Woman killed in Middleborough crash remembered for love of reading, plants
A 68-year-old woman who was killed in a crash in Middleborough earlier this month, along with her longtime partner, was remembered in her obituary for her love of her family.
Rosemarie Dias, of Wareham, was killed along with Cecil 'Tex' Johnson, 70, when their car crashed into the woods off Interstate 495 North. Both were pronounced dead at the scene.
Dias was born in Wareham and lived there her entire life. She graduated from Bridgewater State University and worked as a supervisor at Upham's Corner Health Center in Dorchester for more than 40 years.
The obituary remembers Dias for her love of reading, tending to her houseplants and flower gardens, and trips to the movie theater, the casino and the beach.
But 'most of all, she loved her family and spending time with them,' the notice reads.
A celebration of life for Dias will be held on July 26 at the Dudley Brown VFW Post in Onset.
'Unlawful and unwarranted': Harvard opens 2nd lawsuit against the Trump admin
Mass. State Lottery winner: 1st $1M prize claimed in new game
Mass. Senate passes dramatic liquor license overhaul. Will the House pass it?
Man killed in Northbridge shooting identified as suspect's brother
Man killed brother in what appears to be accidental shooting in Northbridge home
Read the original article on MassLive.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
an hour ago
- Vox
Harvard just fired a tenured professor for the first time in 80 years. Good.
is a senior writer at Future Perfect, Vox's effective altruism-inspired section on the world's biggest challenges. She explores wide-ranging topics like climate change, artificial intelligence, vaccine development, and factory farms, and also writes the Future Perfect newsletter. The Harvard University crest on the Baker Library of the Harvard Business School in Boston on May 27. Sophie Park/Bloomberg via Getty Images In the summer of 2023, I wrote about a shocking scandal at Harvard Business School: Star professor Francesca Gino had been accused of falsifying data in four of her published papers, with whispers there was falsification in others, too. A series of posts on Data Colada, a blog that focuses on research integrity, documented Gino's apparent brazen data manipulation, which involved clearly changing study data to better support her hypotheses. Future Perfect Explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. This was a major accusation against a researcher at the top of her field, but Gino's denials were unconvincing. She didn't have a good explanation for what had gone wrong, asserting that maybe a research assistant had done it, even though she was the only author listed across all four of the falsified studies. Harvard put her on unpaid administrative leave and barred her from campus. The cherry on top? Gino's main academic area of study was honesty in business. As I wrote at the time, my read of the evidence was that Gino had most likely committed fraud. That impression was only reinforced by her subsequent lawsuit against Harvard and the Data Colada authors. Gino complained that she'd been defamed and that Harvard hadn't followed the right investigation process, but she didn't offer any convincing explanation of how she'd ended up putting her name to paper after paper with fake data. This week, almost two years after the news first broke, the process has reached its resolution: Gino was stripped of tenure, the first time Harvard has essentially fired a tenured professor in at least 80 years. (Her defamation lawsuit against the bloggers who found the data manipulation was dismissed last year.) What we do right and wrong when it comes to scientific fraud Harvard is in the news right now for its war with the Trump administration, which has sent a series of escalating demands to the university, canceled billions of dollars in federal grants and contracts, and is now blocking the university from enrolling international students, all in an apparent attempt to force the university to conform to MAGA's ideological demands. Stripping a celebrity professor of tenure might not seem like the best look at a moment when Harvard is in an existential struggle for its right to exist as an independent academic institution. But the Gino situation, which long predates the conflict with Trump, shouldn't be interpreted solely through the lens of that fight. Scientific fraud is a real problem, one that is chillingly common across academia. But far from putting the university in a bad light, Harvard's handling of the Gino case has actually been unusually good, even though it still underscores just how much further academia has to go to ensure scientific fraud becomes rare and is reliably caught and punished. There are two parts to fraud response: catching it and punishing it. Academia clearly isn't very good at the first part. The peer-review process that all meaningful research undergoes tends to start from the default assumption that data in a reviewed paper is real, and instead focuses on whether the paper represents a meaningful advance and is correctly positioned with respect to other research. Almost no reviewer is going back to check to see if what is described in a paper actually happened. Fraud, therefore, is often caught only when other researchers actively try to replicate a result or take a close look at the data. Science watchdogs who find these fraud cases tell me that we need a strong expectation that data be made public — which makes it much harder to fake — as well as a scientific culture that embraces replications. (Given the premiums journals put on novelty in research and the supreme importance of publishing for academic careers, there's been little motivation for scientists to pursue replication.). It is these watchdogs, not anyone at Harvard or in the peer-review process, who caught the discrepancies that ultimately sunk Gino. Crime and no punishment Even when fraud is caught, academia too often fails to properly punish it. When third-party investigators bring a concern to the attention of a university, it's been unusual for the responsible party to actually face consequences. One of Gino's co-authors on one of the retracted papers was Dan Ariely, a star professor of psychology and behavioral economics at Duke University. He, too, has been credibly accused of falsifying data: For example, he published one study that he claimed took place at UCLA with the assistance of researcher Aimee Drolet Rossi. But UCLA says the study didn't happen there, and Rossi says she did not participate in it. In a past case, he claimed on a podcast to have gotten data from the insurance company Delta Dental, which the company says it did not collect. In another case, an investigation by Duke reportedly found that data from a paper he co-authored with Gino had been falsified, but that there was no evidence Ariely had used fake data knowingly. Frankly, I don't buy this. Maybe an unlucky professor might once end up using data that was faked without their knowledge. But if it happens again, I'm not willing to credit bad luck, and at some point, a professor who keeps 'accidentally' using falsified or nonexistent data should be out of a job even if we can't prove it was no accident. But Ariely, who has maintained his innocence, is still at Duke. Or take Olivier Voinnet, a plant biologist who had multiple papers conclusively demonstrated to contain image manipulation. He was found guilty of misconduct and suspended for two years. It's hard to imagine a higher scientific sin than faking and manipulating data. If you can't lose your job for that, the message to young scientists is inevitably that fraud isn't really that serious. What it means to take fraud seriously Gino's loss of tenure, which is one of a few recent cases where misconduct has had major career consequences, might be a sign that the tides are changing. In 2023, around when the Gino scandal broke, Stanford's then-president Marc Tessier-Lavigne stepped down after 12 papers he authored were found to contain manipulated data. A few weeks ago, MIT announced a data falsification scandal with a terse announcement that the university no longer had confidence in a widely distributed paper 'by a former second-year PhD student.' It's reasonable to assume the student was expelled from the program. I hope that these high-profile cases are a sign we are moving in the right direction on scientific fraud because its persistence is enormously damaging to science. Other researchers waste time and energy following false lines of research substantiated by fake data; in medicine, falsification can outright kill people. But even more than that, research fraud damages the reputation of science at exactly the moment when it is most under attack. We should tighten standards to make fraud much harder to commit in the first place, and when it is identified, the consequences should be immediate and serious. Let's hope Harvard sets a trend.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Don't Fall for Trump's Crocodile Tears Over ‘Judicial Tyranny'
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION REVELS in both-sidesism. Trump is weaponizing DOJ? So what? We are just responding to what Biden did. It's a common trope. But it is a trope that should be rejected whenever it lacks a factual foundation. More often than not, President Trump's both-sidesism is based on a false equivalency. The current debate about 'universal injunctions'—when federal district judges issue injunctions applicable nationwide—is just such a case. Trump wants you to think that he is the victim of district court judges gone crazy enjoining his actions. To make that case he also wants you to think that what is happening to him is the same thing that happened to Biden's policies—district court judges interfering with executive prerogative. But that's just not the case. And diving into the facts makes it clear that this argument really isn't about universal injunctions—cases where a district court judge grants interim equitable relief that applies across the entire country. The argument is really about forum-shopping and judicial gerrymandering. MAGA has done these things. Trump's opponents don't. The facts on the ground are that the universal injunctions against Trump are truly universal. As of today, more than twenty different federal district court judges have issued injunctive relief in at least 180 different cases (and the number goes up with every passing day). There is no good evidence that Trump's opponents are forum-shopping—bringing cases before courts where there is the greatest expectation of having judges who will rule in their favor. The political valence of those judges is across the board. One of the most stunning of the rebukes to Trump came from a Trump-appointed conservative judge in South Texas who was the first judge in the nation to reach the merits of Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans and declared it unlawful. Another was when conservative icon J. Harvie Wilkinson from Virginia condemned Trump's assault on the judiciary. Support our independent political journalism by signing up for a free or paid subscription. Likewise, Trump has lost all across the country. He has lost in Massachusetts, where his assaults on Harvard have been rejected. He has lost in San Francisco, where his wholesale reorganization of the federal government has been paused. In the immigration field he has lost not only in Texas but in Maryland, Vermont, and New Jersey. By contrast, the overwhelming majority of the universal injunction cases against Biden polices were forum-shopped to specific judges. In Texas, there are a couple of locations where a single federal district court judge presides over a division of the district (a division being a subunit). By filing a case in a particular division, a litigant could almost guarantee drawing a particular judge. It is no accident, then, that dozens of injunctions were sought by MAGA Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in two separate one-judge divisions. By March 2023, Paxton's office had filed 28 lawsuits against the Biden administration in federal district courts in Texas; of those, 18 were filed in single-judge divisions, including Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's division and a single-judge division held by another Trump appointee, Judge Drew Tipton. Judge Kacsmaryk is a Trump-appointed judge who opposes abortion. He tried to universally ban the use of mifepristone—a ban that was unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court. Judge Tipton, meanwhile, ruled against Biden's immigration policy—a decision that was overturned by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Reed O'Connor—another one-judge division holder—has become the MAGA go-to judge for rulings on guns (his ban on regulating receiver banks was overturned by the Supreme Court) and opposition to the Affordable Care Act (described as a 'lawless . . . mockery of the rule of law' that was, again, overturned by the Supreme Court). To be sure, some of the injunctions against Trump have, been overturned by the Supreme Court—most recently and notably in affirming Trump's authority to fire the members of independent boards (like the NLRB) under his executive authority. Not all injunctions issued against Trump deserve to be sustained. But what is striking is that it is only now, when universal injunctions bite against conservative initiatives, that the Supreme Court has begun to think about reining in their use. It's almost as if, dare one say it, sauce for the liberal goose tastes more bitter when used to season the conservative gander. TO BE FAIR, SOME ASPECTS OF THE ARGUMENT really are principled discussions of judicial power and the scope of equitable relief. Some conservative jurists, like Justice Neil Gorsuch, have been complaining about the actions of district judges since before the Biden administration. And there are good-faith arguments to be made that the power to enjoin the entire nation is somewhat ahistorical (though there is equally good evidence to the contrary). More to the point, as a practical matter there are good reasons for legal analysts—liberal and conservative alike—to oppose the arrogation of judicial power that allows a single judge to block federal policy. In a world in which we could have confidence in the good faith of an administration and a presumption as to its regularity of operation, universal injunctions would be a little-used safety-valve check on executive authority. But today, we live in a different world. One where MAGA gamesmanship and judicial forum-shopping were instrumental in frustrating various Biden initiatives. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it seems quite possible that the Court will depower judicial opposition in the service of conservative policy. Share
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Dreams cut short, Chinese students anxious and angry over ‘aggressive' US visa ban plans
Kiwi Zhang, a computer science student from China, was full of hope for his academic future in the United States – until his visa was revoked at the US border last week. The first-year PhD student at a university in central US had just presented his research at a conference in Asia. He was returning to the US after a brief visit home when his American dream was abruptly cut short. According to Zhang, he was detained at the border for 48 hours by US officials, who confiscated his phone and laptop, and searched his belongings. He said they questioned him about his ties to the Chinese Communist Party and meetings with friends while in China. At the end of the interrogation, Zhang said he was deported and barred from the US for five years, on suspicion of having shared his research with the Chinese government – an allegation he denies. He is now back in China and mulling his next steps. 'I never imagined this could happen to me,' said Zhang, who – like everyone CNN spoke to for this story – asked to use a pseudonym out of fear of retaliation. 'I didn't know things would get this extreme after Donald Trump returned to office. His administration is jeopardizing my academic future, and I feel powerless to defend my rights.' Now, many Chinese students studying in the US fear they could meet the same fate, after President Trump's administration vowed on Wednesday to 'aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields.' The announcement by Secretary of State Marco Rubio was brief and vaguely worded, but it sent shock waves through China, triggering widespread confusion, anxiety and fear among current and prospective students and their families, as well as strong opposition from Beijing. Student chat groups lit up with messages of disbelief. Education consultants were flooded with panicked phone calls. Many students aired their frustration and anger on social media. At a regular news conference Thursday, China's foreign ministry accused the Trump administration of using ideology and national security as a 'pretext' for the 'politically motivated and discriminatory' move. Suddenly, hundreds of thousands of young Chinese minds, drawn by the prestige of a world-class education and the allure of the American dream, found themselves facing a stark reality: the future they had worked so hard for now hangs in the balance, held hostage by the whims of a US administration that increasingly views them – and their homeland – as a threat. 'What strikes me is how tiny individuals are in the tide of history – career plans can collapse overnight,' said Joyce, who received an offer from her dream school, Harvard, to pursue a master's degree in architecture. Her visa from her undergraduate program in the US is still valid for another year, but she did not dare to return to China for the summer, worrying that she might be denied reentry at the US border. 'I can't help wishing I'd grown up in a golden age of US-China relations,' she said. For decades, China's brightest minds have flocked to America, as their home country played catch-up with the world's leading superpower. Until last year, Chinese students made up the largest group of international students in the US, contributing significantly to the economy and helping America maintain its competitive edge in scientific research and technological innovation. But as strategic rivalry between the two nations intensifies, mistrust has deepened. Both sides have ramped up national security measures and grown more protective of their advanced technologies – particularly in sensitive sectors with military implications. During his first term in 2020, Trump introduced a ban that effectively denied US visas to graduates in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields from Chinese universities believed to be linked to the military. Within just three months, more than 1,000 Chinese nationals had their visas revoked, and the order remained in place under former President Joe Biden. It's unclear how quickly or widely the new revocations will be carried out. But the fear is palpable in CNN's interviews with Chinese students. Studying in a country that has long held itself up as a beacon of freedom, many were too afraid to speak openly under their real names – a fear all too familiar to those back in China. They include David Yang, whose heart sank when he saw Rubio's announcement. 'This is just too surreal,' said the second-year PhD student in theoretical chemistry at a top university in the Midwestern US. 'When the news broke, some classmates said they were working on their final assignments but completely lost the motivation to continue. I felt the same way,' he said. In recent weeks, Yang has found it nearly impossible to focus on his research, simulating how molecules interact with each other in the human body. Instead, he's been glued to the news, anxiously tracking Trump's escalating war on elite universities and international students, trying to gauge whether he might land in the crossfire. Last week, the Trump administration barred Harvard University from enrolling international students, accusing the prestigious institution of 'coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party,' among other allegations. Although a federal court has since blocked the move, the State Department soon followed with a diplomatic cable instructing US embassies and consulates worldwide to halt new student visa appointments. As Yang scrolled through the headlines, periods of anxiety would suddenly hit, and he found himself compulsively refreshing news sites over and over. 'I felt sad, lost and helpless. It's been incredibly stressful,' he said. 'The constant policy changes bring so much uncertainty into our lives. It really impacts productivity and, over time, takes a toll on your mental health – and for me, it already has.' Worried about his visa, Yang is planning on canceling his trip home this winter. His major could well fall under what Rubio called 'critical fields' and – like millions of Chinese students – he's a member of the Communist Youth League, a youth branch of the 99-million-strong Communist Party for those aged between 14 and 28. In China, most students are Youth League members by the time they finish high school, or have party members among family and friends – thanks to the party's ubiquity across government and business, as well as cultural and social sectors. 'The vast majority of people in China have some connection to the Communist Party – so this is essentially the same as condemning all Chinese students with a single stroke,' Yang said. Zhang, the student whose visa was revoked at the border, said US officials asked whether anyone in his family was a member of the Communist Party. He told them both of his parents were. They then questioned him about his own affiliation with the Communist Youth League, he said. 'I said I've never had any connection with them. The Communist Youth League charges us seven or eight yuan (about $1) a year, but there are no activities at all. But the officials said: 'You are lying.' I honestly didn't know what to say. I could only sit there, stunned,' Zhang said. Facing potential deportation in the middle of their hard-won education, some Chinese students are considering other options. Ella Liu, a math undergraduate at the University of Michigan, is visiting family in the southern city of Guangzhou before her summer research project in the US starts next month. 'Me and my parents are all praying that I won't be banned from entering the country in June,' she said. Liu was drawn to the US by its academic freedom and resources. But if the hardline visa policy continues, she might consider transferring to another university in Europe or Hong Kong. 'I am very determined to study mathematics and there are also many excellent math resources in other countries, such as in France,' she said. Like many Chinese students, Liu comes from a middle-class family. Her parents saved for years for her to attend college in the US, where tuition and living costs can run to more than $80,000 – much more than getting a degree in Europe or Asia. Some Chinese students are already looking elsewhere. In recent years, the number of Chinese students in the US has steadily declined from a peak in the 2019-2020 school year – a drop that coincides with the Covid-19 pandemic but also increasing friction between the two governments. Nelson Urena Jr., co-founder and director of college counseling at an education management firm in Shanghai, said that for years many Chinese families saw American universities as the 'gold standard' for college education. Since around 2018, however, he has noticed more interest from students and parents alike in universities in the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, as well as the semi-autonomous Chinese city of Hong Kong. 'A lot of families were concerned legitimately about their children's safety, and then also just the rhetoric of, you know, whether they're welcome in the US,' he said, citing issues such as gun violence and racist hostility or even violence against Asian people. 'More recently, I think people are starting to see the growing disconnect between the US and China, and feeling like maybe things are going to be more difficult for them – from getting the visa to making payments for tuitions.' Rubio's announcement Wednesday also vowed to 'revise visa criteria to enhance scrutiny of all future visa applications' from China, including Hong Kong. Since then, Urena has been inundated by phone calls from anxious students preparing to start their college education in the US. But he didn't have a ready response for them. 'It's just a lot of uncertainty right now. The students are trying to figure out what to do…The options are very limited at this point – Do they do a gap year? Do they go to university elsewhere? Do they have to go back to the application process?' he said. Nevertheless, for some Chinese parents, the allure of American higher education has not worn off. Arno Huang, a 56-year-old businessman from China's coastal Fujian province, still wants to send his kids to the US for graduate schools after they finish undergraduate studies in Hong Kong. 'The US represents one of the most civilized, developed, and open places for humanity. Although US-China relations are currently strained, smart people still recognize this fact,' said Huang. Having kids studying in the US gives a family 'face,' he said, using a common Chinese phrase to refer to good reputation or social standing. 'Once their child is in the US, they can proudly tell others, 'Look how successful my son is!'' Zichen Wang, a research fellow at the Center for China and Globalization, a non-government think tank in Beijing, lamented a seemingly bygone era, when Chinese officials, entrepreneurs and scientists alike were trained in the US – especially those who played key roles during China's reform and opening-up era that began in 1978. 'When they returned to China, they brought back not only professional knowledge and credentials, but also a deep respect and admiration for America as an open and inclusive society,' he said. 'I believe many Chinese people see what makes America great not merely as its economic or military strength, but its openness – its world-class universities, its confidence in the marketplace of ideas, and its ability to attract top global talent,' Wang added. 'That, at least in my view, is what many people around the world truly admire about the United States.'
