Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Hatim Sharif, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas at San Antonio

Texas Hill Country is known for its landscapes, with shallow rivers winding among hills and through rugged valleys. But that geography also makes it one of the deadliest places in the U.S. for flash flooding.

In the early hours of July 4, 2025, a rush of flood water swept through an area dotted with summer camps and small towns about 70 miles west of San Antonio. At least 27 people died, and about two dozen girls from one camp and other people in the area were still unaccounted for the following morning, officials said. More than 200 people had to be rescued.

The flooding began as many flash floods in this region do, with a heavy downpour that sent water sheeting off the hillsides into creeks. The creeks poured into the Guadalupe River. Around 3 a.m. on July 4, National Weather Service data shows the river was rising about 1 foot every 5 minutes near the camp. By 4:30 a.m., the water had risen more than 20 feet.

Flood expert Hatim Sharif, a hydrologist and civil engineer at the University of Texas at San Antonio, explains what makes this part of the country, known as Flash Flood Alley, so dangerous.

What makes Hill Country so prone to flooding?

Texas as a whole leads the nation in flood deaths, and by a wide margin. A colleague and I analyzed data from 1959 to 2019 and found 1,069 people had died in flooding in Texas over those six decades. The next highest total was in Louisiana, with 693.

Many of those flood deaths have been in Hill County, an area known as Flash Flood Alley. It’s a crescent of land that curves from near Dallas down to San Antonio and then westward.

The hills are steep, and the water moves quickly when it floods. This is a semi-arid area with soils that don’t soak up much water, so the water sheets off quickly and the shallow creeks can rise fast.

When those creeks converge on a river, they can create a wall of water that wipes out homes and washes away cars and, unfortunately, anyone in its path.

Hill Country has seen some devastating flash floods. In 1987, heavy rain in western Kerr County quickly flooded the Guadalupe River, triggering a flash flood similar to the one in 2025. Ten teenagers being evacuated from a camp died in the rushing water.

San Antonio, considered the gateway to Hill Country, was hit with another flash flood on June 12, 2025, that killed 13 people whose cars were swept away when they drove into high water from a flooding creek near an interstate ramp in the early morning.

Why does the region get such strong downpours?

One reason Hill Country gets powerful downpours is the Balcones Escarpment.

The escarpment is a line of cliffs and steep hills created by a geologic fault. When warm air from the Gulf rushes up the escarpment, it condenses and can dump a lot of moisture. That water flows down the hills quickly, from many different directions, filling streams and rivers below.

As temperature rise, the warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture, increasing the downpour and flood risk.

The same effect can contribute to flash flooding in San Antonio, where the large amount of paved land and lack of updated drainage to control runoff adds to the risk.

What can be done to improve flash flood safety?

First, it’s important for people to understand why flash flooding happens and just how fast the water can rise and flow. In many arid areas, dry or shallow creeks can quickly fill up with fast-moving water and become deadly. So people should be aware of the risks and pay attention to the weather.

Improving flood forecasting, with more detailed models of the physics and water velocity at different locations, can also help.

Probabilistic forecasting, for example, can provide a range of rainfall scenarios, enabling authorities to prepare for worst-case scenarios. A scientific framework linking rainfall forecasts to the local impacts, such as streamflow, flood depth and water velocity, could also help decision-makers implement timely evacuations or road closures.

Education is particularly essential for drivers. One to two feet of moving water can wash away a car. People may think their trucks and SUVs can go through anything, but fast-moving water can flip a truck and carry it away.

Officials can also do more to barricade roads when the flood risk is high to prevent people from driving into harm’s way. We found that 58% of the flood deaths in Texas over the past six decades involved vehicles.

The storm on June 12 in San Antonio was an example. It was early morning, and drivers has poor visibility. Cars drove into floodwater without seeing the risk until it was too late.

Hatim Sharif 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. Why Texas Hill Country, where a devastating flood killed dozens, is one of the deadliest places in the US for flash flooding – https://theconversation.com/why-texas-hill-country-where-a-devastating-flood-killed-dozens-is-one-of-the-deadliest-places-in-the-us-for-flash-flooding-260555

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Sumit Agarwal, Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 7.8 million Americans across the U.S. will lose their coverage through Medicaid – the public program that provides health insurance to low-income families and individuals – under the multitrillion-dollar domestic policy package that President Donald Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025.

That includes 247,000 to 412,000 of my fellow residents of Michigan based on the House Reconciliation Bill in early June. There are similarly deep projected cuts within the Senate version of the legislation, which Trump signed.
Many of these people are working Americans who will lose Medicaid because of the onerous paperwork involved with the proposed work requirements.

They won’t be able to get coverage in the Affordable Care Act Marketplaces after losing Medicaid. Premiums and out-of-pocket costs are likely to be too high for those making less than 100% to 138% of the federal poverty level who do not qualify for health insurance marketplace subsidies. Funding for this program is also under threat.

And despite being employed, they also won’t be able to get health insurance through their employers because it is either too expensive or not offered to them. Researchers estimate that coverage losses will lead to thousands of medically preventable deaths across the country because people will be unable to access health care without insurance.

I am a physician, health economist and policy researcher who has cared for patients on Medicaid and written about health care in the U.S. for over eight years. I think it’s important to understand the role of Medicaid within the broader insurance landscape. Medicaid has become a crucial source of health coverage for low-wage workers.

Michigan removed work requirements from Medicaid

A few years ago, Michigan was slated to institute Medicaid work requirements, but the courts blocked the implementation of that policy in 2020. It would have cost upward of US$70 million due to software upgrades, staff training, and outreach to Michigan residents enrolled in the Medicaid program, according to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services.

Had it gone into effect, 100,000 state residents were expected to lose coverage within the first year.

The state took the formal step of eliminating work requirements from its statutes earlier this year in recognition of implementation costs being too high and mounting evidence against the policy’s effectiveness.

When Arkansas instituted Medicaid work requirements in 2018, there was no increase in employment, but within months, thousands of people enrolled in the program lost their coverage. The reason? Many people were subjected to paperwork and red tape, but there weren’t actually that many people who would fail to meet the criteria of the work requirements. It is a recipe for widespread coverage losses without meeting any of the policy’s purported goals.

Work requirements, far from incentivizing work, paradoxically remove working people from Medicaid with nowhere else to go for insurance.

Shortcomings of employer-sponsored insurance

Nearly half of Americans get their health insurance through their employers.

In contrast to a universal system that covers everyone from cradle to grave, an employer-first system leaves huge swaths of the population uninsured. This includes tens of millions of working Americans who are unable to get health insurance through their employers, especially low-income workers who are less likely to even get the choice of coverage from their employers.

Over 80% of managers and professionals have employer-sponsored health coverage, but only 50% to 70% of blue-collar workers in service jobs, farming, construction, manufacturing and transportation can say the same.

There are some legal requirements mandating employers to provide health insurance to their employees, but the reality of low-wage work means many do not fall under these legal protections.

For example, employers are allowed to incorporate a waiting period of up to 90 days before health coverage begins. The legal requirement also applies only to full-time workers. Health coverage can thus remain out of reach for seasonal and temporary workers, part-time employees and gig workers.

Even if an employer offers health insurance to their low-wage employees, those workers may forego it because the premiums and deductibles are too high to make it worth earning less take-home pay.

To make matters worse, layoffs are more common for low-wage workers, leaving them with limited options for health insurance during job transitions. And many employers have increasingly shed low-wage staff, such as drivers and cleaning staff, from their employment rolls and contracted that work out. Known as the fissuring of the workplace, it allows employers of predominately high-income employees to continue offering generous benefits while leaving no such commitment to low-wage workers employed as contractors.

Medicaid fills in gaps

Low-income workers without access to employer-sponsored insurance had virtually no options for health insurance in the years before key parts of the Affordable Care Act went into effect in 2014.

Research my coauthors and I conducted showed that blue-collar workers have since gained health insurance coverage, cutting the uninsured rate by a third thanks to the expansion of Medicaid eligibility and subsidies in the health insurance marketplaces. This means low-income workers can more consistently see doctors, get preventive care and fill prescriptions.

Further evidence from Michigan’s experience has shown that Medicaid can help the people it covers do a better job at work by addressing health impairments. It can also improve their financial well-being, including fewer problems with debt, fewer bankruptcies, higher credit scores and fewer evictions.

Premiums and cost sharing in Medicaid are minimal compared with employer-sponsored insurance, making it a more realistic and accessible option for low-income workers. And because Medicaid is not tied directly to employment, it can promote job mobility, allowing workers to maintain coverage within or between jobs without having to go through the bureaucratic complexity of certifying work.

Of course, Medicaid has its own shortcomings. Payment rates to providers are low relative to other insurers, access to doctors can be limited, and the program varies significantly by state. But these weaknesses stem largely from underfunding and political hostility – not from any intrinsic flaw in the model. If anything, Medicaid’s success in covering low-income workers and containing per-enrollee costs points to its potential as a broader foundation for health coverage.

The current employer-based system, which is propped up by an enormous and regressive tax break for employer-sponsored insurance premiums, favors high-income earners and contributes to wage stagnation. In my view, which is shared by other health economists, a more public, universal model could better cover Americans regardless of how someone earns a living.

Over the past six decades, Medicaid has quietly stepped into the breach left by employer-sponsored insurance. Medicaid started as a welfare program for the needy in the 1960s, but it has evolved and adapted to fill the needs of a country whose health care system leaves far too many uninsured.

This article was updated on July 4, 2025, to reflect Trump signing the bill into law.

Sumit Agarwal 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. Employers are failing to insure the working class – Medicaid cuts will leave them even more vulnerable – https://theconversation.com/employers-are-failing-to-insure-the-working-class-medicaid-cuts-will-leave-them-even-more-vulnerable-259256

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jeanne Beatrix Law, Professor of English, Kennesaw State University

I’m a writing professor who sees artificial intelligence as more of an opportunity for students, rather than a threat.

That sets me apart from some of my colleagues, who fear that AI is accelerating a glut of superficial content, impeding critical thinking and hindering creative expression. They worry that students are simply using it out of sheer laziness or, worse, to cheat.

Perhaps that’s why so many students are afraid to admit that they use ChatGPT.

In The New Yorker magazine, historian D. Graham Burnett recounts asking his undergraduate and graduate students at Princeton whether they’d ever used ChatGPT. No one raised their hand.

“It’s not that they’re dishonest,” he writes. “It’s that they’re paralyzed.”

Students seem to have internalized the belief that using AI for their coursework is somehow wrong. Yet, whether my colleagues like it or not, most college students are using it.

A February 2025 report from the Higher Education Policy Institute in the U.K. found that 92% of university students are using AI in some form. As early as August 2023 – a mere nine months after ChatGPT’s public release – more than half of first-year students at Kennesaw State University, the public research institution where I teach, reported that they believed that AI is the future of writing.

It’s clear that students aren’t going to magically stop using AI. So I think it’s important to point out some ways in which AI can actually be a useful tool that enhances, rather than hampers, the writing process.

Helping with the busywork

A February 2025 OpenAI report on ChatGPT use among college-aged users found that more than one-quarter of their ChatGPT conversations were education-related.

The report also revealed that the top five uses for students were writing-centered: starting papers and projects (49%); summarizing long texts (48%); brainstorming creative projects (45%); exploring new topics (44%); and revising writing (44%).

These figures challenge the assumption that students use AI merely to cheat or write entire papers.

Instead, it suggests they are leveraging AI to free up more time to engage in deeper processes and metacognitive behaviors – deliberately organizing ideas, honing arguments and refining style.

If AI allows students to automate routine cognitive tasks – like information retrieval or ensuring that verb tenses are consistent – it doesn’t mean they’re thinking less. It means their thinking is changing.

Of course, students can misuse AI if they use the technology passively, reflexively accepting its outputs and ideas. And overreliance on ChatGPT can erode a student’s unique voice or style.

However, as long as students learn how to use AI intentionally, this shift can be seen as an opportunity, rather than a loss.

Clarifying the creative vision

It has also become clear that AI, when used responsibly, can augment human creativity.

For example, science comedy writer Sarah Rose Siskind recently gave a talk to Harvard students about her creative process. She spoke about how she uses ChatGPT to brainstorm joke setups and explore various comedic scenarios, which allows her to focus on crafting punchlines and refining her comedic timing.

Note how Siskin used AI in ways that didn’t supplant the human touch. Instead of replacing her creativity, AI amplified it by providing structured and consistent feedback, giving her more time to polish her jokes.

Another example is the Rhetorical Prompting Method, which I developed alongside fellow Kennesaw State University researchers. Designed for university students and adult learners, it’s a framework for conversing with an AI chatbot, one that emphasizes the importance of agency in guiding AI outputs.

When writers use precise language to prompt, critical thinking to reflect, and intentional revision to sculpt inputs and outputs, they direct AI to help them generate content that aligns with their vision.

There’s still a process

The Rhetorical Prompting Method mirrors best practices in process writing, which encourages writers to revisit, refine and revise their drafts.

When using ChatGPT, though, it’s all about thoughtfully revisiting and revising prompts and outputs.

For instance, say a student wants to create a compelling PSA for social media to encourage campus composting. She considers her audience. She prompts ChatGPT to draft a short, upbeat message in under 50 words that’s geared to college students.

Reading the first output, she notices it lacks urgency. So she revises the prompt to emphasize immediate impact. She also adds some additional specifics that are important to her message, such as the location of an information session. The final PSA reads:

“Every scrap counts! Join campus composting today at the Commons. Your leftovers aren’t trash – they’re tomorrow’s gardens. Help our university bloom brighter, one compost bin at a time.”

The Rhetorical Prompting Method isn’t groundbreaking; it’s riffing on a process that’s been tested in the writing studies discipline for decades. But I’ve found that it works by directing writers how to intentionally prompt.

I know this because we asked users about their experiences. In an ongoing study, my colleagues and I polled 133 people who used the Rhetorical Prompting Method for their academic and professional writing:

• 92% reported that it helped them evaluate writing choices before and during their process.

• 75% said that they were able to maintain their authentic voice while using AI assistance.

• 89% responded that it helped them think critically about their writing.

The data suggests that learners take their writing seriously. Their responses reveal that they are thinking carefully about their writing styles and strategies. While this data is preliminary, we continue to gather responses in different courses, disciplines and learning environments.

All of this is to say that, while there are divergent points of view over when and where it’s appropriate to use AI, students are certainly using it. And being provided with a framework can help them think more deeply about their writing.

AI, then, is not just a tool that’s useful for trivial tasks. It can be an asset for creativity. If today’s students – who are actively using AI to write, revise and explore ideas – see AI as a writing partner, I think it’s a good idea for professors to start thinking about helping them learn the best ways to work with it.

Jeanne Beatrix Law 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. AI isn’t replacing student writing – but it is reshaping it – https://theconversation.com/ai-isnt-replacing-student-writing-but-it-is-reshaping-it-254878

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jimmy Aguilar, PhD Candidate in Urban Education Policy, University of Southern California

President Donald Trump on April 23, 2025, signed an executive order that aims to change the higher education accreditation process. It asks accrediting agencies to root out “discriminatory ideology” and roll back diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives on college campuses.

The Conversation asked Jimmy Aguilar, who studies higher education at the University of Southern California, to explain what accreditation is, why it matters and how the Trump order seeks to change it.

What is accreditation and how does it work?

Accreditation is a process that evaluates whether colleges and universities meet standards of academic rigor, institutional integrity and financial stability.

In the United States, there were 88 accrediting agencies during the 2022-23 school academic year.

The agencies are formally recognized by the Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

Accreditation is not a one-time stamp of approval, but a continuous process.

At its core, accreditation is a guarantor of quality in higher education.

The process involves self-assessment and peer review visits.

Colleges typically undergo a full review every five to 10 years, depending on the accrediting agency.

Institutions must meet standards for curriculum, faculty, student services and outcomes, and provide documentation.

Then, federally recognized accrediting agencies review the documentation.

Teams, often comprised of peer reviewers from other colleges, conduct campus visits and evaluations before granting or reviewing accreditation.

Why do universities need to be accredited?

Accreditation assures students, employers and the public that an institution meets basic academic standards.

It also signals credibility and secures federal financial support.

Without it, colleges cannot access key funding sources such as Pell Grants and federal student loans.

The funding is essential for college budgets and students’ access to higher education.

Accreditation is also required for professional licensure in fields such as teaching, nursing, medicine and law.

It also helps ensure that students can transfer credits between institutions.

What does Trump’s executive order do?

The executive order would reshape the college accreditation system, aligning it with the administration’s political priorities. Those priorities include the rollback of DEI initiatives.

The order seeks to use federal oversight to weaken institutional DEI policies and priorities. It also promotes new standards aligned with the administration’s interpretation of “merit-based” education.

The executive order also directs the Department of Education to penalize agencies that require colleges to implement DEI-related standards.

The Trump administration claims that such standards amount to “unlawful discrimination.”

Penalties may include increased oversight or loss of federal recognition. This would render the accreditation seal meaningless, according to the executive order.

The order also proposes a broad overhaul of the accreditation process, including:

• Promoting “intellectual diversity” in faculty hiring. The executive order argues that promoting a broader range of viewpoints among faculty will enhance academic freedom. Critics often interpret this language as an effort to increase conservative ideological representation.

• Streamlining the process for institutions to switch accreditors. During Trump’s first term, his administration removed geographic restrictions, giving colleges more flexibility to choose. The new executive order goes further. It makes it easier for schools to leave agencies whose standards they disagree with.

• Expanding recognition of new accrediting agencies to increase competition.

• Linking accreditation more directly to student outcomes. This would shift focus to metrics such as graduation rates and earnings, rather than commitments to diversity or equity.

The executive order singles out accreditors for law schools, such as the American Bar Association, and for medical schools, such as the Liaison Committee on Medical Education.

The order accuses them of enforcing DEI standards that conflict with a 2023 Supreme Court ruling that outlawed affirmative action in university admissions.

However, the ruling was limited to race-conscious admissions. It did not directly address faculty hiring or accreditation standards.

That raises questions about whether the order’s interpretation extends beyond the scope of the court’s decision.

The ruling has nonetheless been a point of contention in the debate over diversity, equity and inclusion.

The American Association of University Professors and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law have denounced the executive order.

The groups argue that it threatens to politicize accreditation and suppress efforts to promote equity and inclusion.

Nevertheless, the order represents a push by the federal government to influence higher education governance.

Jimmy Aguilar 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. How proposed changes to higher education accreditation could impact campus diversity efforts – https://theconversation.com/how-proposed-changes-to-higher-education-accreditation-could-impact-campus-diversity-efforts-255309

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By John Weigand, Professor Emeritus of Architecture and Interior Design, Miami University

Colleges and universities are struggling to stay afloat.

The reasons are numerous: declining numbers of college-age students in much of the country, rising tuition at public institutions as state funding shrinks, and a growing skepticism about the value of a college degree.

Pressure is mounting to cut costs by reducing the time it takes to earn a degree from four years to three.

Students, parents and legislators increasingly prioritize return on investment and degrees that are more likely to lead to gainful employment. This has boosted enrollment in professional programs while reducing interest in traditional liberal arts and humanities majors, creating a supply-demand imbalance.

The result has been increasing financial pressure and an unprecedented number of closures and mergers, to date mostly among smaller liberal arts colleges.

To survive, institutions are scrambling to align curriculum with market demand. And they’re defaulting to the traditional college major to do so.

The college major, developed and delivered by disciplinary experts within siloed departments, continues to be the primary benchmark for academic quality and institutional performance.

This structure likely works well for professional majors governed by accreditation or licensure, or more tightly aligned with employment. But in today’s evolving landscape, reliance on the discipline-specific major may not always serve students or institutions well.

As a professor emeritus and former college administrator and dean, I argue that the college major may no longer be able to keep up with the combinations of skills that cross multiple academic disciplines and career readiness skills demanded by employers, or the flexibility students need to best position themselves for the workplace.

Students want flexibility

I see students arrive on campus each year with different interests, passions and talents – eager to stitch them into meaningful lives and careers.

A more flexible curriculum is linked to student success, and students now consult AI tools such as ChatGPT to figure out course combinations that best position them for their future. They want flexibility, choice and time to redirect their studies if needed.

And yet, the moment students arrive on campus – even before they apply – they’re asked to declare a major from a list of predetermined and prescribed choices. The major, coupled with general education and other college requirements, creates an academic track that is anything but flexible.

Not surprisingly, around 80% of college students switch their majors at least once, suggesting that more flexible degree requirements would allow students to explore and combine diverse areas of interest. And the number of careers, let alone jobs, that college graduates are expected to have will only increase as technological change becomes more disruptive.

As institutions face mounting pressures to attract students and balance budgets, and the college major remains the principal metric for doing so, the curriculum may be less flexible now than ever.

How schools are responding

In response to market pressures, colleges are adding new high-demand majors at a record pace. Between 2002 and 2022, the number of degree programs nationwide increased by nearly 23,000, or 40%, while enrollment grew only 8%. Some of these majors, such as cybersecurity, fashion business or entertainment design, arguably connect disciplines rather than stand out as distinct. Thus, these new majors siphon enrollment from lower-demand programs within the institution and compete with similar new majors at competitor schools.

At the same time, traditional arts and humanities majors are adding professional courses to attract students and improve employability. Yet, this adds credit hours to the degree while often duplicating content already available in other departments.

Importantly, while new programs are added, few are removed. The challenge lies in faculty tenure and governance, along with a traditional understanding that faculty set the curriculum as disciplinary experts. This makes it difficult to close or revise low-demand majors and shift resources to growth areas.

The result is a proliferation of under-enrolled programs, canceled courses and stretched resources – leading to reduced program quality and declining faculty morale.

Ironically, under the pressure of declining demand, there can be perverse incentives to grow credit hours required in a major or in general education requirements as a way of garnering more resources or adding courses aligned with faculty interests. All of which continues to expand the curriculum and stress available resources.

Universities are also wrestling with the idea of liberal education and how to package the general education requirement.

Although liberal education is increasingly under fire, employers and students still value it.

Students’ career readiness skills – their ability to think critically and creatively, to collaborate effectively and to communicate well – remain strong predictors of future success in the workplace and in life.

Reenvisioning the college major

Assuming the requirement for students to complete a major in order to earn a degree, colleges can also allow students to bundle smaller modules – such as variable-credit minors, certificates or course sequences – into a customizable, modular major.

This lets students, guided by advisers, assemble a degree that fits their interests and goals while drawing from multiple disciplines. A few project-based courses can tie everything together and provide context.

Such a model wouldn’t undermine existing majors where demand is strong. For others, where demand for the major is declining, a flexible structure would strengthen enrollment, preserve faculty expertise rather than eliminate it, attract a growing number of nontraditional students who bring to campus previously earned credentials, and address the financial bottom line by rightsizing curriculum in alignment with student demand.

One critique of such a flexible major is that it lacks depth of study, but it is precisely the combination of curricular content that gives it depth. Another criticism is that it can’t be effectively marketed to an employer. But a customized major can be clearly named and explained to employers to highlight students’ unique skill sets.

Further, as students increasingly try to fit cocurricular experiences – such as study abroad, internships, undergraduate research or organizational leadership – into their course of study, these can also be approved as modules in a flexible curriculum.

It’s worth noting that while several schools offer interdisciplinary studies majors, these are often overprescribed or don’t grant students access to in-demand courses. For a flexible-degree model to succeed, course sections would need to be available and added or deleted in response to student demand.

Several schools also now offer microcredentials– skill-based courses or course modules that increasingly include courses in the liberal arts. But these typically need to be completed in addition to requirements of the major.

We take the college major for granted.

Yet it’s worth noting that the major is a relatively recent invention.

Before the 20th century, students followed a broad liberal arts curriculum designed to create well-rounded, globally minded citizens. The major emerged as a response to an evolving workforce that prioritized specialized knowledge. But times change – and so can the model.

John Weigand 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. Why the traditional college major may be holding students back in a rapidly changing job market – https://theconversation.com/why-the-traditional-college-major-may-be-holding-students-back-in-a-rapidly-changing-job-market-258383

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Elizabeth Castaldo Lundén, Research Fellow at the School of Cinematic Arts, University of Southern California

Ahead of the Cannes Film Festival, the spotlight moved from movie stars and directors to the festival’s fashion rules.

Cannes reminded guests to follow the standard black-tie dress code for evening events at the Grand Theatre Lumière – “long dresses and tuxedos” – while highlighting acceptable alternatives, such as cocktail dresses and pantsuits for women, and a black or navy suit with a tie for men.

The real stir, however, came from two additions to the formal guidelines: a ban on nudity “for decency reasons” and a restriction on oversize garments.

The new rules caught many stylists and stars by surprise, with some decrying the move as a regressive attempt to police clothing.

It’s hard not to wonder whether this is part of some broader conservative cultural shift around the world.

But I study the cultural and economic forces behind fashion and media, and I think a lot of the criticism of Cannes is unfounded. To me, the festival isn’t changing its identity. It’s reasserting it.

Red carpet control

Concerns about indecency on the red carpet have appeared before – most notably during the first televised Academy Awards in 1953.

In 1952, the National Association of Radio and Television Broadcasters adopted a censorship code in response to concerns about television’s influence on young audiences. Among its rules for “decency and decorum” were guidelines against revealing clothing, suggestive movements or camera angles that emphasized body parts – all to avoid causing “embarrassment” to the viewers.

To ensure that no actress would break the decency dress code, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences hired acclaimed costume designer Edith Head as a fashion consultant for the show in 1953.

In my book “Fashion on the Red Carpet,” I explain how Head equipped backstage staff with kits to deal with any sartorial emergencies that might arise. That same year, the balcony cameras at the Pantages Theatre accidentally peeked down into the actresses’ cleavage as they walked to the stage. From then on, a supply of tulle – a type of versatile fabric that can easily cover revealing openings that expose too much skin – was kept backstage.

The 1960s posed new challenges. Youth fashion trends clashed with traditional dress codes and television censorship. In 1968, after actress Inger Stevens appeared on the red carpet wearing a mini skirt, the Academy sent a letter reminding attendees of the black-tie – preferably floor-length – dress code. When Barbra Streisand’s Scaasi outfit accidentally turned see-through under the lighting in 1969, Head again warned against “freaky, far-out, unusual fashion” ahead of the 1970 ceremony.

However, in the 1970s, the Oscars eliminated Head’s fashion consultant position. Despite maintaining its black-tie dress code, the absence of a fashion consultant opened the door to some provocative attire, ranging from Cher’s see-through, sheer outfits, to Edy Williams’ provocative, barely-there getups.

Old rules in a new era

Racy red carpet appearances have since become a hallmark of awards shows, particularly in the digital age.

Extravagance and shock are a way for celebrities and brands to stand out amid a glut of social media content, especially as brands increasingly pay a fortune to turn celebrities into walking billboards.

And in an era when red carpet looks are carefully curated ahead of time through partnerships with fashion brands, many celebrities expressed frustration about being unable to sport the outfits they had planned to wear at Cannes.

Stylist Rose Forde lamented the restrictions, saying, “You should be able to express yourself as an artist, with your style however you feel,” while actress Chloë Sevigny described the code as “an old-fashioned archaic rule.”

But I still can’t see the Cannes rules as part of any sort of broader conservative backlash.

Whether at the Oscars or the MTV Video Music Awards, backlash over celebrities baring too much skin has gone on for decades. Cannes hasn’t been spared from controversy, either: There was Michelle Morgan’s bikini in 1946, La Cicciolina’s topless look in 1988, Madonna’s Jean Paul Gaultier lingerie in 1991, Leila Depina’s barely-there pearl outfit in 2023 and Bella Hadid’s sheer pantyhose dress in 2024, to name just a few.

The festival has routinely reminded guests of its dress code, regardless of the cultural zeitgeist.

The “decency” rule, for example, is actually required by French law. Article 222-32 of the French Criminal Code classifies showing private parts in public as a sexual offense, and can lead to a year in prison and a fine. While the legal definition hinges on intent and setting, the festival, as a public event, technically has to operate within that framework.

Compared to white-tie events like the Nobel Prize ceremony or a state banquet, Cannes’ black-tie requirement is relatively flexible. It allows for cocktail-length dresses and even accommodates pants and flat sandals for women.

Meanwhile, the worry about voluminous clothes points to a practical issue: the movement of bodies in tight spaces.

Unlike the Met Gala – where the fashion spectacle is the focus, and its red carpet is a stage for photo-ops – Cannes is a film festival. The red carpet is the main path thousands of people use to enter the theater.

A dramatic gown – like the one worn at the Met Gala by Cardi B in 2024 – could block others and cause delays. While a photo-op may be the primary goal for celebrities and the brands they promote, the festival has a screening schedule to stick to, and attendees must be able to easily access the venue and their seats.

Red carpet rules are fluid. Sometimes they adapt to cultural shifts. Sometimes they resist them. And sometimes, they’re there to make sure you can fit in your seat in the movie theater.

Elizabeth Castaldo Lundén received funding from Fulbright (2023-2024)

– ref. At Cannes, decency and dress codes clash with fashion’s red carpet revolution – https://theconversation.com/at-cannes-decency-and-dress-codes-clash-with-fashions-red-carpet-revolution-256948