates the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, which prohibits the president from receiving any “Emolument from the United States” other than his salary.

While the new fund may not make direct payments to Trump, he may benefit from payments to family members, business associates and others who will claim to have been victimized by the Biden administration, including people prosecuted and convicted of crimes committed on Jan. 6.

Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin, a former professor of constitutional law, also contends that what the Justice Department has done violates Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, part of which states: “neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”

Referring to the president, Raskin argues hypothetically, “So, to the extent that he wants to give a million dollars to each of 1,600 pardoned rioters and insurrectionists, we think that that’s an unconstitutional use of money.”

That section of the 14th Amendment was designed to ensure that Confederate rebels would not receive compensation for the value of their emancipated slaves. However, in Perry v. United States, a 1935 case, the Supreme Court stated that Section 4’s “language indicates a broader connotation” beyond its Civil War context.

It seems clear that courts will soon be asked to decide whether Raskin and other legal critics are right in their assertions of a host of legal problems with the Anti-Weaponization Fund. How they will do so remains to be seen.

But, in a democracy, deciding whether the creation of the fund violates the moral maxim that no one can be a judge in his or her own cause ultimately will be up to the people.

The Conversation

Austin Sarat does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. When a president settles his own lawsuit to create a fund for allies, fundamental questions about justice arise – https://theconversation.com/when-a-president-settles-his-own-lawsuit-to-create-a-fund-for-allies-fundamental-questions-about-justice-arise-283345

Le recul du télétravail accentue les inégalités d’accès pour les personnes ayant des incapacités

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Alexandra Lecours, Professeure titulaire, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (UQTR)

La question du retour au bureau, largement dans l’actualité ces temps-ci, se résume souvent à la gestion des horaires : par exemple, trois jours en présence, deux jours à distance. Mais pour certaines personnes, l’enjeu touche à la possibilité même de travailler.


Le télétravail n’a pas seulement offert de la flexibilité, il a aussi réduit des obstacles que le présentiel rendait incontournables. Quand une organisation ferme cette porte, elle ne revient pas à un état neutre. Elle réinstalle une norme qui avantage certains profils de personnes et en fragilise d’autres, notamment les personnes ayant des incapacités. Ces dernières forment une proportion importante de la population active, signe de la diversité de la main-d’œuvre canadienne.

Le recours plus étendu au télétravail dans les dernières années a modifié concrètement les conditions d’accès au travail pour certains groupes. Il a permis à des personnes ayant avec des incapacités de participer au travail en réduisant des contraintes du présentiel, comme le transport ou la rigidité d’horaire. Revenir à une norme de présence sans tenir compte de ces effets ne constitue pas un simple retour en arrière. Cela peut aussi signifier un recul par rapport à des formes d’inclusion qui s’étaient progressivement instaurées.

Les employeurs qui prônent le retour au présentiel invoquent l’efficacité collective, la créativité, la cohésion et le mentorat. Ces objectifs comptent, mais une règle identique ne convient pas à tous, puisque la présence obligatoire n’impose pas le même coût de participation selon les personnes.

Le présentiel ajoute des déplacements, des contraintes d’horaire et un environnement spécifique. La règle de présence devient une condition de participation au travail. Lorsqu’elle crée un désavantage lié à une incapacité, elle soulève un enjeu d’accès équitable et renvoie au devoir d’accommodement.




À lire aussi :
Emploi et handicap au Québec : un modèle à bout de souffle


Un risque de fragiliser l’accès au travail

En tant que professeure en ergothérapie à l’UQTR et chercheuse au Centre interdisciplinaire de recherche en réadaptation et intégration sociale, je m’intéresse depuis plus de quinze ans à la participation au travail des personnes ayant des incapacités. Mes travaux ont documenté comment le télétravail peut soutenir une participation durable, à condition d’un encadrement adéquat et de ressources appropriées. À partir de résultats d’études menées au cours des cinq dernières années, j’examine ici comment le retour massif au présentiel risque de fragiliser l’accès équitable au travail en transformant un levier d’accessibilité en exception précaire.

Le retour uniforme au bureau réaffirme une norme implicite : celle d’un travailleur mobile, disponible et stable sur le plan fonctionnel. Il impose des exigences qui semblent ordinaires, mais qui deviennent sélectives dans leurs effets.

Dans une étude portant sur le télétravail chez les personnes ayant des incapacités motrices et sensorielles, celles-ci expliquent que le travail en présence ajoute des contraintes qui diminuent leur capacité à travailler, même quand les tâches à effectuer restent les mêmes. Par exemple, le déplacement ressort comme contrainte majeure, surtout lorsque le transport adapté impose des délais, de l’attente et une planification lourde. Le télétravail permet de récupérer ce temps et de préserver l’énergie et la disponibilité.

Une autre étude, menée auprès de personnes souffrant de douleur chronique, abonde dans le même sens. Les personnes participantes rapportent que la flexibilité d’horaire et la possibilité d’organiser les pauses favorisent une expérience de travail plus soutenable. Elles décrivent la possibilité de changer de position, de s’étirer ou d’appliquer de la chaleur comme des stratégies plus faciles à intégrer à domicile.

Ces bénéfices n’éliminent pas les risques. Les personnes rencontrées évoquent l’isolement et la difficulté à maintenir des limites temporelles. Elles estiment néanmoins que le télétravail reste pertinent comme mesure d’accommodement lorsque l’organisation reconnaît ces risques et met en place des balises pour les prévenir.

Des problèmes liés à une gestion au cas par cas

La réaffirmation du présentiel comme norme modifie le statut du télétravail.

Dans une troisième étude, menée auprès de gestionnaires cette fois, les personnes participantes décrivent une gestion au cas par cas, où les décisions reposent sur des arbitrages entre bénéfices, fonctionnement de l’équipe et perceptions d’équité. Cette logique entraîne des pratiques différentes selon les équipes et selon les gestionnaires. Une personne peut obtenir un arrangement dans une équipe, mais pas dans une autre, ou le perdre lors d’un changement de gestionnaire. L’accès au télétravail devient alors moins prévisible.




À lire aussi :
Le télétravail, facteur clé dans la prévention de l’épuisement professionnel


Le cadre légal contribue aussi à cette logique. La jurisprudence récente rappelle que le télétravail ne constitue pas un droit systématique. Un employeur peut exiger la présence sur site lorsque les tâches le requièrent. Une décision québécoise a confirmé le refus d’un télétravail exclusif à long terme en retenant que la présence sur site demeurait essentielle aux fonctions et que cet accommodement pouvait constituer une contrainte excessive.

Dans les milieux de travail, cette lecture peut renforcer l’idée que le télétravail doit être démontré et documenté dans chaque situation, ce qui le place plus souvent du côté de l’exception que de la règle. Cette logique d’exception fait du télétravail une entente à négocier plutôt qu’une modalité organisée. Elle déplace l’enjeu vers le quotidien des équipes, où l’encadrement du gestionnaire devient déterminant.

Une revue portant sur des travailleurs ayant des enjeux de santé suggère que le télétravail s’associe le plus souvent à une diminution de l’absentéisme, tout en indiquant un risque de travailler en étant malade lorsque le cadre demeure insuffisant. Ce risque devient plus plausible lorsque l’accès dépend d’arrangements au cas par cas, car les règles restent floues et manquent de stabilité. Dans ce contexte, des gestionnaires rapportent un manque de ressources et des dilemmes éthiques lorsqu’ils arbitrent entre accommodement, équité, productivité et santé au travail. Ainsi, la précarité de l’accès et l’encadrement variable influencent concrètement la capacité de travailler des personnes ayant des incapacités et de le faire sans détériorer leur santé.


Déjà des milliers d’abonnés à l’infolettre de La Conversation. Et vous ? Abonnez-vous gratuitement à notre infolettre pour mieux comprendre les grands enjeux contemporains.


Un levier d’inclusion à considérer

Le retour au présentiel ne pose pas seulement une question d’organisation des bureaux. Il pose une question d’accès au travail. Quand l’accès au télétravail dépend d’exceptions, les employés deviennent vulnérables aux variations de contextes et aux changements de gestion.

Une organisation peut transformer le télétravail d’une exception fragile en levier d’inclusion durable en définissant des règles claires, stables et prévisibles qui garantissent un accès au travail possible, soutenable et équitable pour tous.

La Conversation Canada

Alexandra Lecours a reçu des financements du Fonds de recherche du Québec, du Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines du Canada et de l’Office des personnes handicapées du Québec.

ref. Le recul du télétravail accentue les inégalités d’accès pour les personnes ayant des incapacités – https://theconversation.com/le-recul-du-teletravail-accentue-les-inegalites-dacces-pour-les-personnes-ayant-des-incapacites-282528

Special courts helps veterans stay out of jail – but staffing losses at VA and cuts to government programs are threatening their work

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Jamie Rowen, Associate Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science, UMass Amherst

Veterans from past wars and those returning from ongoing wars will need the country’s continued support. SDI Productions/E+ via Getty Images

Memorial Day is an apt time to reflect on the long-term consequences of war. Among them are substance use, mental health problems, homelessness and jail time for those who served in the military.

About 8% of all Americans in prisons or jails are veterans, according to the Council on Criminal Justice, a nonpartisan think tank. Veterans end up incarcerated largely because of substance use and mental health disorders, both of which also contribute to homelessness.

For more than 15 years, one tool for helping veterans break out of addiction has been Veterans Treatment Courts. These programs help veterans accused or convicted of crimes address the challenges driving their involvement in the criminal legal system.

Veterans Treatment Courts require a dedicated clinician and need to provide access to counseling, housing support and other social services to meet veterans’ needs. For this, they must have funding from the government. As a legal scholar studying the use of criminal law to aid veterans, my research shows that these programs, which exist in every state except Connecticut and Vermont, can be very effective. But they only work when they have the staffing and the resources to support veterans’ complex needs.

However, since 2025, massive staffing losses at the Department of Veteran Affairs as well as cuts to publicly funded healthcare such as Medicaid and Medicare, which are widely used by veterans, are making it harder for veterans to access healthcare.

What are Veterans Treatment Courts?

Veterans Treatment Courts are a subset of the drug treatment courts that were created by judges and criminal legal reformers beginning in 1988. These courts are an alternative to jail for people arrested or convicted for crimes that may be related to substance use disorders.

The idea was to allow courts to address the root causes of criminal behavior rather than simply punish people who committed crimes. Specialized treatment courts were soon developed to provide support for specific issues, such as mental health, or to groups accused of specific crimes, such as sex work.

Veterans treatment courts aim to help people address the underlying issues that lead them to commit crimes.

In 2008, a judge in Buffalo recognized that veterans in his drug treatment court would benefit from support from other veterans and the comprehensive services from the VA. So he launched a distinct program just for veterans that soon received national media attention. Veterans Treatment Courts now operate in over 745 courthouses.

Eligibility varies across courts, but typically requires that the person have served in the military and that the crime they committed is not considered so serious that it deserves incarceration. While these programs are funded through a variety of sources, such as local and state governments, the federal government offers tens of millions of dollars every year for local courthouses to set up Veterans Treatment Courts.

Veterans Treatment Courts have a variety of requirements for participants. Once admitted to the program, participants must attend a hearing where they talk to the judge about how they are doing. They must also take drug tests and attend therapy appointments. They may also have to show that they have stable housing and employment and that they have performed community service or engaged in other activities that indicate they are connected to their communities and therefore at lower risk for substance use or criminal behavior.

If participants meet program requirements, they graduate. Graduation usually means some sort of legal benefit, such as dropped charges and fines or the termination of probation.

Resources are key to success

Advocates suggest that Veterans Treatment Courts are more effective than jail or prison in preventing people from committing new crimes, and that treatment courts in general cost less than incarceration. But studies on whether they help veterans more than alternatives such as drug treatment courts or a regular criminal court have been inconclusive.

My research shows that treatment courts, in general, are most effective if they have dedicated staff and access to services to address substance use as well as housing insecurity. That level of support is exactly what the VA provides.

Veterans with VA benefits not only receive outpatient and inpatient substance use treatment, but they are able to access federally funded education and housing support unavailable to most U.S. citizens. Even Veterans Treatment Court participants who are ineligible for VA healthcare benefit from the unique levels of public support and state-funded programs for veterans in the U.S.

All this gives Veterans Treatment Courts the resources to help their participants more than other treatment courts or regular criminal courts can.

A person, visible torso down, walks through an economically stressed urban area, with a mural of an American flag behind them.
There’s a strong connection between veteran homelessness and incarceration.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images News

A program under threat

Recognizing the connection between veteran homelessness and incarceration, the federal government has put millions of dollars into the VA to help veterans in the criminal legal system. Congress annually authorizes tens of millions of dollars to support VA clinicians working in Veterans Treatment Courts. In January 2026, Congress even created a new center dedicated to this goal.

However, despite this support, cuts to healthcare that is delivered by VA providers, as well as to publicly funded healthcare such as Medicaid and Medicare, present numerous challenges for Veterans Treatment Courts. Tens of thousands of VA employees have left the agency since President Donald Trump took office. This has lead to staffing shortages that undermine care for all veterans.

Staff stability is especially important for these programs’ viability and success. My research shows that funding cuts lead to high turnover and low morale. When the Department of Health and Human Services sent a notice canceling US$2 billion worth of funding in January 2026, treatment courts were scrambling to figure out how they could staff their programs. Though this money was restored, the cancellation showed treatment court staff that their work could end without warning.

Given that the country’s criminal legal system is already overburdened, enabling Veterans Treatment Courts to do their vital work does more than help veterans. In my view, this program also models how comprehensive social services can help people struggling with substance use disorders, mental health problems, housing insecurity and other challenges.

As people recover from past wars and return from ongoing conflicts, they will need the country’s continued investment to reintegrate and thrive.

A previous version of this article incorrectly referred to funding cuts at the VA. It has been updated to specify the cuts were related to staffing and delivery of healthcare services.

The Conversation

Jamie Rowen receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

ref. Special courts helps veterans stay out of jail – but staffing losses at VA and cuts to government programs are threatening their work – https://theconversation.com/special-courts-helps-veterans-stay-out-of-jail-but-staffing-losses-at-va-and-cuts-to-government-programs-are-threatening-their-work-275742

Vitiligo affects around 1 in 100 people worldwide – yet the skin condition remains misunderstood

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Benedicta Quaye, Lecturer in Anatomy, Lancaster University

Model Winnie Harlow has non-segmental vitiligo. Andrea Raffin/ Shutterstock

Around one in every 100 people worldwide has vitiligo – a chronic, autoimmune skin condition that causes the skin to appear lighter in patches.

The number of people affected by vitiligo makes it one of the most common skin disorders. Several studies also suggest that many cases still remain undiagnosed, meaning the true number of people living with vitiligo may even be higher.

Yet despite how common vitiligo is, many misconceptions still surround the condition. People who have the condition still face stigma, intrusive questions and may experience lower wellbeing as a result.

What causes vitiligo?

The human skin has two layers. The outer epidermis (which we can all see) and the inner dermis (which lies underneath the epidermis).

Skin colour is primarily determined by melanin, a pigment produced by specialised cells known as melanocytes that are found within the epidermis. All humans have melanocytes, but the amount and type of melanin the skin produces varies naturally between people and populations. Melanin also contributes to hair and eye colour.

Vitiligo occurs when a person’s immune system mistakenly thinks their melanocytes are dangerous to the body. This causes the immune system to target these cells and destroy them, leading to a loss of pigment.

Vitiligo is initially triggered by either a person’s genetics or certain environmental factors, such as stress, severe sunburn and exposure to melanocytotoxic chemicals, which are found in some cosmetics and households items. These factors either trigger an immune response or cause damage to melanocytes. As melanocytes disappear, affected areas of skin lose pigment and become lighter or completely white.

Vitiligo can affect people of all ethnic backgrounds, ages and skin types. However, it’s often more noticeable in people with darker skin tones.

Vitiligo may appear anywhere on the body. Commonly affected areas include the face, hands, arms, eyes and mouth. Hair growing from affected skin may also lose colour.

A person with vitiligo shows off the palms of their hands and arms, where white patches have appeared.
Vitiligo is linked to a dysfunctional immune system.
alfasatryapermana/ Shutterstock

Vitiligo can develop gradually or rapidly. While some people develop only a few small patches, others may develop more widespread de-pigmentation over time. Most commonly, patches appear on both sides of the body and spread over time (non-segmental vitiligo). But in rarer cases, patches only appear on one side of the body (segmental vitiligo).

Some people may also notice mild itching, tingling or burning, especially as new patches appear. The affected skin can also be more sensitive to sunlight due to reduced melanin.

Because vitiligo is linked to a dysfunctional immune system, people with the condition may be slightly more likely to develop other autoimmune conditions, such as thyroid disease and type 1 diabetes.

Currently, there are several treatment options for vitiligo. These aim to control disease progression and improve long-term skin appearance.

A misunderstood condition

Despite the fact that vitiligo affects so many people globally, misconceptions and stigma about the condition still persist.

Studies have found that some people continue to wrongly believe vitiligo is contagious, linked to poor hygiene or socially undesirable. This highlights ongoing gaps in public education.

Many people with vitiligo have to endure staring, judgment, intrusive comments and insensitive questions about their appearance – sometimes daily.

Model Winnie Harlow, who has vitiligo and has been candid about her experience with the condition, shared in a recent interview that as a child, parents told their children not to play with her because they might “catch her skin”. Harlow also experienced bullying throughout her school years.

Numerous reports have also highlighted experiences of anxiety, depression, social exclusion and even low self-esteem in people with vitiligo.

Skin colour plays a major role in the development of someone’s identity and affects feelings of integration, acceptance and belonging. Visible changes in pigmentation experienced by people with vitiligo also exposes them to societal or social stigmatisation, social exclusion, loss of employment opportunities or even intrusive questions.

Societal perception needs to be corrected because at its core, vitiligo is a condition rooted in cellular biology and immune dysfunction. Knowing this is crucial because it significantly affects how society responds to those affected with visible medical conditions such as vitiligo.

The Conversation

Benedicta Quaye does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Vitiligo affects around 1 in 100 people worldwide – yet the skin condition remains misunderstood – https://theconversation.com/vitiligo-affects-around-1-in-100-people-worldwide-yet-the-skin-condition-remains-misunderstood-282451

Why managing expectations matters in chronic pain treatment

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Chris Seenan, Senior Lecturer in Physiotherapy, University of Stirling

anut21ng Stock/Shutterstock

In a 2026 study I conducted with colleagues on people with peripheral arterial disease, one participant described how leg pain had disrupted his golf for years. It forced him to stop mid-round, shake his leg and apologise to his playing partners while he waited for the pain to pass. He found it mortifying. Then he tried a small electrical device that delivered gentle pulses through pads stuck to his skin. He still had pain. But he could get round the course.

When we measured his walking on a treadmill, we found no improvement. He had not noticed. That was not the outcome that mattered to him. Before the study ended, he had already gone out and ordered his own device.

A different participant reached the opposite conclusion. The pain was still there when he used the device, he said. It had not done him any good. And he was right, in a narrow sense. The device had not eliminated his pain. What it had done was reduce its intensity and delay its onset, allowing him to walk measurably further. His expectation of complete relief meant that genuine, partial relief felt like failure. He concluded the treatment did not work.

The study did not tell a simple story of success or failure. For some participants, standard treadmill measures did not capture what had changed in daily life. For others, measurable improvements still failed to feel meaningful because they fell short of what the person had hoped for. The difference was not only the treatment, or the severity of their condition. It was what each person had been led to expect.

Recognising relief

Both men were living with peripheral arterial disease, a condition caused by a build-up of fatty deposits inside the arteries that supply the legs. It affects an estimated 236 million people worldwide. Its hallmark symptom is a cramping pain in the calf during walking that eases with rest. Over time, it can shrink a person’s world, limiting independence and increasing the risk of serious cardiovascular problems.

The recommended first-line treatment is supervised exercise therapy: structured exercise sessions led by trained professionals. But in many countries, access to supervised exercise therapy remains patchy and under-resourced. That gap is fertile territory for the wellness market.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, or Tens, delivers small electrical impulses through electrode pads on the skin to interfere with pain signals travelling to the brain. There is evidence that it can help with some kinds of pain, and it is used in hospital pain management settings. It is not a wellness product. In our study, we explored what happened when people with peripheral arterial disease used TENS independently at home, outside the controlled conditions of a clinical trial.

The findings point to something standard clinical tests rarely capture. Expectation can shape whether useful relief is recognised as useful.

That finding matters well beyond this particular device or condition. The global wellness industry is worth over a trillion dollars and operates with minimal regulatory oversight. People living with painful long-term conditions are among its most heavily targeted consumers. Companies sell electrical stimulation devices, supplements and wearable gadgets to people in chronic pain, using influencer testimonials in place of evidence and social media algorithms to reach people who are frightened, frustrated or in pain.

When a product fails to deliver the transformation it promised, patients rarely conclude they were misled. They conclude that nothing can help them. In conditions where reduced physical activity carries real health consequences, that conclusion is not merely disappointing. It is dangerous.

Poor communication can hinder treatment results

This is where the study speaks to a much wider problem. Whether a person is using a clinical device, a wearable gadget or a supplement sold online, they are often asked to judge it against expectations they did not set for themselves. Even legitimate, clinically tested treatments can be undermined by poor communication about what to expect.

The golfer’s experience illustrates this clearly. He valued an outcome that no clinical trial had thought to measure: the ability to play a round of golf without humiliation. Once he understood the device could offer that, it worked for him. His fellow participant was never given the chance to find his equivalent.

A market built around selling hope is poorly equipped for that kind of honesty. But the same danger can appear even when the person giving advice has medical credentials. Research shows that even medically qualified doctors who become prominent wellness influencers on social media are subject to many of the same pressures as their unqualified counterparts: to build a personal brand, produce content constantly, stand out from competitors and make advice sound more certain than it really is. Having a medical degree does not make someone’s Instagram post better at managing a patient’s expectations. It just makes it more convincing.

What actually helps requires something platforms cannot provide: time, a genuine clinical relationship and communication that is not contingent on making a sale. It requires asking a patient not just whether their pain has reduced, but what they were hoping to do that pain had been stopping them from doing. It requires explaining that partial relief is still relief and that the outcome worth measuring might not be the one on the form.

That kind of honesty does not feature in any influencer’s discount code, medical degree or otherwise. But for the person who just wants to get round the golf course, it might be the most important part of the treatment.

The Conversation

Chris Seenan receives funding from the Chief Scientists Office of the Scottish Government, the National Institute for Health and Care Research and Scottish Heart & Arterial disease Risk Prevention charity.

ref. Why managing expectations matters in chronic pain treatment – https://theconversation.com/why-managing-expectations-matters-in-chronic-pain-treatment-282746

The Silence of the Lambs introduced the world to forensic entomology – but how much has the science changed since?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Noemi Procopio, Professor of Forensic Sciences, School of Law and Policing, University of Lancashire

In the early 1990s, crime-loving television audiences could choose mainly between cozy, fictional detective series such as Columbo and Murder, She Wrote. The US docuseries Unsolved Mysteries brought a few real cold-case investigations to light, but coverage of forensic science on screen was still relatively simple.

Then, in May 1991, The Silence of the Lambs was released. Based on Thomas Harris’s 1988 novel, this big-budget thriller was darker, more disturbing and psychologically complex than most crime films of the time.

The protagonist, FBI trainee Clarice Starling (played by Jodie Foster), is a young woman working in a predominantly male environment – who is often underestimated by her colleagues. When she discovers key evidence through a suspenseful process of extraction from a young victim’s mouth, viewers are introduced to a field of criminal investigation they may never have considered before: forensic entomology.

Some kind of seed pod?

No, sir … that’s a bug cocoon.

Entomology – the scientific study of insects – is one of the oldest branches of the natural sciences. And the application of insects to criminal cases dates back almost as far. In the forensic text The Washing Away of Wrongs (1247), written by Chinese investigator Sung T’zu, flies attracted to traces of blood on a sickle helped identify a murderer.

However, it was not until the late 19th century that forensic entomology was formalised as a scientific discipline – thanks largely to the studies of Jean Pierre Mégnin. Influenced by his experiences on the battlefield, the French vet began investigating which insects were attracted to animal and human remains at different stages of decomposition.

These days, carrion insects are used to tell criminal investigators about the time since a victim’s death, whether their body has been moved, and if any drugs or toxins have contributed to their death.

Human remains are commonly colonised by blowflies and their maggots. But in The Silence of the Lambs, Starling was faced with something more unusual: the cocoon of a death’s-head hawkmoth (Acherontia atropos).

The cocoon, which the serial killer inserts into his victims’ throats, is identified by two entomologists who are clearly not forensically trained. Otherwise, they would have thought twice before cutting open the only piece of insect evidence without seeking permission for such a destructive analysis.

The film introduces murderous concepts such as “staging” – the intentional alteration of a crime scene – and a perpretrator’s modus operandi and criminal signature, relating to any distinctive methods they use.

Today, many of us working in forensic entomology and taphonomy (the study of what happens to organisms between death and discovery) are still told our work is “just like The Silence of the Lambs”. But 35 years after the film’s release, forensic entomology is no longer limited to microscopes, forceps and entomologists working alone.

Today’s criminal investigations often feature complex interactions between environmental conditions, decomposition processes and human activity. This makes collaborations between multiple scientific (and non-scientific) disciplines essential.

How the science has progressed

In the two decades preceding the film’s release, the biomedical and life sciences journal PubMed listed 37 publications on the subject of forensic entomology. Since then, there have been more than 1,800.

Methods used for insect identification and age estimation have changed dramatically. Today, molecular and chemical techniques can identify insect species and determine their stage in the lifecycle and geographic origin. These techniques are especially useful in cold cases or poorly preserved crime scenes, where samples may have been damaged or improperly stored.

Insects are also playing an increasingly accurate role in determining the time of death. As well as feeding on decomposing remains, they help spread the bacteria and other microorganisms involved in decomposition. These microbial communities change in predictable ways over time – even in extreme environmental scenarios – offering investigators a further indicator of the postmortem interval.

Chemical profiling of insect cuticular hydrocarbons (insect skin) provide definitive species and age signatures. These can reduce the risk of error associated with identification by people, and the time and costs of DNA sequencing.

The Silence of the Lambs official trailer (1991).

Forensic entomology has also expanded into areas such as entomotoxicology, where insects feeding on decomposing remains are analysed for the presence of drugs, toxins or other chemical compounds. It is even possible to recover the DNA of the individual on whom an insect has been feeding directly from that insect’s gut contents.

In The Silence of the Lambs, investigators assume that “water leaves no trace evidence of any kind”. Yet today, aquatic forensic researchers examine not only insects but crustaceans, microorganisms and bone proteins associated with decomposing remains in water.

Revisiting the moth cocoon scene

The film’s infamous moth cocoon scene – which saw the extracted evidence collected with forceps, then taken for visual inspection at a museum – would be approached rather differently today.

Firstly, spoons are now recommended over forceps to avoid damaging the sample. Modern forensic practice aims to preserve specimens by taking photographs before any manipulation. Where possible, insects are reared to the adult stage which is often easier to identify with certainty.

Rather than opening the cocoon, it could be compared as is with museum reference collections or analysed using technology such as hyperspectral imaging. This would confirm the species and estimate its developmental stage without altering the evidence.

Many high-profile cases, including some wrongful convictions, have demonstrated how forensic entomology can be a key tool in the investigation of current and historical crimes – as well as of natural disasters and war crimes.

However, technological advances are not enough. The reliability of forensic entomology depends on appropriate crime scene protocols, evidence collection, ongoing research and, perhaps most importantly, specialist training and attention to detail. These qualities are certainly embodied by agent Starling.

But there is another major difference since the film came out in 1991. Unlike Starling’s experience, women now represent a major part of the forensic science workforce. They contribute to a discipline that has become far more diverse, collaborative and scientifically advanced than the one portrayed in The Silence of the Lambs.


This article features a reference to a book included for editorial reasons, and a link to bookshop.org. If you click on this link and go on to buy something from bookshop.org, The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

The Conversation

Noemi Procopio receives funding from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) via a Future Leaders Fellowship, from National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and from Science and Technology in Policing.

Paola A. Magni does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. The Silence of the Lambs introduced the world to forensic entomology – but how much has the science changed since? – https://theconversation.com/the-silence-of-the-lambs-introduced-the-world-to-forensic-entomology-but-how-much-has-the-science-changed-since-283243

Xi and Putin tout ‘new type’ of world order in Beijing – but is their alliance really that strong?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Marcin Kaczmarski, Lecturer in Security Studies, University of Glasgow

Less than a week after hosting Donald Trump, China’s leader Xi Jinping welcomed his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, to Beijing. Unlike Trump’s visit, this was a routine meeting. The Chinese and Russian presidents have met more than 40 times since 2013, with the latest meeting marking Putin’s 25th visit to China.

The frequency of talks is itself a testimony to the expanding scope of shared interests between the two states. And, as is typical for Sino-Russian summits, Xi and Putin signed an array of documents following their meeting in areas ranging from energy to higher education and the media.

Xi and Putin may be close, but their promises of further cooperation hardly mean the friendship between them has “no limits”.

Opposition to US global primacy has formed the foundation of Sino-Russian cooperation since the end of the cold war. In a 1997 statement, the two nations condemned the “forcing of the international community to accept a uni-polar world pattern”. While not explicitly naming the US, they also added that no single country should monopolise international affairs.

Xi and Putin reiterated this message in Beijing. They adopted a statement in which they vowed to build a multipolar world order and a “new type” of international relations. However, putting this rhetoric into practice has consistently proved a complex undertaking.

Moscow and Beijing often choose the easiest and least expensive way of opposing the US. They have focused primarily on blocking US-backed initiatives and geopolitical strategies by vetoing UN Security Council resolutions.

But they have stopped short of launching any major joint effort to challenge US power. This was illustrated by the muted response of both countries to the ousting of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January, as well as their limited support for Iran in its war with the US and Israel.

One reason for this is the asymmetry in their capacity to help each other. Russia lacks the capacity to support China in the economic and technological domains, which are central to the Sino-American rivalry.

In terms of overcoming the US tariffs imposed on Chinese goods, Moscow can offer Beijing neither an alternative or much relief. The Russian market is not rich or attractive enough for Chinese companies, even before the possible fallout from secondary sanctions is considered.

Russia is also limited in its ability to help Beijing bypass US export controls designed to restrict China’s access to advanced technologies, from semiconductor manufacturing equipment to artificial intelligence hardware.

Western sanctions and recurrent failures to modernise the Russian economy have caused Russia to fall behind in the global technology race. And since 2022, Russia has been forced to rely on China for a number of technologies, from cars and laptops to 5G mobile networks.

China is in a different position. It has political, financial and economic means to support the Kremlin in its confrontation with the west. However, keen to preserve its own global interests, Beijing is highly selective in the support it provides to Moscow.

Chinese state propaganda mirrors Russian talking points and repeats Russia’s justification for its war in Ukraine, blaming the west and its “expansion” into former Soviet territories. China has also provided Russia with dual-use components like chips and fibre-optic cables without which the Kremlin could not sustain its war effort.

But, at the same time, China has refrained from providing lethal weapons to Russia. And Chinese armed forces that conduct regular exercises with their Russian counterparts and carry out joint air and naval patrols around Japan and South Korea, do not participate in similar activities in Europe.

China has also consistently delayed its final commitment to the proposed Power of Siberia-2 gas pipeline. The planned pipeline would transport additional natural gas from Siberia to China, partially compensating Russia’s loss of revenue from the European market.

The deepening asymmetry

Clearly, it is Beijing that dictates the pace of and areas for cooperation between the two countries. And Russia’s leadership seems ready to accept this “junior partner” status.

The Kremlin has sought to reconcile conflicting interests between Russia and China in recent years, particularly in central Asia, rather than challenge Beijing. For example, Moscow has remained silent on the presence of Chinese troops in Tajikistan, which was part of Russia’s former sphere of influence.

It helps that China treads carefully and puts substantial effort into creating the illusion of equality between itself and Russia. Despite the negative impact of Russia’s aggressive policy towards Ukraine on Chinese plans to work with Ukraine as part of the China-Europe railway transport corridor, for instance, Beijing has refrained from criticising Moscow’s conduct.

However, some Russians continue to see China as a threat. In recent years, several Russian scientists working on military programmes have been imprisoned following accusations of spying for China. The Russian government is itself also acutely aware of its deepening asymmetric dependence on Beijing.

It is nourishing ties with other Asian states, including countries like India and Vietnam that have historically had troubled relations with China. While China is an indispensable partner for Russia, Moscow looks to be wary of Beijing dominating east Asia and the Indo-Pacific.

The Conversation

Marcin Kaczmarski does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Xi and Putin tout ‘new type’ of world order in Beijing – but is their alliance really that strong? – https://theconversation.com/xi-and-putin-tout-new-type-of-world-order-in-beijing-but-is-their-alliance-really-that-strong-283333

Having a strong social network can help students deal with racial microaggressions

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Irene Vitoroulis, Associate Professor, Developmental Psychology, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

Many of us, at one time or another, have been in situations where something someone said or did felt offensive, hurtful or dismissive. These can be subtle, often unintentional, comments, questions or actions that suggest bias and negative assumptions about a person based on their identity.

Social scientists refer to them as microaggressions. They are called “micro” not because they have a small impact, but because they’re usually brief, subtle and occur during everyday interactions.

Racial microaggressions, specifically, are experiences of racism that take the form of slights, exclusions, assumptions and invalidation. Repeated over time, they can become a part of everyday social experiences.

Although racial microaggressions have been studied for decades, research is increasingly documenting how pervasive these experiences are in the daily lives of racialized young people and how they affect their mental health and well-being.

This is especially concerning for people in their late teens or early 20s. This time of life is marked by major social and academic transitions and increased vulnerability to mental health challenges.

In our recently published study, we surveyed over 1,300 students at a university in Ontario about racial microaggressions. We found that almost all of the racialized students experienced some kind of racial microaggressions.

Our study

University is a time of significant change in many people’s lives. For many, it might be the first time living away from their family home. It can also involve navigating changes in existing relationships and building new friendships and adjusting to new academic environments and demands while developing a sense of identity and belonging.

For racialized students, these transitions can also bring challenges and exposure to racial microaggressions and other forms of racism that can affect how safe and supported they feel.

University students are facing increased vulnerability to mental health difficulties, especially anxiety. Racial microaggressions can further exacerbate this burden for racialized students.

a young woman wearing a headscarf sitting at a table reading a book
University students are facing increased vulnerability to mental health difficulties, especially anxiety.
(Unsplash/Deddy Yoga Pratama)

In our study, participants completed a standard socio-demographic questionnaire where they could self-select their racial/ethnic identity, and responded to questions on mental health, racial microaggressions, and other constructs.

We also used an egocentric network approach that focuses on understanding the social networks of particular individuals. This allowed us to examine the different sources of support students received and how they function.

This approach provides a more fulsome understanding of social networks compared to more generalized self-reporting. Participants can indicate the socio-demographic characteristics of their friends, and the context and content of their interactions. For example, we asked participants questions such as: “Who helps you or gives you useful information when you need it?”

This kind of question gives us a nuanced understanding of network size and the richness that social relationships provide. It can inform interventions in mental health and well-being for all students, but in particular, racialized students and other marginalized populations.

All students completed the same questionnaires to describe full-sample patterns. However, our interpretation focused on racialized students because racial microaggressions are tied to broader histories and systems of racism, and do not have the same meaning or impact across groups.

Almost all racialized students in our study reported experiencing racial microaggressions, and they reported these experiences far more often than students who identified as white. The questionnaire assessed experiences such as being treated as though one does not belong, being assumed to be foreign, being treated as a second-class citizen or being subject to stereotypes about one’s racial or ethnic group.

These experiences were associated with poorer mental health outcomes. Students who reported more racial microaggressions also reported experiencing more depression, anxiety and loneliness.

Those who experienced one of these were more likely to experience the others as well. For example, more than 80 per cent of racialized students agreed with the statement: “Other people act as if all of the people of my race are alike.”

Social support matters

At the same time, our findings showed that social support matters. Having a larger and more supportive personal network was associated with lower levels of anxiety symptoms when racialized students experienced these microaggressions.

In particular, support that was emotional and relational appeared to matter most. When students said they had people who helped make them feel better, supported with problems at home or in whom they could confide, they felt less anxious in the face of racial microaggressions.

Students appeared less vulnerable when they had more people in their personal networks who offered emotional support, caring, self-validation and opportunities for intimate disclosure.

That was even more the case for the racialized students, who were more at risk of racial microaggressions. These findings align with the stress-buffering hypothesis: when students are dealing with racism, supportive ties may help buffer some of the negative impact.

Our findings suggest that social relationships are an important part of how students experience and cope with racial microaggressions. Supportive networks may help reduce the mental health risks associated with these experiences, especially for minoritized students who are more likely to encounter subtle forms of racism.

Universities also have an important role to play. They need to continue addressing racism at both systemic and interpersonal levels by strengthening culturally inclusive climates, institutional equity and restorative processes that recognize harm and promote repair.

This would also require addressing the interpersonal and institutional conditions that sustain them. Until then, any negative effects can be mitigated by supporting broad social networks, especially among minoritized youth.

What we still don’t know

The main drawback of our study is that our results are cross-sectional and based on a regionally limited sample. These data provide a snapshot of a slice of youth who experience racial microaggressions.

Therefore, we can’t make statements about the direction of these effects over time. It is possible that that social support reduces anxiety over time and that students’ mental health and prior experiences shape how they perceive, report and respond to everyday social interactions. More long-term research is needed to better understand these processes and their relations to each other.

It’s crucial to examine the trajectories of these processes over time and critically during the transition to university and later on in the workforce. These are periods when social networks change, support systems also change and exposure to new environments can increase vulnerability.

Strengthening students’ social environments, both on and off campus, may help racialized students cope with racial stressors and feel a stronger sense of belonging. Universities can support this by creating opportunities for meaningful connection, mentorship, peer connections, culturally responsive programming and community-building.

The Conversation

Irene Vitoroulis has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the University of Ottawa.

Jonathan B. Santo received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and Fonds Québécois de la Recherche Sur la Société et la Culture. Jonathan also served on the Publications committee of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, whose outlet, the International Journal of Behavioral Development, published the research paper this article is based on.

ref. Having a strong social network can help students deal with racial microaggressions – https://theconversation.com/having-a-strong-social-network-can-help-students-deal-with-racial-microaggressions-278037

Accentism for profit? What Telus is getting wrong about accents

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Molly Babel, Professor of Linguistics, University of British Columbia

Telus Digital, the global technology and digital services arm responsible for the telecommunication giant’s call centres, has recently deployed an “accent masking” artificial intelligence tool to change the way its offshore agents sound. The technology analyzes agents’ pronunciation in real time and reshapes their accents to more closely resemble generalized North American or British English speech patterns.

Linguistic profiling or accentism — stereotyping, treating someone unfairly or viewing them negatively based on their accent — can permeate aspects of our society in ways that have real-life consequences.

They can affect hiring decisions, outcomes of legal proceedings, assumptions about the crimes one might commit, assessments in education and access to housing.

Telus appears to be taking advantage of incredible technological advances in signal processing and resynthesis to reproduce an ugly aspect of human behaviour.

As language scholars we believe it is demeaning, manipulative and wrong. And, if we swap in nearly any other social characteristic, it would be discrimination. In order to see racism, we need to see race. So imagine a filter on glasses that changes people’s skin tone, for example, homogenizing our ethnic and racial identities.

There are several strands of evidence that indicate the accentism Telus is practising is not in the best interest of the call centre agents or Canadian consumers.

Some accents are harder

Our discriminatory tastes in speech start early. Children prefer playmates who share their accent, even in linguistically rich cities like Toronto. The credibility and trustworthiness adults attribute to individuals and voice-AI assistants vary with the accent.

Telus says it’s implementing an accent manipulation AI tool because some Telus customers have expressed difficulty in understanding “heavy foreign accents.” This is a leap in logic.

Researchers have known for decades that the perception of accent strength is not well-correlated with how well that voice can be understood. In the case of call centres in India or the Philippines, call agents may be first-language speakers of English, albeit a different variety than Canadian English.

As of yet, there is no public indication that this tech is being used on agents who speak English with a French Québécois accent or a Newfoundland one or a Cape Briton lilt. It’s also worth noting that everyone has an accent; unaccented speech is a myth. An accent is simply a way of speaking that is distinctive to a specific group. If this is genuinely about comprehension, then why would it apply to some accents and not others?

In any instance where we experience difficulty in understanding someone, it is always beneficial to pause and reflect on whether it is a “them problem” or a “me problem.” If there are others who find an accent comprehensible, it is most likely a “me problem.”

The cost of accent manipulation

Any human interaction is a two-way street, and the success of that communication comes, in large part, from an implicit collaborative building of understanding — an establishment of a common ground.

When Canadian customers are being duped about who they are talking to — even when this duping is, according to Telus, “to bridge communication gaps and deliver crystal-clear voice experiences” — a cornerstone of that communicative collaboration is removed, leaving an increased opportunity for misunderstanding.

Call centres often already have policies about “regulating identity” of their agents, including strict policies around accents, requirements that agents change their names to something more western-sounding or requirements that agents go through accent modification training.

These requirements can lead to workplace anxiety and stress, affecting the quality of the interaction between the consumer and agent.

Interestingly, call centre agents have already observed that if customers identify the accent as being fake or not genuine — when words and structures being used don’t match the accent — customer relations worsen, and customers become abusive.

What this means is that this “accent softening,” when identified as fake or if leading a customer to assume they are not speaking to a real person, may lead to more frustration by customers and worse treatment of call centre agents.

Exposure to diverse accents

Some might argue that it’s natural to have an easier time understanding someone whose accent is closely aligned with your own. This is true, but this benefit does not come on its own; it is a function of having more experience with an accent.

Think about it this way. There are probably people in your life that you find very easy to understand, like a spouse, family member or close friend. Indeed, that immense familiarity you have with a spouse’s voice makes it both easier to attend to and ignore your loved one. It doesn’t matter if their accent is the same as yours; it’s the experience that matters.

Experience renders both voices and accents more comprehensible. Diverse listening experiences can also make us better listeners, facilitating understanding of a wider range of accents. This is to say, as a listener, you stand to gain from exposing yourself to new voices and accents.

AI technology that can modify specific features of an acoustic speech signal while preserving the speaker’s individual identity is cool science. AI can be an incredibly useful tool, but also comes with a human responsibility. Responsible and human-centric approaches to AI should seek to limit harm.

In this case, the “accent softening” of Telus call centre agents is discriminatory to the agents. It’s also a morally dubious misrepresentation of identity to Canadian consumers that disrupts the natural and productive friction that comes with human interaction.

The Conversation

Molly Babel receives research funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

Amanda Cardoso receives research funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

ref. Accentism for profit? What Telus is getting wrong about accents – https://theconversation.com/accentism-for-profit-what-telus-is-getting-wrong-about-accents-282560