Latest news with #KateShaw
Daily Mail
5 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Awkward moment MSNBC anchor has to cover news segment about his WIFE
MSNBC host Chris Hayes awkwardly reported on his wife's congressional testimony, hailing her as 'amazing' as he detailed her battle with the GOP over the unprecedented number of nationwide injunctions against the Trump Administration. Constitutional law professor Kate Shaw appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday as a minority party witness to testify about the 'lawlessness' of Donald Trump. Hayes, who has been married to Shaw since 2007, covered his wife's tense face of with Senator Josh Hawley on his All In With Chris Hayes program and did not shy away from showing where his loyalties lie. 'There's a fun moment in the United States Senate yesterday I'd love to share with you, mostly because it features the amazing constitutional law professor/podcast host/ New York Times contributor Kate Shaw, who's also my wife,' Hayes said. He added: 'And it also features Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, who is amazing in his own way, I guess.' Hayes went on to accuse the senator of 'going to ridiculous lengths to defend the lawlessness of boss Trump', whom he claims Hawley believes is a 'victim' of a 'vast network' biased federal judges. He took aim a Hawley's chart detailing the nationwide injunctions that were issued during the Trump, Biden, Obama and Bush administrations, alluding that the senator's 'big gotcha chart' was joke worthy. The MSNBC host went on to cite his wife's 'more simple explanation', which he suggested disproves Hawley's allegation of bias against trump. 'Hawley had printed out a big gotcha chart, which he seemed to think proved that Donald Trump is a victim of a vast network of biased judges from across the ideological spectrum,' Hayes told the program on Wednesday night. 'Professor Shaw suggested there might be a more simple explanation.' The segment cut to footage from Shaw's testimony on Tuesday which saw Hawley probing the law professor about the significantly higher number of injunctions issued against the president. 'What's the principle of when an injunction binding non-parties, which was never done in this country before the 1960s?' Hawley asked. 'And let's see the chart, the Trump chart, which was done, really, only once Trump came into office for the first time. Now, you don't think this is a little bit anomalous?' Shaw quickly hit back: 'A very plausible explanation, Senator, you have to consider is that he is engaged in much more lawless activity than other presidents, right?' Hawley went on the allege that nationwide injunctions were 'never used before the 1960s' and now are being used by 'Democrat judges' to take aim at the GOP. Shaw disputed his allegation, saying: 'It's Republican appointees as well, Senator. And the 1960s is where some scholars begin, sort of locate the beginning of this -' Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) (C) greets University of Pennsylvania law Professor Kate Shaw (L) and Catholic University law Professor Joel Alicea before a subcommittee hearing on June 3, 2025 about the unprecedented number of nationwide judicial injunctions against the Trump Administration But the lawmaker cut her off, asking her to 'identify' some of the scholars who are experts in nationwide injunctions. The law professor started to answer his question, but Hawley cut her off again, noting how the 'republic endured for 150 years before there was a nationwide injunction'. Shaw, however, claimed the 'federal government was doing a lot less' before and that 'many things that have changed' in the last five to ten decades. Hawley continued to push: 'So, so long as it is a Democrat president in office, then we should have no nationwide injunctions? If it's a Republican president, then this is absolutely fine, warranted, and called for. 'How can our system of law survive on those principles, Professor?' 'I think a system in which there are no meaningful constraints on the president is a very dangerous system,' Shaw answered before the clip came to an end. Hayes, offering his reaction to the exchange, just quoted his wife's testimony, telling the audience: 'A very plausible explanation you have to consider is that he is engaged in much more lawless activities than other presidents.' Hayes and Shaw met in the late 1990s during their freshman year at Brown University. They tied the knot in 2007 and now share three children together. Shaw has made several appearances on Hayes' politics podcast Why Is This Happening?. She was a guest on the podcast twice in 2018 to discuss the 'Rule of Law in the Era of Trump' and appeared on the show again in 2019 to discuss the 'meaning of impeachment'. The pair, both of whom have large media presences, also occasionally collaborate on crossover podcast episodes. The couple are also known share sweet glimpses of their romance and family life on social media.
South China Morning Post
22-03-2025
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
Who is Chris Hayes' law professor wife, Kate Shaw? The MSNBC host met his partner – an ABC News contributor and co-host for Supreme Court podcast Strict Scrutiny – when they were at Brown University
MSNBC host Chris Hayes is offering an 'antidote' to those who have been feeling anxious or overwhelmed by the 'debased assault on our country'. The American commentator appears to be referencing the actions of president Donald Trump so far during his second presidential term. MSNBC host Chris Hayes and his wife Kate Shaw. Photo: @kateashaw/Instagram 'Can't emphasise this enough: if you're feeling overwhelmed by the debased assault on our country, the antidote is connecting with other people in the flesh who are feeling the same way,' Hayes, 46, wrote on BlueSky over the weekend. 'There are millions of us.' Advertisement Chris Hayes and his family. Photo: @kateashaw/Instagram Hayes' post was met with plenty of support and gratitude from netizens who have been sharing the same shared frustrations around the state of politics in the US right now. But what's Chris Hayes like in his personal life? Let's meet his long-time wife, Kate Shaw. What is Kate Shaw's background? Kate Shaw's dad is a well-known journalist. Photo: @kateashaw/Instagram Kate Shaw is a Chicago native, per Podcast Magazine. She was born to Andy Shaw, a well-known journalist who covered news, politics and business for media outlets from NBC 5 to ABC 7, writes The Chicago Tribune. Considering her incredible achievements, it's hardly surprising to hear that her dad is super proud of her. 'We enjoyed watching our oldest daughter, lawyer and ABC contributor Kate Shaw, analyse the Mueller report and Barr news [conference] during the network's wall-to-wall coverage today,' he wrote on X in April 2019. 'It's nice to have daughters who are smarter than us and still happy to share their kids with the geezers.' Kate Shaw studied at Brown University. Photo: @kateashaw/Instagram She previously studied at Brown University, before returning to Illinois to enrol at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law from 2003 to 2006. What does Kate Shaw do for work?
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
Is Science Rigged for the Rich?
A recent paper published by the Centre for Economic Policy Research, titled "Access to Opportunity in the Sciences: Evidence From the Nobel Laureates," found that 67 percent of science Nobel Prize winners have "fathers from above the 90th income percentile in their birth country." The authors, affiliated with Imperial College London, Dartmouth College, Princeton University, and the University of Pennsylvania, claim that their paper reveals extreme inequality in the science world and suggests that undiscovered geniuses from poor backgrounds never had the chance to show what they could do for humanity. The study received considerable press attention, including a piece in The Guardian claiming that it showed "a lot of talent wasted…and breakthroughs lost." "The Nobel prizes highlight that we have a biased system in science and little is being done to even out the playing field," wrote scientist Kate Shaw in Physics World. "We should not accept that such a tiny demographic are born 'better' at science than anyone else." This study contains several statistical and conceptual errors, making its findings meaningless. It provides no evidence that unequal opportunity in science limits human progress. For starters, how did the authors determine who was "born better" and thus had a better chance of winning a Nobel Prize? The study examined what their fathers did for a living. It found that since 1901, people with scientists for fathers had 150 times the chance of winning a science Nobel than the average person. Scientists earn more on average, which allegedly shows that coming from a wealthier family gave them a boost. But it's common sense that the children of scientists will have an advantage in winning Nobel Prizes. Children of successful people often excel in the same fields as their parents. The size of the advantage may seem surprising, but this is typical when you look at the extremes of the bell curve. Even small initial advantages can result in extreme differences in outcome. Suppose instead of Nobel Prizes in science we were talking about an Olympic gold medal for the 100-meter dash. Suppose everyone in the world got to participate. There would be thousands of people a step or two behind the winner. Now, suppose that 10 percent of the population—say, anyone with a left-handed mother—had started the race with a two-step head start. The average runner with a left-handed mother would only be two steps ahead of the pack, but we can almost guarantee that the winner would be one of them. But the authors don't treat winning a Nobel Prize like a race, they suggest it's like winning a coin-flipping contest in which innate talent, culture, and hard work don't matter. "If talent and opportunity were equally distributed," they write, "the average winner's parent would be at the 50th percentile." Let's say everyone in the world participates in a coin-flipping contest to get 24 heads in a row, which is similar to winning a Nobel Prize. The one percent with scientist fathers gets two free heads, giving them a modest 8 percent advantage and 300 times the chance of winning the contest. The same mathematics applies to children of scientist fathers, who have 150 times the chance of winning a Nobel Prize. That could result from a modest eight percent advantage in scientific talent and opportunity. The bell curve strikes again. So why would having a scientist father put someone 8 percentile points ahead of the pack? The study authors say it's their families' higher income or education, but those are not the first factors I would point to. One key factor is genetics. Though we haven't identified a Nobel Prize gene, some helpful qualities for scientific accomplishment—like IQ, lack of major congenital disabilities, conscientiousness, and curiosity—are partly influenced by DNA. Another factor is culture, and having a scientist father makes it more likely you were born in an atmosphere that values science. Of course, children of scientists are likely to have more opportunities. According to the study's authors, that's the problem we need to fix. When writing about the paper's findings on X, co-author Paul Novosad quoted Stephan Jay Gould: "I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops." The paper's authors write, "Our evidence suggests that there is a large number of 'missing scientists'—individuals who could have produced important scientific discoveries, but did not receive the complementary inputs required over their lives to do so." Of course, improving education and opportunities for workers in cotton fields and sweatshops is a worthwhile goal. However, the paper misunderstands how scientific discovery works. Just because the children of nonscientists aren't getting their share of Nobel Prizes doesn't mean they aren't making valuable contributions to science or other fields. Scientific progress is based on the contributions and discoveries of thousands of people whose names we never hear. Geniuses are important, but innovation doesn't depend on one individual. We'd have Newton's laws without Isaac Newton, we'd understand radioactivity without Marie Curie, and we'd have found the Higgs boson without Peter Higgs. Literature is different: We wouldn't have Shakespeare's plays and sonnets without Shakespeare. Redirecting all children into science to help equalize Nobel Prizes won't mean more Nobel Prizes, only perhaps different winners. It would likely mean more scientists, but perhaps more than we can fund. It could deprive the world of top contributors in other fields like literature, politics, arts, and entertainment—fields where, unlike science, top contributions cannot be duplicated by others. And it won't necessarily equalize outcomes, because children of high socioeconomic status will still have advantages over children of low socioeconomic status, whatever fields people choose. Nobel Prize winners also aren't always the most productive scientists. Some recipients win for a single insight or a fortuitous observation. Often the winners seem to be nearly random selections from several people who published similar findings around the same time. Some Nobel Prizes were awarded for work that turned out to be wrong. The paper did show that children of engineers, doctors, business owners, lawyers, and judges were also more likely to win Noble Prizes, although they had a smaller advantage than the children of scientists. Again that advantage probably had more to do with genetics, interests, and culture than family wealth. The paper also has another significant problem: The authors use the father's occupation to guess childhood income and education, which in turn are used to guess socioeconomic status. However, these are not perfect correlations. The authors are applying group characteristics to individuals, which is a classic statistical error known as the ecological fallacy. There are plenty of Nobel winners whose childhood socioeconomic status was typical of their fathers' professions. But there are also plenty who don't fit the mold. Ada Yonath, who won the 2009 Nobel Prize in chemistry, had a father who was a business owner and rabbi, which the authors coded as the 98th education percentile. However, Yonath's father was actually an impoverished grocer who died when she was young, meaning she had to take on multiple jobs to support her family. Harold Urey, who won the 1934 chemistry Nobel, was the son of a minister, placing him in the 98th education percentile. However, his father died when he was six, and he spent his childhood in poverty. Linus Pauling won the 1954 Nobel Prize in chemistry. His father owned a business, and Linus was coded at the 97th wealth percentile. However, the business was a drug store, and Pauling's father got sick when he was five and died when he was nine. Pauling's practical-minded mother thought going to college was a waste of time. The authors acknowledged this issue but claimed that the Nobel Prize winners in their study were, if anything, more likely to be born to fathers at the high socioeconomic status ranks of their fields, and therefore, the imperfect correlations strengthened their results. This is circular reasoning. The authors want you to start by assuming their finding is true—that socioeconomic status is a causal factor in winning science Nobel Prizes. Good scientific inquiry doesn't start by assuming what the author is trying to prove. This bias leads researchers to make false assumptions about evidence. It's like a detective who assumes someone is guilty and considers having an alibi as additional evidence against her. Innocent people don't need alibis. If you don't assume family socioeconomic status is the main factor in winning science Nobel Prizes, there's no reason to think the winners' fathers had higher-than-average socioeconomic status for their fields. And therefore the errors in guessing wealth and education from profession weaken the authors' case rather than strengthen it. The authors of this study fail to realize that their data actually show that science Nobel Prizes seem to be more meritocratic than anyone would have guessed. There is certainly more advantage to having the right parents for winning Oscars, top political offices, and sports awards. But good news doesn't make for sensational headlines or viral social media posts. Motion Graphics: Adani Samat Graphic Design: Nathalie Walker Audio: Ian Keyser Producer: Cody Huff The post Is Science Rigged for the Rich? appeared first on
