MIL Submissions Engine

May 21, 2026

Nearly everything we use online is owned by big tech. There’s a better way forward

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ashwin Nagappa, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society, Queensland University of Technology

Globally, users of digital media are increasingly locked into a handful of operating systems, app stores, and communication platforms. Most of us must choose between Apple, Windows, or Android. All of these are owned by American tech giants.

Much of private and government IT infrastructure – websites, mobile banking, nearly anything online you can think of – uses cloud services, such as Amazon Web Services, Cloudflare or Microsoft Azure. They might have locations worldwide, but these are also US companies.

Mobile phones, laptops, smartwatches and more are mostly made by American or Chinese companies. And it’s getting worse as tech companies embed artificial intelligence (AI) assistants directly into everyday devices, such as Google’s Gemini or Microsoft’s Copilot. They’re doing this in ways designed to further entrench users within particular ecosystems.

When a single cyber security update brought down Windows computers the world over in 2024, it was a stark reminder nobody should put all their IT eggs in one basket.

But what might that actually look like? The “digital sovereignty” movement in the European Union (EU) can show us the way. European countries are gradually breaking up with American tech giants and pushing for local AI development, all in the name of achieving digital autonomy.

What exactly is ‘digital sovereignty’?

A state’s sovereignty means to be able to govern itself. Extend that to the digital era, and we arrive at a concept that’s difficult to pin down, but broadly means being in charge of your own digital infrastructure.

Let’s take the European digital sovereignty strategy. It provides a roadmap for creating, owning and governing computer hardware, AI, software, and social media within the EU. Any tech providers would have to comply with core EU values of human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights.

The ultimate goal here is digital autonomy. It means reducing reliance on systems vulnerable to growing geopolitical and economic risks. If you make your own devices and host your data locally, you’re not at the mercy of multinational corporations whose interests may not align with your own.

Several prominent EU institutions have already ditched the Microsoft Office suite for official communication. Instead, they use European software such as Office EU or free open-source alternatives.

The EU is also making progress on Gaia-X, a local alternative to global cloud providers.

But these efforts come with major challenges. Large tech companies such as Alphabet (Google), Microsoft and Amazon are not watching idly. By promising local governments and organisations greater control, they’re tapping into the digital sovereignty discussion.

Researchers call this “sovereignty-as-a-service”. Through it, big tech is shaping digital sovereignty on terms that are favourable to them.

Alternatives already exist

Europe’s digital sovereignty strategy is a long-term, multi-country initiative that involves major financial, industrial and policy changes. Outside of the EU, countries including India, Brazil, Nigeria and South Africa are also pursuing digital sovereignty plans.

But for everyday users, much of it comes down to turning to viable alternatives to dominant tech platforms. Many already exist.

Decentralised social media ecosystems allow independently operated communities to communicate across shared protocols without being controlled by a single corporation. One such example is the Fediverse, which includes platforms like micro-blogging site Mastodon and video sharing site PeerTube.

Similarly, the AT protocol, which powers micro-blogging sites Bluesky and Eurosky, aims to separate social networking from platform ownership. It enables users to move identities, content and communities between services more freely.

Open-source office suites such as LibreOffice have provided alternatives to Microsoft Office for more than two decades.

It’s also increasingly possible to run AI systems locally on personal devices or private networks. This reduces reliance on cloud-based AI services controlled by big tech.

In other words, many of the technical foundations for greater digital autonomy already exist. The challenge lies with adoption and coordination. When Twitter was bought by Elon Musk, many users fragmented to other sites – from Mastodon and Threads to Bluesky and others. If your friends are all on different social media sites, which do you choose?

What can Australia learn from this?

Australia is in a similar position to the EU. We’re heavily reliant on foreign-owned digital infrastructure. We’re also increasingly exposed to the geopolitical tensions surrounding it.

Australia could take a leaf out of the EU’s book and develop its own roadmap for digital sovereignty. This would have to operate at both the policy and public levels.

Australia’s digital policy shouldn’t be dictated by large platforms or external geopolitical actors. There’s also a pressing need to promote local innovation for the future, such as investing in quantum computing.

Publicly funded organisations have already demonstrated Australia can invent globally significant technology. After all, Australia’s national science agency, the CSIRO, patented the technology that led to wifi. Universities and publicly funded institutions should be at the core of future tech innovation as well.

Most importantly, Australia is home to First Nations communities. Their governance systems have long operated through decentralised, relational, and autonomous forms of organisation.

Groups such as Maiam nayri Wingara and the HASS and Indigenous Research Data Commons have already developed internationally significant frameworks for Indigenous data sovereignty. These cover data governance, stewardship, collective benefit, and the rights of communities to control data about their peoples, lands and cultures.

We can learn from these. Respecting Indigenous sovereignty may also open a pathway for all Australians to rethink what our shared digital futures can look like.

Ashwin Nagappa receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a recipient of the 2024 AXA Post-Doctoral Fellowship (for the theme ‘Navigating misinformation and trust erosion in the digital age’).

Daniel Angus receives funding from the Australian Research Council through Linkage Project LP190101051 ‘Young Australians and the Promotion of Alcohol on Social Media’. He is a Chief Investigator with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making & Society.

– ref. Nearly everything we use online is owned by big tech. There’s a better way forward – https://theconversation.com/nearly-everything-we-use-online-is-owned-by-big-tech-theres-a-better-way-forward-282969

May 21, 2026

We analysed the TikTok history of 142 men. Here’s what it taught us about the manosphere

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Krista Fisher, Research Fellow, Centre for Youth Mental Health, The University of Melbourne

Sarazh Izmailov/Pexels, The Conversation, CC BY-SA

Interest in the manosphere has recently surged yet again, with the recent Louis Theroux documentary catapulting the term “manosphere” back to the forefront of our cultural psyche.

The term has become a catchall for the most inflammatory content and communities in young men’s digital worlds. Alarm bells are ringing, but our understanding of what the manosphere actually is – where it begins and ends – has more questions than answers.

As concern grows, so does the ambiguity around how to define the manosphere and how young men actually experience it. Our policy responses, interventions and public discourse assume it’s one thing, one ideology, populated by one type of young man: a singular algorithmic journey from loneliness to radicalisation. It isn’t, and overlooking the complexity and nuance misses large parts of the problem.

So what is it instead? Our new research answers this question.

Simulations vs reality

Addressing ambiguity matters, whether you’re a researcher trying to measure the full spectrum of harm being experienced, or part of a community trying to talk about it with sons, brothers and friends. You cannot diagnose a problem without truly understanding it, and that means going into these online ecosystems to explore their bounds.

Previous research has included the use of dummy accounts to simulate internet use. These have been criticised by social media companies, who say the simulations don’t reflect the real experiences of users on their apps.

In response, our new research looked at the real TikTok viewing histories of 142 young men across Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. We watched what they watched, 2,000 videos over the past month, and built a framework to map the full spectrum of masculinity content that young men encounter online.

It’s the first time academic research has used real user data in this space. It means we can respond to what young men and boys are actually seeing, rather than simulations of user experiences and what we think they’re seeing.

Almost half of the videos we analysed (44%) contained masculinity-related themes. Masculinity content fell into three distinct categories. Understanding these categories, how they escalate and who’s watching it makes tailored intervention possible, from policymakers to support services, and even the platforms themselves.

Beginning the journey

The journey can start somewhere ordinary. Three videos. Same young man. Same day. Same algorithm.

In the first video, a young, buff man located in a gym, demonstrating to his audience the correct technique when completing the “perfect lying tricep extension”.

We called this tier “cultural touchpoints”. It includes gym, sport, fashion and dating tips content. It made up 38% of what young men in our study watched, making it the most common type of content.

On the surface, none of it raises alarm. But it quietly sets a norm. One type of male body, one set of male interests, one way of moving through the world.

Travelling deeper

In the second video, a shirtless young man delivers a motivational-style speech about gym and discipline. He argues that physical commitment produces results in other areas of life, such as earning admiration from his girlfriend and becoming a “superhero” to his future children.

We called this tier “masculine status” content. It constituted 6% of the videos we analysed.

Outwardly, it looks like self-improvement, motivational and informative content with messages of discipline, ambition, levelling up as a man.

Underneath, the rigid moulds become clear: muscularity, emotional suppression, financial abundance, the “high-value” male archetype.

Women are framed as rewards to be earned. The content is ideologically hardened, but also easy to miss.

The destination

In the third video, a male creator sarcastically warns his audience against peptides. He then proceeds to list the side-effects of “getting leaner, shredded and getting more bitches”, while showing the vials to the audience.

We called this tier “degrading health” content. It made up less than 1% of content.

Most of it violates TikTok’s own community guidelines prohibiting the promotion of peptide hormones, testosterone boosters, and content that demeans, endangers or advocates for self-harm.

This category includes overt misogyny and graphic depictions of violence against women.

It’s infrequent, but not isolated. This content sits at the end of a journey that began with a tricep extension tutorial.

Three videos. Three very different messages about masculinity and health. This is how the manosphere finds young men: through platforms they’re already on, creators they already follow and in a cultural language they appreciate.

Cultural touchpoints lay the foundation that make messages of misogyny, risk-taking, violence and hate not just palatable, but reasonable. Ideological shifts happen because it feels like much of the same.

Exploiting insecurities

The manosphere doesn’t create these pressures – it finds genuine unmet needs and exploits them for profit and views. Often girls, women and other minority groups are at the receiving end of that harm, as well as the boys and men themselves.

Our broader framework, in which these classifications are a part, gives researchers, regulators, and platforms a tool to identify and intervene across the full spectrum of young men’s digital lives, not just at the extremes.

Current moderation and regulation approaches are reactive. Content is removed once platform guidelines are violated, but often that comes too late, after thousands if not millions of users have already seen it.

This research makes early and tailored intervention possible, disrupting the masculinity content pipeline at different points along the spectrum, before young men reach the most extreme end.

For example, tech companies could embed this classification framework into the design of recommender systems to ensure an age appropriate user experience. Cultural touchpoint content may be appropriate for a 16-year-old, but masculine status and degrading health videos may not be, and thus should not be recommended to them. Our work provides a defensible evidenced standard for appropriate moderation and digital platform design.

Lastly, it helps create a shared language and collective understanding of the manosphere. We can talk about masculinity content in a way that aligns with young men’s actual digital experiences, and to build solutions that fit the problem.

The manosphere has spent years speaking directly to young men’s fears and insecurities, building narratives that are fluent, persuasive and hard to counter. We need to be just as fluent, delivering effective responses and alternative narratives grounded in what young men actually see, watch and feel.

This research is the first attempt to do that. Now we need to use these insights to expand our evidence on the manosphere’s harm, develop tailored solutions, call for platform reform and develop community resources to help protect the men and boys exposed to this content online.

Krista Fisher is affiliated with the Movember Institute of Men’s Health. Krista Fisher had support from the Polarization & Extremism Research & Innovation Lab (PERIL) and Diverting Hate when conducting this research.

Emily Lewis is affiliated with the Movember Institute of Men’s Health.

Zac Seidler has been awarded an National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant. He is also the Global Director of Research with the Movember Institute of Men’s Health. He advises government on men’s suicide, masculinities, violence prevention and social media policy.

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

– ref. We analysed the TikTok history of 142 men. Here’s what it taught us about the manosphere – https://theconversation.com/we-analysed-the-tiktok-history-of-142-men-heres-what-it-taught-us-about-the-manosphere-282156

May 21, 2026

Health authorities are racing to contain Ebola in the DRC and Uganda. Here’s what’s making it so challenging

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By C Raina MacIntyre, Professor of Global Biosecurity, NHMRC L3 Research Fellow, Head, Biosecurity Program, Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is grappling with a rising Ebola epidemic, with almost 600 cases detected so far and more than 130 deaths.

Ebola is a rare virus that initially causes a fever, fatigue, muscle pain, then vomiting and diarrhoea. It can then progress to the hemorrhagic stage, with internal bleeding – which presents as blood in vomit and faeces – as well as bleeding as from parts of the body including the nose, gums, vagina and needle punctures.

Ebola primarily spreads through contact with bodily fluids such as blood, faeces and vomit. It can be contracted from contaminated surfaces or contact with bodies of those who have died, but can also spread by other routes including without contact.

This current outbreak, caused by the rare Bundibugyo strain, was first confirmed as Ebola on May 15. It was already estimated to have 246 cases at the time of this confirmation.

As surveillance efforts stepped up, it became clear the outbreak was more than double that size, with spread to Uganda.

So what are health authorities doing to get the virus under control and why is it such a challenge?

And what can health authorities in Africa, as well as the rest of the world, learn from previous outbreaks?

How did so many people get sick so quickly?

Ebola has a long incubation period of two to three weeks or longer. This means the number of infected people has likely been growing since at least March or April.

Our epidemic early warning system, Epiwatch, saw signals of unknown illness in the DRC on April 13, with reports of hemorrhagic fever noted even earlier on March 13.

The delay in diagnosing Ebola may have been due to initial testing targeting the more common Zaire strain of Ebola. Tests must be specific to Bundibugyo.

The DRC is also experiencing other serious outbreaks including mpox and measles, as well as malnutrition and chronic malaria.

These underlying factors can make epidemics more severe and harder to detect.

How big did previous outbreaks get?

The worst Ebola epidemic in history was over 28,000 cases in the 2014 West African epidemic. More than 11,000 people died from this Zaire strain, as vaccines were not yet available at the peak of the epidemic.

In the DRC, the last epidemic of 64 cases was in late 2025. The largest epidemic in the DRC was in 2018-2019 with more than 3,000 cases. These were both the Zaire strain.

There have only been two other Bundibugyo outbreaks. The first, in 2007 with 149 cases, was in the Bundibugyo District of western Uganda, near the DRC border. The second, in 2012, was in the DRC, with 57 cases. The current Bundibugyo epidemic is already the largest in history.

While Bundibugyo is not as lethal as the Zaire strain, it can kill 30–50% of infected people. The fatality rate in this epidemic appears close to 30%, with 139 deaths reported from almost 600 cases.

Unlike the Zaire strain, for which there are treatments and vaccines, there are no approved drugs or vaccines for the Bundibugyo strain.

However, the World Health Organization has sponsored clinical trials of a monoclonal antibody and the antiviral remdesivir, a drug which is also used for COVID.

We may see higher fatality rates unless non-pharmaceutical measures ramp up.

How can it be stopped?

The epidemic can be stopped by coordinated surveillance and containment. This is by identifying cases, isolating them so they cannot infect others, tracing their contacts and quarantining them.

In 2014, these measures alone controlled the Ebola epidemic at a time when no treatments or vaccines were available. This means health system capacity is the key to epidemic control.

There were not enough beds for Ebola patients in the 2014 epidemic, so health authorities built tent hospitals to help bring the epidemic under control. This could be considered if hospitals are overwhelmed.

The DRC has limited capacity to diagnose Ebola, so it’s important to scale up surveillance and testing. A clinical case definition (such as “fever and bleeding means a probable case”) can be used if testing is not available.

Simple surveillance systems – such as open-source intelligence, where community chatter and local news reports can provide signals of epidemics – can help. So can providing incentives for communities to report suspected cases.

It’s also essential to communicate and work with communities and community leaders from the ground up. In the 2014 epidemic, locals murdered eight Ebola workers who provided health education, showing how important trust and community relationships are.

Health workers, close contacts and funeral attendants need extra precautions

Ebola is predominantly spread by contact with blood and bodily fluids. Those most at risk are close contacts of patients with Ebola, health workers and people attending funerals, which often involves touching the body.

At least four health workers have been infected, including one American missionary doctor.

Given the high fatality rate, health workers should be provided the highest level of personal protection.

What can other countries do?

Ebola is a concern for all of us, because travel can result in infections occurring in any country. During the 2014 West African epidemic, cases also occurred outside the main affected countries, the largest number in Nigeria.

Failure to initially diagnose a case in Texas resulted in four other people becoming infected, including health workers.

Whether facing hantavirus or Ebola, emergency departments need tools to improve their awareness of and ability to prevent hospital outbreaks.

Busy staff in emergency triage may send someone with a fever back to the waiting room for hours, not realising they have travelled recently and may have a serious infectious disease. In South Korea, a person with the deadly Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) virus was in the emergency department for many hours, and a huge outbreak resulted.

One useful tool for hospitals is a decision-support system used during triage that prompts staff to ask for a patient’s travel history and provides data on disease outbreaks in the country of travel. This means patients with deadly infections may be isolated before they can infect others.

Another concern is that if the outbreak becomes much larger, there may be survivors who still harbour the virus for many months or longer after recovery. They could continue to infect others after this epidemic is over if they come into contact with bodily fluids such as semen, amniotic fluid or breast milk, as well as fluids from the placenta or eye.

The WHO declaring a public health emergency of international concern helps, as it activates a range of additional measures and resources for outbreak control.

C Raina MacIntyre is the founder of EPIWATCH Global Pty Ltd which tracks global epidemics. She receives funding from NHMRC Investigator Grant 2016907 and NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence GNT2006595.

Ashley Quigley, Mohana Priya Kunasekaran, and Noor Jahan Begum Bari do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Health authorities are racing to contain Ebola in the DRC and Uganda. Here’s what’s making it so challenging – https://theconversation.com/health-authorities-are-racing-to-contain-ebola-in-the-drc-and-uganda-heres-whats-making-it-so-challenging-283276

May 21, 2026

Más allá del debate sobre la conquista: una olvidada “recíproca amistad científica” entre España y México

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Juan Miguel Nepote González, Coordinador de Proyectos Especiales del Museo de Ciencias Ambientales, Universidad de Guadalajara

Mariano Bárcena (1842-1899), principal gestor de la Academia Mexicana Correspondiente de la Real Española de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

En la historia compartida entre España y México existe un episodio que hemos olvidado casi por completo, pero que ilustra lo que pensaba el escritor serbio Milorad Pavic: “el pasado siempre está a punto de ocurrir”. En la Ciudad de México se inauguró, a finales de 1894, la Academia Mexicana Correspondiente de la Real Española de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. Su principal gestor, Mariano Bárcena, aseguró que con ese proyecto se establecía un “lazo de recíproca amistad científica” entre España y México.

España y México: conversación intermitente

En febrero de 2019, el entonces presidente de México, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, envió una carta al rey de España, Felipe VI, donde proponía:

“que el Reino de España exprese de manera pública y oficial el reconocimiento de los agravios causados y que ambos países acuerden y redacten un relato compartido, público y socializado de su historia común, a fin de iniciar en nuestras relaciones una nueva etapa”.

A partir de entonces, la comunicación oficial entre ambos países se mantuvo en una especie de pausa. Hasta inicios de 2026, cuando la actual presidenta de México, Claudia Sheinbaum, envió una nueva misiva al monarca para invitarlo a viajar a México durante la Copa Mundial de Fútbol. Finalmente, Felipe VI aceptó asistir al partido de España contra Uruguay, que tendrá lugar a finales de junio en la ciudad de Guadalajara.

Un pasado común por descubrir

Es posible localizar un ejemplo tangible de esos “vínculos” en el surgimiento de una institución fundada en Madrid, por real decreto, el 25 de febrero de 1847. Se trata de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales de España, que reunió a buena parte de los personajes de mayor talento intelectual de aquella nación: Cipriano Segundo Montesino y Estrada, pionero de la ingeniería industrial en España; el matemático, dramaturgo y político José Echegaray y Eizaguirre, primer español en ganar un Premio Nobel; el fascinante físico experimental Blas Cabrera y Felipe, quien fue amigo de Albert Einstein; o el incombustible Santiago Ramón y Cajal, quien fue elegido como miembro a finales de 1895 y tomó posesión el 5 de diciembre de 1897.

Ocurrió justamente en la época en que miembros de dicha Academia, como el ingeniero en minas Daniel Francisco de Paula Cortázar y Larrubia y el matemático y astrónomo Miguel Merino y Melchor, establecieron una amistad con un personaje nacido en México y que había llegado a Madrid hacia 1886: Vicente Riva Palacio. Este general militar, abogado, poeta, historiador, cuentista, político y novelista entonces iniciaba la carrera de diplomático, luego de haber sido nombrado “enviado extraordinario y ministro plenitpotenciario” de México en Madrid, para construir puentes que unieran a estas dos naciones.

“Lazo de recíproca amistad científica”

En el México del siglo XIX, Riva Palacio había sido el artífice de la creación de sus instituciones científicas de mayor importancia: el Observatorio Meteorológico Central (1876) y el Observatorio Astronómico Nacional (1878). En ambas había contado con la inteligencia de los ingenieros Mariano Bárcena y Ángel Anguiano.

En Madrid, Riva Palacio participó en una reunión con representantes de los pueblos hispanoamericanos para la celebración del cuarto centenario del descubrimiento de América. En el transcurso de este evento, el enviado propuso la fundación, en México, de una extensión de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas española.

El proyecto se lo encargó a Mariano Bárcena, quien habría de recordar en su discurso durante la inauguración de la Academia, que así fue como “surgió la idea de establecer en América algunos centros científicos, que puestos en relación constante con los de España, produjesen bienes recíprocos y cooperasen al adelanto de los pueblos que reconocían el mismo origen”.

En el Archivo histórico de la Biblioteca Pública del Estado de Jalisco Juan José Arreola es posible encontrar huellas de la historia olvidada de la Academia Mexicana Correspondiente de la Real Española de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. Se inauguró el 24 de noviembre de 1894 con una ceremonia donde Mariano Bárcena reconoció y agradeció “la grandeza de España”, identificando que:

“las ciencias son fuentes perennes de bienestar y los lazos más indisolubles de fraternidad entre las naciones que las cultivan. En efecto, nada puede ser dirigido con acierto sin el auxilio de las ciencias exactas; porque los números tienen que ordenarlo todo, y son la base indispensable de cualquier problema, aun social o económico”.

Ciencia hispanoamericana, olvidado pasado compartido

Sus socios se reunían cada quince días para organizar conferencias públicas. Seguían un estricto turno de lectura y desarrollaron un amplio espectro de asuntos, desde las patentes de invención o la importancia del cálculo de probabilidades, hasta el levantamiento exacto de la Carta de la República Mexicana.

Esta olvidada Academia sobrevivió poco más de diez años y mantuvo un par de publicaciones periódicas: Anuario y Anales. En ellas se publicaron mas de cincuenta investigaciones de distintos ámbitos, desde los estudios geográficos hasta la medicina, pasando por la astronomía, geología, química, física y múltiples ingenierías.

Y entre la fantástica miscelánea de asuntos, hay uno que merece destacarse. En la charla pública del 7 de septiembre de 1896, el ingeniero Manuel Fernández propuso la creación de la Universidad de México. El objetivo no era otro que procurar los conocimientos científicos que se necesitaban en el país para modificar su dependencia exterior en materia científica.

Una dependencia compartida con España, en opinión del físico e historiador José Manuel Sánchez Ron, quien en su libro El país de los sueños perdidos, dedicado a la historia de la ciencia en España, afirma: “en Hispanoamérica somos, sobre todo, consumidores-importadores de ciencia y tecnología, pero no creadores”.

La innovadora idea de fundar una gran universidad mexicana tardaría aún más de 10 años en materializarse. Concretamente, hasta que el filósofo, abogado y escritor Justo Sierra presentó la Ley Constitutiva de la Escuela Nacional de Altos Estudios. Y, poco después, el proyecto para fundar la Universidad Nacional, precedente inmediato de la actual Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM).

Recordar la olvidada existencia de la Academia Mexicana Correspondiente de la Real Española de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales es una invitación a no borrar la historia de colaboración científica que ha unido a España y México. Sus resultados, como asegura Sánchez Ron en su colosal obra, nos permiten descubrir que “lo mejor de la contribución española a la ciencia universal se hizo en América”.

Juan Miguel Nepote González no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

– ref. Más allá del debate sobre la conquista: una olvidada “recíproca amistad científica” entre España y México – https://theconversation.com/mas-alla-del-debate-sobre-la-conquista-una-olvidada-reciproca-amistad-cientifica-entre-espana-y-mexico-241542

May 21, 2026

Por qué entender la IA será tan importante como aprender a leer

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Bárbara Castillo Abdul, Docente e Investigadora Senior, UDIT – Universidad de Diseño, Innovación y Tecnología

Durante años, la alfabetización mediática ha sido considerada una competencia esencial para desenvolverse en entornos digitales. Consiste en aprender a identificar fuentes fiables, a contrastar información o detectar contenidos engañosos.

Sin embargo, en un contexto marcado por la expansión de la inteligencia artificial en los procesos de acceso, producción y circulación del conocimiento, el ecosistema informativo se ha transformado y las competencias citadas no son suficientes.

Tradicionalmente, los usuarios interactuaban con contenidos relativamente identificables, producidos por emisores reconocibles y bajo lógicas editoriales más o menos transparentes. Hoy, esa relación ha cambiado de forma sustancial. Cada vez con mayor frecuencia, los usuarios no acceden a información que deben interpretar, sino que interactúan con sistemas que la sintetizan, reorganizan y generan en tiempo real.

¿Por qué responde ChatGPT lo que responde?

Por ejemplo, hace algunos años una persona que quería informarse sobre vacunas, salud mental o alimentación saludable podía leer noticias en distintos medios digitales, consultar artículos científicos o comparar la opinión de expertos. El pensamiento crítico consistía en evaluar quién producía la información, desde qué medio se difundía y con qué intención.

Hoy, ese mismo usuario puede preguntarle directamente a ChatGPT o a otro sistema de inteligencia artificial: “¿Las vacunas son seguras?”, “¿Cómo sé si tengo ansiedad?” o “¿Qué dieta es mejor para mí?”. En pocos segundos recibe una respuesta clara, estructurada y aparentemente fiable. Sin embargo, muchas veces desconoce qué fuentes utilizó el sistema, qué información priorizó, qué datos omitió o qué sesgos pueden influir en la respuesta generada.

La diferencia es profunda: antes, el pensamiento crítico se dirigía principalmente al contenido; ahora también debe dirigirse al sistema que produce y organiza el conocimiento. De hecho, investigaciones recientes advierten que la creciente dependencia de sistemas de inteligencia artificial puede modificar la forma en que las personas evalúan información y toman decisiones, especialmente en ámbitos sensibles como la salud y el bienestar.

Un uso acrítico de la IA

Sabemos que el uso de la IA mejora la eficiencia en la producción de contenidos, pero también tiende a desplazar el juicio crítico hacia la confianza en el sistema, especialmente cuando los resultados se presentan de forma coherente y verosímil.

Este fenómeno se extiende más allá del ámbito educativo: la rápida adopción de estas tecnologías está transformando las dinámicas de acceso a la información, generando nuevos desafíos en términos de transparencia, equidad y gobernanza del conocimiento.

Entender la mediación algorítmica

La inteligencia artificial no solo facilita el acceso a la información, sino que interviene activamente en su construcción. Este cambio no es menor. Supone el paso de un modelo basado en la interpretación de contenidos a otro en el que la mediación algorítmica ocupa un lugar central. En este contexto, la fuente puede volverse más difusa, la autoría menos visible y la lógica de producción del conocimiento más opaca para los usuarios.

Por eso, la comprensión de los sistemas algorítmicos resulta tan relevante como la evaluación de los contenidos, y la alfabetización digital y mediática debe incluir la alfabetización en inteligencia artificial, un campo emergente que integra dimensiones técnicas, críticas y éticas.

¿Qué es la alfabetización en inteligencia artificial?

Dicha alfabetización va más allá de saber utilizar herramientas como ChatGPT, Gemini o Copilot. No se trata únicamente de aprender a escribir mejores instrucciones o de obtener respuestas más rápidas, sino de comprender cómo estos sistemas producen información, qué límites tienen y qué implicaciones sociales, éticas y cognitivas pueden generar.

En términos prácticos, una persona alfabetizada en IA debería ser capaz de comprender, al menos de forma básica, cómo funcionan los sistemas algorítmicos, qué papel desempeñan los datos en la generación de respuestas, por qué pueden aparecer sesgos o errores y cómo la automatización influye en la manera en que interpretamos la realidad y tomamos decisiones.

Leer más:
La economía de la mentira: la desinformación generada por IA puede frenar el crecimiento real y socavar la cohesión social

Nuevas competencias críticas

Esto implica desarrollar nuevas competencias críticas: cuestionar la aparente neutralidad de las respuestas generadas por IA, identificar cuándo una respuesta requiere verificación adicional, reconocer los riesgos de delegar excesivamente el pensamiento en sistemas automatizados y comprender que estas tecnologías no “piensan”, sino que producen resultados a partir de patrones y probabilidades.

Ahora mismo existe una brecha entre estas transformaciones y las prácticas educativas. Mientras se persigue que los estudiantes sean capaces de analizar contenidos y desarrollar competencias de alfabetización mediática e informacional, tal y como promueven organismos como la UNESCO y marcos educativos vinculados a la competencia digital, no siempre se les está proporcionando herramientas para comprender los procesos mediante los cuales esos contenidos son generados.

Leer más:
¿Cómo saber si un estudiante ha aprendido, aunque use inteligencia artificial?

Cómo se construye el conocimiento

Lo que está en juego ya no es únicamente una competencia digital, sino la capacidad de las sociedades para comprender quién organiza, prioriza y legitima el conocimiento en entornos cada vez más automatizados.

Los individuos pueden creer que toman decisiones plenamente informadas cuando, en realidad, dependen de sistemas cuya lógica interna no conocen. Esto no solo afecta la forma en que consumimos información, sino también la capacidad de las sociedades para participar críticamente en ámbitos como la salud, la política o la comunicación pública.

Leer más:
La ilusión de libertad en internet: 8 maneras en las que la red moldea nuestras decisiones

Para que los ciudadanos alcancen esta alfabetización en IA, el aprendizaje debería comenzar progresivamente desde la escuela e integrarse de manera transversal en distintas etapas educativas y programas de formación ciudadana, no solo desde áreas tecnológicas, sino también desde materias vinculadas a la comunicación, la ética, las ciencias sociales y la ciudadanía digital.

La población adulta también necesita espacios de formación y divulgación que permitan comprender críticamente el funcionamiento de estas tecnologías, especialmente en ámbitos sensibles como la salud, la información política o la educación.

La responsabilidad no recae únicamente en los sistemas educativos. Gobiernos, universidades, medios de comunicación, plataformas tecnológicas y organismos internacionales también tienen un papel clave en el desarrollo de una ciudadanía capaz de interactuar críticamente con la inteligencia artificial. En un contexto donde los algoritmos participan cada vez más en la organización de aquello que vemos, pensamos y creemos saber, entender cómo funcionan deja de ser una competencia especializada para convertirse en una necesidad democrática.

Bárbara Castillo Abdul no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

– ref. Por qué entender la IA será tan importante como aprender a leer – https://theconversation.com/por-que-entender-la-ia-sera-tan-importante-como-aprender-a-leer-281933

May 21, 2026

Las embarazadas pueden (y deben) ir al dentista

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Amparo Perez Silva, Odontopediatra, Universidad de Murcia

Todas las mujeres embarazadas saben perfectamente que deben estar atentas a su salud y a la de su bebé mediante el control prenatal obstétrico. Acudir a las revisiones médicas, seguir las indicaciones del profesional sanitario y cuidar la alimentación son hábitos que la mayoría de las gestantes incorporan desde el inicio del embarazo. Sin embargo, muchas desconocen la importancia de complementar este seguimiento con un adecuado control prenatal odontológico, un aspecto clave que a menudo se pasa por alto.

Durante el embarazo se producen múltiples cambios fisiológicos que también afectan a la boca, aumentando la probabilidad de desarrollar problemas bucodentales. Estas alteraciones no solo influyen en el bienestar de las gestantes, sino que también pueden repercutir en el desarrollo del bebé.

Falsos mitos

Es frecuente escuchar que la gestación debilita los dientes, que estos pierden calcio para cedérselo al bebé o que no se pueden realizar tratamientos dentales mientras estamos embarazas. Ninguna de estas afirmaciones es correcta. Sin embargo, son creencias que hacen que muchas mujeres eviten acudir al dentista en una etapa en la que el cuidado odontológico es fundamental.

En general, las embarazadas reciben menos atención odontológica que las no gestantes. En España, un estudio reciente señala que solo el 15 % de las mujeres embarazadas acude a revisiones dentales durante el embarazo. A esto se suma, en ocasiones, el miedo o la falta de experiencia de algunos odontólogos a la hora de tratar a pacientes gestantes.

Es importante recordar que el embarazo no es una enfermedad, sino una etapa natural que requiere cuidados específicos. Los cambios hormonales, especialmente el aumento de estrógenos, modifican la saliva y los tejidos de la boca, favoreciendo el crecimiento de bacterias. Esto puede hacer que las encías se vuelvan más sensibles, que sangren con facilidad o se inflamen. Si a esto le añadimos un mayor consumo de azúcares o cambios en la alimentación, algo bastante habitual durante el embarazo, el riesgo de desarrollar caries se dispara.

Además, los vómitos frecuentes, especialmente durante el primer trimestre, pueden desgastar el esmalte dental debido a la acción de los ácidos gástricos.

Cambios hormonales que afectan a las encías

Entre un 60 % y un 70 % de las mujeres presentan encías inflamadas, enrojecidas o que sangran con facilidad durante la gestación. Esto se debe a los cambios hormonales propios del embarazo, que aumentan la respuesta inflamatoria de los tejidos gingivales.

La gingivitis debe ser tratada, pues existe el riesgo de que evolucione a periodontitis, una enfermedad más grave que afecta a los tejidos que sostienen los dientes. Algunos estudios han relacionado estos problemas con complicaciones como el parto prematuro, el bajo peso del bebé e incluso la preeclampsia, lo que refuerza la importancia de la prevención y el tratamiento precoz.

¿Acceso gratuito a la atención dental durante la gestación?

Organismos como la Organización Mundial de la Salud y la Comisión Europea recomiendan integrar la salud bucodental en el seguimiento del embarazo. Esto implica fomentar revisiones dentales durante la gestación y promover la colaboración entre matronas, dentistas y ginecólogos. Sin embargo, en la práctica existen diferencias importantes en el acceso a estos servicios en función del país donde vivimos.

Si nos fijamos en Europa, en el Reino Unido la atención dental es gratuita durante el embarazo y hasta 12 meses después del parto, lo que facilita el acceso de las mujeres a estos cuidados. En Francia y Alemania se fomenta la prevención mediante revisiones, aunque con algunas limitaciones en los tratamientos. Italia cuenta con programas regionales con cobertura variable, mientras que los países nórdicos destacan por su enfoque educativo y preventivo. En Portugal, existen programas que permiten a las embarazadas acceder gratuitamente a determinados tratamientos odontológicos.

En España no existe un programa nacional único dirigido específicamente a embarazadas. La atención bucodental durante la gestación depende de cada comunidad autónoma, lo que origina diferencias territoriales en el acceso a la prevención y a la educación en salud oral. Esta falta de homogeneidad puede dificultar la coordinación entre matronas, médicos de familia y ginecólogos, y limita en algunos casos la derivación sistemática al dentista durante el embarazo.

¿Las mujeres embarazadas pueden ir al dentista?

No solo pueden, sino que deben. El tratamiento dental durante el embarazo es seguro. El segundo trimestre suele ser el momento más adecuado para realizar tratamientos, ya que las náuseas suelen haber disminuido y resulta más cómodo permanecer en el sillón del dentista.

No obstante, si aparece dolor, infección o cualquier urgencia en otro momento del embarazo, las gestantes deben acudir al dentista de inmediato. Retrasar el tratamiento puede empeorar el problema y tener consecuencias mayores como dificultar la alimentación, algo fundamental en esta etapa. Una buena nutrición es clave para el correcto desarrollo del bebé, y cualquier problema que interfiera con ella debe ser resuelto cuanto antes.

Amparo Perez Silva no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

– ref. Las embarazadas pueden (y deben) ir al dentista – https://theconversation.com/las-embarazadas-pueden-y-deben-ir-al-dentista-281549

May 21, 2026

Viajando envejecemos más despacio, según un nuevo estudio

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Francisco José Esteban Ruiz, Profesor titular de Biología Celular, Universidad de Jaén

No cabe duda de que viajar nos supone un esfuerzo y un cambio considerable en nuestra rutina diaria, con el desorden que conlleva. Pero es curiosa esa sensación tan agradable de llegar a casa así, como descansados, después de un viaje de ocio, y sentir que venimos con las pilas cargadas.

Cuando hacemos turismo, regresamos con más energía, dormimos mejor y tenemos la impresión de que algo en nosotros se ha “reordenado”, en lugar de desordenarse. Pero ¿es solo una sensación o viajar puede influir realmente en nuestra salud?

Un grupo de investigación australiano ha propuesto que las experiencias agradables que vivimos cuando viajamos contribuyen a un envejecimiento más saludable, ya que ayudan al organismo a mantener un estado fisiológico más equilibrado. Curiosamente, lo justifican recurriendo a un concepto cuando menos llamativo: la entropía.

¿Entropía y salud?

En física, la entropía describe la tendencia natural de los sistemas al desorden. Trasladando la idea a nuestro cuerpo, los investigadores australianos plantean que la salud corresponde a un estado “ordenado”, mientras que el envejecimiento y la enfermedad reflejan una pérdida progresiva de organización.

Según esta propuesta, las experiencias positivas como viajar, caminar, interactuar con otras personas o exponerse a entornos nuevos podrían ayudar al organismo a mantener su equilibrio interno. La hipótesis es sugerente y conecta con algo que bien sabemos y es que el envejecimiento saludable no sólo depende de nuestra genética, sino también de los hábitos cotidianos y de los cambios que introduzcamos en nuestra rutina.

Viajar y envejecimiento saludable

Más allá de la entropía, la evidencia científica sí muestra que determinadas formas de viajar pueden aportar beneficios reales, especialmente en personas mayores.

Tras analizar 66 estudios diferentes, una revisión sistemática publicada hace unos meses concluía que el turismo puede favorecer el bienestar, la satisfacción vital y la calidad de vida de las personas mayores. Los efectos positivos aparecen asociados a la actividad física, la interacción social, la estimulación cognitiva, el contacto con la naturaleza y la ruptura de la rutina.

Puesto que muchos viajes implican caminar más, orientarse por lugares desconocidos, conversar con personas nuevas y salir temporalmente de hábitos sedentarios, no es de extrañar que con ello se activen procesos físicos y mentales importantes para un envejecimiento saludable.

Como los propios autores indican en su trabajo, el concepto de envejecimiento saludable, promovido por la Organización Mundial de la Salud, pone el foco en mantener durante el mayor tiempo posible las capacidades físicas, cognitivas y sociales. En otras palabras, no se trata solo de vivir más años sino de mantener autonomía, relaciones sociales y calidad de vida.

El problema de la “entropía”

En relación con la entropía, conviene no exagerar las conclusiones. El principal problema del marco teórico basado en la entropía es que mezcla niveles físicos, biológicos, psicológicos y sociales bajo una misma idea de “desorden”, pero sin explicar claramente cómo se conecta ese concepto entre ellos.

En otras palabras: la idea funciona bien como metáfora, pero todavía no como teoría demostrada. Los propios autores reconocen que faltan estudios experimentales sólidos y que gran parte de la investigación actual se basa en encuestas o aproximaciones conceptuales y en una narrativa descriptiva.

Y, más aún, no existe, al menos por ahora, una medición objetiva que permita afirmar que viajar “reduce la entropía” del organismo en sentido científico. El riesgo es caer en una especie de pescadilla que se muerde la cola, en el sentido de que si algo mejora la salud, entonces se dice que “reduce la entropía”. Y si empeora, que la aumenta.

Beneficios y riesgos

Tal vez no necesitemos recurrir a conceptos grandilocuentes para entender por qué viajar puede hacernos bien, pues se sabe que envejecer de forma saludable depende en gran medida de mantener el cuerpo y la mente activos, reducir el aislamiento social, manejar el estrés y conservar la curiosidad por el entorno.

Sin lugar a dudas, muchos viajes, especialmente aquellos que combinan movimiento, descanso y conexión social, reúnen precisamente esos ingredientes. Pero también existen riesgos y eso no significa que cualquier escapada sea automáticamente terapéutica.

Estos mismos trabajos que nos hablan de los beneficios terapéuticos de viajar también nos recuerdan que viajar implica riesgos como infecciones, accidentes, agotamiento o experiencias negativas.

Viajar nos pone las pilas

La neurociencia reciente puede ayudarnos a entender cómo viajar nos pone las pilas. Una posible explicación es que los nuevos estímulos que recibimos durante el viaje activan el sistema de recompensa cerebral.

Un estudio, basado en la activación en nuestro cerebro del sistema de recompensa, nos dice que cuando algo es nuevo lo preferimos aunque ya conozcamos opciones más cómodas y familiares.

Por ejemplo, imagine que todos los días desayuna el mismo cereal, pero un día ve un cereal nuevo en la tienda y, aunque sabe que el suyo es bueno, es probable que sienta curiosidad y quiera probar el nuevo solo porque es diferente.

Cuando viajamos, nuestro cerebro experimenta esto constantemente. En lugar de ver solo nuestra casa y lo conocido, disfrutamos de espacios nuevos; en lugar de escuchar solo los sonidos de nuestro barrio, nos relacionamos en otros idiomas; en lugar de comer siempre lo mismo, probamos platos realmente nuevos y diferentes.

La novedad activa dos mecanismos cerebrales cruciales, que trabajan conjuntamente y que representan vías distintas que mejoran experiencias novedosas.

Por un lado, induce la liberación de dopamina en el hipocampo, lo que promueve la memoria. Esto significa que no solo recordamos mejor las experiencias de viaje, sino que el proceso mismo de crear estas memorias nos genera una sensación de vitalidad. Además, las neuronas noradrenérgicas de la región cerebral llamada locus cerúleo liberan noradrenalina en el hipocampo al mismo tiempo, potenciando aún más la retención.

Como escribió el viajero Ibn Battuta, “viajar te deja sin palabras y después te convierte en narrador de historias”. Visto así, cada escapada no detiene el paso del tiempo, pero puede ayudarnos a que ese tiempo merezca un poco más la pena.

Francisco José Esteban Ruiz recibe fondos para investigación del Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, la Agencia Estatal de Investigación (AEI) y el Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) bajo el proyecto PID-156228NB-I00, y de la Consejería de Salud y Consumo, Junta de Andalucía (PIP-0113-2024).

– ref. Viajando envejecemos más despacio, según un nuevo estudio – https://theconversation.com/viajando-envejecemos-mas-despacio-segun-un-nuevo-estudio-282206

May 21, 2026

Playing host to Putin and Trump, China sends a message – it’s now in the driver’s seat

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Alexander Korolev, Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, UNSW Sydney

It’s been quite a week for Beijing, with back-to-back visits by the leaders of the United States and Russia. Chinese President Xi Jinping has had his hands full with hosting duties, gun salutes, photo opportunities and high-level talks.

Each visit was important in its own way. US President Donald Trump’s state visit was his first to Beijing since 2017. It came at a moment of strained China-US relations, with the US at war in the Middle East and its foreign policy undergoing a massive transformation under Trump.

For Putin, it was his 25th official visit to China. The trip was intended to further consolidate the China–Russia strategic alignment amid global uncertainty. Putin was also keen to secure China’s continued economic lifeline and diplomatic cover as its war with Ukraine grinds on.

And while the timing of the back-to-back visits should not be over-interpreted – Moscow says there was “no connection” between the two – they do reveal a deeper structural shift in global politics.

Beijing’s rising confidence

First, the United States is clearly no longer the most important country in China’s strategic worldview – and Beijing is increasingly willing to show it.

This was visible in Xi’s posturing and negotiating style with Trump. From his rather distant handshake to his dominant body language throughout their meeting, Xi
sent a message: Washington has a limited ability to influence Beijing anymore.

The modest outcomes of their summit reinforced this dynamic. Trump left China without a formal deal, a press conference or a joint communiqué. Nor was there a breakthrough on either Iran or Taiwan.

Putin, meanwhile, met his “good and old friend” Xi and took home some 20 agreements ranging from trade to technology.

The most striking, if not unsettling, moment was Xi’s invocation of the “Thucydides Trap” during his meeting with Trump. This is the idea that a rising power inevitably threatens an established one, risking war.

Xi asked a pointed question:

Can China and the United States transcend the so-called ‘Thucydides Trap’ and forge a new paradigm for major-power relations?

Xi has used this concept before, but his directness this time sent a warning: the US risks creating a major crisis if it continues to rely on a containment strategy to counter China’s rise.

In short, Beijing used the Trump visit to signal confidence, autonomy and the fact that Washington is not the only capital that matters to China.

Russia has new usefulness to Beijing

Second, the China–Russia alignment has become less equal, but it has gained greater strategic depth. And Beijing is now using it to put pressure on the US leadership.

During a private garden stroll through the highly secretive Zhongnanhai leadership compound last week, Trump asked whether Xi often brings other world leaders there. Xi replied that such visits are “extremely rare,” but added that “Putin has been here”.

The innocent reading of this exchange is that Xi was simply noting the depth of his personal rapport with Putin. But in the current geopolitical context, it also served as a subtle reminder to Trump that China’s “no limits” partnership with Russia is not rhetorical. Beijing was signalling Moscow remains a privileged strategic partner – and that China has options.

The deeper message is this: if Washington seeks to isolate China, Beijing can lean even more heavily on its relationship with Moscow.

China does not need to help Russia “win” in Ukraine to make this point. What matters is that Beijing has the ability – if it chooses – to bolster Russia’s war effort through economic, diplomatic and long-term technological and energy cooperation. Beijing’s influence now extends well beyond the Indo-Pacific and reaches into Europe in ways Washington cannot ignore.

Xi didn’t give Putin everything he sought during his meeting, though.

With the turmoil in the Middle East cutting off China’s access to Middle Eastern oil and gas, Moscow sensed an opportunity to push ahead on a new pipeline, called the Power of Siberia-2, to bring Russian gas to China.

While Putin and Xi came to a “general understanding on the parameters” of the project, however, no final deal was signed.

China is now in the driver’s seat

Third, China now sees itself as the central node of great-power politics.

For many decades, the United States sat at the apex of the “great triangle”, balancing between China and the Soviet Union and then Russia.

Today, the geometry has flipped. Both Trump and Putin felt compelled to come to Beijing – for stabilisation, reassurance and strategic signalling – even as they confront each other elsewhere.

China is not playing triangular diplomacy in the classic sense. It is not trying to pit Washington and Moscow against each other. Instead, it is positioning itself as the system’s centre: the place where major-power diplomacy must pass, even if the outcomes are uncertain.

China is not at the apex of this arrangement because it is the strongest militarily or economically, but because it has the confidence to engage the US and Russia on its own terms.

In this new geometry, great-power politics does not revolve around Washington. Increasingly, it runs through Beijing.

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

– ref. Playing host to Putin and Trump, China sends a message – it’s now in the driver’s seat – https://theconversation.com/playing-host-to-putin-and-trump-china-sends-a-message-its-now-in-the-drivers-seat-283375

May 20, 2026

More universities are disinviting commencement speakers who might challenge students’ ideas, unraveling an apolitical tradition

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science, Amherst College

College commencement ceremonies celebrate students’ achievements, but also have become occasionally fraught with politics. photosbyjim/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Delivering a university commencement address used to simply be a unique kind of honor. Speakers stand before a podium, wearing a traditional graduation cap and robe, and offer graduates life lessons and inspirational words as they enter the next phase of life.

But today, speaking at a university commencement ceremony carries considerable risk, as Morton Schapiro, former president of Northwestern University, recently found out. Schapiro was scheduled to speak at Georgetown University Law Center’s graduation on May 17, 2026, but announced on May 6 that he would no longer appear at the event.

Some Georgetown law students had protested and petitioned to have Schapiro’s invitation rescinded, citing what they said were Schapiro’s “controversial, Zionist, and harmful opinions.” The students pointed to an op-ed that Schapiro wrote expressing support for Israel and Jewish people a few days after the Hamas attacks on Oct. 7, 2023, which killed 1,200 people.

Schapiro is in good company. There’s a reason why the free speech advocacy group FIRE calls the lead-up to college commencements disinvitation season.

Over the past two decades, colleges and universities across the country have withdrawn invitations to various commencement speakers after students protested their scheduled appearance. Or, in some cases, invited speakers have said they will no longer participate after students spoke out against their upcoming speeches.

As a political scientist who has written about the First Amendment and free speech on college campuses, I think Schapiro’s ill-fated Georgetown commencement invitation – and other instances like this one – show that intolerance for dissenting viewpoints lasts until the last diploma is handed out at graduation.

Some students only want people who hold similar views to address them at their graduation. They exercise what free speech law experts call a “heckler’s veto,” meaning when an audience’s reaction, or anticipated response, stops someone from speaking. Free speech then takes a back seat, and a graduation becomes just a performative moment of political correctness.

Two men wear purple robes and smile in a crowd of people. — The comedian Seth Meyers, left, attends the Northwestern University graduation with Morton Schapiro, the school’s then-president, in June 2016 in Evanston, Ill.
Timothy Hiatt/Getty Images

It wasn’t always this way

The first university commencement in the U.S. took place in 1642, when Harvard College held a ceremony to honor its nine graduates. The students were joined by some of the Massachusetts Bay Colony’s most distinguished citizens, including Governor John Winthrop and his deputy, John Endicott, who observed the proceedings.

No one delivered a commencement address.

Instead, each graduate delivered an address and displayed the fruits of their classical education by speaking in Latin and English.

By the middle of the 19th century, university commencements drew well-known outsiders to college campuses to speak.

In 1837, for example, the poet and essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson addressed Harvard’s Phi Beta Kappa graduates and issued a stirring call for American students and scholars to end what he called “our long apprenticeship to the learning of other lands.”

In 1881, James Garfield became the first sitting American president to deliver a commencement address, when he spoke at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.

Twenty-four years later, President Theodore Roosevelt spoke at the first graduation ceremony at Clark University, in Worcester, Massachusetts. He told his audience there, “I have always felt most strongly that it is true of a nation as of the individual that the greatest doer must also be a great dreamer.”

Since then, other presidents have used commencement speeches to announce major policy initiatives and agreements, including on foreign policy.

In 1963, President John F. Kennedy told the graduating seniors at American University that the U.S., the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union would start negotiations to ban the testing of nuclear weapons.

Two years later, President Lyndon Johnson announced at Howard University’s commencement that he would launch a major initiative to address socioeconomic disparities that disadvantaged Black people.

There was no controversy or protest about Kennedy, Johnson or other prominent speakers who delivered commencement addresses before a few decades ago.

A man stands at a podium that says 'president of the United States' in a black-and-white photo. — President John F. Kennedy delivers his commencement speech at American University in June 1963.
Bettmann/Contributor/Getty Images

The commencement speaker as a lightning rod

But that was then. Times have changed.

FIRE estimates that between 2000 and 2024, there were 345 attempts to disinvite commencement speakers. Many of the scheduled speakers who faced pressure to not appear at the ceremonies backed out.

Examples of commencement speaker disinvitations have happened at small, private liberal arts colleges, as well as big public universities. Being uninvited from speaking at a graduation is often precipitated by petitions and protests, from both conservative and progressive activists.

For example, in 2019, former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey, a Democrat, withdrew as the scheduled commencement speaker at Creighton University. This followed the Nebraska Republican Party objecting to Kerry’s pro-abortion rights voting record.

In 2024, Dickinson College rescinded a commencement invitation for Michael Smerconish, an author and television commentator who focuses on politics. This decision came after a student wrote an opinion piece that showed that 20 years earlier, Smerconish said, “in order to keep America safe, the TSA should deliberately target Arabs and Muslims for searches because they look like the perpetrators of past terrorist attacks.”

“Does someone like Mike Smerconish in any way represent the achievements and ambitions of its students? If Dickinson truly loves and values its students, shouldn’t it honor them with someone who reflects that love?” the student asked in the opinion piece.

Protests ensued, and the college president gave in.

In 2025, the noted author Salman Rushdie withdrew as commencement speaker at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California, after members of its Muslim Student Association urged the school to revoke his invitation. They accused Rushdie, a self-described “hardline atheist,” of “disparaging a global religious community” in his writing and public appearances. In a 2015 commencement address at Emory University, he said: “I sometimes think we live in a very credulous age. People seem ready to believe almost anything. God, for example.”

Over the past few years, the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip has led to various commencement controversies and rescinded invitations, based on scheduled speakers’ politics around the conflict.

There have also been various commencement speakers who have delivered controversial addresses that some graduates – and outside observers – found offensive. Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker, for example, spoke at Benedictine College’s commencement in 2024 and encouraged women to become homemakers.

A man stands at a wooden podium on a stage, surrounded by people in graduation attire and a crowd of people wearing black graduation caps. — The author Salman Rushdie delivers a commencement address at Emory University in Atlanta in May 2015.
Marcus Ingram/Getty Images

Commencement and free speech

That brings us back to Schapiro.

“I have presided over 28 commencements as a president and dean,” Schapiro wrote in a note to Georgetown’s law students, “and those ceremonies are about celebrating the graduates and their supporters. I was looking forward to giving a talk about humility and gratitude, but I don’t want my presence to distract from the day’s festivities.”

Humility and gratitude are often missing in disinvitation season.

In 2017, Drew Gilpin Faust, then the president of Harvard University, seemed to understand this absence when she issued a free speech message to graduates in her commencement address. “Silencing ideas or basking in intellectual orthodoxy independent of facts and evidence impedes our access to new and better ideas, and it inhibits a full and considered rejection of bad ones,” Faust warned.

Commencement season puts Faust’s admonitions to the test. “Universities,” she said, “must model a commitment to the notion that truth cannot simply be claimed, but must be established – established through reasoned argument, assessment and even sometimes uncomfortable challenges that provide the foundation for truth.”

Austin Sarat 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. More universities are disinviting commencement speakers who might challenge students’ ideas, unraveling an apolitical tradition – https://theconversation.com/more-universities-are-disinviting-commencement-speakers-who-might-challenge-students-ideas-unraveling-an-apolitical-tradition-283131

May 20, 2026

When a president settles his own lawsuit to create a fund for allies, fundamental questions about justice arise

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science, Amherst College

A banner featuring President Trump on the outside of the DOJ building in Washington, D.C. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Thomas Hobbes took a very dim view of rebels and insurrectionists. He believed that insurrectionists relinquish their status as citizens the moment they seek to overthrow the government and should never be rewarded for doing so.

Hobbes, one of the finest political theorists of his time, said this in his great political treatise, “Leviathan,” published in 1651 during a civil war in England and Scotland.

Hobbes would likely also take a dim view of a major development announced by the Trump administration on May 20, 2026.

The U.S. Department of Justice has established a US$1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” to be used, the AP reports, to “allow people who believe they were targeted for prosecution for political purposes, including by the Biden administration Justice Department, to apply for payouts.”

The fund, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said, offers “a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.”

Critics immediately charged that it might be used to compensate people involved in – some even convicted for – the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Blanche has not ruled out that possibility.

The establishment of the fund is part of a settlement agreement, in response to which President Donald Trump dropped his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service for damages stemming from the leak of his tax returns. Those leaks, the lawsuit alleged, “caused Plaintiffs reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, unfairly tarnished their business reputations, portrayed them in a false light, and negatively affected President Trump.”

A DOJ press release indicates the fund will provide “formal apologies and monetary relief” to those who file claims and will cease processing claims “no later than” Dec. 1, 2028. It will be run by a five-person board appointed by the attorney general, and the president will also have the power to remove board members.

Whether or not Jan. 6 participants benefit, some believe that this situation creates an unavoidable appearance of self-dealing and favoritism. As a student of American law and political morality, I think there are important moral and constitutional issues implicated by the president’s suit against the IRS and the creation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund.

Some of them are straightforward; others are less so.

A man talking at a table behind a name plate, gesturing with his fingers. — Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche testified about the compensation fund during a Senate Committee on May 19, 2026, in Washington, D.C.
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

A judge in their own cause

An obvious question is: Should taxpayer funds be given to Trump allies, in a settlement reached by the Trump-controlled DOJ as compensation for a Trump family lawsuit?

As far back as ancient Greece, philosophers like Aristotle have worried about what happens when people are called on to make judgments in cases where they are involved. Aristotle thought that the natural instinct for self-preservation meant that they would always favor themselves.

From that concern emerged what was then, and remains, an uncontroversial, bedrock moral principle.

In the Roman world, the Latin phrase “Nemo iudex in causa sua” meant “no one should be a judge in their own cause.” It recognized that anyone having a personal interest should not get to decide matters in which they are involved.

In the Englsh-speaking world, Hobbes himself reiterated that phrase as he explained some of the advantages of living in an organized society, which could supply impartial judges to resolve disputes. And in 1787, James Madison wrote, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”

Commentators reacting to the Justice Department’s decision to establish an Anti-Weaponization Fund to settle the president’s claims against the IRS have drawn on these longstanding principles to criticize it, including how the DOJ, which is part of the executive branch controlled by Trump, negotiated with him to reach this settlement.

The conservative lawyer and activist Ed Whelan said, “There is a glaring conflict of interest with Trump being on both sides of the claim.” Whelan added, “It is outrageous that he and those answering to him would be deciding how the government responds to these extravagant claims.”

In testimony on May 19, 2026, before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Blanche offered a different view. He said the settlement fund was not unprecedented and likened it to a different fund, established by the Obama administration, to settle discrimination claims brought by Native American and Black farmers.

“It’s not limited to Republicans. It’s not limited to Democrats,” Blanche added. “It’s not limited to January 6th defendants. It’s limited only by the term weaponization.” Blanche promised that payments from the fund will be publicly disclosed.

Negotiating with himself

In April, Kathleen Williams, the Florida federal judge who was presiding over Trump’s lawsuit, reframed the moral issue of self-dealing as a legal one. She questioned whether the case could go on, noting “President Trump’s own remarks about this matter acknowledge the unique dynamic of this litigation.”

The remarks she referenced occurred when the president talked about the lawsuit and the prospect of negotiating with himself. “And they do say that, you know, it’s never been a case like this. Donald Trump sues the United States of America. Donald Trump becomes president, and now Donald Trump has to settle the suit.”

Williams, the judge, wrote that “it is unclear to this Court whether the Parties are sufficiently adverse to each other so as to satisfy Article III’s case or controversy requirement.” That requirement means that a court can only rule when there is a real dispute before it.

That rule is designed to prevent so-called collusive lawsuits, in which “the parties are not actually in disagreement but are cooperating” to achieve a result. Judge Williams was scheduled to hear arguments on that question on May 20, 2026. But the settlement announcement was made two days before, and, in light of it, she dismissed the case.

Back to Hobbes

Beyond the case and controversy question, the Justice Department’s actions may implicate constitutional issues.

One is whether, under the constitutional separation of powers, the executive branch has the authority to create a victim compensation fund, or whether that authority rests with Congress.

Another is whether the fund violates the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, which prohibits the president from receiving any “Emolument from the United States” other than his salary.

While the new fund may not make direct payments to Trump, he may benefit from payments to family members, business associates and others who will claim to have been victimized by the Biden administration, including people prosecuted and convicted of crimes committed on Jan. 6.

Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin, a former professor of constitutional law, also contends that what the Justice Department has done violates Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, part of which states: “neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”

Referring to the president, Raskin argues hypothetically, “So, to the extent that he wants to give a million dollars to each of 1,600 pardoned rioters and insurrectionists, we think that that’s an unconstitutional use of money.”

That section of the 14th Amendment was designed to ensure that Confederate rebels would not receive compensation for the value of their emancipated slaves. However, in Perry v. United States, a 1935 case, the Supreme Court stated that Section 4’s “language indicates a broader connotation” beyond its Civil War context.

It seems clear that courts will soon be asked to decide whether Raskin and other legal critics are right in their assertions of a host of legal problems with the Anti-Weaponization Fund. How they will do so remains to be seen.

But, in a democracy, deciding whether the creation of the fund violates the moral maxim that no one can be a judge in his or her own cause ultimately will be up to the people.

– ref. When a president settles his own lawsuit to create a fund for allies, fundamental questions about justice arise – https://theconversation.com/when-a-president-settles-his-own-lawsuit-to-create-a-fund-for-allies-fundamental-questions-about-justice-arise-283345