Category: English

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Moones Alamooti, Assistant Professor of Energy and Petroleum Engineering, University of North Dakota

As energy use rises and the planet warms, you might have dreamed of an energy source that works 24/7, rain or shine, quietly powering homes, industries and even entire cities without the ups and downs of solar or wind – and with little contribution to climate change.

The promise of new engineering techniques for geothermal energy – heat from the Earth itself – has attracted rising levels of investment to this reliable, low-emission power source that can provide continuous electricity almost anywhere on the planet. That includes ways to harness geothermal energy from idle or abandoned oil and gas wells. In the first quarter of 2025, North American geothermal installations attracted US$1.7 billion in public funding – compared with $2 billion for all of 2024, which itself was a significant increase from previous years, according to an industry analysis from consulting firm Wood Mackenzie.

As an exploration geophysicist and energy engineer, I’ve studied geothermal systems’ resource potential and operational trade-offs firsthand. From the investment and technological advances I’m seeing, I believe geothermal energy is poised to become a significant contributor to the energy mix in the U.S. and around the world, especially when integrated with other renewable sources.

A May 2025 assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey found that geothermal sources just in the Great Basin, a region that encompasses Nevada and parts of neighboring states, have the potential to meet as much as 10% of the electricity demand of the whole nation – and even more as technology to harness geothermal energy advances. And the International Energy Agency estimates that by 2050, geothermal energy could provide as much as 15% of the world’s electricity needs.

Why geothermal energy is unique

Geothermal energy taps into heat beneath the Earth’s surface to generate electricity or provide direct heating. Unlike solar or wind, it never stops. It runs around the clock, providing consistent, reliable power with closed-loop water systems and few emissions.

Geothermal is capable of providing significant quantities of energy. For instance, Fervo Energy’s Cape Station project in Utah is reportedly on track to deliver 100 megawatts of baseload, carbon-free geothermal power by 2026. That’s less than the amount of power generated by the average coal plant in the U.S., but more than the average natural gas plant produces.

But the project, estimated to cost $1.1 billion, is not complete. When complete in 2028, the station is projected to deliver 500 megawatts of electricity. That amount is 100 megawatts more than its original goal without additional drilling, thanks to various technical improvements since the project broke ground.

And geothermal energy is becoming economically competitive. By 2035, according to the International Energy Agency, technical advances could mean energy from enhanced geothermal systems could cost as little as $50 per megawatt-hour, a price competitive with other renewable sources.

Types of geothermal energy

There are several ways to get energy from deep within the Earth.

Hydrothermal systems tap into underground hot water and steam to generate electricity. These resources are concentrated in geologically active areas where heat, water and permeable rock naturally coincide. In the U.S., that’s generally California, Nevada and Utah. Internationally, most hydrothermal energy is in Iceland and the Philippines.

Some hydrothermal facilities, such as Larderello in Italy, have operated for over a century, proving the technology’s long-term viability. Others in New Zealand and the U.S. have been running since the late 1950s and early 1960s.

Enhanced geothermal systems effectively create electricity-generating hydrothermal processes just about anywhere on the planet. In places where there is not enough water in the ground or where the rock is too dense to move heat naturally, these installations drill deep holes and inject fluid into the hot rocks, creating new fractures and opening existing ones, much like hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas production.

A system like this uses more than one well. In one, it pumps cold water down, which collects heat from the rocks and then is pumped back up through another well, where the heat drives turbines. In recent years, academic and corporate research has dramatically improved drilling speed and lowered costs.

Ground source heat pumps do not require drilling holes as deep, but instead take advantage of the fact that the Earth’s temperature is relatively stable just below the surface, even just 6 or 8 feet down (1.8 to 2.4 meters) – and it’s hotter hundreds of feet lower.

These systems don’t generate electricity but rather circulate fluid in underground pipes, exchanging heat with the soil, extracting warmth from the ground in winter and transferring warmth to the ground in summer. These systems are similar but more efficient than air-source heat pumps, sometimes called minisplits, which are becoming widespread across the U.S. for heating and cooling. Geothermal heat pump systems can serve individual homes, commercial buildings and even neighborhood or business developments.

Direct-use applications also don’t generate electricity but rather use the geothermal heat directly. Farmers heat greenhouses and dry crops; aquaculture facilities maintain optimal water temperatures; industrial operations use the heat to dehydrate food, cure concrete or other energy-intensive processes. Worldwide, these applications now deliver over 100,000 megawatts of thermal capacity. Some geothermal fluids contain valuable minerals; lithium concentrations in the groundwater of California’s Salton Sea region could potentially supply battery manufacturers. Federal judges are reviewing a proposal to do just that, as well as legal challenges to it.

Researchers are finding new ways to use geothermal resources, too. Some are using underground rock formations to store energy as heat when consumer demand is low and use it to produce electricity when demand rises.

Some geothermal power stations can adjust their output to meet demand, rather than running continuously at maximum capacity.

Geothermal sources are also making other renewable-energy projects more effective. Pairing geothermal energy with solar and wind resources and battery storage are increasing the reliability of above-ground renewable power in Texas, among other places.

And geothermal energy can power clean hydrogen production as well as energy-intensive efforts to physically remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, as is happening in Iceland.

Geothermal potential in the US and worldwide

Currently, the U.S. has about 3.9 gigawatts of installed geothermal capacity, mostly in the West. That’s about 0.4% of current U.S. energy production, but the amount of available energy is much larger, according to federal and international engineering assessments.

And converting abandoned oil and gas wells for enhanced geothermal systems could significantly increase the amount of energy available and its geographic spread.

One example is happening in Beaver County, in the southwestern part of Utah. Once a struggling rural community, it now hosts multiple geothermal plants that are being developed to both demonstrate the potential and to supply electricity to customers as far away as California.

Those projects include repurposing idle oil or gas wells, which is relatively straightforward: Engineers identify wells that reach deep, hot rock formations and circulate water or another fluid in a closed loop to capture heat to generate electricity or provide direct heating. This method does not require drilling new wells, which significantly reduces setup costs and environmental disruption and accelerates deployment.

There are as many as 4 million abandoned oil and gas wells across the U.S., some of which could shift from being fossil fuel infrastructure into opportunities for clean energy.

Challenges and trade-offs

Geothermal energy is not without technical, environmental and economic hurdles.

Drilling is expensive, and conventional systems need specific geological conditions. Enhanced systems, using hydraulic fracturing, risk causing earthquakes.

Overall emissions are low from geothermal systems, though the systems can release hydrogen sulfide, a corrosive gas that is toxic to humans and can contribute to respiratory irritation. But modern geothermal plants use abatement systems that can capture up to 99.9% of hydrogen sulfide before it enters the atmosphere.

And the systems do use water, though closed-loop systems can minimize consumption.

Building geothermal power stations does require significant investment, but its ability to deliver energy over the long term can offset many of these costs. Projects like those undertaken by Fervo Energy show that government subsidies are no longer necessary for a project to get funded, built and begin generating energy.

Despite its challenges, geothermal energy’s reliability, low emissions and scalability make it a vital complement to solar and wind – and a cornerstone of a stable, low-carbon energy future.

Moones Alamooti 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. Geothermal energy has huge potential to generate clean power – including from used oil and gas wells – https://theconversation.com/geothermal-energy-has-huge-potential-to-generate-clean-power-including-from-used-oil-and-gas-wells-266555

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Shooshan Danagoulian, Associate Professor of Economics, Wayne State University

Seasonal allergies – triggered by pollen – appear to make deaths by suicide more likely. Our findings, published in the Journal of Health Economics, show that minor physical health conditions like mild seasonal allergies, previously thought not to be an immediate trigger of suicide, are indeed a risk factor.

To evaluate the link between seasonal allergies and suicide, my co-authors and I combined daily pollen measurements with daily suicide counts across 34 U.S. metropolitan areas.

Because both pollen and suicide are sensitive to weather conditions, we carefully accounted for temperature, rainfall and wind. We also controlled for differences in local climate and plant life, since pollen levels vary by region, and for seasonal averages that might otherwise obscure results. This allowed us to compare suicide counts on days with unexpectedly high pollen to days with little or none in the same county.

The results were striking. Relative to days with no or low levels of pollen, we found that deaths by suicide rose by 5.5% when pollen levels are moderate and 7.4% when levels are high. The increase was even larger among people with a known history of mental health conditions or treatment. We also showed that on high-pollen days, residents of affected areas experience more depressive symptoms and exhaustion.

Our analysis suggests that allergies exacerbate existing vulnerabilities, pushing some people toward crisis. We suspect that sleep disruption is the link between allergies and suicide rates.

Why it matters

More than 80 million Americans experience seasonal allergies each year.

Symptoms include sneezing, congestion, itchy eyes and scratchy throat. Most people experiencing these symptoms feel sluggish during the day and sleep poorly at night. Allergy sufferers might not realize, however, that these symptoms reduce alertness and cognitive functioning – some of the factors that can worsen mental health and increase vulnerability to suicidal thoughts and behaviors.

Suicide rates have been growing steadily in the past two decades, by 37% between 2000 and 2018. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 49,000 Americans died by suicide in 2022, and over 616,000 visited emergency departments for self-harm injuries.

Although socioeconomic and demographic factors are the most important predictors of suicide, much less is known about its short-term triggers. Our study adds to growing evidence that the environment – including something as natural as pollen – can influence mental health risks.

This issue is likely to become more urgent as the climate changes. Rising temperatures lengthen pollen seasons and increase pollen volume. Over the past two decades, pollen seasons have grown in both intensity and duration, and projections suggest they will continue to worsen.

That means more people will experience stronger allergy symptoms, with ripple effects not only for physical health but also for sleep, mood and mental well-being.

What we still don’t know

Despite the scale of the problem, there are no national systems in the U.S. to consistently measure and communicate pollen levels. Most communities lack reliable forecasts and alert systems that would allow vulnerable people to take precautions. This gap limits both prevention and research.

Our study focused on metropolitan areas where pollen and death counts were available, but we cannot yet generalize to rural areas. That is a concern because rural communities often face greater shortages in mental health care and pharmacy access – and have seen rising suicide rates over the past decade.

What’s next

For people who are already receiving mental health care, recognizing and treating seasonal allergies is a key part of self-care.

Over-the-counter medications can be highly effective at reducing symptoms.

More broadly, people should be aware that during peak allergy season, reduced alertness, sleep disruptions and mood fluctuations may place an increased burden on their mental health, in addition to the allergy symptoms.

In terms of policy, improving pollen monitoring and public communication could help people anticipate high-risk days. Such infrastructure would also support further research, particularly in rural areas where data is currently lacking. Our next step, supported by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, is to examine the impact of pollen on rural communities.

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

Shooshan Danagoulian receives funding from American Foundation of Suicide Prevention.

– ref. Seasonal allergies may increase suicide risk – new research – https://theconversation.com/seasonal-allergies-may-increase-suicide-risk-new-research-266459

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Chris Wegemer, Postdoctoral researcher, University of California, Los Angeles

Artificial intelligence technology has begun to transform higher education, raising a new set of profound questions about the role of universities in society. A string of high-profile corporate partnerships reflect how universities are embracing AI technology.

The University of Florida began assembling one of the fastest university supercomputers through a collaboration with Nvidia encompassing AI infrastructure, research support and curriculum development. Princeton launched the New Jersey AI Hub with Microsoft, CoreWeave and the state government, which will house AI startups on university-owned land under a Princeton director. Meanwhile, the California State University system partnered with OpenAI to provide ChatGPT Edu to all students and faculty, branding itself as “the first AI-powered university system in the United States.”

As a social scientist who studies educational technology and organizational partnerships, I view these collaborations as part of a decades-long shift toward the “corporatization” of higher education – where universities have become increasingly market-driven, aligning their priorities, culture and governance structures with industry partners.

I see the rise of generative AI as accelerating this trend, which risks undermining higher education’s autonomy and public service mission. Examining the underlying organizational forces that shape the future of higher education can shed light on how AI challenges universities’ traditional principles – and how they might resist corporate influence.

The rise of corporate partnerships

Over the past 50 years, private sector support for university research has increased tenfold, outpacing overall growth in higher education research spending. A pivotal shift came in 1980, when universities gained the right to retain intellectual property from federally funded research. This made commercialization of university research far easier. Over time, corporate involvement pushed university research toward commercial needs and increasingly exposed universities to the profit motive.

But partnerships haven’t just brought in money for universities; they’ve reinforced a shift toward closer alignment with industry. Universities expanded dramatically in the second half of the 20th century to meet companies’ demand for skilled labor, further coupling higher education to market incentives.

After decades of growth, however, university enrollment peaked in 2010, partly due to demographics, and the decline is projected to continue. Meanwhile, competition from training programs offered by tech companies has been growing, and federal funding has been slashed under President Donald Trump.

As colleges continue to close at record rates, the imperative to attract tuition dollars and research grants increasingly dictates institutional priorities. I argue that universities risk sidelining research that serves the public interest by looking toward corporate funding and partnerships to fill the gaps.

In my view, the shift away from public-good scholarship to monetizable content and services shaped by external industry partners jeopardizes the academic freedom and intellectual stewardship that once anchored the mission of higher education. For example, under financial constraints, university administrators may be inclined to overlook glaring value misalignments between their public mission and the commercial objectives of AI firms.

The forces driving universities’ AI initiatives

At many universities, AI adoption and the turn toward corporate collaborations are driven by more than economic vulnerabilities. The broad range of partnerships with AI companies across higher education can provide insight into the deeper dynamics at work.

Differences in AI partnerships are emerging around long-standing divides between types of institutions. Stanford’s Institute for Human-Centered AI can be interpreted as an attempt to steer global discourse on ethical AI while preserving human-led research as a marker of elite prestige. Meanwhile, AI initiatives at institutions with a strong focus on teaching and accessibility, such as California State University and Arizona State University, appear to prioritize efficiency in learning outcomes and workforce development.

This underscores how AI partnerships are not guided by market incentives alone. Before universities grew into multibillion-dollar businesses, their decision-making was primarily driven by markers of intellectual prestige, such as scholarly excellence and faculty reputation. Universities largely held a monopoly over knowledge production and served as the primary gatekeepers of intellectual legitimacy, until the digital revolution dramatically decentralized access to knowledge and its production. Universities now coexist in – and increasingly compete with – a crowded, complex ecosystem of companies and organizations that produce original research.

Generative AI represents a powerful new mode of knowledge production and synthesis, which further threatens to upend traditional forms of scholarship. Confronted with challenges to their authority, universities may attempt to preserve their elite intellectual status by rushing into partnerships with AI companies eager to capture the higher education market.

My interpretation is that economic pressures and the pursuit of prestige may be converging to reinforce a technocratic approach to higher education, where university decision-making is primarily guided by performance metrics and corporate-style governance rather than the public interest.

A purposeful path forward

The evolution of higher education in response to AI has brought long-standing debates about the purpose of universities to the forefront of public discourse. Decades of corporatization has helped fuel widespread “mission sprawl” and conflicting institutional goals across higher education. Consistent with organizational theory, ambiguity about universities’ role in society could lead many institutions to become increasingly susceptible to corporate co-optation, political interference and eventual collapse.

Although partnerships between universities and corporations can advance research and support students, corporate norms and academic principles are inherently distinct. And at many universities the process through which differences in institutional values are surfaced and reconciled is unclear, especially as AI initiatives have often sidestepped democratic faculty governance.

The recent surge in AI partnerships puts in plain view the growing dominance of market forces in higher education. As universities continue to adopt AI technologies, the consequences for intellectual freedom, democratic decision-making and commitment to the public good will become an increasingly pressing question.

Research support was provided by undergraduate research assistant Mehra Marzbani, whose contributions are gratefully acknowledged.

Chris Wegemer is affiliated with UCLA.

– ref. Why higher ed’s AI rush could put corporate interests over public service and independence – https://theconversation.com/why-higher-eds-ai-rush-could-put-corporate-interests-over-public-service-and-independence-260902

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Soon Hyeok Choi, Assistant Professor of Real Estate Finance, Rochester Institute of Technology

In today’s hot housing market, winning a bidding war can feel like a triumph. But my research shows it often comes with a catch: Homebuyers who win bidding wars tend to experience a “winner’s curse,” systematically overpaying for their new homes.

I’m a real estate economist, and my colleagues and I analyzed nearly 14 million home sales in 30 U.S. states over roughly two decades. We found that people who paid more than the asking price for their homes – a reliable sign of a bidding war – were more likely to default on their mortgages and saw significantly weaker returns.

How much weaker? On average, homebuyers who won bidding wars saw annual returns that were about 1.3 percentage points lower than those who didn’t, we found. We specifically looked at “unlevered” returns – basically, the returns you’d get if you bought the home outright with cash, without factoring in a mortgage.

Since the typical homeowner in our sample held a property for 6.3 years before selling it, this translates to about an 8.2% overpayment. Bidding-war winners were also 1.9 percentage points likelier to default.

Perhaps that loss would be worth it to someone who absolutely loves the property – but we found that homebuyers who purchase after a bidding war are also faster to resell. This suggests their overpayment is based less on enduring affection and more on bidding-war fever.

We also found that the effects of the winner’s curse – lower home appreciation and higher default rates – are stronger in places where bidding wars are more common. One example is my hometown of Rochester, New York, which has become a bidding-war hot spot in recent years.

Who bears the brunt? Lower-income, Black and Hispanic buyers are more likely to overpay in bidding wars, we found, making them more likely to suffer from the winner’s curse. This suggests that hot housing markets can worsen inequality.

Why it matters

While housing is the largest single form of wealth Americans own, past research on the winner’s curse mostly dealt with land auctions and company mergers – not the nation’s roughly 76 million owner-occupied, single-family homes. Our work is the first to show the direct evidence of the winner’s curse in residential housing markets.

This matters now because the housing market is cooling. Those who bought in the post-pandemic housing market and listed their homes in 2025 are already facing the risk of selling at a loss. Because this risk falls disproportionately on Black and Hispanic homebuyers, it could further widen the wealth gap.

By one measure, foreclosures are up 18% year over year. If the brunt of these losses falls on lower-income or otherwise vulnerable homeowners, the result could be an increase in housing insecurity and homelessness.

The good news is that the winner’s curse may be preventable. Better resources to prepare first-time homebuyers and comprehensive financial education related to mortgages and debt could help.

What still isn’t known

It’s possible more transparent bidding processes – or even formal auction systems for popular homes – could better inform prospective buyers and help them stave off the temptation of overpayment. Should the U.S. require real estate brokers or banks to caution their clients to think twice before going above the asking price? Or would that be unfair to sellers? Experimental research on these points would be useful.

Finally, our research focuses on the U.S. housing market. Whether the winner’s curse afflicts buyers in other countries remains an open question.

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

Soon Hyeok Choi 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. Winning a bidding war isn’t always a win, research on 14 million home sales shows – https://theconversation.com/winning-a-bidding-war-isnt-always-a-win-research-on-14-million-home-sales-shows-266723

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Kathy M. Newman, Associate Professor of English, Carnegie Mellon University, Carnegie Mellon University

Jane Fonda is joining forces with more than 500 celebrities and Hollywood heavyweights to defend free speech.

The membership roll already includes scores of famous actors like Jamie Lee Curtis, Viola Davis, Whoopi Goldberg, Pedro Pascal, Natalie Portman and Michael Keaton. Successful directors like Spike Lee and Ben Stiller have signed on, along with singer and actress Barbra Streisand and pop star and songwriter Billie Eilish.

Fonda, a star who has championed progressive causes since the 1970s, explained when she announced the group’s new edition on Oct. 1, 2025, that the effort isn’t really new. Instead, it marks the relaunch of the Committee for the First Amendment, an organization her father, actor Henry Fonda, had belonged to.

The original Committee for the First Amendment was formed in October 1947 at a time when the U.S. government worried that there were communists in Hollywood who were putting left-wing propaganda into the movies.

Hearings divided Hollywood

The attack on Hollywood started when a bipartisan congressional committee held a series of highly publicized hearings in 1947 on what it said was the “communist infiltration of the motion picture industry.”

The House Un-American Activities Committee, known as HUAC, invited 23 “friendly” anti-communist witnesses to testify.

Ayn Rand, a Russian-born novelist and screenwriter who hated communism, was one of the witnesses. She testified that the 1944 MGM movie “Song of Russia” showed clean, well-dressed, happy peasants, which she said was a sanitized, propagandized version of life in the USSR.

Another movie that came under suspicion was “It’s a Wonderful Life.” The FBI complained that the 1946 blockbuster, which starred Jimmy Stewart as a broken man who learns the true value of his life, “deliberately maligned the upper classes” with its negative portrayal of Mr. Potter, the town’s richest man.

The HUAC hearings continued for a decade and divided Hollywood. The committee’s interrogators demanded that people turn on each other and “name names.” Due to these hearings, as well as an anti-communist publication called Red Channels, hundreds of screenwriters, directors, producers, actors and musicians were fired or blacklisted for having ties to liberal groups.

Fighting back

The HUAC hearings brought Hollywood stars and the flashbulbs of the nation’s press corps to Capitol Hill. Conservative screen idols like Gary Cooper testified that communism wasn’t “on the level.”

Friendly witnesses, like Rand and Cooper, were allowed to read prepared statements and to speak for as long as they liked. Such courtesies were not granted to the 10 “unfriendly” witnesses – the suspected communists who became known as the “Hollywood 10.”

Screenwriter John Howard Lawson was the first of the Hollywood 10 to testify. Lawson, after refusing to answer if he was a communist or not, was shouted down by Rep. J. Parnell Thomas, a New Jersey Republican who served as HUAC chair. After Lawson was removed from the courtroom, HUAC’s chief investigator, Robert Stripling, read detailed evidence of Lawson’s communist affiliations.

Prominent Hollywood liberals understood that these hearings were an attack on free speech, free assembly and other rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Ira Gershwin, the lyricist known for his hit show tunes such as “I Got Rhythm” and “They Can’t Take That Away From Me,” hosted the first gathering of the Committee for the First Amendment at his Beverly Hills mansion. Attendees included Judy Garland, Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall and Gene Kelly.

The committee quickly raised US$13,000 – the equivalent of $188,000 today – and chartered an airplane to Washington. Upon their arrival in the capital, they marched and spoke out in support of the Hollywood 10. Next, they produced a radio broadcast, “Hollywood Fights Back,” as a defense of the rights of Americans to write, produce, act in and see whatever movies they pleased.

The committee released an initial statement with 35 signatories. A few months later, it published a pamphlet with more than 300 additional names supporting the effort.

Purging Hollywood

If you’ve never heard of that committee, or if you only learned about it recently when the new version made headlines, you’re not alone. The group fizzled out almost as quickly as it had mobilized.

Bogart, perhaps its most famous member, soon retracted his support for the Hollywood 10, saying in March 1948 that he regretted his trip to Washington.

“I’m no Communist,” the “Casablanca” star declared in a widely circulated statement.

Two crucial developments kneecapped the committee. First, the HUAC cited the Hollywood 10 for contempt of Congress. They were later tried in court and convicted of that crime. They eventually served prison time.

Also, studio executives drafted new hiring policies for the movie industry. Later known as the “Waldorf declaration” because the meeting took place in the Waldorf-Astoria hotel in Manhattan, the studio heads announced that the Hollywood 10 would be fired and banned from any studio, and that all the studios would agree to fire and ban any known communists.

Over the next decade, hundreds more stars and other key players in the entertainment industry were fired, purged and blacklisted in what became known as the blacklist era.

I’m a professor of English and film studies, and I’m writing a book about progressive films made during those years. The original committee’s members were mainly leftists and liberals whose careers survived the political pressures to root them out of show business.

The Committee for the First Amendment ultimately failed to protect the Hollywood 10 from professional attacks or incarceration, nor did it prevent hundreds of others from being blacklisted.

Bad timing

But I don’t believe that the original Committee for the First Amendment was destined to fail.

The Hollywood 10’s legal strategy, rooted in the First Amendment, reflected the hope that their convictions might be eventually overturned by the Supreme Court.

Unluckily, however, Frank Murphy and Wiley Blount Rutledge, two of the court’s most liberal justices, died before the appeal of the first two Hollywood 10 convictions could reach them.

After President Harry Truman replaced them, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeals. Most of the Hollywood 10 served prison sentences between 1950 and 1951.

Why bother?

Given that the Committee for the First Amendment failed to protect Hollywood from conservative repression in the 1940s and 1950s, why would anyone revive it?

One reason is that there are parallels between the blacklist era and today.

For example, the Trump administration is trying to get comedians who poke fun at him kicked off the air, as evidenced by talk show host Jimmy Kimmel being temporarily pulled off the air.

Hollywood has also seen a surge in labor organizing. Many members of the new Committee for the First Amendment were on the front lines of the screenwriters and actors strikes of 2023.

Finally, this fight is arguably worth waging. Most Americans see the First Amendment as enshrining valuable rights. An October 2025 Marist poll found that 4 in 5 Americans think the U.S. is restricting First Amendment freedoms too much.

Americans still debate whether or not it was right to fire and blacklist Hollywood’s suspected communists. While many see the HUAC hearings as a travesty, others defend the House committee and the anti-communist fervor that inspired it.

Resilience and silence

Many look at the blacklist era as a time of capitulation by progressives in the face of repression. While there’s some validity to these claims, I’ve found that many progressive filmmakers also banded together, using allegory and other creative techniques to make movies with progressive – sometimes radical – messages.

Take “The Pajama Game,” for example. It’s a musical comedy about labor trouble in a pajama factory. While the film is a sexy, frothy romp, on the one hand, the film also casts Doris Day as Babe, a feisty union steward. In “Racing with the Clock,” workers sing about the pressure they feel to speed up the pace of their labor.

Scenes include workers organizing a slowdown, sabotaging machinery and going on strike. The last word spoken in the film is “solidarity.”

To me, the revival of the Committee for the First Amendment draws attention to the dangers implicit in efforts to muzzle writers, artists and filmmakers.

“Silence the artist, and you silence the most articulate voice the people have,” the actress Katherine Hepburn said in May 1947 in a speech written for her by Dalton Trumbo, one of the Hollywood 10. “Destroy culture and you destroy one of the strongest sources of inspiration from which a people can draw strength to fight for a better life.”

Kathy M. Newman 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. Jane Fonda, other stars, revive the Committee for the First Amendment – a group that emerged when the anti-communist panic came for Hollywood – https://theconversation.com/jane-fonda-other-stars-revive-the-committee-for-the-first-amendment-a-group-that-emerged-when-the-anti-communist-panic-came-for-hollywood-266751