Famesick: Lena Dunham makes us laugh about a dream job turned brutal nightmare

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Liz Evans, Adjunct Researcher, English and Writing, University of Tasmania

During the final season of Lena Dunham’s acclaimed comedy drama series, Girls, the character she plays, Hannah Horvath, says her ambition as a writer is to make people laugh about painful things. In real life, this is exactly what Dunham has achieved with her second memoir, Famesick which opens with a prime example.

“It’s very hard to remember a time – aside from brief flashes of adrenaline on a set or a date or at a fashion party where people are inadvertently dressed like kids in a school play about Greek gods – when being in my body didn’t feel like towing a wrecked car across town at midnight,” she writes.

A searingly funny, bare-hearted exploration of the cost of success, Dunham’s book charts her meteoric rise as a young screenwriter, director and actor with brutal honesty.


Review: Famesick by Lena Dunham (4th Estate)


Smart, sassy and highly entertaining, Famesick is ultimately a painfully astute analysis of the ways a dream job can morph into a perilous nightmare. Particularly for someone who is neurodivergent, barely out of college, emotionally dependent on their parents and suffering from a rare, undiagnosed chronic disease.

Throughout the first decade of her glittering career, Dunham balanced precariously between adulation and critical attacks. Her intelligent, sharply observed humour defined her public and professional image, but her personal boundaries were all too permeable. The demands of her job bled into her life with devastating consequences for her body.

Careering from one disastrous man to another, leaning hard on colleagues and friends, Dunham looked to others for the psychological stability she hadn’t yet developed. Her heart dangerously exposed on her sleeve, she poured the events of her life into screenplays, medicated her stress and crashed her way through stardom, unprotected by the industry that relied on her.

The price of Dunham’s success was exorbitant, involving much more than long hours and hard work. Yet while parts of her story are harrowingly visceral, she refuses self-pity and keeps away from the confessional traps of trauma porn.

There is nothing gratuitous or exploitative in these pages and Dunham refrains from blaming others for her chaos. Instead, she frames her drug addiction, unhealthy relationship patterns and debilitating chronic health issues as the cost of her own ambition, with a central question in mind. Was it worth it?

A cursed, well-connected fairy tale

Dunham’s narrative begins like a modern-day fairy tale with the story of her name, chosen by her mother “because it sounded like the name of someone who could be a movie star or a lawyer with an equal measure of success”. As a legacy, this turned out to be something of a curse.

Raised within privileged and well connected New York circles, by artist parents, Dunham began experimenting with film-making while attending liberal arts college Oberlin. Her first breakthrough was in 2010, with the award-winning semi-autobiographical movie, Tiny Furniture. She was just 23.

book cover - Alice in Wonderland white tights and Mary Janes under a blue skirt

Six months after her film premiere, Dunham’s career skyrocketed when HBO contracted her to write and direct the pilot episode of Girls. Aiming to reflect the messy, early twenties stage of life, “when you don’t even know enough to even know what you’re looking for”, the show, like her film, starred herself and her childhood friend Jemima Kirke, with Allison Williams and Zosia Mamet completing the quartet of titular girls.

The series’ most intriguing character was arguably Hannah’s oddball boyfriend, Adam Sackler, played with unnerving conviction by Adam Driver in his first major role. Sackler, a misanthropic alcoholic, was based on Dunham’s real-life abusive lover in the first season. Later, the character evolved into a tender and devoted partner.

Off screen, Driver and Dunham’s relationship was, according to the book, also intense. The two actors skirted each other as Dunham tried to fathom her co-star’s unpredictable, occasionally explosive behaviour.

On one occasion, rehearsing a fight scene, he threw a chair at a wall when she couldn’t remember her lines. But while she recalls his verbal aggression and short temper, she also remembers spending “an inordinate amount of time wondering if Adam liked me”. Given the obvious strength of her seemingly unresolved feelings for Driver, it’s hard to know how to read her interpretation of him, though she clearly never figured him out.

With its frank, often hilarious, sometimes uncomfortable, all too relatable depictions of troubled friendship, awkward sex, career missteps and the fraught struggle for identity, Girls made a huge impact. From 2012, it ran for six seasons and five years, by which time all four main actors were turning 30. According to Dunham, the ending was planned to avoid losing “the creative clarity and specificity that gave it value”.

The show established Dunham as a sharp-sighted, uniquely talented visionary, but also attracted pernicious criticism that took her many years to process.

Accused of exploiting her nepo baby status, reviled for daring to expose her perfectly average physique, branded a myopic millennial, Dunham was both pummelled and pressurised for assuming the voice of her generation. “Or a voice,” as Dunham remembers her high-powered co-showrunner, Jenni Konner quipping. “Of a generation.”

Body as battleground

The irony of her situation was ridiculous. The whole point of Girls was to satirise the hot, flawed, contradictory tangle of young, white female adulthood experienced by Dunham and her friends. But like countless other women, Dunham was vilified for daring to give herself a platform. Worse – again, like so many other women – she experienced every mistake as an abject failure that filled her with shame.

Dunham’s extraordinary trajectory served as both example and warning to her peers, but behind the scenes of her controversial story, her body had become a battleground.

Between the pilot of Girls, when a colitis attack landed her in hospital, and the final season, when she shattered her elbow, collapsed from endometriosis and suffered a massive internal haemorrhagic cyst that caused so much pain she could barely walk, Dunham had chosen to “ignore my body’s noisy signals in favour of this thing I wanted so badly”.

In 2019, Dunham was diagnosed with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, a rare genetic connective tissue disorder that explained many of her symptoms. Prior to this, her faltering health was often just another source of shame. Hospital stays and bed rest delayed production, which was expensive and upset Konner. So Dunham numbed herself with prescription pills and kept going.

On the brink of her career, Dunham was in thrall to Konner. Brought in by HBO, the 38-year-old supervisor was already a television heavyweight and represented a big sister figure for the less experienced creator, who was her junior by 14 years.

Within days of their first meeting, Konner began divulging intimate details of her life and making extremely personal remarks to Dunham, all while teaching her how to write a pilot. But once filming started, she began exercising her authority “on a more sinister note”, telling her protegee she had to gain weight and look dowdy in order to stay funny.

Years later, when working with younger women herself, Dunham could see “how absurd it would seem to link myself to them in ways beyond the playful support system an on-set adult provides”. But as the ingenue, Dunham placed all her faith in Konner, and immersed herself in a lopsided relationship that grossly transgressed professional boundaries.

Together with Kirke, and Dunham’s long-term partner, music mogul Jack Antonoff, Konner became one of the author’s “three Js”; effectively a triumvirate who “defined my world, and in relation to whom I defined myself”. Caught up in this circle of co-dependency, Dunham was invariably left with an overwhelming sense of inadequacy. She felt she was

always in trouble with one of them for something: A dinner I arrived late for and left early. A messy breakdown I couldn’t predict or control … and the endless cycle of reassurance I required afterward. The only thing I could promise was to never miss a deadline.

Dunham is more circumspect when it comes to her parents. However, it’s impossible not to speculate over her enmeshed relationships in light of her family dynamic. Supportive, but also overprotective and possessive, her mother (“the original frenemy”) and father tended to burden her with “unreasonable expectations”.

And they appeared to have been threatened by her success, as Dunham explains, “because it forced them to admit how much of their own self-image rode on their own highly specific public identities”.

Other telling details are scattered throughout the book, including the death of her beloved anorexic grandmother and her estranged brother, Cyrus, who couldn’t bear the attention his older sister’s fame commanded. (A media storm over a passage in Dunham’s first book had resulted in claims she had sexually abused Cyrus when they were both children, and though Dunham strenuously denied this and issued an apology, damage was done.)

There is enough here to know that Dunham’s comparatively untold family story has been a difficult and complicated one, with firmly embedded roots and a pretty long shadow.

After Girls, Dunham’s life imploded. Her physical suffering culminated in a hysterectomy. She broke up with Antonoff after five years. And her addiction to benzodiasepines, taken to suppress her anxiety, finally landed her in rehab.

Her recovery, chronicled in the third part of the book, was slow and incremental as she learned to reappraise her work ethic, to accept her body and to learn to live with chronic illness. She also had to let go of Konner, which broke her heart, but helped her become more forgiving towards her younger, needier self.

As the book moves towards its poignant conclusion, which sees Dunham married to British musician Luis Felber and settled into a more sustainable rhythm of work and life, the price she has paid for fame becomes clear.

“Hollywood’s culture has always been permissive toward everything but human frailty,” she writes. And with this final insight, she points her reader back to the front of her book, and the long, tragic list of now-dead stars to whom her memoir is dedicated, along with “anyone else who was too Famesick to be cured”.

The Conversation

Liz Evans 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. Famesick: Lena Dunham makes us laugh about a dream job turned brutal nightmare – https://theconversation.com/famesick-lena-dunham-makes-us-laugh-about-a-dream-job-turned-brutal-nightmare-282725

Indigenous Australians were the world’s first astronomers. But their knowledge is now at risk

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Kai Lane, Traditional Owner Representative and Trainee Ecologist, Indigenous Knowledge

Oliver Strewe/Getty

I’m a proud Yorta Yorta and Barapa Barapa man, an Indigenous astronomer and a trainee ecologist.

When I look at the night sky, I don’t just see stars. Instead, I see an ancient knowledge system that has guided people, culture and Country for tens of thousands of years.

But that knowledge is now at risk. In many of our towns and cities, the stars are increasingly hidden behind a haze of artificial light. And that light pollution is threatening a unique way of understanding the world.

A ‘living classroom’

The night sky is a living classroom, at once a calendar, map, lore book and weather forecast.

Indigenous Elders share this knowledge with younger people – often outdoors, on Country, beneath the stars.

They may start by talking about constellations, which have helped guide Indigenous Australians for millenia.

One example is the Wangel or “long-necked turtle” constellation. Various Indigenous communities looked to this constellation, based on the bright orange star Pollux, to know when it was time to travel and gather for different ceremonies. This may be because the bright orange star reflects the turtle’s orange colouring.

Stars with a turtle traced over them
The Wangel (long-necked turtle) constellation.
Habitat Warriors, CC BY

Another is the Djurt or “red-rumped parrot” constellation. This constellation is based on the Antares star which appears bright red with a blue halo, resembling the parrot’s red and blue feathers. This constellation guided communities to spots where food was abundant, such as grasslands that were full of seeds.

Constellations also hold lore, or rules, that guide sustainable practices. For example, when the Otchocut or “Murray cod” constellation appears in the night sky, we do not hunt Murray Cod. This is because it becomes visible when the rivers are warm and the fish are breeding, typically between October to November. Similarly, when the red-rumped parrot constellation appears, that means the parrot is breeding and therefore cannot be hunted.

The stars may also provide weather forecasts, but only if you have the knowledge and observation skills to understand them. For example, a star that twinkles and appears bright blue suggests a storm is coming. And if a cluster of stars twinkle quickly, it may mean the wind will become stronger.

Stars with a fish traced over them
The Otchocut (Murray cod) constellation.
Habitat Warriors, CC BY

Stars and songlines

The routes laid out by the stars are often connected to songlines. Songlines, sometimes known as dreaming tracks, are cultural pathways that connect traditional sites. Songlines also act as “drop pins” that indicate where important resources, such as waterholes and food, may be.

A well-known example is the Seven Sisters dreamtime story, which recounts the journey of seven sisters that ultimately become part of the Taurus constellation. For some Indigenous communities in central Australia, the Seven Sisters serve as a kind of celestial map. This is because the seven stars roughly mirror the location of seven waterholes.

The threat of light

As our cities grow, light pollution from streetlights, floodlights and buildings is spreading. As a result, it’s increasingly rare to see dark nights and starry skies near urban areas.

For Indigenous communities, this has a direct cultural impact.

Light pollution makes it near impossible to connect with the stars, and therefore share Indigenous sky knowledge with younger generations.

A small furry dark brown bat clinging to a branch
Microbats are an important Barapa Barapa men’s totem.
Chris Lindorff /iNaturalist, CC BY

Light pollution also affects culturally important species. In Barapa Barapa culture, the microbat is a men’s totem and the nightjar is a women’s totem. Both are nocturnal animals that rely on darkness, so artificial light makes it harder for them to survive.

Beyond culture, light pollution has widespread ecological impacts, affecting how animals grow, behave and breed. Research suggests light pollution can stop clownfish eggs from hatching, shrink the brains of spiders and disorient threatened seabirds such as petrels and shearwaters.

It can also negatively affect human health. Research shows artificial light – particularly from LED lights and electronic devices – may trigger sleep and mood disorders and certain cardiovascular problems.

The nocturnal Nightjar is an important Barapa Barapa women’s totem.
DH Fischer/iNaturalist, CC BY

So, what can we do?

The good news is, we can each help reduce light pollution by making simple lifestyle changes. Here are some ideas:

  • turn off outdoor lights whenever you’re not using them
  • use lightbulbs with a lower brightness and warmer colouring
  • choose light designs that direct light only where its needed
  • close curtains and blinds at night to stop indoor light from spilling out
  • during festive times such as Christmas, opt for daytime decorations instead of outdoor lights.

We can also better regulate the use of artificial light outdoors. Currently, Australia does not have any regulations around light pollution. But countries such as France have substantially reduced their light pollution levels by regulating what kind of lighting people can use and install.

Together, stronger regulation and simple lifestyle tweaks could help us tackle light pollution. And that’s key to keeping Indigenous sky knowledge alive.

Kai Lane talks about Indigenous astronomy and the harm caused by light pollution.

The Conversation

Kai Lane works for Ecology Restoration Australia and also co-leads the Habitat Warriors program.

Jaana Dielenberg is an Ambassador for the Australasian Dark Sky Alliance, Science Communication Director of the Biodiversity Council, Honorary Fellow at The University of Melbourne and University Fellow (Biodiversity) at Charles Darwin University. She was previously employed under a grant funded by the Australian government’s National Environmental Science Program Threatened Species Recovery Hub.

Kaori Yokochi is a lecturer at Deakin University. She receives funding from various organisations for her ecological research. She is also a member of the Network for Ecological Research on Artificial Light and the Australasian Dark Sky Alliance.

ref. Indigenous Australians were the world’s first astronomers. But their knowledge is now at risk – https://theconversation.com/indigenous-australians-were-the-worlds-first-astronomers-but-their-knowledge-is-now-at-risk-281435

Elon Musk sued OpenAI and lost. But the core question of the case remains unanswered

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Alexandra Andhov, Chair in Law and Technology, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

On Monday, a nine-member federal jury in Oakland, California took less than two hours to dismiss Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI and its chief executive Sam Altman.

Crucially, the jury did not rule on the core claims of the case. These included whether OpenAI, the company behind the popular artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot ChatGPT, strayed from its founding mission and whether Altman and OpenAI’s co-founder Greg Brockman enriched themselves at the expense of a charitable purpose.

It decided only that Musk had waited too long to sue in relation to his core claims about breaches of a founding contract or breach of charitable trust.

A victory for Musk could have neutered OpenAI, which in turn would have probably sent shockwaves through the entire AI sector given the company’s dominant position developing the technology.

Now, however, OpenAI has a clear path to take its next big step in the AI race, even though the key question at the core of the case remains unanswered: is OpenAI a nonprofit dedicated to humanity or a corporation dedicated to its shareholders?

How it all started

OpenAI was founded in December 2015 as a nonprofit entity – an AI research lab.

Musk and a group of prominent entrepreneurs pledged US$1 billion to develop AI for the benefit of humanity, free of commercial pressure. Alongside Musk, the founding group included Altman, Brockman and computer scientist Ilya Sutskever.

The organisation’s charter committed to two key principles. First, developing artificial general intelligence safely and for the benefit of all of humanity.

Second, developing the technology openly, meaning it would be open source. This would allow others to use their underlying models, code, and research freely.

This was the deal Musk says he signed up for. And OpenAI claims it continues to honour this deal even today, despite more than US$20 billion in revenue in 2025.

Since 2015, a lot has happened. And understanding these events is key to interpreting the jury’s verdict.

A very different deal

By 2019, the original deal looked different. Given that training frontier AI models was extraordinarily expensive, Altman started to seek more cash.

OpenAI created a capped-profit subsidiary where investors could earn up to 100 times their initial investment, with any extra money flowing back to the nonprofit parent.

One of the first investors was Microsoft, which initially invested US$1 billion and more than US$13 billion over time. The nonprofit retained formal governance, the usual nonprofit rules applied, but the commercial subsidiary became the decision-maker.

That same year, OpenAI released GPT-2. The model was released partially, in stages, rather than published as open source. This was the moment the “open” in OpenAI began to read differently.

GPT-3 followed in 2020, and it was available only via a paid subscription. The inner workings of the model also remained secret. ChatGPT launched in November 2022, and reached 100 million users in a few days.

Twelve months later, OpenAI’s nonprofit board fired Sam Altman, citing a loss of confidence in his candour. This was what the governance structure was meant for: to protect the organisation’s humanity-first mission, the board had the power to remove the chief executive.

Yet, within five days, after pressure from Microsoft and the employees, Altman was back and the board was out. A new board that aligned with the commercially-driven enterprise took their seats.

The mechanism built to keep OpenAI accountable to its charter was the one that lost. Whatever the “humanity claim” of the founding mission was supposed to mean, commercial interests prevailed.

A sweeping reorganisation

In October 2025, after nearly a year of negotiation with the attorneys general of California (where OpenAI is headquartered) and Delaware (where it is incorporated), the organisation completed a sweeping reorganisation.

The nonprofit became the OpenAI Foundation, with the same mission: “to ensure artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity”. The for-profit became a public benefit corporation, called OpenAI Group PBC. Unlike a conventional corporation, it is required to advance its stated mission and consider the broader interests of all stakeholders.

The OpenAI Foundation holds a 26% stake in the new public benefit corporation and retains some contractual and special shareholder governance rights. Microsoft owns 27% and the remaining 47% is owned by other investors and employees.

Thus the Foundation controls the public benefit corporation in form. Yet in practice, OpenAI is now a profit-seeking enterprise with a charitable shareholder. So while a number of nonprofit governance guardrails are in place, significant deficiencies remain.

The unanswered question

OpenAI is now openly preparing for a public listing at the end of 2026, at an expected valuation at up to US$1 trillion, even as it defends dozens of pending lawsuits, ranging from intellectual property infringement and consumer protection claims to a wrongful death suit.

This is the part the jury did not address.

A verdict on a statute of limitations is a statement about timing, not purpose. It tells us when a complaint can be heard. It does not tell us whether the complaint was right. And in this particular case, it demonstrates the difficulty in relying on private individuals to enforce non-profit governance norms.

Musk has said he will appeal the verdict. The appeal court will almost certainly limit itself to a narrow legal question – perhaps when a reasonable plaintiff should have understood OpenAI had changed.

The larger question about whether OpenAI is a nonprofit dedicated to humanity or a corporation dedicated to its shareholders, has now been deferred indefinitely – at least in a legal context.

The public, however, will no doubt make up its own mind about a company now worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

The Conversation

Alexandra Andhov is the director of ALTeR (Center for Advancing Law and Technology Responsibly) at the University of Auckland. She received funding from the Independent Research Fund Denmark for the “PROFIT” Project (Gaps and Opportunities in Corporate Governance of Big Tech Companies) to research big tech companies.

Ian Murray is a Professor of Law at the University of Western Australia, Director of the Charity Law Association of Australia and New Zealand and also a member of the Law Council of Australia’s Charity and Not-for-profits Sub-committee.

ref. Elon Musk sued OpenAI and lost. But the core question of the case remains unanswered – https://theconversation.com/elon-musk-sued-openai-and-lost-but-the-core-question-of-the-case-remains-unanswered-283256

Philadelphia will celebrate Ona Judge Day to honor Martha Washington’s enslaved maid who made a daring escape to freedom

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Timothy Welbeck, Director of the Center for Anti-Racism, Temple University

The National Park Service removed an exhibit on slavery at the President’s House site in Philadelphia on Jan. 22, 2026. AP Photo/Matt Rourke

On the evening of May 21, 1796, Ona Judge made the daring decision to free herself.

Considering the prominence of her owner, the laws of the time and the dangerous trek to New Hampshire, a place where she could discreetly live freely, the act carried remarkable risk. Nevertheless, she slipped out of the President’s House undetected while the first family dined.

The house, then located at the intersection of 6th and Market streets in Philadelphia, served as the first executive mansion. It stood mere feet from Independence Hall, where the nation adopted its lofty language regarding freedom.

Panels with pictures and text affixed to the exterior of a building
The slavery exhibition at Independence Hall opened in December 2010. It was the first slavery memorial on federal land in U.S. history.
Michael Yanow/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Years later, Judge described her narrow escape to Rev. Benjamin Chase in an interview for the abolitionist newspaper The Liberator. Judge told Chase, “I had friends among the colored people of Philadelphia, had my things carried there beforehand, and left Washington’s house while they were eating dinner.”

Prior to her escape, Judge served as a chambermaid in the President’s House. She spent years tending to Martha Washington’s every need: bathing and dressing her, grooming her hair, laundering her clothes, organizing her personal belongings, and even periodically caring for her children and grandchildren.

Being a chambermaid also included grueling daily tasks such as maintaining fires, emptying chamber pots and scrubbing floors.

Even though she engaged in this arduous labor as property of the Washingtons, living in Philadelphia provided Judge a glimpse of what freedom could eventually look like for her. Historians estimate that 5% to 9% of the city’s population at the time were free Black people. Prior to her escape, Judge befriended several of them.

Dark, moody painting depicting Black woman taking care of children by a fireplace
An oil painting titled ‘Mt. Vernon Kitchen’ by Eastman Johnson, 1864.
Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association

In the spring of 1796, the Washingtons prepared to return to Virginia to resume private life. President Washington issued his farewell address in the fall of 1796, but he told family and close confidants of his plans earlier in the year.

During that time, Martha Washington made arrangements for their pending return to Mount Vernon. Her plans included bequeathing Ona Judge to her granddaughter, Elizabeth Parke Custis, as a wedding gift. Upon learning this, Judge made plans of her own.

In her interview with Chase she explained, “Whilst they were packing up to go to Virginia, I was packing to go, I didn’t know where; for I knew that if I went back to Virginia, I should never get my liberty.”

As a civil rights lawyer and professor in the Africology and African American Studies department at Temple University in Philadelphia, I study the intersection of race, racism and the law in the United States. I am pleased that the city of Philadelphia has decided to honor May 21 as “Ona Judge Day” starting this year, as I believe Judge’s story is vital to the telling of America’s history, despite attempts by the Trump administration to erase that legacy.

Dismantling history

Erica Armstrong Dunbar, a professor of African American Studies at Emory University, tells Judge’s fascinating story in her book “Never Caught: The Washingtons’ Relentless Pursuit of their Runaway Slave Ona Judge.”

Before January 2026, those who wished to learn about Judge could literally stand on the same walkway in Philadelphia where Judge once stood when she chose to flee. Several footprints, shaped like a woman’s shoes and embedded into the pathway outside of where the President’s House once stood, memorialize the beginning of Judge’s journey. These footprints composed part of an exhibit examining the paradox between slavery, freedom and the nation’s founding.

The exhibit, “Freedom and Slavery in the Making of a New Nation,” also included 34 explanatory panels bolted onto brick walls along that sidewalk. They provided biographical details about the nine people the Washingtons owned while living in the presidential mansion. The exhibit presented the sobering reality that our nation’s first president enslaved people while he held the nation’s highest office.

Colorful illustration on a panel on wall of brick building
These and other panels discussing the founders’ owning of slaves were removed in late January 2026, after an executive order issued by President Donald Trump in March 2025 called to eliminate materials deemed disparaging to the Founding Fathers or the legacy of the United States.
Matthew Hatcher/Getty Images

This changed in late January when the National Park Service dismantled the slavery exhibit at Philadelphia Independence National Historic Park. The removal sparked intense, immediate outrage from people across the country dismayed by the attempt to suppress unfavorable aspects of American history.

Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker responded swiftly. “Let me affirm, for the residents of the city of Philadelphia, that there is a cooperative agreement between the city and the federal government that dates back to 2006,” she said in a public statement. “That agreement requires parties to meet and confer if there are to be any changes made to an exhibit.”

The city of Philadelphia later sued Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and National Park Service acting Director Jessica Bowron. Pennsylvania subsequently filed an amicus brief in support of the city’s lawsuit.

After an inspection of the exhibit’s panels, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe, who oversaw the case, ruled that the government must mitigate any potential damage to them while they are stored.

Civil rights activist and Philadelphia-based attorney Michael Coard had an opportunity to visit and examine the exhibits in storage prior to a ruling from Rufe that ultimately ordered their restoration. Coard led the fight to create and preserve the exhibit and later led the fight to restore it.

Man in overcoat and sunglasses holds up phone, with brick walls around him
Philadelphia-based attorney Michael Coard, who helped lead the effort to create the exhibition, visited the site after its removal.
AP Photo/Matt Rourke

Limiting discussion of race

In ruling to “reinstall all panels, displays, and video exhibits that were previously in place,” Rufe referenced George Orwell’s “1984.” She chided the federal government’s efforts to “dissemble and disassemble historical truths.” Critics had raised similar concerns and argued that the National Park Service’s dismantling of the exhibit was an attempt to “whitewash history” and erase stories like Ona Judge’s.

Avenging the Ancestors Coalition, a Philadelphia-based organization dedicated to preserving Black history, has scheduled a celebration on May 21, 2026, at Independence Hall to honor Ona Judge Day and Judge’s courageous escape more than two centuries ago.

Organizers feel greater urgency to share this history around slavery in the U.S. because of actions by the federal government that seek to suppress it. For example, the Trump administration has restored and reinstalled two Confederate monuments of Albert Pike in Washington and Arlington National Cemetery, while it removed the slavery exhibit in Philadelphia.

Moreover, during the first week of his second term, Trump signed multiple executive orders to eliminate
diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

Similarly, during the first Trump administration, the federal government engaged in various efforts to counterbalance the 1619 Project, a project spearheaded by Pulitzer-winning journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones that discussed the 400th anniversary of slavery’s beginnings in America. The 1619 Project spawned yearslong backlash. This included the 1776 Commission, created during the first Trump administration, which tried to discredit the conclusions of the 1619 project.

It is all part of a broader pattern across the country to limit how public institutions broach topics pertaining to race and racism.

This pattern has intensified as the United States prepares to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the framers signing the Declaration of Independence. As the nation celebrates its history, it must decide how much of it to explore.

_This is an updated version of an article originally published on Feb. 11, 2026.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, or sign up for our Philadelphia newsletter on Substack.

The Conversation

Timothy Welbeck has colleagues and affiliates who are members of Avenging the Ancestors Coalition, an organization which is mentioned in this article.

ref. Philadelphia will celebrate Ona Judge Day to honor Martha Washington’s enslaved maid who made a daring escape to freedom – https://theconversation.com/philadelphia-will-celebrate-ona-judge-day-to-honor-martha-washingtons-enslaved-maid-who-made-a-daring-escape-to-freedom-283353

Special courts helps veterans stay out of jail – but funding cuts to VA and 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 cuts to the Department of Veteran Affairs as well as 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, the federal funding cuts for both the VA and mental health treatment more generally 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.

The Conversation

Jamie Rowen receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

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

What Jefferson and Madison would have thought about ‘rededicating’ the US to God

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Steven K. Green, Professor of Law, Director of the Center for Religion, Law & Democracy, Willamette University

Many of the thousands of letters between the two founders attest to their deep commitment to religious freedom. AlexanderZam/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Thousands of Americans prayed on the National Mall on May 17, 2026, during “Rededicate 250”: a day-long rally to “come together in prayer and worship ahead of the nation’s 250th birthday,” as organizers described it. U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, one of many Republican politicians and conservative Christian leaders to speak, led a prayer to “rededicate the United States of America as one nation under God.”

Planned by Freedom 250, a public-private partnership, the rally prompted criticism that it blurred the lines separating church and state. According to the Pew Research Center, 73% of adults agree that religion should be kept separate from government policies, and only 19% of Americans say the United States should stop enforcing that principle.

But figures allied with the Trump administration have challenged the premise that the U.S. government should be – or was meant to be – separate from religion. In 2023, Johnson remarked that “The separation of church and state is a misnomer … it comes from a phrase that was in a letter that Jefferson wrote. It’s not in the Constitution. And what he was explaining is they did not want the government to encroach upon the church – not that they didn’t want principles of faith to have influence on our public life.”

As a scholar of American legal and religious history, I have written extensively about the development of religious freedom in the U.S., and the origins of the separation of church and state.

Two of the Founding Fathers shaped American views on these topics more than any other: Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Yet their views have also become lightning rods for controversy as the “wall” between church and state comes under scrutiny.

My 2024 book, “The Grand Collaboration,” seeks to answer several questions: What was Jefferson’s and Madison’s understanding of religious freedom? And why were they so deeply committed to that principle?

Bedrock of law – in Virgina and beyond

Jefferson wrote the Virginia Bill for Religious Freedom in 1777, the most comprehensive declaration of religious freedom at the time. The bill guaranteed freedom of conscience, protected religious assemblies from government oversight, prohibited government funding of religious institutions and boldly declared that religious opinions were outside the authority of civil officials.

An obelisk-shaped grave sits in a grassy area with trees.
Thomas Jefferson asked that his gravesite commemorate three of his accomplishments, including writing Virginia’s statute for religious freedom.
Christopher Hollis/Wikimedia Commons

Several years later, Madison guided these ideals into law. His “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” a protest against a proposal to support Christian teachers with tax money, affirmed the values of church-state separation and religious equality. He helped defeat the proposal – and set the stage for Virginia to adopt Jefferson’s bill.

As president, Jefferson went on to pen a letter to a Baptist association in Connecticut where he immortalized the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state.”

The Bill of Rights contains two clauses about religion, both in the First Amendment: that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

What qualifies as “establishment of religion,” however, is open to debate.

In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court embraced church-state separation as the guiding principle for interpreting the religion clauses, relying extensively on the two Virginians’ writings and actions. As Justice Hugo Black wrote, “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’”

The duo’s documents served as the authority for the legal principle of church-state separation, and for more than five decades, their bona fides remained unquestioned in the law.

Shift at SCOTUS

Criticism of church-state separation intensified in the 1980s. As the religious right grew into a political force, commentators argued that the concept was anti-religious and did not represent the prevailing views about church and state during the founders’ time.

In recent decades, such arguments have attracted politicians and jurists, including members of the Supreme Court. Justice Clarence Thomas has written that the court’s earlier separationist interpretations of the Constitution “sometimes bordered on religious hostility.” Legal scholar Philip Hamburger has declared that “the constitutional authority for separation is without historical foundation” and “should at best be viewed with suspicion.”

Several recent Supreme Court decisions have rejected a separationist approach to church-state matters. For example, the conservative majority has allowed taxpayer dollars to be used at religious schools, the display of religious symbols on government property, and religious expression by public school employees.

In a 2022 dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor bemoaned that the court has turned the separation of church and state from a “constitutional commitment” to a “constitutional violation.”

The justices’ earlier reliance on Jefferson and Madison has borne the brunt of criticism that their views on church-state matters did not represent their peers, or that neither man was in favor of separation as he has been portrayed.

Exchange of ideas

To better understand Jefferson’s and Madison’s beliefs, I examined many of the 2,300 letters between the two on “Founders Online,” a National Archives website. I also looked at correspondence with other acquaintances.

Both founders had deistic leanings, meaning they believed in a supreme being, but thought science and reason were the best paths to understanding religion. They were only nominally observant Christians, but more protected from religious intolerance than other “dissenters” due to their high social standing and affiliation with the Anglican Church.

A formal portrait of a man staring at the viewer, with white hair, a white shirt with a high neck, and a black jacket.
Thomas Jefferson’s official presidential portrait, painted around 1800 by Rembrandt Peale.
White House History via Wikimedia Commons

All the more striking, then, that they worked throughout their lives to advance religious freedom.

Religious matters were never far from their minds. For instance, in Madison and Jefferson’s exchanges discussing the need for a bill of rights, freedom of conscience was invariably at the top of the list. Both were convinced that government should avoid supporting religion, even if no particular religion was given preference. They also insisted that people should have broad religious freedoms.

These views were clearly on the vanguard, but other religious rationalists and religious dissenters also advocated a comprehensive understanding of religious freedom.

Both men were committed to advancing religious freedom because they saw it as deeply entwined with freedom of inquiry and conscience. “Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error,” Jefferson wrote in 1784. Allowing people to investigate ideas freely “will support the true religion,” because “Truth can stand by itself.”

Similarly, Madison declared “the freedom of conscience to be a natural and absolute right.”

In their view, free inquiry was the fount of other rights. Religious freedom, for example, was a subset of freedom of conscience. And a healthy separation of church and state was key to ensuring those freedoms.

‘A pillar of support’

The letters reveal the extent to which Jefferson and Madison complemented and reinforced each other’s attitudes toward church and state. They also reveal the close intellectual and emotional affection that each man held for the other, and how much each man valued the other’s support.

A portrait of a man with white hair, a white shirt with a high neck, and a black jacket.
A portrait of James Madison by Chester Harding, painted around 1829, a few years before his death.
Daderot/National Portrait Gallery via Wikimedia Commons

In their final exchanges before Jefferson’s death on July 4, 1826, he implored Madison, “To myself, you have been a pillar of support thro’ life. Take care of me when dead, and be assured that I shall leave with you my last affections.”

Madison responded with similar affection: “You cannot look back to the long period of our private friendship & political harmony, with more affecting recollections than I do.”

Jefferson’s and Madison’s half-century of collaboration on behalf of religious freedom and equality is an important chapter in the nation’s founding history. I believe its legacy should be remembered and celebrated, not discarded.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on June 25, 2024.

The Conversation

Steven K. Green 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. What Jefferson and Madison would have thought about ‘rededicating’ the US to God – https://theconversation.com/what-jefferson-and-madison-would-have-thought-about-rededicating-the-us-to-god-283311

Innovar en el campo también es cosa de mujeres, pero ellas lo hacen de otra manera

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Almudena Gómez-Ramos, Profesor Titular de Economía, Sociología y Política Agraria, Universidad de Valladolid

Zoteva/Shutterstock

El sector agrario atraviesa una profunda transformación impulsada por los ajustes que exige el mercado, el impacto del cambio climático y las crecientes demandas ambientales procedentes de Europa. En este contexto, la innovación ya no es una opción, sino una condición imprescindible para la supervivencia. Quienes no logran adaptarse corren el riesgo de quedar fuera, como ya está ocurriendo con numerosas explotaciones que desaparecen o son absorbidas por otras de mayor tamaño.

En España, menos de tres de cada diez explotaciones agrarias están dirigidas por mujeres y, en promedio, son más pequeñas y menos rentables. Aun así, muchas agricultoras y ganaderas lideran transformaciones clave en el medio rural mediante la innovación, la diversificación y nuevas formas de producir y comercializar, aunque a menudo su papel siga siendo poco visible.

Durante décadas, el trabajo de las mujeres en la agricultura y la ganadería ha quedado diluido en el ámbito familiar, como si fuera una prolongación natural de los cuidados y no una actividad económica con identidad propia. No es que no participaran: es que su contribución rara vez se reconocía como tal. Esa invisibilidad histórica sigue proyectando su sombra en el presente. Persisten esos roles asignados y una falta de autovaloración de su trabajo y de lo que este implica.

Y es ahí donde reside la paradoja: aunque las mujeres siguen siendo minoría en la titularidad de las explotaciones, están protagonizando una parte significativa de los procesos de innovación que están transformando el sector agrario.

Algo está cambiando en el campo

Hoy, muchas agricultoras y ganaderas no solo participan en la actividad agraria, sino que están impulsando formas distintas de innovar. Porque innovar en el campo no consiste únicamente en incorporar maquinaria más avanzada o adoptar nuevas tecnologías –aunque ellas también lo hacen–. Es, cada vez más, repensar el modelo productivo, explorar nuevas formas de comercialización, diversificar actividades o reconstruir vínculos con el territorio.

En este terreno, las mujeres están ampliando los límites de lo que entendemos por innovación. Junto a las mejoras técnicas, es frecuente encontrar iniciativas que combinan producción y transformación. También apuestan por la venta directa o los circuitos cortos, incorporan el agroturismo o generan redes de colaboración entre productoras. Son estrategias que no solo buscan rentabilidad económica, sino también sostenibilidad, arraigo territorial y calidad de vida.

Este enfoque más amplio no es casual. Responde, en muchos casos, a una manera distinta de entender la explotación agraria: no solo como una unidad productiva, sino como un proyecto vital. La innovación, así, deja de ser una decisión puntual para convertirse en un proceso continuo de adaptación, aprendizaje y conexión con el entorno.

En este punto, conviene preguntarse si estamos entendiendo la innovación con mirada adecuada. Muchas iniciativas impulsadas por mujeres no se reconocen porque no encajan en indicadores centrados en la tecnología o la productividad, lo que evidencia la necesidad de ampliar cómo se define y mide la innovación agraria. Además, estas innovaciones suelen basarse en la colaboración, el intercambio de conocimiento y la cooperación entre actores. Reconocerlas y valorarlas resulta esencial para promover un modelo agrario más territorial, cohesionado y sostenible para las comunidades rurales.

El potencial transformador convive con una realidad llena de obstáculos

Las mujeres siguen siendo minoría en la titularidad de las explotaciones, especialmente en las de mayor tamaño y rentabilidad. También tienen menor acceso a las ayudas de la PAC (Política Agraria Común), en parte asociadas con estructuras productivas que históricamente las han excluido. La mayor parte de las ayudas que reciben las explotaciones en Europa están vinculadas a la superficie cultivada, lo cual perpetúa la brecha de género respecto al importe medio recibido.

A ello se suman barreras menos visibles, pero igualmente decisivas. La falta de tiempo derivada de la sobrecarga de cuidados, la escasez de servicios en el medio rural o la ausencia de referentes femeninos en posiciones de liderazgo limitan sus oportunidades de emprender y consolidar proyectos innovadores. En muchos casos, no se trata de falta de capacidad o de iniciativa, sino de un entorno que no está diseñado para ellas.

El territorio tampoco ayuda. En amplias zonas rurales, la despoblación, el envejecimiento y la falta de infraestructuras dificultan el acceso a formación, mercados o redes de apoyo. La conectividad digital, clave para muchos procesos innovadores, sigue siendo insuficiente en algunos espacios. Innovar, en estas condiciones, exige un esfuerzo añadido.

En los últimos años se han incorporado desde la PAC medidas orientadas a favorecer la participación de las mujeres en el sector primario. Pero la mayor parte de estas intervenciones siguen operando bajo una lógica aparentemente neutral que, en la práctica, reproduce desigualdades. No basta con incluir a las mujeres como beneficiarias: es necesario revisar las reglas del juego. De lo contrario, las políticas actúan sobre los síntomas de la desigualdad, pero no sobre las causas que la generan.

Porque la cuestión de fondo no es solo cuántas mujeres hay en el sector, sino en qué condiciones participan, qué capacidad de decisión tienen y si el propio sistema les está permitiendo –o impidiendo– ser verdaderas agentes de transformación.

Ante esta coyuntura, las agricultoras reclaman políticas más adaptadas al territorio, menos burocracia y mayor presencia en los espacios de decisión. También demandan medidas concretas para reducir la incertidumbre en el sector agrario, mejorar el acceso a la tierra y al asesoramiento, facilitar la conciliación, reforzar las infraestructuras rurales y simplificar los marcos normativos.

Ha llegado el momento de cambiar la mirada

No se trata solo de incorporar más mujeres al campo, sino de reconocer su papel clave en la transformación del medio rural. Muchas respuestas a desafíos como la sostenibilidad, la cohesión territorial o el relevo generacional pasan por las formas de innovación que ellas impulsan. El futuro agrario depende también del modelo de desarrollo que se quiera promover. En un modelo vinculado al territorio, las mujeres ya están marcando el camino.

The Conversation

Las personas firmantes no son asalariadas, ni consultoras, ni poseen acciones, ni reciben financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y han declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado anteriormente.

ref. Innovar en el campo también es cosa de mujeres, pero ellas lo hacen de otra manera – https://theconversation.com/innovar-en-el-campo-tambien-es-cosa-de-mujeres-pero-ellas-lo-hacen-de-otra-manera-282096

¿Habla un ‘buen’ español Bad Bunny?

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Lourdes Moreno Cazalla, Doctora en Comunicación. Autora del estudio para el Observatorio Nebrija del Español "El boom de la música urbana latina y la expansión del español a nivel global", Universidad Nebrija

Ahora mismo, hablar de música en español a nivel internacional es hablar de Bad Bunny. agustin.photo/Shutterstock

Para la Real Academia Española, un “piquete” es algo que pincha, una herida pequeña o un grupo de huelguistas que bloquea el acceso a una fábrica. Es una palabra asociada a daño o conflicto.

Sin embargo, cuando Bad Bunny entona en “NUEVAYoL” aquello de “Tú tiene’ piquete, mami, yo también”, no está hablando de sindicatos ni de cicatrices. Está apelando a algo invisible, casi metafísico, una mezcla de autoconfianza, de actitud y estilo, una forma muy específica de caminar por el mundo.

“Piquete” tiene ese significado en jerga boricua, una de las características lingüísticas de la música del cantante. Otra es que el puertorriqueño carga con otra objeción recurrente, que “no se le entiende”.

El artista que ha llevado el español a más escenarios globales que ningún otro en la historia reciente es, al mismo tiempo, uno de los más criticados por su forma de hablarlo. Objeciones como “no sabe hablar”, “deforma el idioma”, “no vocalizase repiten en redes con una regularidad que dice más sobre qué versión del español consideramos legítima para representarnos en el mundo que sobre la lengua del artista.

‘Las termino con la L, con la R suenan mal’

Estos comentarios apuntan a una disputa que enfrenta el hasta hace un tiempo entendido como español normativo, codificado, académico, con el español que se habla en las esquinas de Vega Baja (Puerto Rico), en los mensajes de voz de cualquier ciudad latinoamericana, en los barrios de Estados Unidos o en las comunidades autónomas de España. Es desde este último desde el que se expresa Bad Bunny.

Desde sus primeros éxitos, parte de las críticas se centraron en la propia variedad lingüística que utiliza. Su forma de hablar con rasgos característicos del español caribeño, como la aspiración o pérdida de consonantes finales, el léxico coloquial puertorriqueño, el uso del spanglish o fenómenos como el lambdacismo –la sustitución de la /r/ por la /l/ en determinadas posiciones– han sido frecuentemente señalados como ejemplos de un supuesto “mal español”.

‘La gente tiene que dejal de sel tan estúpido y pensal que conocen la vida de lo’ famoso’‘, canta Bad Bunny en ‘Nadie sabe’.

Sin embargo, lo que antes se percibía como local o marginal hoy circula a escala global. Millones de personas consumen, repiten y reconocen expresiones, pronunciaciones y estructuras propias del español boricua. No necesariamente porque comprendan todos sus matices, sino porque forman parte de una identidad cultural reconocible.

Según los datos del informe “Del artista al sistema: Bad Bunny y la circulación global del español en la música digital” que hemos publicado en el Observatorio Nebrija del Español, tras la Super Bowl canciones como “NUEVAYoL” registraron búsquedas en Shazam desde países como Alemania, Italia, Francia y Reino Unido. Es decir, oyentes en mercados no hispanohablantes y que no entienden completamente el idioma lo consumen y lo buscan activamente.

Bad Bunny ha logrado invertir, para amplios sectores de la audiencia global, los prejuicios sobre el género urbano latino.

‘Baby, tú lo hace’ como si supiera’

Y si ese mismo efecto arrastra consigo al español ¿se puede aceptar la música y rechazar el acento?

La investigadora Sheila Rodríguez Madera es especialista en estudios socioculturales sobre Puerto Rico y coautora de The Bad Bunny Enigma (2024). Su argumento es que el cantante “no huye de esa condición; la performativiza. Se mueve dentro de estructuras coloniales –la industria cultural global, el mercado norteamericano–, pero las subvierte desde adentro, afirmando su acento, su jerga y su mirada local. Esa tensión lo vuelve figura de resistencia simbólica: visibiliza la precariedad y el despojo energético (por ejemplo en ‘El apagón”), mientras desplaza los límites de lo posible dentro del espectáculo”.

Su decisión de cantar y hablar en español puertorriqueño en el prime time estadounidense, en los Grammy, en los Oscar, en el show del medio tiempo de la Super Bowl, no es una renuncia a adaptarse al mercado anglosajón. Todo lo contrario: es la evidencia de que su música no necesita traducirse.

Durante décadas, muchos artistas latinos tuvieron que publicar en inglés o en spanglish para desarrollar su expansión internacional. Con un catálogo cien por cien en español, el puertorriqueño emplea el inglés mezclado con el español en sus intervenciones públicas para hacerse entender, y en sus letras incorpora jerga y expresiones como “janguear” (del inglés “to hang around”, ‘pasar el rato’).

Bad Bunny en el Tiny Desk de la radio pública estadounidense, NPR.

Esta idea, reformulada por la lingüista cubanoestadounidense Ofelia García en 2014, se refiere a la práctica de los hablantes bilingües o multilingües que movilizan un repertorio lingüístico único y fluido, sin tratar sus lenguas como compartimentos estancos. No se reduce a un cambio de código, sino que es una forma de habitar la lengua que refleja biografías complejas, identidades fronterizas, historias de migración y resistencia. La propuesta de Bad Bunny puede leerse desde ahí, porque no traduce su lenguaje para adaptarse al mercado global, sino que desplaza las condiciones de inteligibilidad de ese mercado.

‘Ahora todos quieren ser latinos, pero les falta sazón’

En ese contexto el 18 de febrero de 2026, la Academia Puertorriqueña de las Letras reconocía a Bad Bunny por su “aportación a la difusión global de la lengua española”. Y era explícita en sus razones:

“el proyecto cultural de Martínez Ocasio ha ayudado a superar prejuicios hacia las formas comunicativas propias de las hablas populares, urbanas, juveniles o en contacto con otras lenguas. Pese a la marcada localidad de las referencias y formas lingüísticas empleadas en sus composiciones, su mensaje ha logrado trascender fronteras geográficas, nacionales, generacionales e ideológicas”.

La Academia no ha reconocido al boricua a pesar de su forma de hablar. Lo ha hecho precisamente por ello.

Si la misión de una lengua es comunicar y generar comunidad, el impacto de Benito Martínez Ocasio es incuestionable. Ha conseguido que términos como “bellaquera”, “chambear” o “piquete” sean entendidos de Madrid a Tokio, y que el oyente global lo acepte.




Leer más:
La música en español conquista el mercado anglosajón


No obstante, como señala en nuestro estudio la doctora en Estudios Culturales Nathaly Gómez Gómez, “no basta que el mercado se abra a que escuchen español, sino habría que preguntarse de qué español estamos hablando, desde qué territorios, bajo qué estéticas, qué cuerpos vuelven a ser los dominantes”. Su argumento es que la expansión puede consolidar una hegemonía caribeña y puertorriqueña dentro del español, dejando fuera otras diversidades latinoamericanas. “Más que ampliar una pluralidad, el sistema puede terminar incentivando otras versiones de lo mismo y reforzando una idea hegemónica de lo latino”.

El “caso Bad Bunny” obliga tanto a revisar la neutralidad en la expansión del español como a superar el elitismo lingüístico. Los datos y la evidencia cultural en el ecosistema digital apuntan a que el español que suena a nivel global no es el estándar: la variante más escuchada del planeta pertenece a una isla de tres millones de habitantes. Esto no es un síntoma de decadencia o de marginalidad, sino una prueba de la extraordinaria salud y elasticidad de nuestro idioma. Al final, el español tiene hoy el “piquete” que la calle le otorga.


¿Quiere recibir más artículos como este? Suscríbase a Suplemento Cultural y reciba la actualidad cultural y una selección de los mejores artículos de historia, literatura, cine, arte o música, seleccionados por nuestra editora de Cultura Claudia Lorenzo.


The Conversation

Lourdes Moreno Cazalla no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

ref. ¿Habla un ‘buen’ español Bad Bunny? – https://theconversation.com/habla-un-buen-espanol-bad-bunny-283037

¿Están ofreciendo más educación sexual las marcas que la escuela?

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Carlos Cuesta-Martínez, Personal Investigador Predoctoral en Formación, Universitat Jaume I

MAYA LAB/Shutterstock

La educación sexual sigue siendo una asignatura pendiente en nuestra sociedad, algo sorprendente cuando apenas hemos superado el primer cuarto del siglo XXI. Nos lo recuerdan constantemente los medios de comunicación, aunque en su cobertura mediática no traten de compensar la demanda informativa de las generaciones más jóvenes.

Avisan del desafío social, también, las instituciones con sus datos y sus inquietantes resultados: en su último informe, el Ministerio de Sanidad alerta que el 35,7 % de infecciones por clamidia y el 22,6 % de infecciones gonocócicas se atribuyen a jóvenes menores de 25 años.

Hábitos nocivos, como la disminución en uso de preservativos o el extendido consumo de pornografía entre menores, muestran la elevada carencia que presenta la formación en sexualidad de nuestros días. Y, si bien desde 2009 los organismos internacionales como UNESCO o la sección europea de la Organización Mundial de la Salud alertaron de la tendencia, la educación sexual no se incluyó de forma transversal en España hasta la Ley Orgánica 3/2020.

Una implantación tardía, en plena digitalización y en la que no todos los jóvenes reciben la preparación necesaria para tomar decisiones informadas y responsables sobre su sexualidad.

Frente a este problema social, instituciones, centros educativos y docentes, medios de comunicación y también marcas, procuran un ejercicio de pedagogía para tratar de paliar la generalizada falta de concienciación y conocimiento en la temática entre las nuevas generaciones. Y de ellas, cabe destacar el papel de marcas como Durex y Platanomelón, que aúnan en sus propósitos el bienestar sexual.

Aquí “hay tema”

Tanto la filial española de la marca multinacional en salud e higiene sexual Durex como la start up de tienda en línea de juguetes eróticos Platanomelón compartieron una estrategia similar en sus perfiles de TikTok: producir y publicar vídeos cortos en los que resolver dudas o arrojar luz sobre la sexualidad entre las audiencias jóvenes.

De tal modo, ambas marcas apostaron por ocupar los espacios de silencio, asumiendo como parte de sus propósitos la tarea de concienciar y educar. Una nueva conexión con las generaciones Z y Alfa a través del compromiso que repercute positivamente en la satisfacción y la lealtad hacia la marca.

En los dos perfiles se adoptaron enfoques editoriales propios de los medios de comunicación con la finalidad de convertirse en voces autorizadas y referentes de la educación sexual en el ámbito digital. Esta pretensión mediática llegó, en el caso de Durex, a dotar de identidad propia al proyecto: Hay tema, un consultorio online en el que personas expertas resuelven las dudas sexuales planteadas por la comunidad en comentarios o en sus mensajes directos. Una fórmula que llamaba a la acción e interacción a quienes siguen el contenido, interpelándoles e implicándoles directamente en la propia selección temática.

Nuevos códigos para nuevos públicos

Con tal de lograr una mayor efectividad y alcance mediante sus publicaciones, tanto Durex como Platanomelón han llegado a la misma conclusión a la hora de plantear sus respectivas estrategias de contenido. Si querían conectar con las audiencias jóvenes, debían producir los mensajes adaptándose a los códigos y narrativas más extendidas en las redes sociales.

En el caso de TikTok, vídeos de corta duración y con las tipologías de contenido más populares en la plataforma (como los vídeos explicativos, los fragmentos de podcast o los cuestionarios a pie de calle). En muchos casos también se recurre a influencers y caras conocidas de la creación de contenido por su cercanía al público joven.

Los vídeos publicados por ambas marcas vinculadas a la sexualidad pueden dividirse en cuatro categorías principales, siendo la orientada a resolver dudas y desmentir falsas creencias la más consumida (con un promedio de 1,64 millones de visitas por vídeo).

En cambio, cabe destacar cómo se logra una mayor interacción en otras categorías (revelando el interés genuino de la audiencia por la cuestión): las publicaciones con más likes suelen ofrecer curiosidades poco conocidas (facts sobre la vulva, tipos de erección, etc.), mientras que las más guardadas orientan a la audiencia sobre prácticas y técnicas sexuales poco habituales o dificultosas.

En definitiva, las iniciativas de Durex y Platanomelón revelan que, cuando existe sensibilidad para detectar vacíos informativos y capacidad para conectar con las necesidades de la ciudadanía, las marcas pueden desempeñar un papel más amplio del que tradicionalmente les atribuimos.

En el terreno de la educación sexual, han sabido ocupar un espacio que las instituciones no siempre han logrado cubrir, ofreciendo claridad, cercanía y accesibilidad allí donde muchos jóvenes no encontraban respuestas.

Quizá este fenómeno nos invite a pensar en cómo, en otros ámbitos, el sector privado también puede contribuir cuando identifica oportunidades sociales desatendidas.

Y quizá nos recuerde, al mismo tiempo, que la construcción de un entorno más informado y más igualitario depende de una combinación de miradas, esfuerzos y agentes capaces de sumar desde lugares distintos.

The Conversation

Carlos Cuesta-Martínez está subvencionado por la Conselleria d’Educació, Cultura, Universitats i Ocupació de la Generalitat Valenciana.

Daniel Zomeño Jiménez, María Pallarés Renau y Victoria Tur-Viñes no reciben salarios, ni ejercen labores de consultoría, ni poseen acciones, ni reciben financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y han declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del puesto académico citado.

ref. ¿Están ofreciendo más educación sexual las marcas que la escuela? – https://theconversation.com/estan-ofreciendo-mas-educacion-sexual-las-marcas-que-la-escuela-270548

Conversar no es solo hablar por turnos: cómo nuestras mentes construyen un terreno común

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Javier Marín Serrano, Profesor Titular de Universidad. Psicología del Lenguaje. Psicología del Pensamiento, Universidad de Murcia

Don Quijote y Sancho Panza avanzan por los caminos de La Mancha mientras mantienen una larga conversación. En su diálogo se corrigen, se malinterpretan, se acompañan y se influyen, y en ese proceso cada uno transita por la mente del otro.

– O yo me engaño, o esta ha de ser la más famosa aventura que se haya visto, porque aquellos bultos negros que allí parecen deben de ser y son sin duda algunos encantadores que llevan hurtada alguna princesa en aquel coche, y es menester deshacer este tuerto a todo mi poderío.

– Peor será esto que los molinos de viento –dijo Sancho–. Mire, señor, que aquellos son frailes de San Benito, y el coche debe de ser de alguna gente pasajera. Mire que digo que mire bien lo que hace, no sea el diablo que le engañe.

–Ya te he dicho, Sancho —respondió don Quijote—, que sabes poco de achaque de aventuras: lo que yo digo es verdad, y ahora lo verás.

Cervantes convirtió esa larga conversación que se desarrolla entre Don Quijote y Sancho en uno de los grandes escenarios de la literatura, pero también en una magnífica intuición validada por la psicología actual: conversar es construir un espacio común entre dos mentes distintas.

En el pasaje citado, la referencia a “los molinos de viento” funciona como un indicador a un episodio pasado ubicado en el “common ground” o “terreno común”, que es como definen los expertos aquello que los interlocutores comparten: conocimientos, recuerdos, supuestos, experiencias, normas, expectativas y formas de interpretar una situación.

Sancho presupone que ambos comparten la memoria evocada, aunque no compartan su interpretación. El common ground puede incluir también el conocimiento mutuo de un desacuerdo: Sancho presupone que Don Quijote interpretará caballerescamente la escena, mientras que Don Quijote asume que Sancho le corregirá desde su realidad ordinaria y práctica.

Más que intercambiar información

La psicolingüística contemporánea ha mostrado que una conversación es mucho más que hablar por turnos. Mientras escuchamos a nuestro interlocutor, anticipamos lo que va a decir, valoramos sus intenciones, recordamos lo ya dicho, calibramos el tono emocional de sus expresiones y vamos preparando nuestra respuesta. Todo eso sucede a una velocidad extraordinaria.

La conversación fluida exige que la comprensión y la producción se superpongan parcialmente: no esperamos a que el otro termine, vamos proyectando posibilidades mientras escuchamos para ir elaborando nuestra respuesta.

En el núcleo de este proceso está el citado concepto del common ground o terreno común. Curiosamente, los expertos advierten que para que funcione ese territorio compartido no basta con que exista (es decir, que se compartan conocimientos, creencias o experiencias y expectativas), sino que se debe reconocer mutuamente, se debe ser consciente de que existe.

Por eso, gracias a ese saber y entender común, muchas conversaciones pueden ser económicas, alusivas y sorprendentemente eficaces entre amigos o familiares: una frase mínima puede activar una historia completa. En cambio, entre desconocidos hay que explicar más, precisar más, construir desde un terreno raso.

Malentendidos y ajustes

El common ground explica también la alta frecuencia de los malentendidos. Ese contexto que suponemos compartido en ocasiones no lo es. Asumimos como evidente una ironía, una alusión o una intención, para luego chocar con la realidad de la incomprensión o estupor ajeno.

La salud conversacional depende en gran medida de la reparación de esas descoordinaciones: preguntar, aclarar, reformular, volver atrás, decir: “no, no quería decir eso”. La conversación no es un mecanismo perfecto, es una práctica frágil que se sostiene mediante ajustes continuos.

Imaginar la mente del otro

Por eso adaptamos nuestras palabras al interlocutor: elegimos ejemplos, nivel de detalle, tono y grado de confianza según quién nos escucha. Esta adaptación, conocida como audience design (“diseño para la audiencia”), exige representarnos la mente del otro. Conversar implica preguntarse qué sabe, qué ignora, qué puede inferir. Decidir qué le puede resultar claro, ofensivo, ambiguo o innecesario.

Cuando dos personas conversan, tienden a establecer, mantener y actualizar permanentemente el terreno común. A esto contribuye también el alineamiento lingüístico: pactos implícitos con nuestro interlocutor para utilizar etiquetas que reduzcan el esfuerzo referencial.




Leer más:
Dígame cómo mira y le diré cómo procesa las palabras


Por ejemplo, en una conversación cotidiana podemos preguntar por una camisa que andamos buscando y nos cuesta describir: “una que es de color beige claro, con un bolsillo y los puños…”, hasta que damos con una clave de reconocimiento: “la que llevé a la boda de Julia”. A partir de ese momento, la referencia conversacional a la camisa buscada se resume en “la camisa de la boda de Julia” o quizás simplemente “la camisa de la boda”.

Ese alineamiento reduce el esfuerzo comunicativo, pero también tiene una dimensión afectiva: repetir una palabra del otro, adoptar su ritmo o aceptar su forma de nombrar algo puede ser también una manera sutil de mostrar atención, cercanía o complicidad.

Es interesante mencionar que también existe algo parecido, pero en la propia mente, en el proceso de escritura: cuando escribimos lo que pensamos, estamos de alguna manera alineándonos con nosotros mismos.

¿Y en un segundo idioma?

Cuando la conversación se produce en una segunda lengua, el alineamiento tiende a ser menos automático y más dependiente de factores como el nivel de competencia lingüística o el esfuerzo cognitivo.

Por ejemplo, en una interacción entre un hablante nativo y un estudiante de segunda lengua, el estudiante suele repetir partes de lo oído. Cuando escucha “a blank sheet of paper” (un folio de papel en blanco), el estudiante puede responder “a blank piece of paper” (un trozo de papel en blanco), alineándose en parte, pero evitando la expresión menos segura para él: mientras que la palabra sheet para referirse a un folio de papel puede ser menos conocida, el recurso a la palabra “piece”, trozo, es más accesible.




Leer más:
El reto de emocionarse en otro idioma


En ocasiones, el hablante de segundo idioma evita alinearse cuando está inseguro de una forma lingüística. Por ejemplo, si su interlocutor usa “they gave you one as a gift” (te dieron uno de regalo), el estudiante puede comprender la estructura pero responder “they gave one to me as a gift” (me dieron a mí uno de regalo), manteniendo su propia construcción más controlada con la partícula “to” para especificar el complemento indirecto, aunque en inglés no sea imprescindible.

En estos casos, el alineamiento no desaparece, pero se vuelve selectivo: el hablante ajusta unas partes del enunciado mientras conserva otras que le resultan más accesibles o seguras.

Miradas opuestas, territorio compartido

Las conversaciones de Don Quijote y Sancho no eliminan la distancia entre ambos. Don Quijote no cesa en su mirada caballeresca del mundo, ni Sancho abandona su prudente saber popular. Pero el diálogo abre entre ellos una zona intermedia y compartida donde esos mundos pueden conocerse sin confundirse. Su encuentro se produce en el terreno común: un espacio verbal donde las diferencias no desaparecen, pero se tornan habitables.

El common ground no es solo un mecanismo cognitivo útil para interpretar frases. Es una de las bases de nuestras relaciones personales y sociales. Las amistades, las familias, las parejas, los grupos profesionales y las comunidades políticas dependen de historias compartidas, palabras comunes, referencias reconocibles y modos relativamente estables de entender lo que se dice.

Cuando ese terreno se empobrece, la conversación se vuelve más costosa, más defensiva y propensa al malentendido. Cuando se cultiva, permite la confianza, la cooperación, la pertenencia y el reconocimiento mutuo.

En una época marcada por la comunicación fragmentaria y la sustitución de la conversación natural por intercambios editados, breves o polarizados, conviene recordar que hablar con otros no es solo transmitir información.

Conversar es crear un espacio para que una mente pueda acercarse a otra. Tal vez ahí resida una de las funciones más profundas de la conversación: construir el suelo común sobre el que puede sostenerse el camino de nuestra vida compartida.

The Conversation

Javier Marín Serrano recibe fondos del ministerio de ciencia, investigación y universidades y la fundación Séneca (Comunidad Autónoma de la Región Murciana) a través de la financiación de las ayudas a la realización de proyectos de investigación.

Olena Vasylets no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

ref. Conversar no es solo hablar por turnos: cómo nuestras mentes construyen un terreno común – https://theconversation.com/conversar-no-es-solo-hablar-por-turnos-como-nuestras-mentes-construyen-un-terreno-comun-281600