Analysis – Page 712 – MIL Submissions Engine

October 14, 2025

Does the First Amendment protect professors being fired over what they say? It depends

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Neal H. Hutchens, University Research Professor of Education, University of Kentucky

Employees at public and private colleges do not have the same First Amendment rights. dane_mark/Royalty-free

American colleges and universities are increasingly firing or punishing professors and other employees for what they say, whether it’s on social media or in the classroom.

After the Sept. 10, 2025, killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, several universities, including Iowa State University, Clemson University, Ball State University and others, fired or suspended employees for making negative online comments about Kirk.

Some of these dismissed professors compared Kirk to a Nazi, described his views as hateful, or said there was no reason to be sorry about his death.

Some professors are now suing their employers for taking disciplinary action against them, claiming they are violating their First Amendment rights.

In one case, the University of South Dakota fired Phillip Michael Cook, a tenured art professor, after he posted on Facebook in September that Kirk was a “hate spreading Nazi.” Cook, who took down his post within a few hours and apologized for it, then sued the school, saying it was violating his First Amendment rights.

A federal judge stated in a Sept. 23 preliminary order that the First Amendment likely protected what Cook posted. The judge ordered the University of South Dakota to reinstate Cook, and the university announced on Oct. 4 that it would reverse Cook’s firing.

Cook’s lawsuit, as well as other lawsuits filed by dismissed professors, is testing how much legal authority colleges have over their employees’ speech – both when they are on the job and when they are not.

For decades, American colleges and universities have traditionally encouraged free speech and open debate as a core part of their academic mission.

As scholars who study college free speech and academic freedom, we recognize that these events raise an important question: When, if ever, can a college legally discipline an employee for what they say?

A university campus with various buildings and trees is seen from above. — An aerial view of University of South Dakota’s Vermillion campus, one of the places where a professor was recently fired for posting comments about Charlie Kirk, a decision that was later reversed.
anup khanal – CC BY-SA 4.0

Limits of public employees’ speech rights

The First Amendment limits the government’s power to censor people’s free speech. People in the United States can, for instance, join protests, criticize the government and say things that others find offensive.

But the First Amendment only applies to the government – which includes public colleges and universities – and not private institutions or companies, including private colleges and universities.

This means private colleges typically have wide authority to discipline employees for their speech.

In contrast, public colleges are considered part of the government. The First Amendment limits the legal authority they have over their employees’ speech. This is especially true when an employee is speaking as a private citizen – such as participating in a political rally outside of work hours, for example.

The Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 1968 case that public employees’ speech rights as private citizens can extend to criticizing their employer, like if they write a letter critical of their employer to a newspaper.

The Supreme Court also ruled in 2006 that
the First Amendment does not protect public employees from being disciplined by their employers when they say or write something as part of their official job duties.

Even when a public college employee is speaking outside of their job duties as a private citizen, they might not be guaranteed First Amendment protection. To reach this legal threshold, what they say must be about something of importance to the public, or what courts call a “matter of public concern.”

Talking or writing about news, politics or social matters – Kirk’s murder – often meets the legal test for when speech is about a matter of public concern.

In contrast, courts have ruled that personal workplace complaints or gossip typically does not guarantee freedom of speech protection.

And in some cases, even when a public employee speaks as a private citizen on a topic that a court considers a matter of public concern, their speech may still be unprotected.

A public employer can still convince a court that its reasons for prohibiting an employee’s speech – like preventing conflict among co-workers – are important enough to deny this employee First Amendment protection.

Lawsuits brought by the employees of public colleges and universities who have been fired for their comments about Kirk may likely be decided based on whether what they said or wrote amounts to a matter of public concern. Another important factor is whether a court is convinced that an employee’s speech about Kirk was serious enough to disrupt a college’s operations, thus justifying the employee’s firing.

Academic freedom and professors’ speech

There are also questions over whether professors at public universities, in particular, can cite other legal rights to protect their speech.

Academic freedom refers to a faculty member’s rights connected to their teaching and research expertise.

At both private and public colleges, professors’ work contracts – like the ones typically signed after receiving tenure – potentially provide legal protections for faculty speech connected to academic freedom, such as in the classroom.

However, the First Amendment does not apply to how a private college regulates its professors’ speech or academic freedom.

Professors at public colleges have at least the same First Amendment free speech rights as their fellow employees, like when speaking in a private citizen capacity.

Additionally, the First Amendment might protect a public college professor’s work-related speech when academic freedom concerns arise, like in their teaching and research.

In 2006, the Supreme Court left open the question of whether the First Amendment covers academic freedom, in a case where it found the First Amendment did not cover what public employees say when carrying out their official work.

Since then, the Supreme Court has not dealt with this complicated issue. And lower federal courts have reached conflicting decisions about First Amendment protection for public college professors’ speech in their teaching and research.

A large gray stone plaque shows the First Amendment in front of a green grassy field and buildings in the distance. — The First Amendment is on display in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia.
StephanieCraig/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Future of free speech for university employees

Some colleges, especially public ones, are testing the legal limits of their authority over their employees’ speech.

These incidents demonstrate a culture of extreme political polarization in higher education.

Beyond legal questions, colleges are also grappling with how to define their commitments to free speech and academic freedom.

In particular, we believe campus leaders should consider the purpose of higher education. Even if legally permitted, restricting employees’ speech could run counter to colleges’ traditional role as places for the open exchange of ideas.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Does the First Amendment protect professors being fired over what they say? It depends – https://theconversation.com/does-the-first-amendment-protect-professors-being-fired-over-what-they-say-it-depends-266128

October 14, 2025

Growing cocktail of medicines in world’s waterways could be fuelling antibiotic resistance

Source: The Conversation – UK – By April Hayes, Microbiologist, Public Health and Sport Sciences, University of Exeter

Scientists have long been worried about the buildup of antibiotics in the environment.

But in a recent study I led, we wanted to know what happens when bacteria are exposed not just to antibiotics, but to antibiotics and another type of medicine – together, at the low concentrations now typically found in nature.

Up to 90% of the medicines we take pass straight through our bodies, and most are not removed by wastewater treatment plants. These drug residues end up in rivers, lakes and other freshwater systems. In fact, traces of medicines have now been detected on every continent, at concentrations that vary from place to place.

Even tiny amounts of antibiotics can help bacteria evolve defences that make them harder to kill later. These bacteria become fitter, more adaptable, and able to survive doses strong enough to treat human infections. When that happens, the result is antibiotic resistance – a major global health threat. Already, over a million people die each year from infections that no longer respond to treatment, and that number is expected to rise.

What’s less well known is that many other medicines, including drugs for diabetes, depression and pain relief, can also encourage bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics.

Most previous studies, however, have focused on single drugs in isolation. For example, researchers might test how one antidepressant affects bacterial resistance to antibiotics and usually at doses much higher than those found in the environment.

But in the real world, medicines mix together in complex cocktails at low levels, and we still know little about how those combinations behave.

In our latest research, we tested whether a community of bacteria would become more resistant to antibiotics after being exposed to a mixture of drugs. These mixtures included ciprofloxacin – a common antibiotic frequently detected in waterways – combined with one of three other medicines: diclofenac (a widely used painkiller), metformin (a diabetes medication) and an oestrogen hormone used in hormone replacement therapy.

All three combinations changed how the bacteria behaved. We analysed how the bacterial community shifted: which species declined, which thrived and what resistance genes became more common.

We found that these mixtures made the bacterial community less able to grow overall, but also more likely to contain genes that conferred resistance to multiple antibiotics – not just ciprofloxacin, but others that were chemically different. The bacterial mix itself also changed: new species flourished in the presence of the drug combinations that hadn’t done so under antibiotic exposure alone.

I’d tested these same medicines individually in an earlier study, using the same bacteria and similar experimental conditions. On their own, none of the non-antibiotic drugs increased bacterial resistance. But when combined with an antibiotic, the story changed.

Taken together, these studies reveal something important: medicines that seem harmless on their own can amplify each other’s effects when mixed. That’s a big deal, because scientists often test pharmaceuticals one by one and if a single drug shows no obvious effect, it’s typically ignored. Our findings suggest we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss them.

In the environment, where countless drugs and chemicals coexist, these mixtures may be quietly shaping the evolution of antibiotic resistance. Understanding this hidden interaction is crucial if we want to protect both our health and our ecosystems in the years ahead.

April Hayes receives funding from the Natural Environment Research Council. Her PhD work was supported by AstraZeneca but all work was carried out without input from any funder.

– ref. Growing cocktail of medicines in world’s waterways could be fuelling antibiotic resistance – https://theconversation.com/growing-cocktail-of-medicines-in-worlds-waterways-could-be-fuelling-antibiotic-resistance-266945

October 14, 2025

Could further education colleges get involved with university mergers? It might help meet Keir Starmer’s education goals

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Chris Millward, Professor of Practice in Education Policy, University of Birmingham

The merger of Kent and Greenwich universities is set to produce the UK’s first “super-university”. This structure will help the universities manage financial risks, while sustaining their distinctive identities. And the merger could also provide a model for the prime minister’s vision for post-compulsory education, outlined recently at the Labour party conference.

Keir Starmer wants two-thirds of young people to enter higher or technical education or apprenticeships. This embraces both further and higher education, and it demands coherence between them. Building on the model agreed between Kent and Greenwich, that could be achieved by colleges joining universities within a single group.

Further education colleges offer a high proportion of the nation’s technical qualifications and apprenticeships, which are central to the prime minister’s target. In towns without universities, colleges provide the route through post-compulsory education. This is often within group structures.

Some already have links with higher education. London South East Colleges, for instance, has seven campuses, which reach south from Greenwich. The group also has a partnership with the University of Greenwich.

Colleges have experienced equal financial challenges to universities, but for longer. They might be wary of joining universities because it could dissipate their distinctive vocational mission. But the model agreed by Kent and Greenwich shows how that can be sustained.

Combining different traditions

While both are universities, the merger of Kent and Greenwich shows it is possible for institutions with very different identities to combine.

Group of students in a study space — Mergers mean institutions can share resources.
Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock

The University of Kent was established in 1965, in the wake of the meritocratic vision for higher education laid out in the 1963 Robbins Report.

This report, produced by the government’s Committee on Higher Education, stated that “university places should be available for all who are qualified by ability and attainment”. It argued that universities should provide a liberal education, rather than meeting employers’ immediate needs. This was embodied in the new maps of learning developed by universities like Kent and their greenfield residential campuses.

Greenwich originates from Woolwich Polytechnic. This was the site from which Labour education minister Tony Crosland announced the expansion of polytechnics in 1965.
Crosland wanted to meet “an ever-increasing need and demand for vocational, professional and industrially based courses”. He also opposed the hierarchy of post-compulsory education, which diminished the status of these courses.

Polytechnics became universities from 1992. Their applied courses then made a pivotal contribution to Tony Blair’s 2001 target for 50% of young people to enter higher education. Blair argued that this would create a society “genuinely based on merit”.

By the time this threshold was passed in 2017, Conservative-led governments had established more universities. Citing Robbins, they expected this to drive higher education expansion through competition and student choice.

Reducing polarisation

Starmer’s speech to the Labour conference signals a different approach. “While you will never hear me denigrate the aspiration to go to university, I don’t think the way we currently measure success in education – that ambition to get to 50% … is right for our times,” he said.

Part of the motivation for this approach comes from a desire to counter Reform UK. People without higher education qualifications are more likely to vote for Reform.

Tackling the dissatisfaction of Reform supporters with highly educated elites requires Starmer to depart from previous assumptions about higher education and meritocracy – that a university education is superior to other pathways through lives and careers. That means placing a higher value on apprenticeships and technical education.

Mergers can improve the financial sustainability of universities and colleges by pooling their risks, operations and investment capacity. For example, a recruitment shortfall in one part of a group can be absorbed by others. Services can be provided at greater scale and lower cost within a group. If investment is needed to build provision in one location, that may be secured through the balance sheet of the whole group.

Investment of this kind is crucial for enhancing teaching quality, learner experiences and reputational standing. But group structures can also minimise course duplication and improve progression arrangements. Rather than competing with each other, colleges and universities within a group can agree course content and admissions requirements.

That enables learners to move seamlessly between different levels and types of education. It also builds connections between towns with colleges and the cities where most universities are based, broadening both study options and job prospects.

Group structures could advance separately in higher and further education. That would encourage competition and hierarchy, rather than coherence and progression. But bringing the two streams of post-compulsory education closer together could help achieve Starmer’s ambition to reduce polarisation. It might also give both universities and colleges some financial breathing room.

Chris Millward 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. Could further education colleges get involved with university mergers? It might help meet Keir Starmer’s education goals – https://theconversation.com/could-further-education-colleges-get-involved-with-university-mergers-it-might-help-meet-keir-starmers-education-goals-266820

October 14, 2025

Almost 75,000 farmed salmon in Scotland escaped into the wild after Storm Amy – why this may cause lasting damage

Source: The Conversation – UK – By William Perry, Postdoctoral Research Associate at the School of Biosciences, Cardiff University

When Storm Amy battered the Scottish Highlands in early October, it tore through a salmon farm’s sea pens, releasing around 75,000 fish into open water in Loch Linnhe. The scale of the escape is alarming. It comes at a time when wild Atlantic salmon – already classified as “endangered” in Great Britain – are in decline.

For an animal so central to the UK’s ecology, culture and economy, the incident has serious implications.

At first glance, it might sound like a rare bit of good news: thousands of fish freed from captivity, perhaps even helping to bolster wild populations. But the reality is far less heartwarming.

These fish are not wild salmon in any meaningful sense. They are highly domesticated animals, selectively bred over decades for traits that make them profitable in captivity but poorly equipped for survival in the wild.

Aquaculture – the farming of fish and other aquatic species – has become one of the fastest-growing forms of food production in the world. The most valuable of all farmed marine species is the Atlantic salmon, which accounted for 18% of global marine aquaculture production value in 2022. The UK is the third largest producer, with almost all production centred around Scotland’s coast.

Modern salmon farming typically involves rearing young fish in freshwater hatcheries before transferring them to sea cages or pens. Each farm may hold six to ten large nets, each containing up to 200,000 fish.

Having salmon nets open to strong tidal currents is key to their design, allowing clean oxygenated water to enter and waste to be removed. However, this also means that they are vulnerable to adverse weather conditions.

To combat this, more sheltered coastal regions are used, like fjords or lochs, but this only offers so much protection. Storm Amy demonstrated that vulnerability all too clearly.

From wild fish to livestock

Atlantic salmon farming began in the 1970s. Since then, the species has undergone intensive selective breeding, much like sheep, dogs or chickens. Fish have been chosen for faster growth, delayed sexual maturity, disease resistance and other commercially desirable traits.

Around 90% of the salmon used in Scottish aquaculture originate from Norwegian stock. After 15 generations of selection, these farmed salmon are now among the most domesticated fish species in the world. They no longer resemble their wild relatives in important ways.

Farmed salmon differ genetically, physiologically and behaviourally. They are often larger, mature differently and feed on pellets instead of hunting live prey. Changes which make them more vulnerable to predators.

Farmed salmon even have traits which will make them less attractive to wild counterparts. Many would struggle to survive for long in the wild.

The problem isn’t just that farmed salmon die when they escape but what happens when some of them don’t. Studies show that in certain Scottish and Norwegian rivers, more than 10% of salmon caught are of farmed origin, with numbers highest near intensive farming areas.

Although these fish are maladapted to wild conditions, a few survive long enough to reach rivers and attempt to spawn.

When they breed with wild salmon, their offspring inherit a mix of traits – neither truly wild nor farmed – leaving them less suited to their natural environment. This process, known as “genetic introgression”, gradually damages the genetic integrity of wild populations.

An underwater portrait of a wild Atlantic salmon — A wild Atlantic salmon.
willjenkins/Shutterstock

Timing makes this latest incident particularly concerning. Wild salmon are now returning to Scottish rivers to spawn. The sudden influx of tens of thousands of farmed escapees increases the chance of interbreeding, and of long-term genetic damage.

The scale of this single escape is extraordinary. Scotland’s total returning wild salmon population is estimated at around 300,000 fish. The release of 75,000 farmed salmon represents roughly a quarter of that number.

Even if only 1% of the escapees survive and breed, that would mean around 750 fish entering rivers and potentially mixing with wild populations. A 2021 Marine Scotland report found that rivers near some fish farms are in “very poor condition”, with evidence of major genetic changes. Worryingly, other nearby rivers previously classed as being in “good condition” could now be at risk too.

Wild Atlantic salmon already face multiple human-driven threats like climate change, habitat loss, pollution and invasive species. Genetic pollution from farmed escapees is yet another blow. It’s one that undermines the species’ resilience to other forms of environmental change.

The release caused by Storm Amy may be one incident, but it’s symptomatic of a wider problem. As storms intensify with a changing climate, the likelihood of future escapes grows. Without tighter regulation, better containment measures and effective genetic monitoring of wild populations, these events could continue to erode what’s left of UK’s wild salmon.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

William Perry 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. Almost 75,000 farmed salmon in Scotland escaped into the wild after Storm Amy – why this may cause lasting damage – https://theconversation.com/almost-75-000-farmed-salmon-in-scotland-escaped-into-the-wild-after-storm-amy-why-this-may-cause-lasting-damage-267354

October 14, 2025

Young people around the world are leading protests against their governments

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sanwal Hussain, PhD Candidate in the Department of Politics and Society, Aston University

The spate of public demonstrations against unemployment, corruption and low quality of life around the world is striking because of who is leading them. Young people have used social media platforms such as Facebook, TikTok, Instagram and YouTube to spread information and arrange their demonstrations.

While some of these protests have remained peaceful, others – such as the youth-led demonstrations in Indonesia and Nepal – have become violent. Ten people died in Indonesia’s protests in late August, when public anger over the cost of living and social inequality boiled over after police killed a delivery driver.

And 72 people were killed in Nepal, which saw demonstrations against a government social media ban in early September escalate into widespread protests over political instability, elite corruption and economic stagnation. The gen Z groups leading these protests said the movement had been hijacked by “opportunist” infiltrators.

Here are three more places where young people, apparently inspired by the youth-led movements in Indonesia and Nepal, have been demonstrating against their governments in recent weeks.

Peru

Hundreds of young people marched in the Peruvian capital, Lima, in late September against the government’s introduction of pension reforms which require young Peruvians to pay into private pension funds. These protesters were joined a week later by transport workers, who marched towards Congress in the centre of Lima.

In a clash on September 29 – during a protest organised by a youth collective called Generation Z – crowds threw stones and petrol bombs at the police, who responded with tear gas and rubber bullets, injuring at least 18 protesters.

These protests came a few months after Peru’s president, Dina Boluarte, issued a decree doubling her salary. The move, which came despite Boluarte’s historically low approval rating of only 2%, was declared “outrageous” by many observers on Peruvian social media.

Young people there are facing job insecurity and high unemployment, while many say the government is not doing enough to combat extortion by gangs, corruption and rising insecurity.

Reports of extortion in Peru have increased sixfold over the past five years. Figures released by Peru-based market research company Datum Internacional in 2024 suggest around 38% of Peruvians have reported knowing about cases of extortion in their area.

The recent pension reforms added fuel to existing anger. On October 9, after weeks of calls for Boluarte’s government to resign, lawmakers in Peru voted to remove her from office. New elections are due to be held in April 2026.

Morocco

An anonymous collective of young people called Gen Z 212 – a reference to Morocco’s international dialling code – has been at the centre of protests that have spread across ten Moroccan cities since September 27.

The group has organised and coordinated demonstrations through TikTok and Instagram, as well as the gaming and streaming platform Discord. Membership of Gen Z 212 on Discord grew from fewer than 1,000 members at its launch on September 18 to more than 180,000 by October 8.

This movement began in August after eight women died while receiving maternity care in a public hospital in Agadir, a city on Morocco’s southern coast. This sparked outrage over the state of public services in the country.

World Bank statistics from 2023 suggest there are only 7.8 doctors in Morocco for every 10,000 people – far below the 23 doctors for every 10,000 inhabitants recommended by the World Health Organization.

At the same time, Morocco is spending US$5 billion (£3.7 billion) to build the world’s biggest football stadium, as part of its preparations to co-host the 2030 World Cup with Portugal and Spain. Moroccans see their government as having got its priorities wrong. Crowds have chanted slogans such as “We want hospitals, not football stadiums”.

Police have responded to these protests by arresting hundreds of people, with clashes with protesters becoming violent in some parts of the country. Three people were killed on October 1 in what authorities described as “legitimate defence”, after protesters allegedly tried to storm a police station in the village of Lqliâa, near Agadir.

Morocco’s prime minister, Aziz Akhannouch, has invited Gen Z 212 to participate in dialogue with his government, and the group has shared a list of demands focused on basic needs such as education, healthcare, housing, transportation and jobs. However, the protest movement has continued.

Madagascar

At least 22 people were killed and more than 100 injured in anti-government protests across Madagascar in the first week of October. These protests were coordinated by an online movement known as Gen Z Mada – although labour unions, civil society organisations and several politicians became involved once the protests began.

The movement was sparked by the arrest of two Malagasy politicians, Clémence Raharinirina and Baba Faniry Rakotoarisoa, on September 19. Both politicians had publicly called for citizens to stage peaceful demonstrations in the capital, Antananarivo, against water and power supply problems on the island.

The demonstrations focused initially on shortages of basic necessities, an electricity crisis, unemployment and corruption. But they soon escalated into calls for the Malagasy president, Andry Rajoelina, to resign. Protesters have held him responsible for the problems facing their country.

Rajoelina attempted to satisfy the protesters by dissolving his government and calling for “national dialogue” with Gen Z Mada. In a speech on state broadcaster Televiziona Malagasy, he said: “We acknowledge and apologise if members of the government have not carried out the tasks assigned to them.”

However, this move did not stop the demonstrations. Rajoelina subsequently appointed Ruphin Fortunat Zafisambo, an army general, as his prime minister and imposed a strict curfew in Antananarivo, with a heavy presence of security forces, in a bid to end the protests.

The protesters have vowed to continue their struggle and, at time of writing, some are still waving flags with the words “Rajoelina out”. Rajoelina has now fled the country after factions of the army rallied behind the protesters.

In leading the fight against inequality, young people in developing countries are following a well-trodden path. Youth-led protests in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have both toppled governments in recent years. These movements seem to have encouraged others across the globe to empower themselves and demand more from entrenched elites.

Sanwal Hussain 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. Young people around the world are leading protests against their governments – https://theconversation.com/young-people-around-the-world-are-leading-protests-against-their-governments-266950

October 14, 2025

The medieval folklore of Britain’s endangered wildlife ‘omens’ – from hedgehogs to nightjars

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jessica Lloyd May, PhD Candidate in History, University of Nottingham

A hedgehog illustration from a medieval bestiary (1270) by an unknown illuminator. Courtesy of Getty’s Open Content Program, CC BY-SA

As the seasons turn and the nights draw in, the countryside of the British Isles seems alive with omens: an owl’s screech, or a bat above the hedgerows.

For centuries, such creatures were cast as messengers of fate, straddling the boundary between the natural and the supernatural. Yet today, the omens these animals bring are no longer warnings of ghosts or witchcraft, but of something far more tangible: their own survival.

The very species that once haunted our imagination and foretold ill-fated futures are now haunted by habitat loss, climate change and pressure from urbanisation. In the stories of these creatures, we glimpse both our fear of the wild past and our responsibility for the future. Now is the time to revisit some of Britain’s iconic “omen animals”, tracing their folklore and asking what their fate tells us about our shared environment.

Hedgehogs

Hedgehogs, though voted Britain’s favourite mammal, were previously deemed to be milk thieves.

A medieval illustration of a hedgehog — A hedgehog in the medieval Recueil des Croniques d’Engleterre (1471-1483).
Quirk Books

A widespread folkloric belief of the early modern period, likely exacerbated by the European witch hunts, was that witches would transform into hedgehogs to steal milk from cows’ udders. This belief was so prevalent that a campaign to hunt and eradicate hedgehogs was backed by English parliament, with a bounty of a tuppence placed on the head of each hog.

Though their public image has recovered in recent years, hedgehogs are now classed as “vulnerable” to extinction in the UK. Their key threats are linked with habitat loss and fragmentation. Their natural prey, insects and invertebrates, are also in decline due to increased use of pesticides.

Declines in hedgehogs have been particularly steep in rural habitats, with populations reduced by 30–75% since 2000. Conservation priorities focus on restoring lost habitats for hedgehogs and understanding how best to protect them.

Adders

As the only venomous snake in the UK, it is unsurprising that the adder would attract some negative publicity over the years. The species is increasingly a conservation concern and now locally extinct across much of England due to habitat loss.

An “adder’s fork” was a spell ingredient listed by the witches in Shakespeare’s Macbeth (1606). He invoked them too in A Midsummer Night’s Dream (1600) as a way for one character to accuse another of treachery and deceit.

A man fighting a snake — Snakes frequently appear in medieval manuscripts.
British Library Harley MS

Even more sinister, finding an adder on your doorstep was considered a death omen. It is now unlikely for your threshold to be crossed by an adder, as they are now mostly found in small, isolated populations. Even they could be lost by 2032.

Conservation efforts are focusing on the creation, restoration and management of suitable grassland, but are not currently widely implemented. Increasing public awareness and appreciation of the species is a key goal for adder preservation.

Wildcats

Once widespread across Britain, wildcats are now considered our most endangered animal species. They have a long reputation in Scottish folklore for being untameable, serving as the namesake of the Pictish province of Cataibh when it was formed in 800BC. They were often adopted as symbolic emblems or mascots in early clan lore due to their fierce fighting spirit. Their ominous cry is thought to have inspired ghost stories across the ages.

two cats hunting mice in a medieval illustration — Cats hunting mice in a 13th-century manuscript.
British Library, Royal 12 C XIX

Deforestation and persecution, especially by Victorian gamekeepers, eradicated wildcats from England, Wales and much of Scotland. In 2019, experts concluded that breeding with feral domestic cats has compromised their genetic integrity and that the remnant populations are too small, isolated and genetically degraded to have a long-term future.

But some hope does remain for the wildcat. Saving Wildcats, a European partnership project dedicated to wildcat conservation, is leading efforts to breed the species in captivity. As of 2023, a number of wildcats have been into Scotland’s Cairngorm National Park.

Mountain hares

The mountain hare is the UK’s only native member of the hare and rabbit family. Once widespread across Britain, mountain hares are now confined to upland regions of Scotland and the Peak District.

An illustration of a hare hunt — Dogs shown hunting a hare in an illustration from a medieval Bestiary manuscript.
The Medieval Bestiary

Hares have a long history of superstitious and folkloric attachments. They were seen as shape-shifters, or familiars of witches, which would bring doom and misfortune to any person unfortunate enough to have their path crossed. Their shape-shifting abilities were referenced in The Mabinogion, a collection of Welsh stories compiled in the 12th and 13th centuries, across Celtic folklore before. Numerous regional hare-witches were referenced across England.

While fear of wronging a witch historically offered hares some protection, they have faced decline and range reduction from competition with brown hares, hunting pressures and land use change. Recent surveys suggest a 70% crash in the Peak District population over just seven years. Under current rates of decline, the mountain hare will become extinct from the region within five years.

Nightjars

Summer visitors to the UK, nightjars were once thought to drink milk from goats and in doing so poison them and cause their udders to wither away. These birds were also said to snatch up lost souls wandering between worlds with their unearthly call.

illustration of a bird drinking from a goat's udder — A nightjar drinks from a goat’s udder in an illustration from a medieval Bestiary manuscript.
The Medieval Bestiary

Nightjars suffered a catastrophic population decline in excess of 50% and range contraction of around 51% during the latter half of the 20th century. However, surveys conducted in 1992 and 2004 saw welcome population increases of 50% and 36% respectively. Nightjar were recorded making use of new clear-felled and young conifer plantations and benefiting from long-term habitat management projects in their southern strongholds. Although recent recoveries offer hope, nightjars have reclaimed only a fraction of their former range – around 18%.

These species, and far more besides, have been instrumental in the stories people have woven across time. So the next time you hear the screech of an owl outside your bedroom window or glimpse the wings of a bat flapping over your garden, pause to think about the omens of our wild country – and how their stories might yet continue.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The medieval folklore of Britain’s endangered wildlife ‘omens’ – from hedgehogs to nightjars – https://theconversation.com/the-medieval-folklore-of-britains-endangered-wildlife-omens-from-hedgehogs-to-nightjars-267085

October 14, 2025

In defense of ‘surveillance pricing’: Why personalized prices could be an unexpected force for equity

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Aradhna Krishna, Dwight F. Benton Professor of Marketing, University of Michigan

Surveillance pricing has dominated headlines recently. Delta Air Lines’ announcement that it will use artificial intelligence to set individualized ticket prices has led to widespread concerns about companies using personal data to charge different prices for identical products. As The New York Times reported, this practice involves companies tracking everything from your hotel bookings to your browsing history to determine what you’re willing to pay.

The reaction has been swift. Democratic lawmakers have responded with outrage, with Texas Rep. Greg Casar introducing legislation to ban the practice. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump’s new chair of the Federal Trade Commission has shut down public comment on the issue, signaling that the regulatory pendulum may swing away from oversight entirely.

What’s missing in this political back-and-forth is a deeper look at the economics. As a business school professor who researches pricing strategy, I think the debate misses important nuances. Opponents of surveillance pricing overlook some potential benefits that could make markets both more efficient and, counterintuitively, more equitable.

What surveillance pricing actually is

Surveillance pricing differs from traditional dynamic pricing, where prices rise for everyone at times of peak demand. Instead, it uses personal data – browsing history, location, purchase patterns, even device type – to charge a unique price based on what algorithms predict you’re willing to pay.

The goal is to discover each customer’s “reservation price” – the most they’ll pay before walking away. Until recently, this was extremely difficult to do, but modern data collection has made it increasingly feasible.

An FTC investigation found that companies track highly personal consumer behaviors to set individualized prices. For example, a new parent searching for “baby thermometers” might find pricier products on the first page of their results than a nonparent would. It’s not surprising that many people think this is unfair.

The unintended progressive tax

But consider this: Surveillance pricing also means that wealthy customers pay more for identical goods, while lower-income customers pay less. That means it could achieve redistribution goals typically pursued through government policy. Pharmaceutical companies already do this globally, charging wealthier countries more for identical drugs to make medications accessible in poorer nations. Surveillance pricing could function as a private-sector progressive tax system.

Economists call it “price discrimination,” but it often helps poorer consumers access goods they might otherwise be unable to afford. And unlike government programs, this type of redistribution requires no taxpayer funding. When Amazon’s algorithm charges me more than a college student for the same laptop, it’s effectively running a means-tested subsidy program – funded by consumers.

PBS NewsHour featured a segment on the Delta Air Lines news.

The two-tier economy problem

In my view, the most legitimate concern about surveillance pricing isn’t that it exists, but how it’s implemented. Online retailers can seamlessly adjust prices in real time, while physical stores remain largely stuck with uniform pricing. Imagine the customer fury if Target’s checkout prices varied by person based on their smartphone data: There could be chaos in the stores. This digital-physical divide could also create unfair advantages for tech-savvy companies while leaving traditional retailers behind. That would raise fairness considerations for consumers as well as retailers.

This is related to another force that could limit how far surveillance pricing can go: arbitrage, or the practice of buying something where it is cheaper and selling it where it is more expensive.

If a system consistently charges wealthy customers $500 for items that cost poor customers $200, it creates opportunities for entrepreneurial intermediaries to exploit these price gaps. Personal shopping services, buying cooperatives or even friends and family networks could arbitrage these differences, providing wealthy customers access to the lower prices while splitting the savings. This means surveillance pricing can’t discriminate too aggressively – market forces will erode excessive price gaps.

That’s why I believe the solution isn’t to ban surveillance pricing entirely, but to monitor how it is put in practice.

The regulatory sweet spot

The current political moment offers a strange opportunity. With Republicans focused on AI innovation and Democrats fixated on bans, there’s space for a more sophisticated position that embraces market-based redistribution while demanding strong consumer protections.

In my view, smart regulation would require companies to disclose when personal data influences pricing, and would prohibit discrimination based on protected characteristics such as race, color or religion – and this list needs to be created extremely carefully. This would preserve the efficiency benefits while preventing abuse.

Surveillance pricing based on desperation or need also raises unique ethical questions. Charging a wealthier customer more for a taxi ride is one thing; charging someone extra solely because their battery is low and they risk being stranded is another.

As I see it, the distinction between ability to pay and urgency of need must become the cornerstone of regulation. While distinguishing the two may seem challenging, it’s far from impossible. It would help if customers were empowered to report exploitative practices, using mechanisms similar to existing price-gouging protections.

A solid regulatory framework must also clarify the difference between dynamic pricing and surveillance-based exploitation. Dynamic pricing has long been standard practice: Airlines charge all last-minute travelers higher fares, regardless of their circumstances. But consider two passengers buying tickets on the same day – one rushing to a funeral, another planning a spontaneous vacation. Right now, airlines can use technology to identify and exploit the funeral attendee’s desperate circumstances.

The policy challenge is precise: Can we design regulations that prevent airlines from exploiting the bereaved while still allowing retailers to offer discounts on laptops to lower-income families? The answer will determine whether surveillance pricing becomes a tool for equity or exploitation.

Aradhna Krishna 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. In defense of ‘surveillance pricing’: Why personalized prices could be an unexpected force for equity – https://theconversation.com/in-defense-of-surveillance-pricing-why-personalized-prices-could-be-an-unexpected-force-for-equity-266293

October 14, 2025

New student loan limits could change who gets to become a professor, doctor or lawyer

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Rodney Coates, Professor of Critical Race and Ethnic Studies, Miami University

As millions of student loan borrowers settle into the school year, many are stressed about how they’ll pay for their degrees. These students may find that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the big tax and spending bill that President Donald Trump signed into law over the summer, could limit how much they can borrow.

Until recently, graduate students could take out two types of federal loans: Direct Unsubsidized Loans, which had a lifetime limit of US$138,500, and Grad PLUS loans, which allowed students to borrow up to the full cost of attendance, minus financial aid.

But Grad PLUS loans will be eliminated next summer, with a three-year transitional period for current borrowers. That will leave only the capped loans for new borrowers, and those loans have new lifetime borrowing limits: $200,000 for students pursuing certain professional degrees, and $100,000 for nonprofessional graduate programs.

If you add both undergraduate and graduate loans, there’s a new lifetime limit of $257,500 per person.

That seems modest to me. Consider that the annual average costs for an undergraduate degree range from $24,920 for in-state public universities to $58,000 for private universities. That means we’re looking at up to $224,000 for a bachelor’s degree. If we add three years of law school, we’re looking at an additional $132,000 to $168,000, respectively. Alternatively, completing four years of medical school will set you back another $268,000 to $363,000. It’s not easy to make those numbers add up to less than $257,500.

As I reflect on these numbers and my journey to becoming a college professor, specializing in race and ethnic studies, one thing becomes clear: I would never have been able to earn my bachelor’s degree, two master’s degrees, and Ph.D. under these new rules.

Adjusting for inflation, I took out nearly $300,000 in student loans, and I paid them all off within a decade of starting my college teaching career. For me, the system worked. I wonder how today’s aspiring professionals, especially those from less prosperous backgrounds, will manage.

The future of professionals

Professional students already graduate with a lot of debt – often far more than the new loan caps will allow. In 2020, more than a quarter of graduating medical students and nearly 60% of graduating dental students had borrowed more than the new limits would allow, author Mark Kantrowitz, who is an expert on student loans, has found. In 2024, nearly a quarter of medical school graduates left school with more than $300,000 in debt.

The new borrowing limits will likely hit minority students especially hard. While about 61% of all graduate students take out student loans, the share is much higher for Black students compared with white students, 48% to 17%.

While some might be able to supplement their federal loans with private ones – which tend to have much worse terms for borrowers – I fear that many others will be forced to end their educations prematurely.

That, in turn, would worsen the already severe shortage of doctors serving the Black community. As pointed out in a 2023 report of the Journal of the American Medical Association, the shortage of Black primary care physicians is directly related to overall lower population health and ultimately higher mortality rates within the Black community. As of 2023, fewer than 6% of U.S. doctors were Black, versus 14.4% of the population.

Research has suggested that student loan relief would help diversify the medical workforce. Adding new restrictions would likely have the opposite effect, making the profession more homogeneous and significantly undermining Black public health.

Or consider attorneys. Law school costs have risen more than 600% over the past two decades. The average 2020 law school graduate left with $165,000 in student debt.

Black law students face unique challenges, graduating with approximately 8% more debt on average than white students and facing significant wage disparities once they enter the legal workforce. Making it harder for Black students to afford law school could reduce the number of Black attorneys, which has held steady at about 5% of active lawyers over the past 10 years.

Reducing access to federal student loans risks disproportionately affecting women, since they hold roughly two-thirds of all student debt.

What comes next

Supporters of the change say that capping graduate student borrowing will encourage universities to rein in tuition hikes. They also say private student loan providers will step in to help students. I am skeptical, but the true test will come next year.

In the meantime, professional students might want to familiarize themselves with the many scholarship opportunities available. Many organizations offer a range of medical school scholarships, including those targeting women and minorities. The same is true for students interested in law school. A helpful starting point is this list of scholarships with approaching deadlines and these opportunities for women and people of color.

Rodney Coates 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. New student loan limits could change who gets to become a professor, doctor or lawyer – https://theconversation.com/new-student-loan-limits-could-change-who-gets-to-become-a-professor-doctor-or-lawyer-262008

October 14, 2025

Starbucks wants you to stay awhile – but shuttering its mobile-only pickup locations could be a risky move

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Vivek Astvansh, Associate Professor of Quantitative Marketing and Analytics, McGill University

When Starbucks announced that it would phase out its mobile-order pickup-only locations beginning in 2026, it raised a question: Why abandon a format seemingly built for speed and efficiency?

As Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol explained the decision in an earnings call, the pickup-only stores had a “transactional” feel, lacking “the warmth and human connection that defines our brand.”

While Niccol also touted the mobile-order options at its traditional coffee shops, I see Starbucks’ move as an attempt to return to its roots as a “third place” – a destination between home and work where people can gather and connect.

But this sort of pivot comes with trade-offs – and it creates interesting market opportunities for competitors. As a marketing professor and a coffee connoisseur, I’m offering this analysis to go with your morning cup of joe.

The two types of coffee shop patrons

In general, coffee shops attract two distinct customer segments. The first are what I call “stay-and-savor” customers – people who mostly use the site as a place to meet others or work. Their primary interest is in the space, not the mocha or muffins.

The second are “grab-and-go” customers – people who want a consistent product, delivered efficiently. They don’t linger at the store, so the place is less important to them than convenience, speed and product quality. Think of the morning rush at your local coffee joint.

Starbucks’ pickup-only stores, branded as Starbucks PICK UP, cater to grab-and-go customers. If you don’t live in a busy area, you might never have heard of the brand: There are fewer than 100 Starbucks PICK UPs, many in densely packed cities.

In contrast, there are about 17,000 sit-in Starbucks stores across the United States. That means its plan will affect just 0.5% of its locations. That’s not very much.

So why does this change have me a little, well, steamed up?

Back to the third place, whether you like it or not

As I said before, I see this move as part of an effort to emphasize “stay-and-savor” customers over their “grab-and-go” counterparts. Indeed, Niccol’s recent earnings call presentation claimed that Starbucks is “prioritizing warmth, connection and community.” Starbucks also publishes a document stating its “principles for upholding the third place,” and its commitment seems to be more than just rhetorical.

The problem is that coffee shops aren’t like regular restaurants in terms of menu prices and customer spending. “Stay-and-savor” customers are costly to serve for coffee shops, and may generate insufficient revenue, making them less profitable. That could be bad for the bottom line.

The change could also have unintended consequences for workers and customers. For example, pickup-only stores allow employees to focus on food and beverage preparation, with less pressure to engage in small talk in the hopes of generating warmth and tips. Indeed, much academic research has shown that restaurant workers who serve customers report more emotional labor and stress and worse morale and well-being than those who don’t.

In contrast, Starbucks’ rivals, such as Dunkin’ and the Chinese new entrant Luckin Coffee, have embraced the grab-and-go customers. These rivals provide space for seating space, but they don’t elevate their positioning as if their baristas are serving warmth, connection and community.

Starbucks CEO Niccol has described the plan as a “sunsetting.” I’d watch out for Dunkin’ and Luckin Coffee, and of course, Starbucks’ financials in 2026, to determine whether the Starbucks sun sets or rises.

Vivek Astvansh 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. Starbucks wants you to stay awhile – but shuttering its mobile-only pickup locations could be a risky move – https://theconversation.com/starbucks-wants-you-to-stay-awhile-but-shuttering-its-mobile-only-pickup-locations-could-be-a-risky-move-262591

October 14, 2025

Introducing Jane Austen’s Paper Trail – a new podcast from The Conversation

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Anna Walker, Senior Arts + Culture Editor, The Conversation

Most of us think we know something about Jane Austen. As I began research for Jane Austen’s Paper Trail – a new podcast from The Conversation marking 250 years since her birth – I certainly believed I did.

Perhaps, like me, you’ve read her novels or enjoyed one of the many screen adaptations. Maybe you’ve seen her portrait, painted by her sister Cassandra, hanging in the National Portrait Gallery – or gazing serenely from a £10 note. But the more I learned about Austen, the more she seemed to slip away.

The image that adorns countless books, tea towels and souvenirs isn’t actually Cassandra’s painting at all. It’s an embellished copy: a Victorian engraving by William Home Lizars, who took the unfinished original and softened Austen’s features – uncrossing her arms and adjusting what some have called her “sour look”.

Even in her own day, Austen was hard to pin down. One acquaintance recalled her as “fair and handsome”, while her nephew remembered “bright hazel eyes and brown hair”. A niece, however, insisted that her aunt had “long, long black hair down to her knees”.

Accounts of her character differ just as wildly. One older woman who knew Jane in her youth described her as “the prettiest, silliest, most affected, husband-hunting butterfly she ever remembers”. Others said she had a “certain critical aloofness”, and was particularly shy in company.

The difficulty of knowing Jane is made worse by one peculiar act. In 1841, 25 years after Jane’s death, Cassandra Austen crouched by the fireplace and burned nearly all of her sister’s letters. Only 160 survived. Why did she do it? To protect Jane’s privacy? To preserve her image? Or was Jane’s famously sharp pen simply too dangerous for posterity?

That mystery – and many others – drives Jane Austen’s Paper Trail.

Over six episodes, one for each of her novels, we take you on a journey through Austen’s life and times with the help of the UK’s top experts. We’ll head to a scandal-filled tearoom in Bath to ask whether Jane was a gossip, visit a glittering Regency ball to find out whether she was a romantic, and visit her house in Hampshire to find out what she thought about being a writer.

Along the way, we’ll unpack the characters and themes that have made her work so enduring – and uncover the real Jane Austen.

Episode 1 of Jane Austen’s Paper Trail will be published on November 4. If you’re craving more Austen, check out our Jane Austen 250 page for more expert articles celebrating the anniversary.

Jane Austen’s Paper Trail is hosted by Anna Walker with reporting from Jane Wright and Naomi Joseph. Senior producer and sound designer is Eloise Stevens and the executive producer is Gemma Ware. Artwork by Alice Mason.

Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here.

– ref. Introducing Jane Austen’s Paper Trail – a new podcast from The Conversation – https://theconversation.com/introducing-jane-austens-paper-trail-a-new-podcast-from-the-conversation-266533