Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Raquel Aldana, Professor of Law, University of California, Davis

Seeking to expand Florida’s role in federal immigration enforcement, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in May 2025 submitted the state’s Immigration Enforcement Operations Plan to the Trump administration.

The plan, endorsed by President Donald Trump, says all of Florida’s roughly 47,000 law enforcement officers have received, or soon will receive, training to act as immigration officers. It’s part of an effort to, as the plan notes, “maintain state-led border security operations in the absence of federal support.”

The DeSantis plan includes a proposal to deputize Florida’s nine National Guard Judge Advocate General’s Corps officers to serve as immigration judges. JAG officers are attorneys who serve as legal advisers, prosecutors, defense counsel and military judges in a wide range of matters specific to the armed forces. That includes courts-martial and civil matters involving the military.

DeSantis has said the move is necessary to create a fast-track deportation system at Florida’s new immigration detention facility in the Everglades, Alligator Alcatraz.

He has dismissed due process concerns – such as a lack of training and independence – from legal experts, pointing to the backlog in immigration courts. Immigration judges in Florida’s immigration courts have one of the largest backlogs in the country, with over half a million cases.

Congress establishes immigration policy

The Constitution grants Congress, not the president or state governments, the power to establish immigration laws.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, also known as the McCarran-Walter Act, Congress created a clear process for immigration removal cases.

In general, a U.S. noncitizen may face removal from the country based on violations to the immigration laws. Those range from unauthorized entry to committing or being convicted of certain crimes.

Congress designated the Executive Office for Immigration Review, an agency within the Department of Justice that houses the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, as the body exclusively responsible for deciding immigration removal cases. The office also details the authority and standards for how immigration judges conduct deportation hearings.

Immigration judges undergo rigorous vetting and training. And their decisions are subject to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the administrative appellate body for decisions made by immigration judges.

The McCarran-Walter Act also contains several provisions that subject most immigration court decisions such as removal or asylum to judicial review in federal courts. That can happen on direct appeal or as part of habeas corpus petitions that challenge the legality of detention or removal.

The system is far from perfect. But Congress designed it to ensure legal expertise and due process guarantees.

As an immigration scholar, I believe that allowing Florida JAG officers to serve as immigration judges bypasses this framework that is set in law, and violates the constitutionally mandated separation of powers.

JAG officers, including those in Florida’s National Guard, are not governed by the McCarran-Walter Act. They are military lawyers in an entirely separate system, overseen by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which defines the role of military judges. The code retains a unique military character that is substantially different from the judicial appellate system that governs immigration administrative rulings.

Simply put, neither Trump nor DeSantis can create an entirely new system of immigration judges outside of the one already established by Congress.

Federal agencies cannot deputize JAGs

A current immigration provision, known as the 287(g) program, authorizes U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to collaborate with local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws.

But this provision only authorizes deputizing local law enforcement to assist “in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention” of immigrants – not the arbitration of deportation cases.

In the nearly three decades since 287(g) was enacted, no state or local officials – let alone military officers – have been permitted to act as immigration judges.

DeSantis’ plan seeks to convert Florida’s JAG officers from state to federal officials to function as immigration judges. Trump’s approval of this plan would also exceed the scope of his statutory authority.

Federal statutes allow the president to federalize the National Guard in limited instances: during times of war or national emergency.

But neither DeSantis’ rhetoric nor Trump’s framing of undocumented immigration as an “invasion” meet these legal thresholds.

JAGs cannot engage in domestic law enforcement

Even if Florida’s National Guard were federalized, JAG officers still could not legally serve as immigration judges.

The Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in 1878, restricts the use of federal military personal in civilian law enforcement. It reflects a longstanding American principle: The military should not police civilians.

Immigration enforcement – including deciding whether someone is deported – is fundamentally a civilian enforcement function.

The only narrow exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act’s restrictions require a clear statutory basis, such as Trump invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807, a law that would allow the president to rely on the military for domestic enforcement to quell a rebellion or widespread violence.

Due process concerns

The DeSantis plan also compromises constitutionally guaranteed rights to a fair process for immigrants facing removal.

Immigration law is notoriously complex. Even experienced immigration lawyers struggle to keep up with its constant changes.

JAG officers, trained primarily in military law, would face immense challenges interpreting and applying immigration statutes. That’s especially true with only weeks of preparation, as DeSantis proposes.

But due process isn’t only about knowledge of legal technicalities. The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process rights to all persons on U.S. soil, regardless of immigration status.

For decades, courts have interpreted these protections to include fair hearings before qualified immigration judges – and, in most instances, judicial review.

By circumventing established procedures, DeSantis’ plan risks creating a system where expedited deportations come at the expense of accuracy and constitutional rights.

Raquel Aldana 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. Florida plan to deputize National Guard officers as immigration judges at Alligator Alcatraz would likely violate constitutional rights – https://theconversation.com/florida-plan-to-deputize-national-guard-officers-as-immigration-judges-at-alligator-alcatraz-would-likely-violate-constitutional-rights-260677

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Riyad A. Shahjahan, Professor of Higher, Adult and Life Long Education, Michigan State University

Harvard University is under siege by the Trump administration – and the world is watching. But this case isn’t just an American issue.

It’s part of a global trend: universities cast as enemies and institutions in need of reform. Populist, right-wing governments are blaming universities for tearing at the fabric of nations.

These attacks are part of a broader strategy known as affective nationalism. It occurs when leaders use emotions, not just ideas, to build national identity. Feelings such as fear, pride, nostalgia and resentment are deployed to create a story about who belongs, who doesn’t and who’s to blame.

As scholars who study nationalism, emotion and higher education, we explore the emotional politics behind these attacks.

Global backlash

Much of President Donald Trump’s vision and rhetoric is inspired by Hungary, where Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has waged a culture war on higher education for over a decade, banning gender studies and reshaping university governance. Orbán’s attacks on Central European University expose his hostility to academic freedom, critical thinking and diversity. All are viewed as threats to his nationalist “illiberal democracy.”

Trump followed Orbán’s playbook. On May 22, 2025, his administration declared that Harvard could no longer enroll foreign students. A U.S. Department of Homeland Security statement claimed that university leaders “created an unsafe campus environment by permitting anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators.” The statement suggested that many of the so-called agitators were foreign students.

Similarly, in India, students at Jawaharlal Nehru University were labeled “anti-national” for protesting the Citizenship Amendment Act, which provides fast-track citizenship to non-Muslim refugees. The students argued that it marginalizes Muslims. Since 2016, the Modi government has increasingly used “anti-national” and sedition charges to silence student and academic dissent.

These labels – “elite,” “foreign” or “anti-national” – are not neutral. They fuel fear, resentment and powerful narratives that frame universities as threats. Harvard, Central European University and Jawaharlal Nehru University have become symbols of broader national anxieties around identity and belonging.

British-Australian feminist scholar Sara Ahmed’s work on the sticky nature of emotions helps reveal the two emotions that often appear in attacks on universities: nostalgia and resentment.

Glorifying the nation’s past

Nostalgia is a longing for a better past.

Consider Trump’s “Make American Great Again” slogan. It implies the nation was once great, has declined and must reclaim its former glory. That’s a powerful emotional story. Nationalism often works this way – by telling a tale of a lost golden age and a future that must be saved.

For that reason, nostalgia is central to populist attacks on universities and institutional reform. U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, for example, evoked Harvard’s symbolic past as part of the American Dream, arguing it has lost its way and “put its reputation in serious jeopardy.”

In India, Modi’s government rejects Western influence, while using nostalgia to revive a Hindu past in higher education. The Modi government promotes national pride on campuses by glorifying military heroes and installing symbolic figures – such as the statue of Swami Vivekananda, a Hindu monk and philosopher, at Jawaharlal Nehru University – to shape student identity and loyalty.

In Hungary, Orbán mobilizes a glorified Christian past to challenge discourses on diversity, inclusion, critical inquiry and academic freedom in higher education. A 2021 bill tasks universities with defending the nation and preserving its intellectual and cultural heritage.

Enemies of the nation

Resentment is a powerful emotion often used by states that see themselves as defenders of national unity and values. When Harvard resisted Trump’s reforms, the president framed the university’s stance in a Truth Social post as a betrayal to the nation, denouncing it as “terrorist inspired/supporting ‘sickness.’” Meanwhile, the Department of Education issued a statement that accused the university of a “troubling entitlement mindset.”

Similarly, in India, the Modi government has increasingly framed public universities – especially those with critical voices – as “anti-national” spaces. By casting critical voices as enemies within, the state turns resentment into a political weapon to justify the erosion of academic freedom.

In Hungary, the Orbán government mobilized resentment to portray universities and academics as disloyal elites working against the nation. One example of Hungary’s war on universities is the 2018 ban on gender studies, justified by the Orbán government as rejecting “socially constructed genders” in favor of “biological sexes.” This move reflects how the government uses resentment to assert ideological control over academic institutions.

Emotional battlegrounds?

Universities, especially elite ones such as Harvard and Jawaharlal Nehru University, carry deep symbolic weight. People care because of what the institutions represent.

Harvard, with its elite status, has long been a symbol of academic authority. But more recently, it has been cast as a defender of liberal higher education – making it a Trump administration target.

Jawaharlal Nehru University in India holds similar symbolic weight. It’s historically associated with producing the country’s social elites and is seen, especially in mainstream media, as left-leaning, making it a lightning rod in India’s polarized political landscape.

In Hungary, the Orbán government viewed Central European University as a danger because it threatened the government’s Christian-nationalist vision of the nation-state.

Universities are under attack not just for what they teach and research, but for what – and who – they represent. These are not just ideological disputes; they are emotional struggles over identity, belonging and public trust.

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. Leaders in India, Hungary and the US are using appeals to nostalgia and nationalism to attack higher education – https://theconversation.com/leaders-in-india-hungary-and-the-us-are-using-appeals-to-nostalgia-and-nationalism-to-attack-higher-education-258975

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Melissa Melough, Assistant Professor of Nutrition Science, University of Delaware

Children whose mothers had higher vitamin D levels during pregnancy scored better on tests of memory, attention and problem-solving skills at ages 7 to 12 compared with those whose mothers had lower levels. That is a key finding of a new peer-reviewed study that my colleagues and I published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

While vitamin D has long been known for its role in maintaining bone health, scientists have since uncovered its importance in regulating immune function, reducing inflammation and protecting the nervous system. Now, growing evidence – including our new findings – suggest it may also support brain development beginning in the womb.

My team and I found that the link between prenatal vitamin D levels and childhood cognition was strongest among Black families, who also face higher rates of vitamin D deficiency.

This suggests that vitamin D supplementation may be a promising, low-cost strategy to support brain development while reducing racial disparities. Our study also suggested that vitamin D levels early in pregnancy may be most important for childhood cognitive development, highlighting the importance of early action by health care providers.

We analyzed more than 900 mother-child pairs across the U.S. who participated in a large national study called ECHO, short for Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes. We measured vitamin D in the mothers’ blood during pregnancy and assessed children’s cognitive abilities using a standardized test battery. We also accounted for other important factors that shape childhood development such as the mother’s education, neighborhood conditions and the child’s age and sex.

This new study builds on our earlier findings that higher vitamin D levels during pregnancy are linked to higher IQ in early childhood and with reduced behavioral problems in middle childhood.

Collectively, these studies suggest that vitamin D plays a crucial role in brain development during pregnancy, with lasting benefits for children’s cognitive and behavioral outcomes.

Why it matters

Vitamin D deficiency is a common global problem.

In the U.S., about 42% of adults have vitamin D levels below 20 nanograms per milliliter, or ng/ml, a commonly used cutoff for deficiency. About a third of U.S. pregnant women are deficient, and the rates are even higher among Black pregnant women, with 80% found to be deficient. This racial difference is partly due to differences in skin pigmentation, as melanin pigment reduces the skin’s ability to produce vitamin D from sunlight.

Although we can get vitamin D both from sun exposure and our diets, deficiency is common because these sources don’t meet everyone’s needs. Sunlight isn’t always a reliable source, especially for people with darker skin, those living in northern climates or those who often wear sunscreen or sun-protective clothing. Natural food sources such as fatty fish, egg yolks and certain mushrooms contain some vitamin D, and fortified products such as milk and breakfast cereals help, but not everyone eats enough of these foods to maintain healthy vitamin D levels.

That’s why supplements are often necessary and are recommended in many cases by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Although current guidelines recommend that pregnant women consume 600 international units, or IUs, of vitamin D daily, higher doses of at least 1,000 to 2,000 IU are often needed to correct deficiency. On average, U.S. women consume only 168 IU from food and beverages, and many prenatal vitamins provide just 400 IU. This highlights an important opportunity for clinicians to improve screening and support around vitamin D supplementation both before and during pregnancy.

If a simple, low-cost strategy such as prenatal vitamin D supplementation can help support brain development, it may yield lasting benefits for children. Long-term studies have shown that higher cognitive scores in childhood are linked to better memory and reasoning in older age, as well as longer lifespan.

What still isn’t known

While our studies have linked higher vitamin D levels in pregnancy to improved cognitive and behavioral development in children, we cannot yet prove that vitamin D is the direct cause.

Therefore, studies called randomized controlled trials – the gold standard of research – are needed to confirm these findings and determine how best to translate them into clinical practice. These studies will be essential for determining the optimal target levels for vitamin D to support brain development in pregnancy.

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

Melissa Melough receives funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

– ref. About a third of pregnant women in the US lack sufficient vitamin D to support healthy pregnancies − new research – https://theconversation.com/about-a-third-of-pregnant-women-in-the-us-lack-sufficient-vitamin-d-to-support-healthy-pregnancies-new-research-259433

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Helena Addison, Postdoctoral fellow, Yale University

Mike returned home to Philadelphia after a 15-year prison sentence and suffered an emotional breakdown.

“I just couldn’t stop crying … I don’t know. It was the anxiety. It was just a lot,” he said. “I was under a lot of pressure and it just came crashing down.”

Mike, who was in his late 40s when we spoke, told me about his childhood filled with abuse, his first arrest at age 14, and the over 20 years of his life that he spent behind bars.

As a registered nurse and nurse scientist who studies how incarceration affects mental health, I know Mike’s experience after release from prison is not uncommon. Studies show that Black men who have experienced incarceration have higher rates of PTSD, depression and psychological distress compared with Black men who have never been incarcerated.

Working in psychiatric hospitals in Philadelphia, I met many patients in crisis who had been incarcerated at some point in their lives. As a part of my doctoral research, funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research, I interviewed 29 formerly incarcerated Black men to understand how incarceration has affected their mental health.

My peer-reviewed findings were published in the journal Social Science & Medicine. All quotes shared here use pseudonyms to protect the men’s privacy.

Trauma of incarceration

Mass incarceration in the U.S. has serious health consequences for individuals, families and communities. In Philadelphia alone, over 20,000 people return home from incarceration each year.

While incarceration rates are declining in Philadelphia, the needs of those coming home remain significant.

Many formerly incarcerated men described experiencing or witnessing violence, including being beaten by correctional officers and witnessing close friends get assaulted or killed.

“You know you are not regular because you come from a traumatic situation, right?” said Thomas, 44, who spent 18 years incarcerated.

The participants expressed that racism was common, especially while incarcerated in facilities located in the rural central and northern regions of Pennsylvania.

“I ain’t gonna sugar coat it – Black people going up into them white people mountains, they call you [n-word] all day long and you basically there to accept it,” Antonio told me.

Incarceration was especially difficult for those who were held for months pretrial without ever being convicted and those incarcerated during COVID restrictions who spent more than 23 hours a day in their cells.

‘Even though I’m free, I ain’t free’

Participants described life on parole or probation, or in transitional housing, as another form of confinement.

Ken, 56, has been out of prison for over a decade but said, “I’m still locked up, even though I’m free, I ain’t free. You just get a whole new set of rules and regulations.”

Men described significant anxiety related to community supervision requirements, including difficulty sleeping the night before a probation appointment.

Participants also described distress caused by “no association” restrictions. These are common parole and probation requirements that prohibit people under supervision from interacting with others who have criminal records, are also under supervision or are currently incarcerated. Violating this requirement can lead to a technical violation and reincarceration.

While these requirements are meant to reduce the risk of reoffending, they often isolate people from supportive relationships and resources, including housing and employment.

“[There are] a lot of smart brothers in there. And it hurts my heart. And that’s where the depression coming in too,” said Reese, who spent six years incarcerated. “I can’t contact them in jail. … That’s just how it is in the system.”

Philadelphia has the highest rate of community supervision – including probation and parole – among the largest U.S. cities, according to a 2019 analysis by The Philadelphia Inquirer.

At that time, the Inquirer reports, 1 in 23 adults in Philadelphia were under community supervision – and 1 in 14 Black adults in Philadelphia.

The men I interviewed said they felt like parts of them never left jail or prison, while others felt that they brought prison or jail home with them.

Tyrese, 34, said he stays home as often as he can.

“I’ve been out of the joint for seven years now and feel like I’m still institutionalized, I guess,” he said. “I know people that don’t even come outside,” referring to other formerly incarcerated men.

Others had dreams that they were back in a cell, or at home still wearing jail clothing. Long after release, many described constant hypervigilance and anxiety.

“I can be walking to the bus station and there be people walking around me, I’m constantly watching them,” said Anthony, who was first incarcerated at age 18 and served 16 years. “I’m watching every movement they’re doing. That’s a habit I had from jail.”

Finding work

People who have been incarcerated often struggle to find employment after release, as many employers are unwilling to hire a person with a criminal record.

This leaves about 35% of formerly incarcerated Black men unemployed.

At the time of our interview, Tay, 31, was working part-time in carpentry. “Because I had felonies on my record a lot of places won’t hire me,” he said. “And a couple of places that I was working with, they ended up firing me once they did the background check.”

These frustrations can easily spill over into family life.

Mark, 30, also works part-time and said he found himself frequently becoming agitated and snapping at his kids, other family members and his girlfriend. “I can’t get the job I want or the job that I need to do what I need to do for my family and I’ll be frustrated,” he shared.

Participants struggled with having to depend on others for basic needs upon release. Kenny, who is now self-employed as a caterer, recalled his experience a few years earlier. “I was crying. I was a grown man, almost 40 years old, and my mother had to buy me underwear, socks,” he said.

The importance of fatherhood

Despite their many hardships, some of the men spoke with joy about reconnecting with their children.

“I think the most positive thing that happened since I’ve been out of prison is I got custody of my sons,” said Ken, a father of two. “Them kids saved me.”

Like many of the other participants with children, however, he was frustrated about being unable to provide for them and worried about repeating harmful cycles.

“You want to do good, but it makes you think bad stuff when you don’t have the right resources,” he continued. “You don’t want [your kids] to do the same things you did.”

Others struggled to bond with their children after years of separation.

John, 29, explained, “The bonding is kind of awkward, because you wasn’t there, especially during the pandemic when there was no visits allowed.”

Returning to disadvantaged neighborhoods

Most people released from incarceration return to neighborhoods with high rates of poverty, violence and other disadvantages.

Shawn, who lives in pubic housing, showed me abandoned buildings and boarded storefronts in his neighborhood and described how the environment made rebuilding his life harder.

For many participants, returning to divested communities brought stress. They experienced frequent exposure to substance use, violence and negative police encounters, and they had limited access to basic resources and job opportunities needed to support recovery and stability.

“This is my real life. It’s not fake. It’s not no, ‘Well, why did he go back and do this or that?’” he said. “I live in an underserved, impoverished, danger zone – period.”

Moving forward

The experiences these men shared with me demonstrate how traumatic incarceration is, even many years after release.

Supporting the mental health of formerly incarcerated Black men requires trauma-informed services, such as culturally responsive counseling, peer support and care that acknowledges the lasting effects of incarceration.

It also means helping them build or rebuild their financial resources, reconnect with their children and loved ones, and supporting the broader communities they return to through investment in housing, employment and accessible health and social services.

Helena Addison received funding from National Institute of Nursing Research of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number F31NR020434, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration and American Nurses Association Minority Fellowship Program, the University of Pennsylvania’s Presidential PhD Fellowship, and Jonas Philanthropies to support this study and/or her PhD training. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health, or any other funding organizations or institutions. The views expressed in written training materials or publications and by speakers and moderators do not necessarily reflect the official policies of the Department and Human Services; nor does mention of trade names, commercial practices, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

– ref. ‘I just couldn’t stop crying’: How prison affects Black men’s mental health long after they’ve been released – https://theconversation.com/i-just-couldnt-stop-crying-how-prison-affects-black-mens-mental-health-long-after-theyve-been-released-259975

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Ryan Leack, Assistant Professor of Writing, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

In my writing and rhetoric courses, students have plenty of opinions on whether AI is intelligent: how well it can assess, analyze, evaluate and communicate information.

When I ask whether artificial intelligence can “think,” however, I often look upon a sea of blank faces. What is “thinking,” and how is it the same or different from “intelligence”?

We might treat the two as more or less synonymous, but philosophers have marked nuances for millennia. Greek philosophers may not have known about 21st-century technology, but their ideas about intellect and thinking can help us understand what’s at stake with AI today.

The divided line

Although the English words “intellect” and “thinking” do not have direct counterparts in the ancient Greek, looking at ancient texts offers useful comparisons.

In “Republic,” for example, Plato uses the analogy of a “divided line” separating higher and lower forms of understanding.

Plato, who taught in the fourth century BCE, argued that each person has an intuitive capacity to recognize the truth. He called this the highest form of understanding: “noesis.” Noesis enables apprehension beyond reason, belief or sensory perception. It’s one form of “knowing” something – but in Plato’s view, it’s also a property of the soul.

Lower down, but still above his “dividing line,” is “dianoia,” or reason, which relies on argumentation. Below the line, his lower forms of understanding are “pistis,” or belief, and “eikasia,” imagination.

Pistis is belief influenced by experience and sensory perception: input that someone can critically examine and reason about. Plato defines eikasia, meanwhile, as baseless opinion rooted in false perception.

In Plato’s hierarchy of mental capacities, direct, intuitive understanding is at the top, and moment-to-moment physical input toward the bottom. The top of the hierarchy leads to true and absolute knowledge, while the bottom lends itself to false impressions and beliefs. But intuition, according to Plato, is part of the soul, and embodied in human form. Perceiving reality transcends the body – but still needs one.

So, while Plato does not differentiate “intelligence” and “thinking,” I would argue that his distinctions can help us think about AI. Without being embodied, AI may not “think” or “understand” the way humans do. Eikasia – the lowest form of comprehension, based on false perceptions – may be similar to AI’s frequent “hallucinations,” when it makes up information that seems plausible but is actually inaccurate.

Embodied thinking

Aristotle, Plato’s student, sheds more light on intelligence and thinking.

In “On the Soul,” Aristotle distinguishes “active” from “passive” intellect. Active intellect, which he called “nous,” is immaterial. It makes meaning from experience, but transcends bodily perception. Passive intellect is bodily, receiving sensory impressions without reasoning.

We could say that these active and passive processes, put together, constitute “thinking.” Today, the word “intelligence” holds a logical quality that AI’s calculations may conceivably replicate. Aristotle, however, like Plato, suggests that to “think” requires an embodied form and goes beyond reason alone.

Aristotle’s views on rhetoric also show that deliberation and judgment require a body, feeling and experience. We might think of rhetoric as persuasion, but it is actually more about observation: observing and evaluating how evidence, emotion and character shape people’s thinking and decisions. Facts matter, but emotions and people move us – and it seems questionable whether AI utilizes rhetoric in this way.

Finally, Aristotle’s concept of “phronesis” sheds further light on AI’s capacity to think. In “Nicomachean Ethics,” he defines phronesis as “practical wisdom” or “prudence.” “Phronesis” involves lived experience that determines not only right thought, but also how to apply those thoughts to “good ends,” or virtuous actions. AI may analyze large datasets to reach its conclusions, but “phronesis” goes beyond information to consult wisdom and moral insight.

‘Thinking’ robots?

Today, AI takes on many physical forms, from autonomous vehicles and humanoid robots to health care robots and drones. If intelligence requires embodiment, as Plato and Aristotle believed, it might seem as if AI is coming closer than ever to human thinking.

AI does take on many forms, but they’re still not bodies; they run on code, algorithms and datasets. Intuitive understanding, emotion, integrity and practical wisdom seem to require an embodied, perishable form that is moved by experience.

Perhaps we should ask AI itself – so I did. When I prompted ChatGPT with the simple question, “Can you think?” it responded: “I can process information, analyze patterns, and generate responses based on data. So in some ways, it might ‘seem’ like I’m thinking. But it’s not thinking like a human does. I don’t have consciousness, emotions, intentions, or awareness. Everything I ‘do’ is based on patterns learned from huge amounts of text and a set of rules and probabilities. I can ‘simulate’ certain aspects of thinking, but I don’t truly think or understand in the human sense.”

That response aligns with Plato and Aristotle’s views. For now.

Ryan Leack 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. Can AI think – and should it? What it means to think, from Plato to ChatGPT – https://theconversation.com/can-ai-think-and-should-it-what-it-means-to-think-from-plato-to-chatgpt-256648

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Allison Perlman, Associate Professor of Film & Media Studies, University of California, Irvine

The U.S. Senate narrowly approved on July 16, 2025, a bill that would claw back federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes money to NPR, PBS and their affiliate stations. The US$9 billion rescission package will withdraw $1.1 billion Congress had previously approved for the CPB to receive in the 2026 and 2027 fiscal years. In addition, it makes deep foreign aid cuts. All Democrats present voted against the measure, joined by two Republicans: Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. As long as the House, which approved a previous version, votes in favor of the Senate’s version of the bill by midnight July 18, Trump will be able to meet a budgetary deadline by signing the measure into law in time for it to take effect.

What will happen to NPR, PBS and local stations?

NPR and PBS provide programming to local public television and radio stations across the country. The impact on them will be direct and indirect.

Both NPR and PBS receive money from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, an independent nonprofit corporation Congress created in 1967 to receive and distribute federal money to public broadcasters. More than 70% of the money it distributes flows directly to local stations. Some stations get up to half of their budgets from the CPB.

But NPR and PBS get much of their funding from foundation grants, viewers’ and listeners’ donations, and corporate underwriting. And local public radio and TV stations also get support from an array of sources besides CPB.

Only about 1% of NPR funding, and 15% of PBS funding, comes directly from the government via the CPB. However, once local radio and television stations lose federal funding, they’ll be less able to pay NPR and PBS for the programs they produce.

The nearly 1,500 public media stations in the U.S. rely on a mix of NPR, PBS and third-party producer programming, such as American Public Media and PRX, for the programs they offer. Local stations also produce and air regional news and provide emergency broadcasts for the government.

In rural areas with few broadcast stations and spotty cellphone coverage, public broadcast stations are vital sources of information about important community news and updates during emergencies. Federal support is essential for the programming and day-to-day operations of many local stations and allows for the maintenance of equipment and personnel to operate these vital community resources.

We believe that stations in communities that most need them, especially in rural locations, would be hit especially hard because they rely heavily on CPB funding.

Why are Republicans taking this step?

Public broadcasting has long been a target of conservative Republicans. They say that with a highly diversified media landscape, the public no longer needs media that is subsidized by federal dollars. They also claim that public broadcasting has a liberal bias and taxpayers should not be required to fund media that slants to the left politically.

Why is public media necessary when there’s news on the internet?

As journalism revenue has plummeted, public broadcasting has remained a vital source for news in communities across the nation. This is especially true in rural communities, where economic and political pressures have threatened the survival of local journalism.

In addition, with much online news coverage placed behind paywalls, public radio and television plays an important role in making quality journalism available to the American public.

Why did Congress approve these funds 2 years ahead?

Public broadcasting has gotten roughly $550 million per year from the federal government in recent years. The CPB has always approved and designated those funds two years in advance, due to a provision in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, after Congress has voted to provide that money. The CPB then has distributed that funding primarily through grants to PBS and NPR affiliate stations to support their technical infrastructure, program development and audience research.

What are the consequences for Native communities?

Dozens of Native American stations are at risk of closing once the CPB is defunded. Native Public Media, a network of 57 radio stations and four TV stations, is a key source of news and information for tribal communities across the nation and relies on CPB support.

U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican, publicly stated that he secured an agreement with the White House to move $9.4 million in Interior Department funding to two dozen Native American stations. But there is no provision related to this promise within the legislation.

Allison Perlman is the co-chair of the Scholars Advisory Committee of the American Archive of Public Broadcasting.

Josh Shepperd and Allison Perlman are under contract to co-author an update of the history of public broadcasting for Current, public media’s trade journal, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Josh and Allison are not paid employees or vendors of either institution.

– ref. Clawback of $1.1B for PBS and NPR puts rural stations at risk – and threatens a vital source of journalism – https://theconversation.com/clawback-of-1-1b-for-pbs-and-npr-puts-rural-stations-at-risk-and-threatens-a-vital-source-of-journalism-255826

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Prince Sarpong, Associate professor, University of the Free State

Corporate leaders and billionaires are often viewed as visionaries and wealth creators. But beneath the surface, many are trapped in an invisible financial “crisis” – one rooted not in market volatility or poor investments but in their psychological relationship with money.

As a finance professor and editor of the forthcoming book “Financial Therapy for Men,” I study this often overlooked aspect of financial psychology. Money is far more than numbers on a balance sheet – it carries emotional, psychological and social meaning. People’s relationships with money are shaped by childhood experiences, cultural beliefs and personal triumphs and failures. This emotional baggage can influence not only their sense of safety and self-worth but also how they manage power and status.

The field of financial therapy emerged in the mid-2000s to address these dynamics. Drawing from behavioral economics, financial psychology, family systems theory and clinical therapy, it aims to help people understand how their thoughts, feelings and experiences shape financial behavior. Foundational academic work began at Kansas State University, home to one of the first graduate-level programs in the field.

Since then, financial therapy has gained traction in the U.S. and globally: It’s supported by a peer-reviewed journal and is increasingly integrated into professional practice by financial advisers and licensed therapists. Studies have shown that financial therapy can improve relationships and reduce emotional distress.

Yet much of the field focuses on people who are emotionally open and reflective – neglecting executives, who are often socialized to view themselves as purely rational decision-makers. I think this is a mistake.

Research shows that people often project their unconscious anxieties onto markets, experiencing them as mirrors of competence, failure or control. This means that public valuations and capital flows may carry deeply symbolic weight for corporate leaders.

My research suggests that people at the highest levels of wealth and power have deeply complex emotional relationships with money – but the field of financial therapy has largely overlooked them. This isn’t an accident. It reflects a broader assumption that wealth insulates people from psychological distress. In reality, emotional entanglements can intensify with greater wealth and power – and research suggests that men, in particular, face distinct challenges. True inclusion in financial therapy means recognizing and responding to these needs.

When distress becomes a leadership crisis

In a 2023 study – When and why do men negotiate assertively? – Jens Mazei, whose research focuses on negotiations and conflict management, and his colleagues found that men become more aggressive in negotiations when they think their masculinity is being threatened. This was especially true in contexts viewed as “masculine,” such as salary negotiations. In “nonmasculine” contexts, such as negotiations over flexible work and child care benefits, participants weren’t significantly more aggressive when their masculinity was challenged.

On male-coded topics, many men in the study reinforced gender norms by rejecting compromise, using hardball tactics or even inflating financial demands to reassert their masculinity. These behaviors reflect an unconscious need to restore a sense of masculine identity, the researchers suggest. If this reaction occurs in salary negotiations, how might it manifest when the stakes are exponentially higher?

Emerging research in organizational psychology shows that financial stress is linked to abusive supervision, particularly among men who feel a loss of control. Further, traits such as CEO masculinity have been linked with increased risk-taking, while female CEOs tend to reduce risk. Together, these findings point to a dangerous intersection of psychological stress, masculinity and executive decision-making.

M&A as a masculinity battleground

Financial distress doesn’t always look like bankruptcy or bad credit. Among powerful men, it can manifest as overconfidence, rigidity or aggression – and it can sometimes lead to very uneconomical outcomes.

Consider the research on M&A. Most mergers and acquisitions are value killers – in other words, they destroy more economic value than they create – and the field of M&A is deeply male. These two facts suggest that some mergers are driven more by threatened masculinity than by strategic logic. If men become more aggressive in negotiations when their masculinity is threatened, then CEOs and corporate leaders, who are overwhelmingly male, may react similarly when their companies, and by extension their leadership, are challenged.

Target companies rarely take a passive approach to acquisition attempts. Instead, they deploy defensive measures such as poison pills, golden parachutes, staggered boards and scorched-earth tactics. In addition to serving financial goals, these may also act as symbolic defenses of masculine authority.

Mergers and acquisitions, by their nature, create a contest of power between dominant figures. The very language of M&A – for example, “raiders,” “hostile takeovers,” “defenses” and “white knights” – is combative. This reinforces an environment where corporate leaders may view acquisition attempts as challenges to their authority rather than as just financial transactions.

A growing body of behavioral-strategy research confirms that boardroom decisions are often shaped by emotional undercurrents rather than purely rational analysis. While this research stops short of naming it, the dynamics it describes align closely with what Mazei and colleagues call “masculinity threat.”

This has direct implications for corporate M&A. The overwhelming majority of top CEOs are men, and the language of M&A often evokes siege, power struggles and conquest. In such a symbolic arena, acquisition attempts can trigger deep, emotionally charged responses, as the identity stakes are high. What appear to be strategic financial decisions may actually be reflexive defenses of masculine authority.

On a related note, researchers in behavioral finance have long studied the “endowment effect,” or the tendency for people to value assets more simply because they own them. While the endowment effect has been studied primarily among retail investors making ordinary financial decisions, it could be particularly important for corporate executives and billionaires, who have more to lose.

When combined with threatened masculinity, the endowment effect can produce combustible reactions to declining valuations, missed earnings or takeover bids – even for individuals who remain vastly wealthy after marginal losses. While the research at this intersection is still emerging, the underlying behavioral patterns are well established.

What does financial therapy for the ultrarich look like?

Financial therapy for high-net-worth individuals rarely looks like sitting on a couch discussing childhood trauma. Instead, it takes an interdisciplinary approach involving financial advisers, therapists and sometimes executive coaches. Sessions tend to focus on legacy planning, control issues, guilt over wealth, or strained family relationships.

Many high-net-worth men display behaviors that don’t look like like stereotypical “financial distress.” These can include compulsive deal-making, emotionally driven investment decisions, workaholism and difficulty trusting advisers. In some cases, unresolved financial trauma shows up as chronic dissatisfaction and the sense that no achievement, acquisition or net worth is ever “enough.”

While financial therapy is intended to help individuals, I think it could actually be a tool for global economic stability.

After all, when masculinity is threatened in corporate decision-making, the consequences can extend far beyond the boardroom. These actions can destabilize industries, fuel economic downturns and disrupt entire labor markets. Unchecked financial anxiety among corporate elites and billionaires isn’t just their own problem – it can cascade and become everyone’s problem.

From this perspective, financial therapy isn’t just a personal good. It’s a structural necessity that can prevent unchecked financial distress from driving destructive corporate decisions and broader economic disruptions.

If financial therapy helps people navigate financial distress and make healthier money decisions, then no group needs it more than male corporate leaders and billionaires.

Prince Sarpong does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why male corporate leaders and billionaires may need financial therapy more than anyone – https://theconversation.com/why-male-corporate-leaders-and-billionaires-may-need-financial-therapy-more-than-anyone-252094

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Joshua Boston, Associate Professor of Political Science, Bowling Green State University

The U.S. Supreme Court has always ruled on politically controversial issues. From elections to civil rights, from abortion to free speech, the justices frequently weigh in on the country’s most debated problems.

And because of the court’s influence over national policy, political parties and interest groups battle fiercely over who gets appointed to the high court.

The public typically finds out about the court – including its significant decisions and the politics surrounding appointments – from the news media. While elected officeholders and candidates make direct appeals to their voters, the justices and Supreme Court nominees are different – they largely rely on the news to disseminate information about the court, giving the public at least a cursory understanding.

Recently, something has changed in newspaper coverage of the Supreme Court. As scholars of judicial politics, political institutions and political behavior, we set out to understand precisely how media coverage of the court has changed over the past 40 years. Specifically, we analyzed the content of every article referencing the Supreme Court in five major newspapers from 1980 to 2023.

Of course, people get their news from a variety of sources, but we have no reason to believe the trends we uncovered in our research of traditional newspapers do not apply broadly. Research indicates that alternative media sources largely follow the lead of traditional beat reporters.

What we found: Politics has a much stronger presence in articles today than in years past, with a notable increase beginning in 2016.

When public goodwill prevailed

Not many cases have been more important in the past quarter-century or, from a partisan perspective, more contentious than Bush v. Gore – the December 2000 ruling that stopped a ballot recount, resulting in then-Texas Governor George W. Bush defeating Democratic candidate Al Gore and winning the presidential election.

Bush v. Gore is particularly interesting to us because nine unelected, life-tenured justices functionally decided an election.

Surprisingly, the court’s public support didn’t suffer, ostensibly because the court had built up a sufficient store of public goodwill.

One reason public support remained steady following Bush v. Gore might be newspaper coverage. Although the court’s decision reflected the justices’ ideologies, with the more conservative members effectively voting to end the recount and its more liberal members voting in favor of the recount, newspapers largely ignored the role of politics in the decision.

For example, the New York Times case coverage indicated the justices’ names and their votes but mentioned neither the party of the president who appointed them nor their ideological leanings. The words “Democrat,” “Republican,” “liberal” and “conservative” – what we call political frames – do not appear in the Dec. 13, 2000, story about the decision.

This epitomizes court-related newspaper articles from the 1980s to the early 2000s, when reporters treated the court as a nonpolitical institution. According to our research, court-related news articles in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal hardly used political frames during that time.

Instead, newspapers perpetuated a dominant belief among the public that Supreme Court decisions were based almost completely on legal principles rather than political preferences. This belief, in turn, bolstered support for the court.

Recent newspaper coverage reveals a starkly different pattern.

A contemporary political court

It would be nearly impossible to read contemporary articles about the Supreme Court without getting the impression that it is just as political as Congress and the presidency.

Analyzing our data from 1980 to 2023, the average number of political frames per article tripled. To be sure, politics has always played a role in the court’s decisions. Now, newspapers are making that clear. The question is when this change occurred.

Across the five major newspapers, reporting about the court has gradually become more political over time. That isn’t surprising: America has been gradually polarizing since the 1980s as well, and the changes in news media coverage reflect that polarization.

Take February of 2016, when Justice Antonin Scalia unexpectedly died. Of course, justices have died while serving on the court before. But Scalia was a conservative icon, and his death could have swung the court to the center or the left.

How the politics of naming his successor played out after Scalia’s death was unprecedented.

President Barack Obama’s nomination effort to put Merrick Garland on the court were stonewalled. The Senate majority leader, Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said the Senate would not consider any nomination until after the presidential election, nine months from Scalia’s death.

Republican candidate Donald Trump, seeing an opening, promised to fill the vacancy with a conservative justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade. The court and the 2016 election became inseparable.

Scalia vacancy changed everything

February 2016 brought about an abrupt and lasting change in newspaper coverage. The day before Scalia’s death, a typical article referencing the court used 3.22 political frames.

The day after, 10.48.

We see an uptick in political frames if we consider annual changes as well. In 2015, newspapers averaged 3.50 political frames per article about the Supreme Court. Then, in 2016, 5.30.

Using a variety of statistical methods to identify enduring framing shifts, we consistently find February 2016 as the moment newspapers shifted to higher levels of political framing of the court. We find the number of political frames in newspapers remained elevated through 2023.

How stories frame something shapes how people think about it.

If an article frames a court decision as “originalist” – an analytical approach that says constitutional texts should be interpreted as they were understood at the time they became law – then readers might think of the court as legalistic.

But if the newspaper were to frame the decision as “conservative,” then readers might think of the court as ideological.

We found in our study that when people read an article about a court decision using political frames, court approval declines. That’s because most people desire a legal court rather than a political one. No wonder polls today find the court with precariously low public support.

We do not necessarily hold journalists responsible for the court’s dramatic decline in public support. The bigger issue may be the court rather than reporters. If the court acts politically, and the justices behave ideologically, then reporters are doing their job: writing accurate stories.

That poses yet another problem. Before Trump’s three court appointments, the bench was known for its relative balance. Sometimes decisions were liberal; other times, conservative.

In June 2013, the court provided protections to same-sex marriages. Two days earlier, the court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act. A liberal win, a conservative win – that’s what we might expect from a legal institution.

Today the court is different. For most salient issues, the court supports conservative policies.

Given, first, the media’s willingness to emphasize the court’s politics, and second, the justices’ ideologically consistent decisions across critical issues, it is unlikely that the news media retreats from political framing anytime soon.

If that’s the case, the court may need to adjust to its low public approval.

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. Supreme Court news coverage has talked a lot more about politics ever since the 2016 death of Scalia and GOP blocking of Obama’s proposed nominee – https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-news-coverage-has-talked-a-lot-more-about-politics-ever-since-the-2016-death-of-scalia-and-gop-blocking-of-obamas-proposed-nominee-259120

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Amanda Kay Montoya, Associate Professor of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles

Back in high school chemistry, I remember waiting with my bench partner for crystals to form on our stick in the cup of blue solution. Other groups around us jumped with joy when their crystals formed, but my group just waited. When the bell rang, everyone left but me. My teacher came over, picked up an unopened bag on the counter and told me, “Crystals can’t grow if the salt is not in the solution.”

To me, this was how science worked: What you expect to happen is clear and concrete. And if it doesn’t happen, you’ve done something wrong.

If only it were that simple.

It took me many years to realize that science is not just some series of activities where you know what will happen at the end. Instead, science is about discovering and generating new knowledge.

Now, I’m a psychologist studying how scientists do science. How do new methods and tools get adopted? How do changes happen in scientific fields, and what hinders changes in the way we do science?

One practice that has fascinated me for many years is replication research, where a research group tries to redo a previous study. Like with the crystals, getting the same result from different teams doesn’t always happen, and when you’re on the team whose crystals don’t grow, you don’t know if the study didn’t work because the theory is wrong, or whether you forgot to put the salt in the solution.

The replication crisis

A May 2025 executive order by President Donald Trump emphasized the “reproducibility crisis” in science. While replicability and reproducibility may sound similar, they’re distinct.

Reproducibility is the ability to use the same data and methods from a study and reproduce the result. In my editorial role at the journal Psychological Science, I conduct computational reproducibility checks where we take the reported data and check that all the results in the paper can be reproduced independently.

But we’re not running the study over again, or collecting new data. While reproducibility is important, research that is incorrect, fallible and sometimes harmful can still be reproducible.

By contrast, replication is when an independent team repeats the same process, including collecting new data, to see if they get the same results. When research replicates, the team can be more confident that the results are not a fluke or an error.

The “replication crisis,” a term coined in psychology in the early 2010s, has spread to many fields, including biology, economics, medicine and computer science. Failures to replicate high-profile studies concern many scientists in these fields.

Why replicate?

Replicability is a core scientific value: Researchers want to be able to find the same result again and again. Many important findings are not published until they are independently replicated.

In research, chance findings can occur. Imagine if one person flipped a coin 10 times and got two heads, then told the world that “coins have a 20% chance of coming up heads.” Even though this is an unlikely outcome – about 4% – it’s possible.

Replications can correct these chance outcomes, as well as scientific errors, to ensure science is self-correcting.

For example, in the search for the Higgs boson, two research centers at CERN, the European Council for Nuclear Research, ATLAS and CMS, independently replicated the detection of a particle with a large unique mass, leading to the 2013 Nobel Prize in physics.

The initial measurements from the two centers actually estimated the mass of the particle as slightly different. So while the two centers didn’t find identical results, the teams evaluated them and determined they were close enough. This variability is a natural part of the scientific process. Just because results are not identical does not mean they are not reliable.

Research centers like CERN have replication built into their process, but this is not feasible for all research. For projects that are relatively low cost, the original team will often replicate their work prior to publication – but doing so does not guarantee that an independent team could get the same results.

When projects are costly, urgent or time-specific, independently replicating them prior to disseminating results is often not feasible. Remember when people across the country were waiting for a COVID-19 vaccine?

The initial Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine took 13 months from the start of the trial to authorization from the Food and Drug Administration. The results of the initial study were so clear and convincing that a replication would have unnecessarily delayed getting the vaccine out to the public and slowing the spread of disease.

Since not every study can be replicated prior to publication, it’s important to conduct replications after studies are published. Replications help scientists understand how well research processes are working, identify errors and self-correct. So what’s the process of conducting a replication?

The replication process

Researchers could independently replicate the work of other teams, like at CERN. And that does happen. But when there are only two studies – the original and the replication – it’s hard to know what to do when they disagree. For that reason, large multigroup teams often conduct replications where they are all replicating the same study.

Alternatively, if the purpose is to estimate the replicability of a body of research – for example, cancer biology – each team might replicate a different study, and the focus is on the percentage of studies that replicate across many studies.

These large-scale replication projects have arisen around the world and include ManyLabs, ManyBabies, Psychological Accelerator and others.

Replicators start by learning as much as possible about how the original study was conducted. They can collect details about the study from reading the published paper, discussing the work with its original authors and consulting online materials.

The replicators want to know how the participants were recruited, how the data was collected and using what tools, and how the data was analyzed.

But sometimes, studies may leave out important details, like the questions participants were asked or the brand of equipment used. Replicators have to make these difficult decisions themselves, which can affect the outcome.

Replicators also often explicitly change details of the study. For example, many replication studies are conducted with larger samples – more participants – than the original study, to ensure the results are reliable.

Registration and publication

Sadly, replication research is hard to publish: Only 3% of papers in psychology, less than 1% in education and 1.2% in marketing are replications.

If the original study replicates, journals may reject the paper because there is no “new insight.” If it doesn’t replicate, journals may reject the paper because they assume the replicators made a mistake – remember the salt crystals.

Because of these issues, replicators often use registration to strengthen their claims. A preregistration is a public document describing the plan for the study. It is time-stamped to before the study is conducted.

This type of document improves transparency by making changes in the plan detectable to reviewers. Registered reports take this a step further, where the research plan is subject to peer review before conducting the study.

If the journal approves the registration, they commit to publishing the results of the study regardless of the results. Registered reports are ideal for replication research because the reviewers don’t know the results when the journal commits to publishing the paper, and whether the study replicates or not won’t affect whether it gets published.

About 58% of registered reports in psychology are replication studies.

Replication research often uses the highest standards of research practice: large samples and registration. While not all replication research is required to use these practices, those that do contribute greatly to our confidence in scientific results.

Replication research is a useful thermometer to understand if scientific processes are working as intended. Active discussion of the replicability crisis, in both scientific and political spaces, suggests to many researchers that there is room for growth. While no field would expect a replication rate of 100%, new processes among scientists aim to improve the rates from those in the past.

Amanda Kay Montoya is an Associate Professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. She serves on the Board of Directors for the Center for Open Science. She receives funding from the US-National Science Foundation.

– ref. Research replication can determine how well science is working – but how do scientists replicate studies? – https://theconversation.com/research-replication-can-determine-how-well-science-is-working-but-how-do-scientists-replicate-studies-260771

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Gabriel L. Schwartz, Assistant Professor of Health Management and Policy, Drexel University

As Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker’s US$2 billion housing plan moves forward, heated debates continue about another set of municipal housing proposals that could transform Philadelphia tenants’ rights.

In June 2025, Philadelphia’s City Council considered three housing bills, collectively known as the Safe Healthy Homes Act. The package was introduced by Nicolas O’Rourke, an at-large council member who belongs to the Working Families Party.

One of the bills authorized the city to create a fund for tenants to relocate if their buildings are condemned by city inspectors. It was signed into law, though it remains unclear how the fund will be financed.

The other two bills stalled. One was an ordinance that would broadly strengthen tenants’ rights, and the other – known as the Right to Repairs – would shift how Philadelphia ensures housing is safe for tenants, empowering the city to proactively inspect rentals for housing code violations.

These bills deal with housing policy, but they’re also matters of public health.

I know this because I am a researcher in Philadelphia who studies how housing affects our health outcomes. And in particular, recent research by myself and others suggests the fate of the Rights to Repairs legislation could have major implications for Philadelphians’ well-being.

Housing protections today

To understand this new evidence, it’s important to first understand the system of housing regulations Philadelphia has now, in the absence of the proposed Right to Repairs legislation.

When a landlord rents an apartment, Pennsylvania law mandates that apartment must be habitable and free of hazards such as mold, cockroaches and dangerous dilapidation.

This legal principle is known as the “implied warranty of habitability.”

All 50 states except Arkansas have some kind of policy like this, though they vary in how much they hold landlords responsible for tenants’ safety.

Under Pennsylvania’s warranty and related municipal law, if conditions deteriorate in a rental property, Philadelphia tenants are first supposed to alert their landlord, who has 30 days to fix the given violation – such as rodents or lead exposure.

If landlords refuse, however, tenants are in a bind. They could file a complaint with the Department of Licenses and Inspections, which might come and issue a citation. Tenants could also file a lawsuit against their landlord, and they are entitled to withhold rent. But all of these options risk provoking your landlord – at potentially high cost.

Invoking your warranty rights as a tenant can therefore be tricky. You have to know your rights, document repair requests in writing, and be willing to take your landlord to task legally.

That’s challenging in a city like Philadelphia, where most renters – outside of a pilot program in some ZIP codes – aren’t guaranteed lawyers in housing court.

Indeed, nationally, 9 in 10 landlords have lawyers in housing cases, while 9 in 10 tenants do not.

The stakes are high for tenants. If they complain, they risk eviction – and that’s amid a shortage of affordable housing in Philadelphia and across the country.

In 2018 alone, according to a local news investigation, Philadelphia landlords filed over 2,000 eviction cases soon after tenants raised habitability issues, despite such retaliatory evictions being illegal. More up-to-date estimates are hard to come by, as these illegal evictions are not systematically tracked.

Tenants have little choice. Philadelphia does not require that an apartment pass an inspection before the city issues rental licenses or certificates of rental suitability. If housing violations arise, it’s on tenants to assert and defend their rights.

Do habitability laws work?

Housing quality protections for tenants, in other words, largely boil down to implied warranties of habitability, plus associated fines the city can issue. But this works only if tenants are able to properly document violations, submit complaints and defend themselves from the blowback.

Despite warranties forming the backbone of Philadelphia’s housing quality governance system – and concerns that these laws saddle tenants with unreasonable enforcement responsibilities – little is known about whether warranties are even effective. Do they keep tenants from getting sick due to poor housing conditions?

To find out, fellow researchers and I examined what happened when nine states enacted implied warranty of habitability laws like the one in place in Pennsylvania today. We wanted to know whether renters’ health improved after warranty policies were enacted, compared with other states where such laws didn’t go into effect over the same period.

We also used homeowners as a control group, comparing whether renters’ health uniquely improved when these laws were enacted. Homeowners are useful here because we wouldn’t expect homeowners’ health to be affected by these laws.

Our findings were stark: We found no improvements for renters at all, across a slew of housing-related health outcomes, even 10 years after enactment.

There were no effects on renters’ asthma, respiratory allergies, bronchitis, mental health, hospitalizations, or even less clinical outcomes such as self-rated health.

To be clear, implied warranties of habitability are important laws and are surely helpful for individual tenants. Broadly speaking, however, our findings suggest that these policies simply don’t work.

That is likely especially true in Pennsylvania, a state whose implied warranty of habitability was given an F- by researchers who evaluated the comprehensiveness of states’ policies for protecting tenants’ well-being.

A 2014 study in neighboring New Jersey helps shed light on why these policies fall short.

Researchers there examined 40,000 eviction cases, looking for whether tenants successfully raised implied warranty of habitability violations as a defense. Given how often landlords retaliate after violation complaints are made, one might expect thousands of tenants party to these lawsuits to have invoked their warranty rights.

The result? Only 80 tenants did so – 80 out of 40,000.

In practice, then, existing data paints a bleak picture: The vast majority of tenants lack the financial resources, legal knowledge, alternative housing options or freedom from fear necessary to protect themselves from unsafe conditions at home.

Proactive rental inspections show more success

What policies might work instead? Cities such as Rochester, New York, may provide an answer.

In 2005, Rochester implemented a more proactive rental inspection program to combat their child lead-poisoning crisis – a problem Philadelphia shares.

This meant that Rochester’s municipal inspectors began proactively inspecting rental units on a regular basis and issuing fines for any violations they found. Tenants did not have to file a complaint and therefore weren’t forced into adversarial disputes with their landlords.

The results were dramatic. By 2012, childhood lead poisoning in Rochester had dropped by 85%. This decline was nearly 2.5 times faster than the rest of New York state.

Further, scientists found that units that were inspected every three years had one-third of the rate of housing code violations as units inspected every six years.

Whether the Right to Repair is good policy for Philadelphia is a question for city legislators. But research is increasingly clear: The city’s current housing policies do not protect tenants from unsafe housing, while proactive rental inspections show real promise for fighting persistent housing-related health problems.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia.

Gabriel L. Schwartz’s research described in this article was funded through a pilot grant from the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative. UCSF had no role in the design, completion, or reporting of that study. The views expressed in this article solely represent the scientific opinion of the author, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of either UCSF or his employer.

– ref. Philly’s City Council turned down a new rental inspection program − studies show that might harm tenants’ health – https://theconversation.com/phillys-city-council-turned-down-a-new-rental-inspection-program-studies-show-that-might-harm-tenants-health-260266