Category: English

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Luke William Hunt, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Alabama

A federal judge ruled on Sept. 2, 2025, that the Trump administration broke federal law by sending National Guard troops to Los Angeles in June in response to protests over immigration raids.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said that National Guard troops in Los Angeles had received improper training on the legal scope of their authority under federal law. He ruled that the president’s order for the troops to engage in “domestic military law enforcement” violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which – with limited exceptions – bars the use of the military in civilian law enforcement.

While he did not require the remaining soldiers to leave Los Angeles, Breyer called on the administration to refrain from using them “to execute laws.”

The Los Angeles case, President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to fight crime in Washington, D.C., and his recent vow to send the Guard to Chicago and Baltimore to fight crime blur practical and philosophical lines erected in both law and longtime custom between the military and the police.

As a policing scholar and former FBI special agent, I believe the plan to continue using National Guard troops to reduce crime in cities such as Chicago and Baltimore violates the legal prohibition against domestic military law enforcement.

Limited law enforcement function

State and local police training focus on law enforcement and maintaining order. Community policing, which is a collaboration between police and
the community to solve problems, and the use-of-force continuum – the escalating series of appropriate actions an officer may take to resolve a situation – also form part of training.

In contrast, the goal of National Guard basic combat training is to “learn the skills it takes to become a Soldier.”

The initial 10-week training program for National Guard recruits includes learning skills such as the use of M16 military assault rifles and grenade launchers. It also includes learning guerrilla warfare tactics, as well as tactics for neutralizing improvised explosive devices while engaging in military operations. While valuable in a military setting, such activities aren’t part of domestic policing and law enforcement.

While the National Guard has, by law, a limited law enforcement function in times of domestic emergencies, it’s a unique part of the U.S. military that typically responds – at the request of a state’s governor – to natural disasters and extreme violence.

Although rare, presidents can also call up the Guard, with or without the assent of a state governor. In 1992, for example, President George H.W. Bush sent Guard troops to Los Angeles – with the California governor’s approval – to quell widespread riots following the acquittal of white police officers who had been charged with assaulting Rodney King, a Black man.

But sending soldiers who are not well versed in policing increases the likelihood of mistakes. One of the most well-known examples is the Kent State shootings on May 4, 1970, when National Guardsmen sent to the university by Ohio’s governor opened fire and killed four unarmed students during an anti-war protest on campus.

The erosion of restraint

U.S. presidents have historically exercised restraint in deploying military personnel to suppress domestic unrest. Presidents typically work with state governors who request federal assistance during times of crisis.

Thousands of National Guard troops were sent to multiple states at the request of state governors following Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Among other tasks, President Barack Obama’s administration directed the Department of Defense to support FEMA’s efforts to restore power to thousands of homes.

The last time a president bypassed a state’s governor in sending the National Guard to quell civil unrest was in Selma, Alabama, in 1965. President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed the National Guard to protect civil rights protesters without the cooperation of Alabama Gov. George Wallace, a prominent segregationist.

Trump is changing this precedent by sending National Guard troops to Los Angeles, despite the fact that Gov. Gavin Newsom neither refused to follow federal law nor requested military support. In June 2025, Trump overrode Newsom and sent Guard troops to shield federal agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement from political protests.

The decision to send federal troops to a political protest in Los Angeles has raised core legal questions. The First Amendment’s protection of the right to political protest is a pillar of U.S. jurisprudence.

‘Federalizing’ the Guard

The governed have a right to hold the government accountable and ensure that the government’s power reflects the consent of the governed.

The right to protest, of course, does not extend to criminal behavior. But the use of military personnel raises a pressing question: Is the president justified in sending military personnel to address pockets of criminality, instead of relying on state or local police?

One of a president’s legal avenues is to use a federal statute to do what’s called “federalizing” the National Guard. This means troops are temporarily transitioned from state to federal military control.

What is unique about the deployment in California is that Newsom objected to Trump’s decision to federalize troops. California in June 2025 sued the Trump administration, arguing the president unlawfully bypassed the governor when he federalized the National Guard.

On Sept. 4, 2025, Washington, D.C., sued the Trump administration on similar grounds. The lawsuit follows Trump’s decision in August to deploy hundreds of National Guard troops to police the capital.

For the president to legally take control of and deploy the California National Guard under federal statutes, it was necessary for the criminality in Los Angeles to rise to a “rebellion” against the U.S.

More generally, the president is prohibited from using military force – including the Marines – against civilians in pursuit of normal law-enforcement goals. This bedrock principle is based on the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and permits only rare exceptions, as stipulated by the Insurrection Act of 1807. This act empowers the president to deploy the U.S. military to states in circumstances relating to the suppression of an insurrection.

The Sept. 2 ruling by the federal judge in California determined that the administration deviated from these principles because the use of troops in Los Angeles did not meet the criteria established by federal law. Although the political protests in Los Angeles included some violence, the judge reasoned that the violence did not rise to a rebellion and did not prevent a traditional police response.

Federalism and the limits of executive power

In addition to the practical differences between the military and the police, there are philosophical differences derived from core principles of federalism, which refers to the division of power between the national and state governments.

In the United States, police power is derived from the 10th Amendment, which gives states the rights and powers “not delegated to the United States.” It is the states that have the power to establish and enforce laws protecting the welfare, safety and health of the public.

The use of military personnel in domestic affairs is limited by deeply entrenched policy and legal frameworks.

The deployment of National Guard troops for routine crime fighting in cities such as Los Angeles and Washington, and the proposed deployment of those troops to Chicago and Baltimore, highlights the erosion of both practical and philosophical constraints on the president and the vast federal power the president wields.

Luke William Hunt 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. Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to fight crime blurs the legal distinction between the police and the military – https://theconversation.com/trumps-deployment-of-the-national-guard-to-fight-crime-blurs-the-legal-distinction-between-the-police-and-the-military-264548

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Shiri Noy, Associate Professor of Sociology, Denison University

Scroll through TikTok, browse dating profiles or sit at a cafe, and you’ll often hear people reference their astrological sign. Someone might proudly claim their Leo energy; others joke that they would never date a Scorpio.

Even in modern societies shaped by science, technology and universities — what sociologists sometimes call “disenchantment” — many people are still looking to astrology for meaning.

Its widespread popularity sits alongside skepticism, with surveys suggesting that astrology can be popular even among those who don’t fully “believe” in it and use it “for fun.”

In a new study published in the sociology journal Social Currents, we examined who consults astrology, how they use it and why they’re drawn to it.

Drawing on nationally representative surveys, interviews with Americans and conversations with professional astrologers, we found that astrology is less about predicting the future and more about making sense of the self in an uncertain world.

Astrology’s deep roots

Astrology – the idea that the positions and movements of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars influence events on Earth – has a long history.

For centuries, it was closely linked with astronomy. Early astronomers were also astrologers, charting the stars to measure time and interpret their influence on human life. The familiar 12-sign zodiac dates back to the fifth century B.C.E., and astrology was taught in medieval universities.

Astronomy and astrology began to diverge in the 17th century. As astronomy embraced mathematics and observation during the Scientific Revolution, astrology increasingly lost its scholarly legitimacy and was pushed to the margins.

By the 19th century, science itself became professionalized. Universities and academies formalized disciplines, research careers and standards of evidence. With astronomy firmly established as a science, astrology was relegated to the realm of the occult or pseudoscience.

Astrology entered mainstream culture in the 1930s with daily newspaper horoscopes and spread widely, before experiencing renewed popularity in the 1960s and 1970s thanks to the New Age movement.

Astrology’s current digital resurgence echoes these earlier waves, showing how it has repeatedly adapted to cultural shifts. Among Gen Zers, downloads of astrology apps have spiked in recent years, and industry reports project the global astrology market will top US$22 billion by 2031.

Who’s turning to astrology

Astrology today is far from fringe.

Roughly one-quarter of Americans say they believe in astrology, according to a June 2025 Gallup survey. A May 2025 Pew Research poll found that close to one-third of Americans say they’ve consulted horoscopes or similar tools.

In our analysis, just under half of Americans reported ever having consulted a horoscope. We also found that women, younger adults and LGBTQ+ people were especially likely to look to the stars for guidance.

More than half of women said they had read a horoscope, compared with slightly more than one-third of men. About 60% of sexual minorities reported doing so, compared with just under half of heterosexuals. Younger adults were consistently more likely than older adults to read or consult astrology.

Its popularity reflects broader cultural shifts: Younger generations are less tied to organized religion but continue to seek out spirituality or find meaning in other places.

In our study, we draw on data from interviews with 31 Americans, who shared that they saw astrology as a form of entertainment or as a window into someone’s personality.

Many respondents could name their zodiac sign or sun sign, and some described how it seemed to “fit” their personality. Few saw astrology as literally predictive. Instead, they used it as one more way to understand the self, comparable to tools such as the Myers-Briggs personality test or the enneagram.

Our co-author, independent researcher Avantaea Siefke, interviewed professional astrologers and their clients, who framed astrology differently. For them, it was less about labels and more about spirituality and decision-making. They described astrology as a way to time major choices, gain confidence or reflect on relationships. One astrologer likened it to therapy: not deterministic, but a source of guidance and assurance.

Astrology in uncertain times

Why does astrology resonate now?

Some analysts have described the current moment as an “age of polycrisis,” with overlapping economic, political and environmental challenges. At the same time, identity categories have become more fluid, and traditional sources of authority — religion, education, government — are more likely to be contested or distrusted.

Astrology may offer people tools for navigating these uncertainties.

It provides a language for identity, giving people shorthand to describe themselves and others. It offers a measure of control by giving people frameworks for thinking about choices and timing. And it creates community, particularly for LGBTQ+ people. Scholars have noted that astrology is a way for queer communities to cope with everyday struggles and imagine alternatives to mainstream forms of care and healing.

Critics often dismiss astrology as irrational or pseudoscientific, and it’s true that astrology is not a science. But rather than asking whether astrology is “real,” it may be more useful to ask what its popularity says about contemporary life.

From a sociological perspective, astrology is fascinating precisely because it straddles categories. Rather than a set of cosmic beliefs, many people treat astrology as a tool — part spirituality, part cultural practice, part entertainment and part language for understanding themselves and others.

It is probably no coincidence that astrology often surges during unsettled times.

Just as earlier generations might have turned to prayer or ritual, many people today turn to the stars. And while astrology may not predict the future, its popularity says a great deal about how Americans are navigating the present.

Independent researcher Avantaea Siefke is a contributing author of this article.

Shiri Noy has received funding from the National Science Foundation and from sub-grants funded by the Templeton Religion Trust and the Issachar Fund.

Christopher P. Scheitle receives funding from the National Science Foundation and the John Templeton Foundation. The research discussed in this article was supported by a grant from the Science and Religion: Identity and Belief Formation grant initiative spearheaded by the Religion and Public Life Program at Rice University and the University of California-San Diego and provided by the Templeton Religion Trust via The Issachar Fund.

Katie E. Corcoran receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The research discussed in this article was supported by a grant from the Science and Religion: Identity and Belief Formation grant initiative spearheaded by the Religion and Public Life Program at Rice University and the University of California-San Diego and provided by the Templeton Religion Trust via The Issachar Fund.

– ref. Astrology’s appeal in uncertain times – https://theconversation.com/astrologys-appeal-in-uncertain-times-264174

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Brad Greenwood, Professor of Business, George Mason University

Infant mortality has risen in states that enacted tighter abortion restrictions in the wake of the June 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision. This occurs for newborns – those less than a day old – as well as older infants – those 1 month to 1 year old.

In addition, states with new restrictions that include health exceptions, which permit an abortion to be performed to save the life of the mother or in the case of life-limiting fetal abnormality, experience a similar increase in infant deaths. These are the key takeaways of our team’s August 2025 study published in the American Journal of Public Health.

For our research, we drew data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to determine how many infants died in each state between 2018 and 2023.

We then looked at changes in the number of infant deaths before a state introduced a new abortion restriction versus after, contrasting those changes with states that had not implemented new restrictions. In economic parlance, we estimated the “difference in differences.”

On average, states with abortion restrictions enacted after Dobbs saw a 7.2% increase in infant deaths – an increase of roughly 30 deaths per year in children up to age 1. These deaths did not exclusively occur among newborns in their first day of life. Instead, much of the disparity was concentrated among infants between 1 month and 1 year old, who suffered a 9.3% increase in excess deaths.

We observed no significant change in the number of infant deaths when state legislatures included health exceptions for the mother or the fetus. In other words, our data showed that despite such exceptions, infant deaths increased at the same rate as states without the exceptions.

Why it matters

Three years after Roe was overturned, the abortion rights landscape in the U.S. is still contested terrain.

In effect, the Dobbs decision returned control of abortion regulation to the states. Since that time, legislators in more than 20 states have instituted abortion restrictions that would not have been permissible under the previous Roe v. Wade standard.

Still, other states have taken steps to protect access to the procedure, including Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, Montana and New York.

Within this fragmented legal environment, we and others are working to rigorously examine public health outcomes so policymakers, legislators and voters can make informed decisions.

This examination did not start with us. For example, prior researchers found that infant deaths in Texas rose nearly 13% after the passage of Texas Senate Bill 8 in 2021. Our paper suggests that, unfortunately, the Texas study was not a fluke. The same pattern holds nationally in states that enacted abortion restrictions in the wake of Roe being overturned.

The lack of significant difference in the number of infant deaths in states where abortion restrictions have health exceptions also suggests that medical professionals may be unsure when they can lean on such exceptions when treating patients. And if health exceptions are going to have the desired effect, state legislatures will need to define what constitutes “serious risk” and “irreversible impairment,” as well as other broad terms that are included in such statutory language.

What still isn’t known

Although our study makes it clear that infant mortality has risen in abortion-restricting states, future research is needed to explain precisely how the restrictions contributed to these deaths.

Indeed, our paper finds that the rise in mortality was not solely due to perinatal or congenital issues and the time of birth. Increases also occurred in the catch-all category of “other causes” that may affect infants up to the second year of life. This murkiness deepens the mystery around how, exactly, abortion restrictions are putting infants at risk.

Further, due to data availability, we have little insight into how the patchwork of abortion laws is affecting people from different groups, such as race and socioeconomic class.

It is likely that economic, as well as public-health approaches, will be needed to address a problem that is reaching tragic proportions.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

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. Infant mortality rises in states with restrictive abortion laws – new research – https://theconversation.com/infant-mortality-rises-in-states-with-restrictive-abortion-laws-new-research-263707

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Emmy Betz, Professor of Emergency Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

Colorado has one of the highest suicide rates in the nation, at 20.9 per 100,000 in 2023. Of the state’s 940 gun deaths that year, nearly 72% were by suicide.

Nationally, firearms are the leading cause of death for American youth ages 1 to 17. More than 1 in 4 youth firearm deaths nationwide are due to suicide, with a parent’s firearm most often the weapon used.

Firearm-related injuries and suicide both are highly sensitive and stigmatized topics that many people are reluctant to talk about, yet both are major public health concerns with solutions for prevention.

Lifesaving conversations

As an emergency room physician in Denver, I’ve learned how to talk to my patients about firearms and suicides. On every single shift, I care for adults with suicide risk. I always talk with them and their families about reducing access to firearms at home, such as giving control of the locking device to a family member or temporarily storing guns away from homes.

Research shows that these conversations may reduce suicide risk and that patients are open to them.

Working in the emergency room has shown me that everyone goes through tough times. Unfortunately, even though there’s no shame in asking for help, people may be reluctant to share what they’re going through or to seek mental health or medical care.

A recent article about adults who died by suicide found that those who used a firearm were less likely to have used mental health care services in the year before death. Based on research like this, and my two decades in the ER, I firmly believe that we can’t leave firearm suicide prevention to clinicians alone. Rather, firearm suicide prevention efforts need to happen in nonclinical spaces with “trusted messengers” from the firearms or local community. This might be particularly useful for men, who traditionally have been less likely to seek mental health help.

The community’s role in firearm suicide prevention

In addition to seeing patients, I’m also a suicide prevention researcher and the founding director of the Firearm Injury Prevention Initiative at the University of Colorado, where we use research, education and collaboration to bring evidence-based solutions to communities.

Firearm suicide deaths are preventable, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation and American Foundation for Suicide Prevention emphasize that anyone can learn to “have a brave conversation” about firearms and suicide. To be clear: This approach isn’t advocating for firearm confiscation. And it’s not about implying that firearms cause suicide, or that people with suicide risk don’t need access to effective help for mental illness, substance use or social stressors. But there’s no harm caused by asking a person if they’re struggling, and it might help.

Simple actions can help someone get through a time of high risk of suicide and get the support they need. No one – young, old, urban, rural, gun owner or not, with any political affiliation – wants to lose a loved one to suicide. That’s something agreed on by the firearm industry, health care and public health organizations and academia.

Firearm suicide is preventable

Suicide, particularly by firearm, is often preventable for a few reasons.

First, while many suicide attempts occur within the context of mental illness, short-term crises usually precipitate the attempt – things such as the breakup of a romantic relationship, job loss, financial stressors or bullying.

Second, studies show that the time from deciding to attempt suicide to actually taking action can be as little as minutes to hours – and also that, among people who survive an attempt, the majority do not go on to die by suicide.

This mix of impulsivity and ambivalence highlights why a safe environment – without access to firearms or other lethal methods – can be the difference between life and death for someone in crisis. Firearms are a particular concern because they are so deadly – up to 90% of suicide attempts involving firearms end in death.

If a firearm isn’t available, even if a person substitutes a different method – and most don’t – they’re more likely to survive than if they’d used the firearm. And while a prior suicide attempt is a risk factor for future suicide, only about 10% of those who survive an attempt later die by suicide.

Simple steps for firearm suicide prevention

What does this mean for clinicians, families, friends or community leaders?

It’s simple: Reduce firearm access for people with suicide risk. This can mean secure, locked firearm storage, which limits unauthorized or unsupervised firearm access. When the firearm owner is the one with suicide risk, they can hand over the key or PIN to the locking device to a family member or friend.

Many types of firearm locking devices are available, so there’s something for every home situation. Firearms can also be temporarily and voluntarily stored away from home at local gun shops during a time of risk, or for other reasons, such as home renovation, military deployment or travel.

In Colorado, there are multiple suicide awareness walks taking place in the fall of 2025. At the CU medical campus, our team provides workshops to train leaders from varied fields and from across the state how to build firearm suicide prevention programs that work for their communities.

I often say, “We all have a role in preventing firearm injury.” Mine is working in clinical, research and community settings on evidence-based firearm suicide prevention programs.
What’s yours?

For a person who’s struggling with their mental health – or for anyone worried about them – the national 988 hotline provides 24/7 free guidance by phone, text or web chat.

Read more of our stories about Colorado.

Emmy Betz receives research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense.

– ref. Colorado has one of the nation’s highest suicide rates − an ER doctor explains how to bring it down – https://theconversation.com/colorado-has-one-of-the-nations-highest-suicide-rates-an-er-doctor-explains-how-to-bring-it-down-263408

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Charles J. Russo, Joseph Panzer Chair in Education and Research Professor of Law, University of Dayton

As disputes rage on over religion’s place in public schools, the Ten Commandments have become a focal point. At least a dozen states have considered proposals that would require classrooms to post the biblical laws, and three passed laws mandating their display in 2024-2025: Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas.

All three laws have been at least partially blocked – most recently Texas’ law – after federal trial court rulings. But the ongoing cases seem aimed at overturning a 45-year-old U.S. Supreme Court precedent prohibiting the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools.

As religion and education law researchers, we believe this situation is especially noteworthy because of its timing. The Supreme Court has been using a new standard to assess religious freedom cases – and its judgments on religion’s role in public education are perhaps the most religion-friendly they have ever been.

The Ten Commandments and the courts

Litigation over the Ten Commandments is not new. More than a dozen early cases generally upheld laws and policies mandating their recitation in schools. These enactments survived because the Supreme Court did not extend the First Amendment to the states until 1940.

However, the issue of posting the commandments in schools first surfaced in 1980. In a case called Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky statute requiring displays of the Ten Commandments in classrooms. The court reasoned that the law violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

At the time, the court used three criteria, known as the “Lemon test,” to evaluate whether a government action violated the establishment clause. According to this test – which developed from a 1971 Supreme Court decision – governmental actions must have a secular legislative purpose, and their main effect may neither advance nor inhibit religion. In addition, they must avoid excessive entanglement with religion.

When Kentucky’s case came before the court, justices rejected its argument that the displays served a secular educational purpose. The majority did not think that a small notation on posters describing the Ten Commandments as the “fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States” was sufficient, and wrote that the posters were “plainly religious in nature.”

Twenty-five years later, in 2005, disputes over public displays of the Ten Commandments reached the Supreme Court once more. This time, the displays were not in schools. But the first controversy arose, again, in Kentucky.

Officials in two counties had erected displays at courthouses that included the Ten Commandments, Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence. The justices limited their order to one dispute, in McCreary County, invalidating the display for violating the establishment clause – largely because it lacked a secular legislative purpose.

On the same day, though, the Supreme Court reached the opposite result in another case, Van Orden v. Perry. The court permitted a display including the Ten Commandments to remain on the grounds of the Texas Capitol in Austin, where it was one of 17 monuments and 21 historical markers.

Unlike the fairly new displays in Kentucky, the long-standing one in Texas, with the first monument erected in 1891, was built using private funds. The court left the Ten Commandments monument in place because it was a more passive display. The Capitol grounds are spread out over 22 acres, meaning the display was not as readily apparent as if it had been posted in classrooms for children to see every day.

‘Follow God’s law’

In 2024, a federal trial court in Louisiana blocked a state law mandating that the Ten Commandments be posted in public schools. Undeterred, Arkansas and Texas passed similar legislation the following year.

Arkansas Act 573, signed into law in April 2025, obligated officials to display a “durable poster or framed copy” of the Ten Commandments in all state and local government buildings, including public school and college classrooms.

Republican Rep. Alyssa Brown, one of the Arkansas bill’s sponsors, described it as an effort to educate students on how the United States was founded and how the founders framed the Constitution.

“We’re not telling every student they have to believe in this God,” she told a legislative committee, “but we are upholding what those historical documents mean and that historical national motto.”

Texas, meanwhile, adopted a similar law in June 2025.

“It is incumbent on all of us to follow God’s law, and I think we would all be better off if we did,” the bill’s sponsor in the Texas House, Republican Rep. Candy Noble, said during debate.

Shift at SCOTUS

Supporters of these laws have claimed that they are constitutional because of an important shift at the Supreme Court. In 2022, the court adopted a new “history and tradition test” to assess religion in public places, including classrooms.

The “history and tradition test” originated in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a case about a public high school football coach who prayed on the field at the end of games. The Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that school officials could not prevent him from doing so, because it was personal religious observance protected by the First Amendment’s other religion clause: that the government shall not prohibit the “free exercise” of religion.

Kennedy charted a new course on religion’s place in public life. Acknowledging that it “long ago abandoned Lemon and its endorsement test offshoot,” the justices explained that “the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by ‘reference to historical practices and understandings.‘” It remains to be seen how this vague standard plays out in later cases.

Blocked – for now

Opponents quickly challenged Arkansas’ law. Seven families from various religious traditions filed suit, arguing that it was a direct violation of both the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

On Aug. 4, a federal trial court judge ruled in the families’ favor. The court found that the required display would have “forced [students] to engage with” the Ten Commandments, and “perhaps to venerate and obey” them. The trial court also applied the new historical practices and understandings test, holding that there was no evidence of a tradition to display the Ten Commandments in public schools permanently.

The court thus temporarily barred school boards from enforcing Act 573, pending any further appeals.

Two weeks later, a federal trial court in Texas temporarily blocked the law on the ground that it likely violated the First Amendment, though the judge’s order only applies to 11 districts.

Religion’s role

Controversy over the Ten Commandments continues to raise larger questions over the role of religion in public education.

Supporters of such bills seemingly fail to recognize that they cannot impose their religious values in the public sphere. At the same time, some opponents – including Jewish, Christian, Unitarian Universalist, Hindu and nonreligious plaintiffs – do not necessarily wish to remove religion entirely from educational institutions.

These critics want to uphold the principle, as the Supreme Court announced, that the government must demonstrate “neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.” In other words, critics do not want one religion or religion generally to dominate.

Today’s challenge is to find the balance in public life. We believe the courts and legislatures must avoid sending the message that religion has no place in a free and open society – just as they must not permit one set of values to dominate, as the bills in Arkansas and Texas seem to aspire to do.

How the courts and legislatures balance the rights of the majority and minority in these disputes over the place of the Ten Commandments in public life may go a long way toward shaping the future of religious freedom in American public education.

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. 3 states push to put the Ten Commandments back in school – banking on new guidance at the Supreme Court – https://theconversation.com/3-states-push-to-put-the-ten-commandments-back-in-school-banking-on-new-guidance-at-the-supreme-court-264423

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Alvin Thomas, Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Parents struggle to help teens deal with online racism. Online racism is different from in-person racism because the people behaving that way usually hide behind fake names, making it hard to stop them. Studies found that teens of color see more untargeted racism – memes, jokes, comments – and racism targeting others online than racism targeted directly at them. But vicarious racism hurts, too.

Teens are deeply immersed in the online world, and online spaces are quickly emerging as critical places where teens socialize and learn the rules and norms of their society. A survey in 2024 found that nearly half of U.S. teens ages 13 to 17 reported being online “almost constantly.” The rates were even higher among Black teens (53%) and Hispanic teens (58%).

Online spaces offer opportunities and risks. Black and Hispanic adolescents, in particular, face heightened exposure to online racial discrimination and harassment, which can seriously harm their emotional well-being.

Good parenting can help protect kids from racism’s harmful effects, but what works in person might not work online. Some parenting ideas such as talking openly about race and teaching kids to be proud of their culture seem helpful. However, teens who see or experience racism on social media are more likely to feel sad or use drugs and alcohol. This threat means parents need to understand the best ways to go beyond offline tactics to help their teens stay safe online.

We are researchers of human development and family studies. We studied Black and Hispanic teens’ experiences with online racial discrimination and found that the most common and effective strategy that parents used to help their teens was active guidance – talking about internet use – rather than monitoring their internet use. Black and Hispanic teens reported fewer symptoms of depression if their parents used this strategy more frequently.

What teens are saying

In our study, we surveyed 356 Black and Hispanic teens between the ages of 12 and 18 across the United States. We asked about their own online experiences as well as those they witnessed of people from their racial group being racially discriminated against. We also asked the teens about their mental health and the strategies parents used to interrupt or manage their internet use.

We found that parents more often employed active guidance to help their teens deal with online racial discrimination. Black and Hispanic teens reported fewer symptoms of depression if their parents used active guidance more frequently.

Parents who use this strategy navigate the appropriate use of social media together with their children. They may offer help when problems arise or initiate open conversations about internet use.

At the core of the success of active guidance might be its support of digital literacy and cultivation of responsible social media behaviors. This empowering parenting practice may also help teens develop autonomy and independence. Importantly, it might also make teens feel connected to and supported by their parents.

Another common strategy is monitoring, and it includes practices such as checking children’s browsing history, messages and social media contacts. Yet, we found that this strategy was not helpful when it came to teens’ mental health. Instead, adolescents in this study who received more parental monitoring suffered more anxiety symptoms. Even more concerning, parental monitoring appeared to exacerbate teens’ depression symptoms from online racial discrimination.

How to help teens

Our work helps inform parents, educators and others involved in teen well-being about approaches they can take to support Black and Hispanic teens in navigating social media.

Parents can start conversations with their teens about healthy internet use. Parents can encourage teens to share positive and negative online experiences without judgment and reassure them that they can come to their parents if they run into trouble.

At the same time, parents can avoid excessive monitoring, especially if their child feels their autonomy is being invaded. If you believe monitoring is necessary, explain your reasoning clearly and work with your child on establishing a monitoring plan.

Educators can offer seminars on digital literacy for parents and children, equipping families with tools to navigate online spaces more safely. Mental health professionals can consider clients’ online experiences as part of their assessments and treatments, and they can also develop family-based interventions that promote adolescent well-being while counteracting online racism. Educators and professionals could collaborate to establish school and community support groups for teens.

Policymakers can recognize the particular online risks faced by adolescents of color and work to strengthen antidiscrimination policies and enhance protections for children online.

Researchers can investigate coping strategies and resources that empower Black and Hispanic teens and their parents, and evaluate their effectiveness in supporting adolescent well-being.

Next steps

We plan to explore how social media affects Black and Hispanic teens in three main ways. First, we want to see how online discrimination actually reaches and hurts minority teenagers. We want to understand how unfair treatment online, such as targeted harassment and biased algorithms, makes existing problems worse for these young people.

Second, it would be interesting to follow students over time to see how online experiences affect their grades, mental health, well-being and friendships in the long run.

And third, we want to know what policies at the school and national level might help make online spaces a safe and productive space for youth to gather and grow. This research is important because it will help parents learn specific ways to support their teens online while also showing how discrimination on social media affects minority youth differently. The goal is to give families real tools to help their teenagers stay safe and healthy in digital spaces.

Alvin Thomas is affiliated with
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (Forum for Children’s Well-Being), Scholars’ Action Network

Yeqing Li 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. Helping teens navigate online racism − study shows which parenting strategy works best – https://theconversation.com/helping-teens-navigate-online-racism-study-shows-which-parenting-strategy-works-best-264021