Latest news with #YaleUniversity
Evening Standard
18 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Evening Standard
The Frogs at Southwark Playhouse review: bursting with unfulfilled promise
This show is not in a swimming pool. An odd thing to say, because of course most shows are not in a swimming pool, but The Frogs set a high bar when it premiered in 1974 by taking place in Yale University Swimming Pool in a production starring Meryl Streep AND Sigourney Weaver. Ridiculous. Other pool-based productions have followed. But not this one. No, this comparatively rare revival of Stephen Sondheim's hands down weirdest show (just wait until those frogs arrive) is in the pinched space of Southwark Playhouse. Directed with the right mix of skill and silliness by Georgie Rankcom, and boasting a Glee star, it's full of great moments, but never quite justifies its own point – which is that theatre might change the world.
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Justices allow Middleborough school to bar student from wearing ‘Only Two Genders' shirt
The opinion illustrated a split among the members of the court's six-member conservative supermajority, said Justin Driver, a law professor at Yale University. Advertisement 'The dissent both illuminates and underscores a significant divide among the six Republican-appointed justices,' he said, 'with Alito and Thomas comfortable voicing positions that the other four would prefer to avoid.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The case involved a student identified in court papers as L.M. who tried to wear the shirt at Nichols Middle School in Middleborough in 2023. When students and a teacher complained, the principal told the student that he could not return to class unless he changed clothes. He refused and was sent home. Later, the student came to school wearing a T-shirt that this time said 'There Are CENSORED Genders.' He was told that was not permitted, either. Rather than missing more school, he changed clothes. His parents sued, saying the school's policy violated the First Amendment. They relied on a landmark 1969 Supreme Court decision, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which held that public school students have First Amendment rights. In that case, students sought to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Advertisement Justice Abe Fortas, writing for the majority, said students do not 'shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.' But he added that disruptive speech could be punished. In the Massachusetts case, a federal trial judge ruled for the school, saying the student's shirts had invaded the rights of other students. The US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, in Boston, affirmed that ruling. Judge David J. Barron, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, said the school could ban messages that demean other students' deeply rooted characteristics in a way that poisons the educational atmosphere. Alito wrote that the 1st Circuit's approach was at odds with Tinker and violated the First Amendment's prohibition of viewpoint discrimination by the government. 'Like the black armbands in Tinker, L.M.'s shirts were a 'silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance,'' he wrote, quoting from the decision. 'And just as in Tinker, some of L.M.'s classmates found his speech upsetting. Feeling upset, however, is an unavoidable part of living in our 'often disputatious' society, and Tinker made abundantly clear that the 'mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint' is no reason to thwart a student's speech.' Alito added that the Massachusetts school 'promotes the view that gender is a fluid construct' and should allow other perspectives. 'If anything, viewpoint discrimination in the lower grades is more objectionable because young children are more impressionable and thus more susceptible to indoctrination,' he wrote. Advertisement The court will soon decide a case on a related question: whether public schools in Maryland must allow parents with religious objections to withdraw their children from classes in which storybooks with LGBTQ+ themes are discussed. Driver said 'Justice Alito's emphasizing the dangers of 'indoctrination' of younger students could well preview a theme' in the Maryland case. In addition to joining Alito's dissent, Thomas, long a skeptic of minors' First Amendment rights, wrote separately to say he believed that Tinker should be overruled. 'But, unless and until this court revisits it, Tinker is binding precedent that lower courts must faithfully apply,' he wrote.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Scientists Need to Explain Themselves
Crises can be useful for pressure-testing systems and exposing their weaknesses. Such is the case with the delays and outright cancellations of federal funds for worthy biomedical science research projects. DOGE-engineered interruptions of research programs funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF)—with only muted objections by politicians and the public—reveal a systemic brittleness in the public's support for science. It is possible that the public's unwillingness to rise up in defense of science owes much to its having lost faith in scientists. That lost trust borders on outright dislike: According to Yale University's president (my boss), in a recent address to her faculty, our institution has a 20 percent public approval rating. My fellow scientists would probably like to believe that our sinking poll numbers reflect the public's distaste for marauding students and censorious humanities colleagues. But we must admit that we share some of the blame. We do not put enough effort into explaining our work to the members of the public, who are our patrons. If scientists believe—as I do—that our research in medicine, physics, computer science, biology, and other disciplines is responsible for our high standard of living and our sophisticated understanding of the world around us, then we must do a much better job at explaining ourselves to our tax-paying, non-scientist friends. Consider how scientists communicate now. Most of us report our work in scientific journals for the consumption of our fellow scientists. Even if the public wanted to read our published academic papers, many (in final form at least) are behind paywalls. By and large, we rely on science journalists to translate our findings, with varying degrees of success and fidelity to the material. Some science journalists do the public a great service by explaining complex concepts in understandable terms. But qualified journalists can only take on so many topics. The majority of us scientists do essential and exciting work that will rarely, if ever, get covered in a newspaper or magazine if we wait for a science journalist to do it. Sure, there have always been practicing scientists and doctors who have bypassed journalists to tell their scientific stories directly to a lay audience. They write engaging books (that sometimes become movies) to recount their stories. In the process, they do a wonderful job of popularizing scientific and medical breakthroughs and building trust and appreciation of science by the public. James Watson (discovery of the double helix), Kay Redfield Jamison (treatment of bipolar disorder), Jennifer Doudna (invention of CRISPR), Oliver Sacks (recognition of bizarre neurological disorders), and Siddhartha Mukherjee (cancer treatment) are noteworthy examples. But they are the exceptions. The rest of us, who prefer to keep to ourselves and speak in our own esoteric languages, are paying the price for our collective reticence. We pay in lost public support. But we may pay double if our good work is mischaracterized by loudmouths and influencers, whether that mischaracterization is unwitting or purposeful. What's the solution? Create whole armies of scientists who are also science-explainers, science-popularizers, and, dare I imagine, cool-science celebrities? This seems simple enough. But it won't happen unless the incentives for success for scientists are altered to reward accessible and even entertaining public-facing communication. To understand why, one must understand the present system that governs the promotion prospects of publicly funded basic- and applied-science professors. How does one get promoted in academic science? There are generally three recognized avenues. Research, teaching, and service (the latter typically includes work on university committees, administration of programs, and contributions to professional societies). This triad of expectations is firmly rooted in the academic system. What is needed is a fourth path, one that requires public-oriented science communication and the teaching of how to do it successfully. The university must cultivate a new breed of professor: the 'scientist-public-communicator.' Could such a major change in incentives ever occur in the rather staid environment of a university? Yes. For support and encouragement, we can look to a relevant historical precedent. Nearly 50 years ago, a revolution of sorts rocked academia and created the 'scientist-inventor-entrepreneur.' In 1980, Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act (otherwise known as the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act). As any venture capitalist in biotech knows, Bayh-Dole allowed government contractors (including academic scientists and their universities who were federal grant recipients) to patent and benefit from inventions that emerged from their federally funded research. Before that, patents were typically assigned to the federal government, where most of them languished forgotten and undeveloped. The Bayh-Doyle Act was an intentional move by Congress to promote the translation of basic discoveries into practical products and treatments. Before Bayh-Dole, it was rare for scientists to commercialize their discoveries; in fact, profiting from one's academic research was considered unseemly. Afterwards, everything changed. Initially, there was much doomsaying over potential conflicts of interest between academic work and industry demands. But sitting in a university today, one can see numerous joint programs that teach science and engineering students to engage with entrepreneurship, and many generous angel funds to promote commercialization of lab-based discoveries by faculty. Entrepreneurship among faculty (and student) scientists has become normalized. This is not only a boon for the scientists themselves, but for local economies. One has only to walk along Drydock Avenue in Boston's Seaport district and count the number of biotech companies started by local academics to see evidence of economic growth and benefit. Once disdained, entrepreneurship has become valued within the halls of academia. Patents are routinely reported on one's curriculum vitae and favored by university hiring committees. Thanks to Bayh-Dole, the incentives for entrepreneurial science were put in place. And behaviors followed. Back to science communication. What about scientists who are poor communicators? Shall we banish them and in doing so forfeit their obvious talents for scientific research? No. Not everyone must excel in every aspect of the current triad in order to be promoted, after all. Consideration for promotion is usually in one primary category (e.g., research) with achievement in the others considered secondarily. The inclusion of a fourth path to promotion is not a proposal to reward faculty for publishing political screeds. Although protected speech, communicating propaganda should have no currency toward promotion. The main goal of the proposal is to allow and encourage some number of practicing scientists to be able to 'go up' for promotion based on their outstanding achievements in the public communication of their science. How will new incentives manifest? No one can say precisely. Maybe some new podcasts, a flood of new comic books on science, or even a new science dance craze. But the best thing to do with creative people is incentivize them, and then get out of their way. I am sure of this because I have seen it happen on a small scale: In my medical imaging class at Yale a few years ago, the students were required to create TikTok videos to explain concepts we had studied. With some trepidation, I asked the students to show their works in class. I was pleased to see that the TikToks were both on-point and entertaining, and not at all what I had expected. Many colliding forces in academia, politics, and education have created the present crisis in science funding. Inadequate science communication to the public may not be the most acute force at play, but lack of public understanding of what we scientists do is surely a smoldering fire that will continue to fuel the crisis. Universities and their leaders must take the long view to douse the fire. Incentivize and reward scientists for excellent public-facing communication of all types on what science research is and why it is important. Done right, incentives will breed a new strain of professor: the 'scientist-public-communicator.' Refashion the old maxim 'publish or perish' into 'public or perish'—for without support of the former, we shall surely suffer the latter.
Daily Mail
5 days ago
- Science
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Inside Violet Affleck's argument with Jennifer Garner... and why she used her family in Yale essay without permission
Violet Affleck has never shied away from standing up for what she believes in, and it seems her famous parents have no plans to get in the way of their activist daughter. The 19-year-old college student, who just completed her freshman year at Yale University, recently raised eyebrows with an academic essay titled, 'A Chronically Ill Earth: COVID Organizing as a Model Climate Response in Los Angeles.'
Epoch Times
6 days ago
- Business
- Epoch Times
Tariffs Haven't Yet Triggered Inflation, and Economists Are at Odds as to What's Next
Many economists have forecast that President Donald Trump's imposition of tariffs would, by driving up the cost of imports, revive inflation. The most recent data, however, indicate that the rate of price increases has remained subdued thus far. Some analysts see the rate of inflation reported in April, which was the Analyzing the tariffs announced as of April 2, Yale University's The current state of the supply chains is similar to the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, Willy Shih, a professor at Harvard Business School, 'That means the [current] drop-off in trade is even more severe than the pandemic,' Shih stated. 'One very important parallel to what happened with COVID is we saw this delayed response where the consumers didn't really feel the impact of some of the things that were happening in the trade lanes, and the cut off of imports, until a little bit longer, just because of the time it takes to flow through the supply chain.' Since April, however, Trump has entered into trade negotiations with several countries, including a A Cooling Economy and Tight Money Supply 'The economy has been gradually cooling, affecting both the labor market and inflation rates,' Stephen Kates, financial analyst at Bankrate, told The Epoch Times. 'Wage growth is slowing, while grocery and gasoline prices are declining, and the rise in shelter costs has moderated.' Related Stories 5/19/2025 5/19/2025 However, Kates predicts higher prices are coming soon, with surveys from the Federal Reserve banks of Dallas and Philadelphia indicating that companies plan to start hiking prices for consumers by May or June. 'I anticipate inflation will peak between 3 percent and 4 percent over the next year, which, although better than the peak in 2022, remains a challenge for inflation-weary consumers,' Kates said. But consumers are now less tolerant of price increases than they were three years ago, he added, which will put pressure on companies to absorb at least some of the additional costs from tariffs. On May 17, Trump pressured Walmart, America's largest retailer, not to raise prices. 'Between Walmart and China they should, as is said, 'EAT THE TARIFFS,' and not charge valued customers ANYTHING,' Trump This was in response to Walmart's announcement that it would raise prices on tariffed goods starting in late May. In contrast to those who predict rising inflation from tariffs, economists from the monetarist school argue that inflation is a function of the money supply, which is currently restrictive and will drive inflation down. 'All the talk about tariffs and inflation is misguided,' Steve Hanke, professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University, told The Epoch Times. 'The new tariffs will change relative prices, but inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon,' he said, quoting a 1963 comment by economist Milton Friedman. Historically, high inflation (i.e., typically above 4 percent per year) has been preceded by significant increases in the money supply in countries around the world, Hanke said. 'In the case of the United States, the money supply has flatlined since the summer of 2022, and is growing at a subpar rate relative to the Fed's 2 percent inflation target,' he said, predicting that with the currently 'anemic' growth in America's money supply, 'inflation will hit the Fed's 2 percent target in 2025, or might even fall below.' A 'Relatively Closed Economy' The impact of tariffs is also a function of how reliant America is on imports, which may be significantly less than many people might expect. A Despite how often shoppers see product labels that say 'made in China' or 'made in Mexico,' the United States 'remains a relatively closed economy,' the report states. 'In fact, the vast majority of goods and services sold in the United States are produced domestically,' it says. One reason for this is that even for products labeled as foreign-made, the price to consumers also includes the value added within the United States, such as domestic transportation, wholesale and retail costs, and associated markups. Even in the case of clothing, with large components of foreign value added, the majority of the retail price—70 percent, on average—is due to domestic sources. For consumer products, the report states, about 9 percent of the retail price is due to import content; for products bought by businesses, the import content is significantly higher—about 38 percent. Consequently, the impact of an across-the-board 25 percent tariff on all imports would be much larger on investment goods, or about a 9.5 percent price increase, than on consumption goods, about 2.2 percent. Meanwhile, awaiting clarity on where inflation is headed, the Fed has taken a wait-and-see approach to adjusting interest rates. Inflation Expectations 'Largely Stable' While speaking at a conference of Federal Reserve directors in New York on May 14, Fed Vice Chair Philip Jefferson 'Whether tariffs create persistent upward pressure on inflation will depend on how trade policy is implemented, the pass-through to consumer prices, the reaction of supply chains, and the performance of the economy,' Jefferson stated. 'Short-term inflation expectations have increased in both survey- and market-based measures, but I think it is notable that most measures of longer-run inflation expectations have been largely stable.' While much focus has been on Trump's trade policies, Jefferson said, the Fed is also looking at the impact on the economy from other factors, including immigration policy, deregulation, and the budget process. Reviewing April's inflation numbers, he highlighted that the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) inflation was down from its peak above 7 percent in mid-2022. Core PCE inflation in April, which excludes volatile consumer energy and food prices, was at 2.6 percent, up slightly from March's annualized rate of 2.3 percent but down from April 2024, he said. 'The Federal Reserve plans to maintain the federal funds rate in the range of 4.25–4.50 percent for the next few months, with the first rate cut currently expected in September,' Kates said. If Trump can successfully negotiate lower tariff barriers and Congress can cut spending and reduce deficits in the current budget, this will go a long way toward bringing inflation down below the Fed's 2 percent target, he said. According to Hanke, however, in order to keep inflation under control, 'Trump and the GOP should insist, as President Reagan did, that Congress and the Fed embrace 'stable money.' The only way to do that is to embrace the Quantity Theory of Money,' which states that the general price level in an economy is directly proportional to the amount of money in circulation.
